Creationism

[This essay has marginal relevance to the UPB (which has relevance to ID) but might be of interest to the anti-Big Bang, anti Einstein General Relativity crowd, and hence is of marginal interest to YEC’s.

Nevertheless, Figure 4 page 28 in Brynjolfsson’s paper carries a lot of weight with me and I’m trying to find anyone who can give me more data points. I wish to thank Dr. Liddle for allowing me to post my essay at TSZ since I’m needing to get feedback on some of my speculations. Even if my speculations are wrong, investigating the them will be a good learning experience since there is lots of good physics to learn in understanding plasmas and electromagnetism, and there is always fun and benefit in studying science.]

This essay will outline some of the work of Ari Byrinjolfsson. He says some things I don’t agree with regarding eternal universes, but if Brynjolfsson is right then it has some negative impact on ID and creationism and the UPB, etc. So, let me be clear, Brynjolfsson’s paper is generally bad for ID, creation, and the Big Bang. That said, his papers most definitely got my attention, and there is much that I like about his work. Wikipedia has this entry on Ari Brynjolffson:
Read More ›

If paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it also dies by radiometric dating. Either DNA trapped in 200 million-year-old Jurassic insect amber is young or it has some unexplained source. I argue it is young. Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young. As I’ve said many times, the radiometric date of 65 million-year-old rocks is irrelevant to the radiometric date of the actual physical tissue of a fossil. I could bury a living dog in 65 million-year-old rocks, and the age of rocks will have nothing to say of the age of the dog. The best inferences for time of death of a fossil: half-life of C-14, half life of DNA, half-life of amino acids, etc., NOT the Read More ›

What’s the difference between creationism and ID? Noah’s flood, the genealogies, tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah — in sum, creationism is defined by the book of Genesis, whereas ID is not focused on these matters at all. ID is the search for patterns that signify the action of intelligence. Judeo-Christian Creationism is the study of the book of Genesis. ID is very important to creationism, but not vice versa. For those of us in the creationist community, some of us chuckle that Darwinists call all ID proponents creationists. If you really want to know what’s important to creationists, consider the Creation Research Society’s statement of belief: All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible Read More ›

I am thinking it is time we began a collection of Darwinist fever swamp fallacies found in the wild. (Make sure to get your Malaria shot before going there . . . ) After the now standard “your’e a quote miner” false accusation and the “it’s a Gish galloper” smear of a man not present to defend himself and associated false accusation of wholesale lying, we have been seeing a few choice ones recently. Let’s begin a collection: The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse. I think that about captures it: it’s not what it seems like, and it’s what’s inside the wrapper that counts. often used with false accusations like you’re quote mining or you’re on a Read More ›

My neo-Darwinian friend, Francis Smallwood, has now written a response to my previous instalment in our dialogue. If you want to read it, go here. Below is a small excerpt of the response by Francis. You can read his full response by going to his blog. Follow the link at the bottom of the page. I think that his latest reply is considerably better than his previous writings. Over the past year or so his critique of ID has become sharper and more substantive, and I think he makes some very good points. I still happen to think he is largely mistaken though. It is well worth engaging with this one, so please do discuss some of his points either Read More ›

A few days ago, UD News posted a comment on a scare mongering story in a British popular science magazine, on how “Creationists” in Texas were allegedly tainting textbooks through the buying power of that state. By comments 3 and 4 we read: 3 wd400October 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm First, how do they know? I dunno, why don’t we ask… News at uncommon descent 4 Alan FoxOctober 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm *Applauds* Hilarious, wd400! This seems to be a part of a recent wave of comments that target the UD News desk. It pivots on the ASSUMPTION that “Creationists” are tainting textbooks in Texas, and therefore the purchasing power of Texas spreads that taint far and wide. But Read More ›