Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
44 online now:
frako, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,509 Year: 9,257/23,288 Month: 272/1,544 Week: 547/518 Day: 43/84 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 46 of 54 (484504)
09-29-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:37 PM


Like it or Not, The Earth is Old
b0ilingfrog,

Guilty, at this point I am YEC and do stick to as literal interpretation of Genesis as I can.

In my opinion, that is a mistake. The original authors of Genesis may or may not have intended it to be taken literally. Whatever the original intent, it becomes ever clearer that Genesis is not literally true. It just contradicts observed reality on too many counts.

Wealth of evidence is still there it is how we choose to interpret the evidence.

This is a familiar creationist refrain. When challenged to provide examples of alternative interpretations though, creationists tend to provide only misinterpretations.

The evidence for an old Earth comes from many different disciplines and is based upon many different methods. They all agree on an old Earth and constant physical laws.

I admit there are lots of things I do not understand about science.

Join the club! I admit to it too. There is a lot to learn and no-one could possibly know it all. That is one of the charms of science; there is always something new to learn. It's also a good reason to listen to what those who know far more than us have to say about the age of the Earth. Experts from multiple fields are near unanimous on an old Earth, with the tiny minority of dissenters objecting on primarily religious grounds.

Anyhow, Uniformity is as yet assumed and not repeatable so it really is a matter of choice. From your perspective I make the wrong choice.

It is not a matter of choice. Perhaps it would be if the evidence was 50/50 or inconclusive, but this is not the case. Geology supports an old Earth. The various forms of radiometric dating agree on an old Earth, as do dendrochronology and ice core samples.

All the available evidence points in one direction. Choosing to take the opposing view is rather bullheaded, which explains why the only people to take this view do so out of religious dogma.

The recent research on sedimentology and stratigraphy?

What research?

On conspiracy, it is more logical to assume there is one even when there is not, than to assume there isn't one.

Are you kidding? Following that logic will lead you down all sorts of crazy paths. Does that apply to 9/11 conspiracies? The moon landing?

Evidence that conflicts with the accepted model is stamped anomalous and and ignored. We all tend to believe that such anomalies are rare.
There may not be smoke filled rooms of evol ones plotting to suppress evidence and may never have been. The funding goes to maintaining the status quo. Money is the issue everywhere.

Would you care to provide some examples of creationist research being unfairly treated?

As far as money goes, creationist organisations are not short of cash. If they are determined to get creationism taken seriously as science, let them fund some research. Perhaps they could spend a little more on science instead of use donations from the faithful to build mega-churches.

Take your pick on being taught wrong or not paying attention in class or I am lying. Like I said I never claimed I was any good at being Christian.

I do not believe you are lying. You strike me as very honest. Also, I am no expert on Christianity, but it is my understanding that you are not required to be "good at it". All you're required to do is lead a decent life.

Read what Lyell had to say about it. That is as close as I can get to proving what I and my classmates were taught.

Lyell died over a century ago. Geology has moved on quite a bit since his day. It is now known that the early Earth was very different to what we see today, although it was still governed by the same basic laws of physics. Nonetheless, Lyell never ruled out catastrophic events. His uniformitarianism was simply a belief that most of the processes that formed the Earth's geology were the same as those we see in action today. It is an idea that has been largely vindicated.

I restate that the evidence is the same I choose to question the manner in which it is interpreted. The millions of years paradigm was built on the assumption of uniformity as defined by Lyell. Even if it was correct it was not science.

Answer me this; if we are not to assume that physical processes in the past were the same as (or similar to) today, what are we to believe?

If physical processes were different, they must have differed in a specific way. In what way were they different and how would we know?

Unless we can point to specific evidence that a specific physical process differed in a specific way, why would we assume that the geology of the past was any different to today?

Feel free to take as long as you like in replying. I'm not going anywhere. Please try to put some blank lines between the paragraphs though. I think Adminnemooseus is starting to get a little vexed...

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:37 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 47 of 54 (484506)
09-29-2008 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:37 PM


Froggie, boy-o. My father spent some of his formative years in Texas, so he kept coming up with expressions from that region (much to the confusion of my son who grew up in California). A favorite was to inform us that he was about to explain to us how the cow ate the cabbage. That means that we're going to tell you exactly like it is, whether you want to hear it or not.

Your creationist sources are lying to you.

True, that specific creationist passing on to you uncritically the same old tired creationist BS that they've been dishing out for several decades (and which was soundly refuted that long ago) might not realize that they are lying. When you pass a complete and utter falsehood on to another person, the usual test of whether you are lying or not is whether you yourself know that that falsehood is indeed false. And yet the result is the same, isn't it?

You want to be a YEC? Well, that's your choice, not isn't it? You want to convince us that you're right? Well then you're going to need to provide us with some scientific evidence. None of the standard creationist BS (which we've been hearing for several decades, which didn't cut it then, and which still does not cut it now). Actual scientific evidence!

Here's a clue for you: the leading lights of "creation science" (which is actually a deliberate deception to fool the public and to circumvent the courts post-Epperson vs Arkansas (1968)) have repeatedly and consistently failed to present any such evidence for all the time (since circa 1970) that they have falsely claimed to possess massive quantities of such evidence.

