EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rogerteder

Guest
“The arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions such
as the PAS prefer to restrict their presentations to data that, in their view, support the
theory. As a result the case against the theory is largely unknown to the public. For
instance, the highly embarrassing fact that recent laboratory experiments have shown
that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution,
formed very quickly. The experiments were conducted by one of the speakers at the
conference, sedimentologist Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of
Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field accompanying these experiments
showed that major rock formations deposited not in millions of years but in 0.01% of the
time attributed to them by the geological time-scale.”

ABOVE: IS A QUOTE FROM Bob Sungenis’ web site. Please don’t comment on Sungenis just the content of the quote. The quote can be found on the front of his web site regarding the evolution conference at the Vatican.
 
Guy Berthault, like most creationists, takes scientific facts mixed with pseudoscience and try to conform it to the stories in Genesis.

You don’t want people to comment on Bob Sungenis, but I think it is very relevant to point out that he is a Geocentrist, which makes him instantly devoid of any scientific credibility.
 
Sinner1 said:
Guy Berthault, like most creationists, takes scientific facts mixed with pseudoscience and try to conform it to the stories in Genesis.

You don’t want people to comment on Bob Sungenis, but I think it is very relevant to point out that he is a Geocentrist, which makes him instantly devoid of any scientific credibility.
Click to expand...
Truth can only be found by the elite?😦
 
buffalo said:
Truth can only be found by the elite?😦
Click to expand...
No, but a geocentrist in the modern world who makes scientific claims about evolution is equivalent to astrologer who makes scientific claims about nebulas. Neither has any credibility in the field of science.
 
Sinner1 said:
No, but a geocentrist in the modern world who makes scientific claims about evolution is equivalent to astrologer who makes scientific claims about nebulas. Neither has any credibility in the field of science.
Click to expand...
Then you should challenge his proofs.
 
Sinner1 said:
No, but a geocentrist in the modern world who makes scientific claims about evolution is equivalent to astrologer who makes scientific claims about nebulas. Neither has any credibility in the field of science.
Click to expand...
From what I understand Einstein and others freely admitted that you can work the math of where the earth is the center of the universe.

Geocentrism is one matter evolution is another. They may be somewhat related but they are not the same.
 
In order to comment on this experiment, wouldn’t one need a little more information on the details about it or the degree to which said experiment accurately replicated naturally occurring phenomena? Or is one meant to take all of that data for granted, that is, to put one’s faith in something other than God?
 
Rogerteder said:
From what I understand Einstein and others freely admitted that you can work the math of where the earth is the center of the universe.
Click to expand...
If Einstein has said that, then I am unaware of it. I know what Einstein did say is that the universe does not have an absolute frame of reference.
Geocentrism is one matter evolution is another. They may be somewhat related but they are not the same.
Click to expand...
I know that they are different. My point is that most people would have a hard time taking somebody as a credible science resource who denies such a basic scientific premise. Would you go to a doctor that didn’t believe in cell theory?
 
Sinner1 said:
If Einstein has said that, then I am unaware of it. I know what Einstein did say is that the universe does not have an absolute frame of reference.

I know that they are different. My point is that most people would have a hard time taking somebody as a credible science resource who denies such a basic scientific premise. Would you go to a doctor that didn’t believe in cell theory?
Click to expand...
If he could cure me I wouldnt care.
 
Sinner1 said:
If Einstein has said that, then I am unaware of it. I know what Einstein did say is that the universe does not have an absolute frame of reference.

I know that they are different. My point is that most people would have a hard time taking somebody as a credible science resource who denies such a basic scientific premise. Would you go to a doctor that didn’t believe in cell theory?
Click to expand...
“Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1938, 1966, p. 212.)

As Fred Hoyle noted: “…according to the physical theory developed by Albert Einstein [the heliocentric and geocentric systems] are indeed physically equivalent to each other” (Astronomy and Cosmology, p. 8).
 
buffalo said:
Then you should challenge his proofs.
Click to expand...
Other Eric is dead on.

Here is basically what the original post says:

There is a mass conspiracy in the science institutions. Some evolutionists think rocks are old. But some dude who is a Creationist Scientist doesn’t think that the rocks are really that old. Therefore, evolution is wrong.

Scientific theories are subject to massive internal scrutiny by the science community. When somebody comes out with a new idea, scientists try to pick it apart to find potential flaws. Most of the time, they do find flaws and the theorem is discarded. Occasionally, it becomes clear that the objections are invalid and the theorem can be demonstrated in a scientific way, thus the theorem is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Creationist Scientists want to completely bypass any serious scientific inquiry into their theories. Thus they present their ideas as fact and pass it out to Bible-believing Christians as proof of Genesis. Christians who have little understanding of science then parrot back snippets of these ideas in vague and unclear terms as ammo against evolution. Most creationists don’t really understand the supposed science they are presenting; they are just confident that somebody smarter than themselves knows what they are talking about.
 
