Creation: Good Old Young Universe Part VIII
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: Good Old Young Universe Part VIII”.
7 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
The Boston 3-Day
I will be walking the Boston 3-Day the last weekend in July in honor of Gregg's mom, Ryta Gail, who died from breast cancer when he was a little boy.
Find me on Facebook
Safe Site
We are committed to keeping the content on this site
family friendly and child safe.
-
Gregg & Hallee
Find Me on My Author Blog
* 
I wanted to respectfully make a few objections on some of the arguments I feel qualified to challenge.
I respect the sincere effort you put into piling all of this together, but some of the reasoning behind your evidence is, for lack of a better, respectful, term, unscientific.
I will start with the “Odds of Darwinian Evolution” segment. The quote from Carl Sagan is taken out of context, and what he was originally referring to with the estimate is the opportunity for diversity in the evolutionary chain. Kind of like how Sonic advertises 168,000 drink combinations. However, a drink is the result of the order either way. (Imagine humans with webbed toes and six fingers, along with sharp canines..still evolutionarily viable but not the exact same combination that makes us who we are today.)
“The Oldest Living Organism”
One of the most important objections I would like to make is in the far too common attack on the inaccuracy of carbon dating. The consistency is far higher than 7%, and the attacks on carbon dating almost always mention animals such as snails. The reason why snails can be miscalculated so often is because they naturally pick up traces of dirt as they roam around. The traces of dirt on top of the crust can easily be dated within 10,000 years for the most part.
As far as the trees, I don’t have much experience in horticulture, so there are bound to be people better qualified than I to tell you why the logic is not sound. However, I will make the point that there is nothing living past the age of 5,000 years for plenty of reasons. Aging alone is a self-depreciating process. There is no need for maggots or chainsaws to take a tree down. On a micro level, all living organisms decay at the cellular level. On a macro level, the result of the cellular decay can result in tissue, as well as organ decay. This process is also prevalent in plants. Just as a car can fall apart, even if you don’t get in a wreck, trees decay too. I would have to say that the aging of the trees dating back to a “worldwide flood” is simply coincidental, if even accurate.
“Fun with Math”
The age of Earth is the result of all sorts of calculations. For one, scientists date rocks. However, this is not an accurate prediction of the Earth’s age because plate tectonics constantly replenish the Earth’s surface. A number like 4.2 billion comes from the dating of objects such as meteorites. This number is not just “made up” in order to coincide with evolution. In fact, the number, as it was the result of completely separate sciences, tends to simply prove that evolution occurs.
The age of the universe was calculated based on the constant rate that galaxies move away from our own (Hubble’s Constant). We come to an estimate that the universe is about 13.2 billion years old because objects in space are separated equally apart, and to trace their heritage at the rate of expansion, it would take 13.2 billion years for all of the mass of the universe to fall back into a singularity.
“Population Statistics”
I would like to see a citation for the “one family” that existed 3300 BC.
Also, evolutionists declare that humans have been on earth not just 1 million, but 6 million years.
“The Truth”
Actually, Newton explained how everything in the universe follows their orderly paths: gravity. It ties everything in the universe together.
Our fortunate luck to live on such a habitable planet is a result, not an end in itself. That is the same luck that makes each of us the result of 1 of millions of sperm cells to fertilize an egg. Its not that we are pre-determined, but that we are post-determined.
Please feel free to shoot me an email, but I would like to think that I respectfully pointed out some of the shortcomings here.
Sincerely,
Tait Wayland
You say, “I respect the sincere effort you put into piling all of this together, but some of the reasoning behind your evidence is, for lack of a better, respectful, term, unscientific.”
.
