What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[__ Science __ ] A very long Wednesday... Young Earth and Old Universe Creationism reconciled?

New Day Coming said:
Click to expand...

The 'axis of evil' doesn't "point at us," as claimed. It's on the same plane as the entire plane of our solar system, and even then it only lines up with us on our fall equinox, which is today. (Which makes me wonder how much slop / variation exists in this measurement?)

The appropriate thing to do with this finding is to look for what else in our Universe lines up with this plane. The finding is neat, but let's not draw conclusions hastily ...

Our significance is to be found in the Gospel of God's Love poured out upon us
 
Razeontherock said:
The 'axis of evil' doesn't "point at us," as claimed. It's on the same plane as the entire plane of our solar system, and even then it only lines up with us on our fall equinox, which is today. (Which makes me wonder how much slop / variation exists in this measurement?)

The appropriate thing to do with this finding is to look for what else in our Universe lines up with this plane. The finding is neat, but let's not draw conclusions hastily ...

Our significance is to be found in the Gospel of God's Love poured out upon us
Click to expand...

I watched this movie, and have a few objections.

1. There were exaggerative statements like "everything we know about our universe is wrong" and such kind of nonsense as that.

2. The idea that if the Earth is not the unmovable center of the universe means that we are nothing special does not make it so. We can be a seemingly insignificant speck in the universe and still be the ultimate significant thing to God. Location doesn't make significance.

3. It's going to take much more than speculation to overcome my trust in celestial mechanics. God is logical and has revealed Himself as such. 2+2=4. Theory must be proven by mathematics.

4. It doesn't make sense to me that the Earth is the only body in the entire universe that doesn't follow the apparent gravitational center of orbits of bodies. It also doesn't make sense to me that galaxies far away are travelling in absolute space many times faster in velocity as close bodies. Rotation and orbiting of the Earth makes much more sense in regard to our observations of the cosmos.

5. Ok, so there is an "axis of evil": so what are they trying to measure? The background radiation of the cosmos? And how do they conclude that their measurements are NOT affected by local variances in the magnetic field of the Earth? Or have they even considered it? Speculation about this issue doesn't prove the Earth is the absolute center of the universe, nor does it disprove the Copernican Principle.

I'm not willing to debating the video point by point. I agree with the video's main agenda to debate against atheism and their godless theories. There were many good things about it, and positive things said. I believe we are significant without being the center of the universe. I believe we might be near the center of the universe, that is, our galaxy might be near the center of the universe. But I do not believe the Earth is the absolute center and motionless with the whole universe revolving around it.
TD:)
 
I don't see the long video as making any claim that Earth is motionless. And if our Universe had any center, we have no way of surmising that.

Measuring the CMB is all about ensuring that "measurements are NOT affected by local variances in the magnetic field of the Earth," as you put it in your point #5. This has been tested and re-tested, measured by some extreme means. This whole movie is really about the pattern found in the CMB, that above the plane of our solar system it's hotter, and beneath it it's colder. (Or the converse, depending on your orientation)

Most of the time of the movie is spent trying to put this into perspective, rather than relaying the fact (which doesn't take that long)
 
chessman said:
If you mentioned Eastern Orthodox to most of my fellow local church members you’d get a blank stare, not knowing much about it one way or the other.

Bottom line is I’m pretty familiar with both current physical science and the Scripture and there’s no conflict between them. Take the age of the heavens, for example. Scripture says they are old (ancient). Sounds about right to me.

Psalm 68:32-33 O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God;sing praise to the Lord, Selah to the one who rides in the highest heavens of old.
Click to expand...
if I may being into finding history, usually not even a century old, much of that isn't even all there. I have looked up a vet from ww1, that war while it still affect us , is so far from our minds. to the ancients who read this, even a thousand years seems a long time. time is really that relative. we are so in the here and now of things.we find old relics of pre Columbian history here and raze it for that new tropical paradise. relics of pre Seminole Indians have been found fully intact and as the Spanish described and destroyed. locally I live where a lot of strata of history is. from this very subject to present. look up the vero man, fossils of the like were hunted out and sold to bring tourism and not far from that sight. in fact I was talking about a fishing camp near that area.
 
Razeontherock said:
This claim of 'contradicting creationism' is based merely on assumptions. A LOT of them! Including at least one that is incorrect. Creationism says precisely nothing about heme, much less about this specific instance..
Click to expand...

Creationism says that all reptiles should be alike since they are of a kind. On the other hand, evolutionary theory says that dinosaurs should be more like birds than they are like modern reptiles. Which this finding verifies.

