The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[JoeyKnothead]

In the bit about the shroud, you can't show the blood, nor the image is that of someone who never had their blood analyzed, or their picture taken, that we can compare.

The blood and image has been analyzed by scientists. Photos have also been taken of the shroud. If you're saying 1st century scientists have not analyzed the shroud and 1st century photographers have not taken a picture of Jesus, then no, that did not happen.

If we don't have the person's blood or image for comparison, it's gonna be speculation at best trying to pin this shroud to them. Add in what might be a requirement to show a supernatural event is involved, and the task becomes even more difficult.

Why not just go on and submit your arguments to peer-reviewed journals, and quit waiting around for someone else to present theirs?

I probably will someday. But the point is this is the ultimate test of truth, to subject it to review under the professionals. I'm willing to do it.

To be fair, even professionals can be wrong here, so it still kinda gets back to what one's gonna believe. No nefartiy implied there.

If skeptics are not willing to do it, then it shows the skeptics position is weak.

Or that they don't see too much of a fuss in a piece of cloth. Or they're lives are too busy. Or can we say that since you haven't put your argument to peer review yet, it's because you think your own is weak?

There's just too many variables here to come to firm conclusions

I'm saying there's folks in that thread who are knocking your position around like a fraternity knocks back alcohol.

And they also have a hangover afterwards.

I gotta give you the point for an excellent response, but disagree with its implications.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #967]

At the risk that you want an honest answer, it's because the vast majority of your arguments are based on either bluffing about your scientific understanding or a genuine, bafflingly obtuse misunderstanding of it. You quote incredibly low-level scientific concepts and invariably misrepresent them. Whether that's intentional or not, those misrepresentations are tedious for your opponents to correct. You're also insulting in your responses. The combination is that it is often in the same breath that you are so obviously mistaken that you belittle those most able to explain to you why that is. It's toxic. You shouldn't be surprised that when one engages with you, the reasoning behind the responses might also be toxic.

Again, no examples. You make the accusation that the "vast majority of my arguments are either

• "Bluffing about my scientific understanding" What does that even mean? I have the best time with people who obviously do not understand what they are saying. Like Jose Fly on most science things, Barbarian is really good in biology and has refuted some of my arguments but not so much in geology. And most of the other debaters are not usually good at science concepts but I still have a good time with them when I see something interesting. So what is your criticism here? I thought this was supposed to be open to anyone of any science background whether they know they have scientific knowledge or not. I know that Barbarian thinks of this as teaching. Good thought

• Most of my arguments are from individuals that hold terminal degrees. Except for my last one on quantum mechanics which came straight out of my brain sort of.

You quote incredibly low-level scientific concepts and invariably misrepresent them. Whether that's intentional or not, those misrepresentations are tedious for your opponents to correct.

You have no examples here or anywhere else in your statement. Which is commonplace for those who simply want to be critical with no real substance behind their criticism. All low-level scientific concepts mean that a person's argument is easier to refute. How is a low level scientific concept also tedious even if it is misrepresented? A low-level scientific concept would be only tedious if someone did not understand the concept in the first place. Like a decrease in pressure causing the temperature to drop. Simple concept pressure drops temperature decreases. Temperature and pressure are inversely proportional.

Genetics is a simple equation 4N = a number of generations for fixation of the trait. 1/2N is the probability of that trait becoming fixed.

You're also insulting in your responses.

I will agree with you on this one. Yes, there have been times when I have pushed the limits of civility. I can think of one very specific instance with you and I am sorry about that.

But who is not insulting on this site? Leprecons, fairies, and pink monkeys have all been used to describe people's ideas. Condensation from you and almost everyone on this site ooze in the science section when Christian theories are brought forth as a real possibility. Even when credible challenges are brought like Tectonic plates in the mantle. And for another example of this just look at the post right below this one. Not that it matters I just think it is interesting that you bring up being insulting when having a condescending attitude toward someone is the height of insulting. And that attitude abounds from you and others. So there are times when I just cannot resist giving out a little condensation.

