22 replies to this topic

[Percy]

I think the idea that people who question evolution orthodoxy are necessarily rejecting science is repugnant. Whether you are doing it consciously or not. I guess it is just par for the course that anyone questioning evolution is definitively questioning science in the eyes of the evolution faithful. Instead why not consider that it is the science that is starting to unravel the assumed mechanisms of Darwinism?

I'm going to have to request your help here. I don't want to cause inadvertent offense, but I don't want to abandon advocacy of legitimate positions simply from fear of causing offense.

So what I said that you objected to was that OECs are much less extreme in their rejection of science than YECs. I said this because I thought that this was true, and I want you to tell me whether this is true or not:

• YECs reject radiometric dating and OECs don't.
• YECs reject plate tectonics and OECs don't.
• YECs reject sea floor striping and OCEs don't.
• YECs reject an ancient earth and OECs don't.
• YECs reject the geologic column and OECs don't.
• YECs reject the antiquity of the fossil record and OECs don't.
• YECs reject the Big Bang and OECs don't.
• YECs reject an ancient universe and OECs don't
• YECs reject star formation and OECs don't
• YECs require accelerated radioactive decay for which there is no scientific evidence and OECs don't
• YECs require that the entire fossil record be a result of the flood and OECs don't
• YECs require thousands of magnetic reversals occurring in few month period and OECs don't.
• YECs require catastrophic plate tectonics during the flood and OECs don't.
• YEC's require hydrologic sorting, or at least something that is not supported by science, to explain the fossil distribution and OECs don't.

So there are two major possibilities. Either that list is largely correct and it was an accurate statement that OECs are far less extreme in their rejection of prevailing views within science, but I need to find another way to express this. Or the list is largely wrong and OECs actually agree with YECs on many of these points (which raises the question of why they're OECs, but that's another issue), and in that case I withdraw my comment and apologize.

That video you posted was about the Cambrian explosion. Creationist objections to the Cambrian explosion are already well known to everyone familiar with the debate. Berlinski said that it wasn't just the Cambrian explosion, it was the entire fossil record that was mysterious to the point of telling us nothing. Upon what does he base this claim? Like I said before, not even ICR agrees with him.

One of the fun things about science is learning about the empirical support for some view within science, but beyond being fun the knowledge is actually necessary and important. Say I found Berlinski's claim about the fossil record persuasive, and so in my next discussion with someone I repeated the claim that the fossil record is mysterious and tells us nothing. The other person asks, "Why is it mysterious?" I have no other answer other than to say, "Got me, ask Berlinksi."

In other words, I believe it important to have at least a layperson's knowledge and understanding of the empirical evidence. Without that I become just a bundle of unsupported opinions probably selected on the basis of how much I liked them rather than how well they correspond to the real world.

--Percy

[Adam Nagy]

Hey Percy,

I put this on its own thread because this is a great thread starter.

I noticed that you aren't very familiar with the speeches and seminars offered by prominent YECs like Gary Parker, Jason Lisle and Steve Austin. There are many thoughtful people who address your questions posed here, with great detail, thoughtful critiques and what is really going on from the YEC perspective. Are you interested?

Adam

[jason777]

Percy,

We don't reject anything there is empirical evidence for.We simply don't agree with their assumptions.

You have too many things on the list for me to get into right now,but i will cover a couple and we can cover the rest later if you wish.

•YECs require accelerated radioactive decay for which there is no scientific evidence and OECs don't

Evidence of accelerated radioactive decay is the result of empirical measurements of helium in zircons.

http://www.icr.org/article/302/ - 23k -

•YECs reject the geologic column and OECs don't.

We don't reject the geologic column,we reject it supporting evolution by the lack of evidence supporting it and the numerous lines of evidence supporting rapid deposition rather than millions of years.

http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm - 5k -

7exxtkN8610&hl=en&fs=1

In fact,i could likely find you a referrence to at least two places on earth that have all 10 geologic eras stacked on top of each other.

