# Evidence for Creationism - 3D **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2000, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078 "2000-03-24T23:18:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/41 "2000-03-28T13:24:00Z")
SingleDad: I think it would be better to properly call the argument: Argument from ignorance, not “stupidity.” Just because somebody doesn’t understand the facts doesn’t mean they are stupid. And, yes, that is exactly what Foolsguinea’s argument was – argument from ignorance. “If I can’t understand it, it must not have happened that way.” ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/42 "2000-03-28T14:17:00Z")
Here’s an interesting link: a [pro-literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible site](http://www.reasons.org/), founded and operated by a physicist/astronomer. It includes a posting _strongly_ rebutting Dr. Humphreys’ _Starlight and Time_, in [url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html[The Unravelling of Starlight and Time. “Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.” * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/43 "2000-03-28T14:18:00Z")
[The Unravelling of Starlight and Time](http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html) * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/44 "2000-03-28T14:29:00Z")
I cant resist posting this quote from [The Unravelling of Starlight and TIme](http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html): "Nicodemus’ misunderstanding raises an important issue for Christian apologists and evangelists: how is one to describe spiritual reality to someone who has no personal experience of such a reality? … A particularly acute form of this problem faces the young-earth movement in its attempts to use revisionist young-earth “science” for this purpose. If the science is incredible or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it may drive them further away. Jesus’ question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians’ claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false “science” gives the lost “reasons to reject” the Gospel — “reasons to disbelieve” rather than “reasons to believe.” This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel." * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/45 "2000-03-28T20:47:00Z")
**David B:** Well, the term “argument from ignorance” already has a well-defined meaning (“theory X cannot predict phenomenon Y, therefore X is false”). If you consider my term to be inappropriate, I would welcome suggestions for a new term. I wish to point out that I am calling the _practice_ stupid, and not the person. If the shoe fits, though… * * * If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/46 "2000-03-28T21:01:00Z")
Actually, I’ve think I’ve heard “Argument from Incredulity” (slightly less insulting) used to refer to the “I don’t understand it, therefore it can’t be true” argument. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/47 "2000-03-28T21:47:00Z")
Ooooo… So can I tell people that they are _arguing from incredulity_ when they disagree with the Bible??? 😃 Peace. * * * † Jon † Phillipians 4:13 ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2000, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/48 "2000-03-28T23:26:00Z")
Ooh! Gaudere! I like it! Sounds much more faux-highbrow. 🙂 And Navigator, no you can’t. 😛 I don’t argue that the Bible is false. I refute people when they make specific claims that the Bible offers empirical proof. * * * Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2000, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/49 "2000-03-29T01:17:00Z")
Aw, shit. Gaudere is right – I was thinking of “argument from incredulity.” Sorry 'bout that. Frankly, I’m incredulous that Navigator would come back here to argue about it. * * * “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.” – Susan Blackmore, _The Meme Machine_ ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2000, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/50 "2000-03-29T02:47:00Z")
Who’s arguing??? good to see ya David, want a root beer? 🙂 * * * † Jon † Phillipians 4:13 ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2000, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/51 "2000-03-29T13:33:00Z")
\*\*Root beer?! Did you say “root beer” in Great Debates?!\*\* :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/52 "2000-03-29T14:56:00Z")
\ \ WHO would think of such a thing… HEATHENS! 😉 Peace. * * * † Jon † Phillipians 4:13 ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/0ea827/32.png) [@Phoenix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2000, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/53 "2000-03-30T03:01:00Z")
_wonders if any Creationist from LBMB is going to take up this gauntlet_ Psst…gator…want some sushi? Phoenix * * * Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis, status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis. Carmina Burana: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi–O Fortuna. Carl Orff: 1937 ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/54 "2000-03-31T03:26:00Z")
Phoenix said: > [@](#): > > wonders if any Creationist from LBMB is going to take up this gauntlet Apparently, like the many times before when we’ve opened threads specifically for the creationists to provide their evidence and knock down evolution, the answer is: Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Falcon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/49beb7/32.png) [@Falcon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falcon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/55 "2000-03-31T15:51:00Z")
