Science Supports Long Ages And Evolution, Not Young-Earth Creationism

[FaithfulCenturion 206]

 

This is all apart of what I like to call: The "Last Port in the Storm" scenario (Or "Only" Port, in this specific case). It occurs when the postulator (holding deuce-seven off suit) gets called "ALL IN". Instead of heading off to the rail quietly, contemplating the circumstances that led to their demise----so as to not repeat it in the future, they make a scene trying to divert attention away from their trainwreck off a hand. Of course, everybody and their sister knows what the score is because they've witnessed and/or have employed this tactic before many many times on the Playground when they were growing up. They wait until the postulator has left or is not looking..... then snicker to themselves.

 

Characteristics of the "Last Port in the Storm" scenario: Logical Fallacies, Name Calling, Diversions, Color Commentaries, One Liner- Hand Wave Dismissals, Revisionism, "conjured" ill-conceived slights, et al.

 

 

Anything else?

It may also fit with "FC's law"(link in signature).

[want the truth 16]

Loving some of the response here!

[lifepsyop 230]

Regarding my first point, you described it as begging the question – could you please elaborate on this?

 

Sure, begging the question is a fallacy of assuming the conclusion... or assuming the very thing that is under debate.

 

In laying out your case for Evolution, the first point you listed was:

"The geologic column records changes of communities of organisms over long time (hundreds of millions of years)"

 

This is the basic fundamental claim of Evolution theory - that organisms are changing into different types of organisms over millions of years. So it appears you just said Evolution is true because Evolution is true.

 

Maybe you only meant that different types of organisms are found in different rock layers. However "hundreds of millions of years" itself, or the idea that the fossil record represents periods of long progressive change is one of the main things under debate, so it makes no sense to use the assertion as evidence for what is being asserted.

[piasan 1,402]

A lot of evolutionists that believe in absurd unproved-eons believe they are rational and scientific people that observe reality, and that Christians that accept the bible, aren't.

 

(All fallacies/errors are highlighted in red in this post)

Please explain to me how my conclusion of "absurd unproved-eons" is a fallacy.

 

Here's what drives my conclusion.... This time of year, in an area with dark skies you can look to the northern sky and see a big "W." Reach out with your fist and align the edge of your fist with the western star of the W and the other side of your fist toward the south. About one or two fist widths, there is a smudge about the size of the full moon. That smudge is the galaxy Andromeda. Andromeda is 2.4 million light years from Earth and is the most distant object visible to the unaided eye. It's 400x times farther than we should be able to see in a 6,000 year universe. In fact, the central bulge of THIS galaxy is still 4x farther than we should be able to see.

 

In short, my acceptance of "absurd unproved-eons" is based on astronomy and physics. It is the result of a rational and scientific approach to observational reality.

 

Those Christians who openly declare any evidence in conflict with (their literal reading of) the Bible is INVALID BY DEFINITION are not taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence.

 

This is an absurd false-dichotomy that to me, indicates they have a low IQ, I would only urge you to avoid such sophistry. We don't take lightly to that sort of thing.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. There are many very intelligent Genesis literalists. IMO, the difference is more about how one approaches the evidence.

 

Thirdly, the reason I say, "absurd unproved eons" is that I don't have a question-begging-epithet to call evolutionists. "YEC" is used as an epithet.

If I wanted to use an epithet, I'd use "cretinits" instead of "creationists." YEC is simply an abbreviation for "Young Earth Creationist" Sometimes I use "Genesis literalist." You're in a forum owned and operated by creationists... take the chip off your shoulder

 

I invite you to learn what we say first hand rather than going from second-hand information and then parroting that information. Really when it comes to you yourself, individually, I don't know you and have nothing to say about you. So I am only informing you of the common types of argument that are regularly used, I have debated the issue for about 11 years on and off.

Why is it creationists think we haven't learned what they say first hand?

[piasan 1,402]

Sure, begging the question is a fallacy of assuming the conclusion... or assuming the very thing that is under debate.

 

In laying out your case for Evolution, the first point you listed was:

"The geologic column records changes of communities of organisms over long time (hundreds of millions of years)"

 

This is the basic fundamental claim of Evolution theory - that organisms are changing into different types of organisms over millions of years. So it appears you just said Evolution is true because Evolution is true.

 

Maybe you only meant that different types of organisms are found in different rock layers. However "hundreds of millions of years" itself, or the idea that the fossil record represents periods of long progressive change is one of the main things under debate, so it makes no sense to use the assertion as evidence for what is being asserted.