1)It is still only a tiny fraction of what uniformitairians need to justify hundreds of millions of years.The OE geologic column would be 150-200 miles thick if found in it's totality.

2)It does not have the order of fossils in it that is shown in the text books.



Later.

[Adam Nagy]

Jason is giving this thread a great start. Percy, if you want to understand why we aren't shaken by the charge that we reject science, listen to this talk given by a YEC authority, Ken Ham:

http://www.answersin...e-god-come-from

We aren't rejecting any of the facts or evidences that you can put in front of us. The problem is that a certain group of people have dishonestly wrestled their interpretation of the evidence into the fact column and we, as creationists, are not only rejecting this action but also using this occurrence as a case study of how a culture can be decieved.

Evolutionists do everything in their power to discredit creationists before a discussion starts because they really don't want the discussion to happen at all. The reason this forum is relatively small is because we spend a disproportionate amount of time ejecting people who have no interest in real discussions. The end result is much better though. We end up with a small handful of unbelievers/evolutionists who can actually dialogue on the issues.

Here is another article that is perfect for revealing what is really going on. Even creationists need to be reminded of this so they don't shy away from the science looking for some esoteric 'magic bullet'

http://www.answersin...5/i2/bullet.asp

[Percy]

Hi Jason!

Thanks for responding to two of the points, but I think we might have different understandings of the thread's topic. You're responding as if this were about providing evidence in support of YEC views. But I thought Adam created this thread because he objected to my characterization of YECs as being much more extreme in their rejection of science than OEC's. Adam even posted a message here explaining how some YECs had given a lot of thought to resolving these issues, or at least that's what I thought he meant.

So when you argue that zircons are evidence of accelerated radioactive decay, you're only providing evidence of my premise, that YECs are more extreme in their rejection of science than OECs, because the scientific and OEC interpretation of zircons is that they provide no evidence whatsoever of accelerated radioactive decay. Or am I wrong about that? Any OEC's out there?

It is the same thing for the geologic column. I was being brief, and what I actually meant was that YECs reject the geologic column as evidence for an ancient Earth. Science and OECs both take the opposite interpretation, that the geologic column *is* evidence of an ancient earth. Once again, YECs are more extreme in their rejection of science than OECs.

Now I presume that both YECs and OECs claim that they're not rejecting science, so maybe it's words like "rejecting" that is the problem? If that's the case then allow me to rephrase: OECs agree with consensus scientific views to a much greater extent than YECs.

--Percy

[Percy]

The problem is that a certain group of people have dishonestly wrestled their interpretation of the evidence into the fact column and we, as creationists, are not only rejecting this action but also using this occurrence as a case study of how a culture can be deceived.

Science and culture are two different things. Evolution is the overwhelming consensus view within science today. But within our culture generally there's a roughly 50/50 split between those who accept evolution and those who don't. You've lost the scientific battle. I don't think you've lost the cultural battle.

Evolutionists do everything in their power to discredit creationists before a discussion starts because they really don't want the discussion to happen at all.

Both sides have people like Ron, probably in the same proportions. You can't change human nature.

The reason this forum is relatively small is because we spend a disproportionate amount of time ejecting people who have no interest in real discussions.

I'm aware of your moderation practices. I've known Fred for a long time.

Here is another article that is perfect for revealing what is really going on. Even creationists need to be reminded of this so they don't shy away from the science looking for some esoteric 'magic bullet'...

I read the first page or so. If it's about the list of arguments that AiG believes creationists should avoid, then they deserve credit for taking that stand. Ham and other creationist leaders like H*vind disagree strongly about it, all the more reason to give Ham credit for taking an unpopular stand.

About the Ken Ham video, I've already very familiar with the views of Ken Ham and AiG. If there's something specific in the series of three videos you think I should watch then just let me know which ones and the times. But I prefer seeing you make your points in your own words.

--Percy

[Adam Nagy]

But I prefer seeing you make your points in your own words.

