Increasing acceptance of biological evolution in the US

[lpetrich]

There are four (some now say five) fundamental forces in the universe. Just that fact points to God rather than randomness. But the forces are irreducible. So you can’t explain electromagnetism by gravitational or the strong or weak nuclear forces. Is there really a good reason for this other than that God has established these irreducible forces?

Which God? A follower of Hare Krishna would say that it is the god Krishna rather than the Xian God.

Actually, electromagnetic and weak interactions are related in the Standard Model. Grand Unified Theories relate strong and electroweak interactions, and more ambitious theories like string theory relate all of them.

Aesthete: "Contrary to your claims that science would turned on its head, there’s little if anything in the areas of practical science that depend on evolution or billions of years."

Geologists would disagree. There is also an interesting emerging application: paleoclimatology. One can look at the geological record for when the Earth gets very warm, and it isn't pretty.

Aesthete: "Things in medicine like the study of antibiotic resistance depend on natural selection, but that’s not evolution."

It's a very micro sort of evolution, but it's still evolution.

Aesthete: "There’s no acquisition of information, only a selection from that which is already present."

What counts as acquisition of information?

Aesthete: "Helium in zircon crystals, which should have escaped in an old earth scenario."

CD015: Helium diffusion from zircons addresses that issue.

 

[lpetrich]

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition -- the geological record

I won't quote the whole article, but I will try to give a summary.

* Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]

* How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

• the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
• the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
• why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
• why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
• why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
• how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
• why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
• why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
• why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
• why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
• why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

* How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

Rain drops. River channels. Wind-blown dunes. Beaches. Glacial deposits. Burrows. In-place trees. Soil. Desiccation cracks. Footprints. Meteorites and meteor craters. Coral reefs. Cave systems.

* How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?

* How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? ...

* How were mountains and valleys formed? ...

* When did granite batholiths form? ...

* How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering?

* How do you explain the formation of varves? (marked-out layers of sediment)

* How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests?

* Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

Magma. Limestone formation. Meteorite impacts. Other.

* How were limestone deposits formed?

* How could a flood have deposited chalk?

* How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt?

* How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood?

* How were hematite layers laid down?

* How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

* How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?

* How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"?

* Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive?

* Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from?

* How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils?

 

[Aesthete]

Also, I would appreciate a substantive response to my research and comments about vulcanism on Io. That actually took time for me to dig up the papers and read and type in so I believe I have earned a proper response.

I understand. There’s a lot of material to go through here, and my time is limited. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to me that both you, as well as the authors of the article you mentioned, acknowledged some of the challenges to the standard model, which the current science cannot explain, and suggested some mechanisms other than the one currently favored that should be explored to explain this in a manner consistent with the nebular model. To that, I have nothing really more to say, because it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity. Does it “prove” the creation model true? Well, you know how science works. I would just submit that the creation model is a better fit, given the empirical observations.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.

This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.

 

[Aesthete]

it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.

This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.

The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. He can create them however He wants to. So He makes the various stars, planets, and moons differ. And that’s cool. Based on a Bible chronology, we know He created the universe about 6000 years old. As that’s not enough time for all of Io’s heat to have dissipated, it conforms to our observations. On the other hand, if it were billions of years old, there is no known mechanism to account for the amount of heat it gives off. At current rates, if it were billions of years old, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times over.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.

This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.

The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. He can create them however He wants to. So He makes the various stars, planets, and moons differ. And that’s cool. Based on a Bible chronology, we know He created the universe about 6000 years old. As that’s not enough time for all of Io’s heat to have dissipated, it conforms to our observations.

That’s not a physical model that can explain anything.

Basically anything can conform to observations because you can simply say “God made it that way”.

There’s no physical utility in that. You are basically back to simply criticizing actual physics for not being perfectly explanatory yet and filling “God” in to whatever it currently can’t explain.

Are you willing to admit that there is no physics that directly leads to a 6000 year old earth? Because I’ve seen none presented so far.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Also, I would appreciate a substantive response to my research and comments about vulcanism on Io. That actually took time for me to dig up the papers and read and type in so I believe I have earned a proper response.