Here's a good example of not knowing what the other side says.....

 

Evolution is a branch of biology. Geology is the study of the Earth and is totally independent of evolution. The hundreds of millions of years is based on nuclear physics which is totally independent from both geology and evolution.

[Calypsis4 639]

Here's a good example of not knowing what the other side says.....

 

Evolution is a branch of biology. Geology is the study of the Earth and is totally independent of evolution. The hundreds of millions of years is based on nuclear physics which is totally independent from both geology and evolution.

 

Evolution is an arbitrary choice among biologists. Biology is the legitimate science and evolution is a philosophical belief system; nothing more. I agree that Geology is the study of the earth and is totally independent of the philosophy of evolution.

 

Your 'hundreds of millions of years' notion does not negate the evidence of a young earth and/or universe. We've listed them here on EFF countless times but like the stubborn individual that you are, you just diss it all no matter how legitimate it is.

[lifepsyop 230]

Here's a good example of not knowing what the other side says.....

 

Evolution is a branch of biology. Geology is the study of the Earth and is totally independent of evolution. The hundreds of millions of years is based on nuclear physics which is totally independent from both geology and evolution.

 

Universal common descent is completely dependent on the basis of rock layers representing millions of years. If you lose the geologic time, then universal common descent goes up in smoke with it. It couldn't be more simple to understand.

[Calypsis4 639]

piasan claims: "Those Christians who openly declare any evidence in conflict with (their literal reading of) the Bible is INVALID BY DEFINITION are not taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence."

 

So once again we see that God's Word is invalid to him.

 

Once again we see that he makes God's Word take a back seat to that which was created. So the 'creation' is trusted but the written Word of the Creator is not.

 

Where have we heard this before? Perhaps... Quote: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25?

[Mattias 13]

To livepsyop, and especially to Fred Williams:

I wish you would read my posts more carefully before you jump to conclusions. This especially concerns Fred, who posted a reply to my original post without apparently making the effort to follow my further explanations in the thread as to what my original post was all about. Even though I had just posted further clarifying remarks regarding this. So I am saying this again:

I was just posting a descriptive account of different elements of the evolutionary theory. Nothing more, nothing less. I did not include any points of evidence or any other supporting information, because my post was not intended as a specific argument for evolutionary theory. Just a description, with an attempt to order its different elements in a hierarchical epistemic order. As it was never my intention to use this initial post to argue for anything, whatsoever, it is premature to read in any kind of fallacy of argumentation in my post, and even more premature to complain about the absence of supporting evidence.

To Everybody:

In every form of scientific argument about different descriptive or explanatory models, it is vital to define the key elements of each model, so that we can distinguish how the models differ from each other. This is the central analytical core of the scientific method: Identify important differences between explanatory models, so that their respective differences and similarities can be tested against empirical observations of reality. This is how we distinguish between conceptual models according to the scientific method.

In order to facilitate further comparisons between different historical models of the universe, Earth, and the diversity of life, I extend my first post with a parallel comparison between the main models that seem to be endorsed by different people in the creation/evolution debate (and which are included in the drop-down list of this forum). Without any attempt to endorse either of these views just yet, just FYI.

I have tried to make a graphical representation of the key elements of each model, to show their respective differences and similarities. Enjoy! Any comments to this? Do you understand my rather amateurish graphical points? Is this a fair representation of your personal views? Did I unfairly include some heretical elements, or exclude some vital elements, of any model? Let's see if I can figure out how to include image material in a post....

[Mattias 13]

 

Universal common descent is completely dependent on the basis of rock layers representing millions of years. If you lose the geologic time, then universal common descent goes up in smoke with it. It couldn't be more simple to understand.

 

Piasan, lifepsyop is correct here. It would be hard to argue a full evolutionary explanatory model as we know it, without the support of geologic time. On the other hand, the opposite relation is perfectly legitimate. It works fine to argue millions of years without assuming an evolutionary process.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Please explain to me how my conclusion of "absurd unproved-eons" is a fallacy.

 

In short, my acceptance of "absurd unproved-eons" is based on astronomy and physics. It is the result of a rational and scientific approach to observational reality.

 

Those Christians who openly declare any evidence in conflict with (their literal reading of) the Bible is INVALID BY DEFINITION are not taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence.

 

Piasan, you've conflated the age of the earth with the age of the stars. Even if those galaxies are billions of years old or millions of years, that wouldn't mean the earth was present at that time. I was not referring to the age of the stars.