Well, you've come to the right place for that.

[jason777]

•YECs reject plate tectonics and OECs don't.

Percy,

It was part of the creation model for 50 years,while evolutionists called any scientists who believed in it ignorant.

The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three continents." .


In 1858, geographer Antonio Snider-Pellegrini made these two maps showing his version of how the American and African continents may once have fit together, then later separated.A creation scientist by the name of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini later published the concept in his book, La Création et ses mystères dévoilés (Creation and its Mysteries Unveiled), in 1858. To form his theory, Snider drew from Genesis 1:9-10 where it is explained that God gathered the seas into one place, suggesting the possibility of one single landmass at that point in time. He also observed the close fit of the Eastern South American coast and the Western African coast. He concluded that the Flood of Noah had caused subsequent horizontal movement of the supercontinent causing it to break, thus forming the tectonic plates. Snider's idea was overlooked, possibly due to the fact that Darwin's book had been published in the same year. Snider wrote a book and even had it translated into French, but still, his theory went unnoticed until the early twentieth century. At that time, the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote a book on the idea of one original supercontinent called Pangaea.

But still, for about 50 years this thought was neglected due to a small group of seismologists who professed that the strength of the mantle rock was too great to allow continents to drift in the way Wegener had calculated. They estimated the rocks strength by watching the behavior of seismic waves as they went through the earth. But they were calculating the strength of the rocks at the time of their testing, not from back when the earth was in it's pre-flood state. During those 50 years, scientists who believed in the theory of one original supercontinent were considered ignorant people who didn't look at the facts. But today, that view has reversed.

http://creationwiki....ntinental_drift - 41k -

Something that should also be considered,is the fact that catastrophic plate tectonics provides a plausable mechanism for an iceage.

1)We need warmer oceans for an increase of percipitation.

2)We need colder summers so it does'nt melt,but builds up.

The plates moving rapidly woud generate the heat to warm up the oceans and the tremendous amount of sulfur released by volcanism would reflect the suns radiation back into space,resulting in colder summers.

I've never heard a plausable OE explanation that can account for both occuring at the same time.



Enjoy.

[Adam Nagy]

I've never heard a plausable OE explanation that can account for both occuring at the same time.

Sure you have. Anything can happen... given enough time.

[jason777]

•YECs require thousands of magnetic reversals occurring in few month period and OECs don't.

There is good experimental data that corroborates rapid reversals.

Coe and Prevot have analyzed paleomagnetism in a Miocene basalt flow at Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon, U.S.A. Using cooling models, they obtained good estimates of the time lapse between when various levels of the basalt flow cooled to a sufficiently low temperature for the magnetic characteristics to remain fixed (be recorded). From an analysis of the paleomagnetism at various levels in the flow, together with the associated time differences, they were able to establish geomagnetic field change rates of at least 3 degrees direction and 300 gammas intensity per day. At 3 degrees change per day a reversal (180 degrees change) could be completed in two months. Three hundred gammas is in the vicinity of 1/150 of the present geomagnetic intensity. The available evidence indicates that although the geomagnetic field intensity decreased during reversals, it did not drop to zero.
    Coe and Prevot describe 3 degrees per day as "an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction", and state further that "the rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer ..., even when regarded as an impulse during polarity transition, truly strains the imagination". They conclude that the most probable explanation for the observations on which their conclusions are based "is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change most likely originated in the core [of the earth]".

Conclusion

    There will now be a stimulus for effort to develop models to explain geomagnetic field reversals on a time scale of days, rather than thousands of years. Whether or not these efforts become successful, we can expect more research data that confirm and broaden the conclusions which have been presented by Coe and Prevot, and that makes acceptance of biblical chronology a less stressful experience of faith. The scientific literature already includes one response by an individual who maintains the view that thousands of years are necessary for a geomagnetic reversal, yet is unable to challenge the data presented by Coe and Prevot, or the analysis by which they arrived at their conclusions (Fuller 1989).

http://www.grisda.or...igins/16081.htm - 11k -



Enjoy.