The combination is that it is often in the same breath that you are so obviously mistaken that you belittle those most able to explain to you why that is. It's toxic. You shouldn't be surprised that when one engages with you, the reasoning behind the responses might also be toxic.

You are describing almost everyone on this site here. Or to put it in the words of AquinasForGod

• by AquinasForGod » Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:18 pm
  
  [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
  
  When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
  
  I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it.

They can say they never answered and say that the argument is not worth addressing.

Now if we are talking about an argument civility saying that an argument is not worth addressing is very condescending why not just choose not to say anything?

To allegorize, consider that you're playing poker. Your opponent has four aces and you have ten high. You absolutely insist that you have won the round. You insist that your opponent not only show her hand, but prove that four aces does, in fact, beat a ten high. This goes on for hours. Strictly as a game of poker, it's not fun. A lot of people walk away, often just leaving the pot on the table because it's hardly worth taking at that point. Some stay because there are other stimulating challenges, like getting you to admit that you don't understand one of the rules (but of course you understand all of the others). In that environment, it's possible that you eventually learn a few of the rules and get better at the game, but the cost is very high for the other players. Many just find a different table where everybody already knows the rules.

Who is making the rules? Who is determining what game we are playing? EXAMPLE: (I will give you one or more even though you have given me none.)

Like our discussion on Paul.

You missed the point. Language is only part of the puzzle, although his point did indicate that the Greek did not support your point. Along with the other scholars that I cited. The totality of the argument has already indicated that your position is simply not tenable.

Back to the Dunning-Kruger effect, let me ask you a few questions. How well do you read classical Greek? How much classical rhetoric have you studied? How much of Paul's theology have you studied? How much Christian apologetics have you studied?

Now, how would you rate my familiarity with and understanding of those things compared to yours?


To tell you the truth I thought you had a better understanding of the Bible and apologetics than what you actually do. You seem to have not known or did not take into account the fact that Paul was a pharisee and the implication of that fact. You also seemed to not have known or just chose to ignore the significant amount of data that support specific aspects of early Christianity, that any theory must explain. Your theory cannot explain basic data of early Christianity like the belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ. This is a confirmed fact, not some debated topic. You did not even attempt to show that this was a debated topic. You simply seem to think that just because you said it was true. That was enough to make it true.

In this exchange, you seemed to believe that context and history have no relevant role in the interpretation of Scripture. Which is totally outside the rules of hermeneutics. In hermeneutics context is king and I believe I said that earlier in this discussion. Why would Paul have persecuted the church if it was just a spiritual resurrection? Jews already believed in a spiritual resurrection so there was not reason for them to persecute the Church.

How much of Paul's theology have I studied under whose point of view? Obviously not the point of view you are coming from. How much apologetics have I studied from whose point of view again? Whose rules do you want to use? Because one of my apologetics professors who is one of the foremost authorities on the resurrection Gary Habermas would say you are totally incorrect in your thoughts about Paul. That is if we want to throw names around. Along with my systematic theology professor, and biblical history professor all of them. So according to the rules that I play by you were totally incorrect in your assessment of what Paul said in 1 Cor. 15.

Thinking through someone else's point of view might be a little "tedious." Sorry.

[Diogenes]

A corollary to 'The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally,' is the contradiction of theists trying to use science to support their claims. Having no rational way to support claims of the existence of a God, theists proclaim that their god is "outside the universe" or otherwise is beyond the bounds of science. The imaginary 'soul,' spirit world, and "God" cannot be observed, studied, or discovered, so theists artfully claim their beliefs are beyond the realm of science.

