YEC approaches to empirical investigation

Absolutely, assuming that the evidence could explain the numerous indicators that we've collected from all the different fields of science.For example: If we are in some sort of "Matrix" world, and we wake up to discover a different world where all the "laws" or our world no longer hold true, I doubt that a ToEr would still insist that the Matrix-world was absolute

I like this idea. I think it would be a fine addition to EvC.I would expect that the moderators would have to watch this forum, and suspend posting privileges there for people who abuse it. I would not be surpised if some from the science side of the house were to earn suspensions for that forum.

quote:

---

1. No questioning the premises based on Faith (that's for the Faith and Belief boards)
2. All faith-based hypotheses must be stated up front (no pulling a "well, God could have done XXX" random, unsupported-by-the-bible assertion to "work through" a problematic empirical observation). Allowing such assertions would completely undermine the "empirical" part of the enterprise.
3. No dodging evidence
4. Showing alternative hypotheses is not an argument. Extract the data / observations from the hypotheses, and show those.

---

Take 3: No dodging evidence

quote:

---

Poster a: How do you explain radioactive decay rates?

​

Poster b: well you are assuming that they have always been the same - I would suggest that is not the case.

​

Poster a: But we know that if decay rates were accelerated, then it would superheat and destory the earth.

​

Poster a: no that's an assumption based on your evolutionist methodology - you have no way to prove that. So let's move onto the next part of my theory....

​

Poster b: what a F&*king minute...

​

and so on..

---

Is that dodging the evidence?what about Carbon-dated ? is that to be considered a defacto faulty method?It would seems that every debate will stall within the opening stages but there will be no common framework to operate with. This is compounded by the fact that creation science is pseduo-science so it does not even provide an internally coherent framework for us to work with.I honestly don't understand how this is suppose to work besides encouraging flaky science?This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:44 PMThis message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:47 PM

I don't think this is entirely fair. Example RATE. They state from the outset that the earth is young. However, there is plenty of discussion there as to how to reconcile all the evidence to the contrary, and what evidence there is for the positive. An example is Humphrey's helium stuff. We do the same in science, assuming this is true, what are the consequences, what would we see?The problem YECers face is that when the going gets tough, the temptation to just write off contradictory evidence, or awkward paradoxes as miracles and have done with it. This can make discussion frustrating, because positions are essentially unfalsifiable, but with a calm mind, at least some ideas can be bashed about, especially by a group of like minded people who accept the conclusion already.

The problem is clearly right here. I tried to talk about this in Post 60: YECs have to be specific about exactly what they're rejecting. Simply rejecting without analysis doesn't work; like you said, if you do rejection without analysis, you're apt to reject something that you're actually using / assuming, like basic physics.I would say the best way to approach that is actually for poster A to lay out the reasons for making his claims (not just a bare assertion). The YEC have to specifically reject one of those claims. If they cannot find a problem, then they will have to concede "I currently can't account for that data point."At that point, can choose to move on, but we should keep track of the evidence that is not accounted for. But we should keep track of evidence anyway, as I'm sure it'll be easy to pile on various points of conflicting evidence in these posts. that's the way it goes when you're one person trying to reformulate hypotheses built on repeated observations of thousands of people.This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 11:55 AM

Well the logical course would be to run a thread under those conditions and see what happens.

It isn't a matter of being at odds, it's a matter of the one point of view demanding that the other give up its very reason for being. Yes but the reason for this site is the science debate. What site is that? I read the creationist sites but the message boards don't usually look very interesting.

