Posted on 03/09/2002 4:05:28 PM PST by Pokey78
AMERICAN scientists are outraged over plans for a multi-million-dollar museum dedicated to telling the nation's schoolchildren that God made the world in seven days and that Darwin is a fraud.
The backers of the $14 million (£10 million) Creation Museum and Family Centre, which is to open in 2004 close to the Ohio River in Kentucky, boast that the structure will act as an antidote to the "brainwashing" taught in science museums worldwide.
Exhibits will include re-creations of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. A giant double helix of DNA will be suspended in the middle of the hall in order to argue that living creatures are so complex that they could not have evolved by random mutation.
Real fossils will be used to demonstrate how scientific methods such as carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate, and life-sized dinosaurs will illustrate the belief that they lived alongside Adam and Eve in a period before the Fall, when animals, man and dinosaurs cohabited, free from violence.
Ken Ham, whose Answers in Genesis ministry is behind the project, said that the museum was a long overdue offensive against the scientific establishment.
"This is a cultural war," he said. "They need to know we're coming. We're not doing this to say: 'Here's the evidence for and against, now you decide.' We admit our bias right from the start.
"The Bible is not a science textbook. But where it touches on science, we can trust it. This is the truth."
The only other museum in America dedicated to "creationism" - the theory that the Bible's Genesis story is both literal and accurate - is at the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego in California.
It covers 3,500 sq ft and will be dwarfed by Mr Ham's Creation Museum, which will include a 50,000 sq ft exhibition hall and 47 acres of outdoor trails and displays. Some exhibits have already been purchased, including the DNA and dinosaur models, in addition to a walk-through replica of a human cell.
Answers in Genesis already puts out a faith-based family magazine, a technical journal detailing the "science of creation", a daily radio programme that is broadcast on 400 stations across the United States, and pamphlets distributed worldwide on subjects such as "Where Did the Races Come From?".
A recent survey in the magazine Scientific American reported that 45 per cent of Americans believe that God created life some time in the past 10,000 years, despite the vast majority of scientists maintaining that life in its simplest form first appeared 3.9 billion years ago and has been evolving ever since.
Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Centre for Science Education, said that the new creationist museum was a sermon disguised as scientific study intended to hoodwink the public. "The authoritarian presentation of this information is likely to confuse people into thinking that these are scientifically valid views," she said.
"Science is not a democratic process. Once an idea is proved wrong, you don't continue to present it. The idea that everything on Earth appeared all at once 10,000 years ago has been disproved."
In recent years Christian fundamentalists have been accused of targeting small towns and placing supporters onto the local boards of education in a campaign for more teaching time to be spent on creationism. Two years ago the Kansas Board of Education reversed a decision to ban mentions of Darwin in schools after a public revolt voted a number of its members out.
To the outrage of the state's scientific community, Ohio is proposing a similar initiative to forbid teaching of scientific evolution. Similar propositions are also to be debated soon in New York State and Massachusetts.
Actually, David Hume wrecked it pretty thoroughly about 200 years ago.
Velikovsky had more going for him than Gould or Eldredge do.
As I see it, it's more than most people could do to try to completely run to ground more than a handful of the lines of evidences involved in the Velikovsky controversies and see where they lead, particularly for people who still have to work for a living and have limited resources for hobbies.
Nonetheless, I have made the effort to do that in a few cases and, in every instance in which I have, the raw evidence unequivocably supports Velikovsky and damns Sagan and pretty much all of Velikovsky's later-day critics.
One such case is the question of thermal balance on Venus and the various infrared flux meters andmeasurements of Albedo which were taken around 1978 - 1980 by the Pioneer Venus probe.
There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface temperature of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers, despite being ridiculous.
Sagan in fact is also noted for another super greenhouse theory, i.e. the one which says we should all be dead from the Kuwaiti oil fires in 91. Far as I know, I'm still here and Sagan is still dead. In fact, people living in Kuwait are still alive, and Sagan is still dead...
Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat taken in and given out should equal eachother.
I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's version, but not that of Sagan.
Astronomers have posted oficial position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain why they should not all be summarily shitcanned for failing to oversee the proper manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least four (instruments were not all the same).
And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 ñ 0.07, which was later revised upward to 0.80 ñ 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02.
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E 4 0 sigma * theta = --------- b a^2 should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance 0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone."
"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value] of 0.76 ñ 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).
"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W [watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 ñ 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the albedo of 0.76 ñ 0.1; this is the most probable value."
Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of the four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the percentage of light which bounces back from something.
Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct method:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02."
doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of the following things, or something entirely like one of them:
a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.
b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a ratio of the light intensities.
Taylor also mentions the indirect method:
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E 4 0 sigma * theta = --------- b a^2
should apply. Here E-zero is the solar constant, and a the distance from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone.
He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing.
He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history, and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most probable" value.
He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the best we're likely to get for a long time:
A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.
Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away 100% of the raw data. That's no way to do science.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You said that those who must "re-write science to" (uphold their religious beliefs) are weak. On the contrary. What does that make those people who must develop and stand on theories to deny spirituality, or any possibility of it.
