Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 3290 on August 26, 2007 01:08 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3276

If Answers in Genesis’s creation anti-museum didn’t have enough of lie already, it is beginning to corrupt Kentucky’s government. The tax-funded Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau is promoting the anti-museum as a “‘walk through history”” that “counters evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture”. This inflammatory lie has rightly upset several organizations, who are fighting to improve the quality of science education in Kentucky. We expect Answers in Genesis to lie, but we hope that government wouldn’t join them in it. So far the visitors bureau has refused to change their website despite having is inflammatory lies pointed out to them. Perhaps some more public pressure can change that.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has the full story.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #200579

Posted by dhogaza on August 26, 2007 2:00 PM (e)

Oh, well, the ACLU’s been bored lately, anyway …

Comment #200583

Posted by Eugenie Scott on August 26, 2007 2:07 PM (e)

Kudos to scientist Dan Phelps for pursuing this. He tried to get the Convention Bureau to see the error of its ways on more than one occasion, and finally went to the press. The reporter deserves credit also for researching the story. We need more people like Dan on the local level who are willing to take an active role in monitoring and responding to things like this. Go thou forth and do likewise!

Comment #200597

Posted by Mike O'Risal on August 26, 2007 2:44 PM (e)

We expect Answers in Genesis to lie, but we hope that government wouldn’t join them in it.

Sorry, I just can’t help being amused by the implicit naivety of this statement, probably unintentional. Sure, that can be hoped for, but I would expect both the governments of Southern states and the current federal administration to support with this sort of thing. It’s what they believe in themselves, and they assuredly don’t view the previous statement as being a lie, or even incorrect.

Comment #200615

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 26, 2007 3:12 PM (e)

The very fact that so many ordinary Americans have visited the museum shows that the opinion polls are correct. Nearly 50% of citizens in the US actually believe this nonsense. It’s probably the same here in Northern Ireland unfortunately. The first minister of the new assembly is a YEC (his church actively promotes it).

I am at a loss as to how scientists can convince Christians that they have nothing to fear from science and everything to fear if this were to happen:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.a…

Comment #200631

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 26, 2007 3:42 PM (e)

For what it’s worth Reed, even though I believe there is a good chance the Earth is Young, I’m not especially enamored with the way AiG does business.

AiG would label my beloved Old Earth colleagues like Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and William Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view because these scientists believe the universe is old. I don’t approve of that one bit.

I hope the YECs prevail, but I can’t say I’m enamored with AiG leading the charge. They are doing a lot of evangelism, but their science leaves a lot to be desired.

Eugenie Scott recognizes that AiG/ICR etc. represents a far larger movement than ID (perhaps by 50 to 100 fold in terms of money by my guess).

See: Who Pulled the Stake out of YEC?.

The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.

Comment #200653

Posted by wamba on August 26, 2007 4:32 PM (e)

AiG would label my beloved Old Earth colleagues like Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and William Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view

Yowza, I would agree with AiG on something! I would label Gonzalez, Behe and Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view because they contribute the the impression that lying and Christianity are inseparable.

Comment #200663

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 26, 2007 5:01 PM (e)

For what it’s worth Reed, even though I believe there is a good chance the Earth is Young, I’m not especially enamored with the way AiG does business.

I hope the YECs prevail

Salvador: I am constantly amazed that well educated people like yourself cannot accept the antiquity of the Earth/Universe.

For me, the nail in the coffin for YECism is the astronomy question and the vast distances from the Earth of astronomical objects. To claim that a light year is only a measure of distance and not time (Jason Lisle) is simply false and I feel that on this point AiG is misleading Christians (if not telling lies).

Another YEC astronomy claim is the old one on comets breaking up to quickly for the solar system to be old. Why they still persist with this one is beyond me, since several hundred Kuiper belt objects (the reservoir for short period comets) have been discovered thus far.

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail. What worries me, is that the church, and particularly the evangelical wing, will be dragged down along with it.

YECism will seriously damage Christianity in the long run.

Comment #200668

Posted by IanR on August 26, 2007 5:06 PM (e)

I don’t know Wamba - while I find ID difficult to reconcile with mainstream Christian theology, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Gonzales, Behe & Dembski should be seen as “part of an attack against the Christian world view because [they] believe the universe is old.” On this one point, I don’t disagree with Sal Cordova - like just about everything else, AiG gets it wrong.

Comment #200670

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 26, 2007 5:11 PM (e)

The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.

Definitely agree with you on that one Salvador. Scientists will ignore the YEC’s at their peril.
As one leading politician from these shores once remarked:

“They haven’t gone away you know”

Comment #200684

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on August 26, 2007 6:04 PM (e)

The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.

I don’t know who would be doing the ignoring; in most public talks I have given about “intelligent design” I have clearly noted that actual IDC advocates are a numerically insignificant minority, dependent entirely upon YEC believers to accomplish their political agenda.

I’m not sure in what sense there has been an “advance” of YEC, though, since the relevant court cases still say that YEC preaching isn’t constitutional for public schools.

Comment #200685

Posted by waldteufel on August 26, 2007 6:12 PM (e)

I sent the following e-mail to the clowns that run NKYCVB:

Your promotion of the comical Answers in Genesis Creation “Museum” is a bad joke that further, and unfairly, stigmatizes Kentucky as the land of the toothless back-woods ignorant hillbilliy. What a shame.

Comment #200687

Posted by Frank J on August 26, 2007 6:17 PM (e)

Peter Henderson wrote:

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail.

If you mean the “direct approach of promoting YEC” will fail, it will eventually go the way of flat-earthism. But the belief will be held by ~50% as long as it is America’s favorite fairy tale. I see no sign anywhere that that will change. But note that fairy tales in general are rarely treated as anything but fact, even by groups that know they aren’t. The classic example is how TV treats the man in the red suit. Could this be the approach that KY’s govt. is taking??

Either way, to accommodate those whose faith is weak enough to require evidence, however cherry-picked, there will be a pseudoscientific YEC to replace the direct approach. The “postmodern synthesis” of YEC and ID that people like Salvador promote seems to have the most promise at the moment. Not as science, of course.

Comment #200696

Posted by Lamuella on August 26, 2007 6:41 PM (e)

Just sent this email to them:

Dear sirs,

I would like to complain in the strongest terms possible about the description you give of the Answers In Genesis Creation Museum on your website, the relecant page being located here:

http://www.staynky.com/things/museums2/creation.…

“this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.”

I am horrified that a government funded group would use taxpayer money to spread their own interpretation of religion across a site that is intended to be an informative description of the attractions and amenities of Northern Kentucky. It is not the place of your organization to support or reject any religious stance or religious group, regardless of the opinions of the staff of your organization about a scientific concept. A concept which is, incidentally,
entirely in harmony with the holding of religious faith.

I am a frequent visitor to Kentucky, and I would hate to think that the taxes I pay on hotel acommodation are being used to further such ignorance and push a religious agenda. By all means, advertise the museum. It is a tourist attraction in Kentucky. However, it is the place of the museum to explain its religious agenda, not of public servants funded by the taxpayer.

I am as horrified by this as I would be if your description of the Hebrew Union College Skirball Museum described them as “christ-killers”, an accusation I am sure you would never level, but one which is every bit as religiously motivated - and every bit as wrong - as your accusation that natural history turns “countless minds against Christ and Scripture”.

I urge you to change the information you present on your page to something more balanced and less motivated by the personal religious views of your staff.

Yours faithfully

Ian Rennie

Comment #200701

Posted by Aagcobb on August 26, 2007 6:47 PM (e)

Its ironic that the covention & visitors bureau also promotes the Cincinnati Natural History Museum. Strangely, that link doesn’t mention the museum’s mission of “turning minds against Christ and Scripture.” Fortunately, the creationist republican, indicted criminal who is currently serving as Kentucky’s governor, Ernie Fletcher, will be turned out of office this november (he’s trailing by 20 points in the polls). Maybe the next administration will correct this idiocy.

Comment #200738

Posted by Just Bob on August 26, 2007 8:20 PM (e)

My email to the yahoos:

To quote you: this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture..

How dare you!

You’re implying that by accepting modern science and going to “evolutionary natural history museums,” my mind has been “turned against Christ and Scripture”!

This is patently offensive to all those committed Christians who aren’t afraid of modern science–including Popes, current and recent.

Don’t look for me to be spending any tourist dollars in Northern Kentucky, where apparently a branch of state government has become a mouthpiece for a particular brand of fundamentalist religion. I also intend to let all my fellow frequently-traveling retiree friends know about this offensive stance, and publish it as widely as I can on the Web.

Comment #200775

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 26, 2007 10:22 PM (e)

YECism will seriously damage Christianity in the long run.

If AiG leads the charge, I would almost be tempted to agree.

Salvador: I am constantly amazed that well educated people like yourself cannot accept the antiquity of the Earth/Universe.

For me, the nail in the coffin for YECism is the astronomy question and the vast distances from the Earth of astronomical objects.

