big bang continued

[Macs Son]

The naturalistic faith premise can be traced through history. I agree that the foundations of modern science were accomplished within the theistic paradigm. The naturalistic concept of explaining reality without God appeared around the late 1700s. It was essentially ubiquitous in the scientific community by the early 1900s – such that most people today have only ever been exposed to science interpreted to conform to the naturalistic faith premise (in schools, university, scientific documentaries, science text books etc.). This exclusive exposure to naturalistic explanations has biased much of society to falsely (though sincerely) think that this is the only valid way to look at the evidence. I myself was unaware that there was any such thing as a creationist until I converted to Christianity as a young adult.

Hi Tristen,

Thanks for your response. I agree that there is a large segment of scientists that, for whatever motivation, attempt to explain the physical world with both cause and effect, strictly within the confines of the physical world itself. But that should not surprise us. Physical experimentation and proof are all they have to work with. Admittedly we can never truly get to the beginning via any form of science. The best we can do is unravel some of the Glory that God put into creation an I believe scientists down through the ages have done that in part for us. Yes, there are some who said they are in no need of a hypothesis that has God as creator but we know from Romans 1 that is just foolishness. However, though you may disagree with them, they are not the enemy; for we do not struggle against flesh and blood. We were not asked to compete for souls using man’s wisdom and tools to win the battle but by being true to The Word, by the power of the Holy Spirit God has put within us. That is so freeing as well because that means it does not depend on me. It all rests in the power of God. We just keep trusting, obeying and it is always interesting to see how God pulls it off. Usually, even though I believe and expect, He does that in ways that contain great surprise. I believe the movement of God's Spirit through His people will convict the world of sin and the coming judgment, and of the righteousness of Christ alone - which He induced in us who by faith believe. Jesus told us that as recorded by the Apostle John

 

Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

So yes, if I was to put a pareto list together then some of the major divisions I'd have, among those whom we reason with might be:

1. The entrenched

a. Sincere enemies of the cross and all it stands for. Haters of God with an agenda that seeks to have sin and the pleasures of this world overtake the Gospel of Grace and promise of the world to come through Christ our Lord. They want sin to continue its deadly mortal reign. These practice a sort of natural selection by intellectual pride and I usually find them to be self-deceived in their struggle, hoping somehow that their half-truths and obfuscated smoke and mirrors will win the day over “the Truth”. We both know that is not going to happen, since the gates of hell will not prevail over those who trust in the Way, the Truth and the Life. We can rest in that, being assured of the outcome.

b. There is another form of the “entrenched” however that won’t listen to any semblance of truth that comes from the other camp, and that unfortunately that is a grave mistake. Quite frankly that type of entrenchment is counterproductive in our warfare for truth because truth and reason are not being weighed in the balance with a true search for truth as its arbiter. There is no doubt physical investigations are secondary knowledge as compared to what the Holy Spirit has to say but as Romans 1 states the world manifest its witness of God to us. But if we were to interrogate ant witness we need to follow ground rules for getting to the truth. I think Bacon had the correct genesis for the scientific method and I think Christians and non Christians can agree it has served us petty well. Since our faith is a reasonable faith, than reason we must when the state of some theories is in flux. with regard to redemption the Lord, Himself, calls us to reason together with Him and I know He does that quite patiently since He is still working on me after all these years. Not every argument that come from the naturalistic camp is a bold faced lie. I think we just have to be patient enough to sift through it and be confident the truth will eventually come out, if we persist. While I believe it true that we can unlock a lot of mysteries with weapons of truth I don’t expect we’ll be able to unravel and prove out all mysteries, whether Biblical or physical. The battle for the pearls of the universes physical witness is a rather time consuming venture, especially when we have a dying world where we want to bring as many to Christ as we can. Still it does hold a witness to God's glory that I believe we can translate for the good of all. So we can both battle for the truth of God and His Holy Word and we can debate with secularists all we want for the truths that God's created universe speaks to us. God has a ready supply of truths we can plumb in order to do so but we can’t lose sight of the goal either and I know I myself caught up in it. Sometime I think I can be sleeping like the apostles did the night Jesus was betrayed - unaware of the bigger event, my mind caught up in other details. I always need to remind myself of the prioities.

2. There are also a great many who are seeking the truth, as we once did. They are most likely looking in all the wrong places. This then is a great opportunity. I believe we need to be open to the physical truths God has placed in the universe that are apparent too along with exegeting Scripture more carefully; else we risk the pitfall of taking our own interpretation of Scripture as God’s truth when He might be saying something entirely different. We know some pretty good exegetes have gotten that wrong in the past (e.g as in the case of both the Catholic and Protestant church with Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) God’s Word is pretty deep; I tend to think much deeper than the universal mysteries we still haven’t been able to fathom yet. But it is exhilarating to be discovering both the great pearls of wisdom the Bible has to offer us, as well as what the universe itself is witnessing in shouts and whispers to us every day.

