Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[KingdomRose]

I think it's much more logical and reasonable to doubt and discount evolution and the 57 theories required to prop it up. Count up every theory connected to evolution and the big bang etc. I'll wait.

We're not talking about evolution here. We're talking about how long it took God to create the earth. Hopefully, we're looking closely at the Scriptures and what they actually say about the creation.

 

[Stuu]

All this is true but doesn't really address any of the deeper questions I have. (See above regarding mutation rates and development time.) The fundamental problem that remains for me is that mutations at a gene level are sort of random. Some areas of genes seem remarkably resilient to mutation while other genes mutate easily. Once we have an organism, we seem to understand evolution fairly well. Yet we don't seem to have much understanding about how the first genes came into existence. We don't even know how the nucleic acids first came into existence! Technically, these are abiogenesis issues but they seem to be key. Even if we ignore the nucleic acid genesis, we are left with trying to figure out hoe the acids started linking together into genes and those genes came to do something. We have to figure out hoe genes started coding for specific organs and the bones. My problem with accepting evolution as a totally natural random process is that developing order and higher complexity would require a lot of time, possible more time that has elapsed on this planet.

So what if the building blocks for life came from another area of the universe and were deposited here on Earth? That could solve the time problem but it does not deal with the issue of how life started, it simply removes the problem from our planet. It still remains to be solved.

I entirely understand your concern at the apparent gaps. But I wouldn't underestimate how much is known about abiogenesis.

A universal principle of life appears to be that you can run energy systems on proton gradients, which is how our cells drive the literal motor system that converts ADP to ATP. Proton gradients are present between lakes of different acidity, as one example of their natural existence.

There is a nice piece of chemistry called the micelle, which forms spontaneously from fat molecules, and which looks remarkably like a simple cell membrane enclosing a cell. So forming enclosed areas in which biochemistry can take place is not difficult if you have fat-like molecules.

The bases that make up the codons in our DNA have been found on the surfaces of some meteorites, so it looks like the chemistry of DNA in might be ubiquitous.

There is good reason to think that the first cells developed around smokers, outcrops of the seafloor near oceanic ridges. These give out sulfur, which could have provided the basis for an energy exchange system.


We probably will never know what the first cell was, or how it formed, because we don't have a sample of one to study. And it might be quite difficult to discover when DNA/RNA became the genetic coding system. The fact that all living species today share an interchangeable code is indisputable evidence of common ancestry, of course. But, as more evidence comes to hand, speculation about the first DNA/RNA cell can be more detailed. All you need to start life is a molecule that becomes capable of replication, it doesn't necessarily have to start as DNA/RNA.From that point on, in principle, evolution by natural selection has all the power you need to get to what we see today.

Your questions are deeply interesting ones, which tells me that you are more interested than just leaving the whole thing to goddidit. I still can't see the need for a god before the first replicating cell. And it is becoming clear that there is probably no need for a god in abiogenesis. And there is no need for a god to explain where the solar system came from, or indeed the universe. Even if we identified some apparent need for a god, it would just be a placeholder for our ignorance. No one should accept a placeholder god as an explanation: the word god explains nothing.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think you have the ability to see any fault in evolution, especially since evolution is evolving. If evolution can evolve to account for any possible contradiction between what we know now and what we will learn, then it's non-falsifiable. It becomes a synonym for "learning", or gaining knowledge. It certainly shouldn't be used as a way to understand everything in biology if it keeps changing.

Here's the main point I don't think you're appreciating....that populations evolve is a fact. We see it happen all the time, right before our eyes. We both exploit it (domestication) and fight against it (antibiotic resistance). Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've ever seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. We've never seen any of those things come about via different means.

So when scientists investigate how various traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species came about in the past, it's entirely reasonable for them to conclude that they did so via the same evolutionary mechanisms that generate them today.

It's no different than when a geologist comes across a certain type of ash layer in between strata, and concludes that the layer was produced via a volcanic eruption. Why? Because that's what we see produce those ash layers today.

Again, if evolution is the premise and the method ends up with incorrect mapping (conclusion), don't you question your premise?

There's your error....that populations evolve is not the premise. The premise is more along the lines of "adaptive radiation events produce this specific phylogenetic pattern". This research, based on more complete genetic data, has shown that the above premise isn't completely accurate, and that some radiation events produce different phylogenetic patterns.