I was an Old Earth Darwinist, then became an Old Earth Creationist, then became 85% YEC. I gave YEC no chance until a 2002 report in Nature (along with Paul Davies website) suggested the speed of light was much faster (perhaps “infinite”) in the past. There are still major problems with a Variable Light Speed cosmology, but maybe someday the problems will be fixed. The VSL cosmology would also solve the missing isotope problem and a host of radiometric issues. Also around 2002 it became common knowledge among many physicists that the Big Bang was starting to weaken as a cosmology.

The Prestigious Sigma Xi Science Organization (many Nobel Laureates) recently slammed the Big Bang recently. This was astonishing! See: Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale.

AiG and ICR shut down the exploration of VSL cosmology, and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. A key prediction of YEC VSL may have been confirmed here: Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!!. Did AiG or ICR help lift even one finger to help out in the research? No.

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research. It’s not going to get there if the AiG mindset is involved. The YECs have to stop running their organizations like churches and reorganize along the lines of the Discovery Institute, as a secular institution that does not discriminate based on religious belief….

Another YEC astronomy claim is the old one on comets breaking up to quickly for the solar system to be old. Why they still persist with this one is beyond me, since several hundred Kuiper belt objects (the reservoir for short period comets) have been discovered thus far.

Danny Faulkner (an associate professor at a secular school) pretty much broke that argument. Futher the energy profile standard deviations are inconsistent with evolutionary explanations of coments.

I gave a discussion of the pros and cons of YEC here, and it’s about a stalemate at this time. See: Reasons for and Against YEC. I have some ideas as to how to break the stalemate, but it won’t make AiG happy. That’s fine.

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail. What worries me, is that the church, and particularly the evangelical wing, will be dragged down along with it.

I share your concerns. YEC should try to decouple the hypothesis as some sort of litmus test for Christianity. AiG’s influence on the matter is divisive, and just plain wrong. If they want to argue the world is 10,000 years old, they better put up some believeable evidence and help with the science. Their evangelism on an unproven theory is pre-mature.

Their museum didn’t have any real artifacts for their case, just sculptures and movies and statues. Not much of science museum. Count me in as one YEC who wouldn’t feel bad if the museum falters.

Comment #200792

Posted by raven on August 26, 2007 11:26 PM (e)

I can see the new billboards for Northern Kentucky.

Entering Northern Kentucky, set your watch back 200 years.

Remind me again, why would anyone want to visit this area? You can buy moonshine anywhere these days.

Comment #200797

Posted by PvM on August 27, 2007 12:28 AM (e)

Seems Sal has been devolving ever since.

Comment #200818

Posted by Cedric Katesby on August 27, 2007 1:34 AM (e)

Just whipped off my own e-mail to the NKCVB.
Probably won’t do any good but at least their inbox tray will demonstrate to them that some people actually care about this kind of idiocy being funded by tax dollars.
I hope all others will do the same.
Keep it civil but please send it!

Comment #200857

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 27, 2007 3:56 AM (e)

85% YEC

85% big tenter.

Comment #200922

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 27, 2007 7:26 AM (e)

I share your concerns. YEC should try to decouple the hypothesis as some sort of litmus test for Christianity. AiG’s influence on the matter is divisive, and just plain wrong. If they want to argue the world is 10,000 years old, they better put up some believable evidence and help with the science. Their evangelism on an unproven theory is pre-mature.

Their museum didn’t have any real artifacts for their case, just sculptures and movies and statues. Not much of science museum. Count me in as one YEC who wouldn’t feel bad if the museum falters.

Hi Salvador. I feel the same way about AiG. My main problem with them is the fact that they are so dogmatic on the issue and do not accept that many Christians (like myself) are not enthusiastic about young Earth creationism. I cannot take YEC speakers seriously now, no matter how good their teachings are on other aspects of the bible.

The church that I belong to :

http://www.acpc.co.uk/

has a YEC minister and assistant. At no stage has he ever recognised or acknowledged that there are different views on the subject and yet, the church as a whole (the Presbyterian church in Ireland) is not young Earth creationist. I’ve been told on three occasions now that “as long as you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, how and when he did it is for you to decide”. I would assume from this statement that a Christian could believe anything from Flat Earth-ism, through to theistic evolution (my own view) and it wouldn’t affect their salvation. Yet, Answers in Genesis certainly does not accept this view. I find it strange then, that AiG is speaking at the Belfast City Mission, the church’s outreach arm, in October, as well as in a number of other congregations. Abbots Cross PC has had both Dr. David Menton and Roger Oakland as speakers over the last few years.

I’ve also heard Josh McDowell speak at the Crescent church in Belfast (another one that’s gone down the YEC line) a number of years ago and he really was excellent. He’s also spoken at the Presbyterian church’s general assembly recently. It came as a big disappointment to me that he now appears to be YEC (his son has visited the creation museum over the last couple of months) so he seems to be firmly in the Ken Ham camp.

However, the creation section in his book “Evidence that demands a verdict”, was supposedly ghost written by Glenn Morton. Glenn Morton’s testimony of how he came out of YECism has given me a lot of encouragement (I’ve never been a YEC by the way), and I just wish his articles would receive more publicity, especially within the church.

I would assume Salvador, that although you are 85% YEC, you do accept other Christian’s viewpoints, in a way that is less dogmatic than AiG’s ?

On the astronomy question, I’ve successfully completed a number of Open University courses on the subject and nowhere are YEC views mentioned. The Kuiper belt is still accepted as the reservoir for short period comets, and the Oort cloud the reservoir for long period ones. Danny Falkner’s musings have not found their way into any astronomy textbooks, as far as I know.

The Big Bang is currently the favoured model as to how it all began and no evidence currently exists to show that the speed of light was faster in the past. Studies on the cosmic microwave background radiation has not led cosmologists to come to the conclusion that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old.

Comment #200988

Posted by Dizzy on August 27, 2007 10:05 AM (e)

As an employee of state government (not Kentucky), I can say that the issue is a little more complicated than it might appear.

Apparently (from the Enquirer article) their general policy is to list local attractions, and to let the attractions themselves provide descriptions. If their policy is anything like ours, they don’t stick their noses into the text unless it’s inappropriate for minors or describes or condones illegal activity.

In this case, it’s likely that singling the “museum” out for censorship, without establishing that it violates an existing policy, would probably be grounds for an anti-discrimination lawsuit. (Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say for sure.)

Often there is some sort of indemnification statement somewhere that makes it clear that the content of these pages is provided from external sources and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the State or its agencies. I couldn’t immediately find one on the site (http://www.staynky.com/), but it sounds like they could use one.

Comment #200990

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 27, 2007 10:10 AM (e)

Reaction to Dr. Phelps from AiG today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld…

The Enquirer article states:

“The museum has numerous other scientific critics.”

However, they don’t mention that AiG/Creation Museum has five PhD scientists on staff and is associated with many other PhD scientists across the USA and around the world. Of course, these same critics of the Creation Museum were also claiming that not many people would come to the Museum—they scoffed at the idea there was overwhelming support in the culture for this Museum. Well, 170,000 visitors in just three months shows how wrong they were. So now, they attempt to discredit and attack the local tourist bureau for promoting the Creation Museum as a tourist attraction, which according to the bureau’s own formulas, may have brought over $6 million into the economy of Northern Kentucky!

Isn’t it interesting how these ardent evolutionists, with close ties to an organization headed by an atheist, are so worried about ONE Creation Museum—when the majority of natural history museums across the nation present evolution as fact, and the majority of students in the culture go to public schools where evolution/naturalism is presented as fact? If the evidence that man evolved by natural processes (and thus life is ultimately meaningless and purposeless) is so OBVIOUS, why would they be worried about just ONE Creation Museum. They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture. The more they realize molecules to man evolution/naturalism is not fact, and real observational scientific evidence does confirm the Bible’s account of history—and if that history is true (which it is), then the gospel based in that history is true. This also means marriage (founded in Genesis) is one man for one woman—life does have purpose and meaning—and all of us need to bow to our Creator and obey His rules!

Comment #200991

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 27, 2007 10:14 AM (e)

They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture.

Are AiG actually claiming that scientists are covering up the facts ? I wonder what their evidence for this is !

Comment #200992

Posted by Dizzy on August 27, 2007 10:17 AM (e)

They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture.

So true, so true…so let’s also bring them “information” about how segregation was a good thing, and how noble the Nazis were, and the joys of child pornography. I mean, why would people be so afraid of ONE museum, when everything else out there is against it?

Comment #200996

Posted by FL on August 27, 2007 10:29 AM (e)

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research.

Which is exactly what Dr. Kurt Wise admitted in his excellent YEC book Faith, Form, and Time.

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

But Peter’s prediction of YEC failing, is just so much incorrect, no-good, Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric.

Comment #201006

Posted by raven on August 27, 2007 11:00 AM (e)

Peter Henderson:

If you mean the “direct approach of promoting YEC” will fail, it will eventually go the way of flat-earthism. But the belief will be held by ~50% as long as it is America’s favorite fairy tale.

