CalifBoomer:
Further proof that this message board is filled with anti-Unicorn zealots and IPU-haters who just want to fling insults rather than debate the actual issue at hand. Fine, you guys can just continue living in your self absorbed sanctimonious Unicornless meaningless little world.
[Anyone surprised that sarcastic analogies flit several miles over CalifBoomer’s head? Anybody…?]
Hmmm. page trouble
OK, I’ll take a stab at a few of them.
Many of your issues seem irrelevant. You appear to be saying that, since science doesn’t know everything, it knows nothing. I am still hoping for some evidence for creation science rather than evidence against evolution, but many of your issues you’ve posted seem to have nothing to do with either creation science or evolution.
Yes, indeed, what about it? What relevance does it have to the question of whether the theory of evolution is true?
There are indeed many observations that strongly suggest that there is a lot more matter in the universe than we can detect directly. There are many theories about the nature of this “missing matter”. None of the theories are sufficiently well tested and understood to be accepted as truth by the majority of scientists. But I fail to see the relevance.
I don’t see any significant similarity. The big bang describes the creation of space-time in essentially one instant, while Genesis descibes the creation of the universe and the Earth by a supreme being over a period of seven days. I will concede some slight similarity between one phrase in Genesis and the big bang event, but I fail to see any significance in this slight similarity. Could you amplify on the reasons that you feel there is sgnificance there?
Actually, “creation scientists” claim that there’s too little helium in the air and it can’t escape (Helium gives evidence that the earth is young. But there’s good reason to believe helium can and does escape (see [and [url=“http://www.holysmoke.org/icr6dud.htm”]Creationism’s Dud From Their Arsenal: Atmospheric Helium](http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/kornreich/lfg/csc/Answers.html[Answers for Creationists[/url)
All radioactive decay gives off helium.
Ah, the good old moon dust thing. From Snelling, A. A., and D. R. Rush 1993, “Moon dust and the age of the solar system”,
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7:1:2-42 (note the pro-creationist source, please! Snelling and Rush are “creation scientists”):
“It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year time scale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, counter responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and solar system.”
and from Moon Dust:
“This argument relies on estimates of dust accumulation made by scientists R. A. Lyttleton in 1956 and Hans Petterson in 1960. According to their estimates, if the moon were billions of years old, dust at least 100 feet deep would have accumulated on the surface of the moon, too deep for moon landings. Creationists say there was a fear that landing craft would be swallowed in dust. But Lyttleton’s and Petterson’s estimates were not accepted by all of the scientific community during their time, and are not now. Other estimates made by contemporaries of Lyttleton and Petterson predicted that the moon’s surface would be firm with only a thin dust layer. These predictions were confirmed when astronauts observed the surface of the moon first hand. Direct measurements of accumulating dust show that a very tiny amount of dust accumulates on the moon, at a rate of merely centimeters over billions of years. Creationists, however, have not included this finding in their argument, presumably because it does not support their preconceived notions.”
So, basically, the moon dust thing was a flat-out mistake.
If they’re useful, why weren’t we created with them?
Evolution is not a directed design process in which useless parts are discarded and useful parts kept or added. Evolution is a random process that tends towards changes that survive. Body hair and tails are obviously not essential to our survival. There are lots of useful features we could have but don’t (such as the ability to synthesize vitamin C in our bodies). There are features that we have that seem to have no purpose, but do no significant harm to the species (such as our appendix, IIRC).
[quote]
Heart mountain in Cody Wyoming? Explain that!
[/quote}
As far as I can see there’s nothing to explain about
[Heart Mountain]
(http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/wy/heartmountain.html). Could you amplify on your question, please?
This one was answered already. No, science does not suggest that. Science strongly believes the exact opposite. Hoyle’s Continuous Creation theory had it otherwise, but that theory was discredited some time ago. Many scientists did consider giving up on conservation of mass-energy (one of the most basic theories of modern science) to accept Continuous Creation.
Not my field of expertise, but some things that occur to me imediately:
There have been some pretty big floods and tidal waves. Not surprising that they are remembered in myths.
Many myths are obviously “borrowed” from other myths; many people believe that the Noachian flood story is one such.
People are pretty much the same the world over.
To address some of your other thoughts that may have already been addressed:
The oil reservoirs are found under impervious rock.
It is true that comets ablate when they are in the inner solar system. This proves that the comets we see today have not been entering the inner solar system for any period of time that is comparable with the
String theory and quantum mechanics predict spontaneous creation of matter and energy from the void provided that matter or energy disappears almost instantaneously. So the answer to “where is it?” is “It came from nothing and it went to nothing before we could detect it”.
There is some debate wheter this mass-energy is actually created, or if it’s just a trick to make the math come out right, or if it means that we are lacking some fundamental understanding about events on extremely small time scales in extremely small volumes of space. And I mean volumes small compared to a proton and time scales small compared to the time it takes light to travel across an atomic nucleus.