The gross inconsistency (if not intellectually dishonest) of this stance comes when they try to use science to prove their unscientific claims. If you reject science in favor of mysticism or the 'assurance of things not seen,' why attempt to use science to prove those unscientific claims? This is a type of intellectual hypocrisy. Worse is that when science reveals the truth of evolution and a 4 Billion year old Earth, it is science that is rejected in favor of myth, thereby necessitating the development of pseudo science to explain what science has rejected.

A central principle of science is that claims follow facts. The theist insists facts be contorted to fit claims.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #973]

The gross inconsistency (if not intellectually dishonest) of this stance comes when they try to use science to prove their unscientific claims. If you reject science in favor of mysticism or the 'assurance of things not seen,' why attempt to use science to prove those unscientific claims? This is a type of intellectual hypocrisy. Worse is that when science reveals the truth of evolution and a 4 Billion year old Earth, it is science that is rejected in favor of myth, thereby necessitating the development of pseudo science to explain what science has rejected.

A central principle of science is that claims follow facts. The theist insists facts be contorted to fit claims.

Wow, everyone wants to throw stones at a distance no one wants to engage.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #968]

How clever to allow for animate objects like human-god hybrids to break the laws of physics and perform miracles. But I guess that is necessary when miracles have to be accepted as objective truth with no supporting evidence.

Why is this clever? By definition, inanimate objects are not conscious so they cannot do miracles. Animate objects with will and consciousness if possible could perform miracles.

As of right now the only way this universe exists is by some sort of miracle happening because matter and energy had to come from somewhere.

• You obviously do not understand the insurmountable problems with planet formation, plate tectonics, and comets. And if I were you or anyone else I would not want to try to explain them either.
  
  1. Tectonic plates that are still ridged in the mantle and thousands of degrees cooler than the surroundings. That is how they are detected the temperature difference. Do you believe that they could be in the mantle for hundreds of millions of years and still be thousands of degrees difference in temperature? So do you also believe that the laws of thermodynamics do not exist in the mantle?
  GOD-DID-IT
  
  2. The carbon problem. Do you believe in a little green carbon planet that gave Earth its carbon? Was it complete with little green men also?
  GOD-DID-IT
  
  3. Do you have a mechanism for the death of 99% of life on earth? Oh wait, I heard a tale tell once of Carbon dioxide suddenly coming out of the ground one day and killing everything on earth. That is right just one-day carbon dioxide was created in the ground and started to come out. Or at least that is what the Barbarian said the mechanism was. Who cares about geophysics there is no need for that. Forget about energy transfer no need for that either.
  GOD-DID-IT
  
  4. And then maybe it was carbon dioxide that covered the dead plant and animal life that caused them to become fossilized. Forget about chemistry and mineralization.
  GOD-DID-IT
  
  5. Then there are all of the problems with planetary formation, to begin with like the migration problem.
  The other main difficulty is the so-called "migration" problem. Protoplanets are not sitting stationary in the gas disks as they bulk up. Due to gravitational interactions with the disks, the protoplanets swirl rapidly inwards toward their central stars in what scientists call "Type 1" migration. Models predict that this death spiral can take as little as 100,000 years.
  GOD-DID-IT
  Your theme by making the statement above seems to be "Who cares about stinking physics." The migration problem is a major major problem. The equation Radius = Mass(central) x Velocity2/F(centripetal) . So as the mass of the protoplanet increases the Centripital force increases which means that the Radius decreases.
  GOD-DID-IT
  
  You seem to live in a world where inanimate objects can perform miracles to break the laws of physics. You are welcome to live in that world if you wish. I prefer to live in a world that has objective truth. In a world where inanimate objects do not perform miracles. But suit yourself.

If I were a materialist I would not want to answer these either.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #958]

You are really accusing creationists of working backward.

