Kentucky Naturalists to visit Creation Museum [Archive]

View Full Version : Kentucky Naturalists to visit Creation Museum

k4kyv

09-08-2007, 04:12 PM

Visitors are asking, "well they said this at the Creation Museum, but you all are saying something different".

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/article....urrents (http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/article/20070908/NEWS/709080315/1050&template=currents)

AE6IP

09-08-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote[/b] ]The Creation Museum in Petersburg was built by the Answers in Genesis Christian ministry and presents the Bible's creation story as fact supported by science.

and here I thought that Christians weren't supposed to lie.

n4sva

09-08-2007, 05:56 PM

Funny how all libs think we are a monkey's uncle

KA8DKT

09-08-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote[/b] ]The description had read, "This 'walk through history' museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture."
Let us just hope that natural history museums will continue their good work.

-gary

W3MIV

09-08-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 08 2007,13:22)]Quote[/b] ]The Creation Museum in Petersburg was built by the Answers in Genesis Christian ministry and presents the Bible's creation story as fact supported by science.

and here I thought that Christians weren't supposed to lie.
Interesting. Neither the article nor the museum would seem to be correct, which is not surprising. Who is this "Tichenor" who repeatedly "said" so many things, yet remains unidentified. One presumes that Tichenor is the naturalist, but that is not made clear anywhere in the article that I noticed. Another typically bad bit of journalism on the wire.

You are quite correct, Martin. Christians are not supposed to lie. Nor, indeed, are Rastafarians, agnostics, Buddhists, atheists or Scientologists. Alas, error and pining have yet to give way to grace and light.

"Creationism" is misrepresented in the article, and probably at the museum as well. The "doctrine" of Creationism, properly, merely states that science cannot prove or disprove the theological belief that there was a primal causation at the root of everything, and that it is at least as accurate to call that cause God as it is to assert the improbable speculation of an eternal universe.

Even Werner Heisenberg stated his belief that science could not speak to a transcendent issue such as this.

Quote[/b] ]“If from the indubitable fact that the world exists, someone wants to infer a cause of this existence, his inference does not contradict our scientific knowledge at any point. No scientist has at his disposal even a single argument or any kind of fact with which he could oppose such an assumption. This is true, even if the cause – and how could it be otherwise? – obviously has to be sought outside of this three-dimensional world of ours.”

Of course, the old notion of Bishop Ussher that the world was created in 4004 BC survives among some Fundamentalists who reject any and all exegesis beyond that of ultra-literal interpretations, but even among the majority of Fundamentalists, His Excellency's jotting up of all the begats to arrive at this dubious date brings a smile faster than it does a defense.

I guess snapping at a convenient anti-religious troll is more fun than the departure you announced in another thread. I sense your rush to post something -- anything -- just to stir the pot before rushing out the door.

Have fun. We'll battle upon your return.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kd5kfl

09-08-2007, 08:23 PM

Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)

k9kxq

09-08-2007, 08:34 PM

These folks are drinking way too much Kool-Aid...

kxq

KA8DKT

09-09-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,16:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
A very clear expanation.

-gary

Cobb County, Georgia Periodic Table of the Elements:
Earth - Air - Fire - Water

n2nh

09-09-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Sep. 08 2007,13:56)]Funny how all libs think we are a monkey's uncle
No, some of us were born human. BUT, we still like you anyway.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KC9ECI

09-09-2007, 03:03 AM

<a href="http://www.unicornmuseum.org/" target="_blank">Based on the idea of "if it's in the Bible, it must be true" The Unicorn Museum promotes belief in the Biblical Truth of unicorns, a creature mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible.

The Unicorn Museum is a parody of The Creation Museum, a religious-based institution which opened its doors in Petersburg, KY on May 28, 2007. The Creation Museum is a $27 Million state-of-the-art facility intended to teach the "truth" of the biblical creation story and promote the belief that the Universe is 6600 years old, Adam walked with the dinosaurs, and the Bible is a wholly accurate historical record.</a>

KP3FT

09-11-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,13:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
OK, lets apply it.

Idea: Universe came from nothing 15 billion years ago, life came accidentally from non-life. Earth is billions of years old.

Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing". Life does not come from "non-life". Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms. Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information. Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc. Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth. Too much helium in atmosphere. Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable. Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling. Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now. Comets are too young.

73 Jeff KP3FT

KA8DKT

09-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,13:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
OK, lets apply it. #

Idea: #Universe came from nothing 15 billion years ago, life came accidentally from non-life. #Earth is billions of years old.

Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing". #Life does not come from "non-life". #Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms. #Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information. #Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc. #Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth. #Too much helium in atmosphere. #Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable. #Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling. #Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now. #Comets are too young.

73 Jeff KP3FT
You are way oversimplifying the so-called Big Bang theory. #And no one has ever said that the universe came from "nothing" except fundy Christians and other simple folks lacking in basic education.

You need to do some reading in books other than the Bible. #Even if our knowledge of the universe is lacking in a lot of the details (and it is), there is almost overwhelming evidence that it is well over 6600 years old. #Furthermore, no matter what you've been told about the inaccuracies of carbon dating, there is also overwhelming evidence of the fact that the dinosaurs lived a long, long time (millions of years) before man appeared on the scene. #Except, of course, in the Flintstones cartoons and Alley Oop.

