Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 29473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #348 on: August 14, 2013, 05:01:30 PM »
Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.
Constructs can be hypothetical, can't they? I think we all agree that the idea of deities is a valid construct, as are fairies, gnomes and unicorns.

Quote
I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.

If I may paraphrase: "I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement." = "I say He is real because I say so." Hmmm...

Quote
Science can't prove anything.

Come on! I assume you are saying that ultimately, everything is a probability. Now, at a quantum level, that is true but in the world we inhabit, it is irrelevant. All around you are objects based upon science. Science will tell you why they work, how they work and, if they fail, why they failed. The drugs you took to cure your illness worked. They were the result of science. You personally may think that science is just some sort of magic spell worked by those in league with Satan, but I see that you are only too willing to take advantage of it, whilst at the same time using carefully constructed phrases to denigrate the world's logical acceptance of science.

It could be that, or it could be that your thought processes, particularly your critical thinking, is mired in the 17th century. (Just out of interest, how much science that has been revealed since 1800 do you accept?)

Of course, I see your problems
(i) if science is correct, then your god is a delusion and what you say you know of him is all garbage.
(ii) If you don't understand much about science, it is much easier to believe in some deity that looks after you and did absolutely everything. At the same time, you can agree that other deities look after other people and those other deities also created everything.
(iii) your god is one you created yourself to agree with all you say and do - effectively, you are worshipping yourself - this may or may not be beneficial for some people.
(iv) admitting (iii) breaks the spell, doesn't it?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +890/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #349 on: August 14, 2013, 06:01:09 PM »
  What you have to prove is that God is real, not that God exists.

I check all the rules.  Your claim is false.  Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.  I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.  Not as a mathematical proof. Science can't prove anything.

(my emphasis)

Science can't prove anything.

Yet you drive a car with a fire inside it, that somehow does not blow up and kill you when you turn the key; you drink water from your faucet rather than from your toilet even though you cannot see any difference; you have a toilet and a sewer system instead of a hole in the ground that leaks into your water supply; you can put food in the fridge instead of leaving it out all night to spoil; you talk on the phone not knowing how your voice is carried to the other person; you even use a computer based on so much [unproveable] physics it would fill several textbooks.

You could live without the science you dislike so much right now-- in a 3rd world village lacking well-lit, well-paved roads, access to medical care, electricity, sewers, or running water. Where babies and kids die from things that we have school-kid vaccinations for here in the US. Where almost nobody makes it past 65 or 70. I've done it. I've seen babies die of typhoid in front of me. I've had malaria and parasites.

But you know you don't want to do that, because you have already passed the life expectancy of many poor countries. You did not die as a child from parasites, diarrhea, smallpox or malaria. Despite many stresses and problems, you live far better than you would 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 1500 years ago. Because of science.

Know what? I love science. Science can't prove anything and can't fix everything. Except it has made possible everything that makes you better off than people in the 3rd world, or your great-great-great grandparents.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #350 on: August 14, 2013, 09:32:27 PM »
I check all the rules.  Your claim is false.  Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.  I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.  Not as a mathematical proof. Science can't prove anything.
This is such an inane statement that I'm surprised you felt the need to make it.

First off, no, my claim is not false.  If you want to convince anyone else that your god is real, you have to provide things other than your personal opinion and ancient stories.  Otherwise, you're taking the position of relativism - that the only thing that matters is that you believe and can find things to support your belief.  That makes you the same as someone who believes in Harry Potter, or Darth Vader, or whoever.  And furthermore, you're unable to then contradict their beliefs without also contradicting your own, because none of them are based on anything but a personal, subjective opinion and apocryphal works (or, in the case of modern fiction, fictional works).

Sure, it's true that science can't 'prove' anything beyond any possible doubt.  But that's a meaningless statement, because every other method we've come up with to discover things is inferior - usually far inferior - to the scientific method.  Your personal belief, supported by stories from the Bible, doesn't even come close.  It's like claiming that a 99% chance of success isn't worth undertaking because it isn't perfect, and then trying to suggest that your 20% is worth it because you believe in it.  Not that numbers are the best way to put this, but I think you catch my drift.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #351 on: August 15, 2013, 08:07:12 AM »
I am sorry you had health problems. But do you really think a person with zero medical information, ie the janitor, would have helped you figure out what treatment you needed? If so, why go to doctors for help at all? Just go to the janitor. It would be much cheaper.

