Posted on 10/11/2007 8:52:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*
A groundbreaking new technical paper1 shows that several creationist cosmologies can explain the "Pioneer anomaly," a decades-old mystery about distant spacecraft. Big Bang theorists cannot use this solution, yet they have found no alternative explanation they can agree upon. Thus the Pioneer data are evidence against the Big Bang and for a biblical, young universe....
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Creation ‘Science’ answers nothing, solves nothing, it isn’t Science and it turns its back on mainstream Christian and Jewish theology, neither of which sees a conflict between belief in the Bible and acceptance of Scientific theory.
GGG, I apologize for pinging you to the above post - since we don’t get along on this issues I try to remember to unping you so it doesn’t seem like I looking to fight with you. But you post so many interesting things I hate to not respond at all. Best to you...
The more the merrier. I actually like it when Darwinists challenge my understanding of science as it forces me to find answers to questions that I may not have otherwise been looking for. I do have one fault though. If someone ridicules me or those who I respect, I generally respond in kind. But once the clash is over, I tend to wipe the slate clean.
==Trying to twist the facts into your interpretation of what the Bible says is not following in the tradition of the great Christian and Jewish Scientists
Let’s be honest. Scientists on both sides have sometimes twisted the facts to gain advantage. But whenever they do this, sooner or later they are found out and discredited. The Bible is the only book that I know of that specifically asks the reader to check its historical veracity. Thus, science (from archeology, to biology, to cosmology, etc) is a perfectly legitimate tool to ascertain the validity of the same.
>>The more the merrier. I actually like it when Darwinists challenge my understanding of science as it forces me to find answers to questions that I may not have otherwise been looking for. I do have one fault though. If someone ridicules me or those who I respect, I generally respond in kind. But once the clash is over, I tend to wipe the slate clean.<<
I appreciate that.
[[Again, it best fits the facts as they are known today.]]
Actually no it doesn’t Kev- it’s a biological impossibility- that doesn’t exactly fit the bill for ‘fitting the facts’
[[But the point is I can give direct examples of evolution (macro and micro) all day long and you’ll just throw ad-hominem generalities back at me]]
No, you can’t give examples of Macroevolution Kev and no I won’t throw ad hominem attacks at you should you decide you wish to keep the conversation/discussion civil.
[[but unfortunately it’s been another thread ruined by those of you who value your imaginary friend over cold hard facts.]]
See- there ya go with your snotty little attitude again Kev- so please- enough with the ‘woa is me’ sob story about ‘being attacked- ok?
[[I should know better by now than to try and get a reasonable scientific discussion going on FR.]]
And of course by ‘reasonable’ you mean belittling and maligning those who don’t hold the same views as you- Swell- aint that just swell!
[[I have no problem with you believing whatever you need to to get yourself through the day. If it helps you sleep at night, then that’s fine.]]
Oh but you do have a problem Kev- you aren’t fooling nyone but perhaps the guillible- just you ‘sympathetic’ tone ‘allowing others’ to ‘beleive what they like’ if it ‘helps them sleep at night’ (but of course- those ‘wiser’ than us poor slobs who beleive in God know better than to put any faith in an imaginary God- right Kev?)
[[But, you also need to recognize a case of cognitive dissonance when you feel it coming on.]]
There ya go again Kev- You just can’t help yourself, can you? Just gotta keep stickin that knife in when we least expect it eh? Now, by cognitive disconnect’ are you talking about hte same cognitive disconnect’ that enables a person to ignore biological impossibilities and ignore blatant violations of the second law of thermodynamics, and ignore the staggering mathematical impossibiltiies of mutations ever moving a creature beyond it’s own KINDS, and still beleiving in Macroevolution despite htose very serious problems to the hypothesis? That kind of cognitive disconnect Kev?
[[Closing yourself off completely will only cause internal discohesion and disintegration.]]
