Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

Perhaps you should read "Stralight & Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys. It explains how the universe could have the appearnce of being very old and the earth could still be very young. The basic premise is that God created using relativity.

The gravity well no longer exists. It started when all the matter in the universe was gathered in one place. A black hole became a white hole. The event horizon of a white hole gets smaller as the matter is ejected. The premise being that as the EH passes through earth billions of years worth of processes are taking place outside of the EH while at the EH time would appear to be normal. Humphreys takes Hawkings principal of watching a spaceman go towards an EH of a black hole (how a person far away looking through a telescope at the spaceman would see the spaceman virtually stop when he reached the EH) and reversed it (what the spaceman would see if he were looking back at the person with the telescope).Every attempt that Hugh Ross has thrown at Humphreys has been rebutted.

Meert:
Of course none of it has been published by Humphreys in the scientific literature.John Paul:
I would guess you mean only the journals YOU (and your ilk) consider scientific literature. It has been published in scientific journals that you don't recognize. But your recognition of lack of is very irrelevant.Meert:
Scientifically speaking, the idea does not exist.John Paul:
RotFLMAO!!! Of course it exists- scientifically. If it didn't why are scientists trying to refute and/ or substantiate it?

What's this "scientific community"? If it doesn't include ALL scientists what good is it? I would bet that community is just a community of naturalists. An idea does NOT have to be published in any journal to be scientifically valid.BTW he is also debating it with non-creationists...

JM:
The scientific community is made up of members who do research and submit their results for peer-review.John Paul:
And someone isn't a scientist if their work isn't submitted for peer-review? That's hogwash.Humphreys' article HAS been presented for peer-review. Just not ion the journals you recognize. YOUR dislike does NOT disqualify them. And how do you know it hasn't undergone scientific debate? From the responses it has received I would say your assesment is false.

JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are.John Paul:
I would say you recognize them for what YOU think they are.JM:
Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way.John Paul:
Again, that would leave the ToE out of the realm of science, as it would most of naturalism.By your (il)logic it is OK to operate under a purely naturalistic PoV, which would leaqd the evidence to that conclusion, but not start out with the acknowledgement that there is some higher intelligence responsible (as Newton, Kepler eta al. did) and go from there. The irony should be fully understood.

The irony that Meert doesn't understand is that on one hand he is saying that Creationists start with the conclusion that God Created all we see and conduct science from that viewpoint. It worked for Newton, Kepler et al.... On the other hand Meert is saying that it is OK to start and work under the conclusion that nature is all there is and science should be conducted accordingly. However that goes against what Meert said earlier about leading the evidence. I don't need science to tell me whether or not God exists and who that God is. However science can and does tell us about things that have been designed. IOW if life was designed (or Created) [ we know life exists, so either it was the result of purely natural processes or it wasn't] then it is an injustice not only to science but all of mankind to pidgeon-hole all research to one and only one conclusion. That is leading the evidence and goes against what Meert says real science should be.

LM:
Where in Newton's laws or Keplers orbital models did they insert God? What part of their science relies on the existence of God?John Paul:
Actually all of their science relies on the existence of God as that is how they conducted science- under the understanding that all we observe is part of God's special creation.LM:
Nope, Meert and all of science work under the conclusion that natural phenomena have a natural mechanism.John Paul:
But that is wrong. That would be leading the evidence and therefore not objective.LM:
This in no way excludes the existence of a diety.John Paul:
Is the start of life a natural phenomenon?LM:
It is an injustice to force a supernatural explanation into a gap in our knowledge concerning the natural world.John Paul:
I never mentioned anything about anything supernatural. True the designer or Creator could be supernatural but that is irrelevant. Science can and does tell us how to detect design. That is all we need.LM:
Science is about objectively measuring nature, not subjectively and arbitrarily assigning design where it best fits a religious presupposition.John Paul:
That would leave the theory of evolution out of the reealm of science. How do archaeologists assign design? By careful research and study.LM:
Why shouldn't science stay with what is observed, and ignore hypotheses about things which are unseen and untestable?John Paul:
Seeing that the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals was never observed and can't be objectively tested you are telling me that the ToE is indeed not science. Thanks but I already knew that.Newton & Kepler conducted their science understanding what they observed was part of God's special creation. They understood that and so should you.

JP:But that is wrong. That would be leading the evidence and therefore not objective.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------JM: Actually your statement is false.John Paul:
That is YOUR assertion. But again assertions are not evidence.JM:
Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world.John Paul:
Is that your definition of science? Doesn't that definition seem just a little too limiting? It sure does to me.Naturalsitic framework? Sounds like another limiting factor. Why not just let the evidence lead us where it will? And if life didn't originate naturally (ie via purely natural processes) does that mean any researching life is not doing science?

If someone considers BOTH ideas that would mean that person is more open minded. IOW Creationists and IDists consider the natural and non-natural whereas Meert and his ilk only consider the natural (even if it doesn't exist). Anyone with common sense can see who operates under a limiting factor. Ya see Meert I have the freedom to consider alternatives. It is you who is pidgeon-holing knowledge.

Wrong Meert. Scientists may try to explain things using naturalistic explanations. Science holds no such limitations. Huge difference. However not everything may have a naturalistic explanation. I know my computer didn't arise via purely natural processes and I know science can explain my computer.As for agreeing with me I would say we don't agree on this. Are you that dense that you think we are agreeing?One more time- it is scientists, not science, who may try to explain a phenomenon with naturalistic explanations. And again if something does not have a naturalistic explanation what do these scientists do?

JM:
Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world.John Paul:
Scientists might do that but science does not care.JM:
One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy.John Paul:
And if a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist or has been refuted? What then?Can't you see that all you are doing is lip service? There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere?

There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------JM: There is no testable supernatural explanation for the origins of life either. It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science. For all your bragging about being a scientist, you sure make some funny assertions.John Paul:
Actually we don't need a supernatual explanation, although one does exist. All we need to do is to use existing processes on how to detect design. As Dr. Behe states: ": Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.JM:
It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science.John Paul:
That is about as false ofd a statement as one can make. Obviously you know very little about what science is or from some unknown agenda choose to limit it.BTW facts are not brags. I never bragged about being a scientist. I merely stated it.

JM:
JM: That depends on the context. Intelligent design is not science as is acknowledged by people like Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. Ye-creationism is not science as acknowledged by many ye-creationists. You're swimming against the current trying to convince yourself that the are science.John Paul:
I have asked you several times to substantiate your claim about Paul Nelson and you have yet to do it. Therefore I can only conclude that it is a false statement. YECs also state that the theory of evolution isn't science. I have heard/ read many YECs with advanced degrees say that YEC IS science. What I definitely won't do is to take your word for it.

cf:
So I have one group of randomly scattered pennies, and one group that has been painstakingly designed. By all means, apply your "existing processes" and tell me how you'll detect the design present in one of the groups but not in the other.John Paul:
In this case you have used intelligent intervention to get around the design explanatory filter. Of course any intelligent agent can design something to not look designed at all. The DEF differentiates between chance, law and design. It is a starting point. IOW it is NOT the final authority. The process for ID is very similar to the process archaeologists use, anthropologists when researching artifacts, arson investigators, forensics and SETI.