Creationism means that God created things; more specifically, that He created everything that was made, seen and unseen.
Click to expand...

If so, creationism is consistent with evolution.

That is part of the Creed that even RCs profess.
Click to expand...

We were the first, to say so, after all.

More specifically, within Christianity, Jesus made all that stuff. Again, saying nothing about heme, be that from bird, reptile, or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Right. Neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition says anything about science.

In terms of "soft tissue having been found in dinosaur remains' (fossils) that was in the news.
Click to expand...

They just got it wrong. Tissue is a group of cells organized for a function. Scientists didn't even recover intact cells. What they got was heme and collagen. Organic molecules. Interestingly, scientists managed to recover a bit of cholesterol from an Ediacaran fossil, showing that these were not a lost form of life, but were animals. Which disposes of the idea that living forms of life appeared suddenly in the Cambrian. There are numerous Precambrian fossils of precursors to trilobites, worms, jellyfish,etc.

In the headlines. Really BIG headlines! So if you're saying that's ignorance, you're saying it was fake news.
Click to expand...

Popular press gets scientific stuff wrong a great deal of the time.

This promotes the understanding that reporting on scientific discovery is fake, generally.
Click to expand...

If you get your science from newspapers, rather than from scientific journals, you're going to be misled a lot.
 
Barbarian said:
Creationism says that all reptiles should be alike since they are of a kind. On the other hand, evolutionary theory says that dinosaurs should be more like birds than they are like modern reptiles. Which this finding verifies.



If so, creationism is consistent with evolution.



We were the first, to say so, after all.



Right. Neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition says anything about science.



They just got it wrong. Tissue is a group of cells organized for a function. Scientists didn't even recover intact cells. What they got was heme and collagen. Organic molecules. Interestingly, scientists managed to recover a bit of cholesterol from an Ediacaran fossil, showing that these were not a lost form of life, but were animals. Which disposes of the idea that living forms of life appeared suddenly in the Cambrian. There are numerous Precambrian fossils of precursors to trilobites, worms, jellyfish,etc.



Popular press gets scientific stuff wrong a great deal of the time.



If you get your science from newspapers, rather than from scientific journals, you're going to be misled a lot.
Click to expand...

I was taught evolution at University by an English well qualified Christian professor who was a theistic evolutionist. At the same time I was reading (and watching) counter arguments from an equally well qualified Swiss professor of Biochemistry who was a young Earth creationist.

As the evidence came in, I decided to make it a bit of a mental hobby where I imagined I had three in-trays. One was marked "Evidence supporting Evolution", an "in-between / inconclusive" one and an "Evidence supporting Creation". When I graduated, the third tray had more paper in it, and that pile has been steadily growing ever since.
 
Since you can directly observe evolution, that's odd. Perhaps both your experts didn't know what evolution is? I'm also puzzled since evolution and creation are entirely consistent.

It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." What Darwin called "descent with modification." That's directly observed.

Perhaps you're thinking of the theory of evolution, which is the theory that explains it. As you probably know, a theory is merely a hypothesis until its predictions are repeatedly confirmed.

Or you might be thinking of consequences of evolution, like speciation and common descent.

What did they tell you it was? It's remarkably unusual for a person with a doctorate in biochemistry to doubt evolution, since so much of biochemistry demonstrates evolution.
 
Razeontherock said:
How do you come up with this? You're back to trying to shoehorn the modern concept of 'species' into ANE literature. Give it a rest already.
Click to expand...

Reptiles aren't a species. They are a class of organisms. A "kind", in creationist terms. And yet we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

Creationism means that God created things; more specifically, that He created everything that was made, seen and unseen.
Click to expand...

Barbarian observes:
If so, creationism is consistent with evolution.

Evolution says precisely nothing about God.
Click to expand...

Right. It's just consistent with creation. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

I have to explain such basic things to you, over and over again, and you expect me to believe they let you teach children?!?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to make it as simple as I can. Nothing in evolution is inconsistent with creation. Some things in evolutionary theory and some things in the Bible are inconsistent with some forms of creationism, but that's a different issue entirely.

And yes, I was a very good science teacher. At least my principal and fellow teachers though so. So did my students. I did mostly hand-on work, which is more effective, and is much better at holding attention.

Would you like me to tell you about some of those?
 
Barbarian said:
Since you can directly observe evolution, that's odd. Perhaps both your experts didn't know what evolution is? I'm also puzzled since evolution and creation are entirely consistent.

It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." What Darwin called "descent with modification." That's directly observed.

