Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC without the bible, possible?
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 16 of 133 (509229)
05-19-2009 1:16 PM


To make this a bit less hypothetical - are there any YECs who are NOT believers in the literal truth of the bible (or some other religious text)?
If the idea has any merit, there should be.

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 17 of 133 (509820)
05-25-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
05-17-2009 3:34 PM


RE - YEC without Bible?
Hello, this is my first ever post, so please be gentle.
I am a YEC. However I did not become a YEC as soon as I became a christian. I struggled for about four years, questioning many things about the Bible, History, & science.
If it were not for the Bible, requiring a young earth to remain logically consistent and plausible, I would probably not be convinced either way. I perhapps would wonder at which camp was right, but would have no reason to invest any time investigating the claims of either one. After becomming a christian, I then had more motivation to learn more about EvC.
Would I still oppose evolution, in a world without God? Despite my belief that the world would not exist without God, I would say no. Because it would probably be just a theory amongst many, with no motivation for anyone to care too much about it. I believe the only reason people get excited or care about EvC related scientific debates, is because of God.
If we rule out the Bible, would there be any evidence for a scientist to suspect the earth might be young? Hmmm. If there were no religions and if it were not for the Bible saying so, is it possible that scientists might look more openly at the evidence, and have more freedom to theorise about the age of the earth? Would they hold just as strongly to the current estimated age, or be more tentative? There are many methods to estimate the age of the earth, each one giving a different result, ranging from thousands to billions of years. If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
Regarding the statement about YEC beleiving what we do because of a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are distinctions that can be made here between between different YEC.
1. I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that it was at least scientifically plausible. At the same time I also examined the Bible to see if the text was trustworthy, and to see if there was any other viable alternative other than a literal interpretation. Basically a process of elimination.
2. Other christians have no interest in the scientific debate, but are YEC because they have come to believe, for various other reasons, that the Bible is a record of the very words of God. And if the Bible states that God created the world in six days, then six days it is.
Regarding percentages of YEC. In Australia we are definately in the minority. In the various churches that I have attended, it's just not openly talked about. From my experience less than 10% of christians would be YEC (with the excetion of 7th day adventists). Most christians either do not consider it an issue, or have a variety ways in which they try to blend evolution with christianity.

Two ways to easy life, believe everything or nothing, as both save us from thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 05-17-2009 3:34 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Meldinoor, posted 05-25-2009 3:27 PM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 19 by lyx2no, posted 05-25-2009 3:39 PM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2009 4:39 PM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 05-25-2009 11:34 PM Minority Report has replied
 Message 24 by SammyJean, posted 05-26-2009 12:36 PM Minority Report has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 133 (509865)
05-25-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Finally!
Minority Report writes:
Hello, this is my first ever post, so please be gentle.
Welcome Minority I'm new here too, as you can see. Don't worry, I play nice.
Minority Report writes:
Would I still oppose evolution, in a world without God? Despite my belief that the world would not exist without God, I would say no.
Thank you for your honest answer! I thought this thread would go to its grave without a reply from a young earther!!
So, you are saying that without the bible, you would be unconvinced about the age of the earth? That statement can be turned around to say, the bible is ultimately what convinced you of the young age of the earth. Is that accurate?
Do you believe observational evidence supports your position, contrary to scientific consensus in Geology (ancient sedimentation), nuclear physics (radiometric dating), paleontology (fossils), astronomy (distance light has traveled from the furthest stars), etc? (Let's leave debating the specific evidence to another thread).
Do you believe physical evidence has to agree with the bible, or do believe the evidence is unimportant next to your literal interpretation of Genesis?
Minority Report writes:
Because it would probably be just a theory amongst many, with no motivation for anyone to care too much about it. I believe the only reason people get excited or care about EvC related scientific debates, is because of God.
I disagree. While I agree that many prominent scientists have been Christians, plenty of discoveries and advances, on the subject of our origins, have been made by non-Christians, who also were not hostile toward a belief in God.
Albert Einstein comes to mind, who, despite being quoted as saying "God does not play dice", was not a Christian. Einstein's theories eventually lent support to the Big Bang theory. He did not need a belief in God to motivate his discoveries.