Considering the number of suns in a galaxy (some 500 million on average) and the number of galaxies in the known universe (also several hundred million) the possibility of life forming from the so-called primordal stew of a forming planet is almost a certainty. #Just because it happened here on this planet is happenstance...it could have happened elsewhere, and in fact, probably has in many places. #Its just the odds.

Man has, in fact, created all the necessary precursors to life in the laboratory and the experiments have been duplicated and built upon (peer review, you know). #The only reason it hasn't yet "taken off" is that we have not waited the couple of million years that it took the real thing to happen.

Where did you go to school? #Cobb County Georgia? (Georgia is 49th in SAT standings in the country)

-gary

Cobb County Periodic Table of the Elements:

Earth - Air - Fire - Water

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,10:57)]"Creationism" is misrepresented in the article, and probably at the museum as well. The "doctrine" of Creationism, properly, merely states that science cannot prove or disprove the theological belief that there was a primal causation at the root of everything, and that it is at least as accurate to call that cause God as it is to assert the improbable speculation of an eternal universe.

Alas, Albert, yours is the less commonly used definition of "Creationism" and Answers in Genesis possesses the more commonly used, in which "Creationism" is meant to include the biblical creation myth to a varying degree and to negate Darwinism. Answers in Genesis lies at the far extreme of the Creationist movements, being quite firm in their assertion of the literal correctness of the old testament story.

Their cheek in declaring that science supports literal old testament creationism is the lie I was referring to in my remark, for it does not.

Quote[/b] ]I guess snapping at a convenient anti-religious troll is more fun than the departure you announced in another thread. I sense your rush to post something -- anything -- just to stir the pot before rushing out the door.

Not so much to stir the pot as to serve as a place marker. This pot gets well and truly stirred around QRZ without any of my help.

One must be more subtle in discussions of godhood than to merely proclaim science compatible with god. While it is true that we cannot yet rule out a prime mover, we can rule out the possibility that the prime mover fits the description of 'god' supplied by any existing human religion. That applies equally to Jehovah as it does to Coyote and Jove by the way.

Further, we can rule out any personal 'god' that interacts with humanity with any kind of regularity. If 'god' does exist, it is Spinoza's mindless force that set the universe in motion but does not interact with it.

But more than that, we can not stop at this 'god'. For it is just as certain that the 'god' which created this universe was in turn created and that it is, indeed, turtles all the way down, if there is such a god at all.

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,09:13)]Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing".

Actually not so. See Hawking Radiation. There is in fact a straightforward cosmology in which the big bang was just one major heisenberg event.

Quote[/b] ]Life does not come from "non-life".

Not known to be true. Contradicted by the observation that this planet was once lifeless and now is not.

Quote[/b] ]Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms.

Not even close to true. All fossils are transitional. All creatures are transitional.

Quote[/b] ]Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information.

Not in evidence. There's no definition of 'complexity' available from the ID community and still no design filter on offer.

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc.

True, but not relevant. (it's a logical fallacy: argument to ignorance.)

Quote[/b] ]Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Too much helium in atmosphere.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable.

Reliability established by cross reference. Error bars taken into account when doing careful science.

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling.

Citation? I'm not familiar with this claim.

Quote[/b] ]Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now.

Definitely not true. Galaxy formation is consistent with current theories of cosmology.

Quote[/b] ]Comets are too young.

Sorry, too young for what?

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)]And no one has ever said that the universe came from "nothing" except fundy Christians and other simple folks lacking in basic education.
This is not entirely true. There is an out-of-favor cosmology which predicts that the big bang was an Heisenberg event like Hawking radiation and that the books are exactly balanced.

At this point in time there's no testable prediction, which is why it's out of favor, but I rather like it personally.

KP3FT

09-11-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,13:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
OK, lets apply it.

Idea: Universe came from nothing 15 billion years ago, life came accidentally from non-life. Earth is billions of years old.

Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing". Life does not come from "non-life". Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms. Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information. Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc. Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth. Too much helium in atmosphere. Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable. Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling. Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now. Comets are too young.

73 Jeff KP3FT
You are way oversimplifying the so-called Big Bang theory. And no one has ever said that the universe came from "nothing" except fundy Christians and other simple folks lacking in basic education.

You need to do some reading in books other than the Bible. Even if our knowledge of the universe is lacking in a lot of the details (and it is), there is almost overwhelming evidence that it is well over 6600 years old. Furthermore, no matter what you've been told about the inaccuracies of carbon dating, there is also overwhelming evidence of the fact that the dinosaurs lived a long, long time (millions of years) before man appeared on the scene. Except, of course, in the Flintstones cartoons and Alley Oop.

Considering the number of suns in a galaxy (some 500 million on average) and the number of galaxies in the known universe (also several hundred million) the possibility of life forming from the so-called primordal stew of a forming planet is almost a certainty. Just because it happened here on this planet is happenstance...it could have happened elsewhere, and in fact, probably has in many places. Its just the odds.

Man has, in fact, created all the necessary precursors to life in the laboratory and the experiments have been duplicated and built upon (peer review, you know). The only reason it hasn't yet "taken off" is that we have not waited the couple of million years that it took the real thing to happen.