Yet if evolution is so plastic that it can handle any conceivable contradiction, it's hardly worth anything as a theory.

No one has said that at all. It very well could have been that more complete genetic data showed that these bird species were completely unrelated to anything, or even each other. That would have been a serious problem for evolutionary theory. But that's not what the data showed. In fact, considering the nature of retrotransposons and how they make their way into a genome, this data actually helps confirm the common ancestry of these bird species. As the authors note in the section that I quoted from the original paper, the only reason these species would share the same retrotransposon sequences in the same locations is if they inherited them from a common ancestor.

And that's the ultimate irony here....you're trying to cite a paper that actually further confirms common ancestry as somehow negating common ancestry.

They were the ones that said the model wasn't able to explain the complexity. I don't know that the "tree of life" model should be considered foundational to evolution, but most evolutionists seem to think it is.

It seems you're trying to argue that if the shape of the tree is different than we first thought, then we should conclude that there's actually no tree at all.

That's bizarre.

I appreciate the better explanation. Yet, nonfunctional code in an evolutionary system would be unlikely to be conserved, right? Different topic, though.

And that's what further confirms common ancestry of these species. Why else would two species share the same non-functional, randomly inserted, parasitic sequences in the exact same locations?

Or bird creation, as the case may be.

So you believe God put those shared REs in the bird species? Why?

Might that then mean that
1. our "adaptive radiation" patterns are wrong, or
2. these aren't "evolutionary patterns" in the sense that evolution was expected to produce?

See above. That new species arise via evolution is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Exactly how that process plays out in various circumstances is the focus of this research.

Which is only on topic in this conversation of ours if you equate evolution with science (which tarnishes science, in my opinion).

What exactly do you think excludes evolutionary biology from science? And what do you think of the people behind this research and evolutionary biologists in general? Are they just really, really bad at their jobs? Are they part of some vast global conspiracy that's been operating for 150+ years?

And thus, just like you can't say "science" is a theory that explains everything thing in biology, you shouldn't be able to say "evolution" is "science". Yet you do.

Me, and every other life scientist over the last century and a half.

Again, that's why conversing with you is tedious.

It's quite telling that you see "please explain" as "tedious".

 

[CabinetMaker]

I entirely understand your concern at the apparent gaps. But I wouldn't underestimate how much is known about abiogenesis.

A universal principle of life appears to be that you can run energy systems on proton gradients, which is how our cells drive the literal motor system that converts ADP to ATP. Proton gradients are present between lakes of different acidity, as one example of their natural existence.

There is a nice piece of chemistry called the micelle, which forms spontaneously from fat molecules, and which looks remarkably like a simple cell membrane enclosing a cell. So forming enclosed areas in which biochemistry can take place is not difficult if you have fat-like molecules.

The bases that make up the codons in our DNA have been found on the surfaces of some meteorites, so it looks like the chemistry of DNA in might be ubiquitous.

There is good reason to think that the first cells developed around smokers, outcrops of the seafloor near oceanic ridges. These give out sulfur, which could have provided the basis for an energy exchange system.


We probably will never know what the first cell was, or how it formed, because we don't have a sample of one to study. And it might be quite difficult to discover when DNA/RNA became the genetic coding system. The fact that all living species today share an interchangeable code is indisputable evidence of common ancestry, of course. But, as more evidence comes to hand, speculation about the first DNA/RNA cell can be more detailed. All you need to start life is a molecule that becomes capable of replication, it doesn't necessarily have to start as DNA/RNA.From that point on, in principle, evolution by natural selection has all the power you need to get to what we see today.

Your questions are deeply interesting ones, which tells me that you are more interested than just leaving the whole thing to goddidit. I still can't see the need for a god before the first replicating cell. And it is becoming clear that there is probably no need for a god in abiogenesis. And there is no need for a god to explain where the solar system came from, or indeed the universe. Even if we identified some apparent need for a god, it would just be a placeholder for our ignorance. No one should accept a placeholder god as an explanation: the word god explains nothing.