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.

Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.

My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.  But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.









« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:30:44 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #352 on: August 15, 2013, 10:05:29 AM »
Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.
Really?  You'd trust someone simply because they said they could do a better job?  Actually, I can believe that - people are pretty gullible when it comes to believing what someone says without checking on it.

I do some work as an independent computer technician - I fix computers for individuals for pay, and if you'll excuse my saying so, I'm pretty good at it.  I once had someone who needed computer work done tell me that they were going to let someone else who said they could do a good job for free do the work instead of me.  So I shrugged and said okay.  I wasn't worried about it.  And sure enough, they came back to me a week or two later after the other person had failed to fix their problem.  It turned out the other person thought they were much better at fixing computers than they actually were.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.
First off, she's the one who figured out that there was something wrong - as you said, she's a M.D.  Second, she went to another doctor to have her tumor removed.  Not to someone who claimed they could do the job just as well.  This anecdote of yours doesn't show that a candy striper - or someone else who claimed to be able to do the job - could actually do it.  It shows that someone trained as a doctor noticed a serious problem with her eye and went to another doctor to have it treated.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.
It may be true that a doctor is no better at being a doctor than, say, a plumber is at being a plumber.  But that doesn't mean that a doctor can do a plumber's job, or a plumber can do a doctor's job.  It takes both training and experience to do a job; training to learn how to do it, and experience to learn how to deal with the inevitable hang-ups.

Quote from: SkyWriting
My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.
It's certainly true that being a doctor is something that anyone can learn how to do.  But if anyone could do the work that a doctor could do with only a few weeks of reading medical texts, why do people still pay doctors and other professionals to do their work?  It's because it takes more than a few weeks of book-learning to be able to do something well.  You're not paying a doctor, or a plumber, or any other professional just because of their education.  You're paying them because of their qualifications (which includes education, but training and experience are far more important).

Sure, maybe this candy striper of yours is taking classes in medicine.  Stranger things can and have happened.  But that doesn't mean that she's qualified to give medical advice, to dispense drugs, or to operate on a person.  Certainly not just because she says she is.

Quote from: SkyWriting
But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.
More like, they can think they're more knowledgeable in a few weeks.  But knowledge isn't training, and it isn't experience.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +374/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #353 on: August 15, 2013, 10:35:31 AM »
I am sorry you had health problems. But do you really think a person with zero medical information, ie the janitor, would have helped you figure out what treatment you needed? If so, why go to doctors for help at all? Just go to the janitor. It would be much cheaper.

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

So this lady in this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

believed that she could help restore a painting.

Take it as you will.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +890/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #354 on: August 15, 2013, 10:50:30 AM »
Alright, SW, put up or shut up. Who is this candy striper with all this medical and surgical expertise? Where can I find her? I need knee replacement surgery-- do you think I can get her to do it for me? I'll pay her 100 bucks. Per knee. :o &)

And you still have not addressed the main point: medical expertise alone vs the bible alone. Which one do you think is better at taking care of health problems? And don't cop out with "god secretly heals everyone who goes to the doctor" because god does not secretly heal everyone who is sick and does not get medical treatment. Or else there would not be high infant mortality rates in places with bibles but no doctors.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #355 on: August 15, 2013, 11:03:55 AM »

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.

Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.

My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.  But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.


So, at first you don't tell us the whole story about this lady (that she's a doctor) and then you attempt to change the subject by remarking that anyone can be a doctor. So what! You weren't asked whether you would allow a doctor to operate on you. You were asked if you would allow a NON-DOCTOR to you operate on you - someone who has no education or experience in medical science. Your dishonesty is astounding for someone who claims to follow 'Christ'.

Ass...
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 11:05:34 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #356 on: August 21, 2013, 10:27:59 PM »
I like SkyWriting, the stories he tells are so fanciful. I mean, one minute they are quite dull, non-specific but when pressed they become stories you read in fiction: grand and nonsensical, to a point.

