Creationists fail in bid to offer ‘science’ degrees

_{Mario Lopez

April 30, 2008

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Nature:

A religious group has had its application to offer Master of Science degrees rejected by Texas authorities. The Institute for Creation Research— which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days — was seeking a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas (see Nature 451, 1030; 2008). But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to grant the institute’s request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education. “Religious belief is not science,” Paredes said in his recommendation. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.” The institute has 45 days to appeal or 180 days to reapply.

Religious belief is not science? Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science? He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs? EXPELLED!

Comments

Can you give me a credible model for Solar System evolution based on gravitational accretion and solves the problems of basic angular momentum and differentiated chemistry.
Can you give me a reason that I should not consider the current models credible? What's the YEC model of solar system formation?
Most of the mainstream models are in crisis. Same is true of stellar and galactic evolution.
At least they exist. I don't believe that there is a YEC model that is worked out to the same level of intricate detail as current models. Care to prove me wrong? For example here http://tinyurl.com/5ggbo8
A numerical 3D-model for investigation of non-stationary processes in a gravitating system with gas has been created. The model is based on the solution of the Poisson equation for gravitational field, the Vlasov–Liouville equation for solids and equations of gas dynamics. For solution of the Poisson equation at each timestep an efficient iterational solver is created with extrapolation of the evolutionary prosesses under study. It provides fast convergence at high precision. Parallelisation technique and load balancing strategy are discussed.
Does YEC offer anything similar? And that's just one example out of many many similar simuations. And if current models are in "crisis" I can assure you that whatever they are replaced by will not provide evidence for a 6000 year old universe.
When my own old Earth professors are pointing lamenting the existence of galaxies, I knew something was up.
Have you tried suggesting to them that everything they know is wrong and that in fact the universe is only 6000 years old?
Then there is the problem of stellar age homogeneity.
If you have a solution that solves these issues then please do share.
Or how about the systematic discord between amino acid racemization rates and C-14 dates
I don't see how that proves a YEC point of view. C-14 is not the only dating method. If you've got proof then proof will win in the end. All scientists are interested in is "can your prove it to a better standard then the current theory?"
Or how about the problems of the lack of erosion or lack of salinization in the water.
Lack of erosion where? Lack of salinization where? Are you saying that the grand canyon indicates a young earth? Those stones are hard and you simply can't erode them in Before you go around accusing me of not following the evidence, perhaps you better answer some of those questions…. Yet Behe accepts common descent. Do you? If not, better ask the same of him. I am accusing you of not following the evidence and the evidence is plain!
I think the issue of the univrse’s age is open for more inquiry. I have my biases, but I’m officially undecided at this time.
Yet you run a site called youngcosmos and say things like "Or how about the systematic discord between amino acid racemization rates and C-14 dates" - if you are undecided what's all that about?
I never said Maxwell was a YEC. I said he was a creationist. By Barbara Forrest’s standards, he would be a creationist.
The only difference between a YEC and a creationist is when they think the "designer" created the universe.Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

