Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Williams

Dino Proteins Proved To Be Original Material!

Recommended Posts

Hi Spectre - Point taken  :) I am wandering a bit afield, but I do find it interesting.

Thanks for understanding. :)

 

Forensics came up because its a case where I think everyone agrees that we can draw firm (but not perfect) scientific conclusions, even though nobody was there -- which was one objection against evolutionist conjectures.

To be clear, I am not denying that we can draw reasonable conclusions from Science, but the origins of our universe and a crime scene that was present 0-20 years ago are two different things. The old Earth model is just simply unfalsifiable. I only point this out because atheists seem to believe that God is unfalsifiable.

 

You've also argued that conjectures about things over 6000 years ago are different in that they're unfalsifiable. I pointed out that there's no rule of science I'm aware of that automatically rules out evidence just because it relates to a theory about very old things; in fact, I believe scientists try to evaluate all the evidence that's available. And since you've raised planetary magnetic fields as a rebuttal to an ancient solar system, it appears to me that you implicitly acknowledge at least some theories about the distant past are falsifiable based on modern-day measurements. But if something is falsifiable then logically its also confirmable, which is what I've been trying to say all along.

I raised magnetic fields as an argument against an old universe and as for evidence of a young universe.(Just because magnetic fields are not kosher with an old universe does not necessarily falsify it, but the fact that Scientists would reject a better model just because they believe the universe is old is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. I'll expand more on this later.) Evidence does not prove/disprove anything in Science as it is constantly "evolving." See what I did there? :)

 

So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.

Evidence could be used to support either view based on how you see the evidence. I simply believe that while it is impossible to prove or falsify the age of the Earth, that the evidence for a young universe is simply stronger than an old universe.

 

I was referring to the part where Humphreys assumes God made the planets out of pure water, supernaturally configured the magnetic polarity of the water molecules, then miraculously converted the water to other elements (iron etc) immediately after creation.

Planet and star formation is still a highly theoretical area. I don't think it is fair to say that his model defies physics on this reason alone as we are still not sure how heavenly bodies can form or if they can form from a natural process. Humphreys was testing the Bible's claim that a planet may be able to be made out of water, and it passed.

 

I want to expand on some other underlying points as well that you put forth in your post. First, a dynamo powering a magnetic field in a planet with a solid core is not within the realm of physics. There is a georeactor model as well, but it is plagued with problems of its own. If you want to argue that Humphreys model is inadequate due to him appealing to the supernatural in a Creationist model, then perhaps you should think about the vast improbability of a dynamo being created from a solid core.

 

Second, the point I raised is that predictions are valuable in Science, successful predictions are more valuable. Certainly you agree with this. In fact, dead on predictions in physics is rare. Things rarely fall into place as well as Humphreys model did. He was wrong about Jupiter, okay, I'll give you that but I believe I explained why Jupiter is different quite well. Back to the second point again, Humphreys model did better than the secular model on every planet. I mean, Mercury was a disaster for the secular model since it was way too dense for a dynamo to occur. Again, the bottom line, predictions in Science has value, you have to admit that Humphreys predictions did better, and supernatural intervention was present in one planet, whereas your model counts on physics being defied on every planet. See what I am saying here?

 

Furthermore, and to expand to my third point. The Creation vs Evolution controversy is a large and heated one. There is so much disagreement that each side publishes work in their own journals. What Humphreys put forth was a Creationist model. He made his predictions for Creationist journals, not secular ones. Creationists were the primary audience he was aiming for. I sense this idea coming from many atheists I talk to that secular journals are better than Creationist journals. I disagree, because Creationists have been able to make accurate predictions based on scripture and have been validated by data in the future. When it comes to secular scientists and the origins of our universe, I do not really see this happen at all. I submit that the ability to make such predictions is evidence for the validity of The Bible and a young universe.

 

 

My reading shows evolutionists frankly admit problems with the dynamo theory. But to be consistent with the methods of science, they do not posit miraculous intervention to solve these problems, and they do not sweep aside evidence from many other independent areas about the great age of the solar system.