Stuart

The whole topic is very fascinating to me. I do think about it and that is why I have questions. However, Goddidit is my foundational belief. The study of evolution reveals HOW God did it. Same with the study of Chemistry and Physics and Astronomy and the other hard sciences. I truly enjoy the discussion with people like you because I learn neat stuff. But I am a man of faith first.

 

[Stuu]

So, you think that due to being an ancient group, we can immediately discount any theories, conclusions, or writings, due to less technology available?

Yes, on the whole I think that is fair, especially if we are discussing cosmology. And you'd have to say that the peoples of ancient Palestine were particularly ignorant compared to the ancient Greeks or ancient Chinese.

If that is the case, we can reject anything pre-industrial revolution.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Vesalius, Paracelsus, Boyle and Huygens can't be rejected.

This point, while true in scientific explanation, is not an answer to "how" light was created. You are lacking an original cause.

I think you are applying a theological construction, invented in ignorant times, to a question of particle physics. What is the cause that makes particles appear and disappear all the time? It's the inherent behaviour of spacetime. Light is a particle of electromagnetic disturbance, it is not like the stores of rain held on top of the firmament waiting to come through the opened windows to produce rain, the belief of the ignorant ancient Jews.

You then insert a new point: There are no gods of any kind. Any evidence of this?

Well, I am flattered that you expect me to have all the best answers, with supporting evidence. I agree, I have that expectation of myself too. But on this one occasion, I am happy enough just baldly asserting that there are no gods, because god believers only have bald assertion themselves.

But, we could treat this as a scientific question: you claim there is such a thing as at least one god, which you seem to attribute with great powers. So, what exactly is a god, how does it work, and do you have any unambiguous evidence for the existence of such a thing?

The singular thing about god claims is that no one has ever produced any unambiguous evidence for the existence of even a single god, so it could be a scientific conclusion that no such thing exists, provisional on the discovery of unambiguous evidence. Do you have any?

Continuing with 2.) b.
Stuu: I don't think we have any evidence that it does, do we?
Now, you posed this question to a theist, expecting an answer outside of "God did it," or some other "miraculous explanation." Yet, when the question is posed to you, you then claim there is no evidence it even occurs? How did you expect an answer of evidence, when you yourself have no evidence to support an alternate theory?

It's a rhetorical device, I don't actually expect an answer because I know already there is no direct way of measuring two-way speeds of light, and all the indirect experiments have been tried and there appears to be only one speed of light in a vacuum.

This also brings into question your genuine approach to conversation; posing a question in the style which infers that the contents are factually evident, when they are not. (a loaded question, or complex question fallacy)

If you are going to call into question my rhetoric, and be consistent, then you will have a very large task reforming some of your other interlocutors here on ToL. The fallacies, formal and informal, pile up like fish bones at the Feeding of the 5000.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Oh. You want to talk about ice now.

I already did that after your first post. You didn't reply. Would you like to now? That would be relevant.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

You continue to use poorly designed arguments. If you claim the prostate ( or any other organ) is a shoddy design and evidence against an Intelligent Designer then your argument is also that things which appear to have a good design is evidence for a Creator.

If everything had the appearance of having been designed so well that we couldn't think of any way it could be improved, that still doesn't mean there is a designer, because we know how the illusion of design comes about simply by the action of natural forces, including gravity, wind, and mutation with natural selection.

However, I don't think you have addressed the fact that we can think of many examples of things that could be much better designed, if they had been designed.

Then, we can make predictions from evolution by natural selection. While it is a theological problem that the designer seems to be far from perfect, it's not a scientific problem. The biochemistry that makes our cells work and cooperate, has been around for up to billions of years. The mechanics of the routing of a recurrent laryngeal nerve, or the urethra through the prostate have been around for much less than 500 million years. So you would expect the biochemistry to work better than the multi-cellular organisms' mechanical systems.

The 'design' in biological systems is characterised by 'making do', and 'getting stuck', and 'inventing elaborate work-arounds because of getting stuck'. Are you proud of your designed, given how limited its engineering or imagination appears to be? Of course, making do, and getting stuck, and elaborate work-arounds is exactly what evolution by natural selection predicts. Darwin didn't know about the vast range of such examples we have of this, but we just have to apply his principles and everything we observed is entirely consistent with them.

