Jump to content


Photo

Is Biblical Creation A Science


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:10 PM

It is often said that Evolution is the backbone of biology and some even claim that most all sciences as a whole would'nt be possibile without the theory of Evolution.



Lets look at history and see who used the scientific method (observable and repeatable) and used the assumption that the bible is true and lets look and see if their theories are falsified or not.


So what depends on macroevolution or Darwinism?

Well, not the sciences as we know them. Most of the pioneers of modern biology either preceded Darwin or, like Gregor Mendel, Richard Owen or Louis Agassiz, rejected his theory. These include:

Andreas Vesalius - Anatomy, 1514-1564
William Harvey - Physiology, 1578-1657
Francesco Redi - Microbiology, 1626-1697
John Ray - Botany, 1627-1705
Anton van Leeuwenhoek - Microbiology, 1632-1705
Robert Hooke - Microbiology, 1635-1703
Carolus Linnaeus - systematics, 1707-1778
Lazzaro Spallanzani - Reproductive Biology, 1729-1799
Caspar Friedrich Wolff - Embyology, 1734-1794
Georges Cuvier - Paleontology, 1769-1832
Karl Ernst von Baer - Embryology, 1792-1876
Richard owen - Comparative Biology, 1804-1892
Louis Agassiz - Zoology, 1807-1873
Gregor Mendel - Genetics, 1822-1884 [3]

While Dobzhansky claimed that “nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution,” it seems that much made sense before the advent of Darwinism and much makes sense if we omit it from the discussion. In fact, a belief in Darwinism actually hampered science, as Mendel’s work was ignored for decades simply because scientists thought they’d found the answer in Darwinism and had no further need to look!

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:26 PM

Carolus Linnaeus-The Father of Taxonomy

http://en.wikipedia....arolus_Linnaeus

Carolus Linnaeus was a Biblical Creationist,he set out to determine what a biblical kind was and in the process he created the science called taxonomy.

Could taxonomy be possibile without creationists?It is doubtful,most evolutionists try to blur the dividing line between species to create an illusion of common descent.If their are completely different species then their are completely different kinds.

Evolution has failed to falsify this system in all the centuries since,even they are forced to admit that the fossil record shows abrubt appearance,stasis,and extinction,without the gradual progression of one species into another as predicted by Darwin.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:43 PM

Gregor Mendel-The Father of Genetics

http://creationwiki.org/Gregor_Mendel


Mendel was also a Creationists which used plants to determine what he called "Factors of Heredity".No one knew what a gene was at that time,but Mendel recognized them as factors and then wrote the Laws of Heredity.Mendel recognized that these factors cast serious doubt on Darwins' theory and is the most likely reason why his work was ignored.

Especially in the decade after the publication of Darwin's ORIGIN (1859) the scientific world was eagerly awaiting the discovery of the laws of heredity by some experimental or other scientist(s). After two lectures in 1865, Mendel published his famous Pisum-treatise VERSUCHE ÃœBER PFLANZEN-HYBRIDEN in 1866. His work was quoted at least 14 times before 1900, the year of its 'rediscovery'. There were references in such widely distributed works as Focke's DIE PFLANZEN-MISCHLINGE (1881), THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1881) and the CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY (1879).The treatise had been sent to the libraries of some 120 institutions including the Royal and Linnean Society of Great Britain. Moreover Mendel had 40 additional reprints at his disposal, many of which he sent to leading biologists of Europe. In fact, professor Niessl (1903 and 1906) emphasized that Mendel's work was "well known" at his time. So in the face of the expectations just mentioned, - why was the discovery of the laws of heredity ignored by most scientists for more than 35 years, until 1900, and by the "true Darwinians" (Mayr) for another 37 years? That is 72 years in all!

The reasons have been hinted at or clearly stated by several pioneers of genetics as de Vries (1901), Bateson (1904, 1909, 1924), Johannsen (1909, 1926) as well as several historians of biology and/or biologists as Niessl (1903, 1906), Richter (1941, 1943), Stern (1962), Lönnig (1982, 1986, 1995), Callender (1988) and Bishop (1996):

All the evidence points to the main reason as follows: Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters (and tried to back up his ideas with his pangenesis hypothesis, which even Stebbins called an "unfortunate anomaly") and, most important of course, continuous evolution. Mendel, in contrast, rejected both, the inheritance of acquired characters as well as evolution. The laws discovered by him were understood to be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not only for culture varieties but also for species in the wild (Mendel 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47). In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change". And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: "It is...not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution".