Darwin is another good example. From Wikipedia:
When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He learnt John Herschel's science which, like William Paley’s natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design. On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality. He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".
Darwin started out as a creationist, but lost this belief as he made his great discovery. A case where his faith did not so much influence his research, as the other way around.
Minority Report writes:
If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
Radiometric dating is one of hundreds of different methods that give evidence of an ancient world. Just tree rings push the age of the earth back to more than 10,000 years ago. About twice as old as most YEC's argue.
The earth's crust has a similar pattern to tree rings that go out from divergent boundaries between tectonic plates. I won't describe it here, for fear of going too far off topic, but I will give you a link.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html
Surely you realize that there is far more support for an old earth than just radiometric dating?
Minority Report writes:
1. I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that it was at least scientifically plausible. At the same time I also examined the Bible to see if the text was trustworthy, and to see if there was any other viable alternative other than a literal interpretation. Basically a process of elimination.
I went through the same process... But it appears I came to a different conclusion. Did you study or read about discoveries and research done from a non-YEC perspective? Or were you more objective, looking at the evidence for all sides? (not that I've seen much evidence for a young earth, but that's another topic) Kent Hovind, a prominent creationist, has been known to misrepresent science, and to lie about discoveries.
Page Not Found - The Skeptic Tank
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html
I'm not saying you relied on the garbage claims by Rev Hovind (I feel sorry for you if that's the case). But many people do. Did you check the credentials of those whose works you were reading and comparing?
Minority Report writes:
Regarding percentages of YEC. In Australia we are definately in the minority. In the various churches that I have attended, it's just not openly talked about. From my experience less than 10% of christians would be YEC (with the excetion of 7th day adventists). Most christians either do not consider it an issue, or have a variety ways in which they try to blend evolution with christianity.
I don't know the percentage either. Being a Christian myself, I just feel like I'm surrounded by people who reject scientific evidence in favor of an a priori belief in a young earth. Last week I went to a church where the pastor laughed at the idea of an old earth, making it seem to the congregation, as if a young earth is the only possible interpretation of scripture.
Thanks for your post. I look forward to seeing your reply.
God bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 19 of 133 (509866)
05-25-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Gentle is My Middle Name
Would I still oppose evolution, in a world without God?
There is more to an old Earth then the ToE.
Because [evolution] would probably be just a theory amongst many
Unlike religion, science is convergent.
A thousand independent theologians reading identical material will come to a thousand exclusive, absolute truths, which, given enough funding, will be printed on battle flags.
A thousand independent scientists reading identical material will come to a small number of overlapping, tentative hypotheses, which, given enough information, might be combined into a single theory.
with no motivation for anyone to care too much about it.
Evolutionary theory makes honest profits and saves countless lives. What's not to care about?
If we rule out the Bible, would there be any evidence for a scientist to suspect the earth might be young? Hmmm.
No.
If there were no religions and if it were not for the Bible saying [the Earth is young]
The Bible does not say the Earth is young. That is an inference one must make if one isn't willing to accept the Bible as a book religious lessons rather then a book of natural science.
or is it possible that scientists might look more openly at the evidence
Is it your contention that scientists close their minds to evidence to spite the Bible? Has it really escaped your notice that many, many scientists who are content with an old Earth explanation are also Children of the Book?
and have more freedom to theorise about the age of the earth?
Is it your contention that scientists don't evoke SkyMaster-G as an explanation for observable phenomena because the Bible does exist?
Is it not more plausible that science excludes the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena because all the evidence ever presented demonstrates either a natural explanation or our own ignorance; or, the logical necessity that an answer for anything is an answer for nothing, giving no indication of the next move?
Would they hold just as strongly to the current estimated age, or be more tentative?
It's not an estimate, it's a measurement.
let us say I am going to dig a hole in my back yard before supper: I've got three hours to dig it; I can fill a 20 liter bucket with soil in about five minutes; I can keep up that pace for 20% of the time if I rest for 80% of the time; The sides will be nearly plumb; The hole will be nearly circular with a diameter of about one meter.
How deep will be the hole?
How tentative is the answer?
I have dug a hole. I drop a tape measure into it.
How deep is the hole?
How tentative is the answer?
My Mum a supreme being doesn't want me to dig a hole in the garden:
Will that change our estimate?