Going to be a long time before that happens. 20% of the US population still believes that the sun goes around the earth. It’s been 400 years since Copernicus for Galileo’s sake.

Half the population have IQs of less than 100, the median. People believe all sorts of weird stuff, lepruchuans, UFOs, elves, fairies, bigfoot, the grassy knoll and on and on.

The best we can hope for is to keep science in the science classes and religion in the churches. The attack on science is silly and stupid. Science is the reason why the 21st century doesn’t look a lot like the 16th century.

Anyone can go back to the Dark Ages any time, free country. All they have to do is to throw out all modern technology and medicine, turn off the electricity and toss the computers. Then develop an interest in nonmachine subsistence agriculture and hunting and gathering. Few people do so.

They would rather drive down the freeways in their microprocessor engine controlled SUVs, take the kids to the doctor when they are sick, watch TV, and babble on the internet from their home PCs about how evil science is. Hypocrits!

There are many people who would love to see the USA deep six science and head on back to third world status. The Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians, all our economic competitors would cheer wildly. The Moslem terrorists would thank Allah and go find someone else to attack.

Comment #201007

Posted by Raging Bee on August 27, 2007 11:07 AM (e)

Sal “Wormtongue” Cordova blithers on:

For what it’s worth Reed, even though I believe there is a good chance the Earth is Young, I’m not especially enamored with the way AiG does business.

How is the way AiG does business worse than the way YOU do business? Glass houses and all that…

AiG would label my beloved Old Earth colleagues like Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and William Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view because these scientists believe the universe is old. I don’t approve of that one bit.

I can’t speak for AiG, but WE label those con-men “an attack against the Christian world view” because they lie, misuse the Bible, ignore the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ, and make Christianity look like the stoopidest religion on Earth. Oh, and then there’s that pesky fact that many Christians accept evolution and reject ALL forms of creationism.

I hope the YECs prevail, but I can’t say I’m enamored with AiG leading the charge. They are doing a lot of evangelism, but their science leaves a lot to be desired.

And your “science” is better…how? Pretending to support a cause while trying to distance yourself from its tactics only shows your cowardice.

Eugenie Scott recognizes that AiG/ICR etc. represents a far larger movement than ID (perhaps by 50 to 100 fold in terms of money by my guess).

Ed Brayton has just done yet another thorough job of exposing your shameless lies and misrepresentations of what Scott and others actually said. So unless you can provide a direct quote from Scott, your credibility on this matter is ZERO.

I was an Old Earth Darwinist, then became an Old Earth Creationist, then became 85% YEC. I gave YEC no chance until a 2002 report in Nature (along with Paul Davies website) suggested the speed of light was much faster (perhaps “infinite”) in the past.

How does a variable speed-of-light prove a literal interpretation of Genesis?

AiG and ICR shut down the exploration of VSL cosmology…

I notice you don’t even try to explain WHY they would shut down research that – according to you, at least – could have strengthened their case. Maybe they shut it down because it was going nowhere. Ever think of that?

There are still major problems with a Variable Light Speed cosmology, but maybe someday the problems will be fixed.

In other words, you have nothing, and you’re desperately clinging to some vague notion hoping it will be fleshed out sometime in the future. But in the meantime, you have no case.

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research.

So why should we take YEC at all seriously? I could just as easily say the same for flat-Earth-ism.

The YECs have to stop running their organizations like churches…

Why should they stop running their organizations like churches, when, beneath all the pretense, that’s all they really ever were?

…and reorganize along the lines of the Discovery Institute, as a secular institution that does not discriminate based on religious belief…

Has the Discovery Institute done any actual research? Have they produced any peer-reviewed papers disproving evolution and/or supporting (or even describing) any sort of “ID theory?”

You still haven’t apologized for trying to compare my arguments to the (alleged) surgical mutilation of innocent children. Why is that, Sal? Is your Creator still too tired from his six-day rush-job to give you the strength to act like a real Christian man?

Comment #201008

Posted by Raging Bee on August 27, 2007 11:14 AM (e)

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

That’s because YECs have nothing but a literal interpretation of the Bible to back up their “case.” That is, in fact, all they do; and that’s why they’re wrong.

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

Can we take that as an admission that your “Long Overdue Paradigm Shift” is nowhere near close to happening? I mean, you’ve had OVER A HUNDRED YEARS now, and you’re still demanding more effort (and not describing what, exactly, has to be done).

Comment #201015

Posted by raven on August 27, 2007 11:26 AM (e)

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

Might be a paradigm shift all right. Right now there is a backlash against fundie cult theocracy.

1. Theocracies don’t work. Our present theocratic president has one of the lowest approval ratings in history after 7 years in power. People are sick of the corruption, wingnut ideology, and human child sacrifices.

2. You see it in the rise of militant atheists and atheism. No one cares what other people believe. They care a lot when the cultists started forcing their religious beliefs on other people.

3. Iraq has shown what religious extremists with automatic weapons, IEDs, and god on their side can do. The lesson isn’t lost on anyone. We like going to the mall without worrying about getting killed in the crossfire from two groups having a theological dispute.

It wouldn’t surprise me if ultimately the fundie cultists do a huge amount of damage to Xianity in the US. The lies, hatred, bigotry, threats of murder, and the odd killing by Xian terrorists here and there don’t impress a lot of people.

Comment #201025

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 27, 2007 12:26 PM (e)

I have clearly noted that actual IDC advocates are a numerically insignificant minority

I agree that ID proponents (not IDC’s, scince some of the top ID thinkers are not creationists), are a very small minority.

Our little band of rebels are very appreciative of the international attention the critcs have showered upon the miniscule ID movement. Michael Shermer told me the ID movement has gotten more press than the YECs ever have…

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent. The YECs aren’t there, and until they stop running their organization like churches instead of secular institutions like the Discovery Institute, they won’t be competitive in the market place of ideas, they’ll be viewed as self-blinded dogmatists bent on believing what they want to believe rather than having a reverence for facts….

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute, and then the issue will move forward. Ironically, the one quasi-secular think tank in YEC, the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has already made it’s mark on the ID debate when the Baraminology Study Group invited Richard Sternberg (an Old-Earth process structuralist) and Stephen Meyer (an old earth ID proponent) to participate. The BSG is even more miniscule than the DI, and look at the influence they had simply by opening the doors to those who disagreed and to those who weren’t YECs.

If AiG is positioning themselves as some sort of infallible guide to truth, this is not good for YEC or for Christianity. They’re setting themselves up to be the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s of the origins debate (sorry if I offended any Jim and Tammy Faye fans out there).

There is a lot about origins we don’t know. It’s entirely possible the universe is a lot younger and was specially created. We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years. They Earth maybe 65 million years, but 10,000 is still very premature.

AiG has shut down the debate on Variable Light Speed cosmology which would actually solve the problem of distant starlight and radio-metric dating.

To learn more, see: www.YoungCosmos.com

So, if you all complain about the AiG ad, I’m not going to protest. YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Comment #201033

Posted by Laser on August 27, 2007 12:56 PM (e)

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent.

ROTFLMAO!!! Good one!

Comment #201043

Posted by James McGrath on August 27, 2007 1:28 PM (e)

If you missed it, you may appreciate the recent disclosure of edits to Wikipedia made by employees at Answers in Genesis. See http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/a… We’ll need to update this once there is a Wikipedia entry about the Expelled movie, of course…

Comment #201052

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 27, 2007 1:45 PM (e)

There is an additional problem for the “changing speed of light” nonsense which no-one has mentioned so far…..SN 1987a:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/anci…

In the case of this standard candle, an increase in the speed of light actually makes the object further away.

Perhaps AiG has realised this and dropped this claim, instead preferring the equally ridiculous “gravitational time dilation” which Dr. Phelps mentioned in his review.

Comment #201059

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 27, 2007 2:17 PM (e)

In the case of this standard candle, an increase in the speed of light actually makes the object further away.

No it does not because speed of light decay creates apparent slow motion effects, which negates the calculations Green suggested as such. That’s probably why such arguments got pulled from Talk Origins because it was demonstratably false.

There is an additional problem for the “changing speed of light” nonsense which no-one has mentioned so far…..SN 1987a:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/anci…

As I pointed out, that analysis was badly flawed. If the speed of light were much faster, then then large distances like 150,000 light years would be traversed in less than 10,000 AND the slow motion effect would prevent the interpretation of “higher speed implies, farther distance”.

I and others pointed out problems for YEC that are legitimate, but that analysis by Greene is not legitimate. If AiG bougth the argument, then all the more reason to discredit AiG’s “science”.

Even the best critic of CDK cosmology, Dr. G.P. Jellison and Dr. WT Birdgman acknowledges that this analysis by critics of CDK is flawed. To their credit, they offer sound arguments against YEC, not flawed ones such as Greene’s.

Do you believe the Big Bang is true?

Comment #201062

Posted by Steviepinhead on August 27, 2007 2:34 PM (e)

Our Pal Sal…!