Still to this day Evolutioists cannot demonstrate through any scientific method that Mendel is wrong about limited genetic variation.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:57 PM

It really is amazing how distorted our understanding of science is. Creation is a bedrock of understanding that evolutionists even respect and reject simultaneously or as Richard Dawkins pretends that science started in the teeth of religion but does not hesitate to reject the notion that a strong belief in God, namely the God of the Bible, had the unique catalyst that led to scientific inquiry as we see it today.

Great work, this will function as a good quick reference.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 02:12 PM

Thanks Adam,

I'll get a post up about Nicolas Steno Later.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 03:04 PM

Nicolaus Steno-Father of Modern Geology

Nicolaus Steno has been recognized as making some of the first 'truly great discoveries' in geology.His fundamental principles of geology are still routinely used to interpret sedimentary rock layers. Although he is called a founder of modern geology, most geologists do not realize that it was Steno's belief in the Bible, especially Genesis, that led him to make those discoveries.

Niels Stensen (as he was originally named) was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 10 January 1638. His father was a well-to-do goldsmith. Niels was brought up in Copenhagen as a Lutheran.

ANATOMY

In 1656, Niels Stensen went to the University of Copenhagen to study anatomy and become a physician. He studied further in Amsterdam and Leyden in Holland. 'While in Amsterdam [he] discovered the parotid salivary duct (ductus Stenorzarianus). After four years at Leyden, he sought a position in Copenhagen but none was available. Instead, 'he went to Paris, where he made important observations on the anatomy of the brain'.

Stensen disproved the idea that the pineal gland was linked to human's spiritual nature, by showing that animals, too, had a pineal gland. He also traced the human lymphatic system. 'Although his contributions to our knowledge of the heart were soon overshadowed by William Harvey's great experiments on circulation, he [Stensen] was still the first to show that the heart consists of two relatively independent pumps.

In 1665, Stensen went to Florence in Italy and became court physician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Here he changed his name from Niels Stensen to its Latinized form, Nicolaus Steno. Fortunately, the Grand Duke was happy for Steno to conduct his scientific research as well as act as physician.

GEOLOGY

Steno published his geological findings in 1671 in The Prodromus [a preliminary treatise] to a Dissertation Concerning Solids Naturally Contained Within Solids, 'a book in which he outlined the principles of modern physical geology'.The bodies enclosed in the rocks included both fossils and crystals, while many of the rocks occurred in layers called strata. Steno's dissertation therefore covered the study of fossils (paleontology), the study of rock strata (stratigraphy) and study of crystals (crystallography).

The fuller dissertation foreshadowed in his Prodromus was never produced. Nevertheless, his work is acknowledged as 'one of the most fundamental contributions to geology because of Steno's qualities of observation, analysis, and inductive reasoning at a time when scientific research was nothing but metaphysical speculation.In effect, Steno used the modern scientific method long before it became generally adopted.

PALEOENTOLOGY

Steno's brilliant geological insights did not arise in isolation. Surprisingly, it was Steno's research in anatomy that aroused his interest in geology. 'While dissecting a shark, the distinctive character of the teeth led him to compare them with certain fossils, found far inland, which he then realized were the remains of sharks of a former period, preserved in rocks once laid down in the sea.

That is, Steno recognized that fossils are the petrified remains of real plants and animals. He therefore rejected the idea, taught by some geologists at the time, that fossils were mere replicas of plants and animals, directly created by God within the rock layers.He also rejected the equally un-Biblical idea that fossils were the remains of real living organisms produced during '"practice creations" of God before He buckled down to the real business of creation'.

Steno published these findings in his Sample of the Elements of Myology [the scientific study of muscles] in 1667, and demonstrated how the teeth had come to be mineralized.This was an enormous contribution to the study of fossils.

