Stunning victory of Creation

My definition of cosmology is given in a previous post straight out of the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It is not a baseless charge or an unfounded allegation. If the dictionary itself says that it involves both metaphysics and astronomy who am I to argue. You are the one that owes the apology.

As for the definition of evolution, you are being deceitful by giving only a narrow devinition and deliberately confining it to a biology textbook, or organic evolution. You may have defined organic evolution, but you never stated that you were defining organic evolution. That is deceitful in itself. Evolution is much more than that, I think you know that.

We have been discussing evolution in general. The word "evolution" simply means "change."

 

So also of the wine that Jesus made which was the product of events (planting, culturing and harvesting) that did not happen.

What exactly then did the governor of the feast taste?

HankD

 

"My definition of cosmology is given in a previous post straight out of the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It is not a baseless charge or an unfounded allegation."

I did not say that it was. I pointed out that nothing in cosmology has anything to do wit hthe change in allele frequency in populations.

"As for the definition of evolution, you are being deceitful by giving only a narrow devinition and deliberately confining it to a biology textbook, or organic evolution. You may have defined organic evolution, but you never stated that you were defining organic evolution. That is deceitful in itself. Evolution is much more than that, I think you know that.

We have been discussing evolution in general. The word "evolution" simply means "change.""

You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.

The discussion in context is about biological evolution. I gave a definition of biological evolution.

The politics of this country, even though the evolve, are not germane because they are not biological evolution.

You are seeking to deliberately confuse two different definitions of the word. In one form (general use) the word does simply mean change. In science, evolution is the change in allele frequency in populations.

It is a logical fallacy to equate the two different usages of the word. Which is what you were trying to do. You even went far beyond that and tried to equate evolution as being related to general concepts such as thermodynamics.

No, you tried to play loose with the defintions to support your assertion that evolution plays a role in sciences such as chemistry. Since this is a false premise, you were forced to result to a fallacy in an attempt to support your reasoning. When proper examples are shown, your logic falls apart. You failed to show where chemistry or thermo or geology or any of the other things you allege have anything to do with the change in allele frequency in populations. Your rebuttal is forced to use a different definition of evolution that what we have been laboring under to try and save your assertion. But it cannot because your logic is fallacious.

 

"So also of the wine that Jesus made which was the product of events (planting, culturing and harvesting) that did not happen.

What exactly then did the governor of the feast taste? "

No, Jesus made the wine.

Now, when I look at the exploded star known as SN1987A, at what am I looking? If the light was created in transit, then the progenitor star never existed to explode. What did we see back in 1987?

 

Hank,

That's a good point.

And I think every old earther would have to concede that this is a bit of a trump card - God could have created everything we see as is and fully developed.

The main objection I have is that John was clearly saying that Jesus performed a miracle here - no question at all. As I have said before I do not see Genesis 1-11 as having been written in the same manner, intended to relate a literal occurrence.

 

Light.

You assume more than the facts prove in either case.

Light.

 

Charles, you said this in another thread. About five posts up I gave a Scriptural defence. The Sabbath is a literal 24 hour day. Does that not point to a literal creation? See my post above.

 

Light.

You assume more than the facts prove in either case.

Light. </font>[/QUOTE]I like sarcasm. I really do.

Now, what about an answer.

SN1987A is about 160,000 light years away. In 1987, we received a stream of light (actually it was much more than that. For instance, the visible explosion was preceded by a stream of neutrinos just as theories about supernova predict.) that showed Sanduleak -69 202, a blue supergiant star in the Tarantula Nebula in Large Magellanic Cloud, go supernova. The star exploded.

We saw the neutrinos. We saw the light from the explosion. We have watched with time as the light from the explosion has lit up rings of material surrounding the star. We have watched the energy output change with time as short lived radioactive elements produced in the explosion decayed. (And at the same rate as those same elements decay today. Proof of the constantcy of decay rates!)

We continue to see the environment of the star change with time.

Now, what are we watching. If the light was "stretched," created in transit, whatever, then what are we watching happen? It cannot be a star going supernova because if the light was created in transit then the star never existed to go supernova! Observations are inconsistent with a higher speed of light in the past.

How can I see this explosion 160,000 light years away? What are we seeing?!?

And that is just in our cosmic neighborhood. What about SN1997FF which is 11.3 BILLION light years away!

 

Light.

You assume more than the facts prove in either case.

Light. </font>[/QUOTE]I like sarcasm. I really do.

Now, what about an answer.</font>[/QUOTE] I am not being sarcastic. We for the most part don't see stars. We see light.

Based on what system of measurement. How was that system of measurement independently verified for the scale we are discussing? We lack the ability to travel far enough from the earth to provide a significant third point of reference.

In Field Artillery, our plotters can pick up the trajectory of an enemy round and plot a target before the round impacts.

But it cannot be done accurately without knowing the exact wind and atmospheric conditions between the enemy and their target.

There is alot of distance between us and even the closest star. Truth is that the light received from more distant stars could have been effected by forces we cannot discern much less study.

