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

GFC,
I trust you are enjoying the debate? We both agree that the convergence of different physical phenomenon towards the same dating conclusions is not likely to be a coincidence. If it wasn't a coincidence then there must be some reason why these different dating methods consistently give the same dates.It seems your resolution to this is to say 'we don't know/we can't know'. Philosophically the only entity that had any control over this physics change was God. Either God intentionally or unintentionally changed physics which resulted in the dating method convergence. I don't think God can unintentionally do anything, therefore God intentionally had this dating convergence occur. If this line of reasoning pans out then God is a deceiver.The only other possibility is that God was not involved in the physics change, but that lends us to a further problem: God is all powerful and all knowing. If that is the case God knew that the laws of physics were going to change in the convergent manner they have and let it happen. Letting such a thing happen (when you have the power to prevent it) is pretty much as bad as making it happen a certain way to start with. It also implies that God is not in Total Control over His Creation, which I think is absurd or the laws of physics have free will, which is also absurd. Your examples are not all inclusive. There are plenty of different methods that converge on the same results. A quick example:Supernova1987a - it went supernovae. We can measure how long ago it happened by measuring (using trigonometry) the distance to the supernova and calculating how long light would take to reach us from there. This assumes the speed of light is constant. If the speed of light was different in the past then the date we get would be wrong.We can measure the radioactive decay of elements from the supernova - doing this gives us the same results of the age of the supernova. So if the speed of light changed the radiodecay rates must have also changed in a totally different way to produce the same result.More information on this can be found in Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A). There is an open thread where you can discuss your ideas: Greenland Ice CoresThis message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 28-March-2006 07:52 PM

I think the debate can be solved.First, you have to realize that the science you are propsosing (all the creationists and Faith and GFC) is based off of your belief that a fall happened.Second, you have to realize that science is not founded on beliefs, but on careful observations and the occasional eureka moment. The only part of science not logical in nature is the eureka moment, the sudden understanding of something, like "wait a minute. The apple fell to the ground. I fall to the ground. I know. Gravity!"Third, a science based on belief is false.Science is the rational
Belief in god is the non-rational
believing that you can jump to the moon is irrational.So what are the solutions?You can either accept Doublethink, or is it blackwhite? Not sure
You can throw away everything you know about one or the other
Or
You can get rid of Aristotle, the guy who categorized thought into those categories.
Get rid of Aristotle, and you get rid of subjective and objective thought.
Get rid of those, and then there is no longer a conflict between two systems of thought.
I forgot what's supposed to replace them, but I'll look it up.

quote:

---

If I'm correct you are arguing that I should unquestiongly believe you because you unquestioningly believe things you would like to be true. That isn't a good reason.

---

Paul, if I'm correct, this is where you've gone wrong from the very begining. I do not argue that you should believe one way or the other. This thread is not here to convince you to believe in anything, nor to even make you accept the creationist view as valid or even rational. Neither is this thread a defence of creationism, or an attack on evolution.I'm simply pointing out the facts of the debate itself :1. - it is philosofical in nature,not scientific. It is a clash of world views, not a clash of scientific theories.
2. - therefore, what would be an acceptable arguement for one side, is not necesarilly valid for the other. Without a philosofical common ground, we don't even argue by the same rules, or claim victory by the same rules.
3. - The philosofical position of the creationist allow him to believe in a different past than what science is pointing to, because of the inclusion of the omnipotent God that does not necesarilly always follow the rules of science in his frame of reference.Because of this, it is pointless to debate EvC on scientific grounds. You might as well argue whether reality is an illusion or not. Science is not capable to bridge that gap, because science make certain assumptions on what is real. Without those assumptions, science would not be possible. Science is science because of those assumptions. I'm saying that while the evolutionist believes more firmly in those assumptions than the creationist.I'm not asking you to adopt any creationist view what so ever, or to even concider it to be a valid world view. If fact, I'm asking you nothing. I'm simply saying that debating the issue is pointless, because of the above.Yes, I made the point about the laws of physics changing, and yes, you did acknowledge that - though you refuse to acknowledge my position that a change in scientific law, will make the world prior to that change unknowable - but that is an arguement acceptable to creationism, not evolutionism. It all depends on whom you concider to be the author of Genesis 1-3 : God, or some Hebrew nomad. Evolutionism requires physical evidence, disregarding any biblical reference, creationism explain the physical through the bible, and therefore the above mentioned arguement is valid for the creationist, but not for the evolutionist. It was never my intension to convince a single evolutionist that such a change in physical law had happened, I was just explaining part of the creationist world view.What this thread is trying to say is that the EvC debate is kind of like a game where one side is playing Rugby, while the other side is playing Soccer, but neither side appear to notice that the other side is playing by different rules. In such a scenario, both sides will claim victory after the game.

quote:

---

I put it to you that you are in no position to really know any such thing. I expect you've just seen someone make that claim - or one that sounds similar - and never checked what evidence there is to support it. I very much doubt that there has been the sort of organised and systematic survey there would need to be to actually find out.