Where did you go to school? Cobb County Georgia? (Georgia is 49th in SAT standings in the country)

-gary

Cobb County Periodic Table of the Elements:

Earth - Air - Fire - Water
Lot of assumptions there, including stereotypes. Please popint out the Big Bang theory to me then. Did the universe come from "something" or "nothing"? How did the "something" get there? How does it account for all the matter in the universe?
Carbon dating only works for thousands of years anyway, not millions, and that is from the inventor's own mouth. I'm talking about the potassium-argon methods and others. If you read Creationist material as well as Evolutionist material, you will find that the Creation scientists use solid scientific reasoning, simply because they can't afford NOT to. The reason being, they are already considered fruitcakes by the general media and any bad science they use will be immediately pounced on. The evolutionist material enjoys a much more cavalier approach, hence their outrageous claims in the media that go unchallenged, at least in the mainstream media.
A simple, brutal look at all data we now have demonstrates the severe lack of real science to back up a naturalistic origin of life and the universe. Amino acids have been produced in the laboratory. Amino acids are not DNA. Even supposing DNA somehow formed by accident, how did it survive? What formed the nucleus to contain the DNA? Oh, that's right, the DNA is coded to make the nucleus...but wait a minute, the DNA would then have to be formed before the nucleus. Oops, hang on a second...the DNA can't survive without a nucleus. See the problem? Thats "irreducible complexity", there is a certain point in microbiology where the "parts" of a cell cannot exist without the other "parts". That's simply impossible in a naturalistic origin of life theory.
Perhaps you would consider Sir Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin went to Cobb County Georgia? They were genius-level intelligence and believed in a Creator. Some examples of modern day physicists who believe in Creation are Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Wilde-Smith. These men are not stupid, and hold Ph.D.'s in their fields.
The evidence you cite is not evidence. The assumption is that the "necessary precursors to life" will naturally turn into "life" if we just give it millions of years is not scientific. How do you know it will turn into life? What mechanism will do this? Can we duplicate it? Is there evidence of it occuring? It's science-fiction and wishful thinking.
Where's the overwhelming evidence that the earth is so old? There's a lot that shows it isn't that old, which I posted before, and there's more.
73 Jeff KP3FT

KP3FT

09-11-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 11 2007,13:36)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,09:13)]Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing".

Actually not so. See Hawking Radiation. There is in fact a straightforward cosmology in which the big bang was just one major heisenberg event.

Quote[/b] ]Life does not come from "non-life".

Not known to be true. Contradicted by the observation that this planet was once lifeless and now is not.

Quote[/b] ]Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms.

Not even close to true. All fossils are transitional. All creatures are transitional.

Quote[/b] ]Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information.

Not in evidence. There's no definition of 'complexity' available from the ID community and still no design filter on offer.

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc.

True, but not relevant. (it's a logical fallacy: argument to ignorance.)

Quote[/b] ]Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Too much helium in atmosphere.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable.

Reliability established by cross reference. Error bars taken into account when doing careful science.

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling.

Citation? I'm not familiar with this claim.

Quote[/b] ]Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now.

Definitely not true. Galaxy formation is consistent with current theories of cosmology.

Quote[/b] ]Comets are too young.

Sorry, too young for what?
Sources?

n2ize

09-11-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:42)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,13:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
OK, lets apply it. #

Idea: #Universe came from nothing 15 billion years ago, life came accidentally from non-life. #Earth is billions of years old.

Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing". #Life does not come from "non-life". #Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms. #Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information. #Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc. #Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth. #Too much helium in atmosphere. #Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable. #Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling. #Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now. #Comets are too young.

73 Jeff KP3FT
You are way oversimplifying the so-called Big Bang theory. #And no one has ever said that the universe came from "nothing" except fundy Christians and other simple folks lacking in basic education.

You need to do some reading in books other than the Bible. #Even if our knowledge of the universe is lacking in a lot of the details (and it is), there is almost overwhelming evidence that it is well over 6600 years old. #Furthermore, no matter what you've been told about the inaccuracies of carbon dating, there is also overwhelming evidence of the fact that the dinosaurs lived a long, long time (millions of years) before man appeared on the scene. #Except, of course, in the Flintstones cartoons and Alley Oop.

Considering the number of suns in a galaxy (some 500 million on average) and the number of galaxies in the known universe (also several hundred million) the possibility of life forming from the so-called primordal stew of a forming planet is almost a certainty. #Just because it happened here on this planet is happenstance...it could have happened elsewhere, and in fact, probably has in many places. #Its just the odds.

Man has, in fact, created all the necessary precursors to life in the laboratory and the experiments have been duplicated and built upon (peer review, you know). #The only reason it hasn't yet "taken off" is that we have not waited the couple of million years that it took the real thing to happen.