What does YEC beliefs have to do with teaching modern, observable physics, astronomy, biology, electronics, chemestry, etc. How things got here is the domain of faith. How they work in the current, real-world, is the domain of science.Graceout_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Would it not be more scientific if you took the data and tried to explain it, rather then take the position you want to be true and force the data to fit? Why not follow the data where it leads, as others here so often recommend?
Are you arguing I'm not doing that? Let's start with the basics. Can you give me a credible model for Solar System evolution based on gravitational accretion and solves the problems of basic angular momentum and differentiated chemistry. Most of the mainstream models are in crisis. Same is true of stellar and galactic evolution. When my own old Earth professors are pointing lamenting the existence of galaxies, I knew something was up. Then there is the problem of stellar age homogeneity. Or how about the systematic discord between amino acid racemization rates and C-14 dates. Or how about the problems of the lack of erosion or lack of salinization in the water. Before you go around accusing me of not following the evidence, perhaps you better answer some of those questions.... I think the issue of the univrse's age is open for more inquiry. I have my biases, but I'm officially undecided at this time.
Do you have a actual reference that shows Maxwell was a YEC as you claim?
I never said Maxwell was a YEC. I said he was a creationist. By Barbara Forrest's standards, he would be a creationist.scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Sal,
I was an old earth Darwinist growing up. I was not raised in a fundamentalist home.
Define fundamentalist. In any case, you are missing the point. My point is that the evidence points to an old cosmos. You believe in a young cosmos. Therefore your belief trumps the evidence. Therefore you formed your belief before examining the evidence (as the evidence points to an old cosmos). Or your formed your belief against the preponderance of evidence despite having examined the evidence, because of religious or other reasons. I've just given you data that shows that your assumption "our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation" was wrong. Will you accept this data point and change 400 to 168,000 in future when attempting to argue this point?Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Sal,
To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess.
This is interesting. According to Wikipedia the distance to SN1987A has been measured by triangulation. The figure obtained is 168,000 light years.
The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until several months after the supernova, and the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough for their angular size to be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years
Will you be giving up your YEC leanings now as this data appears to directly disconfirm your theory that the cosmos can be young? http://tinyurl.com/5s6b6oUthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Uthan wrote: It appears to me that you’ve decided what is true (a young cosmos) despite the available evidence.
I was an old earth Darwinist growing up. I was not raised in a fundamentalist home.scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