Yes. Brown wanted to explain Noah's flood and needed "fountains of the deep" as he knew it was impossible to create such a scenario by condensing all of the water in the atmosphere into liquid (that would be about 1" of water on the surface), or by melting all of the ice at the poles and in glaciers (about 60-70m). So he invents in his head subsurface chambers with 3x the amount of H2O as in all the oceans and simply declared that these things existed, then added the breakthrough scenario and imagined forces enough to expel the water and rocky debris into space to create comets and asteroids, and crater the moon (on both sides somehow, despite the moon being tidally locked to Earth), and cause the global flood.

Humphreys needed an initial magnetic field for his planetary magnetic field explanation, so like Brown he simply declares that the planets were initially balls of H2O, with god aligning all the H-atom nuclear spins to create the initial field. Add an adjustable decay constant to a single exponential decay, and viola ... a theory of planetary magnetic fields.

These are both examples of working backwards from a believed scenario to try and create a scientific explanation, with initial conditions that were never justified to create a valid foundation to begin with. I can make similar arguments to explain some of the items you mentioned (using your numbers in post 958):

2) Easy ... there were giant chambers of CO2 just below the crust (who cares how they got there or if they actually did exist), and the incoming meteor caused fissures allowing the Earth to have a big sneeze and expel all the CO2.

4) Another easy one ... the gas giants started as balls of a special material (let's call it unobtainium), and god swooped in and converted the unobtainium to H2, He and a few other elements and molecules. Over time these settled into the planets we see today.

5) This was part of scenario 2 above. Some of the CO2 found its way into the atmosphere, and some was dissociated in the initial impact and followed downward fissures into the mantle to be bound up in compounds stable at mantle temperatures and pressures (and a bonus from the process, an explanation for ... diamonds!).

In fact, virtually anything can be explained via this approach ... just be sure to submit the manuscripts to the approproate creation journals.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Yes. Brown wanted to explain Noah's flood and needed "fountains of the deep" as he knew it was impossible to create such a scenario by condensing all of the water in the atmosphere into liquid (that would be about 1" of water on the surface), or by melting all of the ice at the poles and in glaciers (about 60-70m). So he invents in his head subsurface chambers with 3x the amount of H2O as in all the oceans and simply declared that these things existed, then added the breakthrough scenario and imagined forces enough to expel the water and rocky debris into space to create comets and asteroids, and crater the moon (on both sides somehow, despite the moon being tidally locked to Earth), and cause the golbal flood.

Humphreys needed an initial magnetic field for his planetary magnetic field explanation, so like Brown he simply declares that the planets were initially balls of H2O, with god aligning all the H-atom nuclear spins to create the initial field. Add an adjustable decay constant to a single exponential decay, and viola ... a theory of planetary magnetic fields.

Isn't that what Einstein did when scientific consensus was a static universe?
Inflation theory was born out of an observation contrary to the big bang theory.

Isn't that what any theory does when it is faced with contrary data? A new working hypothesis has to be formed and hopefully, it can be done using the original assumptions.


The assumption in the creation model
1. God inputted matter and energy into the universe for one week to create the basic structure of the universe.
2. After that week in which the laws of physics have also created the laws of physics are what govern the universe everywhere. Except for specifically expressed times.

Changing where the water came from in the flood did not violate any of the basic assumptions of the creation model. It simply meant that the structure was incorrect. Humphrey and his ball of water do not violate any creation model assumptions it is simply trying to figure out the original structure of the universe. Now once the basic structure is found then the laws of physics should take over and predict what we observe in nature today. And I believe that Humphrey's theory and most of Brown's theory do.

Yes, I understand that the first assumption would be very difficult to falsify. Because of the nature of the energy being added. But predicting events from that point should be falsifiable and are falsifiable as evidenced by the change made from where the waters of the flood came from.

This is Wikipedia's definition of a miracle.

• A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or praeternatural cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle?s ... r=7b6ecff0

And as we have discussed before there are many things about naturalistic theories that cannot be explained by natural processes that would have to be called miracles.

The three assumptions of the Big Bang theory. The assumptions can be shown to be incorrect.

• The laws of physics are universal and don't change with time or location in space.

