Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

[Maksutov]

[edit]
Maksutov, "I need to talk to a few of my Hindu friends to let them know they're immoral. " You said so yourself. [edit]

I typed those words, but you did not understand their meaning. As with almost all fundies it appears there is no appreciation for or ability to detect subtlety, in this case something called irony.

It is your stance of moral superiority that is immoral. That stance has caused pain, bloodshed, misery, and the destruction of fine, moral civilizations over the past 1800 years.

Please take your smug arrogance back to your pathetic little 6000-year-old universe and go to talk.origins. :roll:

[Rc2000]

WARNING! RANT AHEAD!
Countrywideoptionone, I have a few things to cover.
Kinda hard at times to get what I feel or believe about creation and science across.
I'm not very eloquent most times, so hopefully this will make sense.
Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible. At times my faith is very strong and at other times I have doubts. That's part of being human.
Anyways, the Bible isn't a book of science. It's God's revelation of himself to man and written in a way that all can understand it without needing to be an Einstein or Hawkins.
To me, the creation in Genesis is not meant to be taken 100% accurate. I'll not get caught in a trap of --- was Adam created with a belly button or without --- or whether a 'day' in creation lasted 24 hours or 1000 years --- or if somehow light was created in transit.

WHO FREAKIN CARES!? (sorry about that)

A knowledge of science (or being able to come up with answers to the belly button, day, speed of light, etc) isn't a prerequisit (sp?) to faith. You don't have to have a degree to have faith.

Did the Jews or the early Christians need an understanding of the speed of light, quantum physics, and the things we now know to be part of our universe before they would believe?

NO!

I don't see science and knowledge as heresy or something to battle against. It's part of our world. I don't see it as a threat to my faith. True, some of it might go against my beliefs, but no need to throw all the rest of it out because of a few things. To me, science helps me understand things around me and opens my eyes to the true beauty and complexity of God's creation. Let's face it, some of the discoveries that I've seen in my lifetime, and especially now, send shivers up and down my spine. Here's some examples -- the probes to the planets, the moon landings, the Hubble pictures, to name a few. How can anyone not look at these things and events and not be thrilled?
See, people that hang out here, whether they're Christian or not, think in ways I like. They don't jump on the latest band wagon to come along or go with the newest fad in metaphysical mess or paranormal mumbo-jumbo. I've seen way too much of that in my time and I'm tired of it. I've even been there. Chariots of the Gods ring a bell? I used to be into that mess big time. Then one day I realized it was a load of -- well, it stunk. Now, I see people on the internet that are like I used to be and I want to slap them over the head and tell them to WAKE UP! But I can't do that. That's where trying to talk to em in a logical manner comes in. Might not work, but it's a start. And that goes for some fellow Christians too. They're not exempt from fanaticism either. It just takes a different form is all.
Countrywideoptionone, does the term -- Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good sound familiar? How about --- come down from the mountain top and mingle with the people in the valley down below?
You do not hit people over the head with the Bible or it's message. Neither you nor anyone has a right to force beliefs on others. If people listen, fine, then you do what you can to explain your faith. If they don't want to listen, then you can't force it on them. The more you push, the more others will back away. Remember, we've been given a great gift, and that's free will.

------ ummmmmm ------
Didn't mean to go on like that, but well, it happens. I had to try to clarify myself a little.

Rc

Edit for spelling. Think I got em all. 8-[

[captain swoop]

I see this thread a heading for a locking :-?

[Rc2000]

Hope not. For my part, I apologize to harlequin for going off topic and for getting a bit emotional.
Nuff said.

Rc

[Yannox]

Harlequin uses circular reasoning. The author starts with a 4.5 billion year old solar system to get the time frame that his argument has any value, and then works with Newton`s theory of gravity, which is wrong. Newton did NOT take into account that planets (and the sun itself ) rotate. This rotation determines the orbital parameters, and NOT the mass. I question our ability to unambigously identify all of these minor planets as having a common origin with such great certainty based upon spectral features. I know that the spectra of minor planets can be measured and general classifications established, but I was not aware that such detailed matches could be established. I alsoquestion our ability to accurately compute the orbits of the various minor planets this far into the supposed past.

[Cougar]

The author starts with a 4.5 billion year old solar system to get the time frame that his argument has any value, and then works with Newton`s theory of gravity, which is wrong.

Your language is a little hard to follow here, but nobody started with a 4.5 billion year old solar system. This was determined using various empirical methods.

...Newton's theory of gravity, which is wrong. Newton did NOT take into account that planets (and the sun itself ) rotate. This rotation determines the orbital parameters, and NOT the mass.

Say what? That ain't right, Yanni. Or if you think it is, please demonstrate.

[freddo]

Say what? That ain't right, Yanni. Or if you think it is, please demonstrate.

Goodness gracious me - and we've been to Mars how many times now? Poor Newton sure cops a bashing far too often...

[Yannox]

What empirical methods?
Thinly veiled coverings of the author's bias, as
displayed through his opening references to "real
astronomers or anyone else," "talk.origins" and
"Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists," are
mildly amusing, but the only thing I find remotely
interesting about his short essay is that even a
believer in science can see that Genesis is "clear" in
its "account of creation." It is a pity that other
things are not quite so clear to him.

The author's first, inexcusably false assertion is
that "astronomers know how far astronomical objects
are [away from us]." Such huge distances are not
known; they are assumed. Next, his "astronomical
absurdit[y]" claim is thrown in without any supportive
argument, reasonable, possible or otherwise.

In saying that "our solar system has many features
that are strong evidence for the notion that it
existed before ten thousand years ago," the author
fails to qualify his statement with any mention of the
fact that there is also, within the "solar system,"
decidedly strong evidence to the contrary.

The essence of the article, namely "an asteroid
collision that can be conclusively dated as happening
5.8  0.2 million years ago simply by tracing
back the orbits of its fragments," is then 'justified'
in a rather verbose and speculative manner.

First of all, I note that the "breakup of a large
asteroid" is referred to by the author as "a
reasonable hypothesis." Was not the "reasonable
[Nebular] hypothesis" of Swedenborg (as
modified/plagiarized by Laplace), that these bits of
rock had to somehow, sort of, you know, stick
together? Isn't that what we are all taught? (Mr.
Swedenborg was apparently informed of this during one
of his discussions with the Moonmen, although that bit
is usually omitted from our 'education'.) Were they
not all chunks of the same type of material, just
swirling around and coagulating, as one does? Yet we
are now to believe that they are of significantly
differing chemical composition. So much so, that
spectrometry on these small non-emissive objects, at
such a distance, through the Earth's atmosphere, with
such tiny quantities of light, can be used to identify
individual fragments! Next you will believe that the
CIA can read the newspaper headlines over your
shoulder, from a NASA satellite.

The author cites Nesvorny et al., 2002, which is a
highly selective study of only 13 out of an assumed 39
asteroid "family" members. I.e., 26 out of 39 are
discarded "for reasons that should be obvious." This
"obvious" reason is simply that the supposed orbits
can not be determined to any degree of accuracy.
Furthermore, the work by Nesvorny et al. is of highly
dubious worth anyway, since this would be an
impossibly intricate, interrelating system to model,
whether they did or did not ignore the effects of
Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Pluto, all the other
asteroids, radiation pressure, moons, comets and so
forth. (Incidentally, the author makes no mention as
to whether the Sun was taken into account, nor what
barycentres, if any, were used.). Such research is a
complete waste of time and shows nothing, "for reasons
that should be obvious." There is no way that it
proves a convergence of the orbits of 13/39 asteroids
to a point 5.8  0.2 million years in the past.
Sorry. And even if it did, are we really supposed to
accept that a chance of one in a million is nil,
whereas the probability of just one protein molecule
forming, by chance, anywhere, anytime, within a
20-billion-year-old universe (i.e., 10e600 to 1) is
perfectly reasonable? Come on, now. One in a million
is an absolute certainty by comparison, as anyone who
has won the British weekly lottery draw (where the
odds are fourteen million to one) will tell you.

In short, this is a hollow essay, devoid of scientific
substance. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will be
warmly welcomed on talk.origins.

[Cougar]

...even a
believer in science can see that Genesis is "clear" in
its "account of creation." It is a pity that other
things are not quite so clear to him.

Well, it's clear to me that no matter how clear a case can be presented, you are not going to be able to see anything beyond what is revealed to you through your holy writings, so I fear that further attempts to educate you would be in vain. Have a nice, sheltered life.

[Yannox]

There is one point that I am surprised the
author of the essay did not mention. The Bible clearly
indicates that the universe is geocentric. Although
the perceived motions of "solar system" objects is the
same in both a geocentric and a heliocentric scenario,
the actual trajectories would be different. Far from
contradicting the Bible, the mathematical model used
is simply irrelevant in a Biblically-based, geocentric
cosmos.
A photo of a cougar
http://vanishingspecies.net/animals/.../image_17.html

[wedgebert]

I guess the alternative to basing your assumptions on observation and rational thought is to base them on a book written thousands of years ago.