3. There are still yet others who are deceived by the vast amount of intellectual and imaginations concocted in this never ending cycle of explaining away difficult concepts. Many out there are caught up in half-truths. They perceive the man instead of the argument on the table. They gravitate towards renown and popularity rather than good old fashioned truth; hence, failing to check their own logic that God has endowed them to reason with in the first place, they draw incorrect conclusions. There may not even be a conclusion yet but they jump to it quickly.

 

Those early proponents of the naturalistic paradigm (such as Hutton & Lyell) were not shy about revealing their anti-theistic motives. Many modern scientists (including Dawkins) are also open about their anti-theistic motives. Scientific journal editors are also happy to extol their anti-creationist bias. Many scientists have lost careers subsequent to their creationist beliefs being exposed; there's even one instance of an evolutionist losing his career after suggesting that creationists should be engaged in discussion. Consider my discussion with Bonky – the secular/atheist motivation is not about considering the logical merit of each argument, but devoted to formulating a story that accounts for the evidence without God – then simply assuming that story to be automatically superior to all other explanations. It’s a matter of; ‘since I already have an explanation that is consistent with my faith (i.e. explains the facts without God), why should I even bother with giving fair consideration to an alternative perspective? “I have no need”.’

Yep, pareto camp #1 - I've read some.

No doubt we are locked in a spiritual struggle. I’ve read of some of the accounts, seen "Expelled" and know this is the case. But this didn’t happen overnight; that #1 campers took over Christian institutions of higher learning like Harvard and Yale. It happened because we stopped having the discussion and made the public perception that there was a war between real science and Christianity. We as Christians must burden some of the blame for a lack of good apologetics and deeper love of the truth that inspired the Christians who pioneered the science of today. Our divorce from the scientific community is appalling. There is no war between physical truths and Spiritual truths, as I said before all truth belongs to God - we simply just haven't discovered them all yet.

At least we do know all the truths we need to do battle and obey Christ's lead in preaching the Gospel. That distance between the heart and mind seems to loom pretty large at times but the Bible say we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16)so I choose to believe it and pray God will point me in the pursuit of His objectives and not mine. I take comfort with all His wisdom some of the Pharisees were never going to believe Jesus, sand even though He knew that He still never gave up on them. God gives us time to work with and that includes time to repent.

But with regard to our present conditions in the search for the truths the universe itself is speaking; I know the seeds of an anti Christian worldview were planted long ago in academia but don’t forget the ratio of scientists who were also Christian was much higher years ago. That long line of Christians who sought after truth in the temporal world, as well as in the eternal truths of God and Christ included a great many and the science we know today is still shaped by a great many of these. That truth has always been there I think we just stopped talking about it and divorced ourselves from mainstream science and therefore the debate.

1. Newton,

2. Bacon,

3. Occam,

4. Vesalius,

5. Da Vinci,

6. Mendel,

7. Copernicus,

8. Brahe,

9. Kepler,

10. Leibniz,

11. Pascal,

12. Ohm,

13. Ampere,

14. Faraday,

15. Kelvin,

16. Lavoisier,

17. Dalton,

18. Priestly,

19. Carver,

20. Galileo,

21. Harvey,

22. Boyle,

23. Pasteur,

24. Lister,

25. just to mention just a few who were committed Christians as well as committed scientists.

I’m afraid that’s all I have time for tonight.

May the Lord Bless you and your family and may you rest well and sleep well in the knowledge of Your Savior,

In Christ, Pat

Edited July 11, 2014 by Macs Son

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

 

The naturalistic faith premise can be traced through history. I agree that the foundations of modern science were accomplished within the theistic paradigm. The naturalistic concept of explaining reality without God appeared around the late 1700s. It was essentially ubiquitous in the scientific community by the early 1900s – such that most people today have only ever been exposed to science interpreted to conform to the naturalistic faith premise (in schools, university, scientific documentaries, science text books etc.). This exclusive exposure to naturalistic explanations has biased much of society to falsely (though sincerely) think that this is the only valid way to look at the evidence. I myself was unaware that there was any such thing as a creationist until I converted to Christianity as a young adult.

Hi Tristen,

Thanks for your response. I agree that there is a large segment of scientists that, for whatever motivation, attempt to explain the physical world with both cause and effect, strictly within the confines of the physical world itself. But that should not surprise us. Physical experimentation and proof are all they have to work with. Admittedly we can never truly get to the beginning via any form of science. The best we can do is unravel some of the Glory that God put into creation an I believe scientists down through the ages have done that in part for us. Yes, there are some who said they are in no need of a hypothesis that has God as creator but we know from Romans 1 that is just foolishness. However, though you may disagree with them, they are not the enemy; for we do not struggle against flesh and blood. We were not asked to compete for souls using man’s wisdom and tools to win the battle but by being true to The Word, by the power of the Holy Spirit God has put within us. That is so freeing as well because that means it does not depend on me. It all rests in the power of God. We just keep trusting, obeying and it is always interesting to see how God pulls it off. Usually, even though I believe and expect, He does that in ways that contain great surprise. I believe the movement of God's Spirit through His people will convict the world of sin and the coming judgment, and of the righteousness of Christ alone - which He induced in us who by faith believe. Jesus told us that as recorded by the Apostle John

 

Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

So yes, if I was to put a pareto list together then some of the major divisions I'd have, among those whom we reason with might be:

1. The entrenched

a. Sincere enemies of the cross and all it stands for. Haters of God with an agenda that seeks to have sin and the pleasures of this world overtake the Gospel of Grace and promise of the world to come through Christ our Lord. They want sin to continue its deadly mortal reign. These practice a sort of natural selection by intellectual pride and I usually find them to be self-deceived in their struggle, hoping somehow that their half-truths and obfuscated smoke and mirrors will win the day over “the Truth”. We both know that is not going to happen, since the gates of hell will not prevail over those who trust in the Way, the Truth and the Life. We can rest in that, being assured of the outcome.

b. There is another form of the “entrenched” however that won’t listen to any semblance of truth that comes from the other camp, and that unfortunately that is a grave mistake. Quite frankly that type of entrenchment is counterproductive in our warfare for truth because truth and reason are not being weighed in the balance with a true search for truth as its arbiter. There is no doubt physical investigations are secondary knowledge as compared to what the Holy Spirit has to say but as Romans 1 states the world manifest its witness of God to us. But if we were to interrogate ant witness we need to follow ground rules for getting to the truth. I think Bacon had the correct genesis for the scientific method and I think Christians and non Christians can agree it has served us petty well. Since our faith is a reasonable faith, than reason we must when the state of some theories is in flux. with regard to redemption the Lord, Himself, calls us to reason together with Him and I know He does that quite patiently since He is still working on me after all these years. Not every argument that come from the naturalistic camp is a bold faced lie. I think we just have to be patient enough to sift through it and be confident the truth will eventually come out, if we persist. While I believe it true that we can unlock a lot of mysteries with weapons of truth I don’t expect we’ll be able to unravel and prove out all mysteries, whether Biblical or physical. The battle for the pearls of the universes physical witness is a rather time consuming venture, especially when we have a dying world where we want to bring as many to Christ as we can. Still it does hold a witness to God's glory that I believe we can translate for the good of all. So we can both battle for the truth of God and His Holy Word and we can debate with secularists all we want for the truths that God's created universe speaks to us. God has a ready supply of truths we can plumb in order to do so but we can’t lose sight of the goal either and I know I myself caught up in it. Sometime I think I can be sleeping like the apostles did the night Jesus was betrayed - unaware of the bigger event, my mind caught up in other details. I always need to remind myself of the prioities.

2. There are also a great many who are seeking the truth, as we once did. They are most likely looking in all the wrong places. This then is a great opportunity. I believe we need to be open to the physical truths God has placed in the universe that are apparent too along with exegeting Scripture more carefully; else we risk the pitfall of taking our own interpretation of Scripture as God’s truth when He might be saying something entirely different. We know some pretty good exegetes have gotten that wrong in the past (e.g as in the case of both the Catholic and Protestant church with Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) God’s Word is pretty deep; I tend to think much deeper than the universal mysteries we still haven’t been able to fathom yet. But it is exhilarating to be discovering both the great pearls of wisdom the Bible has to offer us, as well as what the universe itself is witnessing in shouts and whispers to us every day.

3. There are still yet others who are deceived by the vast amount of intellectual and imaginations concocted in this never ending cycle of explaining away difficult concepts. Many out there are caught up in half-truths. They perceive the man instead of the argument on the table. They gravitate towards renown and popularity rather than good old fashioned truth; hence, failing to check their own logic that God has endowed them to reason with in the first place, they draw incorrect conclusions. There may not even be a conclusion yet but they jump to it quickly.

 

Those early proponents of the naturalistic paradigm (such as Hutton & Lyell) were not shy about revealing their anti-theistic motives. Many modern scientists (including Dawkins) are also open about their anti-theistic motives. Scientific journal editors are also happy to extol their anti-creationist bias. Many scientists have lost careers subsequent to their creationist beliefs being exposed; there's even one instance of an evolutionist losing his career after suggesting that creationists should be engaged in discussion. Consider my discussion with Bonky – the secular/atheist motivation is not about considering the logical merit of each argument, but devoted to formulating a story that accounts for the evidence without God – then simply assuming that story to be automatically superior to all other explanations. It’s a matter of; ‘since I already have an explanation that is consistent with my faith (i.e. explains the facts without God), why should I even bother with giving fair consideration to an alternative perspective? “I have no need”.’

Yep, pareto camp #1 - I've read some.

No doubt we are locked in a spiritual struggle. I’ve read of some of the accounts, seen "Expelled" and know this is the case. But this didn’t happen overnight; that #1 campers took over Christian institutions of higher learning like Harvard and Yale. It happened because we stopped having the discussion and made the public perception that there was a war between real science and Christianity. We as Christians must burden some of the blame for a lack of good apologetics and deeper love of the truth that inspired the Christians who pioneered the science of today. Our divorce from the scientific community is appalling. There is no war between physical truths and Spiritual truths, as I said before all truth belongs to God - we simply just haven't discovered them all yet.

At least we do know all the truths we need to do battle and obey Christ's lead in preaching the Gospel. That distance between the heart and mind seems to loom pretty large at times but the Bible say we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16)so I choose to believe it and pray God will point me in the pursuit of His objectives and not mine. I take comfort with all His wisdom some of the Pharisees were never going to believe Jesus, sand even though He knew that He still never gave up on them. God gives us time to work with and that includes time to repent.

But with regard to our present conditions in the search for the truths the universe itself is speaking; I know the seeds of an anti Christian worldview were planted long ago in academia but don’t forget the ratio of scientists who were also Christian was much higher years ago. That long line of Christians who sought after truth in the temporal world, as well as in the eternal truths of God and Christ included a great many and the science we know today is still shaped by a great many of these. That truth has always been there I think we just stopped talking about it and divorced ourselves from mainstream science and therefore the debate.

1. Newton,

2. Bacon,

3. Occam,

4. Vesalius,

5. Da Vinci,

6. Mendel,

7. Copernicus,

8. Brahe,

9. Kepler,

10. Leibniz,

11. Pascal,

12. Ohm,

13. Ampere,

14. Faraday,

15. Kelvin,

16. Lavoisier,

17. Dalton,

18. Priestly,

19. Carver,

20. Galileo,

21. Harvey,

22. Boyle,

23. Pasteur,

24. Lister,

25. just to mention just a few who were committed Christians as well as committed scientists.

I’m afraid that’s all I have time for tonight.

May the Lord Bless you and your family and may you rest well and sleep well in the knowledge of Your Savior,

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

Hey Pat - I enjoyed reading this.

 

I don’t actually consider any person to be my enemy. I consider my role to be in line with 1 Peter 3:15 “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” and 2 Corinthians 10:5 “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test all things; hold fast what is good”.

 

My strategy sometimes appears confrontational because I hold the opposing position to account for their arguments. Sometimes Christians adopt a defensive posture and allow the opposing position to dictate the terms of the discussion. I have found this strategy to be time consuming and ineffective. It’s important that the opposing position be responsible for their arguments – and not just sit back, taking pot-shots at our position; without any accountability.

[Tristen]

 

If that’s your impression, you missed most of my argument. Maybe I didn’t explain it very well.

 

The first logical concept when considering ice cores is that - we cannot observe years or “ages” in ice cores. All we can observe are those things which we have selected as markers (e.g. depth hoar is a common marker).

 

 

The second major theoretical concept is that - what we assume about the history of the ice deposition before we examine the facts will determine how we interpret the observations;

 

- If we assume that the ice core represents millions of years of standard annual deposition, then all those years of deposition would compress the deeper layers to millimetres thick. Therefore, any markers at that small scale will be assumed to represent an annual layer (and we are happy to acknowledge the possibility of some minute error).

 

- However, if we assume that the ice core represents ~4000 years of deposition and compression; including a ~700 year period of rapid, volatile deposition following the global flood - then the deeper annual layers would have undergone less compression (than the millions of years model), and therefore remain meters thick – containing thousands of markers deposited every year; generally several times per day over the ~700 year period. Apart from assumption, there is no actual way to differentiate any single year from a sub-annual marker.

 

Now depth hoar formation, one of the common ice core markers, has been observed to occur multiple times per year; generally associated with individual storm events. Now;

 

- if we assume the layers are millimetres thick due to millions of years of deposition and compression, then you must, by necessity, assume that any discovery of a depth hoar layer represents a year of deposition.

 

However;

 

- if we assume the layers are metres thick due to only thousands of years of deposition and compression, including an initial volatile period of rapid deposition, then each depth hoar layer could simply represent a sub-daily change in weather conditions.

 

So how the observations are interpreted is entirely dependent upon the starting assumptions of the interpreter.

Well for starters I don't know why anyone would assume anything about the ages ahead of time. If you assume the layers are young, can you account for the variations in seasonal dust storms and volcanic eruptions such as the 1815 Tambora Eruption?

So I'm not so sure it's just a matter of "we just start from different assumptions". I'd need to see a detailed analysis done that makes sense of all these different markers and do so within a few thousand years time. Is there a study that I can read that handles this task?