Perhaps you're thinking of the theory of evolution, which is the theory that explains it. As you probably know, a theory is merely a hypothesis until its predictions are repeatedly confirmed.

Or you might be thinking of consequences of evolution, like speciation and common descent.

What did they tell you it was? It's remarkably unusual for a person with a doctorate in biochemistry to doubt evolution, since so much of biochemistry demonstrates evolution.
Click to expand...

Let me try a question on you then. I believe in variation, selective pressures, natural selection, isolation and speciation. Darwin's finches etc etc. What we have here are variations of within certain perameters. This is the kind of "evolution" we can observe all around us.

What Evolution (with a capital E) does is to take that story like a few early plots on a graph and take a yard ruler to those few dots to create a narrative of origins.

I am sure you are familiar with the Evolutionary "Tree of life" and the "Orchard of Creation" perspectives. An image that has stuck with me is that the Evolutionary model observes facts of the same order of noting that a man with a reasonable jump can cross a narrow river and land on the other bank. The Evolutionist appears to have faith that with sufficient jumps that same man might jump a lake and safely make the other shore.

In the end, the insurmountable problem for Evolution, even with it's well presented arguments is that of irreducible complexity. Darwin hated peacocks for a reason ;-)
 
New Day Coming said:
Let me try a question on you then. I believe in variation, selective pressures, natural selection, isolation and speciation. Darwin's finches etc etc. What we have here are variations of within certain perameters. This is the kind of "evolution" we can observe all around us.
Click to expand...

Yep. Macroevolution is much less commonly

observed. But even many creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms.

What Evolution (with a capital E) does is to take that story like a few early plots on a graph and take a yard ruler to those few dots to create a narrative of origins.
Click to expand...

You've been misled about that. The evidence for common descent goes far beyond observed evolution of new species. Would you like to learn about some of it?l

I am sure you are familiar with the Evolutionary "Tree of life"
Click to expand...

Actually, it predates evolutionary theory. It was discovered by Linnaeus, a creationist. Darwin merely discovered why it's like that.

and the "Orchard of Creationolutin" perspectives. An image that has stuck with me is that the Evolutionary model observes facts of the same order of noting that a man with a reasonable jump can cross a narrow river and land on the other bank. The Evolutionist appears to have faith that with sufficient jumps that same man might jump a lake and safely make the other shore.
Click to expand...

You're close. But evolutionary theory would say a man could cross only where there where stones above water within jumping distance, and there exist places where that isn't possible. Not surprisingly, that's just what the evidence shows. Would you like to talk about that?

In the end, the insurmountable problem for Evolution, even with it's well presented arguments is that of irreducible complexity.
Click to expand...

Even Michael Behe, who invented the idea, now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. In fact, it has been observed to evolve. Would you like to talk about that?

Darwin hated peacocks for a reason ;-)
Click to expand...

It's no mystery why they have such tails. We could discuss that, if you like.
 
Barbarian

I think as my main observation was on irreducible complexity, I can give you two competing perspectves to show you that I have considered things in more depth than you might expect.

In support of the "irreducibility" claim...


In attempted rebuttal to that claim...


And as a general principle and observation on the above...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

^ Here, Zeno's paradoxes illustrate that it is possible to apply reason to reach an unreasonable conclusion.

The second "Mousetrap" presentation follows that paradigm - it takes what was meant as an illustration and turns it into the thing itself. In debunking the mousetrap which is only an analogy, the speaker seems convinced he has provided a plausible means to debunk all real irreducible complexity in nature.

You allude to that with your stones in the lake. I understand the concept but I lack the faith in the evolutionary process that you currently hold, I think ;-)
 
New Day Coming said:
In attempted rebuttal to that claim...
Click to expand...
I watched the Ken Miller "mousetrap refutation" and concluded that he is a fraud.
What he did was to modify one necessary part for the one he removed. But he did not reduce the number of parts by having one part fulfill two functions. All the necessary parts are still there.
This is the kind of slight of hand trick that demagogues use to fool those who have a meager understanding of logic.
He refuted exactly nothing.
He's a fraud.
 
Jim Parker said:
I watched the Ken Miller "mousetrap refutation" and concluded that he is a fraud.
What he did was to modify one necessary part for the one he removed. But he did not reduce the number of parts by having one part fulfill two functions. All the necessary parts are still there.
This is the kind of slight of hand trick that demagogues use to fool those who have a meager understanding of logic.
He refuted exactly nothing.
He's a fraud.
Click to expand...

I found there was more to the Giraffe than met the eye:-

https://creation.com/giraffe-neck-design
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top