Lol- closing myself off- that’s precious- I beleived in evolution for quite soem time- but it wasn’t until I began to open myself to the fact that the impossibiltities meant just that- impossibilities, did I recognize that Macroevolution simply was an impossible hypothesis- But you Ga Head and keep beleiving it isn’t- that it doesn’t have any ‘real problems’ to overcome, and you keep right on ridiculing, maligning and dissin anyone that brings htose problems to the forefront- Wouldn’t want you to be ‘disconnected’ from your pet hypothesis no matter the problems associated with it now would we?
P.S Nice little victims act you put on- but noone’s buying it!
[[To take this position he has to ignore the histeresis effect and the magentic record showing the earthc field has increased and decreased and even flipped upside down many times.]]
And why does he ‘have to ignore’ those in order to give an opinion that he beleives the world will end by such means? So? The magnetic fields have changed in the past- going back and forth, Are we to simply assume that this will always be the case and that it won’t go in one direction or the other excluseively at some point in time?
[[The earth’s surface isn’t consistent with being shaped by a single great flood so]]
Thanks for your opinion- but respectfully, there are htose that dissagree with your opinion on the matter. To claim absolute authority on such an issue that has been hotly debated and not settled for a good long time now, and to then insinuate that someone is ignorant because they dissagree with your position on the matter isn’t a very valid argument tactic.
[[Since the universe is supposed to be less than 10,000 year this causes a problem with comets]]
Based on what? Or are you just going to leave vague accusations?
[[Too much silt on the bottom of the ocean to be deposited in 5,000 years? Uh oh - there goes plate tectonics and subduction.]]
As you full well know, these as well aren’t settled absolutes- it seems that you value your subjective opinions over other’s, which is fine- most people do, but insinuating others are retarded because they differ in their subjective opinions based on interpretations of non absolutes, is well, not bvery mature.
[[I could go on]]
Darn- leaving so soon? And here I was really looking forward to more subjective opinions passed off as fact.
Its one thing for someone with no knowledge of science to beleive in an old earth, evolution andto deny God and the age of the earth - my GreatGrandmother did that until her death and Only God and htose who beleive in God know that gained nothing and was infact particularly hurt by her descision for eternity
[[Humprheys has to deny not just astro-physics but has to deny the existence of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt where comets come from.]]
He has to deny? Since when? “While it was once thought that the Oort cloud could account for all comets, computer simulations have clearly shown that short-period comets cannot originate from the cloud, so the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain the origin of the short period comets.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp
I could go on but basically Humphreys is very useful to science
Good Golly I butchered that:
Re: Its one thing for someone with no knowledge of science to beleive in an old earth, evolution and to deny God and the age of the earth - my GreatGrandmother did that until her death and Only God and htose who beleive in God know that she gained nothing and that she was infact unfortunately, particularly hurt by her descision for eternity
Not sure this is even worthy of the time it’s going to take me to post this, but I have a few minutes before I get on with the business of my day. I just want to hit on two things, first this whole idea of macroevolution being a “biological impossibility.”
Think about this for a second. I promise it won’t hurt. Someone with Down’s syndrome has 3 copies of the 21’s chromosome as opposed to the normal two (there is also a secondary mode where a portion of one of the 21st chromosomes becomes entangled with part of chromosome 14). Before you dismiss this as another example of microevoloution look where I’m going with it. If it is possible to have an extra copy of a single chromosome, is it REALLY that impossible to take the next step and say that there’s an extra chromosome pair? Now I’m not suggesting that this IS the way evolution works because I’m not a biologist by trade and it isn’t my field of study, but I’m throwing it out there as a possibility. There are MANY different ways of approaching this and I’ve just suggested one. My hypothesis is probably rather easily disproved, but it’s a starting point. But if you think about the time scales involved here, we’re talking millions of years, with a major extinction event in between.
My second issue comes with your morphing of the term “cognitive dissonance” into “cognitive disconnect.” Disconnect implies an insult, which you will not find in my post. Dissonance refers to the fact that science puts ideas out on the table that do not agree with your worldview and so because you do not understand them, you dismiss them rather than trying to examine them further.
Alright, now I’ve gone and done it so I’ll just go on to refute the rest of your post. I’d like to know which part of the second law that the theory of macroevolution violates. Where is the isolated system? The planet? If we take our measly little world here and call it our “isolated system” (even though by definition it isn’t anywhere near isolated), then we can say that for any process to take place that the entropy of the system must increase. So by sitting here and typing this I’m contributing to the heat death of the universe. Hell, as soon as my cells started dividing I started to contribute to the heat death of the universe, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Take a human being for example. Say we are now in our simplest state (we aren’t but in science you have to make some simplifying assumptions). Any evolution in our species tends to increase disorder rather than decrease it. If you think of the smallest microorganism as being the most ordered, it takes the smallest possible number of molecules to support its own functions, and then we go up to complex mammals that increase the chaos in their own cells because of the sheer number of molecular interactions happening every fraction of a second.
Something else that I don’t like about these threads is that even though I’m not a biologist, I always end up arguing the evolution side. Only because us “Darwin-approved scientists” get painted with a very broad brush here. But I will say one more thing, nobody is being helped by this idea that “the end times are near” and we should all just kneel down and pray for salvation. People have been predicting the end of the world forever, and it hasn’t come to pass yet. I’m afraid that what will happen though, is because of all of our infighting (and a few other things, like this whole idea that government exists to rob from the successful and give to the lazy) will cause us to become stagnant as a species. If we want to escape the fate of the dinosaurs (I think their brains were a little small to believe in God, but then again, we don’t have any life specimens to study, and never could have) then we need to get the HELL of this rock. But I digress...
Pong.
Just wanted to add two more things before you go off on another anti-science tirade. I have done a little more research and found what you were talking about “violating the second law.” I may have incorrectly defined my system in my above example. Taking new evidence into account (as science can and does do) I withdraw my example above. I’ll let you read Schroedinger because if you do, you’ll understand that he used the term “negative entropy” to denote free energy, rather than entropy. Free energy is a rather well understood concept in chemistry and physics.
Also, I’m glad that you think you “butchered” our arguments. I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794297/posts
“The so-called Pioneer anomaly showed up in the tracking data as a tiny deceleration for both spacecraft, even though they were heading in different directions. It was as if the Sun’s gravity was pulling a little harder than Newton’s laws predicted (see 13 things that do not make sense). The source of the deceleration has long been suspected to be heat escaping from the small nuclear generators onboard, known as RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators). Previous analyses that claimed to rule out this effect have been contested.”
also...
Exotic cause of ‘Pioneer anomaly’ in doubt
NewScientist.com | 22 June 2007 | David Shiga
Posted on 06/26/2007 8:59:25 AM EDT by BGHater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856413/posts
Their pix resembles my model, except my space outside the sphere is ice. The inner area is water, which used to be ice. The vacuum is created when the center of the ice starts melting, making room for water and creating a vacuum and relatively empty space at the same time.
Meant to ping you.
Kev- Macroevolution isn’t just a biological impossibility at the higher levels of life, it’s a biological impossbilitlity all the way down to the cell level- do you even understand just how intricate a single cell is and just how many steps are needed between the cell and the next level? There are literally trillions of intermediary steps- What was once thouight to be nothign more than ‘simple cells’ turns out to be highly complex, irreducibly complex fien tuned machines with very specific designs- And oyu’re telling me that a single copying mistake makes the trillions of intermediary steps in the process of Macroevolution just go poof? You tell me you have all this proof of Macro- yet you throw out hte extra Chromo question as the supposed proof? Riddle me confused on this one I guess, as I thought you’d present something ligitimate.
[[and so because you do not understand them, you dismiss them rather than trying to examine them further.]]