I respectfully disagree. Operational science is based on observation. The facts and evidence listed by me here is observed. Assumptions, however, when stated as conclusions or the foundation of conclusions, are entirely unscientific. The majority of Darwinism is based on unfounded and unsupported assumptions. A very good definition of Darwinism is, “A collection of unsupported guesses about unobserved events in the past.” The conclusions of Darwinism do not rely on observation, and largely are not supported by either operational or empirical science, but rather are founded upon assumptions which depend largely upon a philosophical bias. Therefore, Darwinism is, in fact, less scientific than the facts, evidence, and conclusions stated in this little blog post on a home making web site. As ironic as that is, it stands as true. Also, I must also point out that to accuse me of being less than scientific amounts to either a question begging epithet or an ad hominem abusive, either of which or both are logical fallacies and have no place in informed, intelligent, reasoned debate.
.
With respect to dating methods, all of them have problems and all of them also rely on assumptions. The issue is not how accurate they are. The issue is that when the age of an object is known, it is assumed that dating methods are more or less inaccurate while when the age of an object is unknown, dating methods are then assumed to be highly accurate provided they support the Darwinian philosophical bias. This bias does not agree with logic.
.
To state that no living thing can possibly be older than about 5000 years due to the listed self-deprecating processes you outline is what is known as a rescue device. If nothing can live beyond 5000 years, then every 5000 year old living thing should logically and suddenly die tomorrow before they grow even one second older. It is not logical to assume or declare that a plant which can live to be 1000, or 2000, or 5000 years old that it cannot live to be 5500 or 6000 or 6500 years old. It is not surprising that this strikes you as a coincidence. The philosophical bias of Darwinism filters any evidence that supports a Biblical account of creation as “mere coincidence” as a tenet of methodological naturalism.
.
With respect to the age of the earth, the truth is that no one at any time in history and no one living today can accurately determine how old even one single shovel full of dirt is. With respect to the age of the universe, the assumptions you state as facts are not facts, but rather assumptions. Assuming that the Hubble constant can be treated as a variable and assuming that red shift works the way that we assume it works and assuming that solar collapse is not responsible for stellar heat and assuming that there was a big bang in the first place etc. etc. ad infinitum. And, I am sorry to say, not scientific since none of these assumptions are observed as facts in empirical or operational science.
.
You state, “[Darwinists] declare that humans have been on earth not just 1 million, but 6 million years.” This makes the math far more interesting. Using even a minor population curve, I must estimate that the population of the earth should now exceed several sextillion human beings if that is the case. Additionally, we should be up to our elbows in human remains and fossils. There are several excellent (and highly scientific) population calculations with accompanying charts here: http://ldolphin.org/popul.html
.
With respect to the truth, actually, Newton theorized gravity as the way “…in which the Creator sustains all things.” Furthermore, we later came to understand that while such forces as gravity and the strong and weak atomic force exist, there is no explanation for how or why they exist at the exact tolerances with which they operate absent the “anthropic principle.” It is not surprising that this all strikes you as a “our fortunate luck” which stems from the pagan belief in the god “Fortuna” by the way. The philosophical bias of Darwinism filters any evidence that supports a Biblical account of creation as “fortunate luck” or “mere coincidence” as a tenet of methodological naturalism, which is somehow perceived as scientific despite the odds against it and the probabilistic outcomes being determined as well beyond mathematical impossibility. Speaking scientifically, luck, good fortune, mere coincidence and the like are expressed mathematically as “chance” and math is rather unforgiving when it comes to possible good chance outcomes in a field of possible bad chance outcomes, particularly when the possible bad chance outcomes exponentially outnumber the paltry possible good chance outcomes.
.
I thank you for your comment and sincerely hope that I have given you some food for thought.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Woah, I’m sorry it took me this long to reply, I just saw this when a friend of mine googled my name. >.<
When you claim that Darwinism is based on assumption, you have a point to a degree. BUT, you also have to take into the consideration that creationism is also an assumption. People attach their own bias and an interpretation to everything, including science.
* I just want to note that throwing the term "Darwinism" around is a bit misleading. You make a huge assumption when you say that all sciences cater to the doctrine of evolution.