Do you believe that you can produce that which the greatest minds of "creation science" (please allow us a moment to appreciate the irony of that sentence) have in four decades been unable and unwilling to produce? Then please do proceed.

Even though I have explained to you how the cow ate the cabbage.

PS
Listen to Granny. He's telling you the same thing.

Edited by dwise1, : PS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:37 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
gregrjones
Junior Member (Idle past 4202 days)
Posts: 4
From: kettering, ohio, u.s.a.
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 48 of 54 (484602)
09-29-2008 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
01-19-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Do young-earth creationists really believe in a different physics? Why would they need to? The relativity of time might, for instance, allow for a young earth and an old universe.

But regarding uniformitarianism, I see it as a reason to not put too much stock in science's ability to determine origins.

How can we really know whether or not processes we measure and observe today occurred at the same rates throughout all of the universe or earth's existence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 5:47 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2008 9:49 PM gregrjones has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 49 of 54 (484605)
09-29-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by gregrjones
09-29-2008 9:31 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Hi, Gregrjones! Welcome aboard!

How can we really know whether or not processes we measure and observe today occurred at the same rates throughout all of the universe or earth's existence?

In some cases, by direct observation. We can see supernovae that are billions of light-years away, and so we are seeing light that was emitted billions of years ago. The progression of the amount of light a supernova gives off with time is determined mostly by the speed with which radioactive nickel-56 produced by the exploding star decays to iron-56. And the measured speed is the same in a supernova from seven billion years in the past as it is in a lab at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

And radioactive decay is an awfully fundamental process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by gregrjones, posted 09-29-2008 9:31 PM gregrjones has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 6:25 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
gregrjones
Junior Member (Idle past 4202 days)
Posts: 4
From: kettering, ohio, u.s.a.
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 50 of 54 (484840)
10-02-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
09-29-2008 9:49 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
But epistemologically speaking, we KNOW very little when it comes to origins.

Empirical science not only proposes a theory, but it tests it thru repeated observation to confirm or deny the theory. We can't do that with origins, so we make assumptions like uniformitarianism.

Check out this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html

It gives us a new and different assumption. Instead of using dark matter to explain the universe, some scientists are now suggesting that the earth may exist in a giant cosmic bubble.

According to the article, this also explains why the universe is expanding.

There is a line in the article that states that if we DID live in such a bubble objects in space would be closer than they appear. The logical implication for such a universe would be that it would be younger.

Something else interesting about the article is that it states that one problem with the theory is that it would shatter the Copernican notion that our corner of the universe is no special place.

But as long as this is the only place in the universe where we can find life, this IS a special place.

My point is simply that an evolutionist has as much faith as a creationist given the nature of origins and epistemology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2008 9:49 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 8:11 AM gregrjones has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 54 (484845)
10-02-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by gregrjones
10-02-2008 6:25 AM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Welcome to the fray gregrjones.

Something else interesting about the article is that it states that one problem with the theory is that it would shatter the Copernican notion that our corner of the universe is no special place.

Which has been "shattered" for some time.

There is a line in the article that states that if we DID live in such a bubble objects in space would be closer than they appear. The logical implication for such a universe would be that it would be younger.

Curiously I saw no reference to age of the universe in the article, so it appears that you are interpreting things from an article written by fox news. Have you read the source article by the scientist/s?

Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.

Curiously that would not change the location of SN1987A at a mere 168,000 light years away, so the "bubble" is pretty big ... IF it exists.

But epistemologically speaking, we KNOW very little when it comes to origins.

There is a difference between not knowing and not having any idea, ideas that are testable and provide predictions.

There is also a difference between making stuff up and having testable ideas that make predictions that can invalidate the ideas.

My point is simply that an evolutionist has as much faith as a creationist given the nature of origins and epistemology.

As long as you make up stuff about what evolutionists have faith in so that you can conclude you are correct.

What I have "faith" in involves the nature of objective reality being a true measure of that reality. There is a big difference between accepting ideas completely and using ideas as tentative explanations until better ones come along.

Does your faith mean that objective reality doesn't exist, can't be measured, observed, etc and used to test the validity of ideas?

Enjoy.



ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 6:25 AM gregrjones has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 11:20 PM RAZD has responded

  
gregrjones
Junior Member (Idle past 4202 days)
Posts: 4
From: kettering, ohio, u.s.a.
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 52 of 54 (484901)
10-02-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-02-2008 8:11 AM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Razd wrote:
Curiously I saw no reference to age of the universe in the article, so it appears that you are interpreting things from an article written by fox news. Have you read the source article by the scientist/s?

How could we interpret the statement about things appearing farther than they are in any other way than that this would imply a younger age of the universe? After all, isn't the distance that light has to travel across the universe from the stars a chief reason why we believe in an old universe?

Curiously that would not change the location of SN1987A at a mere 168,000 light years away, so the "bubble" is pretty big ... IF it exists.

Why would the bubble have to be unreasonably huge to skew our perceptions of the distance of SN1987A?

As long as you make up stuff about what evolutionists have faith in so that you can conclude you are correct.

What I have "faith" in involves the nature of objective reality being a true measure of that reality. There is a big difference between accepting ideas completely and using ideas as tentative explanations until better ones come along.

I hope you are not implying that I'm making stuff about what evolutionists believe. If so, please be more specific.

But I see the straw men on both sides. For instance, as a creationist, I see no conflict with believing in an old universe and my Christian faith.

Furthermore, because I believe in the dynamic inspiration (as opposed to the plenary inspiration) of the Bible, arguments against Biblical inerrancy don't conflict with my faith.

Does your faith mean that objective reality doesn't exist, can't be measured, observed, etc and used to test the validity of ideas?

Of course I believe in objective reality. And I believe in such an objective reality because I believe in objective truth.

Can truth be objective in a world where there is NOT a God?

I believe it was Einstein who once said, "The amazing thing about the universe is that it is knowable at all." This resonates with my Christianity which says that God initiated the relationship with man by revealing Himself (not the other way around).

You may ask this question because of a common straw man about faith, or at least about Christian faith. Christian faith isn't simply believing. Christian faith has an object. That object is what we call the Word of God.

Christianity teaches this in many places, but the most profound picture I can think of, is when it calls the son of God the Word of God and says that the Word became flesh. This is the convergence between the propositional and the existential.

I therefore don't simply believe... I believe in a God who has revealed Himself in a real historical event thru His son.

Edited by gregrjones, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 8:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2008 7:31 PM gregrjones has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 54 (484972)
10-03-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by gregrjones
10-02-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Thanks gregrjones,

I hope you are not implying that I'm making stuff about what evolutionists believe. If so, please be more specific.

Well the easiest way to avoid that is to ask 'evolutionists' what they think, rather than make claims with, perhaps, insufficient knowledge.

Scientists understand a fundamental difference between "faith" as applied in religion and what they deal with in science.

faith –noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2008)

In science we start with objective evidence, evidence that other people can observe and describe and agree with other described observations of the same evidence.

Then we base theories on that objective evidence, but these theories are not taken as being true, just as being the best explanation of the evidence that has been developed so far.

Then we make predictions to test the theory and see how well it does at explaining reality.

Those that don't work are discarded or reworked, and those that work are tested again.

After many a number of such tests, especially when there have been no failures, the tested success of a theory to explain reality can lead one to have a high degree of confidence that the theory is true, but never give complete assurance.

At best you get a set of proposed principles and tentative beliefs, that are used as a working model until better ones come along, but ready to be tossed in the garbage if a better theory comes along. I don't define that as faith, but as skepticism.

Why would the bubble have to be unreasonably huge to skew our perceptions of the distance of SN1987A?

SN1987A is something of an oddity in astronomy: it is far enough away that parallax using the earth orbit cannot determine the distance, but the same principle applies. In this case there is a ring around the star that is several light years across, large enough that we can measure the angle subtended by the ring. When the star went nova the explosion was observed on earth by the light of the explosion (common to super nova), and then several days later the astronomers observed the effect of when the light hit the ring, causing it to glow brightly.

So we have three legs of a triangle: light travels directly to earth = A, light travels to ring =B and light travels from ring to earth = C, and we have the angle AC. All we need is the distance of any one leg and we can solve for the others with trigonometry. That distance is B, recorded in light years by the difference in time it took for light to reach us along A and the time it took light to reach us along (B+C) and using A=C. This results in a distance of 168,000 light years.

How could we interpret the statement about things appearing farther than they are in any other way than that this would imply a younger age of the universe? After all, isn't the distance that light has to travel across the universe from the stars a chief reason why we believe in an old universe?

No, the chief reason is based on the decay of energy over time, as observed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAPWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the background energy levels detected.

Of course I believe in objective reality. And I believe in such an objective reality because I believe in objective truth.
For instance, as a creationist, I see no conflict with believing in an old universe and my Christian faith.

Then you should have no problem with understanding that the objective evidence shows that the earth is old, regardless of where a bubble may exist in space.

You may ask this question because of a common straw man about faith, or at least about Christian faith.

No, I'm just making sure we are talking about the same reality.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 11:20 PM gregrjones has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3920
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 54 of 54 (484991)
10-03-2008 11:11 PM


Replay of message 1 - Topic over broadening allert
obvious Child, in message 1, writes:

Granny Magda made an interesting point on imageinvisible's post:

quote:
This sounds just like the nineteenth century uniformitarianism that you are so critical of.

Original Source

Creationists often attack uniformitarianism, yet seem to have no problems using it in their own claims for the age of the Earth. Yet when attacking uniformitarianism, they claim that a different set of physics existed prior to the entry of the current laws of physics yet can provide no good reasoning or evidence for this.

My question is, how can you determine the age of the Earth when your belief operates on the premise of two different sets of laws of physics, one of which cannot be determined in the way it functions? And are the dates given by creationists who DO use uniformitarianism essentially hypocritical?

This message and the topic title does pretty clearly define this as being an "Earthbound" topic. I would prefer that more distant cosmological considerations be covered elsewhere.

Adminnemooseus


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020