Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A scientific theory for creation
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 76 (29372)
01-17-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Primordial Egg
01-17-2003 5:21 AM


What are the consequences for your theory if the scriptures are found to be wrong?
None whatsoever. I believe that the theory I have proposed for the formation of the entire Solar System is scientifically the best yet and should hold up to any scientific scrutiny or test. A scientific theory can never really be proved to be correct-but it can much more easily be proved wrong-hence my desire to spar with those in the know.
The scriptures only serve as stepping stones and historical signposts and are thrilling for me because they lend suppport to my belief that God is not only the architect of the laws of nature but also is the spirit behind the writing of the Bible.
LRP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-17-2003 5:21 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2003 1:57 PM LRP has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 76 (29397)
01-17-2003 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LRP
01-17-2003 9:50 AM


I looked up Wegener and he proposed that the supercontinent broke up 200 million years ago. Since you claim to be following Wegeer do you intend to revise your theory to take that into account?
If not then how do you propose to explain the geological and biogeographical evidence that indicates that the event did occur long ago ?
Really I don't see how you can claim that your ideas are scientific when it is so easy to find evidence contradicting them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 9:50 AM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 3:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 76 (29400)
01-17-2003 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by LRP
01-17-2003 2:13 AM


LRP writes:
My interpretation was originally used about 500 years ago by Wegener who first proposed that the continents were once joined together.
I assume the "500" is a typo and that you meant 50? That would at least put Wegener, who died in 1930, in the right century. As has already been pointed out, Wegener's views are consistent with an ancient earth, so you can't claim Wegener for support.
Proposals that the breakup of the continents was recent is a common YEC theme, usually associated with the flood. The continents are proposed to have moved at a rapid clip during the flood year. In order to set your proposal apart from these other very similar proposals it must be supported by evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 2:13 AM LRP has not replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 76 (29405)
01-17-2003 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
01-17-2003 1:57 PM


PaulK asked about the timing of the split up of the supercontinent
and said there is evidence that this happened 200million years ago.
The Bible suggests that this happened only about 4500 years ago.
Having studied all the methods used to time this event (isochron dating, reversed magnetic stripes, immensely thick deposits of sediments, current rates of plate movement etc I have had to rule them all out as inapplicable to the model for the formation of the supercontinent and its subsequent breakup that I have suggested in my book. Perhaps you can tell me what you think is the most reliable dating method that confirms the timing you mention.
200 million years is an immensely long time. In the area I live in the coastline is being eroded away at a phenomenal rate. So if this happened for 200 million years the continents would have lost much of their original shape-but they still fit together well enough to form the original circle so a few thousand years does not seem to have affected their shape as much as I would have expected in 200million years.
Sorry-I should not have mentioned Wegener as the first to suggest
the drifting apart of the continents. He did this only about 90 years ago. I know someone suggested it a long time before Wegener and got his inspiration from the Bible. I will have to dig out my research notes and will tell you who it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2003 1:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-17-2003 3:20 PM LRP has not replied
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 4:12 PM LRP has replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2003 11:35 AM LRP has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 76 (29407)
01-17-2003 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LRP
01-17-2003 3:10 PM


quote:
In the area I live in the coastline is being eroded away at a phenomenal rate. So if this happened for 200 million years the continents would have lost much of their original shape-but they still fit together well enough to form the original circle so a few thousand years does not seem to have affected their shape as much as I would have expected in 200million years.
A blatent missuse of the concept of uniformitarianism!!!
Such extreme applications of uniformitarianism has LONG been discarded by mainstream geologic thought.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 3:10 PM LRP has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 76 (29411)
01-17-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LRP
01-17-2003 3:10 PM


