Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 1:14 AM
23 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,153 Year: 15,189/19,786 Month: 1,912/3,058 Week: 286/404 Day: 4/96 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 137 of 297 (325714)
06-24-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Rob
06-24-2006 12:44 PM


Re: what debate?
quote:
Another article from Worldnet Daily on this creation hoax:

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:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 12:44 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 3:22 PM anglagard has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 143 of 297 (325731)
06-24-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rob
06-24-2006 3:22 PM


Re: what debate?
quote:
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 3:22 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 4:44 PM anglagard has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 154 of 297 (325748)
06-24-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Rob
06-24-2006 4:44 PM


Re: what debate?
quote:
Sounds to me like an atmosphere that strictly oppresses with fear!

If this is what you consider true about science then I guess you would also consider the judical system in the US as one that opresses with fear as well since it also has penalties for perjury and falsifing evidence.

Edited by anglagard, : Make nicer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 4:44 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:23 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 236 of 297 (329139)
07-05-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Crue Knight
07-05-2006 10:33 PM


Re: The Universe and all matter were maturely made
When God created things, he created them maturely. For ex: Adam and Eve were mature. The animals were mature.
God created the star's light all mature as well. It will be pretty wierd he would create everything maturely exept for the star's light.

The idea that the universe was created with the false appearance of age is known as Last Thursdayism. Do you have any evidence that the universe was created with the false appearance of age?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Crue Knight, posted 07-05-2006 10:33 PM Crue Knight has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Crue Knight, posted 07-11-2006 12:47 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 274 of 297 (393587)
04-05-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Reserve
04-05-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Star formation
Reserve writes:

Consider a lighting stand on a desk. 2 people come into the room and see that the ligth bulb is not on. Now the assumptions start. (A & B)

Person A, assumes the lightbulb is broken, and therefore replaces the bulb and flicks the switch, and the light bulb turns on.

Person B, assumes that from the start the switch was not turned on, he goes over and turns the switch and the light comes on.

Here it is obvious that person A started off on the wrong foot, even knowing that one has to turn on the light switch first to see if it will work. But he missed that the first time. But being a keener, he knew to flick the switch after replacing the bulb, and satisfied with the result, believes the previous light bulb was indeed broken.

Im sure you get the point.

I think this example can illustrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists.

You forgot person C.

Person C curses electricity since it was not mentioned in the Bible and therefore must be the work of the devil. Or person C denies that electricity exists for the same reason.

Person C gets mad and stalks off because he was not allowed to burn person A and B at the stake for heresy.

Person C is similar to the Young Earth Creationist (Dark Ages supporter).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 7:49 PM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019