Of course, you have to assume that the aforementioned book was actually written by who we are told it was.

[Rc2000]

even a believer in science can see that Genesis is "clear" in its "account of creation.

Been there, done that. No need to get started on that one again.

The author's first, inexcusably false assertion is that "astronomers know how far astronomical objects are [away from us]." Such huge distances are not known; they are assumed.

But, astromomers do know how far away other planets, comets, distant stars, etc are by using proven math. In the case of galaxies that are many light years away, we see where they were from the time that the light left them long ago.
Most of the other stuff you mentioned, I don't know enough about em to really comment. There are others here that are far more qualified than me.

There is one point that I am surprised the author of the essay did not mention. The Bible clearly indicates that the universe is geocentric. Although the perceived motions of "solar system" objects is the same in both a geocentric and a heliocentric scenario, the actual trajectories would be different. Far from contradicting the Bible, the mathematical model used is simply irrelevant in a Biblically-based, geocentric cosmos.

ummmm, I must have missed that one. You happen to have a chaptor and verse? The only thing I really remember about the Earth as far as astronomy is "He (God) hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). Which is essentially the truth.

Moon circles Earth, which circles Sun with other planets, which circles galactic center, which in turn is moving thru the cosmos with the other galaxies of our local group. And waaay out in the depths, other groups are moving on their way too. (Hope I got that right guys)
The Universe is dynamic, moving, and ever changing. Observation and math prove this.

Rc

[ToSeek]

In saying that "our solar system has many features
that are strong evidence for the notion that it
existed before ten thousand years ago," the author
fails to qualify his statement with any mention of the
fact that there is also, within the "solar system,"
decidedly strong evidence to the contrary.

No, there isn't. All such claims rely on half-truths, misinterpretations, or old, discredited research. There is no evidence for a young solar system that holds water for five minutes. (You are, however, welcome to try to argue the contrary position.)

[harlequin]

Harlequin uses circular reasoning. The author starts with a 4.5 billion year old solar system to get the time frame that his argument has any value,

The 4.5 billion year figure was not used at all in my post with one exception: the probability of the the asteroids intersecting in that period of time is less than one in a million.

and then works with Newton`s theory of gravity, which is wrong. Newton did NOT take into account that planets (and the sun itself ) rotate. This rotation determines the orbital parameters, and NOT the mass.

Oh my!

The observed gravitatational effect of the objects in the Solar System does not correspond with their rotation. Your view is falsified.

I question our ability to unambigously identify all of these minor planets as having a common origin with such great certainty based upon spectral features. I know that the spectra of minor planets can be measured and general classifications established, but I was not aware that such detailed matches could be established. I alsoquestion our ability to accurately compute the orbits of the various minor planets this far into the supposed past.

Ignoring reality. If we are unable to compute the orbits then explain how that result even happened.

Actually under your ideas the scientists should not be able to calculate orbits at all since they use mass and not rotation. So how did that rover make it to Mars using Newton's theory of gravity?

[captain swoop]

So how did that rover make it to Mars using Newton's theory of gravity?

Gravity is only an Atheistic theory to deny the pushing of the Angels.

[TriangleMan]

The author's first, inexcusably false assertion is
that "astronomers know how far astronomical objects
are [away from us]." Such huge distances are not
known; they are assumed.

In this thread harlequin gave me a link to a great site that shows the many, many methods used to calculate the distance to far-away objects. Lots of math, lots of calculations, lots of accuracy.

[countrywideoptionone]

This is a ridiculous argument. The animal kingdom as well as the entire fossil record provide myriad examples of primitive eyes and intermediate eye forms, all of which provide evidence that eyes have been slowly evolving throughout the history of multicellular creatures on this planet.

Each of your examples is contained within its own kind. As this is an astronomy board, not a evolutionism board, I'll try not to explain the ABC's of how creation happened except when prudent. The fact that the fossil record shows creatures that have "light sensitive cells" or other traits that you may call similar to eyes in no way shows that one kind of living thing "evolved" into another, much less your greater implied assumption that non-living matter "gave birth" to a living organism, no matter how "simple". However, you are correct in assuming that we (as human kind) have a common ancestor, because we do - Adam and Eve, and after them the small human presence on Noah's Arc. Similarly each kind of living thing is descended from the originals created during the first week. All the genetic information now present, with the possible exception of a few harmful mutations, was present in those original creatures. In any case it seems you are more close-minded than you claim me to be because of your "I'm right because I said so (please ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary)" attitude.