LRP replying to PaulK writes:
Having studied all the methods used to time this event (isochron dating, reversed magnetic stripes, immensely thick deposits of sediments, current rates of plate movement, etc). I have had to rule them all out as inapplicable to the model for the formation of the supercontinent and its subsequent breakup that I have suggested in my book.
And what evidence led you to choose your model over the existing one?
Perhaps you can tell me what you think is the most reliable dating method that confirms the timing you mention.
The dating of the breakup of Pangaea is based primarily upon the direction of magnetization of dateable layers (that's dateable by whatever means, but ultimately radiometric).
200 million years is an immensely long time. In the area I live in the coastline is being eroded away at a phenomenal rate. So if this happened for 200 million years the continents would have lost much of their original shape-but they still fit together well enough to form the original circle so a few thousand years does not seem to have affected their shape as much as I would have expected in 200million years.
This fallacy is for Sunday school. I don't know if it's even worth rebutting, and it's false in so many ways, where do you start?
If the tide kept coming in for 200 million years you'd be covered under miles of water. Some coastlines are being eroded a little, some a lot, some are being deposited a little, some a lot. Some volcanic islands were born in a day (Surtsey, Iceland, November 15, 1963), some over millions of years (Hawaiian chain). Sometimes a storm erases a sandbar, sometimes it creates one.
Looking at your eroding coastline and concluding that your coastline has always been and will always be eroding that at that rate, and that all coastlines everywhere are also eroding at the same rate, is obviously wrong, primarily because it is so uninformed by evidence, much of which you probably already knew, so it makes no sense that you even said this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 3:10 PM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 5:29 PM Percy has replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 76 (29413)
01-17-2003 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
01-17-2003 4:12 PM


And what evidence led you to choose your model over the existing one?
It a lot simpler and has biblical support.
Perhaps you can tell me what you think is the most reliable dating method that confirms the timing you mention.
The dating of the breakup of Pangaea is based primarily upon the direction of magnetization of dateable layers (that's dateable by whatever means, but ultimately radiometric).
Its radiometric dating again after all and magnetization direction.
A lot of assumptions in both of these leads me to regard this with great skeptism. But if you feel confident about the accuracy of the method thats fine by me. I am sure you have had discussions with creationists on radiometric dating before so lets not go into it again.
If the tide kept coming in for 200 million years you'd be covered under miles of water. Some coastlines are being eroded a little, some a lot, some are being deposited a little, some a lot. Some volcanic islands were born in a day (Surtsey, Iceland, November 15, 1963), some over millions of years (Hawaiian chain). Sometimes a storm erases a sandbar, sometimes it creates one.
Yes but you are talking of little land masses-not continents with complex geology of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks.
Looking at your eroding coastline and concluding that your coastline has always been and will always be eroding that at that rate, and that all coastlines everywhere are also eroding at the same rate, is obviously wrong, primarily because it is so uninformed by evidence, much of which you probably already knew, so it makes no sense that you even said this.
Yes but over 200 million years I would expect all erodable material
to have ended up on the ocean floor.
Its changes in shape of the coatline that erosion causes and my point was that the shapes of the continents havent altered that much.
I cannot think of anywhere in the world where the sea is building up vast tracts of dry land consisting of sediments. Can you?
And what causes these little land masses to congregate after formation mainly on one side of the globe only?
The mainstream science model for formation of continents, its mechanism for movement and its timing of the movement are all seeped
in assumptions that I do not find reasonable. Hence my preference for a simple yet scientific one. A case for Occams razor if ever there was one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 4:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 6:18 PM LRP has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 23 of 76 (29417)
01-17-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LRP
01-17-2003 5:29 PM


LRP writes:
Percy writes:
And what evidence led you to choose your model over the existing one?
It a lot simpler and has biblical support.
That's nice. And what evidence led you to choose your model over the existing one?
Its radiometric dating again after all and magnetization direction. A lot of assumptions in both of these leads me to regard this with great skeptism.
What assumptions?
I am sure you have had discussions with creationists on radiometric dating before so lets not go into it again.
Oh, what the heck, go ahead and explain to me why you choose to ignore the radiometric data.
Yes but you are talking of little land masses-not continents with complex geology of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks.
No, I was providing examples while explaining to you that geologic processes are not regular or uniform in either rate or direction. Uniformitarianism refers not a theory that geologic processes are constant over time, but rather to a theory that the same array of forces have always been at work transforming our planet. The uniformity is in the array of geologic forces in play, not in their rate or direction.
I cannot think of anywhere in the world where the sea is building up vast tracts of dry land consisting of sediments. Can you?
The sand from erosion of coastline is often deposited elsewhere along the coast. River deltas like the Mississippi extend continents out into the ocean. And come visit the eastern US where dozens of miles from the coast the terrain becomes basically sand. And in California where the Pacific plate subducts under the American continent any rise above sea bottom accretes onto the continent and extends westward the American coastline.
The mainstream science model for formation of continents, its mechanism for movement and its timing of the movement are all seeped in assumptions that I do not find reasonable.
What were those assumptions again?
--Percy
PS - If you're having trouble with the UBB codes for quoting you might want to look at this Guide to UBB Codes. The link to it is also to the left of the text box for typing messages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 5:29 PM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 2:51 AM Percy has replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 76 (29464)
01-18-2003 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
01-17-2003 6:18 PM