Quite possibly the same thing you think you are watching but having occurred much more recently than you presume.

BTW, the theory I am most amenable to besides YEC is that which says the first day consisted only of God's actions on earth. I have even seen some argue that the literal meaning of the day 4 account was that God revealed the celestial bodies.

Can't buy it completely but it doesn't violate the clear order and declaration of scripture the way biological evolution does.

IOW's, if I give any ground at all it is on the age of the universe rather than the source and creation of life on earth.

 

"I am not being sarcastic. We for the most part don't see stars. We see light."

OK. We don't actually see anything. We see light emitted or reflected from something. What is the point of such hair splitting?

"Based on what system of measurement. How was that system of measurement independently verified for the scale we are discussing? We lack the ability to travel far enough from the earth to provide a significant third point of reference."

Are you really doubting the distances? For an increbibly rough approximation, just measure the brightness of the sun and of the other stars and do an inverse square law calculation. Different stars have different brightness but you can get within a couple of orders of magnitude that way. Even better than that for most since most stars are dwarf stars of some sort anyway so there will be even less brightness difference.

And before you jump to something absorbing light in the intervening distances, this would be noticable absorbtion lines in the spectra that should not be there.

Now, a little more detailed. You can directly measure distance out to, say, a few hundred light years through geometry. Quite simple indeed. Having done this, we can use the inverse square law to determine the actual brightness of the stars. Now an interesting thing happens when you plot this absolute magnitude against the color of the stars. They follow a specific pattern. This plot is called a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Most stars fall on certain pattern in the diagram and are known as main sequence stars.

Now armed with your H-R diagram you can look at more distant stars. Measure the apparent brightness and the color then use your diagram and the inverse square law and you come up with the actual brightness and distance. This works pretty well.

There are variations. For example, you can measure the color and brightness of a cluster of stars. You will get another H-R diagram. How much you have to shift the brightness axis will let you plug through the inverse square law and getthe distance to the cluster. Since you are using a group of stars, the accuracy will be even better because you can be much more certain that you are not measuring anomolous data.

There are many other methods. This might be of interest to you to find out what some of them are.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

"Quite possibly the same thing you think you are watching but having occurred much more recently than you presume."

Ok, I'll bite. How did it happen much more recently?

 

Accuracy.

We know to some degree what lies between the earth and the sun. We don't know what lies between us and the nearest, much less furtherest visible star... unless you are saying that it is not possible for anything to be out there that is not normative for our part of the galaxy.

You consistently swallow speculations made by those who agree with you without qualification and won't even allow yourself to imagine ways we could be right. As several have pointed out, we have barely scratched the surface. To say that comparing light from the sun to that of stars to estimate distance, one must make a whole bunch of assumptions that are impossible for us to prove because we can't live long enough.

How do you know? Are you saying that all of the facts of the universe are now in? Or do you simply reject any possibility that evolution could be wrong?

And completely insufficient.

Again, making a whole bunch of assumptions about what is normative for a universe that we have only begun to learn about.

I know from personal experience that you can design an experiment that has no discernable flaw but that will none the less fail because of unknowns.

Simply pointing out to you that you have not precluded every possible alternative... in fact, you haven't even come close considering how little we actually "know" about the universe.

 

"We don't know what lies between us and the nearest, much less furtherest visible star..."

If you have a way to change the brightness of the star's light without altering the light in a discernable way then by all means present it.

"You consistently swallow speculations made by those who agree with you without qualification and won't even allow yourself to imagine ways we could be right."

I give you a logical and factual way to determine distance. You offer only speculations, without any shred of reason how the speculations could be true, and then accuse me of being the one to accept speculation? Most of your responses are nothin more than unsubstantiated assertions and speculation. I can at least point to data and logic and published materials.

"And completely insufficient."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Why is it insufficient? Even that gets us a fairly large database to start with. And even with just the H-R diagrams that I mentioned, wherever we look, the stars fall on the same diagram as those close to us.

"Again, making a whole bunch of assumptions about what is normative for a universe that we have only begun to learn about. "

I don't even know what you are doubting here. The inverse square law? It is a simple mathematical concept!

Your objections amount to nothing but speculation and unsubstantiated assertions.

"Simply pointing out to you that you have not precluded every possible alternative... in fact, you haven't even come close considering how little we actually "know" about the universe. "

Fine. Waiting for you to tell us how to fit the observable universe into a space less than 6000 light years across. That is about the only place you can be headed by asserting errors in distance determiniation.

 

Are you denying that it is possible? Has it been categorically "universally" disproven as a possibility anywhere in the universe?

When evolutionists present possibilities without proof, you cite them as evidence for the theory.

My responses are every bit as "substantiated" in the "literal" sense of the word as biological macroevolution's supposed mechanisms. I am only attempting to give you alternatives that do not oppose the facts as we truly know them. In reality, that is all that an army of evolutionists have done.

They use jargon that impresses you but at the bottom line... they actually prove nothing.

I have pointed to facts that I know and have used logic. "Published materials" come from those who presuppose naturalism. I reject their premise and am therefore unimpressed by their conclusions.