I don’t have the personal patience for it, but it might be amusing if–instead of immediately blowing Sal out of the water–you astrophysics types were to draw him out a little…

Let him weave enough rope to, well, you know.

This could be mighty amusing.

Comment #201063

Posted by Raging Bee on August 27, 2007 2:37 PM (e)

Wormtongue dissembles on…

We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years.

“Probably?” Why the uncertainty? Either “we” (you don’t say who that is) put out the good arguments you hint at, or “we” don’t. What are those arguments, and where is the supporting evidence? Put up or shut up, boy.

YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

In other words, YEC needs to pretend it’s not religious, even though it’s clearly nothing but a literal interpretation of one small part of a religious text, thinly disguised as “science.”

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Your dishonesty, and the dishonesty of every other YECer I’ve ever heard from, weakens it further. And no, running away and pretending you have nothing to do with your fellow YECers doesn’t help.

You can repeat the same lies as many times as you want until you die; but you’re still an obvious liar. And now that you’re trying to shaft your fellow YECers to save your own image, you’re an obvious coward as well.

Comment #201064

Posted by Henry J on August 27, 2007 2:37 PM (e)

Wouldn’t a faster speed of light in the past cause galaxies to appear to be clumped closer together the further away from us they are? Also their distance apart along our line of sight would become out of sync with their distance apart perpendicular to that.

Hey, that’s a testable prediction, isn’t it? ;)

Henry

Comment #201074

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 27, 2007 3:11 PM (e)

In any case, I have no problems with the protest against AiG, it might do the YECs and Christianity some good in the end, thus, in a twisted sort of way I actually am sort of alongside PT on the issue Reed raises.

Raging Bee:

Your dishonesty, and the dishonesty of every other YECer I’ve ever heard from, weakens it further. And no, running away and pretending you have nothing to do with your fellow YECers doesn’t help.

Ah yes, Raging Bee evidences the intellectual depth and civility PT is so famous for.

Oh well, gentleman, it was fun.

Thank to Reed Cartwright for permitting my visit. Regards to you,
Salvador

PS
Reed, any relation to Angela Cartwright, the once famous actress?

Comment #201083

Posted by Raging Bee on August 27, 2007 3:58 PM (e)

Ah yes, Raging Bee evidences the intellectual depth and civility PT is so famous for.

Why thank you, Sal! And the fact that you’re now running away from that depth of discourse, without even trying to rebut any of the points I made, shows how sincere your flattery is. Maybe next time you show up, you’ll be better prepared to engage with us on that substantive level. Buh-bye for now…

Comment #201103

Posted by Laser on August 27, 2007 4:46 PM (e)

I and others pointed out problems for YEC that are legitimate, but that analysis by Greene is not legitimate.

It appears that Sal has run away, since we mean old scientists called him dishonest, so I don’t expect an answer to this, but…

The analysis by Greene is legitimate, as long as the speed of light is constant. What evidence do you have that the speed of light is not constant? Other than it would make your dream of a young universe possible? (Wish fulfillment does not count as evidence.) Please cite the papers and studies that suggest that the speed of light is not constant.

Comment #201224

Posted by hoary puccoon on August 28, 2007 5:05 AM (e)

Sal Cordova wrote, “The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.”

Several people have already responded to this, but it really strikes me what a bait-and-switch Sal is pulling. The young earth creationists have pretty much stopped trying to force their world view into public schools. And I don’t know a single scientist who has suggested that YECers should be prevented from spouting their ideas in their churches, or in any other public arena that is not supported by taxpayers. So in that sense, YEC is not really a problem. In fact, it’s not clear to me that they are actually ‘advancing’ at all.

Intelligent Design proponents, however, are waging a slick, well-funded, and relentless campaign to undermine science teaching in public schools. They are getting most of the press because, regardless of their numbers, they really are most of the problem. Sal’s attempt to deflect attention to YECers who aren’t doing much harm is just one more example of how Machiavellian the ID movement really is. Wormtongue, indeed, Raging Bee.

Comment #201247

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 28, 2007 6:50 AM (e)

Thank to Reed Cartwright for permitting my visit. Regards to you,
Salvador

Surely Salvador doesn’t need to ask permission to post on the Panda’s Thumb ?

I always thought this blog was open to all who care about science and good science education, regardless of their religious convictions (or lack thereof)

Comment #201255

Posted by Popper's Ghost on August 28, 2007 7:12 AM (e)

I hope the YECs prevail

Why? And what does that even mean? That all scientists are thrown into the dungeon, all scientific intruments dstroyed, and all the books are burned? Even you can’t be so stupid or demented as to think that YEC will ever become the prevailing scientific view.

Comment #201256

Posted by Popper's Ghost on August 28, 2007 7:13 AM (e)

I always thought this blog was open to all who care about science and good science education, regardless of their religious convictions (or lack thereof)

Not only them, else Sal wouldn’t be allowed here.

Comment #201259

Posted by Popper's Ghost on August 28, 2007 7:29 AM (e)

evidences the intellectual depth

This, coming from a YEC??

Reed, any relation to Angela Cartwright, the once famous actress?

I’m surprised Sal didn’t ask if Reed was related to Hoss Cartwright, considering his difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction. (And is Ms. Cartwright all that less famous than she ever was?)

Comment #201264

Posted by Popper's Ghost on August 28, 2007 7:41 AM (e)

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute

Once again Sal demonstrates that he has no clue what science is about. Scientists want cosmology to move forward, not some pre-selected religious ideology promoted by a propaganda machine.

Comment #201265

Posted by Popper's Ghost on August 28, 2007 7:45 AM (e)

I’ve been told on three occasions now that “as long as you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, how and when he did it is for you to decide”. I would assume from this statement that a Christian could believe anything from Flat Earth-ism, through to theistic evolution (my own view) and it wouldn’t affect their salvation.

What sort of moron thinks that his “salvation” depends on what some human religious authority tells him?

Comment #201272

Posted by ben on August 28, 2007 8:22 AM (e)

Thank to Reed Cartwright for permitting my visit. Regards to you,
Salvador

Surely Salvador doesn’t need to ask permission to post on the Panda’s Thumb ?

I always thought this blog was open to all who care about science and good science education, regardless of their religious convictions (or lack thereof)

It’s just part of Sal’s dishonest subterfuge, so as to make it seem like dissent is regularly quashed here just like it is on every single major site on Sal’s side of the IDiocy (as well as on his own pathetic one-man echo chamber, youngcosmos.com). Sal knows damn well that this blog is open not only to “all who care about science and good science education,” but also to slimy, lying, propagandizing, anti-science activists like himself. He’s only smarmily thanking Reed for the opportunity to post in order to make it seem like PT censors people at all to begin with.

Comment #201305

Posted by Raging Bee on August 28, 2007 10:06 AM (e)

Why is this thread truncated at Comment #201074?

Comment #201307

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 28, 2007 10:07 AM (e)

What sort of moron thinks that his “salvation” depends on what some human religious authority tells him?

I probably didn’t word my original statement very well popper’s ghost. What I really mean is that the church regards the creation issue as a side issue in Christianity, in the same vein as say Christ’s return or the topic of infant/adult baptism.

However, Answers in Genesis sees it as something more important, and not the same as the debate between pre -millenialists, non-millenialists, dispensationalists etc. for example.

I have read that John Whitcombe thinks that Christians who believe in evolution are only half “born again”.

Similarly, Ken Ham apparently believes that Christians who accept an old Earth should be excluded from church membership and that prospective ministers who believe the same should not be ordained. He also urges Christians not to tithe (give money) to Christian organisations that believe in “millions of years”

Comment #201316

Posted by Raging Bee on August 28, 2007 10:53 AM (e)

Okay, I guess I had to post something in order to kick-start this blog to actually update the page. Never mind. As usual, great content, wonky software.

Comment #201327

Posted by Joshua Zelinsky on August 28, 2007 12:50 PM (e)

Henderson, I’m not sure Ham has that strong an anti-old Earth attitude. See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/cou… where he says that belief in an old earth does not mean one is not saved.

Comment #201366

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on August 28, 2007 3:12 PM (e)

Salvador Cordova wrote:

Also around 2002 it became common knowledge among many physicists that the Big Bang was starting to weaken as a cosmology.

An outright lie in line with the conspiracy view creationists now want to foster. The COBE (1994) and WMAP (2003, 2006) results confirmed the big bang expansion we live in and tightened the age estimate of to unprecedented level of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Ga (~ 2 % uncertainty).

It also resulted in a slew of new experiments to extract more information, such as the upcoming Planck probe. Ask yourself, if the science who resulted in the new concordance cosmology during this time was wrong, would knowledgeable people waste money doing experiments with it?

The whole variable light speed mythology has no experiments to support it. And a huge mass of theory explaining why it it is a very difficult and improbable result. Meanwhile the measurements of the fine-structure constant has improved to allow less than ~ 10^-6 parts light speed variance in the last 10-12 Ga.

