|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How do creationists explain stars? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rob writes: I was expecting a lot more from you on this whether you argued against it, or thought it intriguing... After your reply of "Technical mumbo jumbo, dumbo" in Message 201 I'm naturally more circumspect about getting technical with you.
There is a long list of scientists, who think it may be a valid precisely because science is an approximation and not absolutely true. First, it isn't a long list of scientists. The list of those who believe there is valid science behind a 6000 year old universe is extremely short, close to zero unless you count creationist scientists. Second, all scientific views compete on a level playing field. You can't abandon one scientific view in favor of another because the former view is "an approximation and not absolutely true", because the new view, if it is scientific, is also "an approximation and not absolutely true". In other words, they are precisely equivalent regarding the property of tentativity, and this principle cannot be offered as a justification for choosing one over the other. In science, the only justifications for abandoning one view in favor of another is because of better supporting evidence and/or superior explanatory power.
Makes me wonder if you even read the quotes and links I peovided at all Percy. It is not cut and dry. It is a genuine debate... You're not the first person to raise this topic here at EvC Forum, I'm well familiar with it. It probably comes up at least several times a year. One of the longer threads about it was Tired Light, give it a read.
Another article from Worldnet Daily on this creation hoax: Page not found - WND Bare links with no supporting discussion or argument are discouraged here at EvC Forum. If you'd like to enter some of the information from this article into the discussion then please go ahead. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: I consider Worldnet Daily about as reliable as Anne Coulter. This article by taking Setterfield's claims at face value without any hint of refutation just provided more evidence for this assertion. Here is what real scientists with actual integrity say: The Decay of c-decay Apparently Setterfield is not what one would refer to as completely honest concerning interpretation of data as he works his data-fitting curves are manipulated, and some data that does not fit his preconcieved notions is discarded. Also, he has the so-called continuously variable speed of light suddenly becoming constant in 1960, just in time for the instrumentation to accurately show if there is any presently measurable change. Once again, a creation scientist has intentionally misrepresented the data. There is some debate over possible significantly higher values for the speed of light during the first 10 -38 seconds of the big bang. This would in no way have a remotely measurable effect on current ages or distances in cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I notice that that article relies quite heavy on the Work of Barry Setterfield - the mainstream community thinks he is a crank. Now you might say "well of course they do! Because of their world view!" Problem is - Answers in Genesis always rejects his work. Why do you think a major creation science organization rejects his work? Paul Davies is also mentioned that and this is what AIG had to say about his work - Dr Russell Humphreys writes:Paul Davies’ Nature article itself falls far short of the hype, which is much ado about nearly nothing. General Relativity has had a variable speed of light ever since 1917. For the past six years, the physics journals have had a steady trickle of variable-c theories, including some by Davies. His latest article is only peripherally about a variable c. So why all the fuss?’ So if this is all about secular bias - why aren't christian science organizations backing it? Good points CK. It's all new to me, but is very intriguing. Even if it proves false, I still fall back on 'created with appearent', but i would love if this argument hold's out. Science is no stranger to controversy, and this would not be the first time that whole fields of work were overturned. The fact is we may not know how this plays out for decades... I think it's safe to say that the jury is still out, so I am only suggesting we all keep our minds open on this 'age of the stars' point. God and creation are not proveable [per se] with science, I think the logical conclusions of metaphysical philosophy is far more appropriate as a means of interpreting our view of the facts and deciding whether there is a Biblical God. With scientific facts, we never have a complete picture, so the answer lies in a combinational approach of different disciplines. Impericism, rationalism, and experience. The rest of this below is off topic, so you may wish to disregard, or save response for another thread:I have tried to point out that the most favorable argument for God is the moral argument, and that is the Biblical view as well. Without God, there is no morality (irrespective of what God actually is) because there is no assumed purpose for guidance. . All of this stuff is irrelevant if we are seeking a philosophy to suit us. If Christianity and creation are not true, then they are worthless for the purpose they are assumed to be true for. That purpose is to provide a way for God to reveal Himself as the prime reality that can only be found in the metaphysical Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