DaveScott at 36
The laws of physics establish bounds for the possible.
How is that any different from materialism? Does that a priori dismiss intelligent intervention by all other than intelligent agents bound to the laws of physics? Where did the laws of physics come from? cf CS Lewis, "Miracles" See upcoming paper Divine Intervention and the Causal Account of Natural Laws, Steven Horst, Wesleyan University
Since the 17 th century, theists have gravitated towards two views of God's causal relation to the created universe. Some, like Leibniz, have held that God is a cosmic architect , designing the laws and initial state of Creation, but thereafter allowing the universe to run on its own like a grand clockwork machine. Others, like Descartes and Newton, took an interventionist view, according to which God has made subsequent miraculous interventions. “Architecturalists” have argued that the very concept of a universe governed by natural law is incompatible with miracles. “Interventionists” have often responded by embedding the claims of scientific law within a broader set of extra-scientific theological conditions: for example, “If God does not intervene, then the universe obeys the laws.” I argue that a commitment to scientific laws requires neither (a) a rejection of miracles, nor (b) a consistency proof requiring theological suppositions. The apparent inconsistency between laws and miracles arises from a particular interpretation of the nature of laws, made popular by the Logical Empiricists, on which laws make universal claims about the actual (and counterfactual) behavior of objects. This view of laws, however, has received withering criticism in philosophy of science, on grounds having nothing to do with miracles or theology. Its major alternative, the causal account of laws, endorsed by philosophers of science like Nancy Cartwright and Ian Hacking, holds that laws express causal capacities . On this view of laws, I argue, a commitment to the truth of laws is compatible with miracles.
DLH_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Sal, It appears to me that you've decided what is true (a young cosmos) despite the available evidence. Would it not be more scientific if you took the data and tried to explain it, rather then take the position you want to be true and force the data to fit? Why not follow the data where it leads, as others here so often recommend? Also, on what basis do you claim that Maxwell was a creationist? Maxwell is not saying that the universe doesn’t evolve, and he’s not saying that living things don’t evolve. What he’s saying is that molecules — and only molecules — don’t evolve and hence appear to be manufactured. Maxwell’s argument makes no sense if nothing evolves. It only makes sense if nature exhibits evolution but molecules do not. So the argument that Maxwell was a creationist only makes sense if nature does not exhibit evolution and even YEC's admit micro-evolution. Maxwell certainly believed that God created the universe, but based on his lecture titles “Molecules” in 1873, it's simply not possible to label him as a “creationist” in the modern sense of the word, that is, someone who believes this creation took place relatively recently in accordance with the book of Genesis. Do you have a actual reference that shows Maxwell was a YEC as you claim?Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Dear Scordova, "by using guesses based on starlight brightness. The father something is, the less bright it will be." First let me repeat I am a novice in this, but, is it possible that a less bright object might just be less bright and not necessarily further?Pazu1982_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Hi Dave, "Yeah, me too. Not nothing, but I believed all that was left were details." I agree, it's just the way the educational system portrays science, kind of in a boring way, without much challenging the students about how we came to that conclusion, or why this is so etc. Even TV documentaries can be rather boring. Because I think it presents things very flatly, as if it were so and thus make us think that there's nothing else to research. Well it's just what I felt about it. For example before i started researching the creo-evo issue, I had no knowledge of the complexities of even the simplest cell, i thought a cell was just a bunch of chemicals, very simple, that could originate anywhere given the right conditions, following natural laws. Anyway, life seems more complex than I once thought and I think now we have a very long way before there's nothing left to be discovered. CheersPazu1982_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Granted those laws are incomplete but they’re still the best set of rules we have and at except at the fringes of the very large and very small are extremely sucessful in prediction.
Agreed. I don't think most YECs realize the magnitude of difficulties facing them for their theory to be vindicated. There are many days I just want to throw in the towel.... The case for ID is a piece of cake by comaprison. For interested reader's benefit, what evidence would be persuassive to me. Currently we are guessing the size of the universe is very very very large (13.5 billion light years across). We base this not because we actually know it's that big but by using guesses based on starlight brightness. The father something is, the less bright it will be. The equation describing the relationship of birghtness to distance is an inverse square law.... We have the privilege of having Dr. Stephen Cheesman in our community at UD. He is a physicist and signatory of the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin. He was once a YEC and now rejects it based on what he learned in physics... He and I had fruitful exchanges last summer. His calculations demonstrated to me that for my cosmological model to work, the universe will have to be a lot smaller since the inverse-square law will actually be an inverse quartic-law for my YEC model to work.... To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess. As our instrumentation improves, what will happen if we discover Quasars are only 5000 light years away, or the great galaxy in Andromeda is 100 times closer? Further, if the light intensity to distance ratio obeys an inverse-quartic law, it would lend confirmation to the YEC cosmology which I currently subscribe to. If this test fails, I think I'll owe Dr. Cheesman a beer. If it succeeds, he can by me a beer [I don't drink beer, but I would for that occasion.] So there you have it. I've laid it on the line what would seal the deal...scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: "If God created all the kinds at once de novo from dirt 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look instead like common descent over hundreds of millions of years." All depends on how you interpret the data of course. Can't agree on your common descent thing. You pretty much have to accept Darwinism to interpret data like that. "So this leaves me to wonder why God would do that. It doesn’t make any sense at all. " Agreed. Assuming that's what we're really seeing! But therein I must disagree. I don't see much verifiable common descent, other than minor variations - unless you have some evidence of novel life forms growing out of old ones - like birds from lizards or princes from frogs. "What DOES make sense is the bible is largely (if not wholly) a fiction written by men thousands of years ago and they, quite understandably, made a lot of mistakes out of ignorance." You clearly don't know much about that book of books. I would suggest you do some homework and study up on biblical archeology and accuracy. Nelson Gluek's work for example. Gluek said,
"It...may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."
Archaeologist Joseph Free says,
"Archeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts."
One could cite 100's of like statements made by real experts in the field. You might also look into Tablet Theory - maybe start here The outdated and erroneous idea that the bible's books were written by "ignorant herdsman" is still quite prevalent today but no longer carries any weight in view of what we now know. Moses, who penned the Torah, was not some ignorant herdsman but a prince and, according to Josephus, a scientist and the commanding general of Egypt's armies, until his fleeing under threat. The whole modern myth that old civilizations were ignorant, gullible and superstitious twits is tripe. The ancient Chaldean society (from which Abraham came) did cube root squares using base 60 math in far less time and effort than our modern base 10 math allows. There are 1000's of such examples - electric batteries in ancient Babylon, high levels of knowledge of astronomy, possibly electric light tubes, there's even evidence of understanding of atomic structures and etc.. If Genesis 1-3 is true then people were not stupid back then they were more intelligent than us. Don't believe it? Fine, but do some in depth research and I'm sure you'll find some real challenges.Borne_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

