It is entirely a battle of plausibilities and the most convincing supposedly win. But in reality all the accepted plausibilities are on the side of the Science establishment, and the science side will think they've made the best case no matter what, and discount any explanation YECs come up with.
YEC's have never come up with explanations that fit the totality of the evidence. They take individual pieces of evidence and try to give an alternative explanation -- ignoring the fact that the explanation is not in keeping with other evidence; and ignoring the fact that their alternative explanation is not in keeping with other of their alternative explanations.
There could be the Brad McFall: YEC version out there; someone who is working independently (I think Brad is) and who hasn't finished his/her work yet.
Accounting for all the supervolcano eruptions within a YEC timeframe would be a toughie. I can't think of a way to do it without killing pretty much all life on Earth. And I'm pretty sure that accounting for all the Ice Ages would require boiling the oceans.
"In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses. See falsifiability.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweight evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."
(edit to include the first paragraph of the entry, as that addresses how science compensates.)
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-12-2005 01:57 PM
No. I just don't care. What might be true is irrelevant. I only seek to explain what I see. If the evidence has been faked by God, I don't care. Being deceived by a god wouldn't put a dent in my ego. If the true relationship between the evidence is too complex to unravel, I don't care. Old-Earth works. And if a god set up the universe so that a 99th percentile human can't recognize that the Earth is young, I can take being set up for such failure in stride. If my eyes are deceiving me, I don't care. Again, I only seek to explain what I see. I don't care what might exist in some hypothetical world that I cannot see.
I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works, and reject that which doesn't. And YEC doesn't work.
The point of the thread is to say, it's the ONLY method available to them. The scientific method is out for them. With that in mind, let's really analyze the method available, see the weak points, see where people often make mistakes, and let's try to move forward with an understanding of it.
I already have. They use a method that doesn't work, so I ignore them unless they assert/imply that their method does work.
As long as they say, "The Earth is young, but I'm talking out of my ass here," I'm fine with it.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 01:43 PM
Take the flood hypothesis. How do we run it through the scientific method? I guess that would mean, take observations and see if they agree with there being a flood XXXX number of years ago?
More technically correct would be to say "The hypothesis will be shown to be incompatable with current scientific theory."
Nope. It's incompatible with what we observe. And the YEC hypothesis is obviously different than scientific theory, since the YEC hypothesis is not compatible with what we observe about reality, while scientific theory is.
In the same way, demanding YECs to drop their faith is unreasonable.
As their faith is incompatible with reality, they must drop it if they want to reference reality.
YECs ask to gather data from different sciences, in order to re-interpret them and investigate the possibility of there being other fundamental theorems that also explain the data.
I haven't seen anyone try to work on an underlying framework. The fact that their alternative explations are incompatible with each other, and incompatible with other evidence, seems to be a rather insurmountable obstacle.
If you accept the simple fact that faith is not based on evidence, then your suggestion doesn't work.
I accept that, but all it means is that those who are talking about things they take on faith are talking out of their asses.
Can you give a suggestion that works with the knowledge that faith is not based on evidence?
They add to their signature: "I am talking out of my ass."
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 05:45 PM
If you shake up an open bottle of champagne, do the sides explode? Seems to me that the pressure takes the path of least resistance -- it comes out the top. If the magma was under enough pressure to move continents, it would rocket out the top, as that's the weak spot.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-16-2005 03:54 AM