I fail to see how the process of self-deprecation is a rescue device. I threw the term "5000" out there because its way beyond the age of any living thing. To say that something could live to be 5000 by natural means is drastic enough. 6000-6500 is just way out of the picture. Very few Sequoiahs are anywhere near 4000 years old…so it only makes sense that no tree is older than 4000 years old. Very few humans can sprint a 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Its logical to assume that going below 7 seconds is impossible for a human to achieve. (also when you rely on the dating of these trees, you rely on evidence that you have already attempted to rebuke. Notice how when carbon dating tends to favor your argument, you will rely on it to make a point, but when carbon dating favors a "darwinistic" argument, you label it unreliable.)
If anything, the Hubble's constant is the most reliable evidence in my argument. There is very little to be wrong about. This is simply applied calculus. If you throw something like Hubble's constant out of the picture, you could just as easily throw everything we know about gravity out of the picture. The universe expands at a well-known rate.
I would like to note that anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old, not the scapegoat "darwinists."
In terms of population, these calculators are actually highly unscientific because they dont take into account any sort of variables. You have to acknowledge that any sort of natural disaster/disease/famine has a much more critical effect on the population curve the earlier it happens…and it has happened frequently in the history of our species…I mean the Black Plague alone practically reset the entire population curve.
Lets throw out darwinism and creationism for a second because that sort of cyclic scapegoat-ism just instills bias and gets people nowhere….there are two ways to interpret our place in the universe. You can look at our favorable planet as the result of divine inspiration, or you can see our planet as the result of a cosmological crackshot. Its just simply more logical to assume that it is the former because the universe is just so big that there are bound to be many many more of such favorable planets. If the universe had only a handful of solar systems, divine inspiration would make a lot more sense. However, that isn't the case…there are trillions upon trillions of solar systems out there..so its just natural to assume that each one of those has a chance of having a favorable planet…and a favorable planet in the scheme of such an extraordinary amount of solar systems becomes not such an unlikely thing. We would not exist period if the planet wasnt favorable..so its not like we could live on a planet that is 1000 degrees hotter and say "well, thats just probability for you." Also, the same sort of "chance" as you call it takes place when a person is conceived…millions of sperm have a chance at fertilizing an egg, but only one does…you are the result of that 1 in several-million lottery….but you would never know if you weren't because you wouldn't exist. For every one person who exists…there are several million other potential people that could have existed…but there are tons and tons of sperm cells out there that each have a rare chance of being a zygote. In a sense you are "lucky" to be that person..but its not so unrealistic that you are here…because its a no-outs situation.
When you claim that Darwinism is based on assumption, you have a point to a degree.
.
False claim. My claim is that Darwinism is based on SEVERAL assumptions. Hundreds. And this is, of course, true.
.
I just want to note that throwing the term "Darwinism" around is a bit misleading.
.
I use the term to describe a very specific secular religious belief. Call it a philosophical bias, call it a combination of methodological materialism coupled with secular humanism. Call it whatever you want. It means what it means.
.
I threw the term "5000" out there because its way beyond the age of any living thing. To say that something could live to be 5000 by natural means is drastic enough. 6000-6500 is just way out of the picture.
.
So, to say that the Great Barrier Reef, a coral reef that has been built up for 4200 years, should be much older is way out of the picture? How so? Please use logic or evidence that go beyond a wink and a shrug to substantiate your point and support your claim. I submit that if a reef grows for 2000 years it can grow for 3000. If it grows for 3000 years it can grow for 4000. If it grows for 4000 years, why not 5? Why not 6? Why is that “just way out of the picture” exactly? Are you saying that the Great Barrier Reef must now stop growing and aging and attain some kind of stasis?
.
Very few Sequoiahs are anywhere near 4000 years old…so it only makes sense that no tree is older than 4000 years old.
.
Do you even understand how utterly circular that claim is? Sequoias can’t live to be more than 4000 years old because there are no Sequoias older than 4000 years old. Oh really? Are you familiar with the term “logic”?
.
Very few humans can sprint a 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Its logical to assume that going below 7 seconds is impossible for a human to achieve.
.
The ability of a human being to exert 7 seconds of energy in a short distance run may not be the best analogy as compared to the age of a tree or a reef that has lived for several millennia. You may have just defined a “weak analogy” fallacy.
.
(also when you rely on the dating of these trees, you rely on evidence that you have already attempted to rebuke. Notice how when carbon dating tends to favor your argument, you will rely on it to make a point, but when carbon dating favors a "darwinistic" argument, you label it unreliable.)
.
No. I contend that Darwinist dating methods are all fallible and each contains its own set of assumptions. It should be understood that when I say “Darwinists estimate the age at…” that I am granting that assumption for the purpose of debate.
.
If anything, the Hubble's constant is the most reliable evidence in my argument. There is very little to be wrong about. This is simply applied calculus. If you throw something like Hubble's constant out of the picture, you could just as easily throw everything we know about gravity out of the picture. The universe expands at a well-known rate.
.
I seriously don’t mean this as an insult. The fact is, based on this statement alone, it is clear that you are far too ignorant on this entire topic for me to intelligently debate this with you. I would have to first educate you on what you allegedly believe in order to show you how fallible and wrong what you think you believe actually is. Since I don’t believe it in the first place, because I lack your obvious ignorance of the topic, I only ask this: Please do some research and comment again when you are better informed. I’ll start you down the path…
.
“Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe,…But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…[it] is intolerable…moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the [big bang] theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.”
–Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937
.
You see, even Hubble himself recognized the conflicting apparent homogeneity his “varible” actually demonstrated.
.
I would like to note that anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old, not the scapegoat "darwinists."
.
I’m sorry — but is it your claim that 100% of all anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old? And that ONLY anthropologists believe this to be the case? Is there an indoctrination ceremony where they swear never again to be open minded on the question of the age of humanity complete with frock and secret handshake? Of course not.
.
The truth is that only anthropologists who subscribe to the religion of Darwinism make this claim. Other Darwinists who are not anthropologists — such as yourself, presumably — then saddles themselves with this belief as well. There is a difference between scapegoat and specificity. A scapegoat is a sacrificial innocent. That term doesn’t even make sense in this context. I think you only mean to throw it out as an epithet.
.
In terms of population, these calculators are actually highly unscientific because they dont take into account any sort of variables. You have to acknowledge that any sort of natural disaster/disease/famine has a much more critical effect on the population curve the earlier it happens…and it has happened frequently in the history of our species…I mean the Black Plague alone practically reset the entire population curve.
.
The bubonic plague was an epidemic that largely affected the northern Mediterranean portions of the African continent and central Europe and the islands we call Great Britain today. In the course of a century, 375 million estimated deaths occurred. It did not affect the population curve of Indochina, Australia, North or South America, etc. A better example of your point might be the pandemic Spanish ‘flu (influenza) outbreak at the end of the first world war which wiped out an estimated 6% of the population of the planet in 2 short years.
.
Neither of these affect the statistical model and in fact are simply an example of a logical fallacy called a red herring.
.
…there are two ways to interpret our place in the universe. You can look at our favorable planet as the result of divine inspiration, or you can see our planet as the result of a cosmological crackshot. Its just simply more logical to assume that it is the former because the universe is just so big that there are bound to be many many more of such favorable planets.
.
You say you lean toward the former — so, you believe our favorable planet is the result of divine creation, then. I agree. It is simply more logical. And I not only understand logic, but understand the grammatical difference between the former and the latter.
.
If the universe had only a handful of solar systems, divine inspiration would make a lot more sense. However, that isn't the case…there are trillions upon trillions of solar systems out there..so its just natural to assume that each one of those has a chance of having a favorable planet…and a favorable planet in the scheme of such an extraordinary amount of solar systems becomes not such an unlikely thing.
.
You are misquoting the famously misquoted Drake equation. “If only 1 out of a million suns had planets, and only 1 out of a million of those planets were capable of supporting life, and only 1 out of a million of those had life, and only 1 out of a million of those had intelligent life, you still end up with a bajillion planets currently hosting intelligent life!” There are two problems with this philosophy. One is, it is misquoted. The other is, Drake figured out he was wrong.
The Anthropic Principle greatly reduces even those skewed odds. Sol is a yellow-orange, main sequence dwarf star (G2 V) and has about 50 percent more heavy elements than other stars of its age. There are less than 150 G type stars within 50 light years of our solar system. Our Milky Way galaxy spans 80-120 thousand light years in diameter and contains 200-400 billion estimated stars. However, only about an estimated 16 million of those stars exist in so called “goldilocks” zones. Of those 16 million stars, only about 1 in 1.5 million are G2 V stars. Now, apply even your misquoted Drake equation to those 10.66_ remaining stars. But don’t stop there. Planets have a goldilocks zone in their order in the solar systems. Large gas giants must exist to act as “catchers” for debris such as comets and asteroids so that deep impacts rarely occur. Etc. etc.
.
We would not exist period if the planet wasnt favorable..so its not like we could live on a planet that is 1000 degrees hotter and say "well, thats just probability for you."
.
What point are you trying to make?
.
Also, the same sort of "chance" as you call it takes place when a person is conceived…millions of sperm have a chance at fertilizing an egg, but only one does…you are the result of that 1 in several-million lottery….but you would never know if you weren't because you wouldn't exist.
.
Did you lapse into existentialism?
.
For every one person who exists…there are several million other potential people that could have existed…but there are tons and tons of sperm cells out there that each have a rare chance of being a zygote. In a sense you are "lucky" to be that person..but its not so unrealistic that you are here…because its a no-outs situation.
.
If you are reducing me to my DNA, then you are mistaken. Consider that 100% of all the 23 chromosome sets obtained from each of my parents both came from my parents to form my 46 chromosomes. My father could not have added variablility to his genetic contribution outside of any combination of his existing 46 chromosomes any more than my mother could have, which, again, greatly reduces the odds. I don’t think you understand the difference between odds, probability, and chance.
.
An existentialist argument is irrelevant because it is circular and cuts both ways. If we weren’t here, then we would not be here to observe. True. But irrelvant. What is relevant is that we ARE here and we DO observe it. But, if it were not observable, we could not be here to observe it. Also true and equally irrelvant. It IS observable and we ARE here to observe it. The greater realities are relevant in a debate of minds.
.
Thanks for your comment.
God bless,
Gregg
Okay, I’ll go ahead and give you this…I wrote a sloppy response. Some of my arguments were thought on a whim because I was doing this around 1:00 in the morning if I recall.
First off if you ever want to be respected in a debate, a cardinal rule is to not throw out ad-hominem attacks. I bet Jesus really smiles up at you from the grave when you lead people like me further away from your type.
“False claim. My claim is that Darwinism is based on SEVERAL assumptions. Hundreds. And this is, of course, true.”
Please name ten assumptions atheists/agnostics make that are completely out of the picture and not supported by any scientific or otherwise mathematical evidence. Actually, just name three if you can’t do that.
“I use the term to describe a very specific secular religious belief. Call it a philosophical bias,- ”
When you call people “Darwinists” for adopting credible scientific theories into their beliefs about the universe, its almost like your deliberately trying to associate them with Social Darwinists. It seems like the word was cleverly chosen in order to be derogatory in that sense.
“So, to say that the Great Barrier Reef, a coral reef that has been built up for 4200 years, should be much older is way out of the picture? ”
Coral reefs are just built-up calcium carbonate secreted by nearby coral. The actual coral doesn’t live to be 4200 years. Did you even bother looking that up before you posted it?
“No. I contend that Darwinist dating methods are all fallible and each contains its own set of assumptions. It should be understood that when I say “Darwinists estimate the age at…” that I am granting that assumption for the purpose of debate.”