Where did you go to school? #Cobb County Georgia? (Georgia is 49th in SAT standings in the country)

-gary

Cobb County Periodic Table of the Elements:

Earth - Air - Fire - Water
Lot of assumptions there, including stereotypes. #Please popint out the Big Bang theory to me then. #Did the universe come from "something" or "nothing"? #How did the "something" get there? #How does it account for all the matter in the universe?
Carbon dating only works for thousands of years anyway, not millions, and that is from the inventor's own mouth. #I'm talking about the potassium-argon methods and others. #If you read Creationist material as well as Evolutionist material, you will find that the Creation scientists use solid scientific reasoning, simply because they can't afford NOT to. #The reason being, they are already considered fruitcakes by the general media and any bad science they use will be immediately pounced on. #The evolutionist material enjoys a much more cavalier approach, hence their outrageous claims in the media that go unchallenged, at least in the mainstream media.
A simple, brutal look at all data we now have demonstrates the severe lack of real science to back up a naturalistic origin of life and the universe. #Amino acids have been produced in the laboratory. #Amino acids are not DNA. #Even supposing DNA somehow formed by accident, how did it survive? #What formed the nucleus to contain the DNA? #Oh, that's right, the DNA is coded to make the nucleus...but wait a minute, the DNA would then have to be formed before the nucleus. Oops, hang on a second...the DNA can't survive without a nucleus. #See the problem? #Thats "irreducible complexity", there is a certain point in microbiology where the "parts" of a cell cannot exist without the other "parts". #That's simply impossible in a naturalistic origin of life theory.
# # Perhaps you would consider Sir Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin went to Cobb County Georgia? #They were genius-level intelligence and believed in a Creator. #Some examples of modern day physicists who believe in Creation are Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Wilde-Smith. #These men are not stupid, and hold Ph.D.'s in their fields. #
# # The evidence you cite is not evidence. #The assumption is that the "necessary precursors to life" will naturally turn into "life" if we just give it millions of years is not scientific. #How do you know it will turn into life? #What mechanism will do this? #Can we duplicate it? #Is there evidence of it occuring? #It's science-fiction and wishful thinking. #
# # Where's the overwhelming evidence that the earth is so old? #There's a lot that shows it isn't that old, which I posted before, and there's more.
73 Jeff KP3FT
Oh no, not this debate again. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory as it depends upon divine intervention thus is not falsifiable. Creationism is, as Wolfgang Pauli would say...FALSCH !

Creationsm should simply be taught in the subject category where it belongs... religion, theology, etc.

Beleif in evolutionary theory does not preclude beleif in God if so one chooses.

In any event there have been countless debates on this topic and there probably will be for decades to come. Frankly I don't care, if someone prefers to reject science in favor of the religion of creationism they have that right. The only area where I do have a problem with creationism is in the idea of teaching it as part of a science curriculum. Teach it ar s part of the religion curriculum which is where it belongs.

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:42)]Please popint out the Big Bang theory to me then.

I recommend "The First Three Minutes." It is a readable account aimed at lay people.

Quote[/b] ]If you read Creationist material as well as Evolutionist material, you will find that the Creation scientists use solid scientific reasoning, simply because they can't afford NOT to.

This turns out not to be true. Even the very well trained creationist tend to be very willing to forgo science in their defense of their beliefs.

Quote[/b] ]The evolutionist material enjoys a much more cavalier approach, hence their outrageous claims in the media that go unchallenged, at least in the mainstream media.

The outrageous claims in the media are usually the media's own doing, and 'evolutionists' publish in peer reviewed journals, as well as challenge each other's work at conferences.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, that's right, the DNA is coded to make the nucleus...but wait a minute, the DNA would then have to be formed before the nucleus. Oops, hang on a second...the DNA can't survive without a nucleus. See the problem? Thats "irreducible complexity", there is a certain point in microbiology where the "parts" of a cell cannot exist without the other "parts". That's simply impossible in a naturalistic origin of life theory.

That's only 'irreducible complexity' to someone who hasn't studied the literature very well. It's just another variation on the confused 'chicken or egg' argument that shows a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

I recommend the book "Evolutionary Biology".

Quote[/b] ]Some examples of modern day physicists who believe in Creation are Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Wilde-Smith. These men are not stupid, and hold Ph.D.'s in their fields.

Gentry is a pretty good example. He doesn't hold a PhD in his field, he holds an M.S. His "doctorate" is honorary from a school that doesn't have a PhD program and doesn't have a physics graduate program.

Further, his idea of "peer review" is to sue the NSF for "censorship" for failing to publish his papers.

Quote[/b] ]Where's the overwhelming evidence that the earth is so old?

I'd start with the grand canyon if I were you. There's a great deal of very good evidence there. A most approachable book is "Roadside Geology of Montana" by Dave Alt. It lays out the case in terms a layman can follow with the additional benefit that it points out where you can go in Montana and see the evidence for yourself.

W3MIV

09-11-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 11 2007,16:28)]One must be more subtle in discussions of godhood than to merely proclaim science compatible with god. #While it is true that we cannot yet rule out a prime mover, we can rule out the possibility that the prime mover fits the description of 'god' supplied by any existing human religion. #That applies equally to Jehovah as it does to Coyote and Jove by the way.

Further, we can rule out any personal 'god' that interacts with humanity with any kind of regularity. If 'god' does exist, it is Spinoza's mindless force that set the universe in motion but does not interact with it.