I will avoid all the quotes since it can get quite confusing as to who said what.
My constraints are 1. My belief in the Bible as the true word of God
2. Common sense science cannot be ignored
You have much more flexibility~you are probably not governed in your thinking on what the Bible says and you are also free to accept any theory that you find reasonable.
The problem I have had over the last few years is to get across the message that one theory cannot be used to prove or disprove another theory. So the mainstream science theories of uniformitarianism or evolution are just that -theories. Biblical interpretations are also theories. So it would be quite wrong for me to say that my biblical interpretation disproves the theory of say uniformitarianism.
We are both governed by what we feel is logical.
It is therfore logical for me to look for a scientific explanation
for our origins which is compatible with what I perceive to be biblical truths. And having thought about this for several years I have found the harmony I knew that had to exist.
The problem of sharing my findings is quite daunting. But I feel I have done what I can and published it in a book and made my views known openly (to the detriment of my career but thats another story)
So anyone is perfectly entitled to demolish my theory on the basis of incontrovertible scientific facts alone or to demolish my interpretation of the scriptures on biblical grounds alone.
So far I have no takers on either challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 6:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-18-2003 3:18 AM LRP has replied
 Message 26 by John, posted 01-18-2003 10:21 AM LRP has not replied
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:27 AM LRP has replied
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 01-18-2003 11:54 PM LRP has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 76 (29466)
01-18-2003 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by LRP
01-18-2003 2:51 AM


Sir, your book om science and Christianity left something to be desired. I am not a Christian; I am a Muslim. As I see it, linking science to any religion would only destroy the credibility of both. The science becomes exclusive (your interpretations on Genesis is irrelevant to me) and the religion becomes vulnerable (if your theory is proven wrong then your theology, which stood on it, would also be shattered).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 2:51 AM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 3:04 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 76 (29490)
01-18-2003 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by LRP
01-18-2003 2:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by LRP:
I will avoid all the quotes since it can get quite confusing as to who said what.
Not if you use the UBB codes.
quote:
1. My belief in the Bible as the true word of God
Hence you are no scientist.
quote:
2. Common sense science cannot be ignored
Meaning what? Complex science can be ignored?
quote:
You have much more flexibility~you are probably not governed in your thinking on what the Bible says and you are also free to accept any theory that you find reasonable.
Well, yes, just like anyone honestly searching for the correct answer.
quote:
The problem I have had over the last few years is to get across the message that one theory cannot be used to prove or disprove another theory.
There is a little thing called evidence. Theories don't disprove one another per se but theories and evidence/observation can and do conflict.
quote:
So the mainstream science theories of uniformitarianism or evolution are just that -theories.
You are forgetting that both theories have mountains of supporting evidence. This must be the science that it is OK to ignore.
quote:
Biblical interpretations are also theories.
ok
quote:
So it would be quite wrong for me to say that my biblical interpretation disproves the theory of say uniformitarianism.
It doesn't seem that you can have it both ways, thus one has to be wrong. This brings us back to that bit about evidence.
quote:
It is therfore logical for me to look for a scientific explanation for our origins which is compatible with what I perceive to be biblical truths.
I am sure it necessary for you, but logical? How is it logical to start with your conclusion?
quote:
So anyone is perfectly entitled to demolish my theory on the basis of incontrovertible scientific facts alone or to demolish my interpretation of the scriptures on biblical grounds alone.
So far I have no takers on either challenge.

So far you have given us almost nothing to challenge and what you have given us has been challenged and much too easily demolished. How do you figure that there are no takers?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 2:51 AM LRP has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 27 of 76 (29496)
01-18-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by LRP
01-18-2003 2:51 AM


So anyone is perfectly entitled to demolish my theory on the basis of incontrovertible scientific facts alone or to demolish my interpretation of the scriptures on biblical grounds alone.
Science doesn't work this way. One does not propose a theory according to personal inclination and then hold it until falsified. One instead builds a theory around bodies of evidence. In the case of your theory, it appears to have been constructed in the absence of evidence.
So far I have no takers on either challenge.
I think you just got taken regarding your "continents can only get smaller" theory, you've just chosen to ignore it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 2:51 AM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by LRP, posted 01-19-2003 4:18 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 76 (29497)
01-18-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by LRP
01-17-2003 3:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LRP:
PaulK asked about the timing of the split up of the supercontinent
and said there is evidence that this happened 200million years ago.
The Bible suggests that this happened only about 4500 years ago.

