Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

quote:

---

We assume the evidence is in error, usually meaning data has been wrongly interpreted, and seek to interpret it in terms that are consistent with Biblical revelation.

---

But what if it requires you to believe the Geological or Biological equivalent that the sky is actually purple, not blue?For instance, we have ice cores from Antarcica that have 160,000 anually deposited layers.No literal interpretation of the Bible I have ever heard about allows the Universe and the Earth to be more than about 10,000 years old, so what do you do with that ice core data?

I don't see how "uniformatism" could deserve the label "presumption".Presupposing nothing at all automatically coincides with uniformatism, AFAIC. It's a natural starting point that shouldn't be changed unless there are compelling reasons. Until there are compelling reasons (the Bible certainly isn't one...), it is less speculative than the opposite, supposing variation through time.

If that is so, then I don't see why one should bother at all. Isn't science concerned with finding the truth? If creationism wants to vie with science for the attention of the audience on fora such as these, it should do what science does: try and find the truth. But creationism doesn't do that. Instead, it states its version of the truth beforehand, and then contorts its interpretetations of evidence to fit that truth.If that's what floats your boat, then so be it. In any case, it doesn't make for meaningful debate. But it could be entertaining though. For instance, to see a creationist interpret a bat into a bird would be quite a spectacle.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 14-Sep-2005 03:23 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Okay, what tests or observations support uniformatism over the lifetime of the earth which don't rely on a prior presumption of uniformitism? Reliable science during which uniformitism could be measured is about 100 years old. The earth is supposedly 4,5 billion years old. The data for 'your' uniformitism is 1/45,000,000 of the total, ie: a single dot on a graph. On what objective basis do you base your extrapolation. You need some basis on which to stand before you can determine another basis to be false - surely? Read it again. The assumption isn't hidden. It says x billion years ago and analyses the nuclear reaction times based on what precisely? Logically, given powerful enough hind legs and a desire to do so, cows could jump over the moon. We aren't dealing logically here, we're dealing practically. The mechanisms described for evolution eg: rate of genetic mutation requires x amount of time to occur. If the world were younger you could say that genetic mutations occured more rapidly previously, but you would have no observational/scientific basis for saying so. That strand of 'evidence' would dissolve. Would it not? What would these consequences be then (ie: without presuming uniformitism ie: what it would mean in todays world). "Rationally supportable assumptions". What is the rationale? Remember, Uniformatism is the bedrock. Using results which are based on the presumption that the presumption is correct can't be used in evidence supporting the presumption. That would be a bootstrap argument.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Seems many around here think no. Science relies at every root on something which isn't...and eventually if you go back far enough.. cannot be known. Science doesn't provide truth it provides tentitive. Science can only approach truth - never reach it - because presumption always forms a core part of it. Approaching is good though - we get on fine in many areas without absolute truth. But if you want absolutely true answers to questions you'll have to look elsewhere - science cannot help you.Or so it would seem...

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

1) One test of the age of the Earth that DOESN'T rely on uniformitarian assumptions is the large degree of congruence between different dating methodologies. A non-uniformitarian situation should not be expected to produce congruencies therefore that is evidence for a uniformitarian view.2) Astronomical measurements look back in time - because of the time taken for light to reach the Earth. We can also examine evidence of the past to see if it is compatible with uniformitarian views. Both these techniques greatly extend te range.3) It DIDN'T say "x billion years ago", those words were not in my post. Therefore all you are doing is proving that you are a liar.4) We are dealing with logic here, since any demand that logically entails victory for one side regardless fo the merit of the cases is grossly unfair. The fact is that on thsoe grounds Faith's demand is unfair while the assumptions you object to are - in themselves - neutral. In short you are trying to manipulate the rules by demanding either a concession that guarantees victory for your side or alternatively excluding valid evidence against your views.The mere fact that you to resort to such blatant attempts to cheat speaks volumes.4) There's no reason why animals shoudln't live faster and breed quicker other than the uniformitarian assumptions you supposedly reject. Speeding up those would naturally allow faster evolution.5) THe consequnce of animals not breeding in excess of the replacements needed would be that the species could never spread. By defintiion its numbers would be at best constant. Worse, the speces will be more vulnerable to disaster. If the reproductive rate is constant then the species is subject to decline through accident and disaster, leading to extinction. If the species takes significant losses it cannto recover becuase that in itself demands a reproductive excess. A species without a reproductive excess is therefroe locked into a static popuilation even under absolutely ideal conditions - and a declining populaton in a more realistic situation.5) I've offered rational support for uniformitarianism - and given examples. And they do not rely on assuiming uniformitarianism. YOur objection therefore is false.