YEC approaches to empirical science. Talk about a contradiction in terms. I mean, isn't that what Faith has finally come out and shown us all. There is no such thing as empirical science for YECs. There is the creation event, the flood, and that is the end of the discussion.Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experimentThus there can be no such thing as "Creation Science" or at least "Creation Empirical Science". This whole argument seems to just be about if Faith's beliefs are valid.My whole take on this is simply, "So what?" That Faith has this belief means nothing to me. That she argues this belief is nothing to me. It only becomes an issue when she expects this belief to be promoted and accepted by others as more than just a religious belief. But so far to date she has not done that so really the whole argument of this thread is empty.The reason I am here is to engage these beliefs when they are touted on their scientific merit as a form of pursuasion. I have a very close friend of mine who wrapped up in YECism and I had been seduced by its propaganda in the past. I have also seen what outgrowing the childlike beliefs of YECism can do to a person's faith the the Lord. I want to make sure that those who promote a YEC lie or distortion are met with the truth. I feel that without people like me, jar, Trixie, and others of faith who participate here that people who were like me seeking for the truth would see that the majority of it lies with people who have never accepted or have abandoned God.When I took to the library and to the net to seek out answers to this whole enigma of my faith I came across this place very early in my search. It is hardly possible to search for anything regarding the EvC debate without having this site appear on one of the first pages. Here I found scientists, educators, and to my suprise a bunch of people who found peace with their Christianity while being able to abandon the myth of the Genesis creation. I hung around here for quite awhile before I joined in to be one more voice for Christians against YECism. I felt like I knew you all well even though I didn't participate. I was one of the "XX Guests" simply learning all your styles, attitudes, beliefs, and positions.Now adays I just hope that every time I hear rediculousness like, "The rocks obviously had to be soft when they deformed" that I can be the voice that decisivly puts that down and does so AS A CHRISTIAN. The facts are not debatable and the biggest problem I discovered with YECism is that they simply distort or do not display the facts. Now this could be either due to ignorace like the many who come here, or out of greed for either money, souls, or both like the charlatans of the many creationist institutions or the likes of Kent Hovind, Ron Wyatt, etc.So I say let them come and debate their ideas. Don't worry about if Faith's methodology is scientific or logical or valid or whatever. And when they miss on the facts like the inevitibly do simply call them on only the facts. Really, anyone with half a brain who is reading this forum should be able to see right through it. Their position fails from the very basic understanding of fact so why all this commotion over what is and what is not valid reasoning?Lack of knowing the facts: Mutations don't happen.
Informing of the facts: Yes they do we have observed them...Lack of knowing the facts: Novel traits do not appear.
Informing of the facts: Yes they do we have observed them...Lack of knowing the facts: Sediment doesn't make flat layers.
Informing of the facts: Yes it does we observe it...Lack of knowing the facts: There are no drastic erosional surfaces.
Informing of the facts: Yes there are here are examples...Lack of knowing the facts: Layers are soft when they deform.
Informing of the fact: No they are not and here is why...Lack of knowing the facts: Shallow surfaces erode faster than steep surfaces.
Informing of the fact: No they do not and here is why...So Faith can go into her interpretations of IRH's data with all her presumtions and beliefs and she will falter on the facts just like every single YEC who has ever opened their mouth here or anywhere. So for whoever are the 3 "evos" in IRH's thread, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Ignore the flud talk and just concentrate on where the facts go south. I think you will find that the house built upon the sand will fall quite easily under its own weight.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Yes, YEC does demand that those who hold a scientific position ignore the totality of the evidence, thus taking away the reason that it's held -- because it accounts for the totality of the evidence.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-12-2005 03:32 PM

Maybe not, but that's because an OE proponent doesn't have any authority but Science for support, whereas the YE proponent has God's word for authority and must remain true to it. (Even so, I think OE proponents in general aren't much more likely to concede because in the first place incontrovertible evidence just doesn't happen in this subject matter, it's all a matter of better or worse plausibilities, and second, no major paradigm gives up that easily.)

I think at the very least we've addressed that what YECs want does not follow the scientific method, but it is empirical. Man.. I really shouldn't have said "empirical science" inn the title--that goes against my own thought. That's sloppy.I'd like to edit that out now... I hope nobody minds.

Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself. This is the whole point. Unfortunately the evidence you allow to discredit God is not anywhere near all that trustworthy, certainly not divine and far from absolute.

quote:

---

I think at the very least we've addressed that what YECs want does not follow the scientific method, but it is empirical.

---

Em..no we haven't.. you have made that claim, I don't see that many people accepting it - you seem to base this on the idea that because they think their belief=data then it is empirical in that sense - it's not.Anyone feel that YEC work in some empirical manner*?* as in consistantly empirical rather than "a dash of X, A dash of Y and let's throw the rest in the bin.

It doesn't happen in any.
As Nuggin pointed out, we could be in the Matrix. Waking up in a pod would pretty effectively invalidate all evidence.

OK. According to you the entire purpose of YEC is to bully people into rejecting the truth and worship you. Souns pretty Satanic to me. Do you think that you're the Anti-Christ or something ?e