Stuu... seriously you are using goofy "outrageous" arguments. Are you unaware of the MANY similar arguments evolutionists made in the past...now proven false by science. They didn't understand the function or design of various organs, so they simply said "Evolution did it... a Creator would never do that".

No I am not unaware. But I do know that you dismiss examples that have not been disproved by creationists.

Likewise with the RLN, Evolutionists claimed it was poorly designed in humans and an intelligent designer would never do it that way. Now science has started to realize there is purpose to the design. So then evolutionists HOPED that it was poor design in giraffes. But again... science crushes the evolutionists hopes. indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray's Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx. Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article "The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?," quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray's Anatomy stating much the same thing:As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior].

(Gray's Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/150

Oh... come now... fess up. It's very easy to find statements from evolutionists on the giraffe laryngeal nerve such as "The purpose of doing this exercise is to show that there is no so-called “intelligent designer” because the pathway of this nerve is completely illogical" http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir/

Fortunartly we have science... You shouldn't confuse your beliefs about the past with science.

While you are quite lazy, at least you can be entertaining at times.

It is not the wastefulness of the 'poor design' in the giraffe that is the main point about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The point is that the nerve was a good 'design'/adaptation in our fish ancestors. The routing of the nerve around the aorta was pretty direct to the tissues it enervated. But because the next generation has to come from the previous generation in a continuous chain of reproduction, natural selection gets stuck with the routing of that nerve as a fundamental part of the recipe for embryonic development in all species radiating from the fish. So after a long period of evolutionary change, there has been the development of the neck in various descendant species, separating the head from the aorta. But the nerve still has to go round the aorta because there is no way to go back on that part of the recipe.

Now, if all species are uniquely created by a top designer, there is no way you would expect the design to use that much tissue to make the nerve, especially in giraffes. It just looks ridiculous, and I don't think that is what you expect to see in the products of a perfect designer. The ideal situation would be to say, Ok, let's halt giraffe production and fix this absurdity, then restart. You've even got a flood,which would have been an ideal opportunity, right? But no.

Why would the recurrent laryngeal nerve not have branches coming off it? If the electric company puts up supply lines near your house, even if there seems to be no good economic argument for it, you are still going to ask to be hooked up to the electricity, right?

By the way, have you used your plantaris muscle recently? Do you even have one? I can't tell if I have one or not. Talk about vestigial. And the RL nerve would be vestigial or completely gone too, if a new more direct nerve took over its function. But natural selection got stuck, so it made do with the absurd. And with new connections along its absurd route, it is probably now stuck for a second reason.

AGAIN.... when you claim poor design, or no function is evidence against a Creator, then be willing to accept good design, and functionality as evidence for our Creator.

And again, as I explained to you in some detail, it is not evidence against a creator. It is evidence against an omnipotent, omniscient, benign creator.

Or... are you unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the Creator God of the Bible?

No, I am entirely willing to be convinced by unambiguous evidence. Why didn't you say earlier that you had some? Looking forward to being proved wrong...

No photo...

Why no photo?

but we do have His eye witness testimony and the supporting evidence.

You don't even have eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Stuart

 

[6days]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth was created in ... 6,000 years! Nowhere!

You are correct. However God's Word does tell us...

* That Adam and Eve were from the beginning of creation.

* God's Word does tell us that death, pain, thorns, suffering entered our world when first Adam sinned.

* God's Word provides the geneaologies from first Adam to Last Adam which is 4,000 years.

* Jesus referred to humanity existing from a time near the foundation of the world.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't say how long that took.

You have to read further than verse 1.

It does not conflict with what science says about the earth being created 5 billion years ago.

Science helps support the truth of Scripture. It is a secular belief that the earth is about 4.54BY (that is not science).

The whole account in Genesis about the creation of the earth doesn't conflict with science.

Of course not. Science helps confirm God's Word, and provides additional means of worship.

The "days" in Genesis are not 24-hour days. They are merely an undetermined period of time.

That is silly. Do you apply that same 'logic' throughout Scripture? Was Jonah in the fish for only an hour?.... for 7 days?


Rose.... The context of the word 'Yom' / 'day' in Hebrew (like in English) always determines the meaning. The context in Genesis 1 does not allow for anything other than a normal day/ night period. If you are interested, we can do an exegetical study of the word throughout the OT. (YOM has a variety of meanings, but always with context so the meaning is clear) EX... Gen. 2:3,4 in those two verses the word 'day'is used twice with two different meanings. It is easy to understand isn't it?

