Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic - Page 16

NotReady · #**151** 09-26-2007, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

vhawk01 · #**152** 09-26-2007, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful though, Satan has many tactics, and he isn't above creating a gimmick account on 2+2 and accumulating 4414 posts and then trying to get you to read evil.

bunny · #**153** 09-26-2007, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would second this recommendation as a good creationist site. They at least make an effort to distinguish when they are talking science and when they are talking religion. Having said that, some of their stuff contains dubious logical deductions presented in an almost triumphant "well that proves that!" kind of way.

NotReady · #**154** 09-26-2007, 11:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Having said that, some of their stuff contains dubious logical deductions presented in an almost triumphant "well that proves that!" kind of way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I agree their logic is sometimes strained I think they easily, by far, have the best attitude of anyone involved in the science/religion debates. Not even close, especially considering the attacks from all sides they get. But they are still short of perfection.

bunny · #**155** 09-26-2007, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having said that, some of their stuff contains dubious logical deductions presented in an almost triumphant "well that proves that!" kind of way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I agree their logic is sometimes strained I think they easily, by far, have the best attitude of anyone involved in the science/religion debates. Not even close, especially considering the attacks from all sides they get. But they are still short of perfection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Plus I dont really object to the occasional lapse in logic - everyone's guilty of that. It's more when the scope of their conclusion goes far beyond the shakiness of the evidence or weaknesses in the chain of reasoning.

I think it's been mentioned before, but one example of what I mean is:

[ QUOTE ]
Recent research indicates that the Moon suffered intense asteroid and meteoroid bombardment impacting its entire surface some 3.9 billion years ago.1, 2 Because of the Moon’s proximity to Earth and because of Earth’s greater gravity, we can reasonably infer that Earth, too, suffered heavy bombardment at that time— an assault as much as thirty times more intense.

Such bombardment would have wreaked havoc on the planet. It would have reduced Earth’s crust to a molten mass, turning its surface water to vapor. This scenario may explain the lack of marine deposits and rocks dating earlier than 3.9 billion years. Remarkably, this pelting may have played a vital role in preparing Earth for life. Along with the asteroids and meteoroids, comets (which are mostly frozen water) would have rained down in abundance. Once the barrage slowed and surface cooling began, that water would have condensed, contributing to the formation of a huge ocean. (The bombardment may also explain the moisture on Mars about 3.9 billion years ago.)3, 4

These findings underscore the miraculous rapidity of life’s origin. We know from the ratios of carbon isotopes that life was abundant on Earth as far back as 3.86 billion years ago.5 Therefore, life must have arisen in the tiny span of 40 million years (3.9 billion minus 3.86 billion = 40 million), probably less. Naturalism offers no explanation for such a rapid appearance of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point being that the 3.9 billion and 3.86 billion are both estimates with presumably very wide margins of error. To subtract them and get 40 million years as being the time it took for life to appear is not a very well justified conclusion. (Ignoring the fact that they cannot claim with any certainty that the bombardment of the earth even happened, nor that it would have destroyed all life anyhow - perhaps life was already there, survived the event and the subtraction is completely irrelevant.)

Mempho · #**156** 09-26-2007, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the site!

vhawk01 · #**157** 09-26-2007, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the site , Satan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, your admission, while probably well-intentioned, is just too precious for me to lay off. I doubt I'll eventually be able to make you see the horrible flaw in your approach but I will probably have a lot of fun trying.

NotReady · #**158** 09-26-2007, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The point being that the 3.9 billion and 3.86 billion are both estimates with presumably very wide margins of error

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how they got 3.9 but I don't think anyone promotes a much earlier end to the LHB. I think the 3.86 is fairly well established. They usually give the margins for error involved and I'm sure they either have or would if you asked.

[ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the fact that they cannot claim with any certainty that the bombardment of the earth even happened

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a fairly well settled consensus given what we know about the moon, Mars and some of the moons of the gas giants.

[ QUOTE ]

perhaps life was already there, survived the event and the subtraction is completely irrelevant.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be. We can always speculate. They were speaking about the facts we know, however. And even if life was present earlier, there's still only about .7 billion years from the time of earth's formation to the first evidence of life. A minute amount of time for life to originate under any plausible scenario.

Edit: Also, obviously, if life was present before 3.86 b then there's even less time from earth's formation for it to have originated.

Mempho · #**159** 09-26-2007, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, I started reading up on several refutations of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Mempho, I would like to recommend a site for you called reasons.org. They are a group of mostly Ph.D.'s and also Christian creationists who don't accept evolution, do believe in a recent special creation of Adam and Eve, and also an old earth and universe. The head guy, Hugh Ross, is a Ph.D. in astronomy. They have a wealth of information that you might find interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the site , Satan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, your admission, while probably well-intentioned, is just too precious for me to lay off. I doubt I'll eventually be able to make you see the horrible flaw in your approach but I will probably have a lot of fun trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have fun. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Seriously, though, if they ever try to "chip" you for your ATM card, you should reconsider. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

NotReady · #**160** 09-26-2007, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the site!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. If you do visit there, I find their radio archives the most helpful. They have an organized topical index so you can listen to particular segments by subject matter.

I've also read quickly through most of Ross' books so you might want to check them out as well. "A Matter of Days" is a great treatment of the subject of the old earth and Genesis.