But more than that, we can not stop at this 'god'. #For it is just as certain that the 'god' which created this universe was in turn created and that it is, indeed, turtles all the way down, if there is such a god at all.
While I respect your opinions, Martin, they are but opinions. You cannot support them with fact any more than I can unseat them with fact. They are matters over which science has no dominion.

Certainly, we could argue theosophical points, each of us citing work by differing philosophers and insisting upon the correctness of their views vis-à-vis challenging authorities and interpretations, but to no avail. Our two belief centers lie each on a plane that is unaccessible to the other.

My view is probably slightly more sympathetic to the "hard-kernel" Creationists of the type who run this "museum," but not by much. It is just that I am one who accepts the evidence of an evolutionary track, though perhaps not that espoused by Darwin or others of the "steadily progressing" or "survival of the fittest" subsets that have largely passed out of vogue. There is nothing in evolution, per se, which obviates any creative Cause.

The difference is that you readily swallow the camel of a billion billion billion billion happenstance events giving rise wholly accidentally to homo sapiens and then choke on the gnat of a directed Cause. What you espouse is the intellectual equivalent of asserting that an explosion in a press room could result in the bits of type coalescing into the works of Shakespeare.

Enjoy your stay. If you get to Westminster Cathedral, say three Hail Marys for me. I need them.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

n2ize

09-11-2007, 09:17 PM

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:57)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 11 2007,13:36)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,09:13)]Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing".

Actually not so. See Hawking Radiation. There is in fact a straightforward cosmology in which the big bang was just one major heisenberg event.

Quote[/b] ]Life does not come from "non-life".

Not known to be true. Contradicted by the observation that this planet was once lifeless and now is not.

Quote[/b] ]Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms.

Not even close to true. All fossils are transitional. All creatures are transitional.

Quote[/b] ]Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information.

Not in evidence. There's no definition of 'complexity' available from the ID community and still no design filter on offer.

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc.

True, but not relevant. (it's a logical fallacy: argument to ignorance.)

Quote[/b] ]Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Too much helium in atmosphere.

Not true.

Quote[/b] ]Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable.

Reliability established by cross reference. Error bars taken into account when doing careful science.

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling.

Citation? I'm not familiar with this claim.

Quote[/b] ]Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now.

Definitely not true. Galaxy formation is consistent with current theories of cosmology.

Quote[/b] ]Comets are too young.

Sorry, too young for what?
Sources?
Given elsewhere in thread. Please provide yours that I've asked for.

AE6IP

09-11-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 11 2007,14:16)]While I respect your opinions, Martin, they are but opinions. You cannot support them with fact any more than I can unseat them with fact. They are matters over which science has no dominion.

Actually, Albert, there are no facts, only interpretations, but I can support most of what I said, because they do involve matters over which science has dominion. That is the basic flaw in the argument for coexistence. When you leave to god only that which science can not explain, you are left with the god of the gaps, and the only gap left is origins.

This much is not a matter for clever philosophical discourse, it is merely observed reality on the ground.

More than that, you can point at the various theologies and say "here this differs from science" on a wide range of specific points.

Quote[/b] ]Certainly, we could argue theosophical points, each of us citing work by differing philosophers and insisting upon the correctness of their views vis-à-vis challenging authorities and interpretations, but to no avail. Our two belief centers lie each on a plane that is unaccessible to the other.

Oh no, Albert, your belief center is very accessible to me. I was raised Roman Catholic. I understand the belief system of the church. I have also spent many years pursuing Buddhism as an alternative and understand their belief systems somewhat as well.

Quote[/b] ]My view is probably slightly more sympathetic to the "hard-kernel" Creationists of the type who run this "museum," but not by much. It is just that I am one who accepts the evidence of an evolutionary track, though perhaps not that espoused by Darwin or others of the "steadily progressing" or "survival of the fittest" subsets that have largely passed out of vogue. There is nothing in evolution, per se, which obviates any creative Cause.

Indeed. "survival of the fittest" is a very Victorian idea and an unfortunate choice, as it is so easy to misinterpret leading to such evils as 'social darwinism.'

Quote[/b] ]
The difference is that you readily swallow the camel of a billion billion billion billion happenstance events giving rise wholly accidentally to homo sapiens and then choke on the gnat of a directed Cause. What you espouse is the intellectual equivalent of asserting that an explosion in a press room could result in the bits of type coalescing into the works of Shakespeare.

Actually, I swallow nothing whole. I chew my food completely, thank you. But no, evolution is not the intellectual equivalent of your explosion, and there are strong scientific reasons that explain the difference.

By the way, one must be careful not to lump all of this together as the Creationists do. Big Bang Cosmology usually makes me giggle, and will continue to do so until the Higgs boson is found or conclusively shown not to exist. I remain without an opinion on abiogenesis, as the jury is definitely out on the mechanism behind it. I also giggle a lot when confronted with 'historical' evolution, as I was today when I examined supposed bird origin fossils first hand at the Science Musuem.

It is merely the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary biology, which has better supporting evidence even than quantum mechanics, which I subscribe to, merely because it does indeed have strong supporting evidence. We know the mechanisms by which evolution currently works. We know that it has worked thus for thousands of years of recorded history. This is what I accept, not necessarily the rest.

