That wasn’t moderator me talking. Just plain person me, and I would say these things to anyone I respect and also hope to hear it said to me when I need it. Sorry you find it condescending. I don’t like being left in my own ignorance if someone is present who could help me become a little less so.
2 Likes
It is the YEC claims about science that are challenged, not their faith.
For example, Todd Wood is a YEC but he doesn’t feel the need to misrepresent science, as shown in this essay:
Todd Wood has the respect of many here, even if we don’t agree with the conclusions he has reached. What we don’t respect is YEC’s who misrepresent basic facts and science.
1 Like
But they are inextricably intertwined.
At the end of the day, what you are doing is imposing your science onto their faith, and they do not mix.
What no one seems to understand is that sciecne and scientists have a view, and no one is claiming that they are wrong, or decieiving or any of the other senstivities and personal affronts that are claimed, we understand your view! But you refuse to accept that there is another view possible!
Instead we must see things as you do!
SO then we get all the excuses abot racts and realitiy and you can’t ignore whaqt we see, and all the rest of it, all the time getting more and more persoal, either you take offence or you offend. Tit for tqat. And yu do not seem to understand that you are being offensive. We knoiw what you think!
We are niether thick, nor “making things up”! You just cannot see what we do! And ybecuase it is about God and faith it is not even in your language let alone comprehension.
It is about precision, or not. Fact, truth? you see as absolute. Yes or no. No argument. And if someone argues? They are just wrong!
Do you know how insuting it is to be continually told that you are wrong?
Do you know how insulting it is to be told that you are not allowed to think differently?
Do you even understand why I moan so much?
There is a fundamental differenc between emiracle and subjective thinking. It is two different languages , like English and American, same words, but different. And the general view on this forum is
“You must think empiraclly,!”
"You cannot think od anything that science touches subjectively.
I have even been told that there is no philosophy ion scientific thought!
For example
“Anything can be achieved over time”
Is a basic principle of Evolutionary thought, and it is a philosophy. Like it or lump it!
“There is no such thing as Irreducible complexisty”
Is also philosophy, like it or lump it.
A feather can be used for insulation is a philosophical view, like it or lumo it!
There is philosophy in scinece, like it or lumo it!
RIchard
A difficulty is that, in making this objection, you are judging people for not doing what you think they should. Also, clear communication (including from me) rather than assuming what someone intends is important.
Of course, the average young-earther is someone who has been misled by the teaching of others, not someone who is actively producing falsehoods. But each of us does have responsibility for trying to verify information, especially before repeating it. Young-earth and anti-evolutionary claims bring God’s name into disrepute by their poor quality and dishonesty. They also drive scientifically knowledgeable people away from faith. Those who buy into the creation science attacks on science are often susceptible to other fake science claims, many of which have much more immediate negative consequences for their well-being, such as health quackery or climate change denial. There are good reasons to be concerned for the effects that wrong beliefs can have on someone.
That begs the question of how one knows that a particular belief is wrong. We can never know that a better explanation will not come in the future. Maybe a good young-earth model can be found. But the current professional young-earth movement prioritizes promotion of a young earth over being honest about the evidence. Only by being honest about the problems with their current models will they promote the necessary effort to improve them. But we can be certain that a claim that does not accurately represent what is known has problems.
You are not promoting a young earth. But some others are; responses may have an eye to various parts of the thread.
Consider the assertion that young-earth advocates have dealt with the problem of fitting the organisms necessary for a global flood into Noah’s ark. It is true that some young-earth advocates have made claims on the topic. But those claims are no good. First of all, it is necessary to have a specific picture of what the flood was like. Supplying and removing enough water for a global flood, fitting plate motion within one year, fitting the geologically evidenced volcanic eruptions into one year, speeding up radiometric decay to fit in one year - any one of these would make Earth uninhabitable, if not destroy the planet. An ark won’t solve that problem. Yes, they are aware of the problem. No, they don’t admit it’s a problem. Of course God does work miracles, but flood geology demands that God be working countless mutually conflicting miracles, for which there is no evidence, just so that young-earth advocates can pretend that science supports their position. The global flood of modern creation science imagination would require Noah to have tanks for freshwater and marine life as well as sheltering terrestrial life. If any salt deposit was formed during a global flood, then the entire ocean was salty enough to kill most ocean life, much less anything freshwater. Admit that salt deposits weren’t made during the Flood, and you’ve eliminated most of the geologic column from being during the Flood. Post-flood hyperevolution to allow fewer species be on the ark doesn’t fit well with young-earth condemnations of evolution, besides being rather unrealistic and inconsistent with the fossil record. Then there are the actual practical considerations of caring for the animals on the ark. No, modern young-earthers do not have a good solution to the problem.
