Astronomy

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I accept it as a viable theory though I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions. I also believe that the earth is probably billions and not thousands of years old.

So you're not a Young Earth Creationist (the most rabid zealots of the lot). That's a start.

What are the "conclusions" of an admittedly viable theory that you do not agree with?

Originally posted by Palynka
You're seconding a disguised insult.

Really more of an honest compliment.

I do sincerely admire TCE's willingness to point out problems in other theists thinking. Most of them here just hop on each others' bandwagon or at the very least look past their brothers' faux paus. I just didn't want him to misread my words as a retraction of the sentiments I expressed in the 'God is schizophrenic' thread.

Originally posted by telerion
P.S. TCE: Despite my disappointment with your reasoning skills and your ability to follow and understand semi-difficult arguments, I have always wanted to tell you that I appreciate that your willingness to challenge both believers and non-believers here. You do not play partisan games, and I commend you for that...I just didn't want him to misread my words as a retraction of the sentiments I expressed in the 'God is schizophrenic' thread

I see. So saying that I'm stupid in comparison to you demonstrates that you have not changed your position in a debate. BTW, I must have missed what you believe about God. Does he not exist, or is he just not all he’s cracked up to be?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I just saw this news article

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/26/content_4102608.htm

It says scientists have just discovered an earth like planet about 28,000 light years away.

I am curious to know what creationists on this site think about this. Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.

Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.

I recall having gone over this before with you - your assertions don't prove anything; nada; zip.

P.S. I did also voice my criticism of accurate measurement beyond a couple thousand light-years -- the angular seperation is just too small and taking readings in 6-month intervals (using the earth's rotation around the sun to create a greater base for the trigonometric triangle) allows for too much celestial deviation for accurate measurement.

Originally posted by telerion
This is true. Both Dembski and Behe, the two most prominent IDer's, accept the scientific consensus on the age of both the universe and the earth. I know Behe, and I believe Dembski as well, also accepts that all species today, including man, descended from less complicated ones and that there was a common ancestor, or set of common ancestors for all life ...[text shortened]... bout Behe, but if it goes against science and has God in it then Hallelujah!" mentality

I know Behe, and I believe Dembski as well, also accepts that all species today, including man, descended from less complicated ones and that there was a common ancestor, or set of common ancestors for all life.

This is news to me. So has Behe recanted his "irreducible complexity" criticism of evolution? I was hoping to start a thread on it in the near future -- what a bummer. 😳

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.

I recall having gone over this ...[text shortened]... the trigonometric triangle) allows for too much celestial deviation for accurate measurement.[/b]

Yes and they all could also be really just little twinkly lights in the sky but God makes it look like they're giant nuclear furnaces for his own amusment. You can't prove otherwise! Either way, it's magic!

God could have been there "before" the Big Bang and set the whole thing in motion.
Hard to tell.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes and they all could also be really just little twinkly lights in the sky but God makes it look like they're giant nuclear furnaces for his own amusment. You can't prove otherwise! Either way, it's magic!

Ha, ha. We could go that way, but I disagree with your assertion (even though neither of us can prove it).

However, I don't think your sarcastic remark is what would logically follow from a created universe. You are being intellectually dishonest at my expense - which I don't mind (pun intended).

Originally posted by KneverKnight
God could have been there "before" the Big Bang and set the whole thing in motion.
Hard to tell.

Of course, KK. I tend toward that stance myself. I am, however, familiar with the YEC arguments, and thought to share them.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I see. So saying that I'm stupid in comparison to you demonstrates that you have not changed your position in a debate. BTW, I must have missed what you believe about God. Does he not exist, or is he just not all he’s cracked up to be?

I don't see any reason to think that he exists. Notice, already you've presumptuously conflated your personal, mental idol with the generic deity of theism. As your question is clearly misspecified, how can I take it seriously? I will make the minimum effort necessary though.

I will respond to the more appropriate question "Does there exist at least one god?" My answer is conditional. If a god is a naturally detectable thing, then my answer is, "No, I don't think any god exists." If a god is completely untestable (or so rendered by its apologist after the conclusion of the test), then my answer is "I don't know. How could I?"

And yes, you are stupid in comparison to me; but that is plainly obvious, so don't get your panties in a bunch about it. You still do an honest job of challenging other theists. Be appreciative of the compliment that you've received. Don't search for praise beyond your merit.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I know Behe, and I believe Dembski as well, also accepts that all species today, including man, descended from less complicated ones and that there was a common ancestor, or set of common ancestors for all life.