There's really no reason to respond to any of them, they stand on their own.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #357 on: August 23, 2013, 05:49:15 AM »
(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

<< rocks on heels, whistles tunelessly, glances at watch >>

Tum-te-tum-te-tum.....

Seems SkyWriting is either unwilling, or unable, to explain to us how to develop our god-detection senses. 

If he is unwilling, then SkyWriting himself is denying us an avenue to god.  I presume his god will judge his actions appropriately.

If he is unable, then first of all his input on this site is uselss.  Like a man writing on a notepad to a deaf person "oh man, you should HEAR this music!!!" he is at best thoughtless - at worst, deliberately enjoying taunting us with what he cannot help us have.  Again, I'm sure his god will judge him appropriately.

SkyWriting also has deigned not to answer the crucial part of my post - that he worships a god who requires that we seek and accept him (or suffer the consequences), yet who makes as difficult as possible the process of finding him - so difficult, it seems, that even devoted adherents like SkyWriting are unable to clearly explain what we need to do.  Hey ho.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #358 on: August 23, 2013, 05:51:56 AM »
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?  You value "assertion that someone knows what to do" over "greater training and experience in the field"?

I assure you that I can invest your money WAY better than any trained financial advisor, and look forward to receiving your business.


Not liking a doctors diagnosis of my condition I continued to seek additional council of anyone who would see me.  After 5 physicians I found one who recognized my problem.  I would gladly have accepted the advice of even the janitor if it had been offered.   Thanks to the delay I have scars across my face. 

Don't complain, Sky - it was God's Will you ended up with the scars. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #359 on: August 23, 2013, 03:12:21 PM »
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?

Sure.  All my answers apply to everything you can dream up.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #360 on: September 09, 2013, 10:25:32 AM »
Some people don't understand YEC because of its proponents that go out of their way to post things on websites like this try to say louder and louder things that go further and further off topic and into tom-foolery. I myself am a proponent of YEC and yet I fail to understand people like that, unless they are gluttons for the mockery they receive from everyone. I'm told in some people there is some cross wiring between pain and pleasure centers in the brain?
Here's something that almost every atheist understands, and yet no old earth creationist understands - evolution is the antithesis of the bible. They are just plain incompatible. It should be easier to understand YEC than OEC, because right or wrong, at least it is self-consistent, where OEC cherry picks from mainstream science and the bible, making sure to be wrong in both areas.
Personally I have many reasons for supporting YEC other than the obvious necessity of being consistent in my beliefs (trying to anyway). I am not a (paid) scientist, but I find it is usually necessary to, whenever possible, examine data before taking to heart the conclusions drawn from it by others. There have been several stories of misconduct in research scientists, which is a growing problem. While I wouldn't say that by itself throws out a large amount of research, when that is coupled with the possibility of misinterpretation because of incorrect assumptions (I would say evolution, obviously), the stigma or outright loss of tenure because of dissent (I bet Ben Stein isn't very popular around here; sad how soon people have forgotten Win Ben Steins Money), as well as the secular scientist movement away from Neo-Darwinism to... well for them, anything other than creation (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/), there is a valid case for grave suspicion, I would say rejection. The fact is, a PhD does not deprive anyone of their hideous human nature and tendency to cheat and lie, if anything it only grants them hubris. That of course doesn't even begin to address what I think in most cases is a more straight-forward interpretation of data, flood geology/creation.
Keep in mind, I'm trying to honestly express my opposing point of view here, partly because these forums have a conspicuous lack of people who do so. I've been the recipient of plenty of ad hominem, which doesn't make me upset so much as bore me, but if it's your wish that these forums are solely the arena of atheists and masochists feel free to use them.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 10:33:52 AM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #361 on: September 09, 2013, 10:47:18 AM »
Paragraphs, please.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that YEC should be easier to understand because it is internally consistent with itself.  You're correct in one way, at least - YEC is a straightforward package deal.