Lol- that’s precious coming from someone hwo just suggested what you just did as a ‘possible example’ of Macroevolution- If it makes you feel better- why you just go on beleiving that I’m the one that doesn’t understand, and when we pass in tyhe halls, we’ll each give a wink and a nod and pretend we’re non the wiser to the facts- (and P.S- we’ll just not mention the extra Chromo thingie either- just twixt you and me)
[[Alright, now I’ve gone and done it so I’ll just go on to refute the rest of your post. I’d like to know which part of the second law that the theory of macroevolution violates. Where is the isolated system? The planet? If we take our measly little world here and call it our “isolated system” (even though by definition it isn’t anywhere near isolated), then we can say that for any process to take place that the entropy of the system must increase]]
Wow! You ‘rebuttle’ by verifying that in order for Macroevolution to work it needs to be the antithesis to the second law? Lol. I see you’re going to use Stroble’s convoluted and easily refuted ‘open system’ argument over on talkorigins, but I must warn you that if you do so, Stroble was made to look quite the fool and showed quite the lack of both understanding and lack of credibility by writing what he did- Heck- Even secular scientists have had to embarrasingly distance themselves from him after his two little tirades over there. stroble was both dishonest, and ignorant in his thesis and did more harm to the argument for Macroevolutio nthan he did help. But if that’s the line you’re going to trodd, I thought I’d just warn you ahead of time- (P.S- entropy worsens in open systems and is even more devestating [if that even possible] for Macreovolution)
[[People have been predicting the end of the world forever, and it hasn’t come to pass yet.]]
I’ll let God know you’re on a time Schedule, and to drop what He’s doing and speed up His predestined timeline then sdeeings you’re anxious for an immediate answer to when He’ll annihilate the world and start over- when it happens thouigh, I’m guessing it will be too late for second chances, but if you’re in a hurry, well then...
[[Schroedinger]]
I meant Schroedinger in my last post- not Stroeble- So IU see I was correct, and you are goign to use his writings as your defense- wow- just wow- I’ll have to post tomorrow- but you might want to check out hte rebuttles to Schroedinger’s writings because they show Schroedinger to be quite ignorant of the second law and even more so of the second law in an open system using ‘free energy’-
[[I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.]]
Awwww- don’t give up now, it was just getting fun- I was just about to slip over to the coolaid drinking side- right after I destroyed Schroedigner’s arguments
>>Re: Its one thing for someone with no knowledge of science to beleive in an old earth, evolution and to deny God and the age of the earth - my GreatGrandmother did that until her death and Only God and htose who beleive in God know that she gained nothing and that she was infact unfortunately, particularly hurt by her descision for eternity<<
I’ll make what will hopefully be a more coherant post on the main topic when I’m conscious and have had coffee...
But I couldn’t go by that post without expressing sympathy for the pain you feel around you Great Grandmother’s fate.
I would add that it is not known what a person might think and feel at the moment of their death. It is possible, I believe that a person might repent at the very, very end.
I wish the best for you and your family. I will be back later to disagree a couple of your points.
While snow is mentioned in the text, ice is not. But, it’s an interesting cosmological idea even though it has a problem with the empty space idea.
[[But I couldn’t go by that post without expressing sympathy for the pain you feel around you Great Grandmother’s fate.]]
It was certainly a tough one for me to handle- probably one of the hardest infact. She was a tough woman, grew up hard, lived hard and died hard. I was young at hte time, and couldn’t understand why someone would wager their eternity the way she did. I supppse she could have accepted Christ as Savior right at hte end, but if she did, she certainly kept it to herself and didn’t want anyone knowing she had done so- which is fine- Salvation is really between a person and hte personal God, but as I said- it played out hard on me.
[[I would add that it is not known what a person might think and feel at the moment of their death. It is possible, I believe that a person might repent at the very, very end]]
True- and hopefulyl that’s the case, however, I suspect not. The reason it hit me so hard I guess is because I had a near death ‘experience’ (I don’t take a stand on whether a person actually dies or not when htey have the experience- I personally think, knowing what little I do abotu hte subject, that a person’s mind goes haywire right before hte point of death, anbd I had a fever of 106 (due to peritinitis) and I think that played a part- but I must say- whatever the case, whether an actual out of body experience or not, it was very vivid, and leaves quite an impression) anyways, in my NDE- I didn’t get to see bright white lights and see peace and comfort- nope- I went the other way, and wowsers- I don’t know if you’ve ever read of people’s NDE’s who experienced hell or not- but good golly- Let me just state that the little time I spent in that condition was absolutely frightening- not just a little scary- but truly frightening- I won’t go into the long story here as I’ve recoutned it here on FR a couple of times already, but briefly, let me just state that experiencing pure evil and hatred is an experience not to be desired. Anyway, like I said, I don’t know whether NDE’s are actual experiences or not, I suspect not, but I do think that it is possible that the Evil One can and most likely does ‘attack’ weakened minds such as those at near death. Soem might question this thinking perhaps that it’s nothing more than a mind going haywire, conjuring up ‘primitive images of fear’ because we’re all subconsciously afraid of death and have heard along hte way that Hell = bad, but I’m not ocnvinced of that as there are those who describe things in the room that they couldn’t possibly see laying down- I don’t put too much stock in that though as it is I suppose possible that they saw the items subconsciously before passing out, when being wheeled into the room or osmething, but Still, it’s an unexplanable situation.
I’m rambling, so Point- [[ It is possible, I believe that a person might repent at the very, very end.]]
I really wish this could be a constant inthat it happens the same way for everyone- a last minute, predictable situation where a person could do so, and I know this isn’t what you were referring to with My GG, as she did have a chance for a lastm inute appeal if she so chose to, but a point I’d liek ot make is the obvious for hte rest of us, we can’t count on lastm inute appeals as , as we know, life has no gauruntees about life expectency. The time to appeal to God is sooner, rather than counting on a time to do so later, because htere may be no later.
I’ve often told of my NDE, and had people say “Well aint that just grand? Tryign to ‘scare people into salvation’”, and I’ve often thought about that, but I’ve coem to hte conclusion that eternity isn’t a joke, it isn’t somethign we can just ignore, put off, or just not believe in in hopes that it doesn’t really exist. I personally was saved shortly after a ‘Hell-Fire and Brimstone’ sermon, and folks I guess rightly wonder if perhaps it wasn’t just out of fear that I kneeled before the Lord, instead of out of genuine repentence, and I just want ot quickly touch on that because there is I think a big misconception about God. Folks hear that God is love, and perhaps think He’s kind, that He overlooks all our ills etc. Well He is, but He is also a fearsomely awesome God- Those who came into His presence fell down flat as though dead, hiding hteir faces for fear of being consumed. There’s an old sentiment that talks about instilling hte ‘fear of God’ in folks, and really, As I m,entioned, eternity is no game- we get one chance, and that’s that.
I know I’ve kind of ramlbed a bit off topic here, but almost done, and wrapping up the point. Kev brought up a good point, and I can certainly understand where He’s coming from when he said “I’m afraid that what will happen though, is because of all of our infighting... then we need to get the HELL of this rock.” I know subjects on FR get pretty heated at times, and people often feel strongly about issues, and it would seem that all the infighting might lead to losing sight of the important issues in life, but really, when it comes down to it, the infighting I think is out of a sense of urgency about eternity. Will we hold fast to ideas that can’t secure eternity? Or will we concider- at least concider, that the problems with a naturalistic hypothesis about life might be too servere to be plausible, and truly do an objective annalysis of naturalism and see that desing on all levels, even at hte biogentic levels is too complexly constructed to be accounted for by nasturaslistic means?
I certainly don’t understand God, Don’t understand why everythign has to be so darned hard, why evil has to triumph all the time, why htings couldn’t just be easy and wonderful instead of grueling and rife with heartache for many, and it often seems as though a God who truly loved us wouldn’t have allowed these thigns to happen, but I think that it’s more not about His love for us, as He obviously does, but about whether or not we’ll hold fast to ideas that can’t secure our eternity in heaven, or if we’ll set aside our a priori beliefs, and take a true objective look at the evidneces, exchanging a faith for a system that can’t save for one that shows the marvelous designs and the fingerprints of God when those evidences are examined dispassionately and without a priori beleifs.
Sorry- didn’t think this was going to be so long- We all certainly want off this rock in the end, but let’s do so examining the evidence, and not just brushing aside the impossible hurdles that impeed a hypothesis plagued with problems.
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.