 

 

 

Piasan: If I wanted to use an epithet, I'd use "cretinits" instead of "creationists." YEC is simply an abbreviation for "Young Earth Creationist"

 

You haven't yet fully understood what an epithet is. An epithet can be used as a true description, but still be an epithet.

 

For example if a racist white person was having an argument with a black man, imagine if to 'win' the argument, so to speak, he said, "yeah well who wants to hear your opinion anyway, black man?"

 

In this example, the description of the person is true, but the racist-epithet is supposed to equate to, "second-class person, inferior, worth less than white people".

 

But in a normal conversation, a none-racist person would say that "he was tall and black", because we would only be describing the colour of their skin.

 

In the same way, the only reason we are referred to as, "Young-earth creationists" is because evolutionists want to place a lot of emphasis on the "young-earth" because in the west, people have been taught for decades that long-eons are factual science, so evolutionists KNOW that if they use that terminology, people will automatically equate us to "flat-earthers".

 

But think about it for a moment Piasan, why pre-fix the term with "young earth"?

 

The old-earth creationists for example, only disagree with us on how Genesis is interpreted, but fundamentally they agree with us about most things, so to create a delineation based on a somewhat trivial part of our ideology, is a bit strange.

 

Think about it, does it matter how old something is? It's only because we take the bible as it is read that we accept an inference of a young earth, but if God had indicated an old earth, that would also be our position, it is only a trivial part of the discussion, IMHO.

 

Sure, you might use the "YEC" terminology innocently, but the point is, that term is used as an epithet. A lot of evolutionists love to highlight that terminology, instead of just calling us creationist, because they know that readers/the public, will automatically treat what we say as silly/crackpot, because they know how the public have been indoctrinated into the long-age interpretations of geology. They ABUSE this fact which is why they LOVE the term, YEC. It is dishonest, for the intellectually honest.

 

A bible-believing Christian is a better description of us, or "Christian-creationist", but to call me a "young-earth creationist" is like calling me a "sponge-using, window-cleaner". Why include a TRIVIAL pre-fix in the terminology? It's TELLING. Learn to read between the lines, Piasan.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mattias, did or did you not state these words in your opening post:

 

 

 

.Mattias: In parallel, the same kind of scientific reasoning falsifies the central tenets of young-earth creationism:

 

That is not how falsification works anyway, you can't vote for falsification. Falsification happens via the modus-tollens rule, logically you have to create a correctly-sound logical syllogism that deductively proves you have falsified a notion.

 

what we actually find is that evolution defies logic, and is a plastic-theory that can incorporate any evidence, because it is unfalsifiable.

 

 

 

Mattias: it is premature to read in any kind of fallacy of argumentation in my post, and even more premature to complain about the absence of supporting evidence.

 

Then don't make false claims about science falsifying that which has not been falsified. The actual argument if you want to state it correctly is to say that the mainstream "scientists" have STATED that scientific rules have falsified creationism.

 

What you are really referring to is the semantics of "what science is", and because they define it as methodological-naturalism, then creation will automatically not qualify, even if it is true.

 

Think about it, creation, let's say for arguments sake, is 100% true. But even if that is the case, science would still say it is falsified because it doesn't fit with scientific rules.

 

Logically that proves you can have something that is not included in science, is believed to be falsified by science, which is actually true.

 

So then, that should tell you Mattias, that to over-value scientific semantics, is what you are doing here. You need to think about it, there is no way it is as simple as the false dichotomy of saying that, "it's either scientific and true, or falsified by science or unscientific"

 

So I would say that you are seeing this whole issue in simplistic, black-and-white, terms.

[piasan 1,402]

piasan claims: "Those Christians who openly declare any evidence in conflict with (their literal reading of) the Bible is INVALID BY DEFINITION are not taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence."

 

So once again we see that God's Word is invalid to him.

 

Once again we see that he makes God's Word take a back seat to that which was created. So the 'creation' is trusted but the written Word of the Creator is not.

 

Where have we heard this before? Perhaps... Quote: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25?

Once again, we see Calypsis distort what I actually said beyond all comprehension. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything at all about the validity of the Bible.

 

My comment was that there are certain (groups of) Christians who clearly declare any evidence not in keeping with their literal reading is invalid by definition. Here are the statements from two major YEC ministries:

 

From AIG we have:

•By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

(Source: https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/ ) (Emphasis Pi's, note they point out the evidence is subject to "interpretation by fallible people" but they completely ignore the Bible is also being interpreted by fallible people.)

