Gotcha. So you don’t trust the results that scientists produce (I.e. science) because you believe that they are corrupted and manipulated by godless or selfish presuppositions- but let’s call this by any other name than distrust and we can let bygones by bygones.
1 Like
Science cannot produce anything. Science is not a living, breathing, thinking entity. Science is merely a collection of data from fallible people. SOME of whom are well meaning.
That is simply not true. As I’ve already pointed out, the age of the earth is not determined from evolution; it is determined by measuring things.
As I said, Wookin, you need to get your facts straight.
I know that it was impossible for me to do when I was a YEC- I simply distrusted the results produced by scientists so I could never actually learn how they measured what they did.
1 Like
I am sorry, but it was
Try to hide behind political silliness all you want, but reality is always still there. Some of us (generally the ones who keep their eyes and ears open) will have a better grasp of it than others.
Nope. Many of the early geologists and scientists were Christians. It was the prevailing world view of the time. And if presupposition was as powerful as you are suggesting, then the ancient timescales should never even have gotten any consensus foothold at all. And yet, contrary to your notion of the power of presupposition, apparently they are not nearly so resilient against reality as you now hope.
3 Likes
I’m sorry Wookin, but unsubstantiated denials of reality are just noise.
If billions of years really do come from “evolutionary presuppositions” as you claim, that would mean that geochronologists do not do what they tell us that they do. If that is the case, then you must provide evidence to that effect, because you are basically accusing them of lying.
1 Like
Try to hide behind political silliness all you want, but reality is always still there. Some of us (generally the ones who keep their eyes and ears open) will have a better grasp of it than others.
LOL…I am not talking about reality, but the perception of reality.
Nope. Many of the early geologists and scientists were Christians. It was the prevailing world view of the time. And if presupposition was as powerful as you are suggesting, then the ancient timescales should never even have gotten any consensus foothold at all. And yet, contrary to your notion of the power of presupposition, apparently they are not nearly so resilient against reality as you now hope.
Actually that is true, but many of those Christian scientists started to accept the theory of evolution-even pastors i.e. Charlse Spurgeon, because of the pressure placed upon them to keep themselves and the bible relevant in mounting surge of evolution, all the while believing that evolution and the bible could co-exist. (IT DOESN’T) As time went on to our present day, more scientists have grown up with a secular worldview- evolution being of that worldview. There is no evidence for evolution, just the belief that it is true based on their perception of the evidence. I ask people all the time, why do you believe in evolution? The consistent answer was, “because I was told that it was true”.
Evolution is a philosophy masquerading as science.
I am not accusing anyone of lying. I am a presuppositionalist. We all have lenses. If you wear a blue lens, you will see the world blue. If you wear a yellow lens, you will the world yellow. These people are basically trained to believe what they believe. Billions of years cannot be measured nor proven, therefore geologists accept on faith that what they are taught is true.
That is simply not true.
Look, Wookin, it’s as simple as this. If you want to critique scientific conclusions, you need to critique how scientists actually reach those conclusions in reality, and not your own uninformed misconceptions and imaginings of what you think they do. You need to go and learn how radiometric dating actually works in reality and then critique that. Because until and unless you’re prepared to do so, there’s no point in any of us continuing this conversation, as it will just carry on going round and round in circles.
That’s your claim. I’m asking you to support it.
What scientific results did Curry have that were left out of the scientific literature? What presuppositions did she have that led to different scientific conclusions? Where did she publish (or try to publish) these conclusions?
There were indeed vague ideas about evolution prior to Darwin – ideas that had nothing whatever to do with the conclusion that the Earth was old. If you think otherwise, provide some actual evidence about the people who did that work.
I’m sorry, but I think I know quite a bit more about the practice of science – good and bad – than you do.
2 Likes
If I had a nickel for every time I heard a YEC say this…
The age of the earth was initially questioned by Christian geologists that were trying to find proof of the global flood. The more they looked the more they realized there was no evidence of a global flood. Oh, BTW, this was long before Darwin so no it is not the theory of evolution that drives the billions, it was initially millions, of years.
John Phillips’ first published paper was On the Direction of the Diluvial Currents in Yorkshire (1827). And yet he went on to calculate the age of the earth to be 96 million years. Doesn’t look like someone who was trying to support evolution. Remember Origin was published in 1859.
4 Likes
this was long before Darwin so no it is not the theory of evolution that drives the billions, it was initially millions, of years.
Remember Origin was published in 1859.
I never said anything of Darwin. You will not see any of my posts mentioning Darwin. I said, evolution or the theory there of. That is your presupposition, my friend.
Doesn’t look like someone who was trying to support evolution.
I never said they were trying to support evolution. I said that their presupposition drove the idea that the earth was older. Again, your presupposition.
Please do not confuse me with YEC who are mostly evidentialist. I am a YEC mostly presuppositionalist. My argument is not about trying to prove how old the earth is. My argument, is that presuppositions help drive that idea.
So who and when was this theory proposed? Last I heard Darwin was considered the father of the theory of evolution.
Darwin did not create evolution. That theory has been here for along time, my friend
What theory of evolution was a presupposition for naturalists studying geology prior to Darwin?
I never said Darwin created evolution. Your presupposition I guess.
Your argument is geologists were blinded by their presupposition of evolution to the point their interpretation of data can not be trusted. I pointed out a geologist whose presupposition was a belief the global flood was real and yet he still came up with 96 millions years. You are also assuming, without evidence, that belief in some unknown theory of evolution was widespread enough that it caused most geologists to redefine the age of the earth. And if you are not aware, some of the vocal critics of early ideas of evolution were geologists.
The theory of billions of years
Your argument is geologists were blinded by their presupposition of evolution to the point their interpretation of data can not be trusted.
I never said that. I said, that based on my high view of scripture worldview, which collides with those in the scientific field’s secular worldview, that I am not so readily to accept their findings when a lot of it whether it be evolution or age of the earth is down to interpreting the evidence. No one was here to observe any of that except God, which He records in scripture i.e. book of Genesis
The “theory of billions of years” is not an evolutionary theory, and it sure as heck wasn’t a presupposition of those who started to study the Earth’s history and created the science of geology.
1 Like