Indeed, that is its biggest flaw by far.  YEC is not capable of accounting for the way science actually works in the universe except with convoluted rationalizations that undercut the meaning and the value of the actual sciences, specifically because it tries to account for everything via the Biblical narrative.  But that narrative has no way of accounting for what we've discovered since.  In order to be a proponent of YEC, you have to simply accept it.  If we discover something via science that contradicts it (of which evolution is merely one thing), then either the science is wrong or the YEC belief is wrong.  Yet, YEC has no basis except "the Bible is true".  It has no way to determine whether that basis is true or false.  Whereas scientific methodology is at least capable of determining if something is false, once we have enough information.

That's the problem that simply can't be overcome in order to believe in YEC.  You have to believe in it, true or false.  The moment you start questioning it, you undercut the foundation of your own beliefs.  The problem comes when those beliefs are shown to be incompatible with the way the world actually works, which is why there aren't just YEC believers and agnostic atheist scientists.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #362 on: September 09, 2013, 11:09:01 AM »
Here's something that almost every atheist understands, and yet no old earth creationist understands - evolution is the antithesis of the bible. They are just plain incompatible.

This is just plain false (aka - completely untrue). Ken Miller from Brown University is a biologist and Christian who accepts evolution and sees no conflict with his faith - and there are numerous other Christians who do likewise. I think what you mean to say is that evolution (i.e. - common decent) is incompatible with your version of Christianity. Your particular interpretation of the bible doesn't agree with the science, but that doesn't at all effect other Christians who disagree with your interpretation.


It should be easier to understand YEC than OEC, because right or wrong, at least it is self-consistent, where OEC cherry picks from mainstream science and the bible, making sure to be wrong in both areas.

We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!



Personally I have many reasons for supporting YEC other than the obvious necessity of being consistent in my beliefs (trying to anyway).

This is called Confirmation Bias. The "necessity" of molding the evidence in order to support your presupposition is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. It is also called "leading the evidence" (instead of following it) and it is the opposite of good science which aims to weed out such bias. Thank you for admitting that you have this problem though. Now you can take steps to changing it so you can actually follow the evidence where it leads, in a more disinterested fashion :)



I personally am not a (paid) scientist, but I find it is usually necessary to, whenever possible, examine data before taking to heart the conclusions drawn from it by others.

Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.


There have been several stories of misconduct in research scientists, which is a growing problem. While I wouldn't say that by itself throws out a large amount of research, when that is coupled with the possibility of misinterpretation because of incorrect assumptions (I would say evolution, obviously), the stigma or outright loss of tenure because of dissent (I bet Ben Stein isn't very popular around here; sad how soon people have forgotten Win Ben Steins Money), as well as the secular scientist movement away from Neo-Darwinism to... well for them, anything other than creation (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/), there is a valid case for grave suspicion, I would say rejection.

As with most YEC Christians you seem to have been fed lots of line of BS. Sorry to have to put it that way but this is how it sounds to me from what you have written. First, if you're going to charge "misconduct" then be prepared to back it up. Otherwise don't even bring up the false charge. It's absurd. I see Christians trying this nonsense all the time (b/c they are practicing confirmation bias and would be devastated if they found out their view was false). You just can't afford to be wrong, and that is a very bad place from which to be doing any research in these fields b/c it pushes you toward (again) confirmation bias. 

Secondly, your charge that scientists have interpreted the multiple convergent evidence for an old earth wrongly b/c of their "evolution bias" is completely illogical. Have you taken any science courses? If so, please list them. The study of the age of the earth is an entirely different field than the study of biology and biological anthropology. So this "atheist conspiracy theory" jargon is nonsense. Lots of Christians accept the evidence for an old earth, as do countless others. Again, what you are facing is your personal interpretation of the bible that conflicts with science. But this has been happening for centuries. Christians have continually had to 'evolve' their beliefs about the world (flat earth, earth the center of the universe, germs from demons, racism, etc) because science has shown their views false. Changing ones views when the evidence goes the opposite direction is called being honest.


The fact is, a PhD does not deprive anyone of their hideous human nature and tendency to cheat and lie, if anything it only grants them hubris. That of course doesn't even begin to address what I think in most cases is a more straight-forward interpretation of data, flood geology/creation.