 

In a similar vein, ICR says:

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

(Source: http://www.icr.org/tenets ) Again, emphasis Pi's.

 

Now, to get back to what I actually said..... Those Christians who take this position without even examining the evidence are not taking a rational and scientific approach to it. The reason is that if one is taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence one must, at least attempt to approach said evidence objectively. These declarations of faith mandate that one's conclusion(s) about the evidence were determined in advance. Now, I will agree that we all have our biases and prejudices..... but an objective and scientific approach to the evidence requires we attempt to set those aside. These ministries openly declare they will not do this. In that declaration, they have made a declaration that is not only Unscientific. I would go so far as to say they are Antiscientific.

 

I suggest that if Calypsis wants to argue about what I've said, he should deal with my actual comments .... not his strawman reconstruction of them as is so often the case.

[piasan 1,402]

Here's a good example of not knowing what the other side says.....

 

Evolution is a branch of biology. Geology is the study of the Earth and is totally independent of evolution. The hundreds of millions of years is based on nuclear physics which is totally independent from both geology and evolution.

Universal common descent is completely dependent on the basis of rock layers representing millions of years. If you lose the geologic time, then universal common descent goes up in smoke with it. It couldn't be more simple to understand.

Piasan, lifepsyop is correct here. It would be hard to argue a full evolutionary explanatory model as we know it, without the support of geologic time. On the other hand, the opposite relation is perfectly legitimate. It works fine to argue millions of years without assuming an evolutionary process.

LP is correct that if long time is lost, evolution goes out the window.

 

My point was that the conclusion of an ancient Earth/universe is absolutely independent of evolution. That discussion is one of nuclear physics.... not biology. My apologies for my lack of precision.

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

I was just posting a descriptive account of different elements of the evolutionary theory.

 

Scientific Law: States the "What".

 

Scientific Theory: Explains the "HOW".

 

So you were describing the "HOW"? "How" about showing the... "How" it happens, First; then, summarizing the different elements?

 

To Everybody:

In every form of scientific argument about different descriptive or explanatory models, it is vital to define the key elements of each model, so that we can distinguish how the models differ from each other. This is the central analytical core of the scientific method: Identify important differences between explanatory models, so that their respective differences and similarities can be tested against empirical observations of reality. This is how we distinguish between conceptual models according to the scientific method.

 

This is the Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

 

1. Can you show us where "The Central Analytical Core" of the Method is "Identifying important differences in Explanatory Models"......??

 

 

2. "So that their respective differences and similarities can be tested against empirical observations of reality".

 

a. But all of these "Explanatory Models" are concerning the PAST. How can these be TESTED against Empirical Observations of the PRESENT...?

 

Please provide: Make/Model/Serial# of your Time Machine....?

 

Empirical: OBSERVABLE, Measurable/TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable. So "Empirical Observations" is somewhat Redundant. Like True Facts.

 

 

b. Also, How do you TEST for Similarities in Models? Do you compare the ingredient lists of the: Glue/Poster Board/ Color of Pins ect, then make a call....??

 

What is the Independent Variable of your TEST for "Similarities".....Your Eyelids? What is the final product of your TEST? Looks like a YES or NO motif....yes?

 

Since a Scientific Theory is Explaining the "HOW": And "Your" "HOW" boils down to a Yes or No....Ergo: Please Define "How" and "Explanation".....?

 

In other words, "How did you build that Double Decker Barbecue Grill ", your Answer (explanation): "Yes".

 

 

Science is in the business of Observing Phenomenon in the Natural World and attempting to Validate Causation through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

 

It's Not... about comparing competing "Explanatory MODELS" of Begging The Question Fallacies/ "Just So" stories in an attempt to elucidate "Similarities" or Differences. We leave that to 2nd Graders on Playgrounds comparing their different Optimus Prime Robots complete with "Historical Narratives"---Yarns, of origination; and how the Purple one is Better than the Orange one...just before the teacher snatches them up by their shirt tails to have them focus on staying within the lines when coloring.

[piasan 1,402]

Please explain to me how my conclusion of "absurd unproved-eons" is a fallacy.

