Sunday, April 29, 2007
BSG 2007 Abstracts Being Posted
BSG 2007 is just around the corner. They have already started posting a list of accepted abstracts.
The theme is exploring natural evil. Paul Nelson will be there, along with a lot of other great people.
One interesting-looking talk is:
"Taxonomic Distribution of 'Thorns and Thistles,'" by Sanders, Bryan College
This has me intrigued.
Another interesting-looking one:
"A systems biology paradigm for cellular pathways and organismic populations: insights from principles of systems engineering" by David Cavanaugh.
The theme is exploring natural evil. Paul Nelson will be there, along with a lot of other great people.
One interesting-looking talk is:
"Taxonomic Distribution of 'Thorns and Thistles,'" by Sanders, Bryan College
This has me intrigued.
Another interesting-looking one:
"A systems biology paradigm for cellular pathways and organismic populations: insights from principles of systems engineering" by David Cavanaugh.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Team Creation in top 10% of Folding@Home Scores
Check out our Latest Stats! We are #5487 of 62074 teams. Please join if you are interested.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Questions That Should Be Asked
In the paper The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology, [Hat Tip: IDTF] the authors argue that in the (very, very far) future, we will no longer be able to detect the evidences that lead us to the conclusion of the big bang. And, in fact, our observational data would lead us to view the universe as static. IDTF thinks that this is evidence that we live in a privileged place and time in the universe. That may or may not be true, but the theoretical questions that this paper brings are far more interesting.
Assuming that the paper is correct (and I certainly don't know enough about cosmology to say anything there), then that means that we know that it is possible for the evidence to indicate a false understanding of the universe. Think about that -- we have a paper that demonstrates that physical evidence can lead to a false understanding of cosmology even if the data is measured 100% accurate.
So that brings up the question - how do we know that our current view of cosmology is not flawed? How do we know that the data that we need to understand the beginnings of the universe is still in existence? If we know that physical evidence can lead to a false understanding of the historical development of the universe even given uniformitarian assumptions, how do we know that we ourselves are not missing similar typea of evidence needed to understand the universe itself?
Let's extrapolate ourselves out into the far, far future described by Krauss et al. Let's say that some astronomers are doing some calculations and trying to come up with a cosmology. Let's say that all that is left from our century is a basic introductory textbook describing the universe. These astronomers/cosmologists are trying to create a cosmology based on the evidence. Based on the evidence, they propose a static universe (which is what Krauss et al say is what the data will in fact point to at that time). Let's say that a historian comes in and says, "Wait! The ancients (that's us) said that the universe is expanding!" The scientists would laugh and say, "those were primitive people and didn't have access to the same data that we do. Our data firmly supports a static universe. That "expanding universe"/"big bang" idea was just a mythology of creation that they made up to fill their gaps in knowledge." But in fact, it would be us (the ancients) who were the only ones able to detect the evidence. They problem is not that one group is smart and the other is stupid, but that one is working closer to the event and the other is extrapolating from circumstantial data (actually, in this case they both are extrapolating from circumstantial data, just different sets).
So, in the case of Genesis, why should we not believe what has been handed down? The question is not what does the evidence say. Today's evidence is only circumstantial, and, as this paper points out, circumstantial evidence can lead to dramatically wrong conclusions. The question is who do you trust? This is the ultimate question, and cannot be settled based on circumstantial data.
[Related Post -- History, Creation, Observables, and Scientific Theories]
Assuming that the paper is correct (and I certainly don't know enough about cosmology to say anything there), then that means that we know that it is possible for the evidence to indicate a false understanding of the universe. Think about that -- we have a paper that demonstrates that physical evidence can lead to a false understanding of cosmology even if the data is measured 100% accurate.
So that brings up the question - how do we know that our current view of cosmology is not flawed? How do we know that the data that we need to understand the beginnings of the universe is still in existence? If we know that physical evidence can lead to a false understanding of the historical development of the universe even given uniformitarian assumptions, how do we know that we ourselves are not missing similar typea of evidence needed to understand the universe itself?
Let's extrapolate ourselves out into the far, far future described by Krauss et al. Let's say that some astronomers are doing some calculations and trying to come up with a cosmology. Let's say that all that is left from our century is a basic introductory textbook describing the universe. These astronomers/cosmologists are trying to create a cosmology based on the evidence. Based on the evidence, they propose a static universe (which is what Krauss et al say is what the data will in fact point to at that time). Let's say that a historian comes in and says, "Wait! The ancients (that's us) said that the universe is expanding!" The scientists would laugh and say, "those were primitive people and didn't have access to the same data that we do. Our data firmly supports a static universe. That "expanding universe"/"big bang" idea was just a mythology of creation that they made up to fill their gaps in knowledge." But in fact, it would be us (the ancients) who were the only ones able to detect the evidence. They problem is not that one group is smart and the other is stupid, but that one is working closer to the event and the other is extrapolating from circumstantial data (actually, in this case they both are extrapolating from circumstantial data, just different sets).
So, in the case of Genesis, why should we not believe what has been handed down? The question is not what does the evidence say. Today's evidence is only circumstantial, and, as this paper points out, circumstantial evidence can lead to dramatically wrong conclusions. The question is who do you trust? This is the ultimate question, and cannot be settled based on circumstantial data.
[Related Post -- History, Creation, Observables, and Scientific Theories]
Bear Tracks in the Permian
I don't know if any work has been done in this area (if anyone knows any updated findings on these tracks, let me know), but a friend pointed me to this interesting article from the Smithsonian. Here's an excerpt:
The fossil tracks that MacDonald has collected include a number of what paleontologists like to call "problematica." On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared--as though it took off and flew. "We don't know of any three-toed animals in the Permian," MacDonald points out. "And there aren't supposed to be any birds." He's got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. "Yeah," MacDonald says reluctantly, "they sure do." Mammals evolved long after the Permian period [NOTE -- permian is at the end of the paleozoic -- jb], scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
New Creation Journal Call for Papers
A new Creation journal by the ICR has issued a call for papers. We desperately need more journals. CRSQ is backed up about a year for papers.
I'd also like to see perhaps a non-peer-reviewed resource for Creationists who don't have the time to publish in a refereed journal. I know of many who would love to share their findings, but don't want to go through the pain of peer-review just to be rejected. Obviously such a journal would wind up having a good mix of wheat and chaff, but I think it might be necessary, considering the amount of ideas and research out there and the lack of publishing facilities.
The problem is that there isn't currently a good publishing model for Creationists. Traditional scientific journals have the authors pay for publication, at what are (to me) very expensive prices. Creation researchers are usually researching on their own dime, not with government grants, so they cannot pay publication fees. It's a dilemma to be sure.
I'd also like to see perhaps a non-peer-reviewed resource for Creationists who don't have the time to publish in a refereed journal. I know of many who would love to share their findings, but don't want to go through the pain of peer-review just to be rejected. Obviously such a journal would wind up having a good mix of wheat and chaff, but I think it might be necessary, considering the amount of ideas and research out there and the lack of publishing facilities.
The problem is that there isn't currently a good publishing model for Creationists. Traditional scientific journals have the authors pay for publication, at what are (to me) very expensive prices. Creation researchers are usually researching on their own dime, not with government grants, so they cannot pay publication fees. It's a dilemma to be sure.