So, this is a cop-out. If you don’t believe in carbon dating why even make the point? How does that help your cause if the evidence you bring up is, by your own standards, unreliable? I don’t have to grant truth to divine intervention, to make an argument for naturalism. you shouldn’t have to make an argument for intelligent design that relies on so-called flawed scientific methodology.
““Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe,…But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…[it] is intolerable…moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the [big bang] theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.”
–Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937″
So based on all of the astronomy conducted by 1937, Edwin Hubble could assert that Hubble’s Law conflicts with the Big Bang theory and that the universe was, if fact, not homogeneous? You could very well be right that the Big Bang didn’t happen the way astronomers think it did. Many physicists would actually agree with you, I might agree with you actually. But when you bring this quote up, you rely on incredibly dogmatic science. (moreover outdated) So when you imply that I just blindly accept all science thrown in my direction, its kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Also, you’re essentially just trying to blow a hole in my argument without offering a scientifically credibly solution. If Hubble’s Law conflicts with the idea that the universe emerged from a singularity, how did the universe come into existence?
“I’m sorry — but is it your claim that 100% of all anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old?”
Show me an anthropologists that doesn’t believe this. In fact, show me a credible biologist who believes in creationism. Scientists don’t blindly accept things based on authority. Christians and other creationists already do enough of that in the rational world. Almost all anthropologists believe humans have been around for 6 million years. Does that sound better?That leaves room for the possibility of discrepancy.
Also, I want to point out that almost none of your points actually give weight to your argument. You’re points simply try to blow holes in scientific notion. Hardly anything you bring up proves that the Universe is 10,000 years old and that an intelligent designer made it all. Lets just get to the elephant in the room and say that nothing you have brought up actually leads credibility to the Judeo-Christian God that I will assume you believe in at this point. Nothing you say here proves that there was a 40-day world-wide flood where a man named Noah put two of every animal on a 40 foot wide ark. Nothing you say here proves that a man named Jonah lived in a whale. Nothing you say here prooves that humans walked among dinosaurs. Nothing you say here proves God created the universe in 7 days, and that all animals coexisted side by side. Nothing you say here proves Jesus rose from the dead, or was born of a virgin.
Now, since you’ve had plenty of opportunities to blow a hole into Naturalistic doctrine, I’ll go ahead and have my shot at intelligent design. If every creature was created individually and designed intelligently, why do roosters have teeth?
First off if you ever want to be respected in a debate, a cardinal rule is to not throw out ad-hominem attacks. I bet Jesus really smiles up at you from the grave when you lead people like me further away from your type.
.
First of all, it is utterly irrelevant whether I am respected or not. Even so, it is obvious you respect me or else you would not take time to debate/annoy me. Secondly, it is difficult to feel rebuked about some alleged ad hominem fallacy when your very next sentence is an ad hominem. What exactly is “my type” anyway? What a bigoted and closed minded remark. Thirdly, Christ isn’t in the grave. He was only in the grave for 72 hours. The grave is empty. Hence, He cannot be smiling up from a place where He is not.
.
Please name ten assumptions atheists/agnostics make that are completely out of the picture and not supported by any scientific or otherwise mathematical evidence. Actually, just name three if you can’t do that.
.
You could spare me the time of constantly repeating myself by reading some of my other posts. But here you go.
1) Cosmic evolution — that the universe was absolutely nothing that got hot, dense, spun, then exploded.
2) Stellar evolution — that stars formed when gas condensed in the vacuum of space when all gas ever does in a vacuum is rarify.
3) Chemical evolution — that the stars exploded over and over to create enough really intense heat sufficient to fuse past iron and create heavy minerals when nothing in the universe actually ever explodes more than once.
4) That the earth was really hot for a very long time despite polonium halos and other evidence that indicates the earth was formed cold then got hot.
5) Abiogenesis — that dirt and rocks decided to form the first living cell on earth.
