R. S. Martin Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Oops! I see the title is only "In Six Days," but it means creation in six days. And it's about scientists who believe in creation in six days. Published: 2003 Can any scientist with a Ph.D. believe in the idea of a literal six-day creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say “Yes!†Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind. They posted some of the testimonies of the scientists. I read one. In my next post I'm going to take it apart and show that the guy doesn't know how to think; he only knows science. There's a difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Oops! I see the title is only "In Six Days," but is means creation in six days. And it's about scientists who believe in creation in six days. Published: 2003 Can any scientist with a Ph.D. believe in the idea of a literal six-day creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say “Yes!†Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind. The posted some of the testimonies of the scientists. I read one. In my next post I'm going to take it apart and show that the guy doesn't know how to think; he only knows science. There's a difference! You rock Ruby. I totally agree. I have said that I want to have a firm grounding in logic and the scientific method before I really read any of the philosophers or scientific theories. I been really lazy lately... I think I'm gonna make some popcorn for this. Skittles and root beer too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 This might help: review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 This might help: review Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 Dr. Theo Egard, medical physics. Seems he got his education in three different countries: Ohio (USA), London (England), and Toronto (Canada). In 1993 he was elected to the "national board of directors of the Health Physics Society." His argument begins with the chicken and egg argument. He notes that it would violate natural law to find an egg or a chicken without it having any relations with the other, and that based on his reading, "the fossil record does not produce intermediate forms of life required by evolution as transitions between the species." The only evolution theory I have ever read is the first two-thirds of Darwin's Origin of the Species. It's an easy read and it would seem to me that any scientist presuming to speak on this topic should have read that book. Darwin addresses this very question back in 1859. It seems Dr. Egard is 144 years behind in his own field of specialty. I assume that readers here all understand better than I do that just because the fossil record is incomplete does not prove that the intermediate species did not exist. It only proves that the conditions were not exactly right for some species to fossilize. I get the impression from Darwin that it is a marvel that we have any fossils at all. Egard's next argument is about the "first law of thermodynamics which affirms the natural process of energy conservation," which is above my head. He says it means that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes" and that this proves there must be a supernatural cause for the universe's existence. I am thinking: Who's to say the universe has not always been here and is therefore eternal? That thought occurred to me out of the blue one day but I have since then read that others have thought of this, too. Some nineteenth century theologians say that's gross and totally unacceptable but they don't say what's so terrible about the idea. I think it's quite okay. We're supposed to be childlike--according to some parts of the Bible--and what infant cares how it (baby itself) or the rest of the universe came into being? I'd rather just be like a baby in this and not worry about it. Egard goes into some more detailed scientific discussion that I can't follow. However, he makes a fatal error when he quotes an author regarding what we know about the universe. The "fatal error" is that this author was writing in 1971. Egard was writing in 2003. If Egard has no idea what astrophysicists and other scientists learned about the universe in the intervening thirty-two years, he should not be speaking on the topic. Thus, I am beginning to get some insight on how the fundy mind operates--or doesn't operate. This guy has a PhD in physics from the University of Toronto, which is a world class university. Thus, he has a really decent education and he should know better. He could know better if he allowed himself to think. But he doesn't. Apparently he either didn't read, or conveniently forgot, Darwin's Origin of the Species and the research of astronomers since 2000. I am thinking that if I with my scientifically challenged brain can find so much wrong with his thinking, what must a fellow scientist find wrong. It seems that in order to be a fundamentalist scientist you do what you have to do to get your degree, and when you have your papers you do what you want with it. Politically you have enormous power because you get to be quoted as a real scientist with a real PhD from a legitimate school AND you are a real Christian who believes in a six day creation. THAT, my friends, is POWER. ************ This makes me want to scream! The boy is local! I know what's available! He doesn't have to be so ignorant. With nothing but a grade 8 education and a horse and buggy I come in from the rural area and get myself an education and learned about the universe and I conclude that what the Bible tells us is a farse. This guy gets to study in three different countries, gets a prominent position in the social system (probably with a salary the likes of which I can't even dream) and puts a straight