 

"Are you denying that it is possible? Has it been categorically "universally" disproven as a possibility anywhere in the universe?"

If you have a possible mechanism for this to be possible, then please present it. I assert that it would leave evidence. Do we really need to get into how things absorb light? You know, how light is only absorbed in discreet quanta of energy and how this energy corresponds to the energy required to promote an electron in one orbit to another orbit. To dim the light you would need to absorb it. To absorb it, you would remove light at a specific frequency. The spectra would then show an abnormal absorbtion line. This is frequency used to see just what lies between a distant object and the earth.

Now, do you have a way to dim the light without leaving a discernable trace? I'll also repeat the ultimate part. If you are doubting distance then the logical end is that you must mean that the entire observable universe lies within 6000 light years. I'd love to see your theory on that! I can predict that both will remain unsubstantiated assertions.

"My responses are every bit as "substantiated" in the "literal" sense of the word as biological macroevolution's supposed mechanisms."

Nope. The mechanisms are observed. Simply put, mutation and duplication, for one mechanism, has been observed to lead to novel genes which make novel proteins with novel functions.

Let's put this a different way. Since this has been observed, what do you assert prevent such changes from accumulating until the genome of a species has changed sufficiently for it to be a new species?

"I have pointed to facts that I know and have used logic."

Where? One fact to support your theory about a rich genome will suffice.

""Published materials" come from those who presuppose naturalism."

Published materials come from those who have studied the underlying material, who understand the concepts better than we possibly can, who have done the work, who have made the observations that you say have not been made, and who have submitted their work to others to look for the flaws.

If you feel so strongly about such materials then point out specifically where they are wrong and then reinterpret their data in a manner that better fits the data.

"No. It doesn't. You cannot make a rule for any population based on one statistically insignificant sample/observation."

Except that it is not ONE observation. There are over 100,000 stars measured this way!

"The assumption that someone has discounted every possible effect on light between here and the stars based on data collected almost completely within our solar system."

Pure speculation. Tell us how this light could have been affected.

"As is all those made in support of macroevolution."

Nope. Based on observation. Common descent happens to be the theory that best accounts for those observations.

"What part of this do you think God is not capable of? How much about the universe do you really think man knows?"

I am not questioning God, I am questioning YOU. Do you think our sun is some strange, giant star while all the rest are tiny pinpricks in comparison? What? I just don't see how you think you could put even the 100 billion stars of the Milky Way within 6000 light years much less the hundreds of billions of other observable galaxies in a way that was the least bit consistent with observations. And by doubting distances, that is the only direction in which you could be headed.

 

"How do you calibrate something that you do not know the age of unless you measure the Carbon 14? You measure the Carbon-14, then you calibrate your sample based on what?"

You calibrate against something of known age. Read the following or the equivilent and then tell us what is wrong that peer review did not catch.

Kromer, B., Ambers, J., Baillie, M. G. L., Damon, P. E., Hesshaimer, V., Hofmann, J., Jöris, O., Levin, I., Manning, S. W., McCormac, F. G., van der Plicht, J., Spurk, M., Stuiver, M. and Weninger, B. 1996 Report: Summary of the workshop "Aspects of High-Precision Radiocarbon Calibration". Radiocarbon 38(3): 607-610.

 

You can count tree rings and you can compare the carbon 14 date for the wood in the very tree rings you counted back. One can match overlapping tree rings back about 10,000 years and that method establishes the validity of carbon 14 dating backwards for those years. One can find lakes with annual silt deposits in them - you can see the spring life in the lake followed by silt without life in the winter and count - and one lake goes back about 30 or 40 thousand years, as I recall. The carbon 14 dating confirms the accuracy of the count. The ice layers in cores of ice drilled down into the greenland ice cap and the antarctic ice cap are able to count seasonal variations in the ice formed and count layers going down for 200,000 years and more. The carbon 14 dating for little bits of organic matter trapped there works, as far as it is able to work.

If you havn't heard of these things before, you haven't been paying attention. If you think they are false, you have a problem accepting reality.

(groan) not the ol "Is God capable" question again? Why can't you get it into your head that the question is not what God CAN do but what the RECORD in the ROCKS and the STARS shows He DID do?

Which, of course, happens to call into question your interpretation of His written record. Hmmmm - differing interpretations - evidence supports mine, not yours - must be frustrating to you!

 

Philip,

Carbon 14 dating does perform pretty well if it is done properly. Yes it is a limited tool - but we should be honest about what it does. For one to assert that it is a flop is just untruth.

And yes God could have designed a universe that we don't understand. If YECers simply believe in God's absolute capability then why even bother interacting with science? Doesn't God trump men? But yet many still go back and try to explain science too, often doing so in an incompetent manner.

 

Charles, you said this in another thread. About five posts up I gave a Scriptural defence. The Sabbath is a literal 24 hour day. Does that not point to a literal creation? See my post above. </font>[/QUOTE]No response to this and other Biblical arguments presented?