I do not really care about what secular scientists think(And by the way you may say they admit that the theory has flaws, but it doesn't seem to have been conveyed to the atheist republic, they act as if the models do not have any flaws whatsoever.), but I find it disturbing that they would knowingly use a highly flawed model and teach it in physics as if it were fact in classrooms. At the very least, since there is indeed a myriad of evidence for a young universe, they should include a section and present the possibility of a younger universe as a separate model without including God. After all, Humphreys predictions were dead on, barring Jupiter. But if we can excuse scientists being wrong about 9 out of 9 planets(at the time) in our solar system, surely if you are using consistent logic, being wrong about one planet in a young universe model would be excusable as well, just leave out the part about divine intervention or what-have-you, I would even let the scientists keep their idea of dynamos defying physics at mostly every planet formation.

 

Do you find your own beliefs to be scientific? What do you believe Seejay?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I am not denying that we can draw reasonable conclusions from Science, but the origins of our universe and a crime scene that was present 0-20 years ago are two different things. The old Earth model is just simply unfalsifiable. I only point this out because atheists seem to believe that God is unfalsifiable.

 

I raised magnetic fields as an argument against an old universe and as for evidence of a young universe.(Just because magnetic fields are not kosher with an old universe does not necessarily falsify it, but the fact that Scientists would reject a better model just because they believe the universe is old is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. I'll expand more on this later.) Evidence does not prove/disprove anything in Science as it is constantly "evolving." See what I did there? :D

So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.

Evidence could be used to support either view based on how you see the evidence. I simply believe that while it is impossible to prove or falsify the age of the Earth, that the evidence for a young universe is simply stronger than an old universe.

Hi Spectre -- Sorry for the delayed response.

 

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

 

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

 

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

 

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

 

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!

 

...

 

With regard to planetary formation and the magnetic field data, I really don't want to go into that too much. The reason is, Humphrey's model is basically saying the planets look the way they do because God zapped them that way. To my mind this is essentially an "apparent age" argument - things look old because when God made them recently he gave them the appearance of a much greater age. This argument concedes that when scientists say "Golly, this looks really old" they are honestly presenting the fact of the matter - not because of evolutionist assumptions, but because that's what God created for them to see!

 

Anyway, my point is, that's a whole 'nother discussion, maybe for another thread.

 

Do you find your own beliefs to be scientific? What do you believe Seejay?

I believe the natural universe was created by God own hand, and thus it is a reflection of His nature (Romans 1:20). Accordingly, we can expect the natural world to be internally self-consistent and lawlike, and this is indeed what we find. It also means that when we see something in nature, it is not an illusion but truly an element of the creation intended by God in fulfilment of His plans. And when we find things we do not understand, it is not because the world is just random, but because there are deeper laws that God has put in place to govern such things that we have not yet discovered. This is not a scientific view, but a view on the philosophical foundations of science. If nature was chaotic, mischievous and illusory - rather than regular, lawlike and real as the Bible teaches - then science would not be possible (this is something atheists seem blind to!).

 

So that's my view on that.

 

Regards -- SeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

 

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

 

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

 

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

 

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!

This really begs some questions:

 

1 - What evidence are acknowledge by the evolutionist worldview and not by a creationist worldview? Do you have any example of that?

 

2 - Have the evolutionist worldview never discounted any evidence?

 

3 - Do the evolutionist worldview never use a priori reasoning, based on their understanding of the Darwinian theory?

 

4 - Are there always only two possibilities, either discount evidence or interpret it in one and only one way?

 

I think your statements above is really naive. You seem to belive that given a certain worldview you automatically always take account for all evidence and never do any mistakes. That seems like a really absurd thing to believe. What do you base that belief on?

 

What about people like Kuhn which points out that the scientific work is not performed in a vacuum and most scientist work within a paradigm. According to Kuhn when something fail to conform to the paradigm it is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really begs some questions:

 

1 - What evidence are acknowledge by the evolutionist worldview and not by a creationist worldview? Do you have any example of that?

 

2 - Have the evolutionist worldview never discounted any evidence?

 

3 - Do the evolutionist worldview never use a priori reasoning, based on their understanding of the Darwinian theory?

 

4 - Are there always only two possibilities, either discount evidence or interpret it in one and only one way?

 

I think your statements above is really naive. You seem to belive that given a certain worldview you automatically always take account for all evidence and never do any mistakes. That seems like a really absurd thing to believe. What do you base that belief on?

 

What about people like Kuhn which points out that the scientific work is not performed in a vacuum and most scientist work within a paradigm. According to Kuhn when something fail to conform to the paradigm it is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher.