jacket on his brain. I can't drive. I travel with the bus (I live in the city now). I deal with a batch of health issues. But I managed to attend a free lecture one night several months ago at my alma mater. There I learned so much about the universe it left my brain spinning. I don't really know my way around tv programs but one night last winter I happened to find a prgram put on by a local think tank (that Egard would have access to) in which a prof did a great lecture about the universe. These two lectures together expanded my view of the universe to proportions that convince me that there is no room for god. And the Bible says god holds the universe in the palm of his hand. That might be a nice dream but, Dr. Egard, just what is wrong about using the talents you were so richly blessed with? Your Bible condemns you for not using them (Matt. 25:14-30). And, because I know you will accuse me of blindly accepting everything the profs tell me, let me assure you that if I wanted to accept everything I was told I would NEVER have entered university. But, aside from that, I know how the scientific method works. I trust it because it makes sense and is real and corresponds with concrete reality in a meaningful way. The profs I listened to both use the scientific method. So do you insofar as you adhere to legitimate physics and science. But you leave it all outside the church door and whenever you practice religion. That is how you can be a scientist and profess to believe in a six-day creation. To my fellow exCers, I don't know the guy and don't expect him to see this but just in case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 These people aren't scientists, so there's no science to debunk. They're shills with degrees, presuppositionalists. Any body who starts down the "intermediate forms of life" road just gets a big yawn from me. Any 2 year old can debunk that argument, it's just convenient to use it to confound the clueless and preach to the choir. It's been shot down so many times here by those who are more expert than I, that I'll only go into it by request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 These people aren't scientists, so there's no science to debunk. They're shills with degrees, presuppositionalists. Any body who starts down the "intermediate forms of life" road just gets a big yawn from me. Any 2 year old can debunk that argument, it's just convenient to use it to confound the clueless and preach to the choir. It's been shot down so many times here by those who are more expert than I, that I'll only go into it by request. I never really looked at any of this horse shit before. What a scam. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.god Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 after being given a bunch of crappy creationist/ID books read, i've realized that most of them try to use their "scientist" credentials to lend themsleves credence in other fields of science. Just because someone has a PhD in a field, it does not follow that they would be a knowledgeable expert in any other field of science, or even a subdiscipline in their own field. Physicists or chemists who make claims about evolution should be no more credible than those made by a stock broker or paper boy. Especially in the case of a PhD, at that level of education, your specialization is very, very narrow. Without extensive study and research, you can easily be out-of-date or completely clueless about another specialization within the same field. I have an engineering degree in computer science, however that does not mean I know anything about any other field of engineering. I may have taken the same basic core classes as a chem E or EE student, I may have even worked with a Aerospace engineer, but that does not mean I know how concepts, math or physics are applied in any of those fields. I may know something about EE and design of circuit boards, but I don't believe I'm qualified to make specific judgements or comments about the latest computer processors without much reading and research. It annoys me greatly that the religious automatically toss me a book and say, look, this scientist believes. He's a scientist so he knows what he's talking about! .. well, that physicist had absolutely no clue about how evolution works.. good god he was completely clueless. For more edumacation about the universe, I highly recommend "origins of the universe, 14 billion years of cosmic evolution". It's an easier read with some basic knowledge of physics, especially since they don't bother writing out any of the equations like gravitational attraction, etc. But it's pretty well aimed at the lay person, and iit includes some of the latest research. Also the laws of thermodynamics applies to "closed systems" which is often left out when quoted by people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldjew Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Six million or six billion yes, but 144 hours (six days)? No way! A day to "God" is a million years or a billion years if she is a real god. Otherwise the old lady never had any power as she was running on two cylinders and she has a V16 engine to listen to the theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I really don't understand how believing the first two chapters of a 2,500 year old book could ever be considered "science" at all. Where is the research? Where is the evidence? Why are there billions of extinct species of animals? Why did God take six days to work on the earth yet apparently only a moment to create the rest of the universe? Creationism isn't science. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. It's a belief based on a tribal myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts