Creationist Kurt Wise critiques secular science on program

Baptist Press ^ | march 7, 2008 | David Roach

[Coyoteman]

Science has found no evidence of a global flood

The all-knowing, all-seeing scientists. Strange how some feel 'they' do and should have the last word.

Scientists work from the evidence. So far, that evidence has shown no signs of a global flood.

You can denigrate scientists all you want, but it means nothing. If you want to support the idea of a global flood ca. 4300 years ago, bring some scientific evidence.

By the way, I am one of those scientists--an archaeologist. The areas I have studied have no signs of a flood at ca. 4300 years ago. The stratigraphy, sedimentology, cultural development, mtDNA, etc. in this area all show a continuation for some 8-10,000 or more years.

[presently no screen name]

and they love to burn heretics

Heretics choose the burn road themselves.

[doc30]

The problem for you is that, under the natural (i.e. non-laboratory, and therefore non-controlled) circumstances posited by the "early earth amino acid to proteins" scenario, the system operates under equilibrium conditions. Hence, in this scenario, Le Chatelier's DOES prevent this condensation reaction from occurring.

You need to study your chemistry. In order for Le Chatelier's Principle to work, you have to have reactivity. And then you have to look at the stability and reactivity of the products involved. Le Chatilier's Principle does not prevent a reaction from occuring. It has nothing to do with it. If you were a chemist you would understand why. You are also wrongly working on the assumption that amino acid condensation/hydrolysis is the only pathway in such a system as our early Earth. I wasn't aware that chemistry operated differently in the lab than in the natural environment. It is foolish to think of an environment as diverse as one would find on a planet would be restricted to one set of chemical circumstances. The variety of conditions is incredibly diverse.

And yes, evolutionists have tried all kinds of arguments - directing clays, thermal vents, etc. - to gett around this, but none have shown any experimental promise. I haven't even addressed the kinetics of the system, for the simple fact that you actually have to have an appreciable reaction before kinetics have any importance. BTW, the Le Chatelier's argument is only one of many empirical arguments that doom the traditional evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario. We've not even discussed the effects of hard UV on amino acids (no oxygen = no ozone), or the problems with the racemicity of the product AAs.

And you don't understand evolution. None of what you discuss above has anything to do with it. That's abiogenesis and is a differnt field of study completely. There is a lot of interesting work being done there, but it is not evolution.

[voltaires_zit]

Another bit of Augustine for you. Back then(c~400CE) a going controversy was between people who thought the earth and heavens were flat and those who thought they were spherical, rather than evolution:

"But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions."
-St. Augustine
The Literal Meaning of Genesis
(p. 59)

[skr]

Bump for later

[presently no screen name]

So far, that evidence has shown no signs of a global flood.

Well, maybe you just don't know what to look for?

So far, that evidence has shown no signs of a global flood.

Well, for your sake, I hope they find it on your watch. Not believing the flood didn't happen because you can't find it, IMO, is self-righteous. Can you take a snap shot of some air and wind for me. I know it's there but just can't see it. If you want to spent you life proving God's Word about His Creation is wrong, you will never ever do it.

You can denigrate scientists all you want,

I'm not denigrating scientists - some seem to do a good job themselves. They place them on a pedestal - their thoughts,theories over The Creator's Word. How many scientists are always right? Or is it trial and error?

The areas I have studied

What areas?

[presently no screen name]

Another bit of Augustine for you

You seem to have a fetish about quoting 'man'.

[voltaires_zit]

Only when it's appropriate. You should take his words to heart. Whether you're actually trying to make Christians look hopelessly ignorant and ridiculously wrongheaded or not, that's the effect of your posts.

[Coyoteman]

So far, that evidence has shown no signs of a global flood.

Well, maybe you just don't know what to look for?

Well, for your sake, I hope they find it on your watch. Not believing the flood didn't happen because you can't find it, IMO, is self-righteous. Can you take a snap shot of some air and wind for me. I know it's there but just can't see it. If you want to spent you life proving God's Word about His Creation is wrong, you will never ever do it.

BS. If there is evidence for a global flood at ca. 4300 years ago, where is it?

It is either there, or it is not. You believe there was such a flood, but where is the scientific evidence? The early geologists, seeking to prove a global flood, gave up about 1830--because the evidence showed otherwise.

(See tagline.)

[FierceDraka]

I know nothing of your god. Or your devil, for that matter. Neither have EVER spoken to me, or helped me in my times of need.

To me, it's nothing but fantasies and desperate people arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Nam Vet]

As I recall, two of the great scientists were creationists, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Nam Vet

[FierceDraka]

Heretics choose the burn road themselves.

But people like you have ALWAYS been more than happy to help us heretics along by burning, stoning, and torturing us to death, right?

I don't have the words to politely express the loathing I feel for you and your kind - the rabid, frothing religious fanatics that handed control of Congress over to the socialists and communists of the Democratic party through their maniacal religious fanatacism.

By the way, people like you are regarded as a laughing stock by the rest of society - a pack of primitivist atavists who want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages, when the Mother Church would murder anyone who disagreed with Biblical orthodoxy.

In other words, I want to tell you and your kind to STFU and DIAF.

[presently no screen name]

You should take his words to heart.

Never! Not when The Truth has already been spoken. You should do an indepth study of St.A. - before you quote him.

make Christians look hopelessly ignorant and ridiculously wrongheaded or not, that's the effect of your posts.

At one time, I was one of them. When looking for Truth, I didn't start with a 'need to be right' and; therefore, wasn't offended when I found out I wasn't. One thing is a given, one should never twist scripture to suit oneself. God is always right and we the 'wrong' one. We have to change - not Him. For His Ways are not our Ways, nor our thoughts are not His thoughts.

We aren't asked to understand just believe. Once that happens - you being to understand. No one can please God without faith. And God gave us all a measure of faith. Pride and ego stop us from exercising it.

[presently no screen name]

If there is evidence for a global flood at ca. 4300

Perhaps, man found it already but is looking at it according to their prior knowledge of what 'they think' it should look like and are making wrong assumptions. I don't know but I do know God is always right.

If a child/teenager wanted evidence for everything a parent said and acted out solely on what they see/think/feel - they certainly set themselves up for hard life by their own ego, pride and hardness of heart. If I needed evidence for anything my spouse said or did - I already created a wall of division and not a good starting point. I'd see more without that wall then ever would with the wall.

Scientists mark something as 'evidence' according to their own knowledge. It always goes back to 'them'. It's not their creation, yet, they have parameters on how it should all add up. Have scientists gotten over the hurdle God spoke things into existence? No one was there, no one heard Him but we have this glorious universe. So man created in his own mind - according to what they see/think is proof and call it 'evidence' or a theory - how it all came into being.

Natural man places parameters on the Supernatural and hasn't submitted themselves to His Awesomeness. They need a god at their own level and anything above their ability to grasp or prove is discounted. A humble spirit is teachable. a prideful one is not.

[presently no screen name]

But people like you have ALWAYS been more than happy to help us heretics along by burning, stoning, and torturing us to death, right?

NOPE! I don't have that power nor do I want it. Any more than you could do it to me.

I don't have the words to politely express the loathing.......that handed control of Congress over to the socialists and communists of the Democratic party through their maniacal religious fanatacism.

You can keep your 'polite' expressions to yourself. I voted like I always do - I'm NOT a 'sit-a-home or a 3rd party voter to prove a point. I'm just as upset as anyone that can see the damage it has done and will do. Correction was necessary but they went about it in a most destructive manner, IMO. They choose to submit to the enemy by default with their 'it's all about them' attitude.

Now YOU know WHAT TO DO with your 'your kind' comments.

[Da_Shrimp]

Perhaps, man found it already but is looking at it according to their prior knowledge of what 'they think' it should look like and are making wrong assumptions.

Since floods happen all the time in the present day and leave behind characteristic evidence, it's pretty easy to see there is no evidence of a global flood. There are plenty of flood deposits in the geological column, but no Flood.

[presently no screen name]

Since floods happen all the time

Of that magnitude - covered the earth for that length of time?

[Da_Shrimp]

No.

However, the movement of water and the sediments laid down would have the same characteristics, whatever the scale of the flood. Sediments exposed to air and erosion also have characteristic features. The Grand Canyon shows an excellent geological sequence showing features that cannot be explained by a global flood, for example.

[jimt]

“It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young,” he said.

So God purposefully is misleading humanity by creating vast amounts of evidence that it's extremely old ?

I haven't seen a tyrannosaurus recently.

Maybe I missed it...

[dread78645]

I haven't seen a tyrannosaurus recently.

Check behind the sofa cushions.
Surely someone must be hiding a T. rex somewhere ...