The shark teeth naturally led Steno to consider how such fossils came to be embedded deeply in the rocks. He reasoned that since the remains were of sea creatures, the sea must have once covered the area.Turning to the Bible for help, he found that 'we learn from Holy Scripture that all things, both when Creation began and at the time of the Flood, have been covered with waters.Thus, using the 6,000-year Biblical framework, Steno developed one of the earliest directional geological accounts of Earth and life history. This work was of considerable influence in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The well-known atheist Isaac Asimov admitted that 'Steno … suggested that they [the fossils] were ancient animals who had lived normal lives and in death were petrified.However, Asimov wrongly concluded that Steno rejected Noah's Flood, because 'No supernatural forces were brought into [Steno's] explanation.This conclusion was an unjustified extension beyond the facts. A religious justification would have been inappropriate in a scientific paper, and an appeal to miracle was not required in any case. As the writings of today's Flood geologists show, while there are definite miraculous aspects to the account of Noah's Flood,there is no need to appeal to any such thing to explain the geological consequences of the destruction wrought upon the Earth by water.

Just as the Ark rode out the Flood using the principle of buoyancy, such things as erosion, deposition, fossil formation, etc. were happening on a massive scale during the global Flood, on the basis of existing physical laws.

Steno believed in a literal global Flood and other aspects of Genesis 1-11, such as the 6,000-year timeframe. He also used the Bible to interpret his geological findings, which he found were totally consistent with Noah's Flood.

STRATIGRAPHY

As a physician Steno travelled widely in the Tuscany region of northern Italy and used this opportunity to make a detailed geological study of the rocks of the area. He found that many rocks were formed by sedimentation. From these observations and his Biblical understanding, he 'established some of the fundamental principles of stratigraphy: deposition of each bed upon a solid substratum, superposition of younger strata over older ones, and the occurrence of all beds except the basal one between two essentially horizontal planes.While 'strata must originally have been laid down horizontally on a solid surface…their folding and breakage occurred later.Such folding and breakage would account for the formation of mountains and other geological features. The principles of stratigraphic interpretation established by Steno are still regarded as basic nowadays.

It is important to realize that Steno was not forced reluctantly into a 6,000-year timeframe by church dogma, as some evolutionary-minded historians claim. There was no recorded friction between Steno and any church authorities on the issue. Rather than church pressure, it was Steno's belief in a young Earth as described in the Bible that prompted his independent thinking on geology and fossils.

CRYSTALLOGRAPHY

Steno's Prodromus 'laid the foundations of the science of crystallography. He reported that, although quartz crystals differ greatly in physical appearance, they all have the same angles between corresponding faces.Similarly, each type of crystal of a chemical or mineral has its own characteristic angles. The simplest crystal shape is a cube, which has six equal square faces all at right angles, e.g. common salt (sodium chloride). Quartz, beryl (e.g. emerald) and corundum (e.g. sapphire, ruby) are often found as hexagonal crystals with 120o between faces, and so on. This rule about the characteristic interfacial angles for each type of crystal is known as Steno's Law. It holds true for any two crystals of the same substance 'regardless of size, locality of occurrence, or whether they are natural or man-made'.

A BIBLICAL GEOLOGIST

While stratigraphy today is used as a major plank of evolutionism,its founder, Steno, was a firm believer in a literal, historical creation by God, as outlined in the Bible, and also the global Flood. This was true of the founders of many other scientific disciplines. Although some of them would not be regarded as theologically sound overall, it is still instructive to note that modern science blossomed in an intellectual framework of belief in a six-day Creation about 6,000 years ago.

Compare this reality to the protestations of the vociferous anticreationists who claim that belief in a miraculous original Creation is by definition opposed to scientific thought.

Throughout his life, Steno considered his investigations of the wonders of God's creation to be a Christian responsibility: 'One sins against the majesty of God by being unwilling to look into nature's own works.He also recognized the sinfulness of man and our dependency on God: 'Let us at God's feet lay aside the soiled clothes of our sins'.

Steno lived in various German towns during his later years, the last being Schwerin, where he died on 26 November, 1686. His achievements more than justify the way he is widely remembered, as a founding father of modern geology.

It is also important to remember that Steno was a Biblical geologist. His achievements were nurtured by his belief that the Bible records the true history—including geological history—of the world.

http://www.answersin...23/i4/steno.asp

Although Steno's work was also highjacked by uniformitairians,The slow gradual processes proposed by Charles Lyell are becoming less and less accepted by modern geologists.Steno's work still stands as being powerful evidence of a global flood and proof that Creation is a valid science.


Enjoy.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:02 PM

Dr. Russell Humphreys-Ph.D. Physics

Biography

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high-voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

Dr Humphreys has retired from Sandia and now works with ICR. He still continues to write for TJ and serves as a resource scientist for AiG to assist with questions and information concerning physics, astronomy and cosmology.

