tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post7577471138776864592..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: On the Appearance of Age; or Putting the "omph" in omphalosJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-51894541991816919732023-10-07T22:00:12.945+01:002023-10-07T22:00:12.945+01:00Wow, fantastic weblog structure!
Wow, fantastic weblog structure! <br />토토https://www.sportstoto.linknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-1250046081303422012023-10-07T21:59:52.952+01:002023-10-07T21:59:52.952+01:00Its really really nice post on building up new web...Its really really nice post on building up new webpage. Also, visit my site토토https://www.majortotosite.topnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-14698287821656206002014-03-30T15:27:19.933+01:002014-03-30T15:27:19.933+01:00Some weeks ago at Uncommon Descent, Salvador Cordo...Some weeks ago at Uncommon Descent, Salvador Cordova (who is not only *gasp* a creationist, but *GASP* a YEC!!1!!) posted something about the astrologocal phenonena some call the "Fingers of God". I don't recall that I'd encountered this term before, but I think I've encountered the concept in some discussion about the possibility that quasars are not neary as distant as commonly alleged.<br /><br />"Fingers of God" even has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia entry</a>, which, of course, implies that the phenonena aren't really a problem.<br /><br />One of the results of Googling "Fingers of God" is <a href="http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe" rel="nofollow">Halton C. Arp - The Official Website: Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe</a><br /><br />One of the results of Googling "Halton Arp" is a page a Creation.com <a href="http://creation.com/halton-arp-dies" rel="nofollow">announcing his recent death</a> and discussing the "Fingers of God" phenonena in terms comprehensible to most persons -- "<i>... With Geoffrey Burbidge and others, Professor Halton Arp was a thorn in the side of those who held to the standard story line of the big bang. In many papers and several books1 he promoted the idea that quasars are born from the nucleus of active galaxies—parent galaxies.<br /><br />In the standard big bang model their very large redshifts are interpreted according to the Hubble Law to mean they are the most distant sources in the universe. <br /><br />According to Arp’s alternative model, evidence strongly suggests that they are associated with relatively nearby active galaxies and that they have been ejected from those parent galaxies.<br /><br />One extremely good example of this was reported in the Astrophysical Journal2 in 2004 where a quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc minutes from its centre. See figure 1. The arrow indicates the quasar.<br /><br />This finding was presented by Margaret Burbidge at the January 2004 AAS meeting in Atlanta. The response, according to Halton Arp, was “overwhelming silence.” It was reported on the University of California, San Diego webpage (10 January 2005).3 The subtitle is “Can A ‘Distant’ Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?”, extolling the riddle.<br /><br />According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Assuming the Hubble Law holds for larger redshifts, the quasar, </i>with a redshift one hundred times larger, must be about thirty times farther away<i>, according to the dominant prevailing belief. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true.<br /><br />However, Arp has shown1 that there is a very strong case that quasars that lie close to active galaxies, on the sky, are, in fact, physically associated with those galaxies. That is, the closeness is not just a trick of the line of sight, where the quasars are millions or billions of light-years behind the galaxy and merely happen to be almost directly behind it from our point of view. ...</i>"<br /><br />There is a dilemma here. Either:<br />1) Redshift values are good proxies for distance, and therefore cosmological “structures” (celestial objects which clearly seem to be physically related to one another) are stretched out over billions of light years – and are pointing at us!<br />2) Redshift values are *not* good proxies for distance, and the “Finger of God” phenomena are artifacts of falsely using redshift as a proxy for distance (i.e. the “Finger of God” phenomena can be generated at any place in the universe by incorrectly using redshift as a proxy for distance) – and thus cosmologists/astronomers have no idea how large, nor how old, the universe is.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-48739860387977158552014-03-25T07:16:35.898+00:002014-03-25T07:16:35.898+00:00I take it as a metaphysical presupposition that th...<i>I take it as a metaphysical presupposition that these distant "mature" galaxies formed through some natural process.</i><br /><br />And have you actually seen a galaxy form?<br /><br />Claiming that an observed feature must have followed some hypothetical unobserved natural process is purely an exercise in begging the question.<br /><br /><i>All of this, of course, assuming a rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis, which, in turn, assumes a conception of God who constantly needs to supernaturally mold and transform matter in a way other than how it would naturally behave. </i><br /><br />How would it naturally behave? Polymers necessary for life naturally break down into monomers. Energy naturally flows downhill from high potential to low (and in doing so loses useful energy in accordance with the 2nd law (and yes, the 2nd law applies in open systems as well, to head off that red herring)). It appears that natural processes work against the formation of life, the universe and everything.