[jason777]

Sure you have. Anything can happen... given enough time.

Oh yaeh,i forgot,nothing can be known to be absolutely true.LOL

[Percy]

Hi Jason,

Again, my purpose wasn't to question the scientific evidence behind YEC beliefs. My point was that YECs accept far fewer of the consensus views of science than OECs. Perhaps you can find an OEC with whom to discuss the specifics of your differences.

--Percy

[Adam Nagy]

Hi Jason,

Again, my purpose wasn't to question the scientific evidence behind YEC beliefs.  My point was that YECs accept far fewer of the consensus views of science than OECs.  Perhaps you can find an OEC with whom to discuss the specifics of your differences.

This thread is for you, Percy. If you want to understand why we feel our position, as unpopular as it may be among people labeled scientists, is not only scientific but actually more consistent with the data... then it's up to you to decide which specific things are most perplexing to you and why.

The problem of just looking at the consensus as authoritative is itself just a huge stalling device. Let me explain. How can new ideas ever be considered as reasonable explanations of anything if the consensus is looming over the whole process as a major factor of consideration? I'm not saying consensus has no value. Let's face it, if you have ideas that make no sense to anybody and no matter how you explain it, people consistently reject those ideas with substantial objections then you may want to reevaluate the usefulness and truthfulness of your harebrained ideas.

However, there is a very consistent and growing group of professional YECs that not only pose ideas and solutions to the streams of objections against them but they also stand up to scrutiny by very consistently answering the rebuttals to their arguments.

I became a believer in YEC because of the evidence and arguments not because of some childhood indoctrination that I'm holding onto doggedly.

[Adam Nagy]

In fact I would say this. If you look closely at the arguments that take place. The most likely place you'll see the consensus trump card pulled out in these debates is when a creationist is bringing out a viable argument for consideration. To avoid this consideration the consensus wild card is played and the conversation goes off in another direction.

[Percy]

This thread is for you, Percy. If you want to understand why we feel our position, as unpopular as it may be among people labeled scientists, is not only scientific but actually more consistent with the data... then it's up to you to decide which specific things are most perplexing to you and why.

I think we have different ideas about the purpose of this thread. You objected to my assertion that YECs reject far more consensus scientific views than OECs. I amended that to say that YECs accept far fewer consensus scientific views than OECs. Even if you convince me that every single YEC position is correct, the statement that YECs (now including me, I guess) accept far fewer consensus views than OECs is still correct.

It's beginning to look to me like you want this thread to have as its topic any YEC view that isn't shared by the consensus of scientific opinion. That seems far too broad for an effective topic.

The problem of just looking at the consensus as authoritative is itself just a huge stalling device. Let me explain. How can new ideas ever be considered as reasonable explanations of anything if the consensus is looming over the whole process as a major factor of consideration? I'm not saying consensus has no value. Let's face it, if you have ideas that make no sense to anybody and no matter how you explain it, people consistently reject those ideas with substantial objections then you may want to reevaluate the usefulness and truthfulness of your harebrained ideas.

If YECs think they have views of scientific value then the task before them is to convince their scientific colleagues by presenting cogent evidence and arguments. That's how any scientific perspective becomes part of the consensus.

A view isn't scientific because it happens to have a consensus. Rather, it has attracted a consensus because it has the persuasive power in the form of evidence, analysis and interpretation to persuade the majority of scientists.

However, there is a very consistent and growing group of professional YECs that not only pose ideas and solutions to the streams of objections against them but they also stand up to scrutiny by very consistently answering the rebuttals to their arguments.

But the process you're describing isn't taking place within science because creationists do not participate in the scientific process, instead lobbying school boards and legislatures for representation as science of views that science does not accept.

I became a believer in YEC because of the evidence and arguments not because of some childhood indoctrination that I'm holding onto doggedly.

I've observed your approach in the Boyle's law thread.