Education

B.S., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1963
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1972
Honors/Awards/Associations
Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, President
Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 award
Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory
Adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego
board member of the Creation Research Society

Publications

Dr Humphreys has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers. He is also the author of Starlight and Time, in which he proposes a model that the universe may only be thousands of years old even though light from distant stars appears to have taken billions of years to reach Earth. He is also author of Evidences for a Young World (available as a tract), and this is also the title of a video featuring Dr Humphreys.

http://www.answersin...r_humphreys.asp


Dr. Humphreys is also a Bible beleiving Christian who applied emperical science with the historic account of the Bible.

He devoloped The Helium Diffusion Dating method which still stands as an emperical method for dating zircons.

Helium diffusion is one type of nuclear decay dealing with the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a biproduct of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.

http://creationwiki....elium_diffusion

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:04 PM

Famous Medical Breakthroughs - The Christian Pioneers

Dr Markus Schichtel looks at the lives and work of three famous scientists whose discoveries transformed medical practice. Joseph Lister with antiseptic techniques, James Clerk Maxwell with electrical instruments and James Young Simson an obstetrician and pioneer in the field of anaesthetics.


Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:00 PM

Steven A. Austin

Creationist Geology Professor
(USA)


Education

B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970

M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971

Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

http://www.answersin...os/s_austin.asp


Steven Austin is a Biblical Creationists that made a prediction that the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood of Noah.He applied for the permits to search the Canyon and found the worlds largest deposit of orthocone nautiloids in the Mississippian Redwall Limestone.

Uniformitairians still have'nt produced a plausable explanation for this mass kill of orthocone nautiloids.

(Biblical glasses=Discoveries.)

AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.

http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm






Enjoy.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 February 2009 - 12:46 AM

Robert Boyle-The Father Of Modern Chemistry


Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a devout Bible-believing Christian who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry. He was born in County Waterford in Ireland on January 25, 1627. In Boyle's day, alchemy was more popular than true chemistry, being a medieval chemical philosophy looking to change common metals into gold, find a panacea (something that can cure every illness), and make an elixir that gave long life and everlasting youth. Chemistry is more the study of what substances are made of and their properties.

Although Robert Boyle believed in the possibility of the transmutation of metals, he made great contributions towards science, and through his work he advocated the scientific experimental method.

He invented a vacuum pump and used it to prove that air was important to transmit sound.
He discovered and formulated his gas law (called Boyle's law) which states that if the temperature is constant, pressure is inversely proportional to volume. To translate, that means that as pressure (the force applied to an area) increases, the volume of (the space occupied by) a gas gets smaller and vice versa.
He advanced the modern view of chemical elements as the smallest part of a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances.
He understood the difference between compounds (two more elements actually joined together) and mixtures (two or more elements simply mixed together, but not joined), tried to develop techniques of finding their ingredients, a technique he called "analysis".
As a Bible-believing Christian and enthusiastic student of the Bible, Boyle spent much of his time and money ensuring that the Gospel was preached and defended against other religions like paganism and atheism. He felt a strong need to study the Scriptures in their original languages to better understand them. He was also a founding member of the Royal Society of London.

In 1690, the year before he died, Boyle published a delightful work called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty that God has given to humans. Boyle's basis for this was Genesis 1:28, in which God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every living thing that moves on earth.

Robert Boyle showed in his writings and lectures that science and trust in God can exist together. He praised his Creator for the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He saw that the universe works in accordance with laws that God set up for its order and control. He strongly supported missionary work and organizations that promoted the Gospel. Shortly before he died in London on December 30, 1691, he made provision in his will for the famous Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity.

http://creationwiki.org/Robert_Boyle


Not only is it important to realize that a literal interpretation of the bible was Robert Boyles worldview,it is also his gas law that refutes the possibility of star formation apart from Creation.


Enjoy.

#11 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 February 2009 - 04:28 AM

Robert Boyle-The Father Of Modern Chemistry
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a devout Bible-believing Christian who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry. He was born in County Waterford in Ireland on January 25, 1627. In Boyle's day, alchemy was more popular than true chemistry, being a medieval chemical philosophy looking to change common metals into gold, find a panacea (something that can cure every illness), and make an elixir that gave long life and everlasting youth. Chemistry is more the study of what substances are made of and their properties.

Although Robert Boyle believed in the possibility of the transmutation of metals, he made great contributions towards science, and through his work he advocated the scientific experimental method.

