My Problem with Creation Science

[Right Divider]

Nope. Whenever you argue for an idea while naming as your source an authentic expert in that domain, who also claims what you are claiming, and that expert teaches what is uniformly taught by all the other authentic experts in that domain, that is a valid appeal to authority.

You did not "argue for an idea" at all. If you'd like to, by all means DO!

Do you not understand why "dark matter" and "dark energy" were invented? To prop up a FAILED theory (i.e., the "big bang").

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" have never been observed and are only "believed" to exist as a band-aid for the BB. Instead of throwing out the failed theory, the secular (i.e., atheist) scientists just keep putting patches on it.

The important thing to note, which makes this particular fallacy difficult to spot, is that the types of claims that you can establish through the valid appeal to authority is limited to what all of that domain's authentic experts uniformly agree upon, which means you're limited to establishing noncontroversial claims, you cannot validly appeal to authority when that domain's experts do not all agree among themselves about that claim.

Again, science is NOT about credentials or "consensus"... it's about FACTS. It does not matter even one tiny bit how many experts agree on something (that is another fallacy called the appeal to popularity) nor what their credentials are.

Now, among PhD cosmologists, you would probably find uniformity in their teaching that the universe is "billions of years" old, but even though it would satisfy the condition for a valid appeal to authority to name one of them as a source for arguing that the universe is that old, it wouldn't prove your point, because, as @Trump Gurl above said, either the universe was made in six days or it wasn't, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate either one to the exclusion of the other, the evidence is consistent with both theories. If it is true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is "billions of years" old, then they are all guilty of presuming that they are right, that the universe was not created in six days, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

Again!!! It does not matter if there is "uniformity" (i.e., consensus) in their FALSE belief system or not. That is THE appeal to popularity.

And AGAIN, NO it does NOT make it a "valid appeal to authority". You are just immensely confused about what constitutes truth.

And AGAIN... you do NOT know what begging the question is.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are begging the question because of what your own personal theory is,

Because you say so?

you want to defend it, you've supposed that it's true, and so of course all the fossils must be from previously living things, even though you don't have the slightest biblical evidence consistent with dinosaurs.

@Stripe, maybe you can clear things up for Idolater here:

What are the three things required to make fossils?

Were those three things present in the global flood?

Does the Hydroplate theory take those things into consideration?

I'm rubber you're glue?

You're a feeble-minded troll so I can't expect you to think anything other than this limited thought.

Now you're reverting to ad hominem attacks?

Shame on you.

You know what fertile soil is, right? That component in fertile soil that's called "organic", you know what that is, right? And you know that Eden was a garden, right?

Your point?

Now tell me about how God doesn't put "what appears to be dead things in the ground that are not really dead things at all". Please tell me all about that.

Non-sequitur.

Unless you'd care to explain how fertile soil relates to fossils?

I'm sure that it does. I'm even more sure that's not what I'm doing.

Appeals to authority are not fallacious.

False.

Dr. Barry F. Vaughan's Philosophy Page

www.mesacc.edu

Facts are true. So what is true determines what is true. Thank you for clearing up that riddle.

Well that's a nice story. Can you cite chapter and verse where you got it from please?

RD answered this already, but I'll just point to these charts:

Flood Models & Bible Verses

docs.google.com

Google Sheets: Sign-in

Access Google Sheets with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).

docs.google.com

And no one ever said God was a faker. Except you.

Yet, you can't quote RD saying such things ever.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nope. Whenever you argue for an idea while naming as your source an authentic expert in that domain, who also claims what you are claiming, and that expert teaches what is uniformly taught by all the other authentic experts in that domain, that is a valid appeal to authority.

So are you saying that because the experts all say it, therefore it's correct?

What if they're wrong, yet they all say the same thing?

That's why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Because assumes that the authority is correct, even though they very well may be wrong.

The important thing to note, which makes this particular fallacy difficult to spot, is that the types of claims that you can establish through the valid appeal to authority is limited to what all of that domain's authentic experts uniformly agree upon, which means you're limited to establishing noncontroversial claims, you cannot validly appeal to authority when that domain's experts do not all agree among themselves about that claim.

Is it a possibility that the authorities you appeal to are wrong?

Now, among PhD cosmologists, you would probably find uniformity in their teaching that the universe is "billions of years" old,

Sorry, but there are PhD cosmologists that say otherwise. So who's right? Yours or mine?

See why it's a fallacy yet?

but even though it would satisfy the condition for a valid appeal to authority to name one of them as a source for arguing that the universe is that old, it wouldn't prove your point, because, as @Trump Gurl above said, either the universe was made in six days or it wasn't, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate either one to the exclusion of the other,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

the evidence is consistent with both theories.

Because you say so?

If it is true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is "billions of years" old, then they are all guilty of presuming that they are right, that the universe was not created in six days, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

It's not true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Because you say so?

You love that lame barb don't you. Weak.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You love that lame barb don't you. Weak.

Yet you can't support the argument made either? Talk about lame...

 

[Idolater]

If you want to argue for example, that "all cells have a nucleus", and you name a PhD biologist who makes that same claim, and all PhD biologists concur with the named expert biologist, then your appeal to authority is valid.