sal Perhaps a young creation is more meaningful when we had believed it was once impossible. I never said it was impossible. I said it was impossible under current understanding of physics. Anything is possible if you have no bounds. The laws of physics establish bounds for the possible. Granted those laws are incomplete but they're still the best set of rules we have and at except at the fringes of the very large and very small are extremely sucessful in prediction.DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Video is: http://tinyurl.com/5n79bpscordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

For those interested, many people once believed the stars and galaxies formed through the action of gravity and dark matter. But as I pointed out, even Big Bang advocates like James Trefil find the creation of galaxies deeply problematic. That's because they think the mechanism of star and galaxy formation is gravity. But what if the formation mechanism is electricity and magnetism and not gravity? Many paradoxes disappear instantly. See this video: Van Flandern and only a few YECs accept plasma cosmology. Three professors at my former school (GMU) accept plasma cosmology (and thankfully haven't been expelled yet for their anti-Big Bang heresies). Maxwell's equations in their current form put a limit to the speed which matter can travel. And thus problems like the "30,000 year old star" or the wave fronts which DaveScot mentioned are serious problems for YEC. If however Maxwell's equations can be successfully reformulated to allow much faster speeds of light (and matter), then the paradoxes have a chance of being resolved purely in terms of physics alone. A plasma cosmology combined with a high speed of light in the past will allow stars and galaxies to form in a matter of hours. I think Plasma cosmology is solid. A reformulation of Maxwell's equations is still pretty shaky at this time...we'll see where the evidence leads. It will take time and hard research.scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Sal : Are you aware that many of the old (long before modern cosmology) Jewish rabbis believed in an OEC interpretation of Genesis? That their view was Gap theory coincident? I don't understand why facts like that are not troubling to YECs. Of course rabbis may be mistaken. Nevertheless, the fact that there even were OEC rabbis many centuries ago seems to me a significant factor in the debate. Most Xians have, at one time or another, been confronted by the Jewish interpretations vs the standard Western-European interpretations. Sometimes the differences in their understanding vs ours are great yet astoundingly enlightening. Sometimes not. Nevertheless, the interpretation of scripture in the traditional creeds, handed down from Eurpoean Catholicism or Protestantism, is hardly infallible. YECs and OECs should be working together looking for those equations you speak of. Instead of fighting over biblical interpretations.Borne_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Pazu I once used to think nothing was left to be discovered in science Yeah, me too. Not nothing, but I believed all that was left were details. In reality, what we know about the universe today is comparable to what you could know about an ocean when all you can observe is the waves and froth on the surface. Once science and engineering was able to land a man on the moon it was like that's it - we know everything and can do everything - it's just a matter of working out the details. I've since come to learn that's very, very wrong. Our knowledge of the nature of nature is rather shallow. Shakespeare said it best: "There's more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy".DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