Will that change our measurement?
There are many methods to estimate the age of the earth, each one giving a different result, ranging from thousands to billions of years.
There are no legitimate methods of measuring the age of the Earth that give values of thousands of years. A legitimate method would be one based on an evidenced mechanism that gives repeatable values independent of the examiner's predilections.
If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
It is only a wish to support the Bible that gives anyone cause to assume weight for a method that would give a value of thousands of years for the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating is given weight because it is based on an evidenced mechanism that gives repeatable values independent of the examiner's predilections.
I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that [the Earth being thousands of years old] was at least scientifically plausible.
This only shows your profound ignorance of science. There is no scientifically plausible way that the Earth is even only a couple of billion years old, yet alone millions or thousands of years. What you have convinced yourself of is that you can circumvent what little evidence you know about, while ignoring that which you do not know about. You account for none of it.
That was pretty gentle, right?
Edited by lyx2no, : formating.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 133 (509869)
05-25-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
If there were no religions and if it were not for the Bible saying so, is it possible that scientists might look more openly at the evidence, and have more freedom to theorise about the age of the earth? Would they hold just as strongly to the current estimated age, or be more tentative?
Thi si curiously paranoid. You seem to be fantasizing that scientists are in some sort of conspiracy to deny Biblical literalism.
The facts show the opposite. Remember that geology started in Christian countries, and the first geologists believed in a young earth and in Noah's flood. They reluctantly abandoned these ideas because the evidence was against their cherished YEC beliefs.
We might better ask: would geologists have considered a 6000 year-old earth at all if it was not for the Bible?
There are many methods to estimate the age of the earth, each one giving a different result, ranging from thousands to billions of years. If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
If it were not for the Bible, no-one would spew out unscientific YEC gibberish. As you seem to admit in your post, you wouldn't, either.
Be honest, if the Bible said that the Earth was four and a half billion years old, would you not take scientific confirmation of this fact as a confirmation of the divine authorship of the Bible, instead of talking rubbish about this subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 21 of 133 (509894)
05-25-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
Sorry for giving you so much to reply to.
Minority Report writes:
1. I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that it was at least scientifically plausible. At the same time I also examined the Bible to see if the text was trustworthy, and to see if there was any other viable alternative other than a literal interpretation. Basically a process of elimination.
2. Other christians have no interest in the scientific debate, but are YEC because they have come to believe, for various other reasons, that the Bible is a record of the very words of God. And if the Bible states that God created the world in six days, then six days it is.
I agree with your division of YEC's into two parties. The vast majority of them I'd class as nr 2. They believe because their pastors or Sunday school teachers told them so. It is appalling to me when members of this group rally to get evolution out of school. They don't even understand what they're rallying against.
I believe some YEC's can be grouped under nr 1. They have honestly looked at scientific evidence, but have probably relied on the arguments of Creationist "scientists" (who can sometimes sound pretty convincing until you pick apart their arguments). At least this group of YEC's have gone through the trouble of investigating their beliefs, even if they are misled.
I'd appreciate if you'd share with us what "thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries, etc" means to you, and what channels you went through to find support for a literal 7-day interpretation of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 05-26-2009 9:09 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 22 of 133 (509946)
05-26-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
05-25-2009 11:34 PM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
Hello Meldinoor, Yes I am a bit overwhelmed by all the responses. I don't know if I will have a chance or the will, to reply to all the questions. So I'll start with yours as you started this thread, and seem genuinely inquisitive.
(I'd appreciate if you'd share with us what "thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries, etc" means to you, and what channels you went through to find support for a literal 7-day interpretation of Genesis.)
I first became a christian due to many non-science related reasons. Emotions did play a part, but I also had a rational mind which needed convincing. One strong reason was due to the testimony of the apostles, which led to most of them being killed. If Jesus was a fake, then they would definately know this, and it does not make sense them dying for a false prophet. At first I read introductory christian books such as; 'More than a carpenter' by Josh Mcdowel; 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison; 'Mere christianity' by C.S.Lewis; 'A Sneaking suspicion' by John Dickson; 'Know why you believe' by Paul E. Little, etc.