Quote[/b] ]Enjoy your stay. If you get to Westminster Cathedral, say three Hail Marys for me. I need them.

For you, Albert, an entire decade, whether you need it or not. If not Westminster, the Brompton Oratory is a mere few blocks from our hotel.

W3MIV

09-12-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 11 2007,18:07)]For you, Albert, an entire decade, whether you need it or not. If not Westminster, the Brompton Oratory is a mere few blocks from our hotel.
Say "hey!" to Newman for me. (One of my heros.)

Quote[/b] ]Actually, Albert, there are no facts, only interpretations, but I can support most of what I said, because they do involve matters over which science has dominion. That is the basic flaw in the argument for coexistence. When you leave to god only that which science can not explain, you are left with the god of the gaps, and the only gap left is origins.

I do not disregard what science can explain, nor do I minimize what human reason can attain, Martin. Indeed, I revel in it. But that does not necessitate eliminating the transcendental, either. God and science can not only coexist, but they can easily be regarded as two different languages expressing the same ideas. Just as wave-particle duality better explains the theories underlying your pet particles, but gradually loses applicability as the scale increases, so too might our reason need to adjust as the scope of our vision approaches the eschatological.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

KA8DKT

09-12-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,16:42)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Sep. 11 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Sep. 08 2007,13:23)]Science Vs Faith (http://halbot.haluze.sk/images/2007-04/3274_sciencevsfaith.png)
OK, lets apply it. #

Idea: #Universe came from nothing 15 billion years ago, life came accidentally from non-life. #Earth is billions of years old.

Contradictory Evidence: Matter/energy does not come from "nothing". #Life does not come from "non-life". #Fossil record shows zero transitional evolutionary forms. #Life shows design and complexity due to DNA code/information. #Intelligent Man cannot create simplest life, even with millions of dollars of lab equipment, etc. #Not enough salt in ocean to support idea of 4-billion-year-old Earth. #Too much helium in atmosphere. #Dating methods ALL based on assumptions, therefore cannot be reliable. #Dr. Gentry's findings show sudden formation of basalt layer, not slow cooling. #Galaxies should have "unraveled" by now. #Comets are too young.

73 Jeff KP3FT
You are way oversimplifying the so-called Big Bang theory. #And no one has ever said that the universe came from "nothing" except fundy Christians and other simple folks lacking in basic education.

You need to do some reading in books other than the Bible. #Even if our knowledge of the universe is lacking in a lot of the details (and it is), there is almost overwhelming evidence that it is well over 6600 years old. #Furthermore, no matter what you've been told about the inaccuracies of carbon dating, there is also overwhelming evidence of the fact that the dinosaurs lived a long, long time (millions of years) before man appeared on the scene. #Except, of course, in the Flintstones cartoons and Alley Oop.

Considering the number of suns in a galaxy (some 500 million on average) and the number of galaxies in the known universe (also several hundred million) the possibility of life forming from the so-called primordal stew of a forming planet is almost a certainty. #Just because it happened here on this planet is happenstance...it could have happened elsewhere, and in fact, probably has in many places. #Its just the odds.

Man has, in fact, created all the necessary precursors to life in the laboratory and the experiments have been duplicated and built upon (peer review, you know). #The only reason it hasn't yet "taken off" is that we have not waited the couple of million years that it took the real thing to happen.

Where did you go to school? #Cobb County Georgia? (Georgia is 49th in SAT standings in the country)

-gary

Cobb County Periodic Table of the Elements:

Earth - Air - Fire - Water
Lot of assumptions there, including stereotypes. #Please popint out the Big Bang theory to me then. #Did the universe come from "something" or "nothing"? #How did the "something" get there? #How does it account for all the matter in the universe?
Carbon dating only works for thousands of years anyway, not millions, and that is from the inventor's own mouth. #I'm talking about the potassium-argon methods and others. #If you read Creationist material as well as Evolutionist material, you will find that the Creation scientists use solid scientific reasoning, simply because they can't afford NOT to. #The reason being, they are already considered fruitcakes by the general media and any bad science they use will be immediately pounced on. #The evolutionist material enjoys a much more cavalier approach, hence their outrageous claims in the media that go unchallenged, at least in the mainstream media.
A simple, brutal look at all data we now have demonstrates the severe lack of real science to back up a naturalistic origin of life and the universe. #Amino acids have been produced in the laboratory. #Amino acids are not DNA. #Even supposing DNA somehow formed by accident, how did it survive? #What formed the nucleus to contain the DNA? #Oh, that's right, the DNA is coded to make the nucleus...but wait a minute, the DNA would then have to be formed before the nucleus. Oops, hang on a second...the DNA can't survive without a nucleus. #See the problem? #Thats "irreducible complexity", there is a certain point in microbiology where the "parts" of a cell cannot exist without the other "parts". #That's simply impossible in a naturalistic origin of life theory.
# # Perhaps you would consider Sir Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin went to Cobb County Georgia? #They were genius-level intelligence and believed in a Creator. #Some examples of modern day physicists who believe in Creation are Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Wilde-Smith. #These men are not stupid, and hold Ph.D.'s in their fields. #
# # The evidence you cite is not evidence. #The assumption is that the "necessary precursors to life" will naturally turn into "life" if we just give it millions of years is not scientific. #How do you know it will turn into life? #What mechanism will do this? #Can we duplicate it? #Is there evidence of it occuring? #It's science-fiction and wishful thinking. #
# # Where's the overwhelming evidence that the earth is so old? #There's a lot that shows it isn't that old, which I posted before, and there's more.
73 Jeff KP3FT
Jeff-

This topic has been covered extensively in other posts.

