Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
218 replies to this topic

#21 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 31 December 2014 - 04:52 AM

Lifepsyop, I appreciate your thoughtful and rather measured response, especially in contrast to some of the other barrages directed at my post in this thread. I hope that I have now also made it clear (see above as well) that this was indeed never intended as anything more than a bullet list of points. They are an atttempt to outline how the evolutionary theory is structured, in a hierarchical fashion. No arguments for these points have been put forward, because it is a descriptive overview – nothing else.
 
Regarding my first point, you described it as begging the question – could you please elaborate on this?


#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 December 2014 - 07:01 AM

 

Mattias: 1: Fossil Sorting: The geologic column records changes of communities of organisms over long time (hundreds of millions of years)

 

 

That's actually a proposed inference, what it actually shows is a great many dead things preserved in all types of rock.

 

 If you are genuinely interested in rational discourse, you will study my blog-entry very carefully, although understanding the points I make will be difficult, because they come from a sound understanding of the notation of logic, and a lot of people struggle with a high level of logic.

 

I urge you to see the folly of your statement, because it is based on an Argument-From-Silence.

 

http://creationworld...olutionary.html

 

Like I say, high logic is a little bit like a maths-problem, to understand why I am correct will take an understanding of the subject itself. 

 

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. 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.

 

Secondly, here is a little test I made for evolutionists, I imagine if you can pass the test, then you have an understanding of evolution that at least matches mine. Which is to say, if you are tempted to believe creationists are all called, "Bubba" and don't know a thing about mainstream science, THINK AGAIN:

 

http://evolutionfair...c=6284&p=116241

 

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

 

Even though we do think the earth is young, even though we do think God created the earth, it would be best to call us bible-believing Christians, a lot of people now use the term, "YEC" because they think that it will convince readers that to be a YEC is absurd, because a young-earth is something in secular-circles that seems to be absurd. When people hear the word, "YEC" they automatically make a fallacious association in their minds with the word, "crackpot".

 

As I say, the nature of an epithet is that it is used as an emotive terminology, even if it is technically correct, epithets are only used because they carry an unfair psychological power.

 

For example, it might be easy to call a Christian a "homophobe" even if that is not what we are, people tend to do this so they can win an argument by using a certain type of powerful, emotive word, that carries weight with the public.

 

Putting it into a category of, "you are either a scientific evolutionist or a YEC" is not only a false dichotomy called a Limited-Choice-Fallacy, but it is also to state essentially an argument depending on epithets, because it makes it seem as though all of the YECs are out-of-touch religious idiots, but obviously it doesn't actually prove that we are. it also makes it seem like if you support evolution, you are scientific.

 

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


  • FaithfulCenturion likes this

#23 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 31 December 2014 - 07:50 AM

Hello Mike, if you are interested in a real discussion about specifics, rather than in labelling me and attributing things to me that I have never stated, then you are welcome.



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 December 2014 - 08:54 AM

Hi, Mattias, sorry if that came across as all aimed at you, not really though. I'm not really interested in labelling you, it's just that you must come to realise that a lot of the things you will think about us are going to be things that are very common stereotypes of us.

 

Really if anything, I'm just trying to swerve you away from committing the common mistake of thinking that the evolutionist is a sane, scientific, person of realism and rationalism and the Christian is a none-scientific, religious crackpot.

 

Deep down I think you believe those two extremes are true, but a lot of what atheists say about us is actually wrong and our arguments hold up. 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.



#25 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 31 December 2014 - 08:57 AM

 

As a newcomer to this forum, I am encouraged to see that the moderators don’t seem to have a policy to gratuitously ban non-YECs. It seems like at least some YECs here also stay around for the discussion, which I am not used to from other sites (not that many, but whatever…). 
 
