Posted on 10/13/2015 8:15:43 AM PDT by fishtank
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
By: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
The primary authority for Creation Ministries International is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too.
The first article on this page sums up what we believe the creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that we think should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated. We provide brief explanations why, and/or hyperlinks to other articles on this Web site with more detailed explanations. We don’t claim that this list is exhaustive—it will be updated with additions and maybe deletions as new evidence is discovered. Many of these arguments have never been promoted by CMI, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists.
It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
If they haven’t addressed it, that’s because they haven’t thought thru the consequences of their assertions. If we see a star that’s a million light years away, then the light must have travelled a million light years which takes a million years, therefore the universe must be no less than a million years old; faced with this, they usually fall back on the “light in flight” argument which even CRI recommends against as designating God a deceiver.
I didn’t mention layers of ice. You must be replying to the wrong post.
Somewhere I read a marvelous article describing how to identify a crackpot “scientist”. Among other things, a paper by one begins with speaking to the authority of Einstein and other greats, explaining the scientific method, and belittling accepted norms as mere guesses subject to personal bias - all at length without really noting anything scientific. So the linked paper begins for many paragraphs without getting to the point, and so I dismiss it mostly unread.
And they should, because it provides for no testable hypotheses.
I offer it up only to counter the assumption (more common in advocates of science than in scientists themselves) that we understand more than what we actually do. We make simplifying assumptions, because we must, if we're ever to get any answers. But we should never forget that we're making simplifying assumptions.
Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being.- Lee DeRaud
Well, that’s not really the point of what I was talking about. I do believe God created the universe, but that doesn’t change the fact that the “Big Bang” isn’t scientifically supportable.
“If they haven’t addressed it, that’s because they haven’t thought thru the consequences of their assertions.”
Certainly they have, which is why there are other proposals to explain the “light problem”, like I said.
Why are people so stupid as to think that the laws of a fully functioning universe brought the universe of which they are a part into existence? It's nonsense.
If this actually happened, it should be re-creatable in a lab, but they can't do it.
“there is no net addition of matter to the universe by that mechanism.”
Not insofar as particle plus anti particle equals energy. But if on occasion those particles remain separated, with half the pair randomly sequestered in a black hole or some such, there will remain a practical net positive (albeit small) that can float about space, attract, and eventually aggregate into large orbs; this of course would take a long time.
“Not insofar as particle plus anti particle equals energy.”
Perhaps for conventional particles, but not for virtual particles. There is no net gain of energy when virtual particle pairs annihilate.
“But if on occasion those particles remain separated, with half the pair randomly sequestered in a black hole or some such, there will remain a practical net positive (albeit small) that can float about space, attract, and eventually aggregate into large orbs; this of course would take a long time.”
There is still no net increase in matter, whether they are separated or not. There is still an antiparticle and a particle in existence in the universe, which cancel each other out when we are speaking of the total amount of matter in the universe.
To demonstrate mathematically, the universe before the virtual particles are produced is represented by this equation:
M = X
where M is the total mass and energy of the universe, and X is that unknown total amount.
After the creation of a virtual particle pair, the equation would be:
M = X + a - a
where a is the mass and energy contained in one of the virtual particles. Whether the particles annihilate or not, that equation still reduces to:
M = X
Which is identical to the original equation. The total mass and energy (M) never changes.
“which cancel each other out when we are speaking of the total amount of matter in the universe.”
Ok, so there’s a grand total of zero in the universe. That doesn’t conflict with there being a bunch of particles over here aggregating into something we call Earth, while a bunch of anti particles are over there stuck in a black hole or some such.
Sure, but it does mean that virtual particles are not an example of creation ex nihilo.
“Extrapolate what we do know, and you work back to “the Big Bang” pretty easily;”
Absolutely false! Extrapolation must be based on observed phenomenon, and yet that is explicitly abandoned at a certain point in the Big Bang models. If it was not, the models would predict a collapse to a black hole, from which no matter could escape, and therefore, no universe could ever emerge from the singularity.
That would only happen if the matter formed too fast relative to the expansion of space. Obviously it didn’t. And space is, obviously, expanding.
What do you call empty space?
What do you call the spontaneous creation of particle pairs?
What happens when such occurrences interfere, resulting in stable aggregate matter?
Looks like creation ex nihilo to me.
It’s not, I just demonstrated that mathematically. Creation ex nihilo requires something to be created, but your example creates nothing, literally.
No, I am speaking of the starting conditions, prior to any expansion. At that point, if we were conducting an extrapolation, the laws of physics which we know from observation dictate that there would be a black hole, and nothing could escape.
Now, to get around that inconvenient fact, physicists have decided that early in the history of the universe, the laws of physics must not have functioned the way that they do now. As soon as they made that postulation, they left the realm of extrapolation behind. You cannot possibly be extrapolating anything if you abandon the laws of physics when they do not produce the result you desire. Extrapolation is extending known conditions and laws into the past, so once you abandon those knowns, you also abandon extrapolation.
No it's a somewhat successful international Young Earth Creation organisation. Best thing that can be said about them "Not as evil as Ken Ham" (Splitter!)
“Let there be light.”
There was light
Let there be drums
There was drums
Let there be guitar
There was guitar
Let there be rock
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.