• • The laws of Physics, at some point in the past, would have to break down to create the matter and energy in this universe.

• The universe is homogenous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily all of the time).

• • This has already been shown not to be true.

• • Although the universe is inhomogeneous at smaller scales, according to the ΛCDM model it ought to be isotropic and statistically homogeneous on scales larger than 250 million light years. However, recent findings have suggested that violations of the cosmological principle exist in the universe and thus have called the ΛCDM model into question, with some authors suggesting that the cosmological principle is now obsolete and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric breaks down in the late universe.[1]

• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as its very center.

When applied to Einstein's equations, they indicate that the universe has several properties:

The universe is expanding. Yes as of right now the universe seems to be expanding.

The universe emerged from a hot, dense state at some infinite time in the past.

• The universe indicates that the universe started with low entropy. This would not be low entropy.

• The lightest elements, hydrogen and helium were created in the first moments.

• • The universe has a lithium problem.

• • There is a significant discrepancy between theoretical and observed amounts of lithium in our universe. Now, researchers have reduced this discrepancy by around 10 percent, thanks to a new experiment on the nuclear processes responsible for the creation of lithium.

• A background of microwave radiation fills the entire universe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #977]

Isn't that what Einstein did when scientific consensus was a static universe?

Einstein formulated his ideas on special and general relativity via observations and thought experiments, worked through the complicated math over many years with help from others, and made a testable prediction (ie. light from distant stars would be deflected as it passed near a massive body like the sun). Great effort was made by experimental groups to try and measure the small predicted deflections during an eclipse. The first attempts were not conclusive, but 2 years later a second round of attempts were successful and Einstein because a global sensation. He also explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury which further supported his ideas, and more than a century later a large number of additional observations have confirmed his ideas on relativity and gravity, time dilation, etc. and if reached the formal status of scientific theory.

Brown, Humphreys, etc. are not even close to this kind of confirmation. Their initial conditions were picked from thin air and have yet to be shown to be valid or even feasible. Their goal was to support creationism and a young earth model consistent with their biblical interpretations, then try and legitimize those views by formulating scenarios that they argue are consistent with modern science. Again, working backwards.

Inflation theory was born out of an observation contrary to the big bang theory.

And it has yet to be proven a correct idea. The very fact that the math breaks down at t=0 for Big Bang models shows that it isn't complete or fully understood in all details yet. Inflation is an idea to explain certain aspects of the model that require such a fast and huge expansion of spacetime, but it is still a hypothesis waiting for confirmation (or a trip to the dust bin).

Isn't that what any theory does when it is faced with contrary data? A new working hypothesis has to be formed and hopefully, it can be done using the original assumptions.

Yes, but the difference between science and religion is that the assumptions have to eventually be confirmed as correct. Einstein argued that the speed of light in vacuum was constant for any frame of reference and all observers, and could not be exceeded by anything with a nonzero rest mass. The many implications of this followed from the mathematical formulation of his ideas, and there were definite predictions that could be experimentally checked. Those showed that his assumption was indeed valid and (so far) no exceptions have been found. Humphreys read some bible passage about "waters above", leaped to the idea that this justified an assumption that the planets started as balls of water, and off he went. We know the planets did not start as balls of H2O, and that destroys his entire "theory" of planetary magnetic fields.

The assumption in the creation model
1. God inputted matter and energy into the universe for one week to create the basic structure of the universe.
2. After that week in which the laws of physics have also created the laws of physics are what govern the universe everywhere. Except for specifically expressed times.
...
And as we have discussed before there are many things about naturalistic theories that cannot be explained by natural processes that would have to be called miracles.

Gods and miracles are not science explanations, and it has always puzzled me why the the Brown's and Humphreys' of the world (and ESG's) don't just quit with those explanations and stop trying to force compatibility with modern science. What's the point ... other than to try and legitimize the biblical stories by claiming that they are compatible with modern science? It is a battle that was lost long ago.

Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as its very center.

That's right ... we don't.

A background of microwave radiation fills the entire universe.

Another point scored ... the observed CMB. It is the red-shifted emission from a universe full of hydrogen atoms emitting initially at about 3000K (~900 nm wavelength) once the universe became transparent to radiation (surface of last scattering). Present Planck temerature is about 2.7K or near 1 mm wavelength. Another prediction (Apher, 1948) that was eventually confirmed in 1965. Let me know when Humphreys' prediction that planets started as balls of H2O is confirmed, or Brown's giant underground chambers of pressurized H2O. Then we can assess the rest of their ideas.

[Jose Fly]

Your pseudo science claims and lengthy quotes and paraphrases of nonsense spouting pseudo-science blogs do not warrant even reading, let alone arguing with, anymore than does the nonsense from Flat-Earthers and evolution deniers. You have never offered any original thinking as you continue to repeat the nonsense of those opposed to science because it conflicts with religious fantasy. Why anyone bothers to refute your dark aged blather is beyond me. I for one will not contribute to the public airing of intellectual sewage by bothering to take yours seriously.

It's important to note that when it comes to debating a <10,000 year old earth and a global flood ~4,000 years ago, we're talking about things that haven't been debated in scientific circles for over 200 years. I guess I kinda get why folks like ESG go into Christian forums and promote those things....they're important aspects of his belief system after all, no different than Jehovah's Witnesses arguing against blood transfusions. I also get why Barbarian engages with it, since it's an opportunity for him to learn some things and share it with anyone who might read his posts.

But when it comes to actually debating a young-earth and Biblical flood, you're absolutely correct....it's no different than debating flat earthism, or geocentrism. They're all nonsense that haven't been at all relevant in science for over two centuries, so what's the purpose of arguing over them now? The only thing I can think is that since the arguments are so easy to win, they're kinda fun and provide a type of ego boost.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Einstein formulated his ideas on special and general relativity via observations and thought experiments, worked through the complicated math over many years with help from others, and made a testable prediction (ie. light from distant stars would be deflected as it passed near a massive body like the sun). Great effort was made by experimental groups to try and measure the small predicted deflections during an eclipse. The first attempts were not conclusive, but 2 years later a second round of attempts were successful and Einstein because a global sensation. He also explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury which further supported his ideas, and more than a century later a large number of additional observations have confirmed his ideas on relativity and gravity, time dilation, etc. and if reached the formal status of scientific theory.

Einstein first formulated his belief that light moved at a constant speed and never changed. And then he simply described how other properties had to change. Properties like space and time. To make his theory of relativity he made two assumptions.

1. The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames that are moving at a constant velocity (not accelerating).
2. The speed of light is the same in all of these reference frames, even if the source of the light is moving

These were two beliefs that he had and then he calculated how things would change as a result of these two assumptions. He then showed how his equations described reality as observed. He then made predictions of where planets and objects would be seen as the light went around the sun. Which is really general relativity but the two are closely related. You are correct I love this experiment they had to wait for an eclipse to happen to make the measurement. One of the truly great scientific experiments.

All new theories come out of beliefs that scientists have that is why it is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis could really be called a testable belief.

Brown, Humphreys, etc. are not even close to this kind of confirmation. Their initial conditions were picked from thin air and have yet to be shown to be valid or even feasible. Their goal was to support creationism and a young earth model consistent with their biblical interpretations, then try and legitimize those views by formulating scenarios that they argue are consistent with modern science. Again, working backwards.

Really, Einstein's belief that time and space could slow down and the contract was not a belief. Whether they picked them out of thin air or not is really not the issue. The issue is whether can they be tested and can they correct predictions of reality.