I understand. There’s a lot of material to go through here, and my time is limited. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to me that both you, as well as the authors of the article you mentioned, acknowledged some of the challenges to the standard model, which the current science cannot explain, and suggested some mechanisms other than the one currently favored that should be explored to explain this in a manner consistent with the nebular model. To that, I have nothing really more to say, because it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.

The other thing I realize your response here points out is that you have no interest in understanding the science because you already have your conclusion. You’ve just brushed off my detailed response with no substantive reply.

If in a few years the scientists develop a better understanding that mitigates or eliminates the current uncertainties would you be willing to reassess your conclusion that “recent creation” is the answer?

 

[abaddon]

The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth.

How so?

If evolution were untrue, that doesn't mean creationism is true. This is a false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[lpetrich]

The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. ...

Which God, Aesthete, which God? People have worshipped oodles of deities.

Consider  Theogony - Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica/The Theogony - Wikisource, the free online library

The primordial void begot the first generation of deities, and they begot the second generation, which then overthrew the first generation. The second generation then begot the third generation, which then overthrew them, and which now reign as the rulers of the Universe.

The leaders of the first generation were Ouranos and Gaia, and their son Kronos overthrew them and castrated Ouranos.

Kronos began to fear that he in turn would be overthrown, so he swallowed the children that his partner had. All but one, and he was tricked with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes. That one was Zeus, and he grew up, and made Kronos vomit up his brothers and sisters.

Zeus and his fellow Olympians then fought Kronos and his fellow Titans, defeating them and taking over the Universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Aesthete must watch weird cop shows.
There's a murder in the first act. We see the body, clearly murdered, behind the drink table at the fundraiser. There were 40 people in the hotel ballroom at the time of the murder. One had a publicly known motive.
In the 2nd act, the cops investigate the motivated individual. He had means, opportunity, and a weapon that matches the crime. He does poorly during the interview and his lawyer makes a mistake. His guilt seems a pretty good bet except there's still three commercial breaks before the end credits.
In the third act, just before they take him out back and shoot him, he provides an alibi. They do not attempt to break this alibi. They just give it the same weight as all the other evidence, both forensic and eyewitness.
Instead, the lead cop just names his ex-wife as the suspect, because 'if it's not him, it must have been her!' Everyone accepts this and the ex goes to prison.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

Any reason for that?

Contrarianness is not much of an argument.

You mean the age of the earth? I think what stands out the most for me is the fact that if you look at every one of the objects in the solar system, there are major reasons each one cannot be old. The explanations that old earthers offer are just rescuing devices, rather than scientific theories. For example, comets cannot be billions of years old, so the Oort Cloud (whose existence has not be shown) is invented as a rescuing device for that theory. Then there are things like the sun rotating too slowly, violating the conservation of angular momentum, if the secular model of the solar system's formation were true. Creationist Spike Psarris has compiled many of these lines of evidence.

Nevertheless, I am not sure if I can ascribe most of the growth in YEC to such things. I would wish they were more widely known, because these are some pretty persuasive reason for an age of the earth that conforms to a biblical timeframe. For someone who already believes the Bible is true, I really can't fathom why they would stick to old earth and theistic evolution. But for someone who does not believe the Bible is true, I think they will continue to believe the rescuing devices for evolution and an old earth.

It's called the Big Magic Universe - where Santa still brings me presents. LOL

 

[Aesthete]

Also, I would appreciate a substantive response to my research and comments about vulcanism on Io. That actually took time for me to dig up the papers and read and type in so I believe I have earned a proper response.

I understand. There’s a lot of material to go through here, and my time is limited. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to me that both you, as well as the authors of the article you mentioned, acknowledged some of the challenges to the standard model, which the current science cannot explain, and suggested some mechanisms other than the one currently favored that should be explored to explain this in a manner consistent with the nebular model. To that, I have nothing really more to say, because it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.

The other thing I realize your response here points out is that you have no interest in understanding the science because you already have your conclusion. You’ve just brushed off my detailed response with no substantive reply.

