"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

That is interesting. You use a different idea of "experimental data" when talking about the Big Bang than when talking about evolution. Can you explain why ?Abiogenesis is not evolution so I don't know why you dragged it up (although there is certainly relevant experimental data even there - more so than for the Big Bang which is based on observation and theory rather than laboratory experiment). And there is more than just the formation of amino acids (How about the work of Sidney Fox to name just one example ?)And there is plenty of observational data supporting what you call "macrospecies evolution". Just like the Big Bang we have observation and extrapolation - why is that "experimental data" when applied to the Big Bang but not for "macrospecies evolution" ?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to use two words, experimental and observational. I meant observational data regarding the Big Bang, macrospecies evolution, and abiogenesis. I used the words as synonyms.I am unaware of any observational data for macrospecies evolution or abiogenesis. If you can enlighten me, I would be grateful.EvanP.S. I am not aware of any scientist who claims to have formed life through random chemical interactions. Chemical compounds are not life anymore than rocks are.P.S.S. On the same note, I know of no macrospecies evolution that has been done in an experiment. Interspecies yes, sometimes even dividing one species into two separate species, but no macrospecies evolution.

Your point is pretty clear, but you probably should define what you mean by macrospecies evolution. The term we usually see is macroevolution, used to refer to evolution of new species as opposed to creation of variation within species, but you've specifically excluded that possibility from your definition of macrospecies evolution, so that could leave people uncertain of your meaning.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

And how many studies are you aware of in which galaxies have been prepared in the lab? Asteroids, even? Why two utterly separate standards of evidence for astronomy vs biology, other than you "don't like" the conclusions of biology?

Well at this point the best thing to do is to point you at the talk.origins "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" FAQ29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIf you expect to see anything more than speciation in a laboratory experiment I would appreciate some reasoning as to why.Life does consist of chemical compounds even if we haven't worked out the chemical reactions required to bridge the gap between life and non-life (whatever that is - there is no clear dividing line). But as I say there is far more to it than simply producing amino acids. Research didn't stop back in the '50s.

Thank you Admin,
What I'm trying to say is that a fruitfly species that evolves from another fruitfly species is not what many evolutionists are supporting. They're supporting an evolution from one-celled creatures to multi-celled creatures and beyond. Macrospecies evolution is probably not the right word for this. I can see how it's confusing. Sorry.To clarify, by analogy, I can create two species of dogs by killing all the breeds inbetween Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But this doesn't prove that dogs can evolve into cats, or any other creature. You need to observe bacteria evolving into algae, fish evolving into amphibians, lizards evolving into birds, land mammals evolving into whales, sparrows evolving into woodpeckers, something of this magnitude. I haven't heard of anybody doing this yet. Maybe I'm wrong.Evan

quote:

---

land mammals evolving into whales

---

Google up "whale" and "Thewissen" or "Gingerich" in the same search. It's been done, all right. New fossils to support that transition come out of Pakistan each year. Try "Acanthostega" for the fish to tetrapod fossils.

This is just clarification, so I'm reserving my right to moderate this thread. I think that's pretty much what they're supporting. Evolution is believed to proceed in small incremental steps, not giant leaps. The new species of fruit fly will greatly resemble the parent fruit fly species. But how much will the next new species of fruit fly that arises from the previous new species resemble the grandparent species? And after another speciation, how much will that new species resemble the great grandparent species? After a number of cycles of speciation, how much will the latest new species resemble the great great great great... grandparent species? Not much. Will it even still be a fruit fly? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends upon what the particular speciation changes were.While evolution does not posit that cats evolved into dogs or vice versa, it does believe that the accumulation of small changes eventually results in very large changes. It's like taking a long journey by walking. How much will one step change your position from your previous position? Not by much. How about another step? Still not much change. But string enough of these little steps together and you can walk from New York to San Francisco.The usual Creationist objection is that species can change only so much from the parent species, and to stick with the walking analogy, that there are oceans across which you cannot walk. I'd say this is a fair use of the analogy, but the problem for the Creationist then becomes to identify the evolutionary equivalent to the ocean of the analogy. Since no matter how much change a genome has accumulated there is nothing to prevent yet more copying errors during reproduction, no such barrier has yet been identified.--Percy

DarwinStorm asks:

---

How does a YECism try to rationally explain the observable phenomena of light from stars so far distant that it takes million or billions of years to reach earth?