--Percy

[Percy]

In fact I would say this. If you look closely at the arguments that take place. The most likely place you'll see the consensus trump card pulled out in these debates is when a creationist is bringing out a viable argument for consideration. To avoid this consideration the consensus wild card is played and the conversation goes off in another direction.

I can see your long history of abuse at the hands of evolutionists has built up a great deal of resentment, but it isn't necessary to give voice to it in every other message. More focus on what the people discussing with you actually say instead of on a constant enumeration of past crimes might enable discussion to actually get somewhere, and might also go a long way toward reducing the resentment and hostility that such behavior engenders. Then maybe you wouldn't have to pull the ban card so often. I bet Keith didn't start that way, you guys made him that way. I was too hasty in criticizing Keith, because it's beginning to look more and more like he's just imitating you, just without the charm since it's not part of his nature but does seem to be part of yours.

People everywhere are just people. In general, most people are honest and sincere, pretty good folks all things considered. In your own minds creationists like yourselves here, and hopefully not representative of conservative evangelicals in general, have built a difference of opinion up into an evil conspiracy rivaling anything the long history of religious strife in the Balkans could ever muster. I do not agree with the views of Steve Weinberg, the Nobel laureate, on religion, but seeing what it causes religious people to do in the name of their religion reminds me of one thing he said: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Evolutionists are not evil. They're people just like you. You seem to keep forgetting that.

--Percy

[Adam Nagy]

I can see your long history of abuse at the hands of evolutionists has built up a great deal of resentment, but it isn't necessary to give voice to it in every other message.

I didn't know stating a personally observed phenomena would be offensive.

[Adam Nagy]

I think we have different ideas about the purpose of this thread.  You objected to my assertion that YECs reject far more consensus scientific views than OECs.

Nope. My objection is predicated directly on what you said in the OP... and I quote:

So what I said that you objected to was that OECs are much less extreme in their rejection of science than YECs.

If you wish to recant this statement and/or clarify it by replacing 'science' with 'certain popular beliefs among scientists' then this thread has reached its end. However, if you stand by that statement the thread may continue.

Let's see what that would look like...

We started with:

So what I said that you objected to was that OECs are much less extreme in their rejection of science than YECs.

This is unacceptable. However, if you change it to:

So what I said that you objected to was that OECs are much less extreme in their rejection of certain popular beliefs among scientists than YECs.

Now this would be acceptable but what would be the point? Let's acknowledge it and move on to the facts, data and interpretations.

[Adam Nagy]

If YECs think they have views of scientific value then the task before them is to convince their scientific colleagues by presenting cogent evidence and arguments.  That's how any scientific perspective becomes part of the consensus.

I think the task before us is to love our neighbor as ourselves and to be salt and light. If this so-called 'scientific community' wants to batten down the hatches and refuse entertaining this message then we will use whatever avenue possible to get this out. If in the process I get to entertain a humble and inquisitive scientist with a thoughtful dialogue then praise God for that. Still I'm a grass roots kind of guy. I get great joy and fulfillment talking to teenagers and adults of all stripes about these ideas and can't wait for the next conversation to take place. If some day I'm blessed with a growing ministry then even better but in the meantime God is handing out the marching orders and his command is 'go! and you let me worry about setting up the appointments.'

[Percy]

I didn't know stating a personally observed phenomena would be offensive.

You just think you observe this phenomena because of your worldview.

See how easy it is? Anyone can do it? But what does it have to do with the facts or the actual topic? Not a thing!

Do you truly have no ability to place yourself in other people's shoes? Do you truly think that the negative feelings you harbor about those who disagree with creationism are things that are true about those people and not just the type of resentments that always build up in people when there are disagreements about deeply held beliefs? And do you not realize that those on the other side are harboring the same types of resentments about your side? But that in order to reach an understanding we have to set these resentments aside and move constructively forward? Is none of this making any sense to you?

If not, then just stick to the topic, quit editorializing, and things will go fine.

--Percy