Finally, maybe you are astonished by scientists critically analyzing current research on a larger scale. But Michael J. Disney, a retired astrophysicist, wrote a curmudgeon piece which main conclusion is that “cosmology was simpler yesterday”. I can’t even find a peer interested in commenting on this opinion piece, but FWIW a high-energy theoretical physicist with vested interest in cosmology comments:

Lubos Motl wrote:

It has recently become a fashionable sport for people who have never contributed anything significant to science - and most likely, they never will - to use media and populism to sling mud at the key results of science as we know it in 2007 in order to replace serious science by an irrational media-driven hysteria, at least in the eyes of the public, and to erase the difference between the scientists who are doing or have done something serious on one side and themselves on the other side.

Paper can withstand anything and ignorant enough people are ready to believe anything, too, and it is in fact easier for them to swallow an emotionally loaded untrue cliché than a difficult technical argument. So this is quite a good business for these folks. Modern cosmology is slowly joining the list of fields that are under attack. The only difference from high-energy theoretical physics is that I expect that the hysteria won’t catch up in the case of cosmology because cosmologists kind of enjoy activities related to P.R….

He starts with a sequence of hostile comments about the money flowing to cosmology. The subtitle expresses one of the main assertions of the article: current cosmological theory rests on a disturbingly small number of independent observations….

Also, “modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support”….

Are these statements based on actual science? Maybe the kind of science used in Disneyland but certainly not the science used by serious researchers.

You may read it yourself: you will see long kilobytes of vitriolic and untrue statements that are clearly not addressed to people who have any idea about the field. Disney says very openly that “his approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice.” Why doesn’t he try to convince experts? Because he must know very well that every expert knows why his text is complete junk….

What he wants to do is to brainwash uninformed people who are unable to figure out why his conclusions are completely absurd, without any need to offer any technical evidence for these statements whatsoever. What a convenient strategy. [Bold added.]

In fact, Salvador, it is easily seen that Michael Disney is talking to you.

Comment #201372

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 28, 2007 3:46 PM (e)

Henderson, I’m not sure Ham has that strong an anti-old Earth attitude. See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/cou…… where he says that belief in an old earth does not mean one is not saved.

Found that quote from here Joshua:

http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/fundamental…

Ken Ham - executive director for Answers in Genesis, who believes that young-earth creation should be a primary emphasis in evangelism. His acerbic tone and views have created rifts with other creationists, such as his declaration that old-earth creationists should be banned from ordination and possibly church membership. Recently, he edited a condemnation of new evangelicalism called When Christians Roamed the Earth. Other titles: A Is for Adam; And God Saw that It Was Good; Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium; D Is for Dinosaur; Did Adam Have a Belly Button?; Did Eve Really Have an Extra Rib?; Dinsoaurs of Eden; Genesis and the Decay of the Nations; The Genesis Solution; The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved; The Lie: Evolution; One Blood; 101 Signs of Design; What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs; Why Won’t They Listen?

The website appears to be Christian so I have no reason to doubt it although it is a secondary source. I really would love to know where they obtained that quote from.

When Ham was asked the question “if a Christian believes in evolution would it stop them from going to heaven” by William Crawley on BBC Radio Ulster his (Ham’s) reply was “I would never say that” which I thought was less than forth coming.

There are also numerous verbal attacks on Hugh Ross, many very bitter and nasty on why Christians can’t believe in Progressive creationism, theistic evolution, or even old Earth creationism.

A while ago they lashed out at the biblical creation society (UK based) as well, for daring to suggest that the Earth was 20-30,000 years old rather than 6-10,000.

Note that Dr. Phelps in his review draws attention to the fact that there is no room for any other viewpoint, highlighting the statement of faith the volunteers have to sign. He (Dr.Phelps)also draws attention to the bizarre statement AiG made about Christians who believe in an old Earth are actually claiming to be God etc. and which I highlighted on an earlier thread here a couple of months ago.

Comment #201574

Posted by Nigel D on August 29, 2007 7:19 AM (e)

Salvador T. Cordova wrote:

I was an Old Earth Darwinist, then became an Old Earth Creationist, then became 85% YEC.

I’d be interested in hearing why you considered yourself to be a “Darwinist” and what you consider a “Darwinist” to be. After all, I am not a “Darwinist” but I still consider Charles Darwin to be one of the finest scientists to have lived.

I’d also be interested to know why you then considered scripture to carry more weight than physical evidence.

I gave YEC no chance until a 2002 report in Nature (along with Paul Davies website) suggested the speed of light was much faster (perhaps “infinite”) in the past.

I read about that too. It seemed very speculative to me. I did not put much stock in it. What about it did you find so compelling?

There are still major problems with a Variable Light Speed cosmology, but maybe someday the problems will be fixed.

Maybe. In the meantime, our existing theories (including the Big Bang and evolution) are the closest we can get to modelling how the universe works.

The VSL cosmology would also solve the missing isotope problem and a host of radiometric issues.

I am not aware of any “missing isotope” problem, nor of any “host” of radiometric issues. Would you care to enlighten me?

Also around 2002 it became common knowledge among many physicists that the Big Bang was starting to weaken as a cosmology.

Such as who, for instance…?

The Prestigious Sigma Xi Science Organization (many Nobel Laureates) recently slammed the Big Bang recently. This was astonishing! See: Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale.

Yes, I read the article you link to. It picks up a few problems, while ignoring certain facts (e.g. the microwave background was predicted before it was discovered - Penzias and Wilson were simply not aware of the prediction). It also seemed rather biased in places, such as here, where it discusses the relative abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium:

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis did a fair job of predicting the relative amounts of most of these substances …

I think the theory did more than a “fair job”, it was pretty much spot on. A prediction of that accuracy does not come along every day.

AiG and ICR shut down the exploration of VSL cosmology, and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

But, surely, if VSL has the scientific significance you suggest, then some scientists would have pursued it, no matter what AiG or ICR said.

A key prediction of YEC VSL may have been confirmed here: Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!!.

I notice that you linked to a blog entry posted by yourself. I think it would have been more convincing if you had linked to the actual research.

SO, if you’re trying to convince a sceptic, please can you supply a link to the actual science?

Did AiG or ICR help lift even one finger to help out in the research? No.

Irrelevant to whether or not the research indicates what you think it indicates.

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research.

Yeah, plus it has to overcome the challenge of all the geological data that indicate that the Earth is very old.

Such things as radiometric isochron dates; sedimentation times (which give minimum ages for seabeds); overlapping lava flows; the gradual spread of the sea floors; time required for mountains to appear and erode; time required for the continents to move (e.g. why are there fossils of tropical organisms in the antarctic?).

Also, YEC has to reconcile the fact that Bishop Ussher’s date for creation is built on sand. To cover the gap between the OT and the NT, he used old Babylonian records that mention events (e.g. kings, the rise of the Roman empire) at the end of the OT and events at the start of the NT. However, shortly after he published his date, it was contradicted by Chinese records that were found to go back continuously to before 4004BC. He dismissed this evidence, but it should have the same validity as his Babylonian records.

It’s not going to get there if the AiG mindset is involved.

Or, consider this: it may never get there because the premise is wrong.

You can’t start from a conclusion and then seek out evidence to support it, while dismissing evidence that contradicts it. If you want to do actual science, you must assess all of the evidence objectively and make logically-credible deductions from the evidence.

The overwhelming indication from the evidence is that the Earth is old.

The YECs have to stop running their organizations like churches and reorganize along the lines of the Discovery Institute, as a secular institution that does not discriminate based on religious belief….

But the DI also does no science. And it publishes lies. Do you want to be part of an organisation that discards Mosaic law because the truth is inconvenient?

Another YEC astronomy claim is the old one on comets breaking up to quickly for the solar system to be old. Why they still persist with this one is beyond me, since several hundred Kuiper belt objects (the reservoir for short period comets) have been discovered thus far.

Danny Faulkner (an associate professor at a secular school) pretty much broke that argument.

What, so now a school teacher has the training to correct an argument that has been proposed, reviewed and accepted by professional astronomers?

I think not.

Futher the energy profile standard deviations are inconsistent with evolutionary explanations of coments.

Sadly, this is meaningless without some context.

I gave a discussion of the pros and cons of YEC here, and it’s about a stalemate at this time. See: Reasons for and Against YEC.

Oh, boy, where to begin? I’ll be very brief.

First off, you have missed out many many evidences against YEC.

Second, the evidences “for” YEC are not exactly what I would consider to be compelling. There are too many “mights” and “maybes”; there are too many references to individuals and no references to any kind of scientific consensus; there are references to a Noachian flood, but no mention of the facts that (a) the Biblical flood did not happen, (b) the Biblical flood was impossible, and © the ark was impossible. In short, there is not one convincing argument for YEC.

I have some ideas as to how to break the stalemate, but it won’t make AiG happy. That’s fine.

If I were you, I’d go back to being a “Darwinist”, whatever that means. None of the “evidence” to which you have linked is credible or compelling. I see no stalemate. Instead, based on your links alone, I see several people clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis and desperately trying to justify it.