---

I am surprised no-one in this thread has yet mentioned Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. This is getting a lot of support at the moment from various YEC groups (Young Earth Creationists).Basically, Humphreys accepts that the universe is billions of years old, and also believes that the Earth is very young, of the order of 6000 years. His resolution of this contradition is a new cosmological model in which the Earth is at the center of the universe and in a deep gravitational well, so that the effects of relativistic time dilation mean that 6000 years pass on Earth while billions of years pass in the rest of the universe.This model has prompted considerable controversy, especially with old earth creationists like Hugh Ross. The controversy has become quite personal, on both sides.Frankly, I have not paid it a lot of attention; the model looks too silly to be taken seriously. For one thing, all relativistic models associate time dilation with frequency shifts in light as a necessary consequence. The dilation involved here would shift star light into unbelievably hard gamma radiation, more that sufficient to sterilize the Earth completely. I think Humphreys has some response to this, and I do not know what it is. Having seen some other work of Humphreys (I've discussed Helium diffusion in another thread) I am not much concerned. But I'd be curious to see an example of how he proposes to escape the problem of enormous blueshifts in starlight.Here is a link to Answers in Genesis on the dispute:The YEC "trueorigin" archive has a page with extensive links to the correspondence between Humphreys and his critics:

​

Here is a page at Hugh Ross' old earth creationist organisation, "Reasons to Believe", which addresses Humphreys' idea.

I accept Humphreys theory seeing how it does make sense. Ross sides with the enemy and attempts to say billions of years belong in the bible, by reading those articles I see he also rejects young earth creationists and their beliefs, I've seen a video on Humphreys book and his novel where he explains his theory and backs it up with science fact and scripture. I think his theory is the answer to the cosmology questions.

quote:

---

I accept Humphreys theory seeing how it does make sense.

---

But it doesn't make sense, my friend. Even Humphries has practically abandonned it, by conceding so many points that the theory becomes unworkable. Page not found - Reasons to Believe------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi John,I don't have any comments on the scientific content of your link to the Conner/Ross article, The Unraveling of Starlight and Time, just a side comment on the strange (to me, at least) way some Christians have of always placing God on their side. For example, the Ross/Humphrey article says this: In other words, God knows that Hugh Ross is right and that Russel Humphreys is wrong, and so God made expert counsels available to Humphreys so he could correct his errors, but Humphreys chose to ignore God's counsels.Those of you who follow tennis may have heard of Michael Chang, who won the French Open in 1989 at the age of 16 and is retiring this year. I must confess I found Chang a boring, grinding, tedious player, but even worse were his acceptance speeches during award ceremonies after winning tournament finals. There was always the part where he would attribute victory to the love and guidance of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as if Jesus didn't love or guide his opponent. I never heard Chang speak of what a loss meant. Did Jesus not love or guide him as much that day?Black Muslim boxers do the same thing after a victory. "I give thanks to all powerful Allah for helping me and supporting me in this victory. All glory to Allah." As if Allah decided the defeated opponent just wasn't worthy of support that day.I find the whole idea of "God's on my side and not yours" an incredible conceit, not that Christians think of it in that way. If they gave it a bit more thought they might say something more along the lines of, "I would like to give thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in making this event so enjoyable and rewarding for everyone involved. The love of our Lord is expressed not in terms of victories or defeats, but in the great joy he provides by allowing us to compete at the highest levels."In other words, Hugh Ross might do well to consider other possibilities. Perhaps it is part of God's plan that Humphreys' theories be given wide exposure. Perhaps God is using Humphreys to test Ross's character.--Percy

You (above two replies) are focusing on the article written by Ross himself, do you expect me to actually believe that Humpreys abandoned his theory coming from a non-creationist Hugh Ross? No. I am sorry but I'm not going to believe that until I hear it from the source of Humpreys himself... It's like starting a rumor, starts with a lie and soon everyone believes it. Don't do that, look what happend with the evolution lie.------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

quote:

---

You (above two replies) are focusing on the article written by Ross himself, do you expect me to actually believe that Humpreys abandoned his theory coming from a non-creationist Hugh Ross?

---

Doesn't especially matter actually. The important parts are those parts explaining why the theory doesn't work. Did you read those parts?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Very interesting philosophical question, Percy. Might actually be worth a thread in Faith and Belief if you can get any Christians to discuss it. For my part, of course (paraphrasing), "God is on the side with the biggest battalions."