Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 297 (327029)
06-28-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Rob
06-27-2006 11:52 PM


Re: what debate?
Rob writes
quote:
I CONCEDE THE THREAD TO THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING...
That's just it, isn't Rob? You think people like us are a bunch of know-it-alls don't you?
It is not our place to tell you that we have the answer to everything. It is our place, however, to tell you what is plausible and what is not.
So far, the few times that I have engaged with you on specific matters relating to this subject, I have been patient enough to play by your rules. I waited for you to say what you believed and what didn't believe before I went on. Specifically, you said that you believed in Einstein's E=mc^2, so I used that to establish a common ground. I then went as far as assuming that light speed indeed changed and that the universe was indeed 6 thousand years old just so we could have a common ground.
Using both of these main points that you insisted on being truths, I pointed out the logical conclusion, that light speed would have been several hundred million times, or even several billion times, faster 6 thousand years ago than now in order to explain the apparent distances of distant objects in the cosmos. With that, there is only one possible outcome, that the energy output by each star in the universe, including our own sun, would have been so high that the Earth would have been instantly sterilized, if not vaporized.
Your rules, Rob. Unless, of course, you begin to deny that what goes on in the sun is nuclear fusion taking place. It's still not too late for you to take this route. Tell me if you want to, and we can go from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Rob, posted 06-27-2006 11:52 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 1:30 AM rgb has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 197 of 297 (327034)
06-28-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by rgb
06-28-2006 12:50 AM


Re: what debate?
It is our place, however, to tell you what is plausible and what is not.
Listen please... I have conceded this thread for three primary reasons.
1. I cannot refute anything you're saying with any scientific knowledge of my own. You may well be right!
2. My attempts to derail you are riddled with impatience and pride of my own! This is not helping with more important matters, and I needed my butt kicked like this to understand. I'm not very happy about it either. But I reluctantly concede it all.
3. My fallback position is more pleasing to me on this issue, though not nearly as intellectually stimulating as the possibility of light's varying speed. It would have been a delight to my flesh, to be able to prove something like that.
I do not feel it is my place to tell you what is plausible, because to do so, I would have to claim 'total' knowledge of all possible things: Omniscience! I think what you mean is that it is your place to say what is reasonable.
I have insisted on nothing other than the fact that we do not know! I only did some very shallow research, and offered what I thought may be an answer to the question of this thread. As it turns out, it is not generally accepted in the 'science' community and was only new to me. That is fine, but I am not one for the convention.
It is interesting that many scientists will accept science's convention, but dismiss morality as convention.
It may be two hundred years after our deaths, before the latest discovery completely reassembles the scientific landscape.
The assumption that we know so much is prideful...
I cannot persuade you within your space. Your the man!
Bottom line... If Christianity is true, this is not the avenue for me to pursue proclaiming it's most excellent news.
But I appriciate the moderators giving me the opportunity to make an ass of myself in front of many who have no intention of believing anything. It is clear to me where their loyalties lie. Some things you just can't prove, and others you don't have to.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 12:50 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 3:19 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 200 by Phat, posted 06-28-2006 11:37 AM Rob has replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 297 (327049)
06-28-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rob
06-28-2006 1:30 AM


Re: what debate?
Rob, I think I have finally understand your mindset, or at least have an idea of how those neurons in there work. We'll talk about this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 1:30 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 4:23 AM rgb has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 199 of 297 (327057)
06-28-2006 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by rgb
06-28-2006 3:19 AM


Re: what debate?
Hi rgb,
Rob, I think I have finally understand your mindset
I'm glad because I've personally been quite impressed with Rob's attitude both here and across the board, and I think you've been giving him quite a rough time He demonstrates a humility in his faith which is all too rare here at EvC, but i do think his humility is often misunderstood...
Just a quick comment on Rob's conversation with Sylvain Porier: to deny a miracle based upon physical laws is just silly. If miracles exist, they are often by definition outside the natural scheme of reality. If they are instigated by God, then there is no problem. Perhaps he simply swaps one universe lacking in loaves and fish for one with slightly more. It would perhaps explain why they are not more commonplace! Trying to refute miracles based upon science is a rather futile exercise, and any scientist whether theist/agnostic/atheist should have the sense to realise this.
Anyway, all off-topic so I'll stop now
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 3:19 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ramoss, posted 06-28-2006 12:35 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 202 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 1:21 PM cavediver has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 200 of 297 (327155)
06-28-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rob
06-28-2006 1:30 AM