If in a few years the scientists develop a better understanding that mitigates or eliminates the current uncertainties would you be willing to reassess your conclusion that “recent creation” is the answer?

Frankly, the onus is on the secularists to come up with those evidences. I don’t think they will. They can posit other theories, but those will probably have holes, as well. And even with a plausible mechanism, it does not constitute proof of their model. If, hypothetically, they could put forward such a good theory that Io looks like it could be billions of years old just as easily as it could be thousands, then, no, I will not “reassess” my conclusions. It’s far from the only proof I have.

The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. ...

Which God, Aesthete, which God? People have worshipped oodles of deities.

Consider  Theogony - Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica/The Theogony - Wikisource, the free online library

The primordial void begot the first generation of deities, and they begot the second generation, which then overthrew the first generation. The second generation then begot the third generation, which then overthrew them, and which now reign as the rulers of the Universe.

The leaders of the first generation were Ouranos and Gaia, and their son Kronos overthrew them and castrated Ouranos.

Kronos began to fear that he in turn would be overthrown, so he swallowed the children that his partner had. All but one, and he was tricked with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes. That one was Zeus, and he grew up, and made Kronos vomit up his brothers and sisters.

Zeus and his fellow Olympians then fought Kronos and his fellow Titans, defeating them and taking over the Universe.

The God of the Bible. The Bible wasn’t written by a single man or all at once. To give just one example, the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his “only son” Isaac foreshadows Jesus Christ, because Abraham believed God’s promise that God would multiply his seed. So Abraham counted God able to raise him from the dead. It’s a picture of the faith of Abraham. There is a ton of this kind of stuff, plus directly fulfilled prophecies, and it couldn’t have happened by chance.

But the mythology you summarized does not even, in my opinion, constitute theism. These “gods” are "creatures" of time, whereas God is eternal and outside time. These “gods” can be overthrown, whereas no one can oppose God.

Stars are braked by their magnetic fields extending out into their stellar winds.

A “theory” that doesn’t seem to have much support. Only that the nebular model is falsified if it’s not true.

Mercury: Mercury cannot be as dense as it has been observed to be according to the secular model. Due to the inconsistencies between the theoretical model and the empirical observations, it is now theorized by secular scientists that Mercury experienced a catastrophic collision that stripped away all the lesser-density materials. There’s no evidence for this ...

What would you consider acceptable evidence of such a collision?

Something other than the fact that the evolutionary model is falsified if such collision didn't happen might be a start.

Aesthete: "Moreover, Mercury has a magnetic field, which it should not have if it were billions of years old. The magnetic field decays too fast."

It would likely be frozen in. Have you ever heard of a permanent magnet?

Re Mercury’s magnetic field. That’s also decaying. So that explanation doesn’t work -

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_2/j26_2_4-6.pdf

Earth: According to the nebular model, the earth is too close to the sun for water to have condensed. For this reason, secular scientists theorize that the earth acquired it water via comet strikes. Besides the lack of evidence of this hypothesis, ...

What would you consider acceptable evidence for it?

Acceptable evidence for earth’s water coming from extraterrestrial bombardment? I don’t believe it exists. It’s a really wild idea, quite frankly, but is necessary to support the secular model.

Aesthete: "So for the earth, whole surface is mostly covered in water, ..." the Earth's oceans have only 1/4400 of the Earth's total mass.

There's enough water on the earth for the entire planet to be covered, if the topography allowed for it (as it once did, 4400 years ago).

Aesthete: "Gas giants: Jupiter and Saturn cannot have formed in their respective locations according to the secular models."

Check out the  Nice model and the  Grand tack hypothesis for the early Solar System. Both of them posit outer planets having moved from their original orbits. That is also posited for many exoplanets:  Hot Jupiter -  Planetary migration.

My point exactly. They cannot have formed in their present locations. So wild ideas are needed to explain how they got there.

We weren't around to watch any of this happening, so we have to work backward from what we see in the present day.

Only if you ignore God as the explanation.

Aesthete: "Io: Io's extensive volcanic activity contradicts the old solar system view, as any such activity would have ceased a long time ago as the moon cooled off."

