Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Estrid]

And so...he is describing punctuated equilibrium.

I really don't understand why those who argue against evolution keep bringing it up. It's part if the evolutionary process itself. It's like denying that UFOs exist and then arguing that their warp drives are inefficient.

The creationists have nothing so
they try to make the most of the thinnest
thread of imagined support.
Naturally they don't understand his
writings that they've not read.

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationists have nothing ...

That's why it's called: creatio ex nihilo.

 

[KevinT]

It might be found out that "the findings in the natural world" are not only deceptive , as published, but purposefully death-dealing (pernicious) as well as untruthful.

We are both writing about possibilities, so I guess I have to agree with you.

 

[Estrid]

It might be found out that "the findings in the natural world" are not only deceptive , as published, but purposefully death-dealing (pernicious) as well as untruthful.

The extremes people go to in avoiding
reality is pretty remarkable.

 

[AV1611VET]

The extremes people go to in avoiding reality is pretty remarkable.

Or maybe there's more to reality than meets the eye?

 

[Ophiolite]

It might be found out that "the findings in the natural world" are not only deceptive , as published, but purposefully death-dealing (pernicious) as well as untruthful.

Is it your contention that the tens of thousands of researchers into evolution and its related fields have consciously and deliberately lied about it? If so, what evidence do you have to support such an assertion?
In what way is the theory of evolution "death dealing" and what would be the motivation of these tens of thousands of researchers to deliberately deal out death? And what is your evidence to justify these claims?
I do hope you will not attempt the escape clause that you "only said it might be found out that" this was true. You don't get to make provocative accusations and then jump ship.
Thank you for your anticipated attention.

 

[KevinT]

Is it your contention that the tens of thousands of researchers into evolution and its related fields have consciously and deliberately lied about it? If so, what evidence do you have to support such an assertion?
In what way is the theory of evolution "death dealing" and what would be the motivation of these tens of thousands of researchers to deliberately deal out death? And what is your evidence to justify these claims?
I do hope you will not attempt the escape clause that you "only said it might be found out that" this was true. You don't get to make provocative accusations and then jump ship.
Thank you for your anticipated attention.

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.

This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.

As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more here. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory.

All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

Best wishes,
Kevin

 

[Estrid]

Is it your contention that the tens of thousands of researchers into evolution and its related fields have consciously and deliberately lied about it? If so, what evidence do you have to support such an assertion?
In what way is the theory of evolution "death dealing" and what would be the motivation of these tens of thousands of researchers to deliberately deal out death? And what is your evidence to justify these claims?
I do hope you will not attempt the escape clause that you "only said it might be found out that" this was true. You don't get to make provocative accusations and then jump ship.
Thank you for your anticipated attention.

We are also interested in how people can
clam to know so much without ever having
to study.

 

[Estrid]

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.

This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.

As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more here. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory.

All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Note that as you went to oddball / crank
ideas and or to the mists of history for
"Theories" (in quotation marks as they don't
meet today's standards for what a theory is).

Of course some theories are disproved.
You kind of overstate your case,

Regardless anyone who is scientifically literate
knows no theory or law can be proved, so examples
are not needed.

Humility is hard wired into the nature is science.


It's worth noting here that objections to evolution are
religious in nature, lacking in any data whatever,
and come generally from people of extraordinary
arrogance with full certainty that it is impossible for
them to be mistaken.

Seek ye there for the "just because" folk to admonish.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.

This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.

As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more here. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory.

All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Why does that admonition not apply to biblical creationists?

 

[KevinT]

Why does that admonition not apply to biblical creationists?

I agree that it does apply.

 

[KevinT]

It's worth noting here that objections to evolution are
religious in nature, lacking in any data whatever,
and come generally from people of extraordinary
arrogance with full certainty that it is impossible for
them to be mistaken.

Seek ye there for the "just because" folk to admonish.

Belief in special miraculous creation is not scientific because to be "scientific" means to discoverable or explorable by the scientific method of cyclic induction/deduction with testing, verifying or rejection theories along the way.