He invented a vacuum pump and used it to prove that air was important to transmit sound.
He discovered and formulated his gas law (called Boyle's law) which states that if the temperature is constant, pressure is inversely proportional to volume. To translate, that means that as pressure (the force applied to an area) increases, the volume of (the space occupied by) a gas gets smaller and vice versa.
He advanced the modern view of chemical elements as the smallest part of a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances.
He understood the difference between compounds (two more elements actually joined together) and mixtures (two or more elements simply mixed together, but not joined), tried to develop techniques of finding their ingredients, a technique he called "analysis".
As a Bible-believing Christian and enthusiastic student of the Bible, Boyle spent much of his time and money ensuring that the Gospel was preached and defended against other religions like paganism and atheism. He felt a strong need to study the Scriptures in their original languages to better understand them. He was also a founding member of the Royal Society of London.

In 1690, the year before he died, Boyle published a delightful work called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty that God has given to humans. Boyle's basis for this was Genesis 1:28, in which God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every living thing that moves on earth.

Robert Boyle showed in his writings and lectures that science and trust in God can exist together. He praised his Creator for the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He saw that the universe works in accordance with laws that God set up for its order and control. He strongly supported missionary work and organizations that promoted the Gospel. Shortly before he died in London on December 30, 1691, he made provision in his will for the famous Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity.

http://creationwiki.org/Robert_Boyle
Not only is it important to realize that a literal interpretation of the bible was Robert Boyles worldview,it is also his gas law that refutes the possibility of star formation apart from Creation.
Enjoy.

View Post


Are all these posts not simply an "argument from authority"?

Even ignoring this failure of logic, given that some of these scientist listed were alive before before Darwin proposed his theory, then I fail to see their inclusion being relevent. Who is to say that they may have changed their minds in the face of Darwin's evidence?

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:56 AM

Are all these posts not simply an "argument from authority"?

Even ignoring this failure of logic, given that some of these scientist listed were alive before before Darwin proposed his theory, then I fail to see their inclusion being relevent. Who is to say that they may have changed their minds in the face of Darwin's evidence?

View Post


Yes, but they may not have changed their minds either. So this arguement is completely and utterly moot.

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:12 AM

Are all these posts not simply an "argument from authority"?

View Post

Argument from authority work like this:

doubter - I don't think alchemy will work.

believer - Of course, it will work the king has the best alchemists on the job.

An appeal to authority is only an actual fallacious argument when a legitimate problem/contradiction/concern is ignored based on the level of people associated with a certain belief... good or bad.

An appeal to authority doesn't clarify whether what is being argued for is wrong or not. It simply points to the fallacious nature of the arguments form.

Now to sight people's credentials and opinions based on their merits is perfectly legitimate as long as it isn't used to whitewash a blatant or perceived problem.

If you can show that Jason777 is intentionally ignoring a certain problem by showing that he's only sharing authorities that believe otherwise, without clarifying why they believe otherwise, then you would have a genuine case of "Appeal to Authority".

You should be very familiar with it... evolutionists do it all the time:

"You don't think all those hard working biologists, palaeontologists and geologists working so hard out in the field could be wrong do you?"

Now that statement is an appeal to authority. :(

An appeal to pity works along the same lines:

Editor - That article stinks, go rewrite it.

Journalist - What do you mean it stinks? I worked so hard on it.

Adam

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:38 AM

Are all these posts not simply an "argument from authority"?

Even ignoring this failure of logic, given that some of these scientist listed were alive before before Darwin proposed his theory, then I fail to see their inclusion being relevent. Who is to say that they may have changed their minds in the face of Darwin's evidence?

View Post


Mendel was alive at the same time as Darwin.Mendels work became a scientific law that was ignored by Darwinists and Darwinism has'nt become anything but smoke and mirrors.




Thanks.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:57 AM

Mendel was alive at the same time as Darwin.Mendels work became a scientific law that was ignored by Darwinists and Darwinism has been has'nt become anything but smoke and mirrors.
Thanks.

View Post



I cannot stress enough about how Gregor Mendel was right, and how Darwin was extremely wrong.

Mendel actually proved that evolution does not occur through breeding. People have been breeding for thousands of years and not once have we seen new information pop up. Not once. You know we can breed animals with the right combination and get an ancient breed.