Re: what debate?
I think that I understand some of the points that you are making, and I'll go out on a limb here:
1)Humanity by nature is, in scientific mode, perfectly willing to explain a universe without necessitating God. This does not mean that the scientific community is embracing a deification of human intellect. Its simply the method--free from Faith bias--in which they think.
As believers, we don't need to validate our belief by attempting to construct a scenario that fits our preconceptions as to how God works.
I am a creationist in that I believe that God originally created everything. How He did it is not so important to me, for I need no proof to bolster my faith in Him. (I used to look for such proof, before I matured as a believer.)
We don't need to worry if our kids learn secular science. We don't need to insist that they be taught creationism.
We only need be concerned that they know Jesus, that they know how people think critically, and that they know why people conclude the things that they do.
My hope is that the next generation is a lot smarter than me, and that they also have the relationship with God that I have---(even better! )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 1:30 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 9:09 PM Phat has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 201 of 297 (327181)
06-28-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by cavediver
06-28-2006 4:23 AM


Re: what debate?
"humble faith' does not impress me, if it leads the person to deny reality in support of that 'humble faith'.
I am much more impressed by faith that can look at and accept facts that
contradict their initial faith, yet able to change, and not lose their faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 4:23 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 1:51 PM ramoss has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 297 (327196)
06-28-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by cavediver
06-28-2006 4:23 AM


Re: what debate?
cavediver writes (please don't ever get trapped down there)
quote:
I'm glad because I've personally been quite impressed with Rob's attitude both here and across the board, and I think you've been giving him quite a rough time. He demonstrates a humility in his faith which is all too rare here at EvC, but i do think his humility is often misunderstood...
I think you are impressed because you are too used to dealing with the typical know-it-all creationist.
Is it humility or just a self-defense tactic? In fact, there is a logical fallacy that is named after it. But anyway, consider the following.
I want to explain the number of species carried by the ark and the repopulation of the wilderness by proposing that genetics and inheritence worked differently back then. All Noah needed was an ark, a couple of horses, a couple of dogs, a couple of ants, a couple of pigeons, a couple of earthworms, and a couple of plants. Since genetic inheritence worked differently back then, after the flood the horses gave birth to other animals like the elephants, tigers, lions, giraffe, etc. The dogs gave birth to smaller animals like the cats, rodents, racoons, etc. The ants gave birth to all the little creepy crawly stuff, including bees and spiders. The pigeons gave birth to all the other bird kinds like the eagles and the crows. The worms gave birth to things like snakes (hey, they both crawl around on their bellies) and other things that don't walk. The plants gave rise to all the plants and trees we now have.
Remember that I know very little about biology, especially genetics and inheritence. Yes, biologists have shown me how ignorant I was, but this ignorant fool was able to come up with the above explanation that the experts couldn't come up with. This just shows that WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING therefore what I stated above was entirely possible. As a matter of fact, since the flood DID happen, it must have been the case. Remember that I don't know much about biology.
Does that sound like humility to you? It's just assuming that since I know little about biology, what I do know about biology must be the limits of human knowledge in this field. It's the mindset of a teenager who thinks that his teachers don't know anything beyond what he knows.
quote:
Just a quick comment on Rob's conversation with Sylvain Porier...
I really doubt that what Rob told us about the conversation was entirely accurate. We all have the tendency to bend our stories just a tiny bit to make it sound in our favor or to make the listeners more sympathetic to our cause.
quote:
to deny a miracle based upon physical laws is just silly... Trying to refute miracles based upon science is a rather futile exercise, and any scientist whether theist/agnostic/atheist should have the sense to realise this.
That's just it, cavediver. It's silly enough that I doubt anyone would put his reputation on the line to make such an argument. I suspect very much that Rob agreed at the beginning of that conversation that the premise had to be that Jesus didn't violate any law or theorem of science. Why else would an academic try to disprove a miracle with science?
I've seen scientists say stupid things, but not this stupid.
Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 4:23 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 1:40 PM rgb has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 203 of 297 (327205)
06-28-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by rgb
06-28-2006 1:21 PM