My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall. The idea that the complexity of the cell, which I have studied in great detail, arose from nothing is just a non-starter for me. (I would be happy to expand on this if asked). I don't feel that the scientific process can reliably tell me what happened in the past, and I feel that many use it to tell me otherwise. If I marry myself to believing only that which I can objectively measure, only what science is able to verify, I feel I would be going down a path of belief that there is no God, everything is just random chance, there is no bigger reality to our existence, and I might as well say "... what advantage is there to me, if the dead rise not? “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” (1 Cor 15:32)

But then on the other side, if I take the plain reading of the creation account in the Bible, I likewise quickly hit a wall. It is clear to me that either the earth is much much older than 6,000 yrs, or someone has gone to a lot of effort to deceive us. There is much much teaching in religious circles that doesn't seem to align with what I see in the world and universe around me.

So I have two approaches which fail to give me concrete answers. And it is this difficulty that gives rise to the effort I spend here on this board proposing ideas, listening to others, and generally struggling to make sense of it all.

So I hope that no one feels that I am attacking their own theories. I am just trying to give all the ideas a good shaking and see what comes out.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[BCP1928]

Belief in special miraculous creation is not scientific because to be "scientific" means to discoverable or explorable by the scientific method of cyclic induction/deduction with testing, verifying or rejection theories along the way.

My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall. The idea that the complexity of the cell, which I have studied in great detail, arose from nothing is just a non-starter for me. (I would be happy to expand on this if asked). I don't feel that the scientific process can reliably tell me what happened in the past, and I feel that many use it to tell me otherwise. If I marry myself to believing only that which I can objectively measure, only what science is able to verify, I feel I would be going down a path of belief that there is no God, everything is just random chance, there is no bigger reality to our existence, and I might as well say "... what advantage is there to me, if the dead rise not? “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” (1 Cor 15:32)

Perhaps you might find it useful to study some of the work of Traditional Christian authors and theologians, who see no need to go down that path.

But then on the other side, if I take the plain reading of the creation account in the Bible, I likewise quickly hit a wall. It is clear to me that either the earth is much much older than 6,000 yrs, or someone has gone to a lot of effort to deceive us. There is much much teaching in religious circles that doesn't seem to align with what I see in the world and universe around me.

Have you considered the possibility that a "plain reading" of the creation account may be wrong?

So I have two approaches which fail to give me concrete answers. And it is this difficulty that gives rise to the effort I spend here on this board proposing ideas, listening to others, and generally struggling to make sense of it all.

So I hope that no one feels that I am attacking their own theories. I am just trying to give all the ideas a good shaking and see what comes out.

Best wishes,

Kevin

You have two approaches which constitute what appears to be a false dichotomy.

 

[Ophiolite]

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

I see you have done some studying on the matter. I was fortunate to begin my undergraduate career before the term "plate tectonics" had been coined, though the pieces of the puzzle were already in place and the theory was (excuse the pun) primed to erupt. It did so before I ended my undergraduate career four years later.

None of the theories you mention, popular as each was in some quarters, were "generally believed". The truth is geologists at that time had no consensus as to what was going on with the gross structure of the crust. I started to outline this for you, but found specific names were escaping me, so I dug into my files and retrieved these notes I made a decade or two ago.

Many are aware that continental drift was actively promoted by the meteorologist Alfred Wegner following his publication of the theory in 1915[1]. His favoured mechanism (differential centrifugal ‘force’) was faulty, as was that (tidal forces) of an earlier proposal by Taylor[2] in 1910.

Although some researchers flirted with the idea of convection as the driving force, Arthur Holmes[3] was the first to place it on a solid footing (pun intended), as early as 1931. Despite his work and that of other visionaries, the idea continued to be rejected by the majority of Earth scientists.

There is no doubt that the American geological establishment was generally opposed to Wegner’s hypothesis. Yet this opposition was certainly not unanimous. Two examples will illustrate this.

Alexander Logie du Toit received a substantial grant from the Carnegie Institute of Washington for a study of the Atlantic coast geology of South America, with a view to comparing and contrasting it with that of South Africa. Recall that Wegner had noted such similarities.

The powerful influence of and necessity for a uniformitarian approach is revealed in this cautious observation in the introduction to Hess’s History of Ocean Basins:

I shall consider this paper an essay in geopoetry. In order not to travel any further into the realm of fantasy than is absolutely necessary I shall hold as closely as possible to a uniformitarian approach; even so, at least one great catastrophe will be required early in the Earth's history.

The point in all this is that the balance of opinion was against drift, because the balance of evidence failed to support it. This began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s as growing evidence forced a reevaluation.