Well, since David said we could wander around until someone says something… Phoenix! Good to see you over here, hon! * * * Winner, SDMB’s Biggest FEMALE Chat Addict (Happy, Jophiel?) “Only two things that’ll soothe my soul - cold beer and remote control.” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/56 "2000-03-31T16:22:00Z")
While were waiting, anybody care to discuss the Higgs-Bosun with me? This is the creation particle isn’t it? It was latched onto by creationists because at least one physicist referred to it as “The God Particle.” What the creationists didn’t know was that “God particle” was short for “Goddamn Particle!” over his frustration for not being able to find it. What’s the significance of the theorized Higgs-Bosun? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/57 "2000-03-31T16:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Scylla: > What’s the significance of the theorized Higgs-Bosun? I’ve no idea, but tell me: if a companion particle is discovered, will it be named “Higgs-Bo’sun’s Mate?” ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/58 "2000-04-01T06:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > What’s the significance of the theorized Higgs-Bosun? Higgs boson, as in “the boson named after [Peter Higgs](http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk/bulletin/1996-1997/11/news/26.html)”. Bosons are a particular class of particles (named after [Satyendranath Bose](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Bose.html), as in Bose-Einstein Condensate, which has been mentioned before on this board); fermions the other class of particles (named after [Enrico Fermi](http://www.fnal.gov/pub/fermi_biography.html)). Leptons and quarks are all fermions. Leptons include electrons, muons, and neutrinos. Bosons are “force carriers” like the photon, gluon, W, Z, and gravitons … and Higgs Boson. Note that protons and neutrons don’t show up in either category; they are assemblages of quarks. See [Bosons and Fermions](http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/bosonfermion.html). I sure don’t know enough to _discuss_ the Higgs boson worth a damn. It is the carrier of the Higgs field. The theory is that the interaction with the Higgs field is what gives rise to mass. The existence of the Higgs boson would also be one way to explain why some bosons (e.g. the photon) appear to have zero rest mass and some fermions (e.g. W and Z) have relatively huge masses (approximately 80 times the mass of a proton). So, if the Higgs field and Higgs boson do exist, then they explain why mass exists and why bosons vary in mass. See [What exactly is the Higgs boson?](http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics11.html), [Higgs Boson: One page explanation](http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm), and [Point of Creation - The Higgs Boson](http://www.iprs.ed.ac.uk/edit/07/articles/03.html). * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/59 "2000-04-01T02:48:00Z")
Falcon said: > [@](#): > > Well, since David said we could wander around until someone says something… > Phoenix! Good to see you over here, hon! Hey, now. This isn’t MPSIMS! Let’s not get too comfortable. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078/60 "2000-04-01T03:33:00Z")
JonF: I ask an obscure and esoteric question. You provide a full explanation. You then support it with extensive links,and definitions, including the 5 best, one page, plain English essays, written by acknowledged experts in the field, answering that very question. Who do you think your fooling? You’re going to have to do a lot better than that if you expect anybody to take your ridiculous assertions seriously. C’mon man, get your act together would you? Seriously. Thank you for the concise explanation and thoughtful links. I’ve been trying to read up on the particle since the last creation thread when you suggested that the problem of mass might be a better avenue for attacking cosmological theory than the missing mass argument that I was pursuing as devil’s advocate. You may have been right. However, I didn’t think I was prepared to argue it that way. I’m probably still not, but would be interested in discussing it further to promote my understanding. If I understand correctly the Higgs-Bosun is pretty much the lynchpin for the standard model of physics. Dr. Leon Lederman said “If the Higgs-Bosun does not exist, we phycisicists might as well go back to shooting arrows at the moon.” I picture the action of the Higgs Bosun like an elevator falling down a shaft faster and faster until the brakes kick in. A person standing in the elevator would gain weight as the elevator rapidly decellerated. The man in the elevator is a fermion being retarded from hitting the floor (travelling at the speed of light,) by the action of the brakes (bosuns,) against the elevator shaft (Higgs field,) Thus gaining weight (mass.) I understand (or think I do) the effects of the Higgs field, but not it’s nature. Is it an intangible, like Pi, 137, Planck’s constant, or is it an actual thing? Is it created by the Higgs Bosuns. If not, did it exist prior to the big-bang? String theory is really an alternate explanation for the mass problem, with all of matter being made of Strings which are their own field but are essentially Higgs Bosuns. Is that correct? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-creationism-3d/18078.md?page=4)