This is news to me. So has Behe recanted his "irreducible complexity" criticism of evolution? I was hoping to start a thread on it in the near future -- what a bummer. 😳[/b]

No Hal, he has not recanted "Irreducible Complexity." I should've said "nearly all." The irreducibly complex are the very simplest, oldest organisms.

If it is your understanding that neither Behe nor Dembski accept the descent of man from less complicated organisms, then you need to research their position more carefully.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.

I recall having gone over this the trigonometric triangle) allows for too much celestial deviation for accurate measurement.[/b]

Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.


Those crazy YEC's!

Once you allow a supernatural, all-powerful deceptive manipulator into the equation, then it is possible. Oh Muffy, what absurdity!

When I encounter some one so desperate to eviscerate their sensibility, I counter with this gem of a parody.

(For effect, you get to play the crazy, Hal.)
Did you know that nothing existed before you were created, Hal? It's true. The universe and everything in it were created at the moment of your earliest recollection. Your parents and grandparents were created with false memories of their "past" that matched up seamlessly with the present assigned to them at their creation. All physical evidence of your birth was actually planted by the creator.
How do I know all this? Divine revelation!
So Hal, how old is the universe now?

Originally posted by telerion
No Hal, he has not recanted "Irreducible Complexity." I should've said "nearly all." The irreducibly complex are the very simplest, oldest organisms.

If it is your understanding that neither Behe nor Dembski accept the descent of man from less complicated organisms, then you need to research their position more carefully.

I'm busy reading Dembski's "Intelligent Design". Still trying to get my hands on Behe's "Darwin's Black Box".

I'll keep ya updated - maybe start a thread on the subject in the near future. Your sharp critique will, as always, be welcome.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.


Those crazy YEC's!

Once you allow a supernatural, all-powerful deceptive manipulator into the equation, then it is possible. Oh Muffy, what absur ...[text shortened]... reator.
How do I know all this? Divine revelation!
So Hal, how old is the universe now?[/b]

Lol, I'm getting a déjà vu of "The Matrix". Alas, if only the universe really did revolve around me.

The question, is whether this "all powerful deceptive manipulator" is obfuscatory in our understanding of him (and within Christian doctrine for that matter) -- or whether its a case of "what you see is what you get". I guess the answer is a bit of both -- we live in a physical universe, where what you see, is pretty much what you get, but often (in my case) things are not that simple...

I agree that once the philosophical concession is made of an "all powerful creator" the results can be quite fantastic (and quite ridiculous to those who do not accept this a priori). For me, the concession is made. The dilemma is now whether modern natural science, the cornerstone of western knowledge and understanding, is beyond question the only source of truth or whether truth can be obtained from other sources too.

Since our origin is a case of forensic deduction rather that hard science (the past is not repeatable), I guess you'll agree with me that it could be fallible. Science attempts to explain origins in purely natural forms of cause and effect; this yielded TBB (TM) "The Big Bang, and the TEO (TM). From a purely scientific perspective (and the entailed philosophy of naturalism), those are the best explanations of where we come from.

As you well know, I have my (pseudo)scientific reservations about some parts of them. They may be the best explanations, but the answer to the question is fataly flawed if the underlying philosophy is flawed. Science excludes the supernatural a priori. If the supernatural i.e. a "Divine Being" is left out of the formula, then obviously there will be a disagreement with those that recon with one. I think it is impossible to decide objectively which formula to choose - our decision is always influenced by our epistemology. I have simply reached the stage where I agree to disagree on the bigger picture -- and then fight it out tooth and nail on the science.

See ya in the ring. 😀

Originally posted by Halitose
Ha, ha. We could go that way, but I disagree with your assertion (even though neither of us can prove it).

However, I don't think your sarcastic remark is what would logically follow from a created universe. You are being intellectually dishonest at my expense - which I don't mind (pun intended).

This is a non sequitur; no the logical conclusion in my prior post wouldn't "follow from a created universe" but it would follow from your version of one.

Think of it this way: Adam opens his eyes and sees the light from a star 100,000 light years away. To you, that light was created at the same time as a the star so the light never actually travelled at all. So far fine.

How about one hour later? The light here must have been created one hour away from Earth if it is travelling at the speed of light. But if so, it is light carrying information of events that never happened. Remember when you look at an object 100,000 light years away, you are looking 100,000 years in the past. But there was no 100,000 years past in this universe according to YECs, so therefore your God has created a magic show, a movie of something that never happened.

So here we are 6,000 years from Adam and the Garden; the light we are seeing was created 6,000 light years away from Earth. It has information coursing through it of things that never happened. Is this God obfuscatory or not?