2 Likes
- Perhaps you may find C.S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design interesting and relevant.
- My edited transcript is at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gsZ7VlYroxJ5xHX3KdotPTWaXXOg194O/view?usp=sharing
1 Like
Yes interesting but with limitations
I am not convinced that you can theistically or even philosophically criticise or dismiss Intelligent design.
The reason from Intelligent design ins inextricably linked to the concept of irreducibility. It’ e volution cannot produce everything step by step in whatever increments the current theory claims, then the only alternative is “design” with whatever insertions that demands to make it work.
The long running arguments are over whter X, or Y could possibly be made incrementally (ie are irreducible)/ And, ufortunately it boild down to the philosophy that scientid-sts claim they do not include in their thought processes.
Unfortunately i am less keen on “the Fall” as understoof by the reformation, but that is not really relevant here, unless you are going to try and use it as a n argument against evolution (see the other thread)
Richard
Edit
There is also the question of
“Who cares what (Insert name) thinks?”
It is a scientific thought process to insist on citation or personal coroboration of thought.
I am imposing no such thing. It is YECs who put forward science that they think supports their views. It is those scientific claims made by YECs that we are challenging. No one is forcing them to make scientific claims.
I accept Flat Earth view is possible. What I also see is all of the science that disproves it, contrary to the claim of Flat Earthers.
If two views come to contradictory conclusions, they can’t both be right. One of them has to be wrong.
What is it about faith that requires someone to spread misinformation about science?
If people show me that I am wrong about something I try to learn why and jettison wrong ideas.
You moan so much because you are overly sensitive. Guess what? If you go on an internet forum and say a whole bunch of wrong things people are going to point them out. If you can’t handle criticism then don’t post wrong stuff on the internet. Problem solved.
YECs claim they are thinking empirically and scientifically, so they are judged by empiricism and science. YECs are the ones choosing to be judged by science.
1 Like
Bold mine, the point being that it is YEC itself that has concocted a toxic amalgam of faith and pseudoscience, which they aggressively promote and proselytize.
There are countless ex-YEC who feel that they were deprived of a factually aware upbringing. Any belief at odds with reality can only have a negative effect.
1 Like
And that is your first misconception
Why do you care?
But I am not wrong (IMO) What right have you to tell me otherwise?
Are you God? (Because His is the only authority I accept)
Me? sensetive! You really are kidding! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Mosst of the assertions made are a “defence” of science or scientists
I rest my case!
I am not YEC!
But I am a Christian.
No they are not. Science has no authority to do so.
And that is your second misconception
YEC use the data as they see fit. Shame it isn’t how you see fit. Aw didums!
Get over it! Life is too short.
A little accomodation goes a long way, but it helps if you mean it.
Richard
Then explain how the Earth can be both flat and spherical.
You care. You are writing entire posts on how much you care.
What is it about faith that requires someone to spread misinformation about science?
Freedom of speech.
How does defending science make me overly sensitive?
We are talking about YEC.
Yes, they are. YECs are claiming a young Earth, a recent global flood, and the separate creation of created kinds can be supported by science.
Added in edit:
Here is an example of what I am talking about. AiG has a top 10 list of scientific evidences for a young Earth:
Could you explain why none of these are a scientific argument?
2 Likes
Examples, examples, is that all you see?
I talk in general terms about things and you quote an example t “prove” your point.
For every rule there is at least one exception?
But not if you are narrow minded and tunnel visioned.
But what is it I care about?
You seem to only cae about precision and examples, all the things that mean something to a scientist.
I care about people. Individualism, freedom of thought, openmindedness.
Science need sno more defence than faith. You seem to think essential that we all know how brilliant science is, how right, how true.
You are finding an examle to compare to and justify to.
That was what I claimed. I did not claim that YEC use, or claim to use science. I just claimed that Science has no jusridiction as to how data is presented or understood.
More examples? AIG? FCO can;t you think for yorself?
You are not understanding, still
You are too focussed on examles Examples that prove your way of thinking. They do not.
It is not about specifics. it never was. But that is all you know.
Richard
Data is not neutral. Scientific hypothesis are tested against data. Rhetorically, you can use and abuse data, but in science the data discriminates between falsehood and ideas which are consistent with reality.