From the very beginning though, whenever I read Genesis, I questioned how could it be true, as evolution was the scientific consensus. What made it difficult, was that I saw even then, that Genesis plainly stated that God created the world in six days. But like many people I thought this could not be right in light of evolution, so then proceded to conduct 'thought experiments' and trial many possible theories, of how else to interpret Genesis. Much later I found that the theories I had envisaged(ie day/age, gap, progressive creation etc), were commonly proposed by christians to resolve the problem. I however found fault with all of them.
One of the first books I read relating to EvC, was Plimmer's 'Telling lies for God'. This made me highly skeptical of YEC for a few years. I then had the privilege of going to uni to study Nursing, which included introductory units in biology. Learning about DNA was a real eye opener for me, and it was then that I began to question the very basis of biological evolution. Around that time I came across a book in the uni co-op 'In six days' by John F. ashton. This was a very influential book for me, essay's from 50 scientists from around the world explaining why they believed in a literal 6 day creation. Up to that point I thought YEC were just right wing extremist christians, but I was slowly changing.
Since then I have read books such as; 'The Origin of Species' by charles Darwin; 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J.Behe; 'The Blind watchmaker' By Richard Dawkins; 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip E.Johnson; 'Refuting Evolution' 1&2 by Jonathan Sarfati; 'The birth of Time' by John Gribbin; 'The lie, Evolution' by Ken Ham; and many others. I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.
After the scientific objections to a 6 day creation had been examined, I then took a closer look at the textual criticisms for a literal interpretation. I read books such as 'Refuting Compomise' by Johnathan Sarfati; 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' by J.I.Packer; web articals such as 'Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy'; and chapters dealing with the topic in a number of other books. I have since come to accept (read- dragged kicking & screaming) that the Bible is the very words of God, and that Genesis is a true historical record of our origin.
Though being very brief, I hope this helps answer your question.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 05-25-2009 11:34 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2009 11:53 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 05-27-2009 4:01 AM Minority Report has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 133 (509956)
05-26-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minority Report
05-26-2009 9:09 AM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
In order to accept the young earth idea you have to reject virtually all of science.
But many creationists or YECs whom I have debated on these forums insist that they are not anti-science!
YEC without Bible? Here's the test: do scientists or informed laymen in non-Christian countries come up with a young earth scenario from the scientific evidence? The answer is a universal no!
Young earth is strictly a religious belief, and it requires that one ignores reality.
But I have found that YECs are particularly adept at that. They manage to ignore, self-delude, misrepresent, or in some other way dispose of any pesky facts that intrude upon their religious beliefs.
And unfortunately, some take this anti-science belief to an extreme:
I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. Source

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 05-26-2009 9:09 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 24 of 133 (509965)
05-26-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
Minority Report writes:
I believe the only reason people get excited or care about EvC related scientific debates, is because of God.
No, the most important reason people get excited about EvC related scientific debates is because those that believe in a particular god and a particular holy book are trying desperately to change how science is taught in the classroom. They are trying to force their beliefs into science, where it doesn't belong, and package it for school children as genuine science, when it's really just genuine bullshit.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose free will. - Neil Peart
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein
"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 25 of 133 (510048)
05-27-2009 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minority Report
05-26-2009 9:09 AM


Interesting
Minority Report writes:
Hello Meldinoor, Yes I am a bit overwhelmed by all the responses. I don't know if I will have a chance or the will, to reply to all the questions. So I'll start with yours as you started this thread, and seem genuinely inquisitive.
Thank you, Minority. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion.
Minority Report writes:
I first became a christian due to many non-science related reasons. Emotions did play a part, but I also had a rational mind which needed convincing. One strong reason was due to the testimony of the apostles, which led to most of them being killed. If Jesus was a fake, then they would definately know this, and it does not make sense them dying for a false prophet. At first I read introductory christian books such as; 'More than a carpenter' by Josh Mcdowel; 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison; 'Mere christianity' by C.S.Lewis; 'A Sneaking suspicion' by John Dickson; 'Know why you believe' by Paul E. Little, etc.