There were two strands to this. Firstly, there was now clear evidence for divergent polar wandering, best explained by continental drift, from the research of scientists such as Blackett[4] and Runcorn[5]. Secondly, seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges was posited by Hess[6] and expanded upon by Dietz[7], and demonstrated through the analysis of magnetic anomalies, first by Mason[8], then by Vine and Mathews[9].

By the end of the 1960s these threads had been pulled together, by the pioneering work of the likes of Wilson[10], Morgan[11], McKenzie and Parker[12], and Le Pichon[13]. Plate tectonics was born. (The phrase was first used in print by Morgan and McKenzie[14] in a 1969 paper in Nature.)

---

[1] Wegener, A. (1915) Die Enstehungder Kontinenteund Ozeane. Vieweg, Braunschweig
[2] Taylor, F.B. (1910) Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the Earth’s plan. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 21, 179–226.
[3] Holmes, A. (1931) Radioactivity and Earth movements, XVII. Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–Part III, 1928–3118, 559–606.
[4] Blackett, P.M.S.(1956). Lectures on Rock Magnetism. Weizmann Sci. Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 131pp.
[5] Runcorn, S.K. (1956). Palaeomagnetic Comparisons between Europe and North America. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Canada 8, 77–85.
[6] Hess, H.H. (1962). History of Ocean Basins. In Petrologic Studies –A Volume in Honor of A.F. Buddington, pp.599–620
[7] Dietz, R.S. (1961). Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the sea floor. Nature 190, 854–7
[8] Mason,R.G.(1958).A magnetic survey of the west coast of the United States between latitudes 32◦and36◦N, longitudes 121◦ and 128◦ W. Geophys.J.Roy.Astron.Soc.1,320–9
[9] Vine, F.J. & Matthews, D.H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199, 947–9
[10] Wilson, J.T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth’s behaviour. Nature 198, 925–9
[11] Morgan, W.J. (1968). Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 1959–82
[12] McKenzie, D.P. & Parker, R.L. (1967). The north Pacific, an example of tectonics on a sphere. Nature 216, 1276–80
[13] Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–97
[14] McKenzie, D.P. & Morgan, W.J. (1969). Evolution of triple junctions. Nature 224, 125–33

Returning to the specific examples of contrasting theories and consulting my 1960 (2nd Edition) copy of de Sitter's Structural Geology I find he lists six major theories to account for orogeny (mountain building). He subjects these to a critical examination and his concluding remarks, not just of the chapter, but of the entire book are worth repeating here: The principal feature of our future work as geotectonicians should be in the direction of providing the geophysicists with a better and more diversified picture of the actual succession of deformation phases, which is essential to an understanding of the origin of the different kind of orogenes and other structural units of the Earth's crust.

Ironically geology is a young science. Young sciences begin by being descriptive long before they become explanatory. What de Sitter was saying here is that in the 1950s, as far as geoteconics was concerned, it was still a young science, engaged in description. There was no theory that "generally believed". individual scientists might promote their favourite hypothesis, but the consensus was a shoulder shrugging "who knows".

Science progresses three steps forward, one step back. Once in a very long time a Khun paradigm shift may occur and we walk back half a mile, examining the path taken, discarding some of it, repairing this bit, adding a smoother surface here. But there is continual progress, a narrowing of the options of possibility. That aspect is all too often overlooked.

So, I wholly agree with you that science discards ideas no longer supported by evidence, but where we differ - I think you may attach too much significance to this, perhaps because you overestimate the scope and significance of the change. And for that scientists are often to blame. After all what scientist would not wish to say, "My discovery quite overturns our previous understandings of the matter and is really a revolution in the field. May I have my Nobel prize please?"

 

[Estrid]

I see you have done some studying on the matter. I was fortunate to begin my undergraduate career before the term "plate tectonics" had been coined, though the pieces of the puzzle were already in place and the theory was (excuse the pun) primed to erupt. It did so before I ended my undergraduate career four years later.

None of the theories you mention, popular as each was in some quarters, were "generally believed". The truth is geologists at that time had no consensus as to what was going on with the gross structure of the crust. I started to outline this for you, but found specific names were escaping me, so I dug into my files and retrieved these notes I made a decade or two ago.

Many are aware that continental drift was actively promoted by the meteorologist Alfred Wegner following his publication of the theory in 1915[1]. His favoured mechanism (differential centrifugal ‘force’) was faulty, as was that (tidal forces) of an earlier proposal by Taylor[2] in 1910.