YEC does not just interpret data as they see fit, but are culpable in misrepresenting the data itself. The rot goes all the way down.
1 Like
Now that is an interesting assertion…
How can data be anything else? It has no conciousness or bias. You know s well as I do Scientists do not always agree on what data means.
And?
Scientists have a rigid uderstanding of how to view or interpret it.
If you stand long enough the sun will appear to move across the sky. That is visible data. Is it biased towards the view that the earth is rotating, or that the sun is moving?
But Science! Science, Science SCIENCE!
There are alrenative views to science! Why do you not understand this?
Misrepresenting ?
Or not representing the scientific view!
Science!
Have you ever met a genuine Flat earther?
They can refute and reinterpret every single one of your"proof" (AKA data)
But that is not the real point here.
The point here is to recognise that the scientific view is not the only one. And Scientific facts rely on the scientific method (understanding).
Everybody keeps telling me I am not a scientist! So why must I bow down to you?
RIchard
You want to pretend that everyone can be right, even when they come to contradictory conclusions. That’s now how the real world works.
Freedom of thought and open mindedness includes criticism.
How does defending science make me overly sensitive?
YECs are choosing science as having jurisdiction.
YECs are putting forth scientific arguments based on misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific data. We are pointing it out when that happens.
Why does this make you so upset? Do you think YECs should be shielded from criticism? Do you think only scientists should be criticized?
2 Likes
Then name one. Let’s see how it goes.
Do you think a Flat Earth is just as true as a Globe Earth? Do you think Flat Earth is wrong?
2 Likes
Someone thinks heavier objects fall faster, another thinks they fall the same.
Drop objects. Obtain results with no consciousness or bias.
The data validates that they fall at the same acceleration, and falsifies that heavier is faster. No interpretation needed. Drop objects all day if you think otherwise.
I mean misrepresenting the data itself.
There are cracks in Grand Canyon rock folds.
There is no intrinsic C14 in diamonds.
Found dinosaur soft tissue are decayed organic remnants, and not original intact proteins.
Cross-bedding angles for the Coconino Sandstone is consistent with aeolian deposition.
There is extensive bioturbation associated with phanerozoic sedimentary formations.
The sun is not shrinking.
Neanderthal DNA is not contamination.
The fixation rate is not the same as generational mutation rate.
I could Gish gallop on, but the singular point is that YEC regularly does hide, misrepresent, and bears false witness against the data itself, before indulging in wild interpretations which are inconsistent with the body of accepted science which is itself based on data.
2 Likes
Science is not the only type of evidence.
Apart from scripture there is enough evidence to “convict” Jesus of having risen from the dead. The authority of scripture rests on the Resurrection.
I have never said such a thing. Don’t try to stuff me into one of your pigeonholes.
Logically that is what should be followed – it is the only authoritative source of knowledge about God.
I see the attitudes – they’re scientific, generally scholarly, and rational. They don’t include a need to make nice to people with fragile egos. They respect others enough to expect them to know the basics.
Nothing here is any different than the sorts of exchanges that were had in the physics study room in university or in the common room in grad school where informal scholarly debate took place.
No – there is science, and there is non-science. Science should inform theology only after the text has been plumbed, and theology should inform science so rarely it may as well be never.
Yes, the irrational ones that you champion. The trouble with irrational views is they do not match reality.
Present the evidence and the rational arguments.
Nope – pay better attention.
No one has told you that. You are free to think as irrationally as you please – just don’t expect anyone to affirm that irrationality is a legitimate approach to knowledge.
No, it isn’t – it’s a statement about what has been observed so far. I have tried to find an actual example of irreducible complexity – it would be delightful! – but so far every attempt has failed on the science.
That’s called seeking truth.
Like a large number of Christians who deny that germs are real.
The combination of those would result in a plasma cloud.
Contrary to a God of order.
1 Like
Not even the text of scripture!
When I went to school that was taught in third grade.
Ooh – nice observation.
That goes right to the core: if a person can’t explain why something non-scientific isn’t scientific, then that person doesn’t understand science.
Any general proposition must have examples or it is irrational.
The way to defend your general proposition isn’t to whine about not respecting views, it’s to show why a proposed example either is wrong or is irrelevant.
If your openmindedness includes allowing people to hold to irrational beliefs, then you don’t care about people, you care about not upsetting people – and that’s not about them, it’s about you.
1 Like
Jesus said,
“Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe”
It turns your whole methodology upside down
Richard