If you wish to read some basics on this, might I suggest taking a look at some of the previous posts.
One of those is here: One posting (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=163674;st=25)

Of course there are hundreds of texts, experiments, and theories to read about. The big thing is that most scientists have no agenda except to just "find out" what the answers really are. They are not necessarily trying to prove a theory is correct, in fact more often they are trying to prove a theory incorrect. Often in doing so they end up reenforcing the theory.

The problem with the religious approach is that it does not stand up to experimental evidence, or observed evidence. There is no real evidence, for example, that the Earth is only 6600 years old. But there is a lot that indicates it is much, much older. Most all of which has been amassed by people with real PhDs. If you think otherwise, then you have a lot of reading to do...and none of it in the Bible bookstore.

-gary

W3MIV

09-12-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 12 2007,10:23)]Of course there are hundreds of texts, experiments, and theories to read about. #The big thing is that most scientists have no agenda except to just "find out" what the answers really are. #They are not necessarily trying to prove a theory is correct, in fact more often they are trying to prove a theory incorrect. #Often in doing so they end up reenforcing the theory.
The fly in your ointment is that most peer review is carried out among cognoscenti of the dominant views then current, and this often condemns new ideas from gaining acceptance. I cannot now remember who said it, and I shall research it when I have a bit more time, but it was a leading particle physicist who observed that it is rare that new ideas become dominant until all of the purveyors of former tightly embraced theories have died off and the younger, less imprinted generation of scientists moves up into positions of visibility. They then assume the fallen mantles, but they also carry their own presuppositions and prejudices along with them, so the process of real change is often glacial.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with the religious approach is that it does not stand up to experimental evidence, or observed evidence. There is no real evidence, for example, that the Earth is only 6600 years old. But there is a lot that indicates it is much, much older. Most all of which has been amassed by people with real PhDs. If you think otherwise, then you have a lot of reading to do...and none of it in the Bible bookstore.

You mix too many issues under a single argument, hence dilute your point. It is not a problem with "the religious approach;" it is a problem with a Fundamentalist approach. In that, I agree wholeheartedly.

The Fundamentalist has fallen for the ideas of both literalism and sola scriptura. Neither of these are valid ways of reading scripture, leading inevitably to a narrow-minded view that rejects anything not detailed by a scribe writing arcana centuries ago. Even Luther, who invented the dogma that "only scripture" is needed for salvation did not follow his own requirement when he cast his lines adrift from the very Magesterium that had led him to his starting points.

Nothing in the Bible rejects evolution. Neither does anything in the Bible undergird evolution as a scientific theory supported by much persuasive evidence. Much of the Bible is not literal. Who among us would, after all, accept as literal fact that a whale swallowed up Jonah, only spitting him out on the dry land after his prayerful repentence? The tale is an allegory, and it is fraught with powerful imagery and messages -- but the image of a Humpback wriggling across a Malibu tideline to spit out a bundle upon the beach is not one of them.

As I posted above: God and science are NOT mutually exclusive. They can easily exist in parallel if only one will let them.

k4kyv

09-12-2007, 05:28 PM

A not-so-recent theory called panspermia, holds that the stuff of life is everywhere and that we humans owe our genesis and evolution to a continual rain of foreign microbes. It means, simply, that we might all be aliens.

It's an idea that has been around longer than Christianity, but which still struggles to gain strong support among most scientists.

The idea that the seeds of life are ubiquitous throughout the cosmos goes back to Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher. In the 1800s, French chemist Louis Pasteur proposed that spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred on Earth. British physicist Lord Kelvin and others jumped on Pasteur's bandwagon and suggested that life might have come from space.

But modern-day panspermia advocates have been the Rodney Dangerfields of science.

In fact, just two leading researchers carry the bulk of the panspermia torch. The renowned Sir Fred Hoyle, known for his studies of star structure and the origin of the chemical elements in stars, has worked with Chandra Wickramasinghe over the past three decades to pioneer the modern theory of panspermia.

In the 1970s, Wickramasinghe and Hoyle found what they say are traces of life in the dust around distant stars. The duo then broadened the panspermia theory, arguing that a continual rain of life-altering stuff from space has affected the course of evolution. The seeds, they say, are still coming.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/aliens_all_001027-1.html

http://www.panspermia.org/

W3MIV

09-12-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Sep. 12 2007,13:28)]A not-so-recent theory called panspermia, holds that the stuff of life is everywhere and that we humans owe our genesis and evolution to a continual rain of foreign microbes. It means, simply, that we might all be aliens.

It's an idea that has been around longer than Christianity, but which still struggles to gain strong support among most scientists.

The idea that the seeds of life are ubiquitous throughout the cosmos goes back to Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher. In the 1800s, French chemist Louis Pasteur proposed that spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred on Earth. British physicist Lord Kelvin and others jumped on Pasteur's bandwagon and suggested that life might have come from space.