 

Here's what drives my conclusion.... This time of year, in an area with dark skies you can look to the northern sky and see a big "W." Reach out with your fist and align the edge of your fist with the western star of the W and the other side of your fist toward the south. About one or two fist widths, there is a smudge about the size of the full moon. That smudge is the galaxy Andromeda. Andromeda is 2.4 million light years from Earth and is the most distant object visible to the unaided eye. It's 400x times farther than we should be able to see in a 6,000 year universe. In fact, the central bulge of THIS galaxy is still 4x farther than we should be able to see.

 

In short, my acceptance of "absurd unproved-eons" is based on astronomy and physics. It is the result of a rational and scientific approach to observational reality.

Piasan, you've conflated the age of the earth with the age of the stars. Even if those galaxies are billions of years old or millions of years, that wouldn't mean the earth was present at that time. I was not referring to the age of the stars.

You weren't specific as to which "aeons" you were speaking. However, either way the Young Earth / "Plain reading" model is refuted by an objective, rational and scientific approach to observational reality..

 

The Biblical account has the creation of the stars taking place on Day 4. After the Earth (and even some life) has been created. If the Earth was not present when the stars were created, the "plain reading" is false.

 

If the stars are billions of years old and the Earth existed at that time, then the Earth is also billions of years old. Once again, the "plain reading" is false.

 

Where's the fallacy?

[Calypsis4 639]

piasan:

 

Once again, we see Calypsis distort what I actually said beyond all comprehension. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything at all about the validity of the Bible.

 

 

Why don't you try telling the truth? YOU DO NOT BELIEVE GOD'S WRITTEN WORD and you have stated this position several times here on EFF.

 

What the plain text of scripture tells us means nothing to you. What your guesswork physics tells you is what you believe even if it is in direct conflict with what the Lord says in the Bible. So you believe nature but not the God who created nature.

My comment was that there are certain (groups of) Christians who clearly declare any evidence not in keeping with their literal reading is invalid by definition. Here are the statements from two major YEC ministries:

 

From AIG we have:
•By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
(Source: https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/ ) (Emphasis Pi's, note they point out the evidence is subject to "interpretation by fallible people" but they completely ignore the Bible is also being interpreted by fallible people.)

 

 

 

The AIG position is quite correct. Nature is defined by God and what His word said, not by the interpretation of how nature appears to people of your persuasion...even if some of the facts at present seem to tell us otherwise. Why? Because in the end of all consideration it will be known that facts we derive accurately will be in line with what the Lord revealed about His creation in the first place.That day is coming. We may not see all the facts clearly..............yet. But we will and you sir, and those like you will be rebuked.

In a similar vein, ICR says:
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
(Source: http://www.icr.org/tenets ) Again, emphasis Pi's.

 

 

 

Again, they are quite correct and your interpretations of scientific fact is not only in error, but it amounts to unbelief; in other words it is sin in God's sight. Unless your attitude towards what the Holy Spirit inspired in scripture changes then your future is in jeopardy.

 

Now, to get back to what I actually said..... Those Christians who take this position without even examining the evidence are not taking a rational and scientific approach to it.

 

 

That simply isn't true. But such statements are nothing new for you, sir.

 

So are you suggesting that I did not 'examine the evidence' over the last 45 years? Russell Humphrey's did not 'examine the evidence' all these years? Setterfield did not 'examine the evidence' all this time.........just because you arbitrarily say so?

 

The reason is that if one is taking a rational and scientific approach to the evidence one must, at least attempt to approach said evidence objectively.

 

 

But you are not taking a 'rational scientific approach'. Every single one of your so-called distance/time measuring methods for stars/galaxies are frought with problems, some more and some less as I am about to reveal within a week or so. Your belief in the big bang is NOT supported by any evidence that matter was created out of nothing...by means of nothing (or whatever you designate). Your belief in 'dark matter' is based merely on mathematical necessity to explain the expansion of our universe. Your belief in abiogenesis is based upon no observed fact of nature...not even one. So how do you call all of that 'scientific', sir?

 

You may have been able to bluff your way through other websites you've posted on these subjects but you arent going to get away with that junk here.

 

These declarations of faith mandate that one's conclusion(s) about the evidence were determined in advance.

 

 

That's because God Almighty told us................................as to what He did and why He did it --- and sooner or later all the facts that we empirically investigate will match what He said. It's His created world and He told us the truth about that created world, but you don't believe Him. Sir, that's going to cost you your eternal soul if you don't repent.

 

Now, I will agree that we all have our biases and prejudices..... but an objective and scientific approach to the evidence requires we attempt to set those aside. These ministries openly declare they will not do this. In that declaration, they have made a declaration that is not only Unscientific. I would go so far as to say they are Antiscientific.

