|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Book -THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
winston123180 Inactive Member |
I've been told a couple times that I should start a new topic with questions about some books that I"ve read, one of them is here:
http://www.present-truth.org/...Creationist/Chapter%2001.htm and there are a few more including "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel and "And God Created Darwin" by Duane Arthur Schmidt. I can copy and paste the chapters that I"ve posted in another thread if necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I've promoted this rather quickly as a special case. I will also change the topic title to reflect the particular book. This is a chance for those interested to list the problems with this book. Some have been show already. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 10:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Let's have a look at this chapter by chapter.
Besides all sorts of personal stuff there seem to be only two points in the first chapter. 1)
quote: and2) quote: The first one about the big bang is simply God of the gaps theology. Since we don't know what came before there is a gap in our knowledge. Not knowing something is not a reason for making up an untestable explanation. Over and over again in history there have been gaps in knowledge into which God has been pushed as an explanation. Thunder, disease and life on earth. Over and over theose gaps have closed. Sophisticated theologians understand how poor this arugment is. The big bang itself, of course, has excellent observations in support of it. It has been observed. The second one is not complete. The issue is that God, if he formed everything, has left unnecessary appearances of age. This is a form of lying. It isn't any necessary appearances of age that, it might be argued, are required to make things work. Additionally, if that is all the creationists want, that is for everyone to say "God made it appear that...." in front of every scientific finding then ok. If that is done then all the science stays as it is and the people who keep saying this will look a bit silly if the phrase is completed to say "God made it appear that ... even though it isn't really". Eventually it gets harder and harder to explain why God would do such a thing. This usually reduces to the "God is mysterious, we can't know Him". In which case, shut up! Since you know nothing about what you talk about stop acting as if you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Is there a particular passage or chapter of the book you'd like to discuss? Something that seems to challenge evolution more than the others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This is the bombadier beetle and has already been discussed here a number of times.
Someone may, for completeness, feel like gathering the arguements here. Sorry, there are futher discussions. I'll edit them in here later. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-09-2004 01:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
winston123180 Inactive Member |
quote: Do you have a reference or something for this? This message has been edited by winston123180, 11-09-2004 07:21 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Hey winston,
Click on the raw text button under any message to see how it was formatted - using quote boxes makes it clear who's words are being used, and makes messages easier to follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NosyNed writes: The big bang itself, of course, has excellent observations in support of it. It has been observed. The observational evidence for the Big Bang is strong, but I don't think direct observation is part of the evidence. I think for the first two or three hundred thousand years matter was ionized and the universe was opaque, only becoming transparent after the ionized hydrogen atoms picked up electrons. I might be off on the timescale and the details, but I'm pretty sure I've got the general sense of things right. It might be interesting to find the furthest back we've observed so far. My guess would be about 13 billion years. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Winston - for evidence of the Big Bang, you might start with
Universe: Cosmology 101 or any recent astronomy textbook. This NASA site presents it clearly and in a better organized fashion than I could. There are a great variety of observations that are terribly difficult to explain in any other (non-magickal) way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: This has it all wrong. First, matter condensed from energy after the start of expansion. Second, there was no explosion. Rather, it was an expansion of space/time. The "Big Bang" was originally a derisive term coined by an opponent of the theory, and somehow the name stuck. There was no "explosion" nor a "big bang". One of the few times that physicists have displayed a sense of humor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You are, of course, correct Percy. But what that is saying is that our observations are imperfect. They are like a telescope with limited resolving power. It doesn't mean they aren't observations it just means that we can't see all the way back or all the details.
A parallel is the "observation" of extra-solar planets. I would claim that we are observing them. However, the nature of the observations are of poor "resolution" and not the last word on the subject. For Winston:Try googling "microwave background radiation". Another "observation" is the current ratio of elements in the universe. This has, apparently (since I'm not able to do the calculations myself) been calculated from theory regarding the initial state of the universe. An additional "observation" is the current rate of recession of other galaxies and the tie from this to the current temperature of the background radiation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
One of the few times that physicists have displayed a sense of humor. Have you looked at the name of the different particles? There is a lot of whismy in physics. Not all of it accessible to someone not "in the know".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Hehe, I thought about including the name of quarks as another example. It's funny that you mention them as well. For those who are wondering, quarks have "flavors" which are named: up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange. I believe there may be other theoretical particles with even stranger names, but I can't remember them now. Anyway, back to the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
One of the very early papers on the Big Bang was written in the 1940's by Richard(?) Alpher and Hans Bethe. Before they submitted it, though, they got George Gamow to sign on as a coauthor. That way, the paper was "Alpher, Bethe, Gamow." They intended this to be compared with the start of the Hebrew alphabet (and the start of everything?) - "aleph, beth, gimel..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Very interesting, I didn't know that. It is also close the the Greek alphabet of 'alpha, beta, gamma'.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024