This serves as an example not only of a valid appeal to authority, but also to the types of claims that can be established by such an argument. They are basic, elemental, trivial almost, and noncontroversial. And when used appropriately, a valid appeal to authority never proves your main point, but a premise used in your larger argument. It is used as a shorthand for establishing one of your premises that you'd otherwise have to demonstrate through perhaps hundreds of microscope slides of various cells, each showing a nucleus present. Instead of that, you can make a valid appeal to authentic authority within that domain.

It is why it is said that the appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument, but the saying does not suggest that the appeal to authority is ipso facto fallacious, just that it is weak, which I agree with and I've not said otherwise. I'm pointing out the error in saying that all appeals to authority are fallacies---they are not.

As a counterexample, consider perhaps a PhD in a domain like engineering, and citing this PhD to establish something outside of the domain of engineering. In such a case you've committed the fallacy, because you cite someone who isn't an authentic expert in the domain or field or discipline in which your claim resides.

I admit that it's a little tricky, but not very tricky. You must name the authority to enable verification that the cited source is an authentic authority in the field in question, the person must actually be an authentic expert in the field (the PhD degree or other doctorate is one of many ways to do it, and is another handy shorthand for ensuring that your source is an authentic and authenticated expert), and your source must be claiming what all the experts in that field also claim, uniformly.

If the matter in question is controversial, and all the domain's experts do not agree on it, then a valid appeal to authority is just not possible. You're going to have to prove your point all the way down, rather than employ the shorthand of validly appealing to authority.

 

[Right Divider]

If you want to argue for example, that "all cells have a nucleus", and you name a PhD biologist who makes that same claim, and all PhD biologists concur with the named expert biologist, then your appeal to authority is valid.

So again you refuse to understand what "appeal to authority" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It has NOTHING to do with what you are trying make it mean.

Will you EVER try to support your CLAIM with any sort of an argument? Probably not.

 

[Idolater]

So are you saying that because the experts all say it, therefore it's correct?

No.

What if they're wrong, yet they all say the same thing?

A reason why it is said that the (valid) appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument.

That's why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Because assumes that the authority is correct, even though they very well may be wrong.

Sure. Like, maybe not all cells have a nucleus. Maybe not all particles have mass. If the entire domain of biology or of particle physics uniformly teach otherwise, then while you can validly appeal to authority (i o w the conditions exist that permits one), it still doesn't guarantee that the claim is true. Occupational hazard.

Is it a possibility that the authorities you appeal to are wrong?

It does depend upon the particular matter in question. For example if you cite a tenured law professor at a prestigious law school to establish some mundane point of law, and all the other attorneys and law professors out there also concur, then it's extremely unlikely that the claim is in fact false, but again, this is an example of why valid appeals to authority are considered the weakest forms of argument.

Sorry, but there are PhD cosmologists that say otherwise. So who's right? Yours or mine?

See why it's a fallacy yet?

I don't care what they say, it was an example used to explain a point. But I am curious to know one PhD cosmologist who teaches that the universe is <10000 years old, do you have a name?

It's not true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is billions of years old.

Great. Can you name one who doesn't please?

 

[Idolater]

...care to explain how fertile soil relates to fossils?

The fertile soil in the Garden of Eden, and dinosaur fossils, are both "dead things". That's what fertile soil is made from, and that's what it's believed or supposed that dinosaur fossils are made from too.

RD answered this already....

I'm looking for the word 'fossil' in Scripture and can't find it. So far as I know the Bible's silent on the matter of fossils. I did not get that answer.

 

[Right Divider]

Sure. Like, maybe not all cells have a nucleus. Maybe not all particles have mass. If the entire domain of biology or of particle physics uniformly teach otherwise, then while you can validly appeal to authority (i o w the conditions exist that permits one), it still doesn't guarantee that the claim is true. Occupational hazard.

Biology and particle physics are not the same as ORIGIN THEORIES. Any ONE time event in the distance past cannot be explored in the same manner as REPEATABLE and DIRECTLY observable phenomenon.

Anybody with a little knowledge and some fairly easy to obtain equipment can verify what a cell contains. Big bang validation... can't be done like that.

 

[Idolater]

Biology and particle physics are not the same as ORIGIN THEORIES.

And water is wet.

Any ONE time event in the distance past cannot be explored in the same manner as REPEATABLE and DIRECTLY observable phenomenon.

That's not stopping cosmologists from doing cosmology.

Anybody with a little knowledge and some fairly easy to obtain equipment can verify what a cell contains. Big bang validation... can't be done like that.

Anybody with a little knowledge and some fairly easy to obtain equipment can verify that starlight is billions of lightyears away.

 

[Right Divider]

The fertile soil in the Garden of Eden, and dinosaur fossils, are both "dead things". That's what fertile soil is made from, and that's what it's believed or supposed that dinosaur fossils are made from too.

Are you unaware that fossils are formed on rare occasions in the present day? Do you not believe the Bible when it describes a global flood that killed all air breathing life on earth except for those on the ark?