C.S.Lewis is a good read, and as happy as I am to call you a brother or sister in faith, I don't see how it pertains to this thread. Unless you are implying that rejecting an old earth is a natural progression from becoming a Christian. Evolution is not an Atheist religion, although many creationists like to call it that, further claiming it is an excuse for immorality etc etc... I accept the theory of evolution, but I don't consider myself an Evolutionist any more than I consider myself a Gravitationalist for accepting the theory of gravity. I'm just convinced by the evidence.
Minority Report writes:
Learning about DNA was a real eye opener for me, and it was then that I began to question the very basis of biological evolution.
Interesting, because DNA is the very basis of biological evolution, and carries many indications of shared ancestry with other species. I find the presence of ERV's and Junk DNA to be especially telltale signs of biological evolution. I've never seen any other satisfactory explanation for them.
Minority Report writes:
Since then I have read books such as; 'The Origin of Species' by charles Darwin; 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J.Behe; 'The Blind watchmaker' By Richard Dawkins; 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip E.Johnson; 'Refuting Evolution' 1&2 by Jonathan Sarfati; 'The birth of Time' by John Gribbin; 'The lie, Evolution' by Ken Ham; and many others.
I have to admit, I was prejudiced toward thinking that a YEC would never have read a book by Dawkins (except to quote-mine, naturally). But I'm not surprised at all by the credentials of the YEC's you quote.
Phillip Johnson is a law professor.
Jonathan Sarfati is a Dr of Chemistry, not biology.
Ken Ham only has a bachelor's degree in applied science.
Unfortunately, many YEC writers and speakers lack proper credentials on the topics they write about. That does not automatically disqualify them of course. I don't think Darwin had a doctorate in biology at the time he published his theory, but most who have them today support his theory.
This link shows several survey results of American beliefs about evolution.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
Not too surprisingly, only 5% of scientists held a belief in YEC, while 44% of non-scientists did (Gallup poll from 1997) Why do you think this is the case?
Minority Report writes:
I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.
Um... Ok? So, I'm convinced evolution has some problems, therefore it follows that the earth is 6000 years old?
How about:
Because evolution has some problems, therefore Elvis was abducted by Aliens and lives on a small planet orbiting Alpha Centauri?
Sorry, but neither of the two paragraphs describes a logically coherent statement. There is no reason to assume that the earth is 6000 years old, simply because there are things we still don't know about evolution. Evolution is not directly related to the age of the earth anyway, even if creationists like to refer collectively to any science that disagrees with YEC as "Evolution".
Also, in your answer to the OP, you said that the bible is ultimately what tips the scale in favor of YEC for you. Doesn't this mean the scientific "evidence" for YEC isn't convincing enough for you? I find it strange, if God created the Earth 6000 years ago, that we'd have to rely on the Bible to make discoveries about our past, that their isn't more evidence for it. A fresh 6000 year old earth would be fairly obviously not 4.5b years old, don't you think.
Minority Report writes:
After the scientific objections to a 6 day creation had been examined, I then took a closer look at the textual criticisms for a literal interpretation. I read books such as 'Refuting Compomise' by Johnathan Sarfati; 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' by J.I.Packer; web articals such as 'Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy'; and chapters dealing with the topic in a number of other books. I have since come to accept (read- dragged kicking & screaming) that the Bible is the very words of God, and that Genesis is a true historical record of our origin.
I'm sorry, but really, on the topic of the interpretation of Genesis, how is reading only works by YEC's an objective look at the facts? Did you explore any works by, say, Hugh Ross, or any other creationist who accepts a different interpretation of Genesis? If you look at only one side of the argument, you've already made up your mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 05-26-2009 9:09 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 26 of 133 (510156)
05-28-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Meldinoor
05-27-2009 4:01 AM


Re: Interesting
Hello again Meldinoor,
Sorry for delay, other commitments. I can only reply to some of your comments now, but will try answering more later.
Meldinor writes:
I don't see how (your conversion?) pertains to this thread. Unless you are implying that rejecting an old earth is a natural progression from becomming a christian
No I wasn't implying anything, just giving a general overview of my personal journey to becomming a YEC, in response to your question of what 'thinking...etc' means to me.
Meldinoor writes:
Not too surprisingly, only 5%of scientists held a belief in YEC, while 44% of non-scientists did (gallup poll from 1997) why do you think this is the case?