But modern-day panspermia advocates have been the Rodney Dangerfields of science.

In fact, just two leading researchers carry the bulk of the panspermia torch. The renowned Sir Fred Hoyle, known for his studies of star structure and the origin of the chemical elements in stars, has worked with Chandra Wickramasinghe over the past three decades to pioneer the modern theory of panspermia.

In the 1970s, Wickramasinghe and Hoyle found what they say are traces of life in the dust around distant stars. The duo then broadened the panspermia theory, arguing that a continual rain of life-altering stuff from space has affected the course of evolution. The seeds, they say, are still coming.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/aliens_all_001027-1.html

http://www.panspermia.org/
Even were you to accept that panspermia could be established as a fact in the line of genesis of life, or as Martin would have it, "abiogenesis," it would not obviate the need to postulate some event in the far distant past that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated whatever it was that initiated panspermia.

The use of the term "abiogenesis," in fact, puts particular emphasis on the need of an unidentified initiation to have yielded something, anything, from nothing.

AE6IP

09-12-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 12 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 12 2007,10:23)]Of course there are hundreds of texts, experiments, and theories to read about. The big thing is that most scientists have no agenda except to just "find out" what the answers really are. They are not necessarily trying to prove a theory is correct, in fact more often they are trying to prove a theory incorrect. Often in doing so they end up reenforcing the theory.
The fly in your ointment is that most peer review is carried out among cognoscenti of the dominant views then current, and this often condemns new ideas from gaining acceptance. I cannot now remember who said it, and I shall research it when I have a bit more time, but it was a leading particle physicist who observed that it is rare that new ideas become dominant until all of the purveyors of former tightly embraced theories have died off and the younger, less imprinted generation of scientists moves up into positions of visibility. They then assume the fallen mantles, but they also carry their own presuppositions and prejudices along with them, so the process of real change is often glacial.
This is the idea behind "paradigm shift." Not sure who first expressed it but it was Kuhn who codified it in The Structure of scientific revolution.

The flaw in Kuhn's research is that he looked at a particularly unusual period in the history of physics and took it as the schematic for scientific process in all disciplines at all times.

Much has been written about Kuhn's failures, most notably by Feyerabend and Lakatos, who disagreed, but who both expanded on Kuhn's work and filled in the holes.

The idea that you speak of is usually referred to by the history and philosophy of science types as "research programmes", sometimes "schools of thought." A very good condemnation of weaknesses inherent in that approach is the recent book by Lee Smolin The Trouble with Physics in which he carefully shows how such a failure is, in his opinion, the reason for the stagnation currently seen in particle physics research.

It's not peer review that causes this, though, but rather subtler politics in the funding of research. Peer review has its own set of problems, with which, as a reviewer for both journals and conferences, and a submitter to same, I am very familiar.

For the past 100 years, possibly longer, however, the biology community that developed what is now called the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, did not suffer from this problem. At first, because the field was broad and poorly explored, so there was much room for competing programs. Of late, because of the massive amount of money that the pharmaceuticals have invested and the very pragmatic demands those investments bring to bear.

The worst example of a research programme's negative effect, however, is in biology. It would be Stalin's imposition of Lysenko-ism on the Soviet Union and the crippling effect that had on Soviet agriculture and indirectly the soviet economy. It can be argued, by those looking carefully, that Lysenko-ism played a far greater role in the downfall of the soviet union than the cold war arms race.

W3MIV

09-12-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 12 2007,15:21)]It's not peer review that causes this, though, but rather subtler politics in the funding of research. Peer review has its own set of problems, with which, as a reviewer for both journals and conferences, and a submitter to same, I am very familiar.
Basically, I agree with most of what you posted. The point I was seeking to make, and in these forums it is always difficult to carry on a reasoned debate, is that the peer groups are quite often "salted" with vested interests that exercise an unhealthy momentum on the entire process. Without peer "enthusiasm" and a ready presence in journals, funding is withheld on the basis of funding "more promising" projects.

AE6IP

09-12-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 12 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 12 2007,15:21)]It's not peer review that causes this, though, but rather subtler politics in the funding of research. Peer review has its own set of problems, with which, as a reviewer for both journals and conferences, and a submitter to same, I am very familiar.
Basically, I agree with most of what you posted. The point I was seeking to make, and in these forums it is always difficult to carry on a reasoned debate, is that the peer groups are quite often "salted" with vested interests that exercise an unhealthy momentum on the entire process. Without peer "enthusiasm" and a ready presence in journals, funding is withheld on the basis of funding "more promising" projects.
Yes. It is a negative aspect of directly funded research.

It hadn't really been a problem prior to about 1980, because Universities funded tenured researchers from endowments and so the pressures tended to be local to a particular school and competing research programmes were likely to form.

The decline in endowment spending, the decline in government grants for undirected research, and the increased collaboration with industry which started to arise in this period has had a chilling effect on research direction.

The latest decline has been the technique introduced by the pharmas of requiring researchers to self-censor results that are negative to the pharmas interest. Coupled with the insanity which is modern intellectual property law one sees great abuses.