 

 

“So I don't see creationism really truly accounting for anything, I just see it offering at times borderline comical alternatives”

 

Innuendo and Appeal to Ridicule – more meaningless logical fallacy.

We're not in a formal debate Tristen. I would think you would want to be addressing a secular scientist if you thought you were. There are times when I'm merely giving commentary.

 

 

 

“The verneshot example for instance, I had to look it up as I hadn't heard about it before. Here it turns out to be a hypothetical scenario by a guy referred to as "the father of science fiction"”

 

You have misunderstood what you have read (or the writers didn't understand what they were talking about). Verneshots are named after “the father of science fiction”, Jules Verne, because the proposed mechanism is similar to a moongun in one of his novels. The scientists who proposed verneshots are from Geomar (Kiel University in Germany) - Jason Phipps Morgan, Tim Reston and Cesar Ranero.

 

But you are correct that they are hypothetical. Hypothetical logic forms the basis of all hypotheses (along with the initial observations). Verneshots not only account for the currently observed evidence, they also solve the problem of the highly unlikely coincidental profile of continental basalt floods associated with impact craters – i.e. they render the meteorite explanation of these craters to be unnecessary.

 

You were offering a very elaborate scenario based on an unobserved assumption about the origin of a crater – as though there could be no question about the context of crater formation. I demonstrated that there is more than one way to interpret this fact (the crater). [which is one of the main points of our discussion]

And does this Verneshot scenario account for the high concentration of iridium and presence of tektite?

 

 

“So in the end, yes, I happily admit I have "faith" in the mainstream scientific community. I trust that they're on the right track, but ultimately if they're not, then I expect that we'll find that out eventually. On the other hand, I don't see creationists offering something better [explanation] in it's place”

 

In the absence of supporting argument, none of this means anything beyond an unsupported expression of your opinion.

Sometimes that's exactly what I'm offering Tristen.

 

 

 

“I know you expressed frustration in that creationists aren't usually taken seriously or spoken of in a good light. You have to remember the "face" of creationism over the past couple decades has been the likes of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort [the banana guy]”

 

So? …You're discussion is with me. Refusing to consider arguments based on personality associations is specious. It’s just another example of Innuendo fallacy.

Never did I say the reason I reject creationism is because of Ken Ham or the like. I'm offering the reason WHY many people might not take it very seriously. Once again, you're registering a 9 on the tension scale. It's honestly not necessary Tristen.

In reality, the primary creationist organisation is CMI – an organisation run primarily by highly credentialed scientists. None of the abovementioned people are directly associated with CMI. Since at least 2002, CMI has been at odds with many of the teachings of Kent Hovind. There was a previous affiliation with Ken Ham, but they parted ways in 2005. Ray Comfort is an evangelist who advocates Biblical creationism, not a scientists – his expertise is theological/philosphical. I think we established in an earlier post that you were unfamiliar with the informed creationist position. Your impression that these personalities are representative of creationism confirms this.

Or it confirms that there are variations within the creationist camp and some are more effective at marketing their view than others. Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are very active in the public eye, I don't know if this is also true of anyone at CMI.

 

I am unfamiliar with the teachings of any of these people. I had some exposure to Ken Ham maybe 15 years ago – I don’t remember having any issue with him, but if you find something he says questionable, I am happy to give my take on his arguments (independent of any vague innuendo about his person).

Did you see his debate with Bill Nye?

 

 

 

“A while back I realized that there was a Christian apologist who I really thought had it together, William Lane Craig. It dawned on me that I never really heard him address evolution and deep time etc., so I decided to investigate this. It turns out that Craig is highly critical of the young earth movement, enough to refer to it as "embarrassing"”

 

Which, in the absence of any supporting argument, is merely an Appeal to Ridicule.

It's his opinion I guess.

 

 

 

 

“So if one wants, they can embrace this world view anyway and try to make it sound like it's based in science...I'm just not seeing it”

 

It would be nice if you could justify this innuendo with a supporting argument – so I actually have something to respond to. You have provided me nothing whatsoever to justify my questioning any claim I have made. And when I provide a rational answer, you default to innuendo and other logical fallacies – then you ironically insinuate that I, as a creationist, am the one who has departed from critical reason.

 

Ultimately, we are dealing with issues of faith – so you have nothing to lose by objectively considering the possibility of an alternative position. You can never be obligated to agree with any unverifiable assumption.

I'm not seeing creationism replace the current accepted theories or hypothesis with something that explains the data better. Evidently I'm not the only one that feels this way.