There is no reason to think that they are 24-hours in length, no matter how fundamentalists twist the scriptures.

We should always trust God's word as our ultimate source of Truth... not fundamentalists or not people who are compromising.


But your claim is simply wrong. There is no Hebrews scholar at any world class University that would suggest the days in Genesis 1 mean anything other than what we call a 24-hour day.

 

[Stuu]

The whole topic is very fascinating to me. I do think about it and that is why I have questions. However, Goddidit is my foundational belief. The study of evolution reveals HOW God did it. Same with the study of Chemistry and Physics and Astronomy and the other hard sciences. I truly enjoy the discussion with people like you because I learn neat stuff. But I am a man of faith first.

So that's a separate, but equally deep question, which strikes at the heart of everything you think you know to be true. How do you improve the quality of your own knowledge? It's very clear from our history of making discoveries based on empirical evidence, and verifying those discoveries by independent means, that Occam's Razor is the basis for increasing the quality of information. Occam's Razor cuts away as many of the underlying assumptions as possible, and the improvement in quality of knowledge from that can be demonstrated.

So, what is the minimum list of assumption we are compelled to hold? I think it is these two:
1. I exist (sorry, but I don't trust Descartes on that one, I have to make the assumption)
2. What I observe, through my own eyes or their extensions, is reliable: the universe is not an illusion

Now if we accept these first two, a problem of Judeo-christian faith becomes clear, because faith is another word for assumptions:

3. There is at least one thing called a god that acts in the universe; and possibly
4. It is possible to know what that god wants me to do (to avoid punishment, or whatever)

So, in cases where Young Earth Creationists are using all four assumption, as is clearly stated, for example in every third post of 6days, many of Stripe's, and on the main page of Answers in Genesis, adopting assumptions 3 and 4 very often leads to knowledge that can be shown to be of poor quality.

And Judeo-christians in general have the same problem to some degree at least. So, now, just as it might feel like taking a sharp knife to a raw wound, cut away assumptions 3 and 4. Now, the possibility of a god exists, but the god hypothesis is the equal of any other possible discovery. Now apply the scientific method and demand evidence for claims, and try as hard as you can to disprove everything you thought you knew. Whatever survives that process will be knowledge that is pretty high in quality.

In my application of this same process myself, gods did not survive. There is no unambiguous evidence for any such thing, and no explaining power to be had by the god hypothesis. Brutal, but high-quality.

Stuart

 

[CabinetMaker]

So that's a separate, but equally deep question, which strikes at the heart of everything you think you know to be true. How do you improve the quality of your own knowledge? It's very clear from our history of making discoveries based on empirical evidence, and verifying those discoveries by independent means, that Occam's Razor is the basis for increasing the quality of information. Occam's Razor cuts away as many of the underlying assumptions as possible, and the improvement in quality of knowledge from that can be demonstrated.

So, what is the minimum list of assumption we are compelled to hold? I think it is these two:
1. I exist (sorry, but I don't trust Descartes on that one, I have to make the assumption)

This has never been an assumption for me or the world I live in. It exists.

2. What I observe, through my own eyes or their extensions, is reliable: the universe is not an illusion

True as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. I believe that there is more to the universe than my 5 senses can perceive. My 6th sense, my brain and ability reason, provide me with a way to explorer that which my other 5 senses cannot.

Now if we accept these first two, a problem of Judeo-christian faith becomes clear, because faith is another word for assumptions:

3. There is at least one thing called a god that acts in the universe; and possibly

There is a God but more on why I am willing to state that as fact a bit later.

4. It is possible to know what that god wants me to do (to avoid punishment, or whatever)

Yes, it is possible to know.

As we proceed from here we are going diverge rapidly as I do not accept your 4 starting assumptions. You and I are starting from very different positions.

So, in cases where Young Earth Creationists are using all four assumption, as is clearly stated, for example in every third post of 6days, many of Stripe's, and on the main page of Answers in Genesis, adopting assumptions 3 and 4 very often leads to knowledge that can be shown to be of poor quality.

I would not say that the knowledge is of poor quality, I would say that many who attempt to share that knowledge do so poorly. It is a problem.