See message 138
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
See message 138
I also want to point out that it is highly unreasonable to say that creationist are biased. I am not denying that they are, or that they do not push with too much zeal to find evidence for their beliefs. All I am saying is that we all do that. If you know an unbiased person, let me know... One must battle his own nature to become an objective truth seeker, and that is why the moral arguments are so philosophically undeniable. It can be done, but not perfectly for anyone. So I hope when a scientist makes a mistake in a single line, that his entire worldview will be discounted. To do that, would be to prove a bias from the criticism. All of us are smarter, and more cleverly deceptive, than we pretend to be, so all I ask is that we be as honset as possible, and concede when we are wrong. I for one intend to do so, though I assure you that just because I am a Christian, it does not mean that my nature is dead, so you may well have to prod me as well, before I will submit naturally to the truth at any given time. There is nothing natural about submission. It is an altogether unworldly act! Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rob writes: I think it's safe to say that the jury is still out, so I am only suggesting we all keep our minds open on this 'age of the stars' point. Only in the sense that all theories are tentative is the jury still out. An open mind is permanently embedded in science by the principle of tentativity. The definition of an open minded person is not someone who refuses to ever draw conclusions from the data. Open minded means open not only to new information that might come in the future, but also to current information that we already have. Close minded is what you would call someone who refuses to consider the implications of current information. Saying things like "the jury is still out" in the presence of data contrary to your preferred viewpoint, preferring to wait until data more to your liking becomes available, is being close minded to the current data. Science requires considering all the data. The more information a theory addresses, the stronger that theory is. Creationism is the weakest of theories because it promotes a theory consistent with stories from Genesis instead of with real data.
With scientific facts, we never have a complete picture, so the answer lies in a combinational approach of different disciplines. Impericism, rationalism, and experience. You mean empiricism. Empericism, rationalism and experience are all necessary tools within science and cannot be considered "different disciplines." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Not to draw on a too technical point--wasn't it Descarte who developed rationalism as a philosophy? If I remember correctly, this "rationalism" holds that thinkgs are known "a priorily". Empericism relies on experience, in that knowledge in "post priori".
Now, if you are talking about being a rational being, as in one using logic, then that holds true for science. But the philosophy of rationalism is based off of "a priori", which while not entirely contrary to science, isn't how our science is based. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: There is a significant difference. If a scientist falsifies or blatantly misinterprets data their reputation is shot. No more academic appointments, no more grant money, no more publications in peer reviewed journals, no more respect. They become ostracised by the scientific community. If a YEC falsifies or blatantly misrepresents data their reputation and therefore conclusions are not to be questioned by anyone lest one be guilty of an ad hominem attack. Future appointments in various YEC organizations remain a possibility, indeed perhaps even a likelihood. Whatever publications such a YEC has made, will be cited without refutation, or indeed critical analysis, in obviously biased sources, and by other YECs, evidently for eternity. They become heroes to the YEC community. The case of Setterfield, who evidently is now making his living speaking to approving crowds of YEC enthusiasts, is another example of the above. This is despite the weak and shamefully buried criticisms of his work by both ICR and AIG, who evidently lack the intestinal fortitude to match the stringent moral code of the scientific community. This is also an example of the relative rather than absolute standards of honesty and professional integrity so often applied by the YEC community when dealing with one of their own instead of those who disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
If a scientist falsifies or blatantly misinterprets data their reputation is shot. No more academic appointments, no more grant money, no more publications in peer reviewed journals, no more respect. They become ostracised by the scientific community. Sounds to me like an atmosphere that strictly oppresses with fear! No wonder few scientists stop to seriously consider other angles on 'empericism' (thanks Percy). I mean What? Are you stupid or something? We all know that Genesis can't be true! Stephen Hawking has something to say about what we know:'Thus the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of physics, and it's present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.' The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) You boys need to stop with the absolute attitude or you'll sound like me. But the absolute can only be found in the metaphysical (thank you for that Aristotle, and for believing that light speed was infinite Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