Though you are right that some "truths" science claims are indeed tentative (an adjective, not a noun), evolution being one of them, science has also provided us with some absolute truths:

• The earth is revolving around the sun, not vice versa. Common sense had it wrong, as science has shown.
• If you jump from a high building, you can calculate (if you're quick) the speed with which you will hit the ground, using a formula science gave you.
• Some diseases are caused by bacteria and can be treated with medicins which science has shown to work significantly better than, for instance, prayer.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

There really isnt any debatse going on with anyone who takes this stance, you would have more success arguing with a turnip.But these people do serve a few purposes.1. They provide great entertainment.
2. They strengthen the faith of the atheist.
3. They should make you feel very fortunate that you are in control of all your faculties.
4. They provide good case studies for psychology students.In all seriouness, these people are really to be pitied rather than laughed at.It is heartbreaking that we have adults in this day and age who swallow drivel like the Flood as if it actually happened, then almost strangle themselves with their cerebral cortex to keep their fantasy alive.Although it is embarrassing at times to read their posts, we should remember that these people are essentially desperate, lonely, sad individuals who need a higher power to take over the responsibility of their lives for them. How easy would it be to trust in a supreme 'Father' and leave everything up to Him rather than admit that you need to tackle life head on?My advice is to keep humouring them, it is a shame after all.Brian

The reason science has so little to say about what happens to a person after death is that is recognises that there is no way to apply scientific method to the subject. Here we have the most inescapable facts of human existance and we can say nothing about what happens a person after physical death. Science can't presume anything about it. All Science can do is to remain mute on the subject.There is no way to know whether things happened as they do today throughout all history - because there is nothing against which to calibrate our instruments. I know a lot of folk make a good living and get a lot of enjoyment from it but if their instruments are uncalibrated, what absolute value the measurements?By all means presume and develop your science on the basis of it but before dismissing anothers presumption (and their science) provide some objective basis for your own. By asking for compelling reasons as to why uniformatism shouldn't be considered you put the cart before the horse. You claim it - you gotta back it up. That you have some philosophical reason such as "it's rational" and "we've no reason to suppose otherwise.." is not objective. This wouldn't matter if the science which is said to arrive out of the presumption wasn't said to be objective. But it is. You don't build objective on the foundation of an unobjective philosophy however.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

You presumably have some objective evidence of this. Stats 'n stuff. Some objective standard against which your summation can be analysed. Or is your position (as so often transpires to be the case) merely a philosophical one?

Charles, I'm sorry but you have apparently completely misunderstood the context, and I can see that the sentence was ambiguous. Of course creationists are using science, that's the wrong end of the sentence to emphasize.I was answering this question:

quote:

---

Should creationism try to use science to support itself or be faith-based.

---

What I meant to disagree with was the idea that science is somehow an alternative to faith as support for belief in creationism, as if creationists are just trying to shore up a lagging faith by insisting on getting involved in science. This is a variation on the common belief that gets expressed at EvC that religious belief doesn't need any evidence whatever to support it, as if faith could just exist in a complete vacuum of anything to have faith IN.Genuine Bible-based faith holds that science and the Bible will be consistent with one another, and this is the driving motive of creationists, not anything having to do with supporting their faith, but on the contrary, the application of their faith in the work they do as creationists. They know the Bible and the physical universe cannot disagree. That's strong faith.So, to repeat, I am not disputing that creationism does science. I'm only saying that there isn't this great divide, as if religion belonged to the nebulous insubstantial ether and has nothing to do with the physical world and scientific investigation of it.They do science BECAUSE of their faith in the rationality of God's word, not in order to support their faith.I hope that's clearer. Well, I had to answer you because your misrepresentation of what I said might otherwise stand unchallenged.

I'm not an expert on any of these things but:Is space and time known absolutely to be linear as we understand it? Is it absolutely true that the earth goes around the sun or is it just that our current convention (or current common sense) indicates so? Just like common sense some centuries ago made people think the earth was flat...If I jumped from a high building I think I'd have other things on my mind than....SPLAAT!! My premature contact with terra firma didn't occur because there was anything wrong with the formula, in the limited sense that these formula can be applied. But I was under the impression that these formula are not absolutely correct in all circumstances. If not they are not absolute.I can't see how science can comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer. That would pre-suppose that objective/empirical is the only way to know - which is a philosophical position - not truth.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

quote:

---

Genuine Bible-based faith holds that science and the Bible will be consistent with one another, and this is the driving motive of creationists, not anything having to do with supporting their faith, but on the contrary, the application of their faith in the work they do as creationists. They know the Bible and the physical universe cannot disagree. That's strong faith.

---

And if that is truly the case then there must be a scientific case to be made for YEC. Thus it canot be the case that restricting the science forums to scientific arguments is an inherently unfair restriction on YECs.

Well, the principle is that God's word is true, so the physical world can't contradict it. So in this case, since I don't remember the creationist position on it, I am guessing that creationists assume that eventually a young earth explanation for the rings will be found, probably having to do with questioning the yearly factor back before a certain point, since creationists dispute the principle of uniformitarianism, or the assumption that the past was the same as the present.Many things are considered to have been very different before the Fall than after, and even more so before the Flood than after, including particularly the climate, which is thought to have been very mild before the Flood. So for instance there is the idea that the (one) ice age began with the Flood -- the frozen giant animals being victims of the Flood as all other life forms were. So while the rings are now yearly markers, at some period in the past some other principle or time factor may explain them.Faith in God's word means that there WILL be a rational explanation and that apparent conflicts with science will eventually be resolved. The past is not measurable or testable anyway, it's all a matter of plausible interpretations. OE theory bases interpretations on the assumption of uniformitarianism, rational enough but not provable; while creationism bases interpretations on Biblical possibilities.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 12:41 PM

Of course I do, but I don't humour these types any more.I just feel so sorry for them.Brian.