And Judeo-christians in general have the same problem to some degree at least. So, now, just as it might feel like taking a sharp knife to a raw wound, cut away assumptions 3 and 4. Now, the possibility of a god exists, but the god hypothesis is the equal of any other possible discovery. Now apply the scientific method and demand evidence for claims, and try as hard as you can to disprove everything you thought you knew. Whatever survives that process will be knowledge that is pretty high in quality.

Some background here is in order. I was raised Catholic. It didn't take and in fact, I had no faith in God and took great pleasure in ridiculing those who did. I walked away from God and all He represented. Then I had kids. While neither my wife nor I were faithful, we felt that our children should be exposed to God and Jesus so we found a church to attend. I took my daughter and sat down and as I sat there I felt like a hypocrite. So I prayed the first real prayer I have probably ever prayed. It was along the lines of, "God, if you are real, please let me know because I don't want to be a hypocrite to my daughter." I got and answer. It was not vocal but I felt it physically in my body. I look back at that day and see how much my life has changed. I no longer make fun of people and call women ugly and make fun of retarded people (there was a time in my life where I was NOT very nice at all). No I see all people as beloved of God (unless and until they prove that they are not. I have met a few in that category.) I treat people with respect and I will help people without any expectation of reciprocation. I have seen how my life changed when God entered it and I have never lost that feeling. There is a great strength within me now.

Now, that is all anecdotal and soundly rejected by all "rational" people. It cannot be tested by any means currently known to science. However, that 6th sense mentioned above does allow me to understand that experience as a real and valid experience. My knowledge is of high quality. My ability to share that knowledge, probably not so high quality. But there you have it, my starting point encompasses a 6h sense that you reject and that seems to make a huge difference.

In my application of this same process myself, gods did not survive. There is no unambiguous evidence for any such thing, and no explaining power to be had by the god hypothesis. Brutal, but high-quality.

Stuart

In my application, I threw God out of my life and denied His existence. Until I did the whole thing again from a different starting place and found that God had become the foundation upon which I can build. Science does not need to replace God. Science, when done correctly neither proves nor disproves God. That is not why scientists do science. That want to understand why that apple falls from the tree and how fast it falls.

 

[Stripe]

I already did that after your first post.

This thread has nothing to do with ice. OP asks a question related to the philosophy of science. I tend not to reply to off-topic nonsense.

Even having to explain that you're a troll is annoying. When are you going to learn to contribute rationally and sensibly?

If you want to talk about ice, start a new thread.

However, I doubt it will end up anywhere different than it did last time we discussed the issue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth was created in 6 ... days.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:8-‬11 NKJV​

This is why discussions with Darwinists are a waste of time. They have no regard for what is written.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

This thread has nothing to do with ice. OP asks a question related to the philosophy of science. I tend not to reply to off-topic nonsense.

Even having to explain that you're a troll is annoying. When are you going to learn to contribute rationally and sensibly?

If you want to talk about ice, start a new thread.

However, I doubt it will end up anywhere different than it did last time we discussed the issue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I would love to see where you and [MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION] discussed ice. What was the thread?

 

[Stuu]

This thread has nothing to do with ice. OP asks a question related to the philosophy of science. I tend not to reply to off-topic nonsense.

Even having to explain that you're a troll is annoying. When are you going to learn to contribute rationally and sensibly?

If you want to talk about ice, start a new thread.

However, I doubt it will end up anywhere different than it did last time we discussed the issue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

As you well know, dendrochronology and ice core layers answer the question "Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?" directly, in the affirmative.

Can't think of anything more on-topic than dendrochronology and ice cores.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

This has never been an assumption for me or the world I live in. It exists.

I don't think you can avoid it, after all you can't actually prove you exist. Sound ridiculous I know, but any argument that seeks to prove your existence will turn out to be circular.

True as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. I believe that there is more to the universe than my 5 senses can perceive. My 6th sense, my brain and ability reason, provide me with a way to explorer that which my other 5 senses cannot.

So you are essentially talking about the scientific method, which does not need to be an assumption because it is a method with verifiable bona fides.

As we proceed from here we are going diverge rapidly as I do not accept your 4 starting assumptions. You and I are starting from very different positions.