72270[/snapback]

Hi Tirian

 

Hmm. I did come across a bit arrogant and naive. Sorry. I typed that last post very quickly with my laptop on my knees on a train, when I realised I hadn't responded to Spectre.

 

To answer your questions briefly:

 

1. Constant speed of light over the past billion years.

 

2. Individual evolutionists have discounted evidence. But the evolutionist worldview consists in the shared findings of hundreds of thousands of investigators of many different faiths and biases. Amongst this multitude, all the evidence we have ever had is being taken seriously by some group somewhere, and feeding it back into the worldwide community for review, retesting, reanalysis etc.

 

3. Of course. Every human being makes a priori assumptions as part of everyday living. Secular science strives to use only such assumptions as appear to be common to all people, and avoids those that are unique to specific groups with admitted bias.

 

4. Definitely not. There is plenty of evidence that is ambiguous, could be interpreted different ways etc. However, some conclusions, like a great age for the universe, are based on the correlation of a huge amount of evidence from independent areas. The stronger the correlations, the stronger the conclusion.

 

I agree with Kuhn, for the most part. In my view we shifted from a young earth paradigm to an old earth paradigm some hundreds of years ago according to the weight of evidence, which was an improvement in our understanding of reality, as Kuhn described.

 

Anyway, thanks for the response.

 

Cheers -- SeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Spectre -- Sorry for the delayed response.

No problem, things happen.

 

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

 

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

What about the evidence that correlates with a young Earth? Evidence that we can observe such as carbon in coal and dinosaur bones, tissue on dinosaur bones, polystrata fossils, living fossils, The Bible, and helium in diamonds? There is a myriad of evidence for a young earth. To list them all here would be quite a task. Why not teach a model for a younger Earth next to the old Earth model and let the children and college students decide for themselves? Proponents of an old Earth are typically very protective of the model and will not allow any other competing model to surface.

 

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

The solar system is thought to be billions of years old in its entirety. The point of Neptune possibly being younger than the solar system would not support the secular model that you are advocating. In an old universe model(But there is not one to my knowledge that would say that Neptune is younger than the rest of the solar system), it is possible for Neptune to be younger than the rest of the solar system if the Biblical account of Creation were not true. As for your second point, secular cosmologist's evidence for an old universe is mostly either closed minded assertions of things they don't know about or are fabricated theories that make the "evidence" fit, such as inflation.

 

However, you completely bypassed and missed the point of my last post. Do you disagree that successful predictions have value in Science? If Humphreys is wrong about both the Biblical account of Creation and the age of the universe why was his predictions on every planet but Jupiter correct? And dont' forget, I already explained why Jupiter would be a special case. And to be honest, if I was alive to help him with that model he would of probably had that dead on too, because I would assume a better alignment of elements due to the immense pull of Jupiter's gravitational field.

 

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

There were thoughts that the universe may have been old before secular ideas of an old universe came about. There are different ways to interpret that Biblical Creation account, the reason why I accept a Young Universe is because there is just simply stronger evidence for it that need not have fabricated theories to adjust the numbers to fit our models. Secular scientists had an "a priori" assumption of an old universe before the "evidence" was found, I am afraid that the particular argument you are using fails at its premise.

 

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!

Seejay, this is a strawman, I never claimed that this falsifies an old universe. I simply claimed that this is very strong evidence for a young universe. I told you at the beginning of our debate that an old universe is unfalsifiable. You have to take both models and build them, and so far, the young universe models are better. Magnetic fields are certainly not the only evidence for a young universe, but you must agree that for you who believes in an old universe that the accurate predictions of magnetic fields by young earth creationists must be disturbing. Why do you think that our models were correct while your scientists were completely wrong?

 

 

 

With regard to planetary formation and the magnetic field data, I really don't want to go into that too much. The reason is, Humphrey's model is basically saying the planets look the way they do because God zapped them that way. To my mind this is essentially an "apparent age" argument - things look old because when God made them recently he gave them the appearance of a much greater age. This argument concedes that when scientists say "Golly, this looks really old" they are honestly presenting the fact of the matter - not because of evolutionist assumptions, but because that's what God created for them to see!

You are again, bypassing the point Seejay. Predictions in Science, especially physics have value, in such a highly theoretical field of science such as any branch of physics, accurate predictions are rare. Humphreys prediction was correct, secular cosmologists were wrong. You are criticizing the logic for his model when it was the only one that matched the data. If his logic is flawed and the authority in which he set his model's data on is incorrect, why was he correct in nearly all of his predictions? If you continue the discussion, please answer the question as I believe I poised it in my last post.