The source of Io's internal heat is well-understood: tidal kneading from having a forced eccentricity of its orbit from an orbital resonance with Europa and Ganymede.

The numbers don't work - the amount of heat on Io cannot be explained by this.

Aesthete: "Yet, consider the case of an American warplane that crashed in Greenland in 1942. In 1990, it was found 80m deep. In 48 years, there were many hundreds of ice rings that had formed."

Sources on that?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_pj4IM5Zkk[/YOUTUBE]

“V838 Monocerotis then expanded from a visual apparent size of 4 light years to 7 light years in less than 7 months"

https://creation.com/faster-than-light

Interesting that you bring this case up, because the creationist link itself provides the answer to the paradox.

The shell only appears to expand at a superluminal velocity because the light the dust gives off is a ‘light echo:’ The light originates from the star’s 2002 eruption and is re-radiated by the dust shell. This geometric illusion is further explained by the diagrams in Figure 2 and 3.

Did you even read the link? It correctly explains that the faster than light expansion is an optical illusion and not an actual expansion of the stellar eruption debris.

My bad. That's not all I have to say about the speed of light, though. It turns out that the big bang model has the same problem - called the horizon problem.  Horizon problem Some cosmologists even propose a variable speed of light to solve the problem. But since I believe in God, a variable speed of light is no real issue. I believe He created the universe in such a way that we can see distant objects. But without God, you have to explain why the universe employed either cosmic inflation or a variable speed of light. Like so many other examples, there's really no evidence for cosmic inflation other than the fact that it is needed to rescue the big bang model.

 

[Elixir]

IANAP, but - the so-called horizon problem seems to be slightly misstated in the wiki link: ""CMB regions that are separated by more than 2° lie outside one another’s particle horizons and are causally disconnected." opens the door for creationist bullshit ...
CMB regions that are currently separated by more than 2° lie outside one another’s particle horizons and are currently causally disconnected. Their are plenty of credible explanations for variations in the CMB field, just as numerous explanations for the observed phenomena that occur in proximity to supermassive black holes have been advanced.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The other thing I realize your response here points out is that you have no interest in understanding the science because you already have your conclusion. You’ve just brushed off my detailed response with no substantive reply.

If in a few years the scientists develop a better understanding that mitigates or eliminates the current uncertainties would you be willing to reassess your conclusion that “recent creation” is the answer?

Frankly, the onus is on the secularists to come up with those evidences. I don’t think they will. They can posit other theories, but those will probably have holes, as well. And even with a plausible mechanism, it does not constitute proof of their model. If, hypothetically, they could put forward such a good theory that Io looks like it could be billions of years old just as easily as it could be thousands, then, no, I will not “reassess” my conclusions. It’s far from the only proof I have.

You are welcome to that opinion, just don't pretend that it is scientific. Until you have presented a quantitative, physical model of creation that makes predictions that compare more favorably to observations than do the mainstream theories, you just aren't doing science.

Nitpicking and misunderstanding the current state of the science is not a basis to support your own theory. If you have a good theoretical construction then it should stand on its own.

If you're willing to admit that your beliefs are founded on faith, I can respect that. The current science isn't perfect, indeed, and you're welcome to believe that its imperfections or uncertainties somehow prove your beliefs, but that's not a *scientific* conclusion, not without proper support, which hasn't yet been presented.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back in the day I had a few exchanges with an evangelical preacher I called Moondust. He went on endlessly about the fact that the lunar landers had pads on their legs. His contention was that this was to keep the landers from sinking into hundreds of feet of lunar dust just in case the solar system was really billions of years old.

The fact that the lunar surface was only dusty proved to him that the solar system was young, that it hadn't enough time to accumulate all that dangerous dust. The guy was truly scientifically clueless, had no appreciation, understanding or desire about geology, let alone science. He was consumed by his religious bias, a very poor observer. Of course I can't blame him, his living depended on scientific illiteracy among his listeners.