Well what do you call your acceptance of a god? You can't observe it with your senses, and if you use the scientific method of your brain and ability to reason poorly, then it is possible that your 6th sense is creating an illusion for you. We know that our brains do create illusions for us.

I would not say that the knowledge is of poor quality, I would say that many who attempt to share that knowledge do so poorly. It is a problem.

I believe it is possible to know things that can reasonably be said to be true, and it is not reasonable to say the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Anyone claiming that is supplying about the worst quality of information imaginable, surely. The scale of that error is the same as asserting that the distance from Los Angeles to New York is a matter of a hundred yards or so.

Some background here is in order. I was raised Catholic. It didn't take and in fact, I had no faith in God and took great pleasure in ridiculing those who did. I walked away from God and all He represented. Then I had kids. While neither my wife nor I were faithful, we felt that our children should be exposed to God and Jesus so we found a church to attend. I took my daughter and sat down and as I sat there I felt like a hypocrite. So I prayed the first real prayer I have probably ever prayed. It was along the lines of, "God, if you are real, please let me know because I don't want to be a hypocrite to my daughter." I got and answer. It was not vocal but I felt it physically in my body. I look back at that day and see how much my life has changed. I no longer make fun of people and call women ugly and make fun of retarded people (there was a time in my life where I was NOT very nice at all). No I see all people as beloved of God (unless and until they prove that they are not. I have met a few in that category.) I treat people with respect and I will help people without any expectation of reciprocation. I have seen how my life changed when God entered it and I have never lost that feeling. There is a great strength within me now.

And, sorry to be brutal, there is great strength in the alcoholic once he has had a drink.

Now, that is all anecdotal and soundly rejected by all "rational" people. It cannot be tested by any means currently known to science.

It can be, and has been, tested by psychology. The vulnerabilities of the brain in this regard are quite well-known.

However, that 6th sense mentioned above does allow me to understand that experience as a real and valid experience. My knowledge is of high quality. My ability to share that knowledge, probably not so high quality. But there you have it, my starting point encompasses a 6h sense that you reject and that seems to make a huge difference.

Sorry to say I think you have been unduly soft on yourself, in fact I think you are feeling the guilt instilled in you by the Catholic church. They know psychology.

In my application, I threw God out of my life and denied His existence.

But you didn't do that at the time. You weren't denying anything, surely. This statement is a revisionist one. Is it not possible that you got to a point where you wanted a change in your life, and the nearest change was the one you grasped for? The depraved man (not you, obviously) reaches out from the gutter and finds the hand of christianity, and grabs it and never lets go. But he could have reached for the stars. Was it desperation that stopped him?

Until I did the whole thing again from a different starting place and found that God had become the foundation upon which I can build. Science does not need to replace God. Science, when done correctly neither proves nor disproves God. That is not why scientists do science. That want to understand why that apple falls from the tree and how fast it falls.

Why do you put your god off-limits to science?

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't think you can avoid it, after all you can't actually prove you exist. Sound ridiculous I know, but any argument that seeks to prove your existence will turn out to be circular.

On the contrary, one can indeed prove he exists:

I either exist or I do not exist. There is no in-between.

I cannot prove that I do not exist, because in order to prove something, one must first exist. This is soft evidence against my non-existence (note: evidence, not proof). I am trying to prove that I do exist. This is hard evidence that I do exist. My reasoning out my existence is hard evidence that I exist.

Two or three witnesses establish a matter. The above paragraph contains three witnesses.

Therefore, I do exist.

- I never doubt that I exist. - I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist. - I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence. - I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist. - I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence. - I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy. - Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists. - Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. - I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself. - And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever. - And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever. - And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me. - And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal. - And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness. - And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive. - So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal. - And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God". - And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist. - And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational. - And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love. - And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good. - So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. - And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived. - And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us. - And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false. - Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life.

- http://kgov.com/on-doubt

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't think you can avoid it, after all you can't actually prove you exist. Sound ridiculous I know, but any argument that seeks to prove your existence will turn out to be circular.

The argument over whether we exist or not is a BS argument people like to partake in to sound intellectually superior. Ultimately, the argument is meaningless as when you are done arguing it you have get up, go to the bathroom eat some food, drink some water and eventually head off to work. If you choose to argue that you don't exist and that those things mean nothing, try not doing them. The assumption is meaningless.