 

 

 

The greatest objective approach is to believe what God Almighty says..............FIRST. Then we investigate to find out how He did it.

 

I suggest that if Calypsis wants to argue about what I've said, he should deal with my actual comments .... not his strawman reconstruction of them as is so often the case.

 

 

Argue? Lord willing I am going to take you down just like I did on the entropy cell death issue weeks ago. I've got even stronger evidence for that subject that I'll be posting later. Actually, there is lot's of it.

[MarkForbes 167]

Some arguments for a young earth according to AiG:
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Piasan: You weren't specific as to which "eons" you were speaking. However, either way the Young Earth / "Plain reading" model is refuted by an objective, rational and scientific approach to observational reality..

 

I don't think that follows, logically. Observational-reality is a bit of a buz-phrase, everything in science is inductive and is based on apriori assumptions of some sort. To assume the stars are millions and billions of years old would be to infer a conclusion from only one line of evidence. (Starlight).

 

As for stars being created on day four, the text says they were made for us for signs and seasons. It would make sense that God would make it so that we could see the stars and galaxies immediately, for if they were made for signs and seasons and we couldn't even see them, that wouldn't make sense. I suspect the tremendous act of creation was instantaneous in the bringing of light to earth, unless God was unable to perform this, which seems like a silly conclusion given His omnipotence.

 

When you say we have to be objective, that might work for individual facts, the distant star-light is about the best 'case' you can make for objectivity, but to pretend evolution-theory is where the objective facts lead is simply not the case. The scientists in Darwin's time made accurate statements about his theory, that it depended on so little facts. Largely Darwin's theory is conjectural and created a new and tenuous branch of science, historical science, which is inherently philosophical.

 

 

I think your approach about us being anti-scientific is also a bit of a misunderstanding. There is no actual scientific fact that INSISTS by observation, that a series of evolutions took place. In actual fact we have a very complete creation.

 

I don't mind that fellow-Christians such as Hugh Ross, see Genesis as an interpretation of a grandiose creation, also grandiose on a large time-scale. I don't think that needs to be a contentious issue as it's not as important, but I think a lot of us believe there is no way around the plain reading of the text that seems to indicate a young earth, and perhaps even a young universe. I've always said I'm "open" to being wrong but I just don't believe God is wrong. Yes to me potentially being wrong, but God wrong? No chance!

[piasan 1,402]

Thirdly, the reason I say, "absurd unproved eons" is that I don't have a question-begging-epithet to call evolutionists. "YEC" is used as an epithet.

YEC is simply an abbreviation for "Young Earth Creationist" Sometimes I use "Genesis literalist." You're in a forum owned and operated by creationists... take the chip off your shoulder

You haven't yet fully understood what an epithet is. An epithet can be used as a true description, but still be an epithet.

Full Definition of EPITHET

1

a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing

b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet )

 

Notice, the primary usage is the one I pointed out and is also the manner in which I use the term. It's simply an abbreviation.

 

For example if a racist white person was having an argument with a black man, imagine if to 'win' the argument, so to speak, he said, "yeah well who wants to hear your opinion anyway, black man?"

 

In this example, the description of the person is true, but the racist-epithet is supposed to equate to, "second-class person, inferior, worth less than white people".

 

But in a normal conversation, a none-racist person would say that "he was tall and black", because we would only be describing the colour of their skin.

Interesting you should bring that particular example up. Along those lines, when I was younger the proper, polite, and correct terms we used for that group were "negro" or "colored." My teenage students were horrified that those "racist" terms were in common usage.

 

That said, I couldn't help but notice the difference in the tones of your examples. One was clearly using the term "black" in a disparaging manner and the other was clearly using it as a simple descriptor. So, either way, YEC is an epithet. The question is whether or not it is being used in a disparaging way.

 

In the same way, the only reason we are referred to as, "Young-earth creationists" is because evolutionists want to place a lot of emphasis on the "young-earth" because in the west, people have been taught for decades that long-eons are factual science, so evolutionists KNOW that if they use that terminology, people will automatically equate us to "flat-earthers".

 

But think about it for a moment Piasan, why pre-fix the term with "young earth"?

To differentiate them from "OEC" with whom I mostly agree.

 

 

The old-earth creationists for example, only disagree with us on how Genesis is interpreted, but fundamentally they agree with us about most things, so to create a delineation based on a somewhat trivial part of our ideology, is a bit strange.