Although some researchers flirted with the idea of convection as the driving force, Arthur Holmes[3] was the first to place it on a solid footing (pun intended), as early as 1931. Despite his work and that of other visionaries, the idea continued to be rejected by the majority of Earth scientists.

There is no doubt that the American geological establishment was generally opposed to Wegner’s hypothesis. Yet this opposition was certainly not unanimous. Two examples will illustrate this.

Alexander Logie du Toit received a substantial grant from the Carnegie Institute of Washington for a study of the Atlantic coast geology of South America, with a view to comparing and contrasting it with that of South Africa. Recall that Wegner had noted such similarities.

The powerful influence of and necessity for a uniformitarian approach is revealed in this cautious observation in the introduction to Hess’s History of Ocean Basins:

I shall consider this paper an essay in geopoetry. In order not to travel any further into the realm of fantasy than is absolutely necessary I shall hold as closely as possible to a uniformitarian approach; even so, at least one great catastrophe will be required early in the Earth's history.

The point in all this is that the balance of opinion was against drift, because the balance of evidence failed to support it. This began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s as growing evidence forced a reevaluation.

There were two strands to this. Firstly, there was now clear evidence for divergent polar wandering, best explained by continental drift, from the research of scientists such as Blackett[4] and Runcorn[5]. Secondly, seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges was posited by Hess[6] and expanded upon by Dietz[7], and demonstrated through the analysis of magnetic anomalies, first by Mason[8], then by Vine and Mathews[9].

By the end of the 1960s these threads had been pulled together, by the pioneering work of the likes of Wilson[10], Morgan[11], McKenzie and Parker[12], and Le Pichon[13]. Plate tectonics was born. (The phrase was first used in print by Morgan and McKenzie[14] in a 1969 paper in Nature.)

---

[1] Wegener, A. (1915) Die Enstehungder Kontinenteund Ozeane. Vieweg, Braunschweig
[2] Taylor, F.B. (1910) Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the Earth’s plan. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 21, 179–226.
[3] Holmes, A. (1931) Radioactivity and Earth movements, XVII. Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–Part III, 1928–3118, 559–606.
[4] Blackett, P.M.S.(1956). Lectures on Rock Magnetism. Weizmann Sci. Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 131pp.
[5] Runcorn, S.K. (1956). Palaeomagnetic Comparisons between Europe and North America. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Canada 8, 77–85.
[6] Hess, H.H. (1962). History of Ocean Basins. In Petrologic Studies –A Volume in Honor of A.F. Buddington, pp.599–620
[7] Dietz, R.S. (1961). Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the sea floor. Nature 190, 854–7
[8] Mason,R.G.(1958).A magnetic survey of the west coast of the United States between latitudes 32◦and36◦N, longitudes 121◦ and 128◦ W. Geophys.J.Roy.Astron.Soc.1,320–9
[9] Vine, F.J. & Matthews, D.H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199, 947–9
[10] Wilson, J.T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth’s behaviour. Nature 198, 925–9
[11] Morgan, W.J. (1968). Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 1959–82
[12] McKenzie, D.P. & Parker, R.L. (1967). The north Pacific, an example of tectonics on a sphere. Nature 216, 1276–80
[13] Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–97
[14] McKenzie, D.P. & Morgan, W.J. (1969). Evolution of triple junctions. Nature 224, 125–33

Returning to the specific examples of contrasting theories and consulting my 1960 (2nd Edition) copy of de Sitter's Structural Geology I find he lists six major theories to account for orogeny (mountain building). He subjects these to a critical examination and his concluding remarks, not just of the chapter, but of the entire book are worth repeating here: The principal feature of our future work as geotectonicians should be in the direction of providing the geophysicists with a better and more diversified picture of the actual succession of deformation phases, which is essential to an understanding of the origin of the different kind of orogenes and other structural units of the Earth's crust.

Ironically geology is a young science. Young sciences begin by being descriptive long before they become explanatory. What de Sitter was saying here is that in the 1950s, as far as geoteconics was concerned, it was still a young science, engaged in description. There was no theory that "generally believed". individual scientists might promote their favourite hypothesis, but the consensus was a shoulder shrugging "who knows".

Science progresses three steps forward, one step back. Once in a very long time a Khun paradigm shift may occur and we walk back half a mile, examining the path taken, discarding some of it, repairing this bit, adding a smoother surface here. But there is continual progress, a narrowing of the options of possibility. That aspect is all too often overlooked.