If God created the universe just 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look like it happened many orders of magnitude farther in the past. The same holds true for common descent.
Exactly. And that is the question which the YEC Todd Wood posed in his BSG artilce The Problem of Biological Similarity Wood lamented:
Having found most popular [creationist] arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none,..........
My best answer, it says in Proverbs 25:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out.
It appears God delights to give us mysteries to uncover. It appears he also gives humanity crosses to bear. Perhaps if the story has a happy ending, then maybe all the present trouble will be seen as part of Divine Drama and making the happy ending that much more meaningful. Perhaps a young creation is more meaningful when we had believed it was once impossible. Reality seems more meaninful when at first it seemed impossible (I mean, like the New York Giants beating the New England Patriots in the superbowl. That was the impossible becoming reality!). Regarding Global Warming, until you came along, I thought all was lost. It was nice to see the what I once pereceived to be a hopeless situation (global warming) is now hopeful than I ever imagined. I have a deeper appreciation for truth and light having had the chance to be in land of darkness for a season. Perhaps God lets us wander in the shadow of darkness and the valley of death to have a greater appreciation for truth and light. If Maxwell's equations and Einstein's relativity are successfully reformulated, then I'll be much more comforted. We're not there yet....scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Hi Scordova, That is sooo interesting and enlightning. I feel like we don't get he full picture on such topics at school or in the media. And for example, I didn't know some scientitst rejected the Big Bang, I also didn't know about the Galaxies problems etc... I will definitely start reading more about astronomy. It's also refreshing to see both sides of an issue, not just the same old explanations or views. I once used to think nothing was left to be discovered in science, but this was mostly due to our scientific education at school where we are not really challenged intellectually; well it might be because we don't really care at that age also. A bientotPazu1982_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

All sorts of laws of physics must be wrong for that wavefront to have grown to that dimension in 6000 years
Dang right all sorts of accepted physics have to be broken (like Maxwell's equations and Einsteinian relativity). You made my point better than I could.scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Salvador, @ 15
One may argue the scriptural case for YEC is strong, but if so, any major gap in YEC science is a reason to wonder if the scriptures may not be from God after all."
I agree. If the earth really is billions of years old, then it appears the Scriptural account doesn't hold together. Too much depends on the reliability of Moses' writings. @ 19
I sooner trust the Bible than people demanding I accept their theology without answering my reasonable questions.
I'm not troubled by the questions you have, not because I have answers but because I don't have the background to appreciate their significance. Moreover, the fact that there are scientists who believe the evidence favoring YEC is compelling--even though this position puts them very much at odds with the mainstream--encourages me to think the difficulties must not be insurmountable. I do, however, have questions of my own that tend to feed frustration as long as they remain unanswered, so perhaps I can understand a bit of your dissatisfaction. I hope you're able to find resolution--and perhaps even a solution to the Maxwell question.
I can tell you most of my OEC brethren would look favorably upon YEC if a successful, viable reformulation of the creationist maxwell’s equations are achieved. I don’t think their reservations are unreasonable. Perhaps a little charity toward their doubts would be in order.
Yes, charity is a good thing. And cognitive dissonance, while maybe not all that enjoyable, isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it motivates continued searching for answers. I encourage you to keep looking. It may be hard now, but the day may come when the efforts you have invested place you in a position to help someone else who has similar questions.RickToews_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Also what about his YEC argument that the galaxies spirals point to a younger universe or at least to young galaxies, is that correct? Thank you.
It is generally correct. Walter Brown gave the best argument here: Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, So Isn’t the Universe Billions of Years Old. I think Brown gives good arguments, but there are still some holes to plug to make his idea viable (like a correction to Maxwell's equations). I will tell you this, two of my physics professors from George Mason debated against William Dembski and Michael Behe. One of them was James Trefil. Trefil does not like ID, and he definitly does not like YEC! He wrote a book called the Dark Side of the Universe. He even autographed my copy of his book and told me how delighted he was to have me in his class (he didn't know at the time I was a creationist and he gave me an "A" in his class). Any way, he wrote in that book:
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.
And in 2004, three professors from my school (GMU) signed a statement rejecting the Big Bang. See www.CosmologyStatement.org At that point I began to think the Big Bang is probably wrong, and maybe YEC is true. But it is in my nature to be skeptical, especially of my own ideas....scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