I thought I should start with a discussion regarding how the scientific method, based on empirical observations and deductive reasoning, supports an evolutionary origin for the diversity of life from common ancestry. In parallel, the same kind of scientific reasoning falsifies the central tenets of young-earth creationism: a simultaneous creation of all groups of organisms (well, 6 days…), a world-wide flood, and a 6000-year history of the world.
 
Modern evolutionary theory consists of a hierarchical, multi-level framework, which also partly reflects (but does not currently rest on) its historical development. It could be represented like this, starting from what are basically rather non-controversial observations to an over-arching explanatory mechanism:
 
1: Fossil Sorting: The geologic column records changes of communities of organisms over long time (hundreds of millions of years)
 
This observation is compatible with most world views from old earth creationism to theistic evolutionism – just not with Young Earth Creationism, I guess. 
 
2: Fossil Sorting: The sorting of organisms in the geologic column, and their biogeographical distributions, are roughly what could be expected, based on an evolutionary process.
3: Anatomy and nested hierarchies: Fossil and living organisms exhibit combinations of differences and similarities in morphological and embryological characters that could be expected, based on an evolutionary process.
4: Genetics and nested hierarchies: Sequences of DNA and proteins of living organisms exhibit differences and similarities that could be expected, based on an evolutionary process. 
5: Conclusion: Life on Earth today is the product of a long process of evolution, i.e. descent with modification from common ancestors. (= Macroevolution, for those so inclined).
 
Finally:
 
6: Mechanisms: As the icing on the evolutionary cake, we have the question of which mechanism is responsible for the above-mentioned scenario. The (neo-)Darwinian mechanism of natural selection in combination with mutational variation is the commonly accepted explanatory mechanism within the mainstream scientific community. Whether natural selection is sufficient to explain all the evolutionary patterns that we observe, could always be a matter for discussion. Perhaps someone would like to attribute parts of this scenario, or all of it, to the actions of an almighty Creator? However, the question about explanatory mechanisms is partly different from the scientifically established facts of fossil sorting, common descent, et cetera. We do not need to agree on a specific mechanism in order to discuss established facts regarding the historical scenario of long ages and an evolutionary process behind the diversity of life. 
 
Now, I suspect that many people here do not agree with my claim that the standard evolutionary model, rather than young-earth creationism, is better supported by science. But is there someone willing to formulate an alternative YEC scenario that can be compared against the standard evolutionary scenario on an equal epistemic footing?
 

 

 

Mattias, your entire post above did not include a single shred of evidence for your position. With the exception of item #1, I could substitute the word 'creation' for every single argument you made, and reach a conclusion based on creation. Of course if I did that, like you I too would be arguing in a circle.

 

Just consider item #1. There are plenty of evolutionists who won't even go there because they know its way too easy for us to point to evidence upon evidence for stasis observed in the fossil record. Dendrogramma is one such recent example of 550 million years of missing evolution. And item #4 is not only unsubstantiated its was also clearly shown to be unfalsifiable in the Cytochrome C thread

 

Fred



#26 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 31 December 2014 - 02:25 PM

 
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).

#27 want the truth

want the truth

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • n/a

Posted 31 December 2014 - 04:37 PM

Loving some of the response here!



#28 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 31 December 2014 - 05:38 PM

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.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#29 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 December 2014 - 06:39 PM

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?


  • Mattias likes this

#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 December 2014 - 06:49 PM

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.



#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 December 2014 - 06:57 PM

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.



#32 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 31 December 2014 - 07:36 PM

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.


  • Enoch 2021 and Mattias like this

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 December 2014 - 08:08 PM

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?
 



#34 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 01 January 2015 - 06:29 AM

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....
 
Models_Creation_Evolution.jpg


#35 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 01 January 2015 - 06:45 AM

 

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.



#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2015 - 06:53 AM

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.



#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2015 - 07:15 AM

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.



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 January 2015 - 12:03 PM

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://answersingen...rg/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.



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 January 2015 - 12:19 PM

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.


  • Mattias likes this

#40 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 January 2015 - 12:26 PM

 

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.    






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users