So you are essentially talking about the scientific method, which does not need to be an assumption because it is a method with verifiable bona fides.

Not just the scientific method. The ability to think about things outside the realms of my five senses. Being able to contemplate whether or not the universe makes more sense with or without God.

Well what do you call your acceptance of a god?

Faith

You can't observe it with your senses, and if you use the scientific method of your brain and ability to reason poorly, then it is possible that your 6th sense is creating an illusion for you. We know that our brains do create illusions for us.

Because I exist, I can experience God's presence.

I believe it is possible to know things that can reasonably be said to be true, and it is not reasonable to say the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Anyone claiming that is supplying about the worst quality of information imaginable, surely. The scale of that error is the same as asserting that the distance from Los Angeles to New York is a matter of a hundred yards or so.

I believe creation is old, very old. That does not mean that I don't believe that God created it. I don't believe that God is bound by time as we are.

And, sorry to be brutal, there is great strength in the alcoholic once he has had a drink.

Only the illusion of strength. The next morning when he awakens all of his problems are still waiting for him. With God, I don't need the illusion of strength alcohol instills. I can enjoy a drink when I wish and I can tackle my problems even when they threaten to swallow me.

It can be, and has been, tested by psychology. The vulnerabilities of the brain in this regard are quite well-known.

Yes, the brain has a physical and measurable response to the presence of God. Remember, different starting points so I see the results of those tests a bit differently than conventional wisdom decrees.

Sorry to say I think you have been unduly soft on yourself, in fact I think you are feeling the guilt instilled in you by the Catholic church. They know psychology.

Yes, the Catholics are VERY good at that. But not perfect. I saw what the Catholics were doing and that is why I turned away from God and religions. It wasn't until some time later I realized that people are not saved by religion, they are saved in spite of religion. What I hated was religion, not God. When I looked for God, I found Him and that changed everything.

But you didn't do that at the time. You weren't denying anything, surely. This statement is a revisionist one. Is it not possible that you got to a point where you wanted a change in your life, and the nearest change was the one you grasped for? The depraved man (not you, obviously) reaches out from the gutter and finds the hand of christianity, and grabs it and never lets go. But he could have reached for the stars. Was it desperation that stopped him?

I was depraved and still am to a degree if I am honest with myself (I try to be). I had just reached a point in life where I could honestly set aside all the crap that religions dump on us and actually look for God. I wasn't desperate, I was actually in a very good place, wonderful wife, new baby daughter, gainfully employed, comfortable home, it was a very good time in my life. That is part of why the experience so changed me; I wasn't searching from a place of desperation, I found God in a time of plenty and life got better.

[/quote]Why do you put your god off-limits to science?
[/QUOTE]

I don't but I believe that God does. It says in scripture that we are saved by faith. Faith is by definition belief in something that cannot be proven. If we could prove the existence of God then there would be no need for faith and salvation would be lost. God wants us to search for Him not from our intellect and reason, but from our hearts.

 

[Stripe]

Dendrochronology and ice core layers answer the question "Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?"

Great.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

On the contrary, one can indeed prove he exists:

I either exist or I do not exist. There is no in-between.

I cannot prove that I do not exist, because in order to prove something, one must first exist. This is soft evidence against my non-existence (note: evidence, not proof). I am trying to prove that I do exist. This is hard evidence that I do exist. My reasoning out my existence is hard evidence that I exist.

When you assert the concept of 'I', what does that mean, and how do you justify the assertion?

Two or three witnesses establish a matter. The above paragraph contains three witnesses.

Therefore, I do exist.

Those are lousy premises.

Try this one: you are in a supposition of quantum states, and the question of your existence is indeterminate until you are observed.

Not exactly related, but you may already be aware of the following:

Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking [following Anselm's ontological argument] asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's disability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist.

Stuart

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:8-‬11 NKJV​

This is why discussions with Darwinists are a waste of time. They have no regard for what is written.

Ditto for the theistic evolutionists performing some serious hermeneutical hopscotch in order to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11, doing violence to Scripture:

- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
- A literal Adam is required in Romans.

- The Apostle Paul clearly described Adam as the first human sinner—not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.​

AMR