Dissolve into Evergreens
This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Current Playlist

Top 100 in iTunes

juscuz's Last.fm Overall Artists 


Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+


< ? Colorado Blogs # >

« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
The Evidence of Creation
... or should I have called this post "The Creation of Evidence"?

Dan Padan of No Blog of Significance has so kindly responded to my criticisms.

Why do I say that Bruce is indulging in ad hominem/poisoning the well? Look at his statement about young earthers "failing to grasp this distinction." Consider his statements that the young earth viewpoint has less to do with science than about defending a religious point of view arising from my insecurity. Does this have anything to do with the evidence? No--Bruce has not interacted with that. But there is a perfectly good reason for that, genties and ladlemen:

The dirty little secret is that when you stop elephant hurling, indulging in ad hominems, false dilemmas, circular definitions, and category errors, the evidence favors a young earth.

So why would I say such a thing, that yec's are more concerned with pushing a religious viewpoint than supporting real science? Maybe because the very website where Dan Padan gets his "evidence", says so.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

In others words, they believe in a young earth because they have to in order to make their religious beliefs feel valid. They start with a conclusion and construct theories to support them. Witness this example from the AIG website...

Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge—that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

Such is how you solve the easy problem of having light reaching Earth from millions of years ago. This is how you get the "evidence" that supports a young earth view. Light isn't really reaching us from a great distance travelling at a known speed. Its all just an illusion.

Its no wonder there is so much evidence for a young earth? When you can literally dream stuff up, you can produce it faster.

Why is there a moon circling the earth?

The answer’s in Genesis! A major purpose is to light up the night. The moon reflects the sun’s light on to us even when the sun is on the other side of the earth. The amount of reflected light depends on the moon’s surface area, so we are fortunate to have a moon that is so large. It is over a quarter of Earth’s diameter — far larger in comparison with its planet than any other in the solar system.1 Also, if it were much smaller, it would not have enough gravity to maintain its spherical shape.2

Another reason for the moon is to show the seasons. The moon orbits the earth roughly once a month causing regular phases in a 29½ day cycle (see diagram below). So calendars could be made, so people could plant their crops at the best time of the year.

An important feature is that the moon always keeps the same face towards the earth.3 If different parts were visible at different times, the moon’s brightness would depend on which part was pointing towards the earth. Then the 29½ day cycle would be far less obvious.

Ah, evidence, sweet evidence, it just piles up in corners!

Comments: Post a Comment

About Me

35 yr old
Highlands Ranch
Recording Engineer
Voted for Kerry
Voted for Obama
Philosophical Type
Omicron Male
Feminist Friendly
22.3% Less Smart

Any Box


Barack Obama Logo
Get Firefox!

Dissolve into Evergreens