This is the issue with string theory. String theory makes the assumption that all matter and energy are made from vibrating strings. But it is not a testable hypothesis. Where did the idea of vibrating strings come from? It was a belief that someone had. I forget who it was right now. Although string theory does make the prediction of supersymmetry as of today supersymmetry has not been found.

Inflation makes the assumption that very shortly after the Big Bang, the universe expanded very rapidly for a short period of time. Much faster than normal expansion due to Big Bang. It was an exponential expansion and occurred around 10−32 seconds after Big Bang and lasted for tiny fraction of a second. This was the original assumption it has changed multiple times.

The following is from Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... hallenges/)

• Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found. (How could this be considered testable)

• To demonstrate inflation's problems, we will start by following the edict of its proponents: assume inflation to be true without question. Let us imagine that a professed oracle informed us that inflation definitely occurred shortly after the big bang. If we were to accept the oracle's claim as fact, what precisely would it tell us about the evolution of the universe? If inflation truly offered a simple explanation of the universe, you would expect the oracle's declaration to tell us a lot about what to expect in the Planck satellite data.

• One thing it would tell us is that at some time shortly after the big bang there had to have been a tiny patch of space filled with an exotic form of energy that triggered a period of rapidly accelerated expansion (“inflation”) of the patch. Most familiar forms of energy, such as that contained in matter and radiation, resist and slow the expansion of the universe because of gravitational self-attraction. Inflation requires that the universe be filled with a high density of energy that gravitationally self-repels, thereby enhancing the expansion and causing it to speed up. It is important to note, however, that this critical ingredient, referred to as inflationary energy, is purely hypothetical; we have no direct evidence that it exists. Furthermore, there are literally hundreds of proposals from the past 35 years for what the inflationary energy may be, each generating very different rates of inflation and very different overall amounts of stretching. Thus, it is clear that inflation is not a precise theory but a highly flexible framework that encompasses many possibilities.

• Inflationary energy is thought to arise from a hypothetical field, called the inflaton, analogous to an electric field, that permeates space and has a strength (or value) at every point in space. Because the inflation is hypothetical, theorists are free to imagine that the inflaton is gravitationally self-repulsive to cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The strength of the inflaton field at a given point in space determines the inflationary energy density there. The relation between the strength of the field and the energy density can be represented by a curve on a graph that looks like a hill [see box below]. Each of the hundreds of inflationary energy models that have been proposed has a precise shape for this hill that determines the properties of the universe after inflation is over—for instance, whether or not the universe is flat and smooth and has nearly scale-invariant temperature and density variations.

Inflation theory is nothing more than a belief in materialism that someone made up as an ad hoc theory to save the belief in the big bang theory of materialism. Materialism just has not panned out as a viable theory. This is because inflation theory and the big bang theory existence are linked if one dies the other also dies. They cannot be separated.

With regards to Humphrey's theory and the theory, I am proposing which is actually a combination between Walt Brown's theory and catastrophic plate tectonics from scientists at Answers in Genesis mainly both of these theories have made accurate predictions using their stated or believed assumptions.

Yes, but the difference between science and religion is that the assumptions have to eventually be confirmed as correct. Einstein argued that the speed of light in vacuum was constant for any frame of reference and all observers, and could not be exceeded by anything with a nonzero rest mass. The many implications of this followed from the mathematical formulation of his ideas, and there were definite predictions that could be experimentally checked. Those showed that his assumption was indeed valid and (so far) no exceptions have been found. Humphreys read some bible passage about "waters above", leaped to the idea that this justified an assumption that the planets started as balls of water, and off he went. We know the planets did not start as balls of H2O, and that destroys his entire "theory" of planetary magnetic fields.

How is this not also true in creationist theories? The creationist theory does have the added complication of also being true to the text of the Bible but they also have to make testable predictions to show that this is the way that God made reality. The water canopy theory is an example of a failed creationist theory.

