Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:18)|
|Mike PSS-- |
Mike, welcome to Origins research. Has it taken you this long to realize that it is impossible for origins researchers to objectively know for sure if any model of Origins is correct? I suppose you find this candid statement suprising coming from your world of deluded (or dishonest) scientists who think they have "proven ToE." No origins researcher--creationist or naturalist--can say anything other than what Brown says at the end of the day. All either one can do is propose plausible models to explain their view of origins. The difference between them is this: Creationists have a reliable historical record as a starting point for their proposed models. ToE advocates do not. All they have is their wild imaginations.
|But the kicker is at the end of his reply. He states |
I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.
So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation, just so it can fit Scripture.
You are SO wrong on so many levels with this feeble attempt to defend R.H.Brown's math.
It's not that he uses hand-waving, assumptions and outright fantasy to support his conjectures (and I purposefully didn't dwell on this); it's that he CREATES THE CONCLUSION BEFORE INSERTING THE DATA.
R.H.Brown not only assumes invalid assumptions, he purposefully fixes the end point of his math (making the numbers add up to 5000 years) and deriving the factors to make this so. He then takes these 'derived' factors and tries to come up with explanations on how these factors could occur.
This is such obvious backward reasoning that it's hilarious and TOTALLY invalid. If R.H.Brown had a shred of honesty he would examine actual measured data first to determine his factors, insert these factors into his model to get the conclusion, then compare the conclusion to his hypothesised assumption (5000 year old earth). If his conclusion didn't work out to his hypothesis the EITHER his hypothesis is incorrect OR his model is incorrect.
The fact that you REFUSE to see this obfuscation in the math isn't surprising since this paper SPEAKS directly to you. If I read a paper about ToE that had this type of mathamatical manipulation then I would call foul as quickly.
I would like to see you fisk a ToE article as well as I justed fisked R.H.Brown. Go to Talkorigins and find ONE article, fisk it for errors on this board and we'll see what kind of equivelent results appear.
|It appears that over and over again, you guys fail to see the approach that creationist origins researchers take, which is ...|
1) Use historical documents to determine events if they are available. We have an excellent one. It is called the Book of Genesis.
2) Then they observe the evidence and compare it with the historical record.
3) If the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the historical record, then they might throw out the historical record.
4) However, it does not ... especially in the major points
For example ...
1) It is obvious from observing the evidence that a Supremely Intelligent Creator is required to produce the designs in nature--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
2) It is obvious from the evidence that all genomes are deteriorating--this is predicted in the Genesis Record.
3) It is obvious from the evidence that there are strict limits on variation and speciation--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
4) It is obvious from the evidence that there was a global, life-destroying flood--this agrees with the Genesis Record
5) It is obvious from the evidence that there was much greater land surface and far more organic material prior to the Flood and that conditions were much more conducive to long life in humans--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
Are you getting the picture?
Creation researchers have an extremely reliable historical document in the Book of Genesis--it's verifiable history has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again.
Why should they question it in the unverifiable areas? Especially when they can propose plausible models which agree with the record.
This is common sense.
This is good, honest origins research.
There is nothing honest about this approach by R.H.Brown in the paper I fisked. He assumes a conclusion before he discovers the data. He then derives factors that HAVE to lead to the assumed conclusion. He then makes assumptions about the derived factors.
This is NOT proper investigatory research. This is pure sales pitch without ANY research applied.
Do you see my point?