Secular Scientists and a Young Earth?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

I asked Barry your question, Joshua, and neither of us think so. But there is a proviso here, too. At the point where one is confronted by evidence for a young universe, if one is not a Christian or at least a theist, then one is going to be forced to take one path or the other: deny the evidence or convert to a faith compatible with it. We have known both these things to happen, but I don't think anyone can maintain a secular position (theologically) and still admit to the evidence for a young earth or creation.

I have seen many of your posts, which you know, and know that your foundation is a very liberal one. Please be aware that there is not only evidence for a young creation, but that there are more and more people who are starting to find it (to use the evolutionists' words here) compelling and overwhelming.

 

Of course not. YEC is nothing but contradiction disguised as science.

 

It's like asking of there's anyone who believes in predestination without a religious bias.

Can't be done.

 

I challenge anyone to present evidence for a young earth based on observable natural phenomenon. What YEC's do is start with the biased intention of proving a young earth and then proceed to attack the existing work of legitimate scientists.

 

Bull

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setterfield.pdf

http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

or feel free to look up Robert Gentry's work, Ariel Roth's work, Elaine Kennedy's work, Mark Armitage's work, Dean Kenyon's work, Dave DeWitt's work, -- there are a HOST of creation scientists who do their own original research, write it up, and present it. You may not accept it, but that does not mean it is not original research by qualified people and not simply mudslinging at evolution.

 

EF: None of Setterfield's papers are in peer-reviewed journals. I noticed the following on the page linking to the article

Gentry has not published in mainstream literature in many years. A search on GEOREF shows 4 abstracts by Elaine Kennedy...all from national meetings and no peer-reviewed publications (most recent 1997). I have no idea about the others.

 

A little more on the journaloftheoretics founder James Siepmann

Also associated with
The Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions
That studies such things as:
The JNLRMI is a free online journal offering its readers a forum for the scientific investigation of our human potential. Based on current research in physics, parapsychology and complementary medicine, and drawing on the discipline of meditative arts such as qigong, the discussion will revolve around the nature of space-time, causality, and individual selves; focused intentionality as a tool for shaping personal and social reality; the cultivation of mental energy and "psi" abilities; and the creation of global resonance to ensure a peaceful, meaningful and humane future for our planet.

Kind of “New Age” isn’t it?

Found the journal discussed here:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mpahre/quacks/

and Siepmann here:

http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/People/siepmann.htm

Seems as if the good Dr. Siepmann has a bit of a reputation as a little off the wall.

 

and this snippet on Armitage (isn't the internet wonderful?)

 

it's called faith...

 

I think there has already been enough work on this board debunking RG's polonium halo assertion. His redshift reinterpretation is in stark contrast to your redshift reinterpretation. (One of the things I have found about YECs is the inconsistency and contradictions with which they view the data.) Find his published redshift letter here http://www.creationists.org/Downloads/9806280.pdf . First thing he tries to do is explain the cosmic microwave background by positing a shell of hydrogen gas around the universe at 5400K. Why 5400K? Because it gives the required observed temperature of the CMB. He can make the CMB ANY temperature he wants by adjusting the temperture. He also gives no means to keep the shell from gravitationally collapsing or to maintain its temperature. Moving on to redshift, he gives each galaxy a "galaxy-specific, initial condition parameter." That is, the red shift for each galaxy can only be found by setting a factor for each galaxy. Just like with the CMB, he can give any galaxy he wants any redshift he wants by adjusting this parameter.

There's the first one, anyone want to look at another on the list for us?

 

Hence - the REAL benefit of this board is to give Christian evolutionists a chance to "SHOW" that evolutionism's mythologies do not "corrupt the Gospel of Christ".

But every time we "try to get that discussion going" the evolutionists "refuse" to exegete the text of scripture - refuse to observe "the details" if they do not favor their myths.

In fact they get offended that there is any interest at all in debating that point.

You would think that we could do "better" as a Christian group.

Bob

 

There has been a lot of work on this board "trying to defend evolutionism" - but there has been so much posted that debunks the myths of evolutionism so far - I am surprised anyone takes it seriously.

Even a casual perusal of the Abiogenesis thread - shows the objective reader that evolutionism's most testable myths have been fully debunked.

The conclusion is that Christian Evolutionism is an exchange in faith for faith IN the mythologies of evolutionism ITSELF.

Bob

 

This just goes to show you that you don't read the threads and that you really don't want to admit to the evidence. BTW-no matter how much you whine and pout, evolution is a theory and not a religion (so take off the "ism", it shows your bigotry).

Again this shows that you don't know that abiogenesis's validity has no bearing on the validity of evolution!

A conclusion based on a narrowmind.

 

Uh...abiogenesis is not evolution. Nor is cosmology. Nor is geology. Everyone together now "Any theory of abiogenesis is unrelated to any theory of evolution." One is concerned with how life got put on this planet. One is concerned with explaining the current and past diversity of life through such things as common descent and natural selection. The theory of evolution doesn't depend on whether the first life was brought about by natural means, created by God, whisked in from some distant planet, or dropped off with some alien's garbage. It is only concerned with what happened to life once here.

I also object to abiogenesis being the "most testable myths." There is no possible physical evidence from this era to be able to test! Unless you know what those early conditions were and a way to exactly duplicate them plus the ability to wait a few hundred million to a billion years to see if anything interesting happens how do you know? Can we make a good estimate and see if anything interesting crops up? Yes. But the most testable... We have observed speciation. We have observed new (irreducibly complex) metabolic pathways evolve. These are certainly testable and true! Then there is the whole matter of the fossil record...

 

what about niagara falls?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_niagara.asp

 

what about niagara falls?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_niagara.asp </font>[/QUOTE]EF This does not prove the earth is young. It makes certain conjectures that the Falls are younger than what modern geology thinks (but not on a huge scale compared to the age of the earth). Interestingly, it takes a uniformitarian approach to 'dating' the falls. It assumes that the rate of erosion observed today is the same as it was in the past (if eyewitness accounts are accurate). Oh, creationists can be so funny sometimes.

 

?

did you expect it to prove the earth is young? it is "evidence for a young earth based on observable natural phenomenon".

laugh it up...