 

 

I believe the natural universe was created by God own hand, and thus it is a reflection of His nature (Romans 1:20). Accordingly, we can expect the natural world to be internally self-consistent and lawlike, and this is indeed what we find. It also means that when we see something in nature, it is not an illusion but truly an element of the creation intended by God in fulfilment of His plans. And when we find things we do not understand, it is not because the world is just random, but because there are deeper laws that God has put in place to govern such things that we have not yet discovered. This is not a scientific view, but a view on the philosophical foundations of science. If nature was chaotic, mischievous and illusory - rather than regular, lawlike and real as the Bible teaches - then science would not be possible (this is something atheists seem blind to!).

 

So that's my view on that.

 

Regards -- SeeJay

Thank you for sharing your views, I was making sure you weren't a naturalism proponent poising as a theistic evolutionist. I get a lot of those, but I am satisfied with your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tirian

 

Hmm. I did come across a bit arrogant and naive. Sorry. I typed that last post very quickly with my laptop on my knees on a train, when I realised I hadn't responded to Spectre.

 

To answer your questions briefly:

 

1. Constant speed of light over the past billion years.

 

2. Individual evolutionists have discounted evidence. But the evolutionist worldview consists in the shared findings of hundreds of thousands of investigators of many different faiths and biases. Amongst this multitude, all the evidence we have ever had is being taken seriously by some group somewhere, and feeding it back into the worldwide community for review, retesting, reanalysis etc.

 

3. Of course. Every human being makes a priori assumptions as part of everyday living. Secular science strives to use only such assumptions as appear to be common to all people, and avoids those that are unique to specific groups with admitted bias.

 

4. Definitely not. There is plenty of evidence that is ambiguous, could be interpreted different ways etc. However, some conclusions, like a great age for the universe, are based on the correlation of a huge amount of evidence from independent areas. The stronger the correlations, the stronger the conclusion.

 

I agree with Kuhn, for the most part. In my view we shifted from a young earth paradigm to an old earth paradigm some hundreds of years ago according to the weight of evidence, which was an improvement in our understanding of reality, as Kuhn described.

 

Anyway, thanks for the response.

 

Cheers -- SeeJay

 

Hi SeeJay,

 

Thanks for the answer. I do have some more thoughts about my initial questions.

 

1 - Can you really prove (without any assumptions) that the speed of light has been constant over the past billion years. How do you accomplish this?

 

2 and 3 - My point was simply that the evolutionist worldview does not give you any advantages in interpreting the data. There are the same pitfalls and possibilities to discredit or do a priori reasoning. It all comes down to the individual researcher, how open minded are he or she to different interpretations of the data. And here I do believe an atheistic view hampers your options, and that is way they only believe in the evolutionist worldview. Giving that up means that atheist also have to give up their naturalistic beliefs, which few are willing to do.

 

4 - I simply disagree here. There are alot of facts that may be explained by the old age model. But the same facts can also be explained by young age models. So the only way to actually see which model might be better or worse is to compare how the models interpret different facts. And that is a huge undertaking. So these kind of sweeping statements about 'huge amounts of evidence' just makes me believe that you are trying to dodge the problem. Instead you could talk about examples of facts that are better explained using an old age model. Then we could have a proper discussion about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

 

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

 

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

 

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

 

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.

 

 

Does anybody see the pattern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

 

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

 

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

 

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

 

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.

Does anybody see the pattern?

72346[/snapback]

and they say science corrects itself. if they were really searching for the truth they would drop darwinism all together and state that the creation model is the closest theory to the truth. they often say evo is just a theory but often wont do what they preach. allow that to be faslefiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

 

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

 

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

 

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

 

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.

Does anybody see the pattern?

72346[/snapback]

That just....Wasn't fair. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

 

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

 

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

 

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

 

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.

 

 

Does anybody see the pattern?

 

 

Absolutely, I can see the pattern you speak to and what Fred says about dino soft tissue. Well stated.

 

Rather than admit they got it all wrong, evolutionary researchers make up a whole lot of theories as to why this flesh survived.

 

As for their carbon dating and models, they are becoming more unbelievable as time goes on.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110217141307.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms