The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

None of those are more than unsupported assertions. If you would like to start a thread on them they can be discussed, but right now you have provided no evidence to support any of them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

alpha decay and beta decay may well have little in common .... as far as we know. While the illusive search for the theory of everything is still going on, a unifying principle might still one day be found.

---

And this is the problem with your scenario. You have to make some very big assumptions for your idea to work. You not only have to assume that alpha decay and beta decay are governed by a single, as yet unknown process, but that this unknown process is such that it will change after the Fall in such a way that both alpha decay and beta decay will give the same radiometric dates. In other words, even your assumption doesn't really adequately deal with the amazing coincidence that alpha decay and beta decay give the same radiometric dates.And this is just one example of the amazing coincidences of which you speak. As I said before, all of the evidence to date, in many different fields, using many different techniques of investigation, paint a very consistent picture of the history of the earth.It appears that you are trying to choose between two alternative scenarios:that the fact that the data shows, without forcing, a detailed and consistent history of the earth is an indication that it is reliable and the history of the earth that is inferred can be trusted as more or less accurate,or that the Fall mysteriously changed the laws of physics and the physical universe in such a way that the available data, when examined assuming the constancy of the known physical laws that we understand, amazingly and coindicentally give a detailed and consistent, yet completely inaccurate, history of the world.I don't know whether you really expect that an unbiased person would even for a moment consider the second scenario as reasonable an alternative as the first. Surely you can understand why a reasonable person would reject the second scenario out of hand. A problem like this is really an open and shut case of Occam's razor. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily in order to come up with a scenario to bolser a certain discredited creation myth. I cannot imagine that anyone would even look at the second scenario unless they have a strong emotional commitment to the creation myth presented in Genesis.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Most of us think that out beliefs should conform to the truth.Creationists think that the truth should conform to their beliefs.

Amen Brother, Preach the Gospel.If a better explanation could be put forward to explain evolution, those who support evolution would modify the TOE to include the newer explanation. If new evidence came forward that could not be explained under the current TOE, the TOE would have to change so that the evidence could be explained.Biblical Creationists have taken the other route. They have stated that they HAVE the answer. If evidence is found that refutes their position then the evidence must be ignored. To get around this dilemma they even adopt totally absurd suppositions such as that the physical laws of nature were different before some arbitrary date or there was no radiation before the Fall.The TRUE reason that the EvC debate will not be resolved is that that it will continue as long as Biblical Creationists wilfully decide to remain in Holy Ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, that's the important point, it began after the flood. If your "gradual decline" occurred between the fall and the end of the flood, then why did the "gradual decline" only begin after the flood? Again, you're offering something that changed after the flood as evidence for something that changed between the fall and the flood. Why did not different languages begin emerging after the fall? The Hebrew word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 was mistranslated in KJV. More up-to-date translations do not translate the Hebrew, and many scholars believe it is a reference to "fallen ones", interpreted by some to mean angels fallen from Heaven. This interpretation is consistent with the rest of the passage where it says "...the sons of God came in to the daughters of men..."More significantly relative to your position, in the previous sentence, Genesis 6:3, God says, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." So according to the Bible, before the flood man's life span was 120 years, while after the flood it was much longer. This means that from just before the flood until after the flood there was not a "gradual decline" but a rapid increase. The decline did not begin until after the flood.I'm only up to your third sentence, but I think I've already provided enough to show that your position doesn't have Biblical support. All your evidence for a decline is post-flood, and there is evidence for an increase during the flood. You're going to have to modify your position that there was a gradual decline between the fall and the end of the flood. The Biblical picture appears to be more complicated than that.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 03-28-2006 10:01 AM

quote:

---

What you actually mean is that you assume that the Bible as interpreted by creationists must be infallibly true no matter what other evidence shows. Which means that as I have been saying all along the divide is that creationists are closed-minded dogmatists who cannot accept the possiblity that their beliefs could be wrong.

---

I'm saying this of both sides. You are close minded in the sence that, if physical evidence on historic issues lead you to believe in a certain way, all other possibilities are necesarilly false. You just have to look how many innocent people still find their way to jail to know that any "piecing together of the past" can never lead to 100% certainty. Your doctrine is your reading of the evidence, based on what you believe is possible. This is rational if you believe in Naturalism, in which all natural things need a natural explaination, and that all natural things had a natural origin. It is irrational, however, if you believe in God that has created and changed natural laws, and who made Himself known to mankind through His Word. The fall can not be proven one way or the other. It is a philosofical believe, not a scientific deduction.

quote:

---

The caveat "as interpeted by creationists" is important because in my experience creationists aren't very good at interpreting the Bible. Too often they try to force-fit the text to their beliefs. So really creationism seems to have more to do with self-worship than Christianity or the Bible.

---

This is completely false, and unnecesary. Creationists takes the Bible, and the believe that an omni-potent God can actually ensure that His message is preserved in its intended form, VERY seriously. If you want to dismiss stuff in the bible that sounds like fairy tales to you, that is not "interpreting the bible", that is just "disbelieve the bible". Creationists - well ok, not all, but I take the Bible as a whole at its face value, and I really try to find what God is saying - not me. I do that with the Reformed principle of comparing scripture with scripture, not scripture with whatever I feel like. It is evolutionists who want to read their own interpretations into the Bible - so much so that you don't even need to believe in Christ to be a "christian". But the most proposterous of all is the idea that creationism is "self-worship".If you feel I'm irrational and dogmatic based on science and physical evidence, that is fine, but I know what the bible says, and the accusations you make here are proposterous and unacceptable.

quote:

---

Wrong. What you originally claimed was the the reason for the divide was because those on the evolution side assumed naturalism and "uniformism". What I have been pointing out is that you are wrong. Even if we allowed that those assumptions could be false you still could not come up with a rational explanation for the evidence.

---

Wrong again. Now I know you've never understood what I'm trying to say from the beginning. This was but a small bit of my arguement.
My WHOLE arguement is1. A debate between the creationist worldview and the evolutionist worldview is pointless, because the difference is philosofical, not scientific. Please note that conflicting philosofies have no way to cancel each other out, like in science. Hindu's believe that reality is an illusion. Can you proof or disproof that using the scientific method? No you can't. I've even gone so far as to admit creationism is not science, as it is build on a different philosofical base than science. Yes, science assume naturalism and uniformism, and we accept science, because we believe God is a God of order. But we do not restrict God to what is scientifically possible, and therefore we believe science has its limits.2. The creationist can still believe in creationism despite science pointing in a different direction, because in the christian theology, God is creator of all things, and he reveils himself in his Bible. The Bible teaches of a fall which also affected nature itself. This would distorted a purely empirical view of prehistory, and would account for the gap between science and Genesis.3. And this is the one you constantly ignore - because the prefall conditions on earth is unknown, and the changes during the fall is unknown, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESSES ON THE PREFALL EARTH, AND HOW THEY HELPED SHAPE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. "Creation Science" can suggect natural explainations for these events, BUT THEY REMAIN SPECULATIVE, AS THEY CAN NOT BE TESTED!This debate has never been about what those processes was, or who is right and who is wrong. It is only about why the debate exists, and why debating it won't help or harm either side. I fail to see how this truth stand or fall on my ability to defend "creation science" Everybody else seems to get it.

The difference is that my "worldview" allows for independent verification. A Hindu and a Muslim and a Christian and an atheist can all come to the same conclusions as I do about the origin of man. We can come to an agreement on the facts in spite of our differences.Your worldview is restricted to a small minority of people who misunderstand the Bible. (Even Faith, who misunderstands the Bible in a similar way to you, doesn't seem to agree with your conclusion.)Your only argument is to hand-wave the facts away - much like randman's "poofing" hypothesis.The debate will make a difference and it is making a difference, among people who are willing to look at the facts.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

1. A debate between the creationist worldview and the evolutionist worldview is pointless, because the difference is philosofical, not scientific.

---

That is true. The "evolutionist" feels that data should be evaluated on its own terms, in relation to the other data. The creationists assumes, a priori that the Genesis story is literal history, and so data must either be forced into this narrative or somehow explained away.-

quote:

---

2. The creationist can still believe in creationism despite science pointing in a different direction, because in the christian theology, God is creator of all things, and he reveils himself in his Bible.

---

This is exactly the problem with creationism. It assumes that the Genesis account, as interpreted by the literalist, is literally true, and all evidence to the contrary must either be forced to fit the story or disregarded altogether.-

quote:

---

3. And this is the one you constantly ignore - because the prefall conditions on earth is unknown, and the changes during the fall is unknown....

---

No one has ignored this. Everyone understands that this is what you are saying. However, everyone is trying to explain that the only reason that one would accept such a scenario is because of a strong commitment to continue believing that the creation myth in the Bible is literally true.--

quote:

---

It is only about why the debate exists, and why debating it won't help or harm either side.

---

The reason this debate exists is because one side accepts evidence and tries to draw reasonable inferences from it, and adjusting the accepted beliefs in light of new discoveries, while the other side holds such a strong commitment to a certain set of beliefs that they feel compelled to somehow explain away the fact that the world simply does not conform to their beliefs.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

ModulousYou make a good point, but keep in mind the unknowns: Our scientific knowledge of the natural world is not complete, and until we get there, we are unable to say how much we still need to learn. There may be many unifying principles yet to be discovered. For example, before Newton nobody would've thought the orbits of the planets and the apple falling is related.Secondly, we do not know what physical laws was like before the fall. Nothing. Zip.I admit that, with our limited knowledge, it seems like a big coincidence, but if we had the full picture, we might think differently.We don't use red shift to determine the age of fossils, and we don't use radio metric dating techniques to measure the age of the universe. Therefore, the only coincidence here is that both indicate an old age. [Please do not respond to the following off-topic comment. Thanks! --Admin]Ice aging is incorrect, as I am aware that a WW2 plane was found in ice that was thought to be millions of years old - but that is off topic.This message has been edited by Admin, 03-28-2006 10:26 AM

Please, everyone, I know that to many this from GFC must be a temptation nearly impossible to ignore, but please let it be, at least in this thread:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

but that is off topic.

---

Then don't bring it up. Bringing up a point and then closing the discussion on it is a pretty poor rhetorical tactic that does nothing to advance the debate.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I'm saying this of both sides. You are close minded in the sence that, if physical evidence on historic issues lead you to believe in a certain way, all other possibilities are necesarilly false.

---

Well that isn't what it means to be closed-minded. And it isn't true either. I'm not claiming 100% certainty. All I'm saying is that if the evidence strongly points against your ideas a rational person will go with the evidence.In your philosphy if an idea would be convenient for your beliefs than that is proof enough. I think you can see why that will only fly with people who believe as you do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The caveat "as interpeted by creationists" is important because in my experience creationists aren't very good at interpreting the Bible. Too often they try to force-fit the text to their beliefs. So really creationism seems to have more to do with self-worship than Christianity or the Bible.

---

​

This is completely false, and unnecesary. Creationists takes the Bible, and the believe that an omni-potent God can actually ensure that His message is preserved in its intended form, VERY seriously.

---

So you are saying that you know my experience better than I do ?And is it unnecessary to point out that it is creationist's interpetation of the Bible that they take as absolute ? I think that it is an important point because even creationists pay lip service to the idea that human intepretations are fallible.And how can you possibly say that I am wrong to point out that you made an argument when you admit to making it ?And lets go on to the point of contnetion

quote:

---

3. And this is the one you constantly ignore - because the prefall conditions on earth is unknown, and the changes during the fall is unknown, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESSES ON THE PREFALL EARTH, AND HOW THEY HELPED SHAPE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. "Creation Science" can suggect natural explainations for these events, BUT THEY REMAIN SPECULATIVE, AS THEY CAN NOT BE TESTED!

---

You mean that this is the point you keep PRETENDING that I don't understand. Understanding what you claim does not mean agreeing with it. In fact we can look at variations in the past, as scientists do in the case of C14 production. What I and Chiroptera and Modolous have been pointing out is that the evidence is that if yopuu were right it should be possible to construct a speculative scenario wuch fits the facts. That you cannot do so is a significant count against your claims.

No, you didn't. You've simply dug a deeper hole, by adding the implication that God is also short-sighted. First you limit His omnipotence, then you limit His Omniscience. I'm not Christian so these questions, I don't feel the compulsion to answer; in fact I could easily answer them, however, some answers you might not like. You are Christian; however, its seems that by asking these questions and answering them with the Fall, you're basically searching for a way to reconcile what you observe about the world with your beliefs. Hmmm...I haven't met any satanists, let alone ex-satanists, so it doesn't mean much too me. Satanism is inherently linked to Christianity, however, in that Satanists worship the Satan of the Bible. To convert to a religion they already have some "closeness" with would seem to me the more pragmatic choice.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

The philosophical differences are pretty much insurmountable. A lot of this thread seems to have been focusing on the philosophical problems with the Creationist's position, but there is something else to consider.Most of the EvC debate isn't philosophical. It isn't Creationists saying "I don't think Evolution happened because science is inadequate to deal with the issues". Sure, there are many such discussions, and yourself and Faith have engaged in that side of things.However, the real core, the real central part of the debate is not really a philosophical divide. Its creationists trying to misrepresent the science behind evolutionary theories attempting to convince others that evolution is a faith/religion rather than a science; to have the theory struck from the schools. Have evolution branded bad science and the practitionars shown up as being frauds or worse.All this because of the philosophical/theological differences which, because they cannot be honestly resolved, have to be resolved dishonestly.I'm happy with people believing anything they choose to believe. However, the debate 'battlefield' is not here, the warzone is when someone tries to convince others that a scientific theory will make them immoral athiests likely to get sexual diseases:

quote:

---

1963 is when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system. Anybody remember that? A few got out, brought evolution in, same time. 1963 is when sexually transmitted diseases began to climb; this is for kids 10 to 14 years of age. 1963 is when divorce rates began to go up... Unwed birth rates for girls 10 to 14 years of age have increased 100%.

---

(Hovind)Or some other propaganda. The war was declared by the young earth creationists who are upset that science has effectively falsified their worldview using a methodology that so many people trust as accurate. They should withdraw from the battle if they want to claim its an unsolvable philosophical divide and cease their anti-science propaganda battle, remove themselves from the courts and public debates etcTo repeat: The EvC controversy is not about the philosophical differences of the two worldviews. That is unresolvable. The controversy is about propaganda, anti-science, confusion, hokey mathematics, lies and fraud.

How so? I think I noticed that you specified some differences at this point in a post to someone else when I was skimming through earlier, but I don't remember what point you were making. Oh, yes, the scattering of the languages. I can't see that as a change in the physical law though. I think I'll read back through your posts again, though. That's an intriguing idea I'm not yet grasping. Something to do with the introduction of death into nature? But death began with the Fall. Its effects would certainly have increased dramatically with the Flood though. Yes, I agree, but the Flood doesn't fit that description as far as I can see. A dramatic change in CONDITIONS, yes, but physical law, no, I'm not convinced. The Fall, however, could have started some such change in motion as you are suggesting, though I'm still not getting it yet. No historical event is repeatable, it doesn't have to be miraculous. And I believe nothing at all happens without God anyway, everything is fulfilling God's purposes, but a miracle is something that does violate His laws, and I don't see that in the Flood. Or in the Fall, although I can see that the Fall may have introduced a radical change in the physical laws. I'm still not sure about that, in fact I'm thinking a bit against the idea now. Such a radical change in the condition of the creation may also not violate physical laws. Even the gradual introduction of radioactivity would not violate those laws. It would be undetectable by modern science of course, who don't suspect such a radical change in conditions -- or possibly have any way of detecting it ever, but now I'm not totally convinced. They'd simply need a way to detect a certain kind of massive disortion but maybe that's not possible, and I am out of my depth on this topic. But this can be said about absolutely any event on the planet, GFC. Certainly this will always be the case, yes. But I believe in the Flood because God's word tells me it happened, not because I believe it was a miraculous event. But that's not crucial. If someone were convinced there was a flood that fits the Bible description, that would convince them of the truth of God's word, and that's plenty. And again, I think it's wrong to say God caused it in any miraculous sense. It merely LOOKS miraculous because the conditions of the time were so different from now, but there's no reason to think it didn't play out according to the laws of physics acting in those conditions of the time.