 

 

 

“I'm just seeing the rejection of uniformitarianism but no basis for it”

 

Well – for starters, all conclusions derived from uniformitarianism are utterly reliant on extrapolations of ridiculous magnitudes based on unobserved, unverifiable assumptions (so a logical basis for rejection). For finishers, it is inconsistent with observations of a world being currently remoulded rapidly through catastrophe – volcanism, flooding, erosion etc. - (e.g. the island of Surtsey) – as well as increasing recognition of past catastrophic moulding  (e.g. the Spokane Flood) - (so an evidential basis for rejection).

So what is CMI doing to show that they have a better model to explain the data?

 

 

 

Hey again Bonky.

 

Concerning the ice cores you said “Well for starters I don't know why anyone would assume anything about the ages ahead of time”

 

You have to make assumptions about the history of the ice sheets in order for the analysis to make any sense. If you don’t assume that the deeper layers have been subjected to hundreds of thousands to millions of years of compression, then you have no reason to assume that the markers found at that scale must be annual layers. These assumptions form the logical foundation of this entire line of evidence; without which, there could be no “age” inferences.

 

 

 

“If you assume the layers are young, can you account for the variations in seasonal dust storms and volcanic eruptions such as the 1815 Tambora Eruption?”

 

I can account for the markers. Regarding the dust storms, a rapid, volatile deposition model has no problem with sub-annual dust layer oscillations. It’s only if you assume the uniformitarian, standard deposition model, that these oscillations can be considered to be generally annual.

 

I have no problem with volcanic markers. However, their usefulness is determined by the accuracy of external data, and with a few exceptions, we only have accurate external data for the past 200-or-so years; and even then, only really for the northern hemisphere. So this data cannot be used to account for any time before accurate records of volcanic activity.

 

 

 

“So I'm not so sure it's just a matter of "we just start from different assumptions"”

 

Without those assumptions, the conclusions cannot be justified. Facts are never interpreted in a vacuum.

 

 

 

“I'd need to see a detailed analysis done that makes sense of all these different markers and do so within a few thousand years time”

 

Why? The logic is simple. Dust markers represent dust deposition, depth hoar represents certain types of low temp storms, volcanic markers represent volcanic activity etc. There is no reason beyond assumption to conclude that these represent anything beyond what they actually represent; no reason to assume that they are annual markers unless your model requires it.

 

 

 

“Is there a study that I can read that handles this task?”

 

You could try the following;

 

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_3/j15_3_39-42.pdf

 

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_1/j16_1_45-47.pdf

 

 

There’s a book on the subject which can be purchased here;

 

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/cores-earth-p-226.html?osCsid=5m0hpl7hh1p88adcrfcbp5j5j1

 

 

I don’t think you need these resources – just think for yourself. Separate the assumptions from the facts and interpretations and you’ll have the big picture. You don’t have to surrender your preference for the secular interpretation, just recognise that it employs unverified presupposition that warrants a more measured amount of confidence than you have supposed.

 

 

 

“We're not in a formal debate Tristen. I would think you would want to be addressing a secular scientist if you thought you were. There are times when I'm merely giving commentary”

 

And I am merely pointing out the lack of rational justification for your “commentary”.

 

 

 

“And does this Verneshot scenario account for the high concentration of iridium and presence of tektite?”

 

Yes – one of the original papers can be found here;

 

http://physastro-msci.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/VerneshotEPSL2004.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,786

 

It’s also worth re-noting that, according to the latest secular story, the Chicxulub crater predates the famed K-T layer by 300,000 years (Keller et al. (2004). “Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction”, PNAS, Vol. 101). So the story you are attributing to Chicxulub is out-of-date. It’s also worth noting that both iridium and osmium are found in terrestrial volcanic emissions (not just meteors).

 

 

 

    “So in the end, yes, I happily admit I have "faith" in the mainstream scientific community. I trust that they're on the right track, but ultimately if they're not, then I expect that we'll find that out eventually. On the other hand, I don't see creationists offering something better [explanation] in it's place”

     In the absence of supporting argument, none of this means anything beyond an unsupported expression of your opinion.

“Sometimes that's exactly what I'm offering Tristen”

 

But I already know your opinion. I know that you prefer the secular explanations. I know that you believe alternate explanations to be barely worth consideration. What I am curious to find out is if you can provide any rational justification for this exclusive confidence.

 

Given the popular propaganda, I, as the creationist, am the one who is supposed to be avoiding the science, not you. It must sooner or later strike an ironic nerve in you that in our discussion, I am the one who is eager to discuss any facts you care to provide, and to confine the discussion to evidence and argument, whilst you are content to rest your position on unsupported fallacy and subjective opinion.

 

 

 

“Once again, you're registering a 9 on the tension scale. It's honestly not necessary Tristen.”

 

The tension is all in your head (or maybe this is a continuance of an earlier strategy to paint me as precious). I am simply responding to the points you raise.