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail. What worries me, is that the church, and particularly the evangelical wing, will be dragged down along with it.

I share your concerns.

I wouldn’t worry too much. There are millions of people who accept what science has discovered and yet their faith has not suffered. There are dozens of churches that see no need to contradict the discoveries of modern science, and yet they have lost neither faithful nor material.

YEC should try to decouple the hypothesis as some sort of litmus test for Christianity.

Either that, or accept that the scientific approach to investigating the world is the only means of obtaining consensual truth. And this truth is rooted firmly in reality, in evidence from the physical world. It also contradicts every aspect whereby YEC supporters differ from normal Christians (i.e. it shows an old Earth).

AiG’s influence on the matter is divisive, and just plain wrong. If they want to argue the world is 10,000 years old, they better put up some believeable evidence and help with the science. Their evangelism on an unproven theory is pre-mature.

It’s not even premature. It would be wrong. The evidence flatly contradicts a young Earth.

Their museum didn’t have any real artifacts for their case, just sculptures and movies and statues. Not much of science museum. Count me in as one YEC who wouldn’t feel bad if the museum falters.

I’m pleased to hear that, but I’d be even more pleased if you could accept the consensus of scientists who have studied the Earth and the skies and reached one particular conclusion: what we see is old. Very old.

Comment #201593

Posted by David Stanton on August 29, 2007 8:45 AM (e)

Nigel,

Nice post. Do you happen to have any references for the Chinese records you mention? How far back do they go? Are they accepted by the scientific community as authentic? Sounds really interesting to me. Perhaps another example of cultural bias.

Comment #201640

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 29, 2007 11:39 AM (e)

I wouldn’t worry too much. There are millions of people who accept what science has discovered and yet their faith has not suffered. There are dozens of churches that see no need to contradict the discoveries of modern science, and yet they have lost neither faithful nor material.

And I am one of those Christians Nigel that has absolutely no problem with mainstream science. However, virtually every evangelical denomination (Baptist, Brethren, Elim, Reformed Presbyterian, Evangelical Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Independent Methodist, Congregational etc.) in this part of the world (NI) are now YEC. So far I haven’t heard a major figure in any of those churches come out against YECism. Indeed, one of the major Brethren churches in Belfast is the Crescent Church, which is in the heart of Belfast’s university area (within walking distance of Queen’s University and Stranmillis College, the province’s major teaching college). The Tuesday evening meetings attract over 1,000 mostly young people (20-30 age group). Monty White (head of AiG UK) speaks there in October and I have no doubt that the Numbers will not decrease.

It’s a growing force within the church in the rest of the UK. Ham is in Scotland this week, stirring up the troops. Truth in science, which has close ties with AiG, is already making it’s presence felt. Among it’s members is a leading UK geneticist, Professor Norman Nevin. Prof. Nevin is a lay preacher in the Crescent Church.

And lets not forget the fact that millions of US Christians do appear to have a problem with evolution and mainstream science judging by the numbers that have flocked to the creation museum so far.

I think I have every right to be worried Nigel. It would seem that the YEC’s are gaining the upper hand within Christianity and no-one seems to be able or willing to stop them.

Comment #201642

Posted by raven on August 29, 2007 12:14 PM (e)

Peter Henderson:

I think I have every right to be worried Nigel. It would seem that the YEC’s are gaining the upper hand within Christianity and no-one seems to be able or willing to stop them.

It isn’t wrong to worry but it isn’t necessarily the end. Social movements run in cycles.

Here in the US, it looks like the tide is going out on fundie cultists. They owned the entire federal government up until 2006 and botched a lot of things. People aren’t happy with them and are voting them out whenever possible. And while the fundies might be gaining converts, they are also alienating a lot of moderates and apathetics. The constant threats to murder large segments of the population and occasionally killing a few people here and there aren’t impressing a lot of people.

IMO, long term voluntary ignorance and delusions is a losing strategy. The real world will still be there no matter what people claim to believe. This might be wishful thinking but as a working hypothesis, we shall just have to wait and see.

If the churches make believing a nonsensical lie like the earth is 6,000 years old a litmus test, a lot of the more educated people will say forgetaboutit and leave. Xianity has always had a problem with schisms followed by disputes that sometimes escalate into full scale war.

Comment #201760

Posted by dhogaza on August 29, 2007 7:27 PM (e)

That quote from Lubos is hilarious given his lame efforts to discredit climate science.

Comment #201817

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on August 29, 2007 10:56 PM (e)

dhogaza:

dhogaza wrote:

That quote from Lubos is hilarious given his lame efforts to discredit climate science.

Yes, citing Lubos Motl is akin to citing creationists, both examples of large scale denialism. And he is at least as much a curmudgeon as Disney.

But physics is his specialty, and even though he is vehement against any non-string options it is a valid and expert criticism. (It was his vested interest that necessitated my deliberations before the quote.)

Comment #201908

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 6:21 AM (e)

David Stanton wrote:

Nigel,

Nice post. Do you happen to have any references for the Chinese records you mention? How far back do they go? Are they accepted by the scientific community as authentic? Sounds really interesting to me. Perhaps another example of cultural bias.

David, thank you.

The records are referenced in Measuring Eternity by Martin Gorst. I’m not sure if they have been scrutinised by the scientific community, but they should be considered with at least as much validity as the records from Babylon that Ussher did use (unless doubt is independently thrown on their authenticity).

Comment #201910

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 6:28 AM (e)

Peter Henderson wrote:

I think I have every right to be worried Nigel. It would seem that the YEC’s are gaining the upper hand within Christianity and no-one seems to be able or willing to stop them.

Thanks for your response, Peter.

What I meant was in reply to Salvador’s expression of concern that the ultimate failure of YEC will drag down the rest of Christianity. Personally, I think that the failure of YEC will strengthen Christianity, so I do not see any need to worry about the impact that YEC’s failure will have on the rest of Christianity.

Having said that, I share your concern about the potential for YEC to gain a foothold in the UK. In a country that is supposed to have nationwide standards of education, it is worrying to find people spurning the science in favour of easy answers that are demonstrably false. I have relatives who are YECs, and their choice simply baffles me.

Comment #201915

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 6:44 AM (e)

FL wrote:

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

I don’t think any “evolutionist” (I prefer the term “scientist”, or “rational person” myself) would argue against YEC on biblical grounds. After all, there are theologians doing just that.

You mention the “deceiver” argument as if it were plucked from the Bible by scientists. This is not so. It is a direct response to so many YEC arguments, and goes along these lines:
Scientist: If the world was created recently, why does all the evidence suggest it is old?
YEC: God made the Earth look old.
Scientist: What, just to deceive us? Why?

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

I’m a non-Darwinist. I firmly believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is outdated and, in some areas, wrong. However, this is because I find modern evolutionary theory to be a more accurate explanation of the evidence that we find in the world around us.

The YECs and AiG “have” to do one of two things:
Either (a) accept that the scientific consensus is the best description of reality that we have, or
(b) make a genuine effort to understand what it is they are criticising, and then criticise it honestly and openly.

We see neither of these things in the YEC literature.

But Peter’s prediction of YEC failing, is just so much incorrect, no-good, Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric.

Come on, FL, back that up with some evidence!

Or was it just rhetoric?

Comment #201927

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 7:26 AM (e)

Salvador T. Cordova wrote:

I agree that ID proponents (not IDC’s, scince some of the top ID thinkers are not creationists), are a very small minority.

IDC is a correct term, Salvador. This is because the fact of creation is inherent in the concept of design. How can something be designed and yet not created, if it exists?

Our little band of rebels are very appreciative of the international attention the critcs have showered upon the miniscule ID movement. Michael Shermer told me the ID movement has gotten more press than the YECs ever have…

That may be so, but does it really mean anything?

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent.

Not really, since they seem mostly to be recycling arguments that have been made (and refuted) before. The only new aspect that the leading ID advocates add is some new terminology. But, to take Bill Dembski as an example, this new terminology exists only to disguise the emptiness of the core arguments.

The YECs aren’t there, and until they stop running their organization like churches instead of secular institutions like the Discovery Institute, they won’t be competitive in the market place of ideas, they’ll be viewed as self-blinded dogmatists bent on believing what they want to believe rather than having a reverence for facts….

Well, actually, I consider YECs and IDists both in that light. Neither group actually pays attention to facts that contradict their stated position. Neither group demonstrates intellectual honesty when criticising mainstream science. Neither group accepts that, for their ideas to be accepted, they must present a better explanation of what we find than the current scientific theories. Both groups seem to misrepresent the science deliberately in order to argue against it. Thus, neither group (on average) takes the trouble to understand the science before attacking it.

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute, and then the issue will move forward.

For YECs to move forward, they need to accept that their world-view is contradicted by reality. To move forward, they need to accept that reality is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Ironically, the one quasi-secular think tank in YEC, the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has already made it’s mark on the ID debate when the Baraminology Study Group invited Richard Sternberg (an Old-Earth process structuralist) and Stephen Meyer (an old earth ID proponent) to participate. The BSG is even more miniscule than the DI, and look at the influence they had simply by opening the doors to those who disagreed and to those who weren’t YECs.