IMO, those who are resolved to only believe what they can see are not facing reality. Who on earth today saw Abraham Lincoln with their own eyes? I believe in him, do you? Certainly. We know he was real. We have plenty of evidence of his life, because of literature, historians, artists, writings...The same is true of Jesus.
This is my belief. I do not insult those who do not share my belief by saying they are weak, stupid people. Just because we don't agree does not make one of us weak or lacking in intelligence. We may not share the same opinions, but let's not insult each other.
I wish we could keep this young earth argument "in house" and not try to preach something the Bible does not say. I'm afraid the dinosaurs were long gone before Adam ever trod the topside of this Earth.
The Bible even hints at a pre-Adamic creation with birds, mankind, cities, etc. In the push to discredit evolution, we don't have to also discredit Christian beliefs as well. Evolution sinks of its own weight quite nicely.
Spammed in-line a year ago, answered a year ago.
That's what I keep trying to tell these folks, glad to see others who grasp it. The biggest enemy of evolutionism is modern mathematics and probability theory, and not Christianity.
Sorry, Reep, but there's really no answer to the thing I posted above. You could try to claim that the crust of Venus wouldn't allow that much heat through, but that doesn't really answer the mail. The thing about scientists being put in the position of having to claim that every one of their instrument readings failed or is somehow in error for some unknown reason is a cold, hard fact and is irrefutable. Moreover, a fearful violation of the law of averages would have to be involved for all of those intruments to fail as described, particularly given the general level of competence of the scientists involved in building instruments and designing experiments. In real life, things don't happen that way.
What??? Seven days? That's wrong - everything was made in one day. Gen Ch 2 v 4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
Actually, I believe the word "day" should be understood as a limited time span closed by the brackets of "the evening and the morning" of the referenced era. Adam didn't die in the exact "day" that he ate of the forbidden fruit - but he did die within a limited span of time...
Az
You wish! The following is from a web page linked by jennyp on that thread from January, 2001:
Mr Holden's opinion is entirely based on these two critical points. The first point, that the data are being faked in order to avoid any possible agreement with Mr. Holden's own pre-conceived notions, is nothing more than a bald assertion. To ignore facts simply by claiming that the opposition are deliberate liars is really the last refuge of a scoundrel anyway, and I have no intention of addressing the matter, other than to assert with equal conviction that this claim is blatantly false.Is the Planet Venus Young?The second, and far sneakier point, almost seems to make sense, and could easily trap the unwary. I will only mention in passing that if Taylor [F.W. Taylor, in chap. 20, Hunten, et al. (1983)] really had meant to imply that all data prior to PV should be "tossed out", then he could easily have said so more directly, or in fact, since he was the lead author of the paper in question, he could have simply done it. But he didn't do it, nor did he say it, nor did he imply it. We don't need Mr. Holden to tell us what Taylor "really" meant.
Gee, it's almost as if they were talking to you, there. There's a lot more on that page, but I won't spam it all onto this thread.
"The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."
Shapiro, R., Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96(8):4396–4401, 1999
Cordially,
You always dismiss, for whatever reason, and never correct or drop ridiculous arguments. In this case, you simply add the guy who posted the data to your list of liars and propagandists.
It is the data that impeach you.
Any objective view of these observations, extensively reviewed in Hunten et al. (1983), does not show any such an imbalance [of heat out versus heat in]. However, here on talk.origins, Ted Holden has expressed his own opinion on the matter, in no uncertain words, on numerous occasions. For instance:Why is it necessary to postulate that some large amount of empirical evidence is being falsified by what would have to be a world-wide conspiracy? This would have to have been done even during the Cold War, when East-West cooperation was low at many points.
From: medved@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Subject: Venus: Another piece of the big picture
Date: 6 Aug 1994 22:52:47 -0400[ ... ]
I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar system, and because it does not match any of the logical requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.
You're just evidence-proof.
The only problem here is that there really isn't anything for me to drop. The claim that scientists are having to explain away 100% of the actual instrument readings from Pioneer Venus is factual and verifiable. Between you, me, Ellenberger, and Thompson, I am the one who has made the hard effort to run this line of evidence completely to ground. Other researchers both in the book I cited and elsewhere quote the .76 "most probable" figure as if it were a fact of life without bothering to read the original article or note that it is "most probable" ONLY if we go on assuming that Venus is in thermal balance. I can't tell you how many times I've been called an idiot and a liar on talk.origins by people quoting these second sources as if that were proof positive that Venus was in thermal balance.
And then, when all else fails, you get Tim Hey-Boy Thompson claiming that we need to average every albedo reading for Venus since the early 1800's and, when even that fails (which it has to since it is idiotic on the face of it), all which is left for the brighter lights like Jim Acker or Andrrew MacRae on talk.origins to try to claim is that there is no way for the amount of heat involved to get through the surface of the planet, and even that claim is specious because nobody has ever really done seismic studies on Venus and they don't really have any way of knowing how thick the surface is.
In other words, nobody with any brains and talent even on talk.origins takes Hey-Boy seriously; you and JennyP are going to have to go back to the drawing board in your frantic search for stuff to throw up agains the wall on this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.