I agree this is not too surprising. Firstly this is an American poll. If a worldwide poll was conducted I think the percentages would be very different. Secondly, we have already agreed in a distinction between two types of YEC. I suspect the 5% of YEC scientists would be in class no.1, and the majority of the 44% non-scientist YEC would be in class no.2. Thirdly, what are you implying by this poll, and when is truth ever determined by one?
Meldinor writes:
Unfortunately, many YEC writers and speakers lack proper credentials on the topics they write about.
Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to discredit a person instead of their argument.
Meldinoor writes:
That does not automatically disqualify them of course.
So why bother to mention it?
Meldinoor writes:
How about:
Because evolution has some problems, therefore Elvis was abducted by Aliens and lives on a small planet orbiting Alpha Centauri?
Careful now, your teeth are showing. This is ridicule, based on a faulty assumption of what you think I meant. So much for playing nice.
Meldinoor writes:
There is no reason to assume that the earth is 6000 years old, simply because there are things we still don't know about evolution.
This is not what I assumed or meant, and is a strawman fallacy. My belief in a young earth is not just due to doubting evolution (though they can be seen as mutually exclusive), but also due to evidence presented in fore-mentioned books, and in the Bible, and personal experiences at uni.
Meldinoor writes:
you said that the bible is ultimately what tips the scale in favor of YEC for you. Doesn't this mean the scientific "evidence" for YEC isn't convincing enough for you?
No, this is not what I meant. Yes the Bible is what 'tips the scales', but not how you are implying. I was trying to make the point that I probably would not have even looked at the evidence. I was a lazy agnostic before becomming a christian (did not know what the truth was, and it was not a high enough priority to invest time in looking). If I had seriously examined the arguments & evidence for both sides before becomming a christian, I doubt whether the evidence alone would make me commit to either party. This does not mean that evidence for YEC is weak, only that with two groups debating, each presenting valid arguments, it's sometimes hard to judge who is right.
It was the evidence & personal experiences which did ultimately convince me, but I would not have gone to uni or looked seriously at the evidence, if it wern't for the Bible & becomming a christian in the first place. So, it is in this sense, that I would not be a YEC if it weren't for the Bible. In addition, while becomming a YEC because of the Scientific evidence, the textual evidence for a young earth was also becomming very convincing. (Keep in mind that these were learned in conjunction, both feeding back on each other.) I now believe that the Bible is a true historical record of God revealing Himself to us, and that six days means six days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 05-27-2009 4:01 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2009 8:32 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 05-28-2009 8:51 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 29 by Meldinoor, posted 05-28-2009 6:32 PM Minority Report has replied
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 05-28-2009 9:31 PM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 05-29-2009 3:10 PM Minority Report has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 133 (510169)
05-28-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minority Report
05-28-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Interesting
quote:
In addition, while becomming a YEC because of the Scientific evidence, the textual evidence for a young earth was also becomming very convincing. (Keep in mind that these were learned in conjunction, both feeding back on each other.)
I think that your assessment may be a little off here. I suspect that in fact it was the religious aspect that won you over, which is why you gave credibility to the "scientific" arguments for a young Earth.
But feel free to prove me wrong - if you can. Pick one of the most convincing "scientific" arguments for a young Earth that you know of and argue it here, in a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 28 of 133 (510170)
05-28-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minority Report
05-28-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Interesting
Firstly this is an American poll. If a worldwide poll was conducted I think the percentages would be very different.
You are probably correct there. In countries with widespread literacy, more like 25% of the public gives any credence to YEC ideas. I haven't seen any data for scientists, but 5% YEC sounds startlingly large to me.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 29 of 133 (510199)
05-28-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minority Report
05-28-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Interesting
How did our peaceful tea party discussion turn into an all-out boxing match? I had no intention of ruffling your feathers.
Minority Report writes:
Hello again Meldinoor,
Sorry for delay, other commitments. I can only reply to some of your comments now, but will try answering more later.
As always, Minority, I appreciate you taking the time to post here.
Minority Report writes:
Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to discredit a person instead of their argument.
No, it is not argumentum ad hominem. If I had written: "Phillip Johnson believes in Santa Claus, Sarfati is afraid of heights, and Ken Ham smells like a block of moldy cheese on a good day", that would have been argumentum ad hominem. That's because neither of these traits says anything about their ability to judge the issue at hand.