I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #363 on: September 09, 2013, 11:55:41 AM »
Quote
This is just plain false (aka - completely untrue). Ken Miller from Brown University is a biologist and Christian who accepts evolution and sees no conflict with his faith - and there are numerous other Christians who do likewise. I think what you mean to say is that evolution (i.e. - common decent) is incompatible with your version of Christianity. Your particular interpretation of the bible doesn't agree with the science, but that doesn't at all effect other Christians who disagree with your interpretation.

The fact that this man is unable to see the conflict is the point I made to begin with, proving it further. There are not an unlimited amount of possible ways to interpret a history book, as you seem to be implying. When a man adds 2+2 and gets three, this does not overturn mathematics.

Quote
We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!

This was in reply to the consistency of the YEC view, and goes completely off topic, onto things I wasn't discussing. However, bravo on your sound defeat of somebody other than me.

Quote
This is called Confirmation Bias. The "necessity" of molding the evidence in order to support your presupposition is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. It is also called "leading the evidence" (instead of following it) and it is the opposite of good science which aims to weed out such bias. Thank you for admitting that you have this problem though. Now you can take steps to changing it so you can actually follow the evidence where it leads, in a more disinterested fashion

Being consistent in ones beliefs is necessary, no matter what your beliefs, else they contradict each other, making you a fool. You should learn the basic tenet of axioms. You can learn nothing without a priori assumptions, and data does not and can not lead anywhere by itself. This is a common fallacy.

Quote
Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.

Yes. Obviously. I'm glad you're aware.

Quote
As with most YEC Christians you seem to have been fed lots of line of BS. Sorry to have to put it that way but this is how it sounds to me from what you have written. First, if you're going to charge "misconduct" then be prepared to back it up. Otherwise don't even bring up the false charge. It's absurd. I see Christians trying this nonsense all the time (b/c they are practicing confirmation bias and would be devastated if they found out their view was false). You just can't afford to be wrong, and that is a very bad place from which to be doing any research in these fields b/c it pushes you toward (again) confirmation bias.

Secondly, your charge that scientists have interpreted the multiple convergent evidence for an old earth wrongly b/c of their "evolution bias" is completely illogical. Have you taken any science courses? If so, please list them. The study of the age of the earth is an entirely different field than the study of biology and biological anthropology. So this "atheist conspiracy theory" jargon is nonsense. Lots of Christians accept the evidence for an old earth, as do countless others. Again, what you are facing is your personal interpretation of the bible that conflicts with science. But this has been happening for centuries. Christians have continually had to 'evolve' their beliefs about the world (flat earth, earth the center of the universe, germs from demons, racism, etc) because science has shown their views false. Changing ones views when the evidence goes the opposite direction is called being honest.

Here's a source about bias from the Creationism website PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109
Again, axioms are necessary tenets of science, as well as the beginning of the scientific method, you should not be sweeping science from under your own feet.

Thank you for your history lesson/rant that is totally irrelevant, I feel much more enlightened about my own faith which I probably know less about than you. You're making quite a few fact-free assertions about me and my beliefs, ad hominem, which I mentioned and you failed to quote, when obviously you should have.

Quote
I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.

Gosh you're right, I wonder if there's anybody who I might be able to find in five seconds online... Marc Hauser. Oh, that was six seconds, dang.

Unfortunately you appear to be using attacks aimed at people other than me. Please reread what I wrote, without the a priori assumption that I'm a complete moron who makes things up, then reply accordingly.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #364 on: September 09, 2013, 12:07:57 PM »
Quote
Indeed, that is its biggest flaw by far.  YEC is not capable of accounting for the way science actually works in the universe except with convoluted rationalizations that undercut the meaning and the value of the actual sciences, specifically because it tries to account for everything via the Biblical narrative.

You have to be more specific, otherwise you're making a general claim that can't be argued with.

Quote
But that narrative has no way of accounting for what we've discovered since.  In order to be a proponent of YEC, you have to simply accept it.  If we discover something via science that contradicts it (of which evolution is merely one thing)

My main point was that it is NOT a correct discovery of science

Quote
, then either the science is wrong or the YEC belief is wrong.  Yet, YEC has no basis except "the Bible is true".  It has no way to determine whether that basis is true or false.  Whereas scientific methodology is at least capable of determining if something is false, once we have enough information.

This is a false dichotomy. My whole point is that without evolution, science and the bible harmonize. Also, the bible is in fact able to be proved false, which I'm kind of surprised you didn't say.