I'm looking for the word 'fossil' in Scripture and can't find it. So far as I know the Bible's silent on the matter of fossils. I did not get that answer.

I can't find the word "archdiocese" or "pope" in the scripture.

Your "arguments" are completely LAME.

 

[Idolater]

Are you unaware that fossils are formed on rare occasions in the present day? Do you not believe the Bible when it describes a global flood that killed all air breathing life on earth except for those on the ark?

I believe the flood was real.

I can't find the word "archdiocese" or "pope" in the scripture.

I never said that you could.

Your "arguments" are completely LAME.

Oh.

 

[Right Divider]

And water is wet.

Childish.

That's not stopping cosmologists from doing cosmology.

Another fallacious bit of "reasoning". You're really good at that.

Anybody with a little knowledge and some fairly easy to obtain equipment can verify that starlight is billions of lightyears away.

Nope. And what would that have to do with either the big bang or God faking fossils in the creation?

Again, are you unaware that God STRETCHED forth the heavens?

 

[Right Divider]

I believe the flood was real.

Why don't you start acting like it?

I never said that you could.

So I guess that one went right over your head.

Oh.

That's about your level.

 

[Idolater]

Nope.

Yes, actually.

And what would that have to do with either the big bang or God faking fossils in the creation?

How can starlight from billions of lightyears away be seen by us on the earth if we've only been here for 10000 years or under? There hasn't been enough time. Which means that God created the universe in a mature state. Like He did Adam and Eve. And like the fertile soil of Eden. And like He did the earth, with fossils from dinosaurs that never lived.

Again, are you unaware that God STRETCHED forth the heavens?

What does that have to do with this?

 

[Idolater]

Why don't you start acting like it?

Which means what? That I have to start believing in dinosaurs? Pass.

So I guess that one went right over your head.

I doubt it, but if you think so set it out.

That's about your level.

Oh.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No.

But that's exactly what you just did...

A reason why it is said that the (valid) appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument.

There is no such thing as a "valid" appeal to authority, (except when appealing to God, since God is infallible), because an appeal to authority is, by definition, a logical fallacy.

Sure. Like, maybe not all cells have a nucleus. Maybe not all particles have mass.

Don't think anyone has made any arguments on here or elsewhere regarding these statements.

If the entire domain of biology or of particle physics uniformly teach otherwise, then while you can validly appeal to authority

Again, no such thing as a valid appeal to authority (barring appealing to the infallible God of the Bible)

(i o w the conditions exist that permits one), it still doesn't guarantee that the claim is true. Occupational hazard.

Which is exactly why it's a fallacy, and therefore NOT VALID to do so, despite you claiming otherwise.

It does depend upon the particular matter in question. For example if you cite a tenured law professor at a prestigious law school to establish some mundane point of law, and all the other attorneys and law professors out there also concur, then it's extremely unlikely that the claim is in fact false, but again, this is an example of why valid appeals to authority are considered the weakest forms of argument.

Don't lose focus, Idolater.

I was specifically referring to the ones you were appealing to regarding the age of the earth.

Is it a possibility that those authorities are wrong?

I don't care what they say, it was an example used to explain a point. But I am curious to know one PhD cosmologist who teaches that the universe is <10000 years old, do you have a name?

Great. Can you name one who doesn't please?

How about Danny Faulkner?

How about these scientists?

Wayback Machine

 

[Right Divider]

How can starlight from billions of lightyears away be seen by us on the earth if we've only been here for 10000 years or under?

Perhaps you should learn the creationist model instead of burying your head in secular (atheist) ideas.

There hasn't been enough time.

Once again... READ YOUR BIBLE. God STRECTCHED the heavens during or shortly after creation.

Psa 104:2 KJV Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Isa 40:22 KJV It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isa 42:5 KJV Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isa 44:24 KJV Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isa 45:12 KJV I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 51:13 KJV And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?

Jer 10:12 KJV He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Which means that God created the universe in a mature state.

Not necessarily.

Like He did Adam and Eve.

That's quite different.

And like the fertile soil of Eden.

SUPPORT!!! You keep making this vacuous claim without ANY supporting argument.

And like He did the earth, with fossils from dinosaurs that never lived.

So AGAIN you claim that God is a faker. Shame on you!

What does that have to do with this?

Really? If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand anything.

 

[Idolater]

There is no such thing as a "valid" appeal to authority, (except when appealing to God, since God is infallible)...no such thing as a valid appeal to authority (barring appealing to the infallible God of the Bible)

So in sum, there is such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Which is exactly why it's a fallacy, and therefore NOT VALID to do so, despite you claiming otherwise.

"Supra."

Don't lose focus, Idolater.

I haven't.

I was specifically referring to the ones you were appealing to regarding the age of the earth.

Which was only an example of what I was talking about, which was the valid appeal to authority. I made my point, which is why you didn't contest it.

Is it a possibility that those authorities are wrong?

Of course. In fact I said so. I said they are wrong. So, yes, it's a possibility.

How about Danny Faulkner?

Great, thank you.

How about these scientists?

Wayback Machine

That letter doesn't claim the universe is <10000 years old, just that the big bang might not be the story written in the stars, as it were.