6) That all forms of life on earth sprang from that mythical original ancestor.
7) That macro-evolution can occur (say, fish to a mammal, lizard to a bird, etc.) via gradual changes over time due to mutation and selection and other assorted speciation events which has never been observed (thus an assumption) and there is certainly not enough time for it to occur anyway.
8) That homology is indicative of darwinian evolution.
9) That ontological recapitulation is still valid though proven false nearly 200 years ago (still taught in college level biology as factual)
10) that 4000 year old trees can’t get any older because the oldest ones are only 4000 years old which is an assumption that depends upon some pretty strong circular reasoning. Oh, you only wanted three.
.
Coral reefs are just built-up calcium carbonate secreted by nearby coral. The actual coral doesn’t live to be 4200 years. Did you even bother looking that up before you posted it?
.
Dude — coral is a living thing. A coral reef is built up of discarded skeletons. It isn’t a secretion. It’s a graveyard covered with living coral in the current generation. I note that you didn’t actually address the question. You simply attempted to insult my intelligence which obviously backfired. Why is the oldest reef 4200 years old and why can it not get any older if that is your position?
.
If Hubble’s Law conflicts with the idea that the universe emerged from a singularity, how did the universe come into existence?
.
Good question. Obviously, Hubble knew he was wrong. There doesn’t appear to be a solid materialistic answer, does there?
.
In fact, show me a credible biologist who believes in creationism.
.
Define “credible” using a definition that isn’t a “real Scottsman” fallacy.
.
Christians and other creationists already do enough of that in the rational world.
.
You’re just throwing a little tantrum, now. That remark isn’t even rational in and of itself.
.
… Noah put two of every animal on a 40 foot wide ark.
.
Wrong.
.
Now, since you’ve had plenty of opportunities to blow a hole into Naturalistic doctrine, I’ll go ahead and have my shot at intelligent design. If every creature was created individually and designed intelligently, why do roosters have teeth?
.
So they can chew. Or maybe they are a “missing link” between toothy reptiles and crowing fowl?
.
Thanks for your comment.
.
God bless,
Gregg
So, I too just Googled Tait’s name and found this discussion.
This argument is like a gunfight with nothing but Colt .45′s: almost all of the shots are strong and accurate, but occasionally they jam. For example, Gregg says:
“A coral reef is built up of discarded skeletons. It isn’t a secretion. It’s a graveyard covered with living coral in the current generation.”
This directly contradicts your own statement about them being 4200 years old! I mean, sure, the skeletons maybe that old, but the living organism itself is not. And what if it could live to be 4200 years old; considering the simplicity of cnidarian reproduction, how big should the coral reefs be today?
Tait, I too fail to see the self-depreciation argument as a rescue device simply because it didn’t rescue you. Sure, self-depreciation is a good argument for this, but you undermined it by suggesting that “no tree is older than 4000 years old.” Really? Why can’t they just keep depreciating at a very slow rate?
Regardless of any inaccuracies (factual or logical), I’ve really enjoyed reading both of your comments, and now that I’m done I can’t help but throw in my own two cents. I believe in God, yes, but I believe in God because of science. The answer in marrying the two, in my calm objective opinion, is DNA. We can look at so many chemical and physical aspects of science, but the biological is a bit of an enigma. Sure, it builds upon the principles of chemistry, as chemistry does upon physics, but it’s different because of DNA. Every form of life requires DNA; at the very least, RNA had to exist before the first life form, right? But if there was nothing there to encode for, then why were these acids linking together with such crazy precision? It’s almost literally a chicken-or-the-egg argument. On top of this, the transcription/translation process and DNA it self is all a literal code, and the precision (not accuracy) of it all seems bizarrely indicative of intelligence and intervention. I guess that Tait could easily respond with his “one in a million sperm” theory. You two can probably whip up some other explanation too, something involving ribosomes and biochemistry. I’m just too lazy to prove myself wrong, and not naive enough to think that either science or religion can be proven absolutely.