They could have had an even bigger impact if they had opened their eyes to the real world, and discarded their YEC ideals.

If AiG is positioning themselves as some sort of infallible guide to truth, this is not good for YEC or for Christianity. They’re setting themselves up to be the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s of the origins debate (sorry if I offended any Jim and Tammy Faye fans out there).

AiG need to accept that the scientists really do know what they’re talking about. It is hard to make a career in science. It takes years of study to even get started, it takes dedication and (often) a bit of luck. Most tenured scientists have been studying their chosen field for over 20 years. This confers a depth of understanding that simply cannot be fast-tracked or acquired by shortcuts. These folks understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of their respective fields of expertise; and, for the vast bulk of what we call science, there is a consensus of opinion among these experts. This means a lot more than a small group of bystanders sniping from a position of ignorance.

There is a lot about origins we don’t know.

But there are several things we do know. We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts). This is a fact. We know that the universe is older (13.7 billion years or thereabouts). This also is a fact. We know that life on Earth has changed dramatically over time. This also is a fact. We know also that explanations exist that connect all of the known evidence together in a parsiomonious fashion. These explanations (ouir scientific theories) are the best descriptions we have for why and how the world we see is the way it is.

So don’t try to dismiss a huge body of knowledge by just saying “there is much we don’t know”. While this is technically true, it presents a false view of the state of our knowledge.

It’s entirely possible the universe is a lot younger and was specially created.

No. The universe is almost certainly as old as we think it is, based on the current evidence. It would take an extraordinary discovery to force us to re-examine this position now it has been reasonably firmly established. As for special creation of the universe: well, this is technically possible, because the Big Bang sets a time limit beyond which we cannot see or theorise.

We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years.

Actually, I don’t think you could. Within about 15%, that figure is firmly established. You would need to address all of the evidence on which this figure is based, and that would constitute an awful lot of work. Then you would need to come up with credible reasons for discarding or discounting all of the evidence. Then you would need to replace what you have just demolished with a better theory. I think such an undertaking would be extraordinary indeed. Moreover, I think it would be doomed to failure, because you are starting from a desired conclusion, not following the evidence.

They Earth maybe 65 million years, but 10,000 is still very premature.

What? Why is anything less than 4 billion years credible in the slightest degree? Lord Kelvin thought the Earth was several tens of millions of years old. He was shown to be wrong. What was wrong back in the late nineteenth century is still wrong now.

AiG has shut down the debate on Variable Light Speed cosmology which would actually solve the problem of distant starlight and radio-metric dating.

Or, you could try something novel: accept the evidence for what it is: a piece of reality. Distant starlight and radiometric dating (which, incidentally, both contradict your “65 million years” figure for the age of the Earth) are only a problem if you approach the evidence with preconceptions. Discard those, and the “problem” disappears.

To learn more, see: www.YoungCosmos.com

Not today. I would be too embarassed if my boss found out that I had visited a website with that URL while at work.

So, if you all complain about the AiG ad, I’m not going to protest. YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

Well, the only “evidence” you can find to support a young Earth is based on interpretations of the Bible and hideous distortions of the actual science. You claim that YEC has problems to overcome in terms of dealing with the evidence for an old Earth and an old universe, but these are only problems if you approach them with the preconception of a young Earth. Thus, YEC is religion. Plain and simple. It is an idea derived from a literalist interpretation of scripture, and has no scientific validity whatever.

ID has not succeeded in decoupling itself from its religious roots. Partly, this is because the ID arguments are recycled creationist arguments, and partly this is because the ID proponents, in order to secure support, have proclaimed ID to be the best chance of success in a crusade against “materialsim” (whatever that actually means).

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Not really, I’m afraid. There is no scientific case for accepting YEC. It is purely a religious proposition. As such, it is already extremely weak, by virtue of being in direct contradiction with reality.

In science, reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. No consensus is achieved without testing against reality. And reality says that YEC is wrong.

Comment #201928

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 7:29 AM (e)

Salvador T. Cordova wrote:

I agree that ID proponents (not IDC’s, scince some of the top ID thinkers are not creationists), are a very small minority.

IDC is a correct term, Salvador. This is because the fact of creation is inherent in the concept of design. How can something be designed and yet not created, if it exists?

Our little band of rebels are very appreciative of the international attention the critcs have showered upon the miniscule ID movement. Michael Shermer told me the ID movement has gotten more press than the YECs ever have…

That may be so, but does it really mean anything?

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent.

Not really, since they seem mostly to be recycling arguments that have been made (and refuted) before. The only new aspect that the leading ID advocates add is some new terminology. But, to take Bill Dembski as an example, this new terminology exists only to disguise the emptiness of the core arguments.

The YECs aren’t there, and until they stop running their organization like churches instead of secular institutions like the Discovery Institute, they won’t be competitive in the market place of ideas, they’ll be viewed as self-blinded dogmatists bent on believing what they want to believe rather than having a reverence for facts….

Well, actually, I consider YECs and IDists both in that light. Neither group actually pays attention to facts that contradict their stated position. Neither group demonstrates intellectual honesty when criticising mainstream science. Neither group accepts that, for their ideas to be accepted, they must present a better explanation of what we find than the current scientific theories. Both groups seem to misrepresent the science deliberately in order to argue against it. Thus, neither group (on average) takes the trouble to understand the science before attacking it.

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute, and then the issue will move forward.

For YECs to move forward, they need to accept that their world-view is contradicted by reality. To move forward, they need to accept that reality is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Ironically, the one quasi-secular think tank in YEC, the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has already made it’s mark on the ID debate when the Baraminology Study Group invited Richard Sternberg (an Old-Earth process structuralist) and Stephen Meyer (an old earth ID proponent) to participate. The BSG is even more miniscule than the DI, and look at the influence they had simply by opening the doors to those who disagreed and to those who weren’t YECs.

They could have had an even bigger impact if they had opened their eyes to the real world, and discarded their YEC ideals.

If AiG is positioning themselves as some sort of infallible guide to truth, this is not good for YEC or for Christianity. They’re setting themselves up to be the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s of the origins debate (sorry if I offended any Jim and Tammy Faye fans out there).

AiG need to accept that the scientists really do know what they’re talking about. It is hard to make a career in science. It takes years of study to even get started, it takes dedication and (often) a bit of luck. Most tenured scientists have been studying their chosen field for over 20 years. This confers a depth of understanding that simply cannot be fast-tracked or acquired by shortcuts. These folks understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of their respective fields of expertise; and, for the vast bulk of what we call science, there is a consensus of opinion among these experts. This means a lot more than a small group of bystanders sniping from a position of ignorance.

There is a lot about origins we don’t know.

But there are several things we do know. We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts). This is a fact. We know that the universe is older (13.7 billion years or thereabouts). This also is a fact. We know that life on Earth has changed dramatically over time. This also is a fact. We know also that explanations exist that connect all of the known evidence together in a parsiomonious fashion. These explanations (ouir scientific theories) are the best descriptions we have for why and how the world we see is the way it is.

So don’t try to dismiss a huge body of knowledge by just saying “there is much we don’t know”. While this is technically true, it presents a false view of the state of our knowledge.

It’s entirely possible the universe is a lot younger and was specially created.

No. The universe is almost certainly as old as we think it is, based on the current evidence. It would take an extraordinary discovery to force us to re-examine this position now it has been reasonably firmly established. As for special creation of the universe: well, this is technically possible, because the Big Bang sets a time limit beyond which we cannot see or theorise.

We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years.

Actually, I don’t think you could. Within about 15%, that figure is firmly established. You would need to address all of the evidence on which this figure is based, and that would constitute an awful lot of work. Then you would need to come up with credible reasons for discarding or discounting all of the evidence. Then you would need to replace what you have just demolished with a better theory. I think such an undertaking would be extraordinary indeed. Moreover, I think it would be doomed to failure, because you are starting from a desired conclusion, not following the evidence.

They Earth maybe 65 million years, but 10,000 is still very premature.

What? Why is anything less than 4 billion years credible in the slightest degree? Lord Kelvin thought the Earth was several tens of millions of years old. He was shown to be wrong. What was wrong back in the late nineteenth century is still wrong now.

AiG has shut down the debate on Variable Light Speed cosmology which would actually solve the problem of distant starlight and radio-metric dating.

Or, you could try something novel: accept the evidence for what it is: a piece of reality. Distant starlight and radiometric dating (which, incidentally, both contradict your “65 million years” figure for the age of the Earth) are only a problem if you approach the evidence with preconceptions. Discard those, and the “problem” disappears.

To learn more, see: www.YoungCosmos.com

Not today. I would be too embarassed if my boss found out that I had visited a website with that URL while at work.

