Featured Dinosaurs on the Ark

Well he's not credentialed and is not accepted in contemporary scientific conversations. I know that doesn't go very far around here but it does mean something in the real world.

I have a PhD in historical theology, I don't have a degree (at any level) in scientific fields...but you don't either I suppose, nor do most people around here. So I'm not sure you can find space intellecutally to critique me on the grounds of "know(ing) next to nothing" about him or his field of research.

Also, how in the world can you criticize someone as a point of your post for spelling someone's name wrong by adding an erroneous "L." That's a pretty ridiculous criticism. I make mistakes all the time and here while posting on my iPad I made an unintentional one that wasn't caught by my autocorrect. So my bad that is a pretty stupid criticism.

Setterfield is note accepted by mainstream science and that should matter. His conclusions are highly touted by YECers and shunned by people who understand science. One of our friends has a PhD in Physics and has given me as best a laymen's review as possible. Basically he think Setterfield is an honest guy that is ripped out of context by evangelicals who want to make his theories fit their systems. There are problems with his views and not enough peer-review to make them more supportable.

So basically if you want to take to me to the woodshed for anything I've said you need to do more work in actually providing a case and not some blind criticisms which end up making you look ridiculous.

 

So what do you consider mainstream science, Evolution, a universe that is billions of years old? Mainstream scientists are among the most bigoted of people.

Having a PhD in Physics may be meaningless since there are several fields in physics that are markedly different. Naming a few: Nuclear or low energy physics, mid energy Physics, high energy Physics, astro-Physics.

As far as his conclusions being highly touted by Young Earth Creationists that is not universally true. There may be some or many who accept Setterfield's
work. There are others who are more accepting of the work by Humphrey which is markedly different than that of Setterfield. One significant contribution both of these men are making is forcing other astro-physicists to look at their work, even if only to refute it.

 

Yea but arn't some of these godly men on both sides?

 

Now here are some interesting revelations. First, that you value the credentials of fallen science (and I am speaking of the majority report", that larger percentage that doesn't believe in God anyway). Second, that you see that as part of the real world versus - what? - the fairy land of Biblical myths?

Guilty as charged.Neither did I pretend to have one. I wasn't the one dissing a fellow Christian's research with a flippant denigration. I also have disagreement with Setterfield on some points. But we have more in common than not.

For the record, I started out in 72 seeking a science degree (genetics) but, after I became a Christian I "downgraded" to the ministry and had a Bible degree (just a BA).

When a person's point is weak they go for the misquote. I just said that "you know next to nothing about him". Period. Nothing about "field of research".

OK, OK. Sit down.

Those goofy Bible-thumpers! :smilewinkgrin:

Where do you think the main stream is flowing?

Oh well, no need going through the rest of this. Given the people you admire, I accept your "ridicule" comment as good thing.

 

WD, that experiment and its findings were also analyzed and criticized.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577240911911007148.html

 

Disclaimer: I inadvertently made a double post, thinking I was correcting the previous one. This post is essentially the same as the above.

Now here are some interesting revelations. First, that you value the credentials of fallen science (and I am speaking of the majority report", that larger percentage that doesn't believe in God anyway). Second, that you see that as part of the real world versus - what? - the fairy land of Biblical myths?

Guilty as charged.Neither did I pretend to have one. I wasn't the one dissing a fellow Christian's research with a flippant denigration. I also have disagreement with Setterfield on some points. But we have more in common than not.

For the record, I started out in 72 seeking a science degree (genetics) but, after I became a Christian I "downgraded" to the ministry and had a Bible degree (just a BA).

When a person's point is weak they go for the misquote. I just said that "you know next to nothing about him". Period. Nothing about "field of research".

OK, OK. Sit down.

Those goofy Bible-thumpers! :smilewinkgrin:

Where do you think the main stream is flowing?

Oh well, no need going through the rest of this. Given the people you admire, I accept your "ridicule" comment as a good thing.

 

Don't know any on the other side.

 

That is my point.

 

So do you find anything science does as beneficial?

I'm sure there is some specific issue he evaluated but I've never asked. He just says PhD in Physics like I say PhD in theology. No big deal.

You'll have to find and show who finds Setterfield credible. Listen I'm all for people doing the work, and showing their work. Part of peer-review is doing this. However, modern science is built on this rigorous review process. You just can't put out random theories that aren't fact checked. You can call scientist bigotted people, but at least they've got a process. Show how that process is flawed (which it is to a degree) and you can find a foothold for an argument. However, you are attempting to making arguments about a position without reasonable argumentation behind it.

There are credible theologians who believe in an old earth. For instance:
Alister McGrath (2 DPhils from Oxford)
Hugh Ross
CS Lewis
Norman Geisler
Willaim Lane Craig
Alvin Plantinga
Francis Schaeffer
I can go on and on and on...suffice to say you're swiming upstream with your position and the currents are too strong.

 

Some of these guys(notably Ross and Lewis) are cautionary examples of how not to be a theologian. Of course, maybe I should define my terms. By "theologian" I mean some one who takes the Bible seriously, in a magisterial way, not as subservient to other sources.

Scientists, just like theologians or any other group of fallible humans, are often prone to conformity to those around them. Instead of dispassionate contemplation they go for consensus.

This is peer pressure, not peer review.

 

Don't change the subject!

 

Whether you say no one finds Setterfield credible is irrelevant. You obviously have closed your mind as for as he is concerned. Furthermore, it is not true to say that modern science is built on a rigorous review process. The pressure to publish [or perish] is so great that the peer review process is sometimes flawed. Of course peer review may or may not be valid since I said earlier that scientists are often the most biased of people. A prime example of this is the man Immanuel Velikovsky. His views on the catastrophic history were widely ridiculed by those who held the uniformitarian theory of time and events. A catastrophic history of the earth is now commonly [not universally] accepted. The following comments are extracted from:

http://www.bio-plasmics.org/velikovsky/velikovsky.htm

"One of the most controversial scientists of our times."

Immanuel Velikovsky in his 1950's book Worlds in Collision proposes that many myths and traditions of ancient peoples and cultures are based on actual events: worldwide global catastrophes of a celestial origin, which had a profound effect on the lives, beliefs and writings of early mankind.

"Worlds in Collision is a book of wars in the celestial sphere that took place in historical times. In these wars the planet earth participated too. [...] The historical-cosmological story of this book is based in the evidence of historical texts of many people around the globe, on classical literature, on epics of the northern races, on sacred books of the peoples of the Orient and Occident, on traditions and folklore of primitive peoples, on old astronomical inscriptions and charts, on archaeological finds, and also on geological and paleontological material." - Worlds In Collision, Preface.

After reaching the number 1 spot in the best-sellers list, Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision was banned from a number of academic institutions, and creating an unprecedented scientific debacle that became known as The Velikovsky Affair.

In 1956 Velikovsky wrote Earth in Upheaval to present conclusive geological evidence of terrestrial catastrophism.

"I have excluded from [these pages] all references to ancient literature, traditions, and folklore; and this I have done with intent, so that careless critics cannot decry the entire work as "tales and legends". Stones and bones are the only witness." - Earth in Upheaval, Preface.

Many scientists and historians have criticised Velikovsky's works over the years, unfortunately, many have done so inaccurately resulting in the public's misconception that Velikovsky was "completely proved wrong".

Books by Velikovsky:
• Worlds in Collision (1950)
• Ages in Chaos (1952)
• Earth In Upheaval (1956)
• Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960)
• Peoples of the Sea (1977)
• Ramses II and His Times (1978)
• Mankind in Amnesia (1982)
• Stargazers and Gravediggers (1983).

Reviews and criticisms of Velikovsky's work have tended to be inaccurate, inconclusive or just plainly wrong. Velikovsky did make mistakes, but his key proposal, that in historical times mankind witnessed global catastrophes of cosmic origin, endures with increasing numbers of organisations and people investigating his wor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A second case where the bias of scientists is demonstrated is from:

http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/ulcer.html

For many, many years, ulcers within the stomach were thought to be caused entirely by emotional stress - stress related to work, family problems, or just about anything that causes such emotional reactions. In 1982, this restricted view of the cause of stomach ulcers began to change. A physician in Australia, Barry Marshall, didn't entirely buy the stress argument. Biopsies (little bits of tissue) were obtained from the mucosal stomach lining of patients suffering from chronic gastritis and the more severe condition, peptic ulcer disease.

I never go with the flow PJ. That is the broad path spoken of in Scripture!!!

Sometimes the more education a person gets the more divorced from reality they become. For evidence just look at the higher education system in this country. I have a nephew who just got his PhD in a state university. Of the 12 teachers in his department only one other than himself was conservative. He may have been the only Christian in the group. I never asked.

 

Truth not cared about, yes I know. Why believe the bible when you have science or personal opinion.

 

Actually, the mechanism behind entanglement (if you know what that is) is not proven. It could well be that information moves faster than light.

 

I have in the past read some interesting things pertaining to "information" being at the core of the created universe. The concept I "understand", the details I do not.

BTW, for now I am going to stick with Einstein. Although I will have a mind open to future possibilities and discoveries.

 

The fact is that Relativity does not work. This is why there are still two separate systems in Physics (Quantum Mechanics/Relativity). Relativity only makes accurate predictions in large scale, whereas Quantum theory makes predictions on a small scale. But neither theory is correct, or they would be universally so... a fact that several famous Physicists (such as Michio Kaku) have admitted.

Until a Unified Theory is discovered, NOTHING can be known for sure, including the speed of light being absolute. More questions are raised than answered: why do electrons act differently when they are being watched, for instance? Like they know we are looking at them!

This will blow your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 

I am somewhat understanding of this dichotomy in physics. I was referencing E's concept that particles accelerated to the speed of light require infinite energy.

Thanks for the link.

 

The dinosaurs were put on the ark with a pair of binoculars, a pair of tweezers and a milk bottle. Noah looked at the dinosaurs with the binoculars upside down, and made them look really small. He then took the tweezers, put them in the milk bottle, and took them on the ark.

 

If a dinosaur gets depressed, is he or she in sin?

 

You will have to ask them yourself.