I suggest that all evolutionist take a Agriculture class at least some time in their lifetime. There they can learn how to actually test and observe their results through actually breeding animals. There they will see how information is passed on from generation to generation. All breeding uses past information, and is predictable... as Mendel proved over and over again through breeding.

Just look at your parents, yep thats where all of our information can from. Micro-evolution??? The adding of new information??? I think not! No, I know it's not so through testing and observing through the breeding process.

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:34 PM

And for what it's worth, I've been unable to find any evidence supporting the myth of scientists changing their minds. Neither I, nor anyone I've asked has been able to track down even one man-of-science in the 19th century who was persuaded to give up "young earth" creationism on the "scientific merit" of evolutionism.

A process of replacement took place. Conversion did not.

#17 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:00 PM

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin - (1824 - 1907)

William Thomson, Scottish physicist, mathematician and engineer, later awarded the barony Kelvin of Largs which gave him the more familiar title “Lord Kelvin,” was the most eminent scientist of his day in the British Isles. He was professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at the University of Glasgow in Scotland for over 50 years. Lord Kelvin was largely responsible for the rise of engineering, taking the meteoric discoveries being made by 19th century scientists to practical uses for man. He supervised the first successful transatlantic cable that brought instantaneous communication across the ocean for the first time. This succeeded only with his invention of signal amplifiers and sensitive receivers. With James Joule, he discovered the Joule-Thomson effect that ushered in the invention of refrigerators. His name is also commemorated in the Kelvin temperature scale, that begins at absolute zero (a concept he originated), which is widely used in physics and astronomy. Perhaps Lord Kelvin’s most significant achievement was defining the concept of energy and formalizing the laws of thermodynamics. Applying the Second Law to the universe as a whole, he predicted the heat death of the universe in the future, which also ruled out an infinitely-old universe.

As a Christian, Lord Kelvin was a gentle, wise and generous family man, faithful in his church, an ardent student of the Scripture and a promoter of Christian education. He believed church members should study the maps in the back of the Bible and understand history. He often expressed awe at the beauty, design and orderliness of creation and natural law. But he also recognized the rise of Darwinism both for its bad science and evil influence. Accordingly, he contested the arguments of Huxley and others that the earth was millions of years old. In a well-known interchange with Huxley, he calculated mathematically that the earth and the sun could not be that old, based on his own knowledge of thermodynamics. His argument for a maximum age for the earth was made before the discovery of thermonuclear reactions, and has been largely discounted unfairly on that basis. (In actuality, the age of the earth and sun are difficulties for evolution even today, and his arguments are largely ignored.) Nevertheless, Lord Kelvin was respected even by “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Huxley as a gentleman, a scholar, and a formidable opponent: he called him “the most perfect knight who ever broke a lance.” Known for his self-confidence, Kelvin held the Darwinists’ feet to the fire of scientific rigor and didn’t let them get by with mere storytelling. His students respected him for his skill at demonstrating underlying, unifying principles (rather than requiring memorization of facts), and motivating them to do their best.

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin published over 600 research papers and served as president of the Royal Society. Showered with 21 honorary doctorates from around the world, he had right to more letters after his name than any of his contemporaries. He received numerous awards and was knighted by the queen. Not only did he advance science in fundamental ways himself, he mentored Joule, Maxwell, Tait and other eminent scientists. He was buried in Westminster Abbey after a long and successful career.

http://www.creations....com/wgcs_3.htm




Quotes By Lord Kelvin http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes.html



"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us."


"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."


"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism."


"The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words."


"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."

#18 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 03 March 2009 - 08:19 PM

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin - (1824 - 1907)   ....
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."

View Post


I thought it would be worth adding a few comments to remember that although Kelvin made a number of important discoveries, he also made a number of mistakes.

"It seems as if we may also be forced to conclude that the supposed connection between magnetic storms and sunspots is unreal, and that the seeming agreement between the periods has been mere coincidence."
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/

Circa 1896, Lord Kelvin was initially skeptical of X-rays, and regarded their announcement as a hoax.[37] However, this was before he saw Röntgen's evidence, after which he accepted the idea, and even had his own hand X-rayed in May of 1896.[38]

His forecast for practical aviation was negative. In 1896 he refused an invitation to join the Aeronautical Society, writing that:
"I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of." [39] And in a 1902 newspaper interview he predicted that "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful.