Aesthete might be the same person.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“V838 Monocerotis then expanded from a visual apparent size of 4 light years to 7 light years in less than 7 months"

https://creation.com/faster-than-light

Interesting that you bring this case up, because the creationist link itself provides the answer to the paradox.

The shell only appears to expand at a superluminal velocity because the light the dust gives off is a ‘light echo:’ The light originates from the star’s 2002 eruption and is re-radiated by the dust shell. This geometric illusion is further explained by the diagrams in Figure 2 and 3.

Did you even read the link? It correctly explains that the faster than light expansion is an optical illusion and not an actual expansion of the stellar eruption debris.

My bad.

Indeed your "bad". But making simple mistakes like this impacts your credibility and lessens any interest in having a serious conversation with you. It makes it seem that you have simply grabbed an idea that agrees with your conclusion without spending any time investigating whether it is true or not. I actually put some effort into tracing down theories on Io's vulcanism because I care about why scientists believe what they believe and on what bases they consider things to be their best understandings. At the least, this is an education for myself even if it proves not to be a fruitful discussion with you.

That's not all I have to say about the speed of light, though. It turns out that the big bang model has the same problem - called the horizon problem.  Horizon problem Some cosmologists even propose a variable speed of light to solve the problem. But since I believe in God, a variable speed of light is no real issue. I believe He created the universe in such a way that we can see distant objects.

Here's a good example of how you can address this scientifically, and not simply as a matter of faith. Please show what the rate of change would have to be for the speed of light as a function of time over the course of the 6000 year history of the universe to explain the current observations. Since the speed of light is a fundamental constant and plays into things like the conversion of wavelength to energy of light, what impact would that have on observable spectra from these distant objects; that is, how would it shift spectral features since atomic and molecular energy level spacings would be impacted?

If you believe that a variable speed of light is a *scientific* answer for your creation model, you should be able to show what the observable consequences are quantitatively and compare them to actual observations that have been taken, within the physical framework of your model. Otherwise, you're just doing what we call "hand-waving", and your hypothesis can be dismissed as unsupported.

 

[abaddon]

Only if you ignore God as the explanation.

How is God an explanation?

Do you understand the question?

God isn't ignored as a potential explanation. The problem is figuring out how he could reasonably serve as an explanation. That's the point behind my ignored questions in this thread. The explanatory power of God is really not as obvious as it apparently seems to you.

I've spent years waiting for a theist to present a reasonable case for using God as the potential explanation for anything at all. But it's never anything else than a vapid "goddidit" argument from ignorance.

 

[Aesthete]

@Shadowy Man
When you talk about wanting a model for my worldview, there are some immediate problems with that. If you want to define science in those terms, it seems carefully tailored to support an atheistic worldview (even though so many scientists have believed in the God of the Bible). On the other hand, I believe that God created the universe and established certain rules by which the universe is governed (e.g., the four fundamental forces). But these physical laws themselves do not sustain the creation of the universe. In other words, it can’t be modeled because God can do literally anything He wants. There’s no “creation model” for volcanoes on Io, because volcanoes on Io (and not on other extraterrestrial bodies) arise from the sovereign will of God. A model presupposes an operating principle, or operating principles--but who sets those? My operating principle is the will of God.

Indeed your "bad". But making simple mistakes like this impacts your credibility and lessens any interest in having a serious conversation with you.

Well, if you want to dismiss my "credibility," I can't honest fault you, regardless of my little fuck up. You're the scientist, not me. So you will have greater credibility than me, regardless. No matter. I can still point out the problems with the secular theories.

Only if you ignore God as the explanation.

How is God an explanation?

Do you understand the question?

God isn't ignored as a potential explanation. The problem is figuring out how he could reasonably serve as an explanation. That's the point behind my ignored questions in this thread. The explanatory power of God is really not as obvious as it apparently seems to you.

I've spent years waiting for a theist to present a reasonable case for using God as the potential explanation for anything at all. But it's never anything else than a vapid "goddidit" argument from ignorance.