Re: what debate?
Working backwards
I've seen scientists say stupid things, but not this stupid.
You need to spend more time in academia. I have heard this and far worse!!!
Why else would an academic try to disprove a miracle with science?
Again, I've heard it many times. Not that it's difficult to point out how daft such a point is, and usually the scientist does tend to shuffle away mumbling. That's why I had to smile when I heard Rob's story.
Does that sound like humility to you? It's just assuming that since I know little about biology, what I do know about biology must be the limits of human knowledge in this field. It's the mindset of a teenager who thinks that his teachers don't know anything beyond what he knows.
The humility comes when one realises "hey, I'm out of my depth here with people who actually know what they are talking about". Oh, if just about everyone could think this when they come to give me THEIR theories on black holes YECs are a minor irritant compared to them...
And also, don't forget that these ideas are not usually generated in isolation. Most of this comes from ICR and AIG. If you are a Christian, who do you trust implicitly? Other Christians. They will never lie, never distort the truth. And the Christians over at ICR and AIG tell us all this wonderful stuff about how science completely backs up YECism, how archaeology completely backs up the OT, etc, etc.
It is no surprise that guys like Rob turn up with these ideas and espouse them. To then realise that one is out of one's depth and back away, as Rob has done, is where the humility lies. Good for him.
I notice Ramoss' point above, and think it is extremely unfair. Such a changing of one's worlview is not going to occur after a few days' talking with anonymous strangers at some internet site. If it occurs, it will be down the line.
Is it humility or just a self-defense tactic?
I think it is a bit of both. Knowing how much if each is beyond my current ESP capability, but I'm happy to give the benefit of doubt.
I think you are impressed because you are too used to dealing with the typical know-it-all creationist.
This is only too true
please don't ever get trapped down there
Too late for that! And trapped is not a state, it's just a question... "for how long?"
And how off-topic is this? How do I suspend myself?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 1:21 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AdminPD, posted 06-28-2006 2:11 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 206 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 2:12 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 204 of 297 (327214)
06-28-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ramoss
06-28-2006 12:35 PM


Re: what debate?
You expect too much too soon...
And is there any need to have a correct scientific worldview? 99.9% of homo sapiens manage without one.
I cannot possibly argue with "I believe there was a Genesis flood." It is only when it is backed up with lies that it is a problem for me - "of course the flood is scientifically possible, and there's so much evidence for it"
ABE: Similarly "I believe God created the stars 6000 years ago" is fine. "Astrophysics is wrong, stars cannot form naturally, and obviously God made them 6000 yeas ago" is not...
Edited by cavediver, : To bring back on-topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ramoss, posted 06-28-2006 12:35 PM ramoss has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 205 of 297 (327220)
06-28-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by cavediver
06-28-2006 1:40 PM


Warning - Veering Off Topic
quote:
And how off-topic is this? How do I suspend myself?
I can help you with that cavediver if you are so inclined.
Just a reminder to head back to the topic of how creationists explain stars.
CarryOn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 1:40 PM cavediver has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 297 (327221)
06-28-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by cavediver
06-28-2006 1:40 PM