By which you mean that a *VERY* questionable reading of the Bible suggests that. In short you are relying here on your own ideas rather than scripture.
quote:
Having studied all the methods used to time this event (isochron dating, reversed magnetic stripes, immensely thick deposits of sediments, current rates of plate movement etc I have had to rule them all out as inapplicable to the model for the formation of the supercontinent and its subsequent breakup that I have suggested in my book. Perhaps you can tell me what you think is the most reliable dating method that confirms the timing you mention.
Wegener is described as basing his dating on the rock formations shared between continents. Naturally this means that your theory would have to explain why these do not point to the very recent date that you claim.
quote:
200 million years is an immensely long time. In the area I live in the coastline is being eroded away at a phenomenal rate. So if this happened for 200 million years the continents would have lost much of their original shape-but they still fit together well enough to form the original circle so a few thousand years does not seem to have affected their shape as much as I would have expected in 200million years.
Scale does matter here. As well as the fact that this erosion is not constant.
quote:
Sorry-I should not have mentioned Wegener as the first to suggest
the drifting apart of the continents. He did this only about 90 years ago. I know someone suggested it a long time before Wegener and got his inspiration from the Bible. I will have to dig out my research notes and will tell you who it was.

If this is how you do science then you have just presented adequate grounds for rejecting any claim that your book is scientific. Rejecting large amounts of data out of hand in favour of your own intuitive - and untested - ideas is not a scientific way to support a conclusion.
[Fixed quoting. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 01-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LRP, posted 01-17-2003 3:10 PM LRP has not replied

  
LRP
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 76 (29509)
01-18-2003 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Andya Primanda
01-18-2003 3:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Sir, your book om science and Christianity left something to be desired. I am not a Christian; I am a Muslim. As I see it, linking science to any religion would only destroy the credibility of both. The science becomes exclusive (your interpretations on Genesis is irrelevant to me) and the religion becomes vulnerable (if your theory is proven wrong then your theology, which stood on it, would also be shattered).
This is fair comment but the science/religion issue is important especially to those who know something about science and about scriptures. I believe the God who created the Universe is the same God who authored the scriptures. So there has to be a harmony between what both are saying. When there is an apparant disharmony
as is the case with some interpretations of scripture and interpretation of scientific facts it is the duty of those who God has blessed with knowledge of both to do what they can to restore the harmony. I am sure if 'somebody' said to you that a date in the Qur'an was wrong by several thousands of years you would recheck both
dates and if you were sure about the date in the Qur'an you would
seriously doubt the 'somebody' and may feel strongly enough about it to tell him so. I have had some correspondence with someone in Turkey who runs a Turkish Creation or Anti Evolution group based on the Qur'an. So there are people in other religions who also feel strongly about the sacredness of their scriptures. But I do take your point that we must tread very cautiously in sensitive grounds for fear of doing more harm than good if the aim is to get others to take our scriptures seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-18-2003 3:18 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-20-2003 4:14 AM LRP has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 76 (29531)
01-18-2003 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LRP
01-18-2003 2:51 AM


I think LRP embodies what I *expected* to find in chating on c/e sites. LUX on the MSN borad came closest to this IDEAL for me. I did not have a long enough time on the ICR board to find this there.
If one was able to tame Gould's rhetorical use of creationist pictures it may be possbile to see LRPs attItude the actual c/e repose for which the number of excess postings may diminishined then when but alas this is not the day before yesterday.
I may disagree with his "theology" ( I do not know becuase I also have to read TCs' posts more closely) but coming from bidirectional critical position such as this seems to me the best starting point to engage others even if one actually has a "bias" one way or the other (as if there were only two). Incidentally the response on MSN was to create slots for any concievable religious category a practice that in fact prooved less than useflul as the new categorzations were seldom used. The opposite of this seems to be the ads problem here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LRP, posted 01-18-2003 2:51 AM LRP 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