Quote
That's the problem that simply can't be overcome in order to believe in YEC.  You have to believe in it, true or false.  The moment you start questioning it, you undercut the foundation of your own beliefs.  The problem comes when those beliefs are shown to be incompatible with the way the world actually works,

Everybody throughout history has questioned the bible. Nowhere inside does it say you should not, that is only the rant of people who don't like to learn. Just because I have questioned it, does not imply that I have found it wanting.

Quote
which is why there aren't just YEC believers and agnostic atheist scientists.

Not sure what this means. There are lots of YEC scientists tho, and plenty of atheistic morons, so it's not strictly the other way around.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +890/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #365 on: September 09, 2013, 03:09:04 PM »
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 03:11:05 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #366 on: September 10, 2013, 05:51:08 AM »
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?

Sure.  All my answers apply to everything you can dream up.

Hello Sky.  I see that you decided to cut the rest of my post:

You value "assertion that someone knows what to do" over "greater training and experience in the field"?

I assure you that I can invest your money WAY better than any trained financial advisor, and look forward to receiving your business.

Can you let me know when you will be sending me your money to invest?  Since you've confirmed that "if X said they could do a better job, I would trust their judgement", and I've told you I could do a better job investing than "financial professionals", I can't see any reason you wouldn't let me invest your money.

Unless, of course, there IS some other criteria you use in these decisions?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #367 on: September 10, 2013, 01:14:36 PM »
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #368 on: September 10, 2013, 03:07:15 PM »
Very cute.

I suggest you not do that. 

Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?



edit - man, I'm good.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science

« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 03:18:44 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #369 on: September 10, 2013, 03:35:51 PM »
Quote
Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?

Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?

It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable. For example, we know that the Roman Empire existed, but it is technically impossible to prove that conclusively, because it cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and it cannot be shown any other way.

In other words, the distinction is "testable" and "untestable", it's just easier to call it historical and operational. Evolution in the grand sense is not testable i.e there is no way to test and prove conclusively that man came from non-man, it has to be assumed based on data. However, it can just as easily be assumed that man has always been man based on the same data.

But, it is not possible to assume that things like the electromagnetic force don't exist, based on the data, because that can be repeated in the lab, and your home, etc. It could be shown false if it were repeated and found different or whatever.

So - Repeatable, falsifiable = operational      Not repeatable, falsifiable = Historical.     You can ask any scientist and they will agree with my assessment. Perhaps you're right and it was defined by malevolent Christians of doom, but that's ultimately irrelevant, and it probably commits the fallacy fallacy.

I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #370 on: September 10, 2013, 03:46:15 PM »
Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?

That's why I posted a second source, which you either ignored or did not see.

It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable.  For example...

It's funny.  You try to imply that Rational Wiki is somehow inaccurate and then you just go right ahead and prove it to be completely accurate on every point.

I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.

Yes, I should learn more.  Absolutely.  We should all learn more.  And you should probably learn when to shut your big, fat yap and not be such an arrogant dick.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #371 on: September 10, 2013, 04:17:36 PM »
First off, I understand that you might not be very familiar with the way that the forum software works yet, but please at least make sure that you address the person you're responding to by name.  Otherwise it can be difficult to notice that you've responded.

You have to be more specific, otherwise you're making a general claim that can't be argued with.
Let me put it a different way, then.  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.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
My main point was that it is NOT a correct discovery of science
What, specifically, is not a "correct discovery of science"?  If you are referring to evolution, then 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. 

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
This is a false dichotomy. My whole point is that without evolution, science and the bible harmonize. Also, the bible is in fact able to be proved false, which I'm kind of surprised you didn't say.
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.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Everybody throughout history has questioned the bible. Nowhere inside does it say you should not, that is only the rant of people who don't like to learn. Just because I have questioned it, does not imply that I have found it wanting.
Perhaps you should avoid such blanket ad hominem attacks as "only the rant of people who don't like to learn" in the future, since you asked that others not engage in ad hominems against you.

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.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Not sure what this means. There are lots of YEC scientists tho, and plenty of atheistic morons, so it's not strictly the other way around.
Remember what I said about ad hominem attacks?  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.