Theistic Evolutionists also disagree on how Genesis is interpreted but fundamentally agree with you on most things. It is the YEC who create that delineation with their demand that Genesis be taken literally. Take your own advice and learn what YEC ministries say first hand. Read the mission statements and objectives of the leading YEC ministries.

 

Sure, you might use the "YEC" terminology innocently, but the point is, that term is used as an epithet. A lot of evolutionists love to highlight that terminology, instead of just calling us creationist, because they know that readers/the public, will automatically treat what we say as silly/crackpot, because they know how the public have been indoctrinated into the long-age interpretations of geology. They ABUSE this fact which is why they LOVE the term, YEC. It is dishonest, for the intellectually honest.

According to the definition of "epithet" (above), "YEC is an epithet either way. The pejorative usage of "YEC" you are complaining about wouldn't last long here.

 

A bible-believing Christian is a better description of us, or "Christian-creationist", but to call me a "young-earth creationist" is like calling me a "sponge-using, window-cleaner". Why include a TRIVIAL pre-fix in the terminology? It's TELLING.

Sometimes I use the term "Genesis literalist" rather than YEC. If the prefix is so "TRIVIAL" (emphasis yours), why are you making such a big deal of it?

 

This forum is tightly monitored. There is no doubt in my mind that pretty much every post is read by moderators.. at least mine are. I have been an active participant here for more than a year. In that time, you are the first I've seen complain the term "YEC."

 

Again, I suggest you take that chip off your shoulder.

 

That said, the whole discussion of the usage of "YEC" is For that reason, I will not comment further on it here.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Piasan: That said, I couldn't help but notice the difference in the tones of your examples. One was clearly using the term "black" in a disparaging manner and the other was clearly using it as a simple descriptor. So, either way, YEC is an epithet. The question is whether or not it is being used in a disparaging way.

 

That is correct. That is what I meant to convey, you have the correct understanding of what I meant by that. I was showing that the same word could either have epithetical-undertones, or it could not. It's not about the word itself, it's about what the author really means by using it. You can use the term, "black" to refer to an African American person, simply to describe that person. or if you are a racist, you could use the term as an epithet, as I shown in the example. I only used it as an example as it came to mind as an example that might happen in real life. To use an example of a racist-subject doesn't make me racist any more than discussing the Mona Lisa would make me Leonardo Davinci. Your implication is therefore most unwelcome.

 

It's not really about what you will read online about epithets, it's about having a deeper understanding about what they are which takes some figuring out, and acuity. For example if I called you a "weak and stupid Christian", that might be the use of an overt question-begging-epithet, but some of them can be very subtle. Notice that the word in itself isn't an epithet, because logically, someone might genuinely be a stupid Christian. Even the word, 'only' can be an epithet. For example, "oh it's okay, this response is ONLY by Piasan". That would be an epithet, because it implies more than the word. Jason Lisle written a good article about epithets, and here it is:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-the-question-begging-epithet/

 

 

Lisle:

Question-begging epithets can be subtle. Consider this phrase: “evolution vs. creationism.” By attaching -ism to the end of creation but not to evolution, the person is subtly suggesting that creation is merely a belief, whereas evolution is not. But he or she has made no argument for this.

 

My argument is that, "YEC" has come to MEAN something ELSE, it has undertones to it, evolutionists KNOW that and use that. When a word means something else it is an epithet because it becomes a subtle way of distracting people, and misleading people.

 

I don't mind being called a Young Earth Creationist, like a window-cleaner wouldn't mind being called a "water-washing window cleaner", but really what is the point in describing me in that trivial manner? Are not we first and foremost, Christian - is that not the more important thing to be called? You wouldn't call me a, "Paulian Christian" or a, "Old Testament adhering Christian". The earth being young is only a rather trivial issue on the list, compared to the more important beliefs of Christianity. So I wonder why the "young earth" is attached there, it seems to me, this description always stems from evolutionists. It is accurate but it is inappropriate. I believe it is an epithet because it is glaringly obvious that the evolutionist is taking advantage of the fact that most people would equate the belief in a young earth as the equivalent of believing a flat-earth. Epithetical value, is established, and do I believe the atheists would use that in their sinful dishonesty? Of course I do, I have experience of them, and they always show their sinful nature to dominate them.

 

You are certainly a person that wants to use the term, "YEC" and awful lot! I think it might be unwitting, it implies we are none-scientific, you lump us all in there as YECs, when in fact OECs agree more with us on a lot of things, than they do you.