So what does this have to do with “creation science”?
jrf
Jon F:
I got those arguments from a creation evolution web site. I don’t necessarily endorse them. The web site gave both sides of the argument.
I thought it might be fun to bring them up since no creationists were doing so. (somebody has to help these poor guys.)
You did an excellent job rebutting many of the arguments.
You missed on on the hair/ tale thing.
Nobody wants to crack polonium halos
Nice call on the helium.
Heart Mountain is tpped with a huge slab of limestone. Only GOd could have put it there. Heh. heh.
I think there might actually be a valid point about the whole mutability of scientific “fact” over time. Maybe in a 100 years scientists will suddenly discover the truth. THat God did it!
Coincidence you say? Ha!! The Bible describes the Big Bang thousands of years before science even comes up with the concept and you call it …coincidence???
Yeah, it probably is coincidence. Oh well.
As for the whole argument that none of this is evidence for creation, but rather against science and evolution in general. SO what?
Religious theory predates scientific theory and if scientifci theory wishes to replace it, the burden of proof rests on Science’s stooped shoulders.
Hell Science isn’t close to perfect. It can’t even encompass a simple concept like PI. It just spits out numbers forever without ever getting anywhere or solving the problem.
I have a devout neighbor who solemnly assures me (i’m not kidding) that PI equals exactly three. God told him.
Clearly 3 is superior to 3.14…ad infinitum. By extension religion is superior to science right?
Note: The opinions contained in this post do not reflect those of the postee.
Missing Mass
When we measure the rotation of individual stars in a galaxy, and individual galaxies in a cluster, we often see that objects further from the center rotate faster than they should if the mass were truly concentrated at the center.
The logical implication then is that the mass is not concentrated in the center of the galaxy or galaxy cluster. Working from the observed rotational speed, we calculate that the mass is actually spread out even beyond the outermost observable stars.
So we know the mass is there. Since we can’t see it yet, we know that it doesn’t radiate photons (and there’s no particularly compelling reason why it should). So the challenge is to find a method whereby we can indeed observe this mass. Given the proven ingenuity of astronomers, I feel quite confident that they will indeed find such a method.
The missing mass forms a fascinating scientific challenge, which may well provide us with surprising and interesting new facts and insights about the universe. However, there’s nothing to suggest that any real or potential quality of the missing mass has any bearing on Creationism.
Before the Big Bang
No evidence has been found that would allow us to draw any conclusions about conditions before the Big Bang, God-like or otherwise.
Similary of Big Bang to Genesis
I came into my house last night rather late. Of course, the house was dark. I turned on the light switch and Lo! there was light.
“Let there be light” is sufficiently general that it can be equally well applied to so many circumstances that it qualifies neither as a predictive nor specifically descriptive statement of a single event.
Helium
From the Talk.Origins Archive, The Age of the Earth
Lava Dating
From Talk.Origins The General Anti-Creationism FAQ:
Polonium Halos
This phenomenon is complicated, fascinating, and impossible to summarize sufficiently. See Evolution’s Tiny Violences The Po-Halo Mystery for a thorough explanation.
Hair
I’m uncertain what your actual point is here.
Heart Mountain
From Talk.Origins The General Anti-Creationism FAQ
Energy and matter formation
It is unclear whether or not there is any net mass-energy in the universe. Regardless, the same objection as to the Pre-Big-Bang assertion applies: There is no evidence one way or the other from which to draw a rational conclusion.
Similarities between Religions
To what similarities are you specifically referring?
CGI timeout. Should I repost?
Oh, poot!
And I waited ever so long between clicks, and always hit stop before clicking again.
Apologies to everyone.
jrf
CalifBoomer:
You seem to be ignoring mine (and Tom~'s) question regarding the special creation of humans after the evolution of human anscestors. Where do you draw the line?
In regards to reconciling my faith with science, try reading Christianity and the Age of the Earth by Davis Young, or The Fourth Day by Howard van Til. It can be challenging unless you realize that science answers “How?” and religion, “Why?”
Singledad:
Not fair, talkorigins was where I got most of those arguments in the first place 
JonF:
You see? You have proved that science is not superior. With your scientific mind, you needed evidence that your post was actually posted.
What the situation actually called for was faith. If you had faith when you hit the “submit reply” button you would not have multi-posted so many times. 
I had faith and my last post only appeared once.
I would think that the term “Creation Science” is an oxymoron. Creationists make a mistake by trying to support their contentions scientifically, just as a scientist would screw up if he attempted to explain himseolf in terms of faith.
Science being just a tool, is not practical for all purposes. How many people select their mates scientifically? I think most people would say that there were issues larger than logic that went into the choice.
This is best illustrated by Star Trek. Kirk is succesful not because he’s logical (as personified by Spock) or because he’s emotional as (as personified by MCcoy,) but because he takes the best of both viewpoints, and doesn’t try to interpret logic emotionally, or emotions logically. He goes beyond both, and arrives at …truth? …success? …A hot green skinned buxom alien?
You can say that your pretty sure you are going to find the missing matter, but that carries no more weight than a fundamentalist saying he’s sure God will reveal himself. Until you find it it can’t be used as evidence can it?
You may speculate that it’s hidden beyond observable distances, Freddie Fundie might say that God took that matter and built Heaven with it. (The “missing matter” is probably a combination of dark matter in brown giants, (there might be a lot of these in intergalactic space,) and interstellar dust. Or else conditions at the Big Bang may have created a lopsided universe for as yet unexplained reasons.)
If I were a creationist I would attack science from the standpoint of faith and emotion rather than try to defend creationism scientifically.
That might be a fun debate.
All you have to do is click on Submit Reply ONCE, and it will go through. It doesn’t matter how long it takes before you see the results. Just do it ONCE. “Stop” doesn’t stop it from going through. It only stops a page from loading, it does NOT stop a post from going through.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Moderator!
Clean-up on Page Five!
{quote]I would think that the term “Creation Science” is an oxymoron.
[/quote]
Me too.
Agreed.
Agreed.
But the fact the haven’t found it also cannot be used as evidence, or even argument, against the validity of science or the validity of evolution. Nor can it be used as evidence for creation.
jrf
From BigDaddyD to CalifBoomer:
And Dr. Fidelius. And mine about why:
I’ll even help you out on mine – I’ll make it multiple choice:
A. You are not been exposed to the evidence (argument from ignorance)
B. You simply cannot understand the evidence. (argument from retardedness)
C. You deny that the evidence even exists. (argument from stupidity)
D. When presented with the evidence, you proclaim it is not sufficient (argument from OJ)
E. You believe the evidence to be forged (also argument from OJ)
F. Your religious stories must be true, ergo this must be false (argument from bifurcation)
G. Other. Please explain other.
Quite the contrary. We have found the missing matter. The challenge is to observe it directly.
Regardless, I don’t see how the missing matter relates at all to creationism. It’s not really “missing” at all: We have observational evidence that it’s there. Scientists can be as playful in their terminology as the next technogeek.
I now click on Submit Reply only once because I learned from experience. I know what happens if one clicks on that button more than once. Also, that’s what the moderators told us! In fact, Gaudere has started a new thread here on this very subject.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Holy Smokes! Thank you in advance, David, and Gaudere for cleaning up this mess.
Ben: David knows that Creationists cannot use science to provide evidence for creation. But, he keeps prodding, and poking. And people are arguing and debating and that fine. Sooner or later the other creationists will realize that no matter what “evidence” they provide David, or the other evolutionists, that none of it matters. It’s never enough.
As for your question about Galileo: I know the clergymen should have looked in that telescope. I realize what your story means. But, it does not apply to me, and perhaps not to many Creationists. If you were to show me all of your evidence for evolution, and natural selection, and abiogenesis, and Big Bang…whatever…I would say one of two things; A) It’s nonsense; or B) That it further shows there was a powerful, perfect Creator involved in every aspect of creation. From the creation of the first particle in space, to the present time. And it would further strengthen my faith in God.
Adam
Does option B mean that you would believe in evolution? Also, have you looked through the telescope- ie have you studied God’s creation in order to find out what He did? If not, why not?
Let me also explain that part of the reason I find your position hard to understand is that you asked whether a creationist could be a good scientist. If I were a creationist, I’d think a creationist would naturally be a better scientist than an evolutionist. The fact that you seem to feel that creationism might prevent one from doing good science makes it hard for me to understand what your orientation towards reality is.
-Ben
Jonf said concerning missing matter:
“But the fact the haven’t found it also cannot be used as evidence, or even argument,
against the validity of science or the validity of evolution. Nor can it be used as
evidence for creation.”
Acually if I’m a smart creationist, I can use it. I can certainly use the terms and works of science within its own framework to dispute science and remain consistent.
I am only inconsistent if I then take those same terms and works and apply them to prove a rational not based upon a scientific framework (creationism.)
Seperately:
I was not aware of the missing matter being “found but not observed” Could somebody share the specifics of this with me?
Again, for the record: I am not a creationist. I’m playing devil’s advocate since they seemed to be doing such a pisspoor job of it. Having fun too.
Found but not observed:
When Rutherford shot alpha particles (?) at gold foil, he expected to find a fairly consistent scattering on the the other side of the foil, indicating that the foil was a continuous substance.
What he found rather, was that most of the particles went straight through with no deflection at all! And the very few that were deflected were all over the place.
From this phenomenon, he deduced that the mass of the gold foil was concentrated in very small points; a tiny fraction of the foil’s volume. Thus most of the particles missed these points of mass and went straight through. The ones that actually managed to hit something hit it hard.
These points of concetrated mass were (of course) atoms.
The concept made so much sense that it was generally accepted by most of the scientific community, with the exception of a few extreme logical positivists like Ernst Mach.
It wasn’t until Einstein showed that Brownian motion was caused by atoms striking a pollen grain that atoms were directly observed.