----

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.
This is false; there is no such thing as "operational science".  The correct term is experimental science, a science that uses direct experimental evidence as data, as opposed to historical science, which gets its data from past events.  You should also note that there is not a clear delineating line between the two, and mainstream scientists do not consider either to be superior over the other.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.
If YECists agree with speciation, why then do they have a problem with evolution?  Speciation is evolution - it's the splitting of lineages which ultimately forms new species.  This isn't even the false macro/micro distinction that many YECists make[1].  Please explain this, because it makes no sense.
 1. specifically, they say that little changes within a species happen, but that all those little changes can't add up to cause speciation

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #372 on: September 10, 2013, 04:21:20 PM »
The fact that this man is unable to see the conflict is the point I made to begin with, proving it further. There are not an unlimited amount of possible ways to interpret a history book, as you seem to be implying. When a man adds 2+2 and gets three, this does not overturn mathematics.

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.

Quote
We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!

This was in reply to the consistency of the YEC view, and goes completely off topic, onto things I wasn't discussing. However, bravo on your sound defeat of somebody other than me.

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.

Btw, do you believe the bible is the inspired Word of God? You're the one who brought up cherry picking from the bible in the first place.


Being consistent in ones beliefs is necessary, no matter what your beliefs, else they contradict each other, making you a fool. You should learn the basic tenet of axioms. You can learn nothing without a priori assumptions, and data does not and can not lead anywhere by itself. This is a common fallacy.

Consistency of belief doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not that belief corresponds to reality. All sorts of false (yet logically consistent) syllogisms could be (and have been) created and acted upon - and instead of saying "you should learn" (sounding like a dick) why not post a link to what you are pertaining to? Most of us here will in fact read/study posted links. Second, nowhere did I say data leads places "by itself". So that is a misrepresentation of what I stated. 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.

Quote
Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.

Yes. Obviously. I'm glad you're aware.

And yet you didn't answer my question...a second time.



Here's a source about bias from the Creationism website PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109
Again, axioms are necessary tenets of science, as well as the beginning of the scientific method, you should not be sweeping science from under your own feet.

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 (axioms) are you holding pertaining to this subject? Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc). Please provide specific evidence for this alleged fraud, not just statistical generalizations which do nothing to demonstrate the charge of fraud you are proposing. Details and specifics - citation please.

Thank you for your history lesson/rant that is totally irrelevant, I feel much more enlightened about my own faith which I probably know less about than you. You're making quite a few fact-free assertions about me and my beliefs, ad hominem, which I mentioned and you failed to quote, when obviously you should have.

For someone who talks a lot about "you should learn the basic tenants" it doesn't seem you know how to apply logical fallacies very well. My observation was not ad hominem, sorry.

Quote
I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.

Gosh you're right, I wonder if there's anybody who I might be able to find in five seconds online... Marc Hauser. Oh, that was six seconds, dang.

Unfortunately you appear to be using attacks aimed at people other than me. Please reread what I wrote, without the a priori assumption that I'm a complete moron who makes things up, then reply accordingly.

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? "Yes, that will certainly change our minds about the subject." If you're going to make these charges and then refuse to back them up, why should anyone take you seriously on anything you say here? It seems to me that your charge is baseless. It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible. Please 'enlighten' us as to your knowledge of these evil scientists of which you speak.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 04:34:53 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #373 on: September 10, 2013, 05:41:26 PM »
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.


Jaimehlers
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.



Median
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
"axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably

And they must be, before any science can be done.

Quote
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

Quote
And yet you didn't answer my question...a second time

The answer was "Yes." As in, I am aware of that possibility.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #374 on: September 10, 2013, 05:48:13 PM »
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data.

Can you give a specific example of this?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #375 on: September 10, 2013, 06:01:02 PM »
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data.

Can you give a specific example of this?

Hold on a tick -- I believe CC is onto something.

First you observe something and collect data, and then you sit down and analyze it until you have a theory that explains the data.  Let's call it... the scientific method.   ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #376 on: September 10, 2013, 06:14:27 PM »
Yeah, that's kind of what science is:  Changing our theories and models to fit with real-world data.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.