So, if you all complain about the AiG ad, I’m not going to protest. YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

Well, the only “evidence” you can find to support a young Earth is based on interpretations of the Bible and hideous distortions of the actual science. You claim that YEC has problems to overcome in terms of dealing with the evidence for an old Earth and an old universe, but these are only problems if you approach them with the preconception of a young Earth. Thus, YEC is religion. Plain and simple. It is an idea derived from a literalist interpretation of scripture, and has no scientific validity whatever.

ID has not succeeded in decoupling itself from its religious roots. Partly, this is because the ID arguments are recycled creationist arguments, and partly this is because the ID proponents, in order to secure support, have proclaimed ID to be the best chance of success in a crusade against “materialsim” (whatever that actually means).

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Not really, I’m afraid. There is no scientific case for accepting YEC. It is purely a religious proposition. As such, it is already extremely weak, by virtue of being in direct contradiction with reality.

In science, reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. No consensus is achieved without testing against reality. And reality says that YEC is wrong.

Comment #201936

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 7:50 AM (e)

Oops, sorry, I seem to have double-posted that one. The browser window just seized up.

If a mod happens by, please could you delete the surplus post?

Thanks.

Comment #201983

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 30, 2007 11:45 AM (e)

It is hard to make a career in science.

I often wonder what the AiG speakers with Phds are being payed Nigel. I did read somewhere (it may have been Jim Lippard’s blog) that Snelling was receiving quite a handsome salary from the ICR before joining AiG. It would be interesting to know what AiG offered him.

Last I heard, Ken Ham was on as much as a top hospital consultant (private work included) in this country, so it pays to be a young Earth creationist it would seem.

We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts).

I think the last quoted figure for the age of the Earth is around 4.55 billion years Plus or minus about 5% This figure is obtained from dating meteorites. Lunar samples have been dated to around 4.4 billion years. The oldest terrestrial rocks are around 3.8 billion years and are found in northern Canada and Greenland.

YEC’s do not accept radiometric dating though, claiming the methods are based on fallible assumptions. There’s a very good article on the talkorigins website by G. Brent Dalrymple refuting this and examining various YEC claims on the age of the Earth (not enough salt in the oceans, decay of Earth’s magnetic field etc.)

The very fact that the rocky planetary bodies (Mercury, Mars, The moon, and some of the outer satellites orbiting Jupiter and Saturn etc.) are so heavily covered in impact craters does mean that they are ancient surfaces. I have yet to read an adequate explanation for either Lunar or terrestrial impact craters from the YEC’s (surely this alone should should convince Salvador the Earth is a bit more than 6-10,000 years old ?

Comment #202068

Posted by Nigel D on August 30, 2007 4:59 PM (e)

Peter Henderson wrote:

I often wonder what the AiG speakers with Phds are being payed Nigel. I did read somewhere (it may have been Jim Lippard’s blog) that Snelling was receiving quite a handsome salary from the ICR before joining AiG. It would be interesting to know what AiG offered him.

Last I heard, Ken Ham was on as much as a top hospital consultant (private work included) in this country, so it pays to be a young Earth creationist it would seem.

Looks like I chose the wrong line of work if I wanted to live the life of Riley …

… I think the last quoted figure for the age of the Earth is around 4.55 billion years Plus or minus about 5% This figure is obtained from dating meteorites. Lunar samples have been dated to around 4.4 billion years. The oldest terrestrial rocks are around 3.8 billion years and are found in northern Canada and Greenland.

Fair enough. I was posting that from memory.

YEC’s do not accept radiometric dating though, claiming the methods are based on fallible assumptions. There’s a very good article on the talkorigins website by G. Brent Dalrymple refuting this and examining various YEC claims on the age of the Earth (not enough salt in the oceans, decay of Earth’s magnetic field etc.)

That was actually one of my sources. I have found TalkOrigins to be very useful in providing essays that summarise whole fields of evidence, and links to the primary literature.

The very fact that the rocky planetary bodies (Mercury, Mars, The moon, and some of the outer satellites orbiting Jupiter and Saturn etc.) are so heavily covered in impact craters does mean that they are ancient surfaces. I have yet to read an adequate explanation for either Lunar or terrestrial impact craters from the YEC’s (surely this alone should should convince Salvador the Earth is a bit more than 6-10,000 years old ?

I’m not aware of the YECs addressing the cratering of rocky bodies. Also, while AiG insist the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, I think Salvador holds it to be slightly older. In an above post he guesstimates it to be 65,000,000 years old.

Curiously, this is a long way from the 15% OEC he claims to be (my deduction as the converse of his claim that he is 85% YEC): 15% of 4 billion is 600,000,000. I therefore conclude that Salvador is closer to being 1.5% OEC and therefore 98.5% YEC. :)

Comment #202072

Posted by Henry J on August 30, 2007 5:12 PM (e)

65,000,000 years? Why on Earth would somebody pick an arbitrary number somewhere between reality and YEC, one not particularly close to either of them, and then claim it means something? (Yeah, I know, there’s no real answer to that question.)

Comment #202104

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on August 30, 2007 7:16 PM (e)

osted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 27, 2007 2:17 PM (e)

In the case of this standard candle, an increase in the speed of light actually makes the object further away.

“No it does not because speed of light decay creates apparent slow motion effects, which negates the calculations Green suggested as such. That’s probably why such arguments got pulled from Talk Origins because it was demonstratably false.”

There is no speed of light decay Sal. That is simply an assertion. The Andromeda Galaxy is blueshifted. What now, Sal? Andromeda
has speed of light growth?

There is an additional problem for the “changing speed of light” nonsense which no-one has mentioned so far…..SN 1987a:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/anci………

“As I pointed out, that analysis was badly flawed. If the speed of light were much faster, then then large distances like 150,000 light years would be traversed in less than 10,000 AND the slow motion effect would prevent the interpretation of “higher speed implies, farther distance”.

And you have no clue. If the speed measured by spectral shifts is the Hubble flow (which it most certainly is for any object more distant than 50Mpsc) and that means red shift, then the greater the red shift the greater the distance. That is Hubble’s relation.

“I and others pointed out problems for YEC that are legitimate, but that analysis by Greene is not legitimate. If AiG bougth the argument, then all the more reason to discredit AiG’s “science”.

Even the best critic of CDK cosmology, Dr. G.P. Jellison and Dr. WT Birdgman acknowledges that this analysis by critics of CDK is flawed. To their credit, they offer sound arguments against YEC, not flawed ones such as Greene’s.”

There is little problem here. As most YEC crackpots don’t understand, that you can’t change SOL and not cause
other things to change like the fine structure constant. We can meausre such changes now, and have determined that during the course
of Earth history there hae not been any measurable change in such constants. Of course one could argue that stars and supernova are
lying to us.

Its of little relevance if the speed of light was much greater during the earliest nanoseconds after BB. Interesting, but of no relevance to the age of the earth.

“Do you believe the Big Bang is true?”

Truth is for drunks, mathematicians, expanding earthers and creationists like Sal who don’t know any better.

Science deals with testable theories and evidence, Sal, not truth. SO know, I don’t believe in BB. This
is not a faith issue. I provisionally accept BB as the the theory that best explains the available data.

I also maintain that the available data resoundly falsifies any notion of an Earth less than billions of years old. It doesn’t require any faith on my part to accept BB. It does however require not only faith but an actual aversion to reality to accept that
the age of the Earth can be measured in thousands of years.

YEC is in the same category of flat earthers and the hollow earthers, however much that pains you.

Stuart

Comment #202371

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 31, 2007 12:19 PM (e)

I’m not aware of the YECs addressing the cratering of rocky bodies.

As far as I can tell Nigel there have been no articles on impact craters from AiG. The subject raises lots of questions for YECs. Are terrestrial impact sites post or pre-flood ? Surely such catastrophic events would be recorded in the bible if it is the true history of the world ? An impact event such the Reis crater in Germany (estimated to be 15 million years old) would have serious implications for the population not only in that area, but across the globe. Yet, no mention of this anywhere in the bible

Crater density can also be used as a chronometer and it is possible to estimate the age of a heavily cratered planetary body using this method. But then again, they’ll probably say that God created the moon with the craters already there !

YEC is in the same category of flat earthers and the hollow earthers, however much that pains you.

I’ve read somewhere Stuart, that Henry Morris once claimed that oil engineers drilled so deep they could hear the screams of Hell. They hastily covered the hole up because they were so scared. It would seem that some YEC’s are hollow Earthers as well !

Comment #202472

Posted by Richard on August 31, 2007 5:31 PM (e)

Nobody will likely see this, but the original link is no longer working.

If you start at staynky.com’s home page and work down to http://www.staynky.com/attractions.aspx#museums, you’ll see that the blurb now reads:

A walk through history via the pages of the Bible – exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

So, it looks like someone was responsive…

Comment #202496

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 31, 2007 6:59 PM (e)

That was actually one of my sources. I have found TalkOrigins to be very useful in providing essays that summarise whole fields of evidence, and links to the primary literature.

I wish the guys who run the site would start updating again, especially the feedback section. As I have said before, its a very useful resource.