I was very careful to point out that a lack of credentials, in any given case, is not an automatic dis qualifier. Heck, I even threw Darwin in as an example. But the reason I point this out is because we're not just looking at one individual.
Most doctors of Biology accept evolution. Most scientists who disagree with evolution are not in the field of biology. In fact, polls show that an increase in education correlates with an increase in an acceptance of the ToE. You argue that this is an ad hominem.
But what if I did a poll of preschool teachers*, asking them if they accept, say, the Theory of Relativity. Then say I polled a group of physicists. If you were to make up your mind about the Theory of Relativity, which poll would you rely on the most.
The same thing can be said for the Theory of Evolution. Since Evolution is a scientific problem, not a religious one, scientists would be far more knowledgeable about its ins and outs than kindergarten teachers. Furthermore, scientists with a degree in biology would be expected to know more about it than scientists in other fields.
Why then do you argue that we should rely on the arguments of a group of people, with statistically less knowledge on the subject than another group?
More importantly, why do you think there are far less educated scientists who believe in YEC, than the general public? I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. I'm asking you a question, and I'd like to hear your opinion.
Minority Report writes:
Thirdly, what are you implying by this poll, and when is truth ever determined by one?
Truth is never determined by poll. But statistically speaking, large groups of scientists agreeing unanimously, tends to coincide with truth. I'd like to know why it doesn't in this case.
Minority Report writes:
Careful now, your teeth are showing. This is ridicule, based on a faulty assumption of what you think I meant. So much for playing nice.
I'm sorry if it sounded like ridicule to you. I just gave an absurd example in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement that I apparently falsely assumed you made.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant?
Minority Report writes:
This is not what I assumed or meant, and is a strawman fallacy. My belief in a young earth is not just due to doubting evolution (though they can be seen as mutually exclusive), but also due to evidence presented in fore-mentioned books, and in the Bible, and personal experiences at uni.
They are mutually exclusive. But what's to say the earth isn't 20,000yrs old, or created last Thursday? (With memories and all the evidence of an old earth in place just to fool us). When I "committed the strawman fallacy" I was simply assuming that what you meant was:
Problems in Evolution = 6000yr old earth
I think that was a fairly natural assumption given your statement:
Minority Report writes:
I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.
I apologize for misunderstanding. Next time, instead of screaming "FALLACY!" just because someone misinterprets your post, simply explain what you actually meant. Thanks
Minority Report writes:
No, this is not what I meant. Yes the Bible is what 'tips the scales', but not how you are implying. I was trying to make the point that I probably would not have even looked at the evidence.
Minority Report writes:
If I had seriously examined the arguments & evidence for both sides before becomming a christian, I doubt whether the evidence alone would make me commit to either party.
I see. So assuming you did look at the evidence regardless, your answer to the OP would be: maybe. Is that about right?
Minority Report writes:
This does not mean that evidence for YEC is weak, only that with two groups debating, each presenting valid arguments, it's sometimes hard to judge who is right.
So how do you judge who is right? Your interpretation of Genesis, I presume? If that is the case, then the bible is what ultimately makes you a YEC. That would, as far as I can tell, make your answer to the OP: yes.
Now, why does the evidence favor both sides equally, as you seem to be claiming? (correct me if I'm wrong) Why should we need your interpretation (and that of other YECs) of Genesis in order to determine the age of the earth? Why isn't the evidence obviously in favor of a 6000yr universe? That is the question I'm ultimately trying to get at here.
*Disclaimer: I am by no means arguing that YEC scientists have the level of education of a preschool teacher. I am merely using an extreme example to clearly show where I'm coming from. End of disclaimer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Minority Report, posted 05-29-2009 1:42 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 30 of 133 (510206)
05-28-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minority Report
05-28-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Interesting
Meldinor writes:
Unfortunately, many YEC writers and speakers lack proper credentials on the topics they write about.
Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to discredit a person instead of their argument.
No, not an ad hominem. You presented them as experts in the scientific evidence, whereas in truth they are not qualified to be experts. Or as Steven Schimmrich{*}, a conservative Christian and believer in creation, had once put it (I've emboldened the pertinent point to your cry of "ad hominem"):
quote:
I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. In addition, I've even attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?
