Really Screwtape? Did you come here just to take out your anger?
When I said that the argument was very misinformed I was referring to "nogodsforme". And everything that you said has no bearing on my original argument, so it's curious as to why you said it at all.
YEC tries to understand the world (and by extension, the universe) in terms of the Biblical narrative. Therefore, anything that contradicts that narrative has to be rationalized so that it can fit
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data. I realise it's not a specific narrative, but still it must be adhered to by any scientist in the mainstream.
I would like to point out the decades of research pertaining to it that has amply demonstrated that it is indeed a valid branch of science.
"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.
It is not a false dichotomy, bur rather a true one. It is impossible to have a YECist who also believes in evolutionary theory. Given that evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of scientists, especially biological scientists, you cannot simply separate evolution from science, treating the one as totally wrong and the rest as totally correct. For that matter, no scientist worth their salt considers any science to be 'correct' the way you seem to. Therefore your contention that "without evolution, science and the bible harmonize" is wrong.
And I'm glad you brought up whether the Bible could be proved wrong. In fact, it has been proved wrong; there has been no global worldwide flood (as the Bible asserts), and Earth was created significantly more than 6,500 years ago (as YECists assert according to the Biblical lineages). To claim this is otherwise was requires you to ignore more than just evolutionary science - for example, c-14 dating (never mind other forms of radiometric dating) has been shown to be reliable to nearly 50,000 years - and this demonstrates that your contention about science and the Bible cannot be correct.
"The majority of scientists" are not the ones who define truth, just like the majority used to believe creation. "No scientist worth their salt" sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of PhDs who would agree that evolution is incorrect, what makes you say they are not worth their salt?
There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.
Perhaps you should avoid such blanket ad hominem attacks
It's not ad hominem if it's not an attempt to disprove an argument. And to be fair, going around not questioning things is, well, stupid. It fits the definition of ignorance.
My point is that you have to believe that the Bible is true, and that sciences which contradict the Bible must be false, to hold a belief in YECism. If you start to believe that parts of the Bible are false, or that sciences that contradict the Bible are true, then it erodes your belief in YECism.
Also, I could not help but notice that when you said that you questioned the Bible, you did not mention whether that questioning was related to whether any of it was false. It is indeed possible to question the Bible without questioning whether it is false.
I would call evolution a pseudoscience, indeed. And yes I have questioned whether the bible is false, tho I'm not sure how you differentiate between other questions about it. I suppose I should ask, have you questioned whether evolution is false?
Yes, there are YEC scientists - but almost none of them are in fields which would require the sciences they have to deny in order to hold their YEC belief
Are you referring to evolutionary biology? I have heard of at least one. But you're right, the fact is there aren't many in any fields. On the other hand, this doesn't make them wrong.
If YECists agree with speciation, why then do they have a problem with evolution? Speciation is evolution
Maybe this is the biggest issue. There is a limit to speciation, as any breeder will tell you. All cats came from the same ancestors, all dogs came from the same ancestors, all horses and zebras came from the same ancestors, but they are all the same type of animal, really. They are a different species by name, but none of them come any closer to being something other than what they are i.e. from dog to cat, from horse to tiger. Sometimes they change enough so that they cannot mate, but they stay the same type of animal.
Comparing the demonstrable facts of mathematics to the variance in your personal interpretation of the bible is called a False Analogy. There is no "one way" to correctly interpret the bible and even the "founding fathers" of Christendom couldn't agree on doctrines - doctrines as 'essential' as Christs alleged 'divinity' etc. So it is simply false to argue that the two are anything alike. They are not. The kind of interpretation and subjective disagreement amongst bible believers is nothing like basic mathematical truths
Fair enough, the math analogy was false, but the one about a history book stands. I was referring to Genesis, which is a history book. The Nicene Creed is what has been agreed on are solid doctrines of faith in the bible. People deny it, of course, but it can be shown in the bible conclusively why they are incorrect.
I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.
Exodus, which is also a history book, says 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them". Verses like that are numerous, of course, and one has to reject them in order to accept evolution. You asking me about my cherry picking is really off the subject. For all you know I may enjoy rape, etc, so you don't have proof that I cherry pick, that would be a whole other conversation.
Btw, do you believe the bible is the inspired Word of God?
Yes. I can't help but think this might go off topic but: why do you ask?
Consistency of belief doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not that belief corresponds to reality
No, but inconsistency may be the only proof that it does not correspond to reality.
why not post a link to what you are pertaining to?
Ok I'll go simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Generally I mean
"axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably
And they must be, before any science can be done.
The statement you made regarding consistency sounded very much like a provision for an open door to confirmation bias, and that is what I was responding to
This charge can go the opposite way. In other words, scientists who want to keep consistent with the view of evolution may indeed do this. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer
And yet you didn't answer my question...a second time
The answer was "Yes." As in, I am aware of that possibility.
It sounds as if you are using the term "axiom" in place of the term presumption (or presupposition). Is this correct? If so, what presuppositions are you holding pertaining to this subject?
Indeed I am. My presupposition is that the bible is correct, although that's not to say that I can't inspect the possibility that it isn't.
Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc).
I have, and it would be similar to the charge that I may be false because of my bias.
My observation was not ad hominem
I've noticed that this can be quite murky to prove. I could proceed now to go on a tangent about how you evolutionists probably soil yourselves when in a real debate with a creationist, but if I did that, could you ultimately show that it was in order to prove you wrong, or that it was merely an observation?
No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours?
Which claims? I told you about Marc Hauser and Paul Kammerer, I'm not sure if there's some number of people you need? If some other claim, be specific.
It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible
The point of mentioning axioms was so that I could show everybody has a bias. You keep mentioning personal interpretation: Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Christ also had the idea that the earth is not billions of years old, and why should I call myself a Christian if I don't believe him?