 

I know from experience, OECs have more respect from evo-atheists. I know from experience, YECs are stereotyped as religious folk that don't acknowledge anything scientific.

 

That sir, is quite simply a load of codswallop. So please note Sir, I am observing your epithet-useage towards us, to stereotype us as unscientific.

[MarkForbes 167]

.....

My argument is that, "YEC" has come to MEAN something ELSE, it has undertones to it, evolutionists KNOW that and use that. When a word means something else it is an epithet because it becomes a subtle way of distracting people, and misleading people.

....

Like "Racism", lol.

 

I just find this a marginal discussion about something relatively irrelevant here. It's about debate tactics. The question is rather straight to the point of "Science supports long ages". and "Science supports Evolution".

 

If you'd like to debate meaning of words, rather focus on possibly shifted meanings of "science" and "Evolution". Science can mean body of scientific knowledge, the facts or the scientific community. And Evolution is often equivocated from "change over time" to "molecules to man evolution" (they like to cut out the first part, then it's "microbe to man evolution").

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mark, I would say 'science' is the chief-epithet for evolutionists so that's a good point, in my debates with them over the years they constantly appealed to it, Ipse Dixit. Example: "I go with what science says."

 

Ironically these evolutionists tended to not actually know that much about the theory of evolution which was often quite amusing to me because their constant refrain was that I was the one that didn't know much about it. Lol. So basically they didn't know much about their theory, yet they believed it anyway because of their atheism. Which makes a lot of them specifically UNSCIENTIFIC despite the ipse-dixit appeal to, 'science'.

 

This great pretense that the evolutionist side are all rational, scientific, objective robots and we are religious crackpots, is a silly and false dichotomy. Even look at the title to this thread, it tells us that "science" supports evolution, as though science is a person that absolutely guarantees evolution is 100% truth. (A fundamental misunderstanding of what science is)

 

It is hard to imagine what an atheist-evolutionist would talk about if he could not appeal to science. I have never known one of them to not use it to support their philosophy because without evolution, their philosophy is obviously redundant.

 

I think this is all on-topic personally, because many question-begging-epithets are being used in this topic, even in the title itself. That's just my opinion, I don't mind shutting up if the admin tell me to of course.

[cheeseburger 24]

Although I do sincerely believe the data points to an old earth and evolution I suspect I would lean to a naturalistic view of natural history purely out of attraction. As a child I was a sort of passive creationist but then I was on a coastal walk when I was about eight and a friend of my father's was pointing out bays and headlands and arches and spits and how they formed imperceptibly over aeons indifferent to human affairs and that gave me a quiet epiphany: how the history I was learning at school was nested in our more primitive origins itself nested in broader natural history (and later I saw how our planet and solar system could be understood in terms of natural star formation etc.; a possible natural beginnings to life was perhaps the last piece of the puzzle).

 

The coherence and cold, uncompromising materialism of the naturalist narrative carries for me a mystique that religions with their provincial focus, moral reactionism and impending apocalypse cannot rival. Darwin talked of a grandeur in this worldview but I would go a step further and contend that it's refreshingly spiritual to to contemplate one's own lack of importance. Of course I was the kind of kid who got into Asimov and later into existential stuff so perhaps the tendency was always latent. I accept I may be wrong but it f so I will be disappointed beyond the eternal consequences.

[Mattias 13]

Mike, perhaps we can step past whining about epithets towards discussing specifics. If you have any specific complaints about something I say, feel free to address them in your responses to me, but otherwise try to focus on the matter at hand. For the record, you have carte blanche to label me with any epithet that you wish as long as you do not try to obstruct the discussion – should I as much as flinch in response, I owe you a beer. Fair enough?

 

Here are some specifics: You unfairly characterize my outlook as black-and-white, which is not correct – and you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions here. I don’t want to treat you the same way, and therefore I want to start by asking you the following question (not a statement):

 

From what I have read of your posts in this thread, it seems like you don’t subscricbe to the same general type of black-and-white dogmatism about biblical events as exemplified in this forum by - to take a random pick - Calypsis4? I think a good expression of this kind of dogmatism is articulated for example by the Statement of Faith mandated by creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

 

• The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
• The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
• The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
• The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
• The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
• The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
• Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

 

Mike, from what I understand you may believe in a literal reading of scripture, but you are open to the possibility that your personal interpretation of scripture could be wrong? If I am correct in this, it would definitely help in creating some common ground for discussion.