How does one make sense of an "evening" and "morning" on the first 3 days when there was no Sun or Moon till the 4th day?
...
there would be few mountains left with all the stone He would have cut up for His writting. "6 days" makes the simple point He wanted to make, in my opinion.

Isaiah 60:19 - God is light. The presence of a Sun and/or Moon are not prerequisites for morning and evening. You can go to sleep at night and still wake up in the "morning" if your windows are blocked and no light gets in from the Sun. Morning and Evening are specifically in Genesis 1 because they represent measurements of time.
- on carving up mountains. Your are correct in that God wanted only to put a simple point. It appears you've missed that point however. "6 days" is 6 days because it directly refers to days as humans work and days as God worked. They are the same.

That opinion is dead wrong ... There are many Christians on it.

If a "Christian" has faith that God created the entire world, then they should have faith to believe the God created the entire world as He said He did. After that, they will back up their faith with logical, well thought out ideas of why this is true. True science, when done correctly, reveals the mechanisms that God used or uses. While these "Christians" may have their hearts in the right place, we are commanded in Matthew 22:37 Mark 12:30 Luke 10:27 to love the Lord with all your mind. Not just accept some "fact" because someone using big-scientific-sounding works said so.

That is simply how evolution is defined in biology.
...
That sentence is refering to what creationists would call "macroevolution."

and?

Only if that reader has serious reading comprehension problems. What part of "The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc." do you not understand? That is clearly not refering evolution on the small scale. And if all animals do share a common ancestor, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, then the two concepts are related.

see above

That you don't share a genome with either of your parents is not considered evolution.

Exactly!

There are many Christians who contribute to talkorigins.org, too. It probably wasn't intentional, but you seem to be creating a dichotomy between Christians and evolutionists. There are plenty of Christians - including the Pope - who accept evolution.

They accept it because they trusted people who sound smart, as above.

I typed those words, but you did not understand their meaning. As with almost all fundies it appears there is no appreciation for or ability to detect subtlety, in this case something called irony.

It is your stance of moral superiority that is immoral. That stance has caused pain, bloodshed, misery, and the destruction of fine, moral civilizations over the past 1800 years.

Please take your smug arrogance back to your pathetic little 6000-year-old universe and go to talk.origins. :roll:

We live in the same universe. The beliefs of your friends or yourself do in no way diminish the evidences for a young universe. My comment was intentional. Apparently you didn't understand that either.

...To me, the creation in Genesis is not meant to be taken 100% accurate. I'll not get caught in a trap of --- was Adam created with a belly button or without --- or whether a 'day' in creation lasted 24 hours or 1000 years --- or if somehow light was created in transit. ...

Again, if you have faith enough to believe that there is a God powerful enough to create everything, and to sacrifice His only son for your personal mistakes, why don't you believe Him when He says what happened in the beginning? If I were God, I'd likely be insulted. "Yes, I guess God is powerful, but not that powerful."

What empirical methods?... I have no doubt, therefore, that it will be warmly welcomed on talk.origins.

Eloquently put.

[sts60]

If a "Christian" has faith that God created the entire world, then they should have faith to believe the God created the entire world as He said He did.

As He "said" He did?

Not exactly. More like how countless authors, editors, censors, and translators have passed down the Word.

What is not subject to the imperfections of human transcription is the record writ large and small in the geological columns, in the fossil strata, and in the DNA and structures of things once living, or living today.

He is saying how He did it. Unfortunately, Bible-literalist-creationists are only listening to part of the story.

OK, enough preachin'.

[SciFi Chick]

In any case it seems you are more close-minded than you claim me to be because of your "I'm right because I said so (please ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary)" attitude.

Hello Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.

Seriously, do you read your own words before you post them?

As for the creation account in Genesis being true, where is your evidence?

Why do you think that if you prove evolution wrong, it somehow proves the creation account in Genesis as correct? This is a fallacy I see over and over again, and I would love for just one creationist to explain themselves out of this one.

[countrywideoptionone]

As He "said" He did?

Not exactly. More like how countless authors, editors, censors, and translators have passed down the Word.

What is not subject to the imperfections of human transcription is the record writ large and small in the geological columns, in the fossil strata, and in the DNA and structures of things once living, or living today.

He is saying how He did it. Unfortunately, Bible-literalist-creationists are only listening to part of the story.

OK, enough preachin'.

But their interpretations of the evidence are imperfect. One way to interpret the evidence points towards God, another way (with many other looked errors and contradictory conclusions) points towards evolution.

[ToSeek]

There are many Christians who contribute to talkorigins.org, too. It probably wasn't intentional, but you seem to be creating a dichotomy between Christians and evolutionists. There are plenty of Christians - including the Pope - who accept evolution.

They accept it because they trusted people who sound smart, as above.

Nonsense. There are plenty of Christian biologists who have studied evolution and accept it, including some who contribute to talkorigins.org. To my knowledge, there are no creationists who studied biology and thereby decided that God must have done it. Everyone I've encountered who believes in creationism decided that first and warps their world-view accordingly. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people from a creationist background whose worldviews have been shattered when exposed to the realization - after studying geology and biology - that much of what they believe is wrong.

[SciFi Chick]

But their interpretations of the evidence are imperfect. One way to interpret the evidence points towards God, another way (with many other looked errors and contradictory conclusions) points towards evolution.

What I think you meant to say is: One way to interpret the evidence points towards evolution, another way ( with many over-looked errors and contradictory conclusions) points towards God.

:wink:

[countrywideoptionone]

In any case it seems you are more close-minded than you claim me to be because of your "I'm right because I said so (please ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary)" attitude.

Hello Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.

Seriously, do you read your own words before you post them?

As for the creation account in Genesis being true, where is your evidence?

Why do you think that if you prove evolution wrong, it somehow proves the creation account in Genesis as correct? This is a fallacy I see over and over again, and I would love for just one creationist to explain themselves out of this one.

It's the other way around. The creation account in Genesis tells how God created. That it contradicts evolutionism is corollary.

[SciFi Chick]

As for the creation account in Genesis being true, where is your evidence?

Why do you think that if you prove evolution wrong, it somehow proves the creation account in Genesis as correct? This is a fallacy I see over and over again, and I would love for just one creationist to explain themselves out of this one.

It's the other way around. The creation account in Genesis tells how God created. That it contradicts evolutionism is corollary.

Ah, so you don't have any evidence. Shame, really.

[Rc2000]

countrywideoptionone:
Again, if you have faith enough to believe that there is a God powerful enough to create everything, and to sacrifice His only son for your personal mistakes, why don't you believe Him when He says what happened in the beginning? If I were God, I'd likely be insulted. "Yes, I guess God is powerful, but not that powerful."

I never said that last part or implied it. You're completely missing what I was trying to get across. If you'd like to talk more about it, how about over PM or e-mail? My e-mail is Rc2000_54@yahoo.com and on MSN as the same, or Rc2000m4u, whichever works for you. Or even my Monsters4U forum up in the Lounge Forum.
Let's get back to our regularly scheduled topic, yes?

Rc

[Humphrey]

Ok Country,

lets stear this away from evolution and onto a unlockable topic, or one closer to unlockable.


Lets talk evidence. Where is there evidence, other than the bible, that the universe itself was created? Give us examples and theories. Thank you. :-)

[wedgebert]

You can't use the bible as evidence, because you don't have evidence that it what it claims to be.

I doubt we can steer this towards an unlockable realm because there is no way to discuss this using evidence. One side has no evidence, the other side cannot prove that things in the past happened that way their evidence says it did.

The only way this will ever be answered is if the Christan god comes down and answers the question himself.

[Yannox]

"The scientist is generally insensitive to the UNWRITTEN RULES of scientific conduct, one of which is to studiously avoid even the FAINTEST teleological design overtones" (Robert Wright, "Three scientists and their gods" p.70 1988).

[HoffaXVIII]

harlequin, good post. Sorry to see this thread heading for the trash heap due to a few unruly "garbage men".

As Humphreys has stated, "let's talk evidence"(pretty wise for a turtle ). As mentioned a billion times before, if you're going to make a claim, you better be able to back it up. "He said/she said", "'cause it just is", etc. is not proof. Provide mathematical formulas, make available physical evidence, but do not come here empty handed.

countrywideoptionone, you have come to the wrong place. You are basing your "argument" on a belief system which requires no burden of proof. I would suggest taking your issue somewhere more appropiate (philosophy, theology, etc. forum). This is a forum geared on scientific evaluation, not philosophical speculation. Until you have some tangible proof, please refrain from proclaiming your personal beliefs as evidence of the bible as scientific fact.

[sts60]

There's really not much I can add. countrywideoptionone insists that all the theories - theories which fit the data and make good, solid, testable and generally successful predictions - are just bad interpretations, but the Bible, despite the many, many hands it has passed through, is exactly correct in all details. There's no point in rehashing the problems with this; it's not for this board anyway. It's certainly not on-topic for this thread.