Anti-Creationist AronRa YouTube Star Pt. 2

Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Anti-Creationist AronRa YouTube Star Pt. 2

This is the show from Monday November 14th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* Bob Enyart Interviews AronRa: Discussing the Foundational Falsehood videos, Bob continues his conversation with one of the web's leading anti-creationists, AronRa.



* Hollywood Finally Gets Scopes Trial Right: Enjoy this feature film about the Scopes Monkey Trial starring Brian Dennehy (Rambo), Fred Thompson (Law & Order), Colm Meany (Star Trek), Ashley Johnson (The Help), Nathan West and Khori Faison, this great movie Alleged, due out on DVD on Tuesday, Nov. 8th (at Walmarts nationwide) is accurate to the history and trial transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial, unlike Hollywood's previous Inherit the Wind attempt. Order your copy today. Alleged is available from Amazon or pick it up from your local Walmart or order it online at Walmart DVD or Walmart Blu-ray. Enjoy!

Today's Resource: If you enjoy the science you hear about on our fast-paced RSF radio shows, you'll really love the books, audio, and DVD science materials in our online store's Science Department! And this DVD, Living Fossils, by Dr. Carl Werner, is absolutely stunning! You owe it to yourself, and your loved ones, to watch this DVD! Whether a shark, leaf, or crab, living fossils are a challenge for evolutionary theorists and create a fascinating debate among scholars. Do they indicate a younger earth than thought, placing the millions of years timeline of evolution in question? Or do they represent a deep mystery?
 
naatmi

naatmi

New member
Jefferson said:
Anti-Creationist AronRa YouTube Star Pt. 2

This is the show from Monday November 14th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* Bob Enyart Interviews AronRa: Discussing the Foundational Falsehood videos, Bob continues his conversation with one of the web's leading anti-creationists, AronRa.
Click to expand...

I was confused by his reply to Bob's creation argument. He was talking about limited perspectives, imaginary 2d worlds, etc. But it didn't address Bob's argument, it seemed to just push it back a step by saying that our estimation of when stuff started to exist could be later than it really was.
 
Frayed Knot

Frayed Knot

New member
I think he was saying that stuff may not have started to exist at all - maybe it's always been here. Our estimation of its starting to exist 13.7 billion years ago could just be when things shifted over into the dimensions that we perceive.
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Frayed Knot said:
I think he was saying that stuff may not have started to exist at all - maybe it's always been here. Our estimation of its starting to exist 13.7 billion years ago could just be when things shifted over into the dimensions that we perceive.
Click to expand...
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Frayed Knot said:
I think he was saying that stuff may not have started to exist at all - maybe it's always been here. Our estimation of its starting to exist 13.7 billion years ago could just be when things shifted over into the dimensions that we perceive.
Click to expand...
Entropy says otherwise.
 
naatmi

naatmi

New member
Lighthouse said:
Entropy says otherwise.
Click to expand...
I thought Aron agreed with that, which makes his reply a total distraction right? Didn't he agree a fire can't burn forever?

But what if someone suggested that as you "go back in time" (intellectually) you have eternally increasing energy? Is there any reason that is logically impossible? We say God is immeasurably ancient. Could they say energy is immeasurably ancient and was immeasurably great?

I thought energy and power were relative. So I don't know what absolute zero would really be anyway. :idunno:
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
naatmi said:
I thought Aron agreed with that, which makes his reply a total distraction right? Didn't he agree a fire can't burn forever?
Click to expand...
Yes he agreed with it.

But what if someone suggested that as you "go back in time" (intellectually) you have eternally increasing energy? Is there any reason that is logically impossible? We say God is immeasurably ancient. Could they say energy is immeasurably ancient and was immeasurably great?
Click to expand...
In such an environment most of what exists today would be unable to exist as the energy would be too great from certain bodies. The Earth couldn't exist this close to a sun that hot.
 
lucaspa

lucaspa

Member
naatmi said:
But what if someone suggested that as you "go back in time" (intellectually) you have eternally increasing energy? Is there any reason that is logically impossible? We say God is immeasurably ancient. Could they say energy is immeasurably ancient and was immeasurably great?
Click to expand...

By "they" you mean "atheists", right? The idea that "there has always been something" is an atheist idea that was first proposed by Aristotle as the "only" alternative to a creation.

Remember, matter/energy and spacetime began at the Big Bang. So, energy can't be "immeasurably ancient" because the universe is not "immeasurably ancient". The data show that energy does not increase as we go back in time to the Big Bang.

With time beginning at the Big Bang, there can be no "immeasurably ancient" to the physical universe.

Some scientists have begun speculating (because that is what we do) on whether there was something "before" the Big Bang. Mark Bojowald speculates that the Big Bang is the result of a "Big Bounce" as a previous universe collapsed.

The closest thing in science right now to an "immeasurably ancient" thing that just has "always been there" is the 5 dimensional 'brane in what is called "ekpyrotic theory". In ekpyrotic theory, our 4 dimensional universe resulted from the collision of two four dimensional 'branes (universes) that both float in a 5 dimensional 'brane that has always existed. Quantum fluctuation causes one of the 4D 'branes to give off another 'brane, which then "floats" thru the 5D 'brane and eventually collides with another 4 D 'brane (universe). The resulting collision looks like a Big Bang, utterly destroys both previous 4D 'branes and makes a new 4D 'brane -- our universe. This series of events can happen "forever" because the 5D 'brane is eternal.

I stress that, right now, ekpyrotic theory is an untested theory. There is no evidence either for or against it. However, ekpyrotic theory is based upon String Theory and String Theory has evidence against it from other experiments.

I thought energy and power were relative. So I don't know what absolute zero would really be anyway.
Click to expand...
Temperature is a measurement of the movement of atoms/molecules. Absolute zero is where there is no movement of atoms/molecules, and thus no temperature.
 
lucaspa

lucaspa

Member
Jefferson said:
Anti-Creationist AronRa YouTube Star Pt. 2

This is the show from Monday November 14th, 2011.
Click to expand...
Pretty good program. Yes, a Foundational Falsehood of Creationism is that evolution is atheism.

However, the Foundational Falsehood of Creationism is the denial that creationism is a falsified scientific theory. AronRa concentrates on modern-day creationists. What he neglects is history, particularly the history of science. You see, there is another way to be a creationist than either a "professional creationist" or a "sheep". You can offer creationism as a scientific theory. This was done. In fact, creationism (particularly young earth creationism) was the accepted scientific theory from 1500-1831. It was falsified. By science and how every other falsified scientific theory has been falsified: by the data.

So the Foundational Falsehood is to pretend that creationism is not falsified.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:
Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)"
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top