<br /><br />As for magnetic field reversals. <a href="http://creation.com/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-the-earths-magnetic-field" rel="nofollow">Dr Russell Humphreys</a>' creation based modelling of the Earth's magnetic field suggested a period of rapid field reversals during the Flood period.<br /><br />Palaeomagnetists Coe and Prevot found lava flows in Oregon that preserved a record of magnetic field changes that, based on their measurements suggested a field change of 3° a day.<br /><br />So we can't appeal to some natural process of formation, because there's no scientific (subject to observation, repetition, and experimentation) process to account for said formation, and it appears that creationists have engaged with <a href="http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young" rel="nofollow">palaeomagnetic data</a>.<br /><br />In regards to the original post, is it too much to ask for the writer to simply go to a site like Creation.com and use their customized Google search engine to see if they actually believe that God created annual tree rings, ice layers, or light in transit?<br /><br />I'll give you a little hint, they don't. In fact the "light created in transit" argument is on their page of, "<a href="http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use" rel="nofollow">Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use</a>".<br /><br />JasonDuke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-73111238650565117702014-03-16T01:13:46.009+00:002014-03-16T01:13:46.009+00:00Another thing, while I have a few minutes...
Scie...Another thing, while I have a few minutes...<br /><br /><i>Science doesn't deal in truth...</i><br /><br />A good theory should have a high correspondence to facts (something derived from experiment or observation), and should make accurate, testable predictions.<br /><br />If a theory fits these criteria, it may still be false. Another competing theory may explain those same facts just as well. If the facts (that which is derived from experiment or observation) are insufficient to resolve the competing theories, then we are left with underdetermination.<br /><br />New facts must resolve this problem. Eventually, one theory will be "winnowed" away, and the other will remain. Of course, the latter theory may <i>still</i> be be wrong, if yet <i>another</i> theory explains the older facts (and new ones) just as well. But, eventually, one of those will be winnowed away well. And so on.<br /><br />In this way, science could be said to <i>approximate</i> truth about the natural world, so long as science is <i>true to</i> physical facts. The germ theory of disease is true in that it corresponds to the facts -- and very well.<br /><br />All of this, though, works on the presupposition of the natural world as operating according to <i>natural</i> regularities and <i>natural</i>laws and <i>natural</i> causes. Young earth creationists reject natural explanations for the development of life, the Earth, distant "mature" galaxies, whatever, as a <i>metaphysical starting point.</i><br /><br />Science may merely <i>approximate</i> truth with respect to the natural world over time, as competing theories are winnowed down. But, on the young earth creationist view, true knowledge about natural world becomes impossible from the start, since any fact (derived from experiment or observation) can be explained as a supernatural intervention that gives either a false appearance of reality or a true appearance of reality, depending upon whether or not it fits with a literal interpretation of Genesis.<br /><br />I'm out of time. Perhaps more later...jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-35545739071639542712014-03-15T15:54:46.803+00:002014-03-15T15:54:46.803+00:00First of all: Sorry for the late reply. I work a n...First of all: Sorry for the late reply. I work a night shift and haven't had a whole lot of time to respond, even though i keep meaning to.<br /><br />Second of all: Cool article! (The one on galaxies that seemed to have formed and were mature -- only 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang.)<br /><br />Heck, how about <a href="http://io9.com/a-galaxy-so-old-it-formed-a-mere-700-million-years-afte-1450846288" rel="nofollow">this galaxy</a>, which apparently existed only <i>700 million years</i> after the Big Bang.<br /><br />Seeing things like this often suggests to me that we'll certainly need better models of galaxy formation to account for these ancient one; or, perhaps, the universe is much older than we think, maybe requiring a whole new cosmological model (I don't think most theoretical physicists are open to that prospect.)<br /><br />With respect to the subject at hand, I would imagine young earth creationists would argue that these galaxies were "supernaturally created" mature in a short time, like Adam and Eve. <br /><br />All of this, of course, assuming a rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis, which, in turn, assumes a conception of God who constantly needs to <i>supernaturally</i> mold and transform matter in a way other than how it would <i>naturally</i> behave. Galaxies and stars and planets and the totality of the universe don't form and evolve according to natural processes, but need to be supernaturally made and molded, like clay. So, apparently, young earth creationists believe in Plato's demiurge.<br /><br />The problem I have with this reasoning, I suppose, is philosophical rather than scientific. I take it as a metaphysical presupposition that these distant "mature" galaxies formed through some natural process. We may not completely understand that process as yet (again, we probably need new models), but, in the end, it will be some natural process, operating according to physical laws that we are capable of discovering.<br /><br />This does not mean that God (for the sake of argument) cannot on occasion <i>interrupt</i> a natural process. But this presupposes <i>a natural process that is interrupted.</i> Young earth creationists (I assume) would argue that these galaxies formed through <i>no natural process whatsoever.</i> I fundamentally disagree with that metaphysical starting point.<br /><br />One will find this a threat only if one is operating on the <i>assumption</i> of a literal interpretation of Genesis, which (among some creationists anyway) begins with the <i>assumption</i> that the universe is 6000 years old and the <i>assumption</i> of a demiurge-like God.<br /><br />If one is worried about unjustified assumptions, why not worry about those?<br /><br />Anyway, moving on to the science...<br /><br />The only way to measure the distance to objects like these far-away "mature" galaxies is through red shift (combined with the idea of an expanding universe). Hence the measurement of the galaxies being at "z ~ 4."<br /><br />But just as the last 150 years of "measured decay" of the Earth's magnetic field is not the only record of the history of Earth magnetic field (we also need the paleomagnetic record), red shift is not the only way to measure the distance to celestial objects. (See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder" rel="nofollow">Cosmic Distance Ladder</a>.)<br /><br />Using a different method of measuring distance seems to have been how astronomers were able to refine the distance to the Perseus Arm. Using "simple trigonometry," Mark Reid said. Nice.<br /><br />Using the same array (VLBA), astronomers now think that the Local Arm of our galaxy is <a href="http://www.space.com/21406-milky-way-local-arm-large.html" rel="nofollow"><i>larger</i> than previously thought</a> -- as long as 16,000 light years wide (I'm guessing <i>this</i> article won't be of interest to young earth creationists).<br /><br />That's all for now. Like I said, I don't have a whole lot of time, I don't know how frequently I can respond.<br /><br />- JMjmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-72544267425759139192014-03-14T17:08:54.460+00:002014-03-14T17:08:54.460+00:00The intellectually dishonest fool currently anglin...The intellectually dishonest fool currently angling to the pope of scientism is widely quoted as having said: “<i>The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.</i>” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson<br /><br />In no sense of the word 'science' is his assertion true ... and he knows it isn't true. Further, in most senses of the word 'science' -- including in the sense he intends the assertion to be taken -- the assertion isn't even meaningful.<br /><br />There is one sense of 'science' by which the assertion is at least meaningful (I can't think of any other sense), though demonstrably false. If, by 'science', one means something like "scientific statements" or "the statements generated by scientific theories", then the assertion is <i>sensible</i>, yet obviously false.<br /><br />Consider the question: <i><b>How far from earth is the Perseus Arm of the Galaxy?</b></i> (I've pointed to this twice in Victor Reppert's blog, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/11/problem-for-young-earth-creationists.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> (*) and <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2014/02/archaeological-evidence-for-bible.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> -- the comments at these links may be of interest to the reader as demonstrations of how <i>Science!</i>'' fetishists (ahem) reason)<br /><br />Prior to about 2005, the "scientific truth" was that the Perseus Arm is about 13,000 light-years away. But, today, the "scientific truth" is that the Perseus Arm is about 6,198 light-years away. (With the consensus having resettled so quickly, there must not have been a great deal of egos investment in the old figure, nor the assumptions by which it was generated.)<br /><br />Now, which -- if either -- of these "scientific truths" is <i>actually</i> true?<br /><br />The answer is: no one knows, no one has any way to know.<br /><br />Get this into your mind: <i>Science doesn't deal in truth -- and anyone who says otherwise is either very ignorant, or is trying to con you.</i> Modern science isn't about truth; it doesn't start with truth, it doesn't even start with "self-evidently true" assumptions; and it doesn't deliver truth, except by accident: any given scientific statement *may* be true, or it may be false ... and there is no scientific test, there is no means withing "science" to determine which it is. <br /><br /><br />(*) Or which our host is surely aware ... and yet he's *still* dipping his toes in scientism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-23161032511357172802014-03-12T21:48:59.550+00:002014-03-12T21:48:59.550+00:00Every few months, there is a new report from astro...Every few months, there is a new report from astronomy of finding "mature" galaxies that are "too old", that is, that they are "too mature" at "too early" a time in the universe's history.<br /><br />Lo and behold, here is another report, from just two days ago: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140310213910.htm" rel="nofollow">Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years</a> -- "<i>Summary: An international team of researchers has discovered the most distant examples of galaxies in the early universe that were already mature and massive. The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.</i>"<br /><br />The question that *should* be forced is, "What is wrong with our model? Why is there such a disagreement between the model and the (interpreted) observations?"<br /><br />"<i>Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time ... The galaxies are barely detectable at visual wavelengths and are easily overlooked. But in the new near-infrared light images they are easily measured, from which it can be <b>inferred</b> that they already contained as many as 100 billion stars on average per galaxy.</i>"<br /><br />One question that should be asked is, "Is the problem in our assumptions?"<br /><br />"<i>... Using special filters to produce images that are sensitive to narrow slices of the near-infrared spectrum, the team was able to measure accurate distances to thousands of distant galaxies at a time, providing a 3-D map of the early universe.</i>"<br /><br />Then again, perhaps the "distances to [these] thousands of distant galaxies" are not actually accurate. Perhaps the distances -- ages -- are mirages of faulty assumptions.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-47795435552713247882014-03-12T21:33:11.628+00:002014-03-12T21:33:11.628+00:00I have limited internet connectivity ... and I wil...I have limited internet connectivity ... and I will not allow my time to be wasted by intellectually dishonest persons. If I have time (and still the interest) after I have made the comments presenting the facts and/or arguments I intended, I'll then address Mr Henry's intellectual dishonesty.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-73810693843317226092014-03-12T09:46:30.966+00:002014-03-12T09:46:30.966+00:00But, of course, I said nothing of the sort, your a...<i>But, of course, I said nothing of the sort, your abysmal fool</i><br /><br />Except, you present a spectacularly absurd young earth creationist argument in order to...do what exactly? Ask a question that should, by rights, get you laughed out of the room:<br /><br /><i>if assumption-based distant starlight is such a strong case for an Old Earth, why isn't the measured decay of earth's magnetic field at least as strong a case for a Young Earth?</i><br /><br />Because, you abysmal fool, the "measured decay" of the earth's magnetic field isn't the only record of the history of the earth's magnetic field. There's the paleomagnetic record to consider as well. That's kinda how science works: The theory must account for all the evidence, not just the <i>convenient</i> evidence that I cherry pick.<br /><br />If you can point to similar empirical evidence that undermines what we observe as a consequence of distant starlight, requiring a new theory to account for it, then you are just comparing apples and oranges, and your question (which you described as your "point") makes you look like a colossal idiot.<br /><br />You accuse the author of engaging in similar reasoning as these young earth creationists, except he's not -- <i>unless you can point to other empirical evidence that he's selectively ignoring, like the creationists are doing with respect to the earth's magnetic field.</i><br /><br />You can't, because the author has not done so.<br /><br />All of which suggests to me that, since you keep accusing <i>me</i> of an inability to reason, you're engaging in a massive fit of projection.<br /><br />Rather than calm, rational discussion, you resort to knee-jerk insults. Apparently, that is how you use <i>your</i> God-given mind.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-85161118408296019872014-03-12T09:16:57.137+00:002014-03-12T09:16:57.137+00:00"Well, since arguing that a decreasing magnet..."<i>Well, since arguing that a decreasing magnetic field over the last 150 years somehow supports a young earth ...</i>"<br /><br />But, of course, I said nothing of the sort, your abysmal fool (*).<br /><br />Again, what is it about '<i>Science!</i>' fetishists that seems to compel them to be so intellectually dishonest ... seemingly coupled with having such poor reading comprehension skills.<br /><br />(*) That, by the way, is a moral assertion about how Mr Henry *uses* his God-given mind.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-46447287980493326462014-03-12T01:34:28.533+00:002014-03-12T01:34:28.533+00:00What *is* it with 'Science!' fetishists (I...<i>What *is* it with 'Science!' fetishists (I'm looking at you JM), that they all seem unable to reason?</i><br /><br />Well, since arguing that a decreasing magnetic field over the last 150 years somehow supports a young earth is positively, unequivocally abysmal reasoning, you aren't exactly standing on firm ground to attack <i>my</i> reasoning abilities.<br /><br />If your only rebuttal is to throw out insults ("Science!" fetishist), then I think we can just leave it to readers to judge who is truly irrational here.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-54535937558087612932014-03-12T00:55:37.445+00:002014-03-12T00:55:37.445+00:00What *is* it with 'Science!' fetishists (I...What *is* it with '<i>Science!</i>' fetishists (I'm looking at you JM), that they all seem unable to reason?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-30289658445203704392014-03-12T00:19:30.046+00:002014-03-12T00:19:30.046+00:00...but that earth's magnetic field is decreasi...<i>...but that earth's magnetic field is decreasing is just a "brute fact" of direct measurement going back 150 years.</i><br /><br />There's only one problem with this: Human records of the Earth's magnetic field during the <i>last 150 years</i> are not the only record of the history of Earth's magnetic field. There's also paleomagnetic evidence preserved in volcanic and sedimentary rock.<br /><br />You can't just take 150 years of measurement and then extrapolate from that <i>the entire history of the Earth.</i> It's completely arbitrary and absurd. There is no non-arbitrary reason for considering a mere 150 years of measurement, while completely ignoring <i>much older evidence</i> in the paleomagnetic record supporting a fluctuating magnetic field.<br /><br /><i>Now, I expect that you'll appeal to the hypothesis that earth's magnetic field periodically reverses as countering the above "creationist" argument -- all the while ignoring that according to that hypothesis the earth's magnetic field has reversed thousands of times during the (alleged) billions of years that living organisms have existed on this rock ... and yet there is still an atmosphere around the planet (**), still living organisms on the planet (***)...</i><br /><br />This definitely shows you have no idea what you're even talking about. A gradual shift and reversal of the magnetic field would not necessarily entail catastrophe for Earth's atmosphere. As NASA <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html" rel="nofollow">explains</a>:<br /><br /><i>They've also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.</i><br /><br />So, the magnetic field of the Earth could have undergone many gradual shifts and reversals, and life on Earth would still be protected from the solar wind. There is overwhelming evidence in the paleomagnetic record that the Earth's magnetic field has undergone changes; and, further, life still exists on this planet after all those changes. Therefore, given this evidence, gradual shifts in the magnetic field of the Earth would not necessarily spell doom for life on Earth, and therefore does not present any of the problems you suggest.<br /><br />- JMjmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-3606992168204710882014-03-09T13:32:41.130+00:002014-03-09T13:32:41.130+00:00Are you aware that earth's magnetic field is d...Are you aware that earth's magnetic field is decreasing? Do you *realize* that by the very reasoning you are using to disparage those ignert (*) YECs, the earth's declining magnetic field makes a stronger case for a Young Earth than distant starlight does for an Old Earth?<br /><br />There are all sorts of assumptions -- not self-evidently true -- built into the distant starlight case; but that earth's magnetic field is decreasing is just a "brute fact" of <i>direct measurement</i> going back 150 years.<br /><br />Extrapolating forward the <i>measured</i> decrease as an exponential rate, in about 1400 years, earth's magnetic field is reasonably expected to be at about half the strength it is today (extrapolatin as a straight line decrease indicates that the field will be entirely gone in 3991 AD). And, extrapolating *backward* the <i>measured</i> decrease as an exponential rate, indicates that 10K years ago, earth would have been a "magnetic star".<br /><br />Now, I expect that you'll appeal to the <i>hypothesis</i> that earth's magnetic field periodically reverses as countering the above "creationist" argument -- all the while ignoring that according to that <i>hypothesis</i> the earth's magnetic field has reversed thousands of times during the (alleged) billions of years that living organisms have existed on this rock ... and yet there is still an atmosphere around the planet (**), still living organisms on the planet (***), and still living organisms which <i>rely</i> upon the magnetic field to navigate tens of thousands of miles to the *correct* locales to breed or feed.<br /><br /><br />(*) That was my father's mis-pronunciation of the word, and it seems appropriate here.<br /><br />(**) among other things, the magnetic field protects the atmosphere from erosion by the solar wind<br /><br />(***) among other things, the magnetic field protects living organisms from deadly radiation<br /><br /><br />MY POINT IS: if assumption-based distant starlight is such a strong case for an Old Earth, why isn't the <i>measured</i> decay of earth's magnetic field at least as strong a case for a Young Earth?<br /><br />Why is it as difficult for Old Earthers as for YECs to just admit: we don't know how old the earth is, we don't know how long there have been living organisms on the planet, we don't know how old the human race is? The YEC insist that the first chapters of Genesis can be read only one way, and the Old Earthers make the even more ridiculous insistance that certain scientific "facts" can be interpreted only one way.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-17471936996948584242014-02-25T05:56:05.191+00:002014-02-25T05:56:05.191+00:00Ah, but I didn't say subjective, I said relati...Ah, but I didn't say subjective, I said relative, another thing entirely. nfellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238191209528698219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-12181618435660903812014-02-24T04:46:56.490+00:002014-02-24T04:46:56.490+00:00Remington B:
1. You suggest that the wine Jesus ma...Remington B:<br />1. You suggest that the wine Jesus made from water would have appeared <i>to the wedding guests</i> as having a false appearance of age. But I'm not convinced that that is the correct frame of reference: it seems to me that the concepts involved refer to a hypothetical observer, one who could theoretically examine the effect in any degree of fullness he wants. It is to this hypothetical observer that the wine would or would not bear a false appearance of age, and my argument is that it would not. After all, individual observers are limited in their experience and will make all kinds of incorrect inferences. Someone who had never seen naturally dark wood before might think, upon seeing some for the first time, that it had been burned due to its dark appearance. But it doesn't follow from this that the wood bears a false appearance of having been burned just because it's dark.<br /><br />2. But let's ignore this and say it <i>does</i> only apply to the actual audience in question. You suggest that since their only experience of wine was as an aged substance, it would have appeared aged to them. Again, I'm not convinced of this. Certainly, they would have understood how wine is produced, and could have explained it if asked. But I don't see why their response wouldn't have just been, "Hey! Cool! More wine!" without any thought as to how it's usually produced. We don't bring every possible belief about an object to bear on it every single time we encounter it. Try it: every time you see a bookshelf, imagine that you have to call to mind every conclusion you've ever drawn about how bookshelves are produced before you can recognize it as a bookshelf. That strikes me as obviously incorrect.<br /><br />3. But let's ignore this too, and say that their concept of wine always, under all circumstances, brought to their minds the concept of how it's naturally produced via fermentation, and thus via a long process. It seems to me that this would have a <i>ceteris paribus</i> clause automatically attached to it. <i>Ceteris paribus</i>, "all things being equal". That is, their concept of wine would have been of a substance produced through a certain natural process, unless someone, God perhaps, stepped in and produced it <i>super</i>naturally. All the laws of nature have <i>ceteris paribus</i> clauses attached to them like this. Natural processes will have a certain effect -- <i>unless</i> someone steps in and interrupts the natural processes. All things being equal, wine is produced through the natural process of fermentation -- but things are not always equal. This seems especially to be the case when we're dealing with a culture as deeply religious, and as deeply confident of the supernatural as ancient Judaism.<br /><br />4. And even if we ignore <i>this</i>, you could only say that the wine bore a false appearance of age up until the moment that <i>everyone at the wedding found out that Jesus had just performed a miracle</i>. The text says that the headwaiter didn't know <i>at first</i> how it was produced. But would you really expect something like that to not become known to everyone at the wedding within about two minutes?Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-40520074359544036082014-02-24T04:41:47.765+00:002014-02-24T04:41:47.765+00:00My apologies for not responding sooner, I didn'...My apologies for not responding sooner, I didn't see these comments. Let me address them in reverse order. I'll have to break it up into two separate comments, because my responses are too long to fit into one.<br /><br />DMW:<br />We're not dealing with mere objects, we're dealing with an intentional agent bringing about an effect. The question is, if an intentional agent brings about an effect in order to trick people into drawing false conclusions about it, is that an act of dishonesty on the agent's part? I don't see how it wouldn't be. But even if I'm wrong about that, it certainly <i>would</i> be an act of dishonesty if the agent followed it up by saying that the effect could be trusted to reveal the truth -- which is precisely what God says about the universe.<br /><br />Ilíon:<br />I only have my own experience to work from, and in my experience, YES, this is one of the primary arguments young-earth proponents use to avoid the scientific evidence for an old earth and universe. Often it functions as a fall-back position: they'll give a few arguments challenging the status quo, and when they're rebutted they go to the appearance of age. Again, this is just my own experience, but I don't have any reason to think my experience is idiosyncratic in this regard.<br /><br />nfellows:<br />Well, one can certainly use different units of time, but I don't think time is a completely subjective notion. Everywhere we look in the universe, we see events (such as supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, galaxy rotations, etc.) transpiring at about the same speed. There is the relationship between velocity and time that Einstein discovered, and this does result in the behavior of the most distant objects, which are moving away from us at the highest speed, appearing slightly slower than those nearby. But, as I say, it is slight.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-65253673399278003452014-02-19T05:24:40.720+00:002014-02-19T05:24:40.720+00:00Hang on, basic philosophy 202, An object cannot b...Hang on, basic philosophy 202, An object cannot be true or false, it just exists. Only statements have truth.<br />DMWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07213423340923316349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-89565619876356685662014-02-17T19:35:19.780+00:002014-02-17T19:35:19.780+00:00Say, how 'bout that thar Ovid fellow, ain'...Say, how 'bout that thar Ovid fellow, ain't he something?https://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-74198659101453197622014-02-15T06:06:10.282+00:002014-02-15T06:06:10.282+00:00"... one of the primary arguments young-earth..."<i>... one of the primary arguments young-earth advocates use in order to avoid the scientific evidence that the earth and universe are billions of years old: the claim that God created things with a false appearance of age.</i>"<br /><br />Do they, really? Or, do the people who want to avoid the logic of some of their criticisms of "old-earthism" simply accuse them of that? Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-53571699128990970882014-02-14T15:53:19.188+00:002014-02-14T15:53:19.188+00:00Isn't "time" an extremely relative c...Isn't "time" an extremely relative concept anyway? One really has to answer "from what reference frame" before you can really get anywhere and when the question of simultaneity gets thrown in it just starts making everything seem paradoxical.<br /><br />This is just simply a very tough nut to even start cracking.nfellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238191209528698219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-49931563268121413082014-02-02T17:48:27.018+00:002014-02-02T17:48:27.018+00:00Re: Water into Wine,
I think your attempt to get ...Re: Water into Wine,<br /><br />I think your attempt to get around this illustration fails (I haven't looked very closely at your other examples, I just checked this one to check the "quality" of you method... and wasn't impressed).<br /><br />The point is that Jesus created an appearance of age *for the wedding audience* and that goes through even if the molecular structure of wine doesn't give an appearance of age. After all, no one in the audience would even have had the conceptual categories for the molecular structure of wine.<br /><br />So the YEC doesn't need to argue that the wine had to have a certain molecular structure, and this molecular structure gives an appearance of age, in order to make his argument go through.<br /><br />He only needs to say that the wedding audience took this to be natural wine (as opposed to miraculous wine) and that the people in the audience understood wine to occur through a process occurring over a period of time, which did not in fact occur for the wine they were drinking.<br /><br />>> The fact that alcohol is naturally produced by fermentation does not imply that if God supernaturally changes H2O molecules into alcohol molecules, he makes them with the appearance of having been produced by fermentation. Just as the previous argument equates size with age, so this argument equates molecular structure with age, which again is obviously false.<br /><br />No, it simply takes what Jesus' audience deduced from the product and compares it to what it actually was. Jesus produced a product that people took for ordinary wine (that tasted particularly good--it would be ad hoc of you to suggest the audience thought "This wine is supernaturally good!" or something like that). The people in the audience knew that wine is a product of certain natural processes that occur over a period of time. <br /><br />>>To suggest that in these acts God is creating something with a false appearance of age is to completely miss the point.<br /><br />Granting that that's not the *point* of the passage doesn't get you any closer to getting around the point which YEC are able to draw from the passage. As John Frame has said in other context "The fact that a text of Scripture may not be *about* a thing does not entail that the text of Scripture does not give us information relevant to that thing."<br /><br />>>The miracle of changing water to wine was a miracle of transformation, not one of aging<br /><br />Irrelevant since the product (wine) was understood by the audience to be something which is a product of aging.<br /><br />>>This doesn't mean that God "sped up" the natural process of fermentation any more than when someone mixes water with dehydrated wine (yes there is such a thing).<br /><br />Irrelevant since, again, the issue is the product Jesus produced in contrast with how the product is naturall produced and in the context of the audience's understanding of that natural process. <br /><br />>>Moreover, as with the bodies of Adam and Eve, the wine Jesus made from water is not present for us to examine.<br /><br />Irrelevant since the question isn't *our* response to the wine but the response of the wedding audience who did have access to the wine.<br /><br />Better to just admit where YEC have a point than to go through such gymnastics...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09814637968824994760noreply@blogger.com