What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

quote:

---

This forum is just a waste of time. It's not possible to put my argument is two two letter words.

---

What exactly is that supposed to mean ? You do realise that this entire topic is to a large extent ABOUT the idea that proving that the Bible is right on some point means that it is also right on some other point ?

To reiterate Percy's Einstein point - If we were having this discussion 150 years ago, I might in a similar vein argue that Newton being right about gravity would mean that it made it more likely that his wackier beliefs (religious and alchemical) were true. This wouldn't actually be the case. But also, it now transpires, that Newton wasn't right, not all the time - so it would be doubly a mistake to believe something because we hold another view from the same source to be true: 1) The link is unwarranted and 2) even if it was, how can we be sure that the view we trust and use to draw conclusions about the other point's truth from is actually true in the first place?

This is actually two different questions.First is the inherent question of whether historical texts constitute acceptable evidence. Certainly historical texts can provide potentially valuable clues to past events. For example, much effort has been expended trying to identify an astronomical event that might explain the Star of Bethlehem, nothing identified as of yet. The Illiad and The Odyssey both provided clues that there might have actually been an ancient city called Troy, which was found.So the answer is, of course, yes to the actual question about whether Genesis is sufficient reason to seek evidence of a global flood. This search was carried out in earnest by geologists of the 18th and 19th century, to no avail, and to this day no evidence of a global flood has ever been found.But this isn't really the topic. Why do creationists believe that the more the Bible is proven true, the more likely the rest of it is true, too? Why is it that when talking about evolution, creationists spend much of their time talking about unrelated evidence from the Bible instead of evidence from the natural world?--Percy

Let's say that you are standing in front of me making observations; you say the following true things:"You are wearing a blue shirt, black pants; you have brown hair and brown eyes.It's cold outside and you do not have a jacket to wear."I say "Fascinating! Your observations are dead-on!"You then offer to give me a warm coat that you designed yourself using state of the art technology; it will keep me comfortable when I go outside.I say "Thank you! This is awesome!"You then say. "Now that I have made some brilliant observations and given you a nice gift, will you bow and worship me and forget all other of the other things that you've observed yourself (such as those things that Buz brought up)?"Is the creationist to ignore the things you cannot prove (such as thought) and bow down and worship science becuase they have made some brilliant observations and given nice gifts such as medicine and television?Edited by TheDarin, : Quote was not showing up

nobody is asking anybody to "worship" science.

I have never heard of a scientist saying anything like that.Let's put it this way. If a budding young university scientist acted in this way, then when his tenure review came up, he would find himself with a notice of dismissal. If a scientist submitted something like this to a science journal, it would never pass peer review.I'm glad to see that you question things, and don't just accept them without examination. But you really should start questioning the nonsense you have been given about science. It's unfortunate, but some of the leadership of the creationist community are deliberately telling lies about science and about evolution. They present to you a completely bogus and absurd account of evolution, so that they can ridicule it and make it look absurd. The question you raised about eyelids in Did Eyelids Evolve? was a good question, but it is a question that could only come from somebody who has been given badly confused version of evolution.Welcome to evcforum. We are glad to have you here. We hope you can make it a good learning experience.

You know what I meant - don't avoid the question by being pesky.

no, i don't know what you mean. scientists ask that you trust the process of evidence when it demonstrates things rather than coming up with fanciful excuses for why the atmosphere randomly changed and why the density was different and there was more oxygen and the sun danced in a pink tutu.

It's a little hard to tell, but it seems as if you're saying that creationists resist scientific reasoning because it feels like they're being asked to give up their religious beliefs.The extent to which this is true depends upon the religious beliefs in question. There's no problem for those whose only concern is accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts as Lord and Savior. But what if the evidence says the earth is old and your religious beliefs say the earth is young. What conclusions will you draw from the evidence?--Percy

nwr: I was responding to Percy's comment. I did not meant to stereotype all EVO's.On the Eyelid thing...no good responses have shown up; just snide remarks - no one seems to be coming forth to correct this "badly confused version of evolution." that I have.Percy valid questions unanswered by responding to Buz with things like "Seems like a good question, but the anthropic principle is very difficult to discuss." And the rest of the world thinks "I think Percy wins that one because he used the word "anthropic" in his answer."So I do not see anyone providing a believable EVO position; at least not one without snide anti-God remarks and hocus pocus like "...the anthropic principle is very difficult to discuss."

The anthropic principle is the shorthand term for what Buz was referring to when he asked why conditions in our universe seem just right for life. If you do a search of EvC Forum for the word "anthropic", you'll see it gets used here all the time. There was even a thread dedicated to the topic early last year, The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology, you might want to give it a read.Putting the anthropic principle into the context of this thread raises this question: From the fact that conditions in our universe seem just right for life, why do creationists conclude that the earth is only 6000 years old and that there was a global flood only 4500 years ago.--Percy

Percy,Science cannot prove how old the earth is - yes, your arguments and dating methods are compelling, and I know that to a scientist the failure of the creationist to concede that your dating methods are accurate is utterly frustrating.It is on this point that I know the EVOs and Creationist collide violently, and I am not going to satisfy the argument today so I won't even make an attempt to do so.All I can say is this - I am not willing to trade my soul in for a test tube. Science simply does not have a truth-batting record worth betting eternity on.I told my four year old that I could pay someone to take a letter from Florida to California for 44 cents. She said that I was crazy. That only a stupid person would believe that!Her brain cannot compute how the post-office works, the HR department within the post office that hires people, the technology of the sorting machines etc...the process is unfathomable to her. Her perspective, math, and method of making drawing her conclusion tells her I am crazy for thinking a guy would take a letter across America for only a few cents.Science cannot fathom the processes that God used to create the earth... so it says to those that believe He did, that they are crazy. That its perspective, math, and methods are rock solid, complete, and beyond refute.

Well many of us Christians have no problems with Evolution, so there is no anti-god Science. What it may be is anti Cult of Christian Ignorance.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Fortunately that is not your problem. The only threat to your soul is the act of hubris involved in continuing no deny God's will that you actually use the brain She gave you. Nonsense and a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.Science shows us "How God Did It!" To deny the evidence God left us is to limit God.Come Judgement Day it will be the Biblical Creationists that get to join the Goats when Jesus tells them "'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

quote:

---

nwr: I was responding to Percy's comment. I did not meant to stereotype all EVO's.

---

So it was only Percy you wished to malign ? Percy didn't say anything about worship.It would be more accurate to represent his point as the fact that the same scientific method that produced the knowledge that underlies our technology has also led us to the knowledge that the Earth is old, there was no global flood in the last few thousand years and that all life is related.But then misrepresentation is rife in creationist writings. If the alleged accuracy of the Bible is evidence of it's truth, then what about the demonstrated inaccuracy that is endemic to creationism ?