(from "What is a Creationist?", no longer on the web, downloaded 28 June 2001)
Creationist writers present themselves as experts, even though they are not. For example, Kent Hovind repeatedly boasted to his audiences that he was an expert in math and science, based solely on his first two years in college, after which he switched to religious studies and religious education, on his having taught math and science for 15 years at the private Christian high school that he ran; those poor kids! The extent of most of their "research" is to simply repeat other creationists' claims, which in turn had been "researched" from earlier creationists. And most of the time, they don't even cite the creationist they got it from, but rather the original source that their actual source had also falsely cited.
You need to start researching those claims that you found so convincing.
Meldinoor writes:
How about:
Because evolution has some problems, therefore Elvis was abducted by Aliens and lives on a small planet orbiting Alpha Centauri?
Careful now, your teeth are showing. This is ridicule, based on a faulty assumption of what you think I meant. So much for playing nice.
Meldinoor writes:
There is no reason to assume that the earth is 6000 years old, simply because there are things we still don't know about evolution.
This is not what I assumed or meant, and is a strawman fallacy. My belief in a young earth is not just due to doubting evolution (though they can be seen as mutually exclusive), but also due to evidence presented in fore-mentioned books, and in the Bible, and personal experiences at uni.
But the truth is that that is exactly what creationists routinely claim through their "two-model approach", which is a classic false dichotomy (while you're crying "Fallacy!", you might want to research that one). Instead of ever finding or presenting any evidence for creation, they only attack their misrepresentation of evolution and of the evidence for an old earth, explicitly claiming that does indeed prove "the creation model", which does indeed explicitly include a young earth.
But thank you for recognizing their "two model approach" for the false and deceptive fallacy that it is. Too bad you didn't recognize that earlier.
This does not mean that evidence for YEC is weak, only that with two groups debating, each presenting valid arguments, it's sometimes hard to judge who is right.
Yes, "each presenting valid arguments". The problem is that creationists do not present valid arguments. There's a lot of history behind this, but a basic reason for their approach is that they have no evidence to support their position.
Yes, they keep claiming that they have mountains of evidence, yet they refuse to ever present any of it. When I went to a debate with a creationist friend, one which featured the really big guns of "creation science" (ICR's Duane Gish and Henry Morris, who had literally written the book), and as we were leaving, my friend was in shock, muttering over and over again: "We have all that evidence. Why didn't they use it? They could have blown those evolutionists with that evidence. Why didn't they? We have all that evidence ... ."
I started studying "creation science" in 1981, started discussing it around 1984, and carried the discussion on-line around 1987. All that time on-line, I have repeatedly asked creationists to please present some of their evidence for creation. Would you like to guess how much evidence has been presented in response? Absolutely none whatsoever. All they ever come back with are false claims against evolution and science and they insisted that that is evidence for creation. Remember the fallacy, "The False Dichotomy" (AKA "False Dilemma")? Read up on that one and then re-read some of your creationist books critically. Oh, and I'm not the only one to ask for creationists' evidence and get nada; I've seen a lot of others on-line making the same attempts in vain. I even started a topic on this forum specifically asking for that evidence and the creationists here provided ... you guessed it, none!
It was the evidence & personal experiences which did ultimately convince me, ...
What evidence? Just what is the evidence for creation?
And, as the others suggested, why don't you present -- in a new topic, of course -- some of the most convincing evidence you have for a young earth. It will prove to be a very valuable object lesson for you to research and verify creationist claims.

{* Footnote:
Steven Schimmrich introduced himself as:
quote:
I am an evangelical Christian and a creationist. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in geology, believe that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and have taught evolution in historical geology courses.
In the 1980's and 1990's, he was very active on-line in strong opposition to "creation science" (AKA "scientific creationism", a politically-motivated deception). After completing his doctorate, he moved on in his life to pursue a career and to raise his family.
If you Google on his name, you should still find a lot about and by him. I used to mirror some of his pages, but even those are off-line now that my provider has gotten out of the web hosting business.}
Edited by dwise1, : Had forgotten to add the footnote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Minority Report has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Meldinoor, posted 05-29-2009 1:20 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024