 

 

 

“Did you see his debate with Bill Nye”

 

No – In the past I have found that such debates tend to hinge on rhetorical point scoring. They rarely provide an opportunity to examine the evidence and argument in appropriate depth. It’s usually a matter of the creationists think the creationist won and the secularists think the other guy won. Confirmation bias is a strong force.

 

 

 

    “A while back I realized that there was a Christian apologist who I really thought had it together, William Lane Craig. It dawned on me that I never really heard him address evolution and deep time etc., so I decided to investigate this. It turns out that Craig is highly critical of the young earth movement, enough to refer to it as "embarrassing"”

    Which, in the absence of any supporting argument, is merely an Appeal to Ridicule.

“It's his opinion I guess”

 

No doubt – but it’s utterly meaningless in the absence of a supporting argument.

 

 

 

“I'm not seeing creationism replace the current accepted theories or hypothesis with something that explains the data better”

 

What do you mean by “better”? Humans are too prone to bias to make this standard useable; i.e. it’s entirely subjective. The goal of an argument is to be rational.

 

 

 

“Evidently I'm not the only one that feels this way”

 

A statement which, in the absence of supporting argument, is utterly irrelevant. Democratic consensus has never been a legitimate source of scientific confidence.

 

 

 

“So what is CMI doing to show that they have a better model to explain the data?”

 

In what sense? They do a lot of things. A subjectively “better” model is not the goal – just a rational model that fits the facts.

[Paradox]

I was hoping that someone would allow Alpha particle to discuss the different aspects of the BBT, to be engaging and intelligent about it.

 

Instead the topic is drowned in philosophical arguments. 

 

If one's views are strong in creation, why would anything said be a threat to one's belief?

 

If Christians were genuine they would be able to explain the observations that science makes without accepting their take on it, but it seems that Christians are not even prepared to see what is being presented.

 

Unless this whole forum is a stunt to create divisions and animosity, to the point that people will get sick of it, and finally unite on a new type of scientific religion in the near future. 

[Enoch2021]

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

 

 

=======================================================================================================================

 

Hey Alpha,

 

Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium)

 

The Big Bang was postulated in 1931.  Can you please post the "Pre"-diction prior to, so as to rule out "Post"-diction or "ad hoc Hypothesis.

 

I thought 95% of the mass of the Universe was "missing"?

 

 

the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

I devoted a Topic to this some time ago. 

Red Shift (Hubble's Law) is Invalidated.  See Discussion Here:

 

there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP

 

Yes, I read that also and was laughing hysterically.  Searching for "Gravity Waves" from Einstein's Field Equations is Tantamount to chasing down the Seven Dwarfs to prove Alice in Wonderland.

 

Gravity Waves are MATHemagical.  They are "conjured" from Einstein's pseudo-tensor ( t^u_v) .  The problem... when contracting the pseudo-tensor one obtains a first-order intrinsic differential invariant.  However, In 1900 the Inventors of tensor calculus G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved that such invariants.....Do NOT exist!

 

Translation: It's a Fairytale.

 

Can you also provide ONE solution to any of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more masses?  I'll save you some time.....it does NOT exist!

 

cosmic background radiation

 

Blackbody Radiation: and the foundations of QM (See Planck's Law of Thermal Emission and Boltzman's Constant) is based on....

 

Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission in 1860....which has been falsified by Professor Pierre Robitaille Professor OHU (the Worlds foremost expert in Imaging and Signal Acquisition and Inventor of the 8 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Scanner).  It is not universal and is unequivocally dependent upon each specific material; Equipartition of Energy is FALSE.  By the way, this sends Astrophysics back to the days of Aesculapius!  Case in point...

 

CMB from (COBE-FIRAS and DMR) along with Penzias/Wilson discoveries is the 'Cosmic Microwave Background' ....of the immediate background!:  THE OCEANS and Water in the Atmosphere! Lets see, put a cup of water in a Microwave, What Happens?  Is it an Absorber...does the water get hot?  If it does, then by definition..... it's a powerful EMITTER! COBE @ 900km above the Earth had a Shield protecting the Horn....RF and Thermal, not microwave naturally.  Define "Diffraction"?

Special Note: the COBE-FIRAS Horn was designed to operate from 30 - 3,000 GHz.  There is no other horn in the History of Man, including now 25 Years later, that can match this fairytale.  It is an Engineering Impossibility!

 

More on COBE in a moment. (See: The Ringer below)

 

WMAP: My Goodness.  Look @ the Maps in the Research Papers! Gives a whole new meaning to Photoshop and Scissors. There are so many holes in this it's like a dart board.  Let's take one and annihilate it: The units of measure for the anisotropies are in "u" (micro-Kelvin) and the measure for the Galactic Foreground is in milli-Kelvin; that is to say, that the NOISE is (1,000 times Stronger!) than the "alleged" signal.

 

By Experiment it is well known that if you have a signal that is 1,000 times weaker than the "Noise" you cannot remove the noise to extract the Signal.......Unless:

1. You have "a priori" knowledge of the Nature of the Source....and:

2. You can physically manipulate the Source

End of WMAP Story.

 

Now for the Ringer!...

Planck Satellite (@ L2---1.5 million Km from Earth):  (This is absolutely hilarious.....wait for it):  Carried Two 4 K Reference Blackbodies (High and Low Frequency) both in-cased in Aluminum.  But they ran into a problem.  They couldn't keep the Low Frequency Blackbody (BB) @ 4K; they noted that the High Frequency BB was good to go and was attached to a shield.  So, to keep the low frequency BB @ thermal equilibrium they decided to "bolt it" also to the High Frequency Shield.  Sounds Good, what's the problem?  Well, they used metal washers and screws...that creates a "CONDUCTION PATH"; Hithertofore, renders the Blackbody no longer a Blackbody.  So then they compared the Low Frequency Blackbody Reference Horn to the Sky Horn and got "Great Results!!" a match lol.  Because they're getting ZERO from the BB Reference Horn and a "Match" from the Sky Horn (which MUST BE @ ZERO....see "match" and "No Blackbody"); Which is Confirmed by No MONOPOLE SIGNAL @ L2 from Planck.....

The Best Part, They Unwittingly confirmed in One Fell Swoop that there is "No Cosmic Microwave Background" and .....confirms that COBE-FIRAS and COBE-DMR results were both overwhelmed by the Giant Microwave Emitter.....The OCEANS!!

Absolutely Classic! Thanks! Bye Bye (Again) Big Bang. 

 

"The microwave anisotropy maps have no physical meaning in science".

Professor Pierre Robitaille

 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0126v1.pdf

 

 

Whats left?  An Infinitely Dense Point Mass Singularity....please show  D = M/V ?   Then Invalidate 1LOT.

 

 

I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action

 

The Big Bang's Tenets are diametrically opposed to the clear teaching of the Word of GOD

 

 

scientific consensus

 

Is a Contradiction in Terms.  The Hypothesis is either supported by the evidence or Invalidated, it's not up for a vote.  Consensus doesn't =Truth

[Bonky]

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bonky

[101098]

Hi Im new to this & I havent got much time right now, but it always amazes me the way science is able to think up new models when new facts prove the old theories wrong. I dont mean that in a derogatory manner! Science works on a best fit model basis. If you look at the current standard model for physics on an universal scale at least then we have relavalistic mechanics, But before that we had newtonian mechanics. I think before that we had eucldian geometery. My point is this, as new phenomina are measured and quantified we replace the old models BUT THE NEW MODELS MUST exhibit similar behaviour to ALL the known phenomina in existance at that time. Not just the new Phenomina that caused the old model to be displaced. I'll state the obvious here because it only dawned on me a while ago so please forgive me but science does tend to use terms like "only possible explanation" but when Euclidian geometery was TopDog it clearly wasnt the only possible explanation as both newtonian and relatavistic mechanics also mimiced the behaviour of the world as the ancients understood it. Likewise when newtonian mechanics was king in victorian times relatavistic mechanics also mimiced the universe as the victorians understood it. So if you go back to the ancient greeks a second. There were at least 3 models mimiced the set of behaviours known to the ancient world. So it seems unclear how you can prove youve got the "only possible explanation" which I read about so often. It seems undeniable that the number of given models that will correctly mimic any set of phenomina is unknown. So when you read any article which claims this is the only explanation be wary , I dont think we have a way of calculating how many other possibilities there are so thats effectively a lie or a badge of incompetence. Of course you can setup ridiculously simple examples which may well only have 1 solution, but the universe is a wonderous and varied place so please no artificially simple scenarios. Occam's razor is a statement of faith not a law of physics and even it doesnt say the solution is simple. Just to pick the simplest of the candidates

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=================================================================================================

 

 

Surely they figured the ice has been around a while. What I mean is, I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis.

 

 

Pages and Pages of back and forth.....extrapolations from assumptions is all that it is.

 

It's certainly not "Science".  Science is bound to It's Method...."The Scientific Method":

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

If you can't put it in here....call it what you want, but it's not Science....Plain and Simple.  You can't get to Step 1 with any of this "Age" of the Universe/Earth.  In fact, it's one Monstrous Begging The Question (Fallacy).

[Bonky]

Pages and Pages of back and forth.....extrapolations from assumptions is all that it is.

 

It's certainly not "Science".  Science is bound to It's Method...."The Scientific Method":

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

If you can't put it in here....call it what you want, but it's not Science....Plain and Simple.  You can't get to Step 1 with any of this "Age" of the Universe/Earth.  In fact, it's one Monstrous Begging The Question (Fallacy).

So another words, "If you weren't there [at the beginning] you can't be confident how old something is"?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Bonky