Gods and miracles are not scientific explanations, and it has always puzzled me why the Brown's and Humphreys' of the world (and ESG's) don't just quit with those explanations and stop trying to force compatibility with modern science. What's the point ... other than to try and legitimize the biblical stories by claiming that they are compatible with modern science? It is a battle that was lost long ago.

I think Einstein put it best, "to know the mind of God." In the end, it could be that God created the water in the sky for the flood and lower the dry land so that it was covered with water. But that is generally not how God brings calamity on men. It is usually a result of their own doing. What was the original structure of the Earth before the flood? What was the extent of the damage that the flood caused? These were the questions that started science in the first place when most all scientists believed in the flood and God. You cannot make predictions about nature without knowing the initial conditions of the universe and Earth.

Another point scored ... the observed CMB. It is the red-shifted emission from a universe full of hydrogen atoms emitting initially at about 3000K (~900 nm wavelength) once the universe became transparent to radiation (surface of last scattering). Present Planck temerature is about 2.7K or near 1 mm wavelength. Another prediction (Apher, 1948) that was eventually confirmed in 1965. Let me know when Humphreys' prediction that planets started as balls of H2O is confirmed, or Brown's giant underground chambers of pressurized H2O. Then we can assess the rest of their ideas.

Where did you get this idea from? That the CMB gave off the hydrogen spectrum. I have always understood the CMB to be black body radiation. And that at like 2900 degrees and some change Hydrogen becomes transparent enough to let electromagnetic energy through it.

• As the universe expanded, the temperature of the cosmic soup dropped below 2967° Kelvin. The electrons and protons were then able to combine to make neutral hydrogen. Hydrogen is almost completely transparent to the cosmic background radiation, thus after the universe reached this temperature cosmic radiation could propagate freely through the universe. The appearance of the sky on cloudy days is a good analogy to the appearance of the microwave background radiation. https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/sgoal ... 0radiation.

• A blackbody is an ideal surface that completely absorbs all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation falling on it. A black body will also be a perfect emitter of electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths. The radiation is characteristic of the temperature of the black body but not of the atoms it is made from. When a body is at room temperature, the strongest emissions are in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. https://www.scienceflip.com.au/subjects ... ht/learn8/

• A blackbody is a theoretical concept and in reality perfect black bodies do not exist.

One of the characteristics of the CMB is how smooth it is. The CMB has the same temperature difference as a cup of water would have after it has reached equilibrium with its surroundings. So why would the temperature decrease be this consistent across the entire universe? This is the reason why inflation was invented. But the theory still predicted variability in the temperature.

• According to the Big Bang model, however, the CMB should not be perfectly uniform. Although the Big Bang assumption of isotropy does not allow for temperature differences that stretch across large patches of the sky, it predicts that small patches (with an angular diameter of about 1° or less) should show extremely subtle variations in temperature, with some spots being very slightly warmer or cooler than 2.7 Kelvins.7 Secular cosmologists originally expected the sizes of these temperature differences to be about one ten-thousandth of a Kelvin, but later measurements showed that this expectation was 10 times too large; the actual measured differences were about a hundred-thousandth of a Kelvin.8 (Wright, E. L. 2004. Theoretical Overview of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy. In Measuring and Modeling the Universe, Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, vol. 2. W. L. Freedman, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 292.)
  
  Creation astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner often recounts his personal memory of how surprised secular scientists were when the measured temperature differences were smaller than expected.

Humphery did solve this problem with his theory.

In 1976, William
Unruh showed that an accelerating particle would experience blackbody radiation with a temperature T given by 
T = hg/(2(pi)ck)
h = plancks constant
g = acceleration in m/s2
c = speed of light
k = boltzmann constant

Solving that equation for acceleration with known values gives an acceleration of 6.721 E20 m/s2

So if the universe was accelerating at this rate the universe would give off the same temperature that it is not giving off. And it would be very consistent across the universe.

We already know that your secular theories do not work.

The other problem is that you do not have any workable theory for the mass extinctions.