So, I wholly agree with you that science discards ideas no longer supported by evidence, but where we differ - I think you may attach too much significance to this, perhaps because you overestimate the scope and significance of the change. And for that scientists are often to blame. After all what scientist would not wish to say, "My discovery quite overturns our previous understandings of the matter and is really a revolution in the field. May I have my Nobel prize please?"

Creationists tend to overdescribe the nature of
uncertainty/ lack of proof and change in science
generally with the facile and trite "science always
changes, Gods Word is always the same".

It's an eye roller for anyone including Christians,
who actually have made the effort to study.

 

[Estrid]

Belief in special miraculous creation is not scientific because to be "scientific" means to discoverable or explorable by the scientific method of cyclic induction/deduction with testing, verifying or rejection theories along the way.

My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall. The idea that the complexity of the cell, which I have studied in great detail, arose from nothing is just a non-starter for me. (I would be happy to expand on this if asked). I don't feel that the scientific process can reliably tell me what happened in the past, and I feel that many use it to tell me otherwise. If I marry myself to believing only that which I can objectively measure, only what science is able to verify, I feel I would be going down a path of belief that there is no God, everything is just random chance, there is no bigger reality to our existence, and I might as well say "... what advantage is there to me, if the dead rise not? “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” (1 Cor 15:32)

But then on the other side, if I take the plain reading of the creation account in the Bible, I likewise quickly hit a wall. It is clear to me that either the earth is much much older than 6,000 yrs, or someone has gone to a lot of effort to deceive us. There is much much teaching in religious circles that doesn't seem to align with what I see in the world and universe around me.

So I have two approaches which fail to give me concrete answers. And it is this difficulty that gives rise to the effort I spend here on this board proposing ideas, listening to others, and generally struggling to make sense of it all.

So I hope that no one feels that I am attacking their own theories. I am just trying to give all the ideas a good shaking and see what comes out.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Of course you soon hit a wall. That the way of life.
Science will sure take you further than anything else
will, though.

As for the complexity of a cell, why choose that?
Everything is complex and extraordinary far beyond
our small power to comprehend how extraordinary things
really are.

How that leads to the existence of a being infinitely
more extraordinary than the whole universe, to whom all of
reality is as a plaything, i don't know. Kinda doubt you do either

 

[KevinT]

I see you have done some studying on the matter. I was fortunate to begin my undergraduate career before the term "plate tectonics" had been coined, though the pieces of the puzzle were already in place and the theory was (excuse the pun) primed to erupt. It did so before I ended my undergraduate career four years later.
...

Science progresses three steps forward, one step back. Once in a very long time a Khun paradigm shift may occur and we walk back half a mile, examining the path taken, discarding some of it, repairing this bit, adding a smoother surface here. But there is continual progress, a narrowing of the options of possibility. That aspect is all too often overlooked.

So, I wholly agree with you that science discards ideas no longer supported by evidence, but where we differ - I think you may attach too much significance to this, perhaps because you overestimate the scope and significance of the change. And for that scientists are often to blame. After all what scientist would not wish to say, "My discovery quite overturns our previous understandings of the matter and is really a revolution in the field. May I have my Nobel prize please?"

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate what you have written. I was not familiar with the term "Khun paradigm shift", so had to look it up. I found it here. Thanks for expanding my world view.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists tend to overdescribe the nature of uncertainty / lack of proof and change in science generally with the facile and trite "science always changes, Gods Word is always the same".

It's an eye roller for anyone including Christians, who actually have made the effort to study.

Tell me what I should make an effort to study that would lead me to believe:

1. science doesn't always change
2. God's word isn't always the same

Please be specific.

 

[dlamberth]

Tell me what I should make an effort to study that would lead me to believe:

1. science doesn't always change

Study the increased knowledge of this Creation that science has opened to us.

1. God's word isn't always the same

Study how the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is not static but is dynamic and for-ever changing and evolving. The Earth can not lie so is worth the study.

 

[Estrid]

Study the increased knowledge of this Creation that science has opened to us.

Study how the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is not static but is dynamic and for-ever changing and evolving. The Earth can not lie so is worth the study.

The huge resistance to knowledge from those
with rigid ( and infallible) beliefs is probably
proportionate to the shattering effect it would
have to discover it was all nonsense.

People who have realized all is not as presented
are the only ones who escape North Korea, but
even they find that what they discover is psychologically
devastating.

I wonder about the ethics of trying to push
an epiphany on the benighted.