sal I posted a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope of a galaxy that had a smaller object collide with it. The collision created a perfectly round wavefront like a pebble being dropped into a pond. The wavefront is some 200,000 light years across and advancing at some 150 kilometers per second. All sorts of laws of physics must be wrong for that wavefront to have grown to that dimension in 6000 years. If God created the universe just 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look like it happened many orders of magnitude farther in the past. The same holds true for common descent. If God created all the kinds at once de novo from dirt 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look instead like common descent over hundreds of millions of years. So this leaves me to wonder why God would do that. It doesn't make any sense at all. What DOES make sense is the bible is largely (if not wholly) a fiction written by men thousands of years ago and they, quite understandably, made a lot of mistakes out of ignorance.DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Refuting Compromise was concentrating on the errors of Hugh Ross, but touches on the Framework Hypothesis, a theological novelty. However, the CMI website links to a number of articles addressing the framwork view.Jonathan Sarfati_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

MaxAug, I have just completed a book on Design, and it includes a big chapter on the origin of life. All we have to do is persuade the IDers to carry it once it's published ;)Jonathan Sarfati_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Hi Scordova, Thanks for your reply. I don't think I had ever heard of those equations. Even though the oldest rocks were dated to 4.03 billion years, I still think the geologic column is biased toward the evolutionist framework. I read in Prothero's book "Evolution what the fossils say", that they couldn't date any rocks older than that because of the constant recycling of the earth's crust. If it's constantly being recycled then we can't really know for sure that those igneous rocks are actually that old or that young? well i don't know I am just guessing. Right now I have been more focused on Darwinian evolution so I am new to geology and astronomy and I might not understand most of the issues yet. But from what I've read so far it seems radiometric dating is not that reliable. Also what about his YEC argument that the galaxies spirals point to a younger universe or at least to young galaxies, is that correct? Thank you.Pazu1982_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

So what do OE IDers mean by old earth. How old? Merci, -DM
The mainstream view is that the universe is about 13.5 Billion Years old and the Earth is 4 Billion years old. Old Earth ID proponents like Guillermo Gonzalez (featured in the movie Expelled) accept the 13.5 Billion year figure. This calculation is based on the estimated distance of stars and the supposed constant speed of light. The age of the Earth is calculated using radioactive dating and some other assumptions like the constancy of radioactive decay. It is possible the assumptions of a constant speed of light (constant with respect to space and time) and constant radioactive decay rates used to calculate the ages of the Earth and Universe are all wrong. It is possible the assumptions are wrong. Actually demonstrating that the assumptions are wrong is another story. Over the years, I have offered reasons why I think there is good reason to think the assumptions of constant speed of light and constant radioactive decay are wrong, but my colleagues can give compelling reasons why they are right. I don't think the issue has been settled in a convincing scientific fashion for either side to claim victory. As far as the speed of light, a creationist by the name of Maxwell gave the world the science of electrodynamics and the equations which state that the speed of light is constant over space and time. The constancy of the speed of light however would generally be fatal to YEC. If YEC is true, the equations of Maxwell have to be corrected. That is no easy task. The equations of this famous creationist are listed here: Maxwell's Equations.scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Shady_milkman: You say that the 30,000 year old star, or any star for that matter poses a serious problem to young earth creation. I say it doesn’t and here’s why: In scripture, God said let there be light. Why would he wait around for millions or billions of years after this statement for the light in the visible universe to reach its destination. It seems more reasonable to me that when God made this statement, all light within the visible universe would have reached its destination instantaneously.
Thank you for your thoughts. However, what you describe was the solution ICR and Josh McDowell argued for years. I will let Answers in Genesis give a very cogent analysis of the problems of the ICR "created light" model.
Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us. But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
With respect to the 30,000 year old star, here is the discussion by plasma physicist GP Jellison at YoungCosmos: A 30,000-Year-Old Star. I certainly believe a solution to distant starlight can be found, otherwise I wouldn't have invested large amounts of time in the question. But I have been wrong before about things I thought could be right. That bothers me. I will feel much better with an answer in hand rather than with wishful thinking :-)scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Hi, When I was a teenager I used to think that the earth might be old, I had never heard much arguments at school (in France), about old earth or young earth, it was just accepted as fact that the earth was billions of years old. I didn't care much I have to admit. I knew it was grossly exaggerated. But i was ready to admit the millions of years. Anyway, thanks to creationists websites they have presented some good evidence that the uniformitarian view of geology is not that consistent, and it discards catastrophes. Also the fact that fossil indexes are used to date sediment layers, make me wonder how this can be reliable in dating the geologic column. I don't know much about geology but so far I feel like there are no reasons 9to me) to accept an extremely old earth. One of my problem though is indeed the starlight thing and the billion light years problem. But I am not really into astronomy and I don't think it really jeopardizes YEC belief. It seems there are many discoveries left to be uncovered. But as far as the earth is concerned I am more and more convinced that life was created not too long ago by the greatest Scientist we can ever conceive. And i think ID research is so valuable in getting a less religious view to God-allergic media. But i am wondering why so many IDers are mostly Old earth oriented. Because if Darwin dogma is false in respect to life's origins then the methods and the framework used to date sedimentary layers and fossils is most likely wrong. So what do OE IDers mean by old earth. How old? Merci, -DMPazu1982_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