As for your "ignored" questions, these would get us away from the science discussion, which I have tried to stick to. But the Bible is true. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is true and was observed by numerous eyewitnesses, who were willing to die for what they had witnessed. The Bible could not have been written by men alone. Jesus fulfilled every one of numerous prophecies about Him in the Old Testament. It's been calculated that the odds of His fulfilling just 8 of them are like dropping a blindfolded man off in an area the size of Texas, covered 2 feet deep in silver dollars, and have him find just the one silver dollar that is marked. But He fulfilled more than just 8, and there are other obvious similitudes in the Bible such as the example of Abraham that I mentioned, which point to Jesus Christ and to the Bible's divine authorship.

 

[Keith&Co.]

@Shadowy Man
When you talk about wanting a model for my worldview, there are some immediate problems with that. If you want to define science in those terms, it seems carefully tailored to support an atheistic worldview (even though so many scientists have believed in the God of the Bible).

That's not a useful objection. That's like complaining taxonomy uses Latin though many scientists speak English.

Scientists can believe in gods. Any gods. Sure. They just can't use gods in the Science they try to do at their job.

'Goddidit' is not science.
'God only knows' is merely the end of accumulated data. The suffix, 'yet,' is unspoken.

 

[Shadowy Man]

@Shadowy Man
When you talk about wanting a model for my worldview, there are some immediate problems with that. If you want to define science in those terms, it seems carefully tailored to support an atheistic worldview (even though so many scientists have believed in the God of the Bible).

No. it just is just defined as saying that there are rules to the universe that can be codified in laws of physics and quantified by mathematics in such a way as to conform with scientific observations of the universe. There's no statement about gods in there at all. However, if gods can come and violate those rules and make things that don't obey any rules then it's going to be difficult to create any meaningful physical theories.

On the other hand, I believe that God created the universe and established certain rules by which the universe is governed (e.g., the four fundamental forces). But these physical laws themselves do not sustain the creation of the universe. In other words, it can’t be modeled because God can do literally anything He wants. There’s no “creation model” for volcanoes on Io, because volcanoes on Io (and not on other extraterrestrial bodies) arise from the sovereign will of God. A model presupposes an operating principle, or operating principles--but who sets those? My operating principle is the will of God.

The question becomes can we tell the difference through observations and physics between a universe with a god and one without? Do we need a god to explain what we see? The problem with the god hypothesis is that it can be inserted anywhere where we don't understand something. In the old days we didn't understand the motions of the planets in the sky and could just say "God moves them". But then Kepler found that they moved according to ellipses with the Sun at one focus. But why did they move that way? Well God could do that. Then Newton came up with the law of gravitation and could explain why ellipses were the solution to orbits given a 1/r gravitational potential. Well, where did gravity come from then? God did that.

In our current example, with the vulcanism on Io, it's easy to just say God put volcanos there, but if we can understand the vulcanism due to calculating the tidal stresses that are consistent with our understanding of gravity, which is supported through many other observations, then we have an explanation. Then, if our understanding doesn't yet fit exactly (which hasn't even actually been established, by the way) with the expected age of the system, supported through other means like geology, do we just insert God there? Or do we continue to refine our theories and understandings and perhaps ultimately be able to reconcile any discrepancy we might see now?

This kind of thing has happened enough in the history of physics that scientists are not inclined to simply insert the god hypothesis for every gap in knowledge. The neutrino was posited before it was discovered. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury was unexplained before Einstein's theories. Scientists are not uncomfortable with some discrepancies. Some are small, some are large, but ultimately we believe that with continued pursuit we will find answers.

Unless one can quantify a god and its properties and its impact on the observations and principles governing the properties of the universe and the objects within it, the god hypothesis doesn't add anything scientifically meaningful to the discussion. You seem to want to insert god scientifically though; for example, with a variable speed of light, presumably to explain why we can see things that are more than 6000 light years away. I believe that a variable speed of light would have consequences beyond just those you want to explain away (as I mentioned previously), but why can't your god just have created the universe with that light already on its way? that seems consistent with what you've said about your god's abilities. But if you want to take a scientific approach, rather than just declare "the will of God", then you have to show your work. Show me how a variable speed of light matches the current observations. And all observations that rely on the value of the speed of light, not just one.