---

I concider the witness of a missionary who works with Muslims and Hindu's to be reliable enough. I know you won't, but then again, it is not my purpose here to convince you of that. Also, I would recommend you read the book "I dare to call Him Father". I concider the witness reliable, because of everything she lost in the process. You would have objections, I know, but like I said, what is a valid arguement for one side, is not necesarilly valid for the other side.
That is why I didn't come here and presented myself as someone with a lot of smart scientific explainations to defend my positions. I'm giving you my bare faith, without any "creation science" fortifications with which I feel I need to protect my God. My own grandfather once saw a man being hit. There was no one near him, but hit marks appeared all across his body. I know that witchcraft is real in Hinduism, and that we as Christians are protected from it by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I've once seen an documentary on Discovery where a man visited a traditional indian village in South America. The witch doctor was affraid of the spirits to perform a certain ritual in front of a foreigner, but went to do it anyway. He became deadly ill on the spot, exactly as he said he would. This was on Discovery. You can talk to any ex-Satanist, and ask him if the spirit world is real. Many missionaries claim to have experienced miracles in countries where christians are persecuted. Someone in my own family saw someone die in hospital. His last words where "Condemned! Condemned for ever!".This is just a sample. I feel I have enough reason to believe these things are real. If you feel it's is all hoaxes, I am not here to convince you they're true.

Problem : hardship and deathCause : Man's disobedience to GodSolution : Jesus Christ

quote:

---

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.

---

And I'm not going to. I'm not debating EvC, I'm saying why the EvC debate exists, and why it can't be resolved. In the block which you've quoted, you'll find the following:

quote:

---

I have my reasons to believe that the supernatural exists, and that christianity is the accurate description of that reality, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

---

Just lost a longer reply.The true issues here are:1) Your argument is an excse to ignore the physical evidence. It fails because we can use the same physical evidence to consider whether it is reaosnable or not.2) You persistently insist on mischaracterising opposing conditions to make the creationist viewpoint look (relatively) better.

quote:

---

And this is the problem with your scenario. You have to make some very big assumptions for your idea to work.

---

All religions make big assumptions. Is this assumption any bigger than the assumption of an omnipotent God?

quote:

---

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.

---

As I've explained in my reply to Paul. My assumptions is only inadequately for the evolutionist, but from the creationist world view it is perfectly acceptable. And a forum like this would not have existed if there wasn't a sufficient number of people who shared this world view.

quote:

---

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.

---

Everybody has a world view, therefore no one is unbiased. Your world view will determine if you find the scenario reasonable or not.

quote:

---

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.

---

I can understand that someone that shares your world view will reject this view out of hand.That is precisely why I say this debate is a clash of world views, and that the debate is therefore unresolvable.

Everybody looks at truth through a world view. Everybody thinks his view is clear.

But some of us subject our views to critical examination.This whole thread is about the refusal of creationists to do just that.

My own view, Gone Full Circle, is that if one accepts evolution, one cannot accept the idea of the Fall, and if one cannot accept the idea of the Fall, then there can be no God.I was wondering if you agree with that.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-29-2006 04:30 AM

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes, but death was already introduced before the flood. First death, then the declining age levels, and the decline was gradual. If the fall was instant, Adam and Eve, and everyone after them would've gotten no older than 120, and different languages would've came about way sooner.

quote:

---

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..."

---

Either way. This is something that still happened after the original sin, and it stopped happening after the flood. A gradual decline.

quote:

---

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.

---

Once again, you're not reading the context. In Genesis 5, you'll find the geneology between Adam and Noah says people living over 900 years. Then God made the statement that man will live for 120 years. This change was gradual, as you will see in the geneology of Noah to Abraham in Genesis 11 The ages, as I've read them from BibleSA - BibleSA - Bybelgenootskap van Suid-Afrika are : 500, 403, 403, 430, 209, 207, 200, 119So you see, the bible does support a gradual fall.

Oh, okay, I see how you're viewing this now, and you appear to have only one line of Biblical evidence for "gradual decline", which is human lifespans. The Nephalim are not evidence for your position because they "were on the earth in those days, and also afterward...". And the presence or absence of Nephalim has nothing to do with "decline", nor is it related to the fall. The creation of languages was sudden, not gradual, and this, too, appears to have nothing to do with "decline", and again, is not related to the fall.Even human lifespans are not gradually declining between the fall and the flood. From Adam to Noah they are: 930, 912, 905, 910, 895, 962, 969, 777, 950. And they don't decline because of anything related to the fall, but because God made a specific decision in Genesis 6:3.Since your only line of evidence, the decline of human lifespans, is unrelated to the fall, the Biblical support for your position of a gradual decline initiated by the fall and ending with the flood's retreat seems extremely tenuous.--Percy

quote:

---

Your worldview is restricted to a small minority of people who misunderstand the Bible.

---

If creationists are such an insignificant minority, why does this website exist?

quote:

---

(Even Faith, who misunderstands the Bible in a similar way to you, doesn't seem to agree with your conclusion.)

---

I disagree. The starting point for all creationists are the bible. They then try to use natural explainations to explain how the events in the bible lead to a world as we know it today.My only difference with other creationists is that I no longer see the need to do that. I believe in heaven without physical proof, in God without physical proof, in Jesus and his Resurection without physical proof and all the other miracles described in the bible. Why then should I make an exception on Genesis 1? My faith stands on its own, I don't need to know exactly how the almighty, alknowing God did things to believe Him when He said He did.

quote:

---

The debate will make a difference and it is making a difference, among people who are willing to look at the facts.

---

How many creationists did you convert to evolutionism?

quote:

---

But I can offer you this: have you've ever heard of an ex-Satanist who is not a passionate Christian, or a Satanist converting to any other religion but Christianity?

---

I have never known any ex-Satanists.However, I have known, and do know, quite a few Agnostics and Atheists, and almost all of them used to be Christians.

quote:

---

No one has ignored this. Everyone understands that this is what you are saying.

---

Except Paul, who continually askes me to explain something which I call unknowable.As for the rest of your post, if you take out the judging-my-world-view-through-yours flavouring, this is exactly what I've been saying from the start.