yet you have to have a theoretical mechanism for accelerated decay that seems plausible to you before you can trust the Bible? Does that seem logical to you?
I sooner trust the Bible than people demanding I accept their theology without answering my reasonable questions. Reasonable question #1, what is the correct reformulation of the derivation I laid out here: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations. It's not like I'm asking YECs to rise from the dead or walk on water. If YEC is true, that derivation will have to be changed. What's the reformulation? Are Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics incorrect or should they be reformulated along Ritzian lines? Is relativity Lorentzian, Einsteinian, Ritzian, or Carmelian? Are there merely temporal variations in the speed of light or spatial variations or both? It's not like my questions are unreasonable to anyone working in the field. Maxwell's equations touch everying in the modern world from micro-wave ovens to radios. We would not have the modern world if the creationist Maxwell did not give the world those equations... However, if YEC is true, his equations, as they stand cannot be right. I and Setterfield have suggested temporal variation to Maxwell's equations. Others like Humphreys and Harnett suggested spatial variation. But who knows? I'm seeing museums being built but not answers to basic questions such as the one I posed. It's not any help either for people to be criticizing me for my doubts while they themselves are not forthcoming with basic solutions. I have no problem with the ICR being a religious institution. But if they are going to demand their grad students unequivocally accept a Young Creation, I have a hard time calling that science, that's faith in the absence of physical evidence or a viable, testable theory. That's fine. Faith is a good thing. But it's not science. I confess the Nicene Creed. The creed accords with my beliefs. But a Young Earth? That is another story. The case for YEC seems less believable when I see people unwilling to acknowledge that there are still serious challenges to be resolved. The questions I posed are the sort a sophomore in physics would reasonably ask. It's not like I reject all the ICR has taught. As I said, their materials persuaded me that Darwin was wrong. But of course, Darwin's theory is so full of holes, it's not hard to build a case against Darwinism. Building a case against the creationist Maxwell's equations is another story! I laid out what I think could be a viable YEC cosmology here: Bremsstrahlung radiation, VSL, dark matter, plasma cosmology. Do I think the model I suggest is correct? I wouldn't bet money on it, but at least I'm trying, which is more than I can say for others in the YEC community... I can tell you most of my OEC brethren would look favorably upon YEC if a successful, viable reformulation of the creationist maxwell's equations are achieved. I don't think their reservations are unreasonable. Perhaps a little charity toward their doubts would be in order....scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply