Scientist Puts His Faith in Theory of Creation

BM

Sorry edgar, couldn't get to 'em, but I appreciate the attempt.

Lizard King: Thanks for contributing in your own "special" way. We all feel so enriched.

rosborne: You are assuming that Scientific laws as they relate to God are supernatural, why do you start at this point?

Could this be a tacit acceptance of the "the Guy that writes the laws can break the laws" theory?

And is that your elephant? Because I can see it.

This meeting at First Baptist Church of Rio Rancho sounds like this forum comes under the heading of "Preaching to the choir" and I suspect was intellectually sterile. Had there been somebody familiar with evolution there to allow those present some food for thought perhaps they could have made their own decisions or at least been stimulated to conduct a modicum of research on the subject themselves.

I see no hard science in this article but I do suspect a solidification of Russell Humphreys' opinions manifest in his statement:

"This is the critical issue. Most people believe science proved the world was formed billions of years ago," he said. "But the Bible states the age of the earth in terms of thousands of years. Billions of years is obviously at odds with the Scripture."

Mr. Humphreys dismisses a couple hundred years of hard science and chooses to believe that which was supposedly written 2000 years ago, by a committee whose lives span a couple of generations in a foreign language that contains Gospel that is by all legal standards (less rigorous than scientific) mere hearsay.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with his beliefs. So, why does he feel it necessary to prove his strongly held faith?
There seems to be a whole industry that has sprung up to prove evolution is wrong and to counter what the creationists feel is evolutionist's desire to prove the non-existence of God. Scientists only get involved in these debates with creationist when creationists start trying to use "hard science" to prove that God exists. It is this use of science and its methods and terminology that scientist object to, not the existence of a God. Since no one can prove the existence of God, creationists feel it is paramount to disprove an alternative theory that explains the existence of life sans intelligent design. For someone that truly has faith this is not necessary.

This attack on evolution demonstrates creationists "lack of understanding" of the scientific method. To work towards a valid theory of Intelligent Design scientifically, one must state something like this:

"Theory; The universe and every thing in it was created by an intelligent designer."

Once stated one must try to disprove the theory as stated. As long as observable facts uphold the theory it stands. However, if facts do not match the theory then the theory must be amended or, if fatal enough, discarded.
Biggest problem here is, of course, any theory stated in such a way that it can not be disproved is not a scientific theory and therefore the above stated theory is invalid, so, creationists fall into the trap of trying to disprove a valid theory with weak assumptions like "It must be so, I read it in the bible." The factual premise of the argument being faulty, all arguments afterwards lead to an invalid conclusion. What is needed to disprove evolution is what creationists sorely lack; Proof.

If any one is interested I can supply a web site, which highlights creationists arguments and points out their fallacies.

JM

hmm. But the concept of evolution itself cannot prove the absence of God, though it can serve to enhance a conjecture of the absence. There is no need to take the part of creationism to believe in God.

satt,

Exactly! Except for the revenue generated by these charlatan's books and lecture honorariums, what is the point?
When one listens to them in head to head debates with evolutionists the creationist arguments are ridiculous.

JM

max;

I would respectfully suggest that you stop gathering "bookmarks" under the heading "Religious PROOFS!", and collect a few under "actual science".
And read them!

Thanks for the suggestion.

Now, I have one for you.

Brush up on your reading comprehension.



If I had referred to any of the links as "proof" of creation I would deserve and accept the moniker of "religious nut", I didn't, and I'm not.

But, at the risk of being called an "evolution nut", those whose opinions differ should perhaps tread softly on what can be "proven" and what can't.


OK, that's two suggestions.

Max... I have no idea whether this post of yours is tongue in cheek or not. The concept of a traditional "young earth" teaching has been pretty much abandoned and even dismissed by almost all of the "non-evolutionists" except maybe by Duane Gish, and his cohorts. They are a shrinking number of non-evolutionists since science, primarily bolstered by compilations of huuge data bases of recent evidence , has established with a high degree of scientific certainty, a chrono startigraphy of the earth, intermediate fossils, the mechanisms for genetic tracking of speciation (a gift of forensic geneticists),and the fact that almost all of the life that ever lived on this planet (species count, not individuals) is extinct..
As the other participants have stated so well ( and you seemed to just bypass without comment) There are so many areas of evidence that coalesce on a single common point. The Earth Is waay old. We have multiple techniques of using various "atomic, magnetic, and structural data to determine how old the earth is.All this data seems to converge quite nicely and the number 6000BC doesnt come up except for the minor occurence that the few last remaining mammuts may have died out near Ungava about then.Whether we use Potassium/Argon, Lead Uranium/ , Zircon, alpha tracking or one of a number of other tricks, the earth not only is about four and a half billion years old, we also can show that the major geologic periods occured approximately where weve measured them to be..
Most of the strict Creationists have lately taken a more scientific track.They accept the stuff that science is presenting about the earths age, They stipulate to the occurences of great geologic epochs, and sea floor spreading, global tectonics,stratigraphic data, appearance and disappearance of species, and a bunch of other things that would bore the crap out of you.
They now present "intelligent Design" or "irreduceable complexity" or "externally directed evolution". They do this because, as they become more sophisticated in the vast amount of scientific evidence out there, theyve realized that their spouting pure mythological construction has given them an appearance of being ...well... coookey

Duane Gish is a scientist, hes a physicist. D Wise is a GEOLOGIST, whose made a career negating pleichroism in granites containing polonium,.They too are scientists with more degrees than a compass.
BUT
Being a scientist doesnt guarentee that we know anything, we just have a hell of a lot of fun looking. As far as Im concerned, the strict Creationists are just a small, but vocal band of thick headed contrarians who will, for whatever religious reason, not accept over 300 years of growing evidence that much time has passed on this planet. I spend a lot of pro bono (I pay all my expenses and dont get paid by any one) time in debates at school board presentations where the(well paid hawkers) Creationists are trying to gain footholds into teaching their views in our high school Science curricula.Weve been successful at getting the taps turned off on most of the teaching because the methodolgy of presentation doesnt incorporate any mention of the scientific method.
You may believe whatever you wish, however, Your freedom to believe what you want, stops when you try to teach my kid that 2+2 equals 5.The Institute of Creation Science is a well funded religious lobby. It has nothing to do with scientific evidence.The ICS has recently published articles that state that "morphological complexity is proof of Creation" , Yet they fail to extend the same revelation to the fact that most fossils found in the rock, evidence that the last linneages of the extinct were usually the most complex. If this evidence were to be linked with Creationist thought , then by their own logic, Creation would be ongoing (it is and we call it evolution)
One of my favorite methods of debating is to present
this years compilation and titles of technical papers in Evolution or Paleontology, and compare that to the "technical "literature prepared by the Creationists camp. Its not even close.
Most Creationist literature is busy trying to explain
"if Cain and Able were the children of Adam and Eve, where did CAins wife come from?"
Its obvious that the Bible is a text about the foundation of monotheism in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It is not, and never should be, confused with scientific evidence.
To the others in this post, pardon me, but I thought all this was left behind at abuzz, apparently not.

the "proof" is closer to home than you might think;
reach out, clasp your forearm between your fingers, and pinch.

There's your "proof"!

farmerman..

Your analogy "2+2 equals 5" must be a slip.

maxsdadeo,

As regards your post of Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:55 am, in which you cite the Website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/456.asp

In reading this information we are informed that this self-stratification of geologic particles tends to support a young earth explanation. How young is not elucidated and neither is how this relates to proving the age of the earth.

Could you inform me as to the mechanism used to determine the relative youthfulness of the earth with this information? How is this calculated or implied? Could you cite a Website with this specific info or help me directly?

Also doesn't this tendency of inorganic matter for self-organization, cited in this Website, argue towards increased complexity of design sans deus ex machina and against Michael Behe's theory of "Irreducible Complexity" which is his main argument for Intelligent Design?

See "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
by Michael Behe

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834936/ref=lib_rd_ss_TR01/102-2345122-3052168?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=2#reader-link

The above supplied web page is to the preface of the book and you can sample various pages as you wish. You may be able to glean his point from these or the back cover. Any questions please feel free to ask me I will gladly expand on this if need be.

Respectfully,

JM

farmer, In reply to your ending statement:



Our lot might be analogous to Sisyphus. Witness those well-meaning citizens in Topeka, KS demonstrating on the steps of the state capital a little over 2 years ago, absolutely demanding that the second law of thermodynamics be repealed, immediately! This is, of course from your abuzz thread of "CREATION/INTELLIGENT DESIGN PASSES IN OHIO " courtesy of rosborne, which I offer here for those who missed it.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3631/christian_right_lobbies.html

Scientist respect religion and realize it has its place, but creationist seem to think that religious thought should pervade everything.

Keep Pushing!

JM

I love the onion, every day is another shirt to be unstuffed. Theres a guy with a real unctious Ted Baxter voice , calls himself Doyle Rudman, who does onion spots on some morning drive-time radio programs.

Views which could be overturned:

The second law of thermodynamics;
The general relativity;
Darwinism;
Marxism;
Freudism;
Out of Africa theory of modern humans;
The consistency of arithmetic;
..

I am a big fan of the second law of thermodynamics, (the first one is cool too) I fail to see why a creationist would have a problem with it,

Now, an Evolutionist may have some problems.
Here is a good quick read:
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

I was very impressed with your dribbling between your legs like that, JM.

First rate!

There could be a claim that arithmetic should be taught along with a warning of its possible lack of consistency.

JM: Here is a good critique of your guy and his book:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm

But this is perhaps the most telling and accurate statement I have seen in all of my review of the matter:

This is proceeding like a typical Creationist "shotgun" argument. Thats what Duane Gish is good at. He packs the houses with his Followers and challenges a scientist to a debate. Then he usually chews the scientist a new one because the scientist proceeds as if the debate would be logical.
Max -remember, your post started with the proposition that some scientist stated that the earth was young. Id like to keep pinning you to your starting point

Im in the minerals industry and often have to commit large amts of money to drilling for Ti deposits based upon nothing but evidence from what we call "foreland wasting" and chronostratigraphy" .
Id like to see "young earthers" come up with an approach that. following decent science and still adhering to their faith driven geology, that enables us to find oil coal, minerals, and metals.
Business men who invest in my work, arent interested in blowing millions on a Biblical interpretation. And, since Ive done OK over the years, I think the approaches I espouse, are pretty much on the mark.

Evolutions only a side track here.

If you are a devout Creationist, I respect that, however, there is NO evidence to support a young planet (and Universe). No credible scientist would come close to admittting to that. Hed be a fool There is plenty of evidence that actually refutes the young eart theory. We dont even bring it up much because its even been abandoned by all except the Gish crowd, who , in my opinion, have a strict zealous adherence to Genesis.Thus they come off, almost sounding fascinating. BUT, youll never see them talking to a bunch of scientists because youd only hear lots of derisive laughter.
As for the Laws of thermo (especiallyII) the earth is not a closed system. There are bazillions of Kilocalories lost to space each day. Thermo laws have multiples of codicills that explain why... ohhh... lava cools and why crystallization is a f(TP), and why certain elements travel with each other .

In this, as in most things, the devil is in the details.

However, I would put to you that my understanding of the study of the effects of the Mt. St. Helens eruption would tend to run contrary to the time line evolutionists adhere to regarding the age of the earth.

The truth is, we don't know.

Anything else is doing the rumba on the head of a pin.

COMMENTS:

Max, oh Max. There may be hope for you yet!

I loved that line.

Keep in mind, there is always room at the agnostic table -- even if you only sit from time to time because it is convenient.

Peace!

Gad, I loved that line!