Re: what debate?
Working backwards and ignoring some stuff
quote:
How do I suspend myself?
Tie a rope to the ceiling. Stand on a chair and tie the rope to yourself. Use your foot to push the chair away and voila you are suspended.
quote:
Such a changing of one's worlview is not going to occur after a few days' talking with anonymous strangers at some internet site. If it occurs, it will be down the line.
I think it is obvious to all of us that changing someone's worldview in a few days is not possible, unless there's violence involved.
I think my problem is I often have too high of an expectation from people, especially adults.
quote:
It is no surprise that guys like Rob turn up with these ideas and espouse them. To then realise that one is out of one's depth and back away, as Rob has done, is where the humility lies. Good for him.
Unless he's been living under a rock, so far the information involved in our discussion can be found just about everywhere you look. You can even pick up a random newspaper and see the information present. Especially if you are an adult, you should have stumbled onto the information sometime in the last 10-15 years of your adult life.
To me, it actually takes a little bit of extra effort to look up YEC information. Yet, we have people like Rob that have no clue they are out of their depth.
quote:
The humility comes when one realises "hey, I'm out of my depth here with people who actually know what they are talking about". Oh, if just about everyone could think this when they come to give me THEIR theories on black holes YECs are a minor irritant compared to them...
Well......... I suppose you could interpret his attitude at the end that way. But notice how to the last of his breath he kept on insisting that the rest of us just don't know crap? He didn't say it, but he hinted that since we don't know crap it must have been the case that light does indeed slow down.
And yes, I know what you mean. I regularly get people who come to me with crackpot ideas about blackholes, too.
quote:
Again, I've heard it many times. Not that it's difficult to point out how daft such a point is, and usually the scientist does tend to shuffle away mumbling. That's why I had to smile when I heard Rob's story.
Well, I've been fortunate enough not to hear scientists go on a rant or mumble away, although I have heard scientists making dumb personal comments.
quote:
You need to spend more time in academia. I have heard this and far worse!!!
I do need to.
But for kicks, you should post some other stupid things scientists say in the humor thread. Either that or you can post them here. I think we've reached the limits of human understanding on this subject (sarcasm) in this thread.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2006 1:40 PM cavediver has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 207 of 297 (327247)
06-28-2006 3:24 PM


What bugs me
The term creationist always seems to mean someone who is YEC. I'm a creationist because I believe that there is a creator. I don't however care whether God created the world 6000 years ago or 4 billion years ago.
My point is I disagree with the basic premise of the argument. The problem is, as a Christian and obviously someone who must then believe in creation, I am labelled as a creationist. As soon as I'm labelled as that it is assumed that I believe in the whole 6 day creation interpretation of the Bible.
The same holds true for the term intelligent design. I obviously believe in ID but I'm quite prepared to accept that the intelligent designer used evolution as a part of His creation.
I wished the original post would use the term YEC instead.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 208 of 297 (327332)
06-28-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Phat
06-28-2006 11:37 AM


Re: what debate?
I understand...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Phat, posted 06-28-2006 11:37 AM Phat has not replied

threepennybit
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 297 (327745)
06-30-2006 11:16 AM


Biblical vocabulary
I would like to take the creationist vs science debate off on a slighty different tack. I hope this is the right place to do that.
The expression of truth is dependent on the available vocabulary.
By today's standards, the people who first wrote down the words of the Bible had to work with a limited set of words and concepts.
If these writers had had access to the word 'gravity' they might have avoided placing the Earth at the centre of the Solar System, whilst 'radioactivity' could have led them to a more realistic appreciation of its age. The word 'genome' in their vocabulary would have enabled them to describe more effectively the development of life on Earth.
Truth does not change. But our ability to describe it does change as, led by science, human knowledge and its vocabulary continue to increase.
Thus the Biblical description of Creation was limited by the then available vocabulary. We are not so limited, and so it is valid to describe our view of Creation using today's vocabulary. No doubt this view will change with time, as human knowledge continues to evolve.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by AdminPD, posted 06-30-2006 11:39 AM threepennybit has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 210 of 297 (327748)
06-30-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by threepennybit
06-30-2006 11:16 AM


Welcome to EvC
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
The Opening Post (OP) of each thread will tell you the topic that is being discussed. We do ask that participants try to stay on topic throughout the discussion.
Unfortunately this topic has veered off topic as noted in Message 205. Your post concerning Biblical Vocabulary is not on topic for this thread.
If the original topic of this thread is not to your liking, I'm sure you can find a topic that suits your interests and hasn't veered off the beaten path.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.
Again welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 209 by threepennybit, posted 06-30-2006 11:16 AM threepennybit has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024