Rogerteder said:
“Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1938, 1966, p. 212.)

As Fred Hoyle noted: “…according to the physical theory developed by Albert Einstein [the heliocentric and geocentric systems] are indeed physically equivalent to each other” (Astronomy and Cosmology, p. 8).
Click to expand...
Right, he’s saying that there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe.

He is not saying that it is a 50-50 tossup of whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa.
 
Sinner1 said:
Right, he’s saying that there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe.

He is not saying that it is a 50-50 tossup of whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa.
Click to expand...
He is saying the math can be worked out either way.
 
Sinner1 said:
Creationist Scientists want to completely bypass any serious scientific inquiry into their theories.
Click to expand...
I think you completely bypassed any serious evaluation of the range of creationist ideas.
Christians who have little understanding of science then parrot back snippets of these ideas in vague and unclear terms as ammo against evolution.
Click to expand...
Do you accept that there is room for criticism of evolutionary theory?
Most creationists don’t really understand the supposed science they are presenting; they are just confident that somebody smarter than themselves knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I didn’t really understand what you said here, but at least you qualified it as “most creationists”. This contradicts what you said above. But more importantly, “some creationists” therefore do understand the science.

I’ll suggest that you believe that there is someone smarter than yourself who knows what you’re talking about also.
 
Well, sadly everything can be criticize in one way or another. But, I can say that things really do change with time. They change in order to survive in the enviroments they live on. Those who don’t meet rise to the conditions meet their end. (aka dinosours) In terms of creationism most things stay the same, and there will be scientists who try to cater to the creationists in order to be heard. Though I am still struggleling over intelligent design and evolution. There are scientists who still struggle over those too, like my teacher likes to leave that decision up to us because he admits that he isn’t a hundred percent convinced on one or the other. There is an air of truth to all three. Okay, what i am saying that nothing is conclusive but, you have to make the decision yourself based on what you have seen and what you know. Because all three sides have people on their sides sometimes they rational, but sometimes they are anything but.
 
Rogerteder said:
"The arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions such as the PAS prefer to restrict their presentations to data that, in their view, support the theory. As a result the case against the theory is largely unknown to the public.
Click to expand...
There are a large number of creationist churches, websites and private schools continually presenting the case for creationism to the public. Creationist arguments are easy to find for those who wish to do so.
For instance, the highly embarrassing fact that recent laboratory experiments have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly. The experiments were conducted by one of the speakers at the conference, sedimentologist Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Click to expand...
Guy Berthault has done some interresting experiments on deposition in conditions of fluid flow. His experiments do indeed show that in certain conditions strata can be laid down very quickly, my emphasis.

There are two basic reasons why Berthault’s work has not had the impact that creationists would like:
  • Scientists have known for a very long time that in certain conditions strata can be laid down very quickly; at least since 79 CE when Pompeii and Herculaneum were suddenly buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
  • Berthault’s work is only applicable under certain conditions of fluid flow. When those conditions are not present then his work is not applicable. Just as we do not see eruptions like Vesuvius or Mount Saint Helens very often, so Berthault’s work is not as generally applicable as creationists would like it to be.
A paleohydraulic analysis in the field accompanying these experiments showed that major rock formations deposited not in millions of years but in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale."
Click to expand...
This tells us nothing. A paleohydraulic analysis of the rocks covering Pompeii will show exactly that - fast deposition. A paleohydraulic analysis of other rocks, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, will show slow deposition. You cannot extrapolate from one particular set of rocks to all rocks. Different rocks are laid down in different conditions and at different speeds.

It is also worth pointing out that a 0.01% error is far too large to allow young earth timescales. The standard age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. 0.01% of 4.5 billion years is 450,000 years. To get from 4.5 billion years to 6,000 years requires a value of 0.000133%. Your quoted result is insufficient to justify a 6,000 year old earth.

rossum
 
JohnVIII said:
What’s wrong with Creation?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that there’s anyone saying that there is something wrong with Creation so much as they’re saying there’s something wrong with Creationism. There is an important distinction between the two where the former concerns the binary fact of God’s having created “all things seen and unseen” and the latter, which concerns the process by which God did it. The former has, as its proper object, the gratitude God is due for our own existence. The latter places all its respect and deference in a method, rather than in God, and is therefore a form of idolatry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top