"But I think we may with much probability say that the consolidation [of the earth] cannot have taken place less than 20,000,000 years ago, or we should have more underground heat than we actually have, nor more than 400,000,000 years ago, or we should not have so much as the least observable underground increment of temperature."

http://en.wikipedia....st_Baron_Kelvin


Based on his own calculations, Lord Kelvin (Thomson) "ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old."


This is 5000 times older than that suggested by YECs. Yes, it is also 100 times less than the age calculated by modern geologists. However, it has been argued that adding in the heat from radioactivity (not understood in his time) gets his equations closer to modern calculations.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 March 2009 - 08:56 PM

Hi James,

Kelvin gave a maximum age of 100,000,000 million years and after later research that number shrank even further.


by John Woodmorappe

A century ago, Lord Kelvin calculated an upper limit for the age of the Earth. By estimating how long it would take an earth-sized molten sphere to cool to today’s temperatures, he obtained a maximum age near 100 million years. Some of his contemporaries argued for a maximum age as low at 10 million years.It is not difficult to see why these values were distastefully low for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology.

But, we are told, Kelvin’s calculations went out the window as soon as radioactivity was discovered. Typical of this attitude is the work of Burchfield. When discussing the discovery of radioactivity, his subchapter reads: ‘Kelvin Overthrown’.

But has this been established, or has it been supposed? As a matter of fact, it is freely acknowledged that radioactive heat sources within the earth do not account for its present internal temperatures if the earth had really existed for 4.5 Ga (1 Ga = 109 years):

‘Heat flow from the Earth’s interior is 4 x 1013 W. The energy of the decay of radioactive elements (235U, 238U, 232Th, and 40K) is of the same order of magnitude (2.4 x 1013 W) as that of the heat flow … .

If the earth really were 4.5 Ga old, these two numbers should agree exactly. Galimov discusses possible causes for the difference (1.6 x 1013 W), such as lack of knowledge about the amount of radioactive material in the earth’s crust. In spite of the fact that some would argue that the amount of radioactivity at depth is little more than guesswork, Galimov believes that geochemical constraints make it unlikely that the amount of radioactive materials at depth has been appreciably underestimated. He concludes:

‘This indicates that the difference between the observed value of heat flow (4.0 x 1013 W) and its fraction due to radioactive decay (2.4 x 1013 W) is presumably significant and requires explanation.

Other earth-interior processes also fail to account for the ‘missing’ heat (missing, that is, if the earth is really 4.5 billion years old):

‘Calculations show that the contribution of such heat sources as phase transformations in the mantle (for example, olivine-spinel transition, etc.), tidal interaction with the Moon, and crystallization of the inner core, is low and does not exceed 0.1 x 1013 W.

So how is the old-earther to cope with this problem? Galimov suggests that the ‘missing’ heat can be supplied by the gradual change of mantle to core:

‘Hence, a core growth of only 170 km (one-twentieth fraction of its radius) during all geologic history provides energy sufficient to account for the observed deficiency (if, for simplification, the flow is assumed to be constant) (emphasis added).

Wait a minute! This argument openly begs the question. It assumes what it sets out to prove: the great age of the earth. The ‘solution’ to the problem cannot work if the earth is not old. And, of course, such a model can only be speculative to begin with. At best, uniformitarians can ‘rescue’ an old earth by appealing to unproven (and unprovable) inner-earth chemical processes. By contrast, scientific creationists can face the evidence directly and straightforwardly without any questionable assumptions. Let us put speculative models aside and look squarely at the facts. The empirical evidence supports the view that the Earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years.

References

Burchfield, J. D. 1975. Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth. Science History Publications, New York, p. 110. Return to text

Burchfield, Ref. 1, p. 166. Return to text

Galimov, E. M., 1998. Growth of the Earth’s core as a source of its internal energy and a factor of mantle redox evolution. Geochemistry International, 36(8):673–675. Return to text

http://www.answersin...3/i1/kelvin.asp





Thanks.

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 March 2009 - 09:20 PM

After Lyell, in 1899, Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) calculated the age of the earth, based on the cooling rate of a molten sphere, at a maximum of about 20–40 million years (this was revised from his earlier calculation of 100 million years in 1862).


http://www.answersin...ow-old-is-earth

Lord Kelvin gave a maximum age which could be much younger.He never rejected the Biblical age of 6,000 years,he set out with emperical data to prove lyell was wrong.


Edit:Kelvin may have completed his research before lyell.


Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users