kuresu writes: Not to draw on a too technical point--wasn't it Descarte who developed rationalism as a philosophy? If I remember correctly, this "rationalism" holds that thinkgs are known "a priorily". Empericism relies on experience, in that knowledge in "post priori". I interpreted Rob as meaning rationality. Grouping "rationalism" with empiricism and experience led me away from thinking he meant the philosophy of rationalism, though if that's what he meant it wouldn't surprise me. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: not at all, creation science is bias in the sense that starts with an answer and then tries to find the science to fit - by it's very nature it does not and will consider any evidence* that does not fit the answer they require. Most of the creation "journals" require you to agree to an statement of faith before they will even consider looking at your research!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: To be blunt in the UK at least - the evolution/creation aspect would never even occur (leaving aside many of the young researcher are christians) to someone. Creationism is a total non-starter here except with a tiny tiny minority of christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
But the philosophy of rationalism is based off of "a priori", which while not entirely contrary to science, isn't how our science is based. This what I'm driving at yes, though I am still learning much as to how to express these things. I was not famillliar with the term 'a priori' until very recently. Please be patient with my ignorance... Logic cannot get you there, but it is critical to test for coherence. There are a lot of logical things that turn out to be untrue. We need the moral voice, the conscious, to weigh in as well. That to me is the 'a priori'. In strict naturalism, this 'a priori' is nothing but bias, and I strongly disagree with that. If morality is not real and true, (and to be so, it must be a link of the metaphysical to the physical, through the conscious) then life becomes unlivable and chaos rules the day. So, at least Anarchists are consistent, other than posting rules about no guns or alchohol at their conventions. We better watch the topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Creationism is a total non-starter here except with a tiny tiny minority of christians. I completely concede that point CK... In fact, I'm glad you brought it up. I had forgotton. I was born again and did not for a couple years even question my theistic-evolutionary views. I is not a requirement for salvation, if in fact salvation is true. I believe it is and we all need it. So don't base other angles of belief in God on this one point. Very good CK, these things get lost in the translation often.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Rob writes
quote:Pardon me for nosing in, but I really have to comment. It is not an atmosphere of fear. When an real expert says something, he makes sure that he knows about it enough to stand up to scrutiny. That's the reason why experts are experts. Unlike you, Rob, who seem to think an expert is any regular Joe that has an opinion on everything. Would you trust a person after you've found out he blatently lied to you and everyone around you for one reason or other?
quote:Rob, very few scientists stop to seriously consider the stories of genesis because those stories cannot be verified without using "goddunit" to fill in the holes. For example, how the flying fuck did Noah build an boat big enough to carry 10,000,000+ pairs of animal, not to include colonial species and non-aquatic plant life? But for argument's sake, let us assume that it was possible for such a thing to happen. How come we haven't found any evidence at all that points to a world wide flood that covered the tallest of tall mountain tops? Even in this thread, you resorted using a hypothesis that light slowed down since creation even though I haven't seen a single shred of evidence put forth. That is not honest science!
quote:If light speed was infinite, how come it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the Earth, or why it takes several hours for signals from the voyager and galileo spacecrafts to reach the Earth from the outer planets? Rob, you seem to have an oversimplified view of the academic community. You seem to think that any wacko idea fabricated by hicks and hillbillies without at least a single observable data has to be considered by us. Remember, in science, observation comes first, hypothesis comes second, experiment and data come after, and finally after many repeatable expeiments and observations and possibly years of collective confirmation a theory may be put forth to attempt to explain the data. And for many scientists, work differ little with taking a shot in the dark. Conclusions come much much later, sometimes half a century after the experiment started.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024