False evidence of age or mature creation?


(Tim) #41

About compressing time, in regards to half life: is that not coming from the need to accelerate the process? It does not follow that appearance is appearance and the mechanics. Are you trying to say appearance needs for time to be compressed? Appearance and a mature universe and solar system comes that way. It does not need to go through all the mechanics.

Buy if that is the case, the “big bang” covered the tremendous energy required to compress time and obtain your half lives. Then God seperated the light and darkness in the “cooling down” period, then everything started back as a normal functioning universe.

That is only explaining a method that humans demand needed to happen. Why hold God to do things like we need them to be done?

Aristotle gave the logic of the need for a single creator, ie God. Why he bothered to put that in writing, do we even know? Up until that time, it seems clear, that humans treated a cosmology from a Flood perspective, ie coming out of an ocean of water, because no one has a clue about the time before the Flood. Add to that, the ANE cosmology thought the gods split the earth in half creating the sun and moon phenomenon. The sun and moon being that last of the gods in the pantheon. The Greeks made it all mundane and placed a counsel of gods “upstairs” who could have sex with humans. Sounds familiar to what Moses claimed, that the sons of God had offspring with the daughters of Adam’s genealogical record. Except Moses said that applies to the condition before the Flood. There is no basis for a pantheon of gods to carry to the new earth, unless the book of Revelation answers that line of thought.

It is the fact that God destroyed the planet at the time of Noah that allows any YEC thought processes. What happened before Noah, we do not know. But it does not seem the Flood would be the point time is compressed causing the energy from half lives to melt the earth. We do not even have a way to see what the earth was like between Adam and Noah.


(James McKay) #42

Because those very scientists themselves admitted that squeezing the evidence for the age of the Earth into six thousand years would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C. That is four times hotter than the surface of the sun, and hot enough to vaporise the entire planet.

You say that you’re not a scientist, but when they’re making that kind of admission, you don’t need to be a scientist, nor do you need any particular kind of “worldview” or “presuppositions” to see that they’re simply not telling the truth when they’re claiming that the evidence supports a young Earth.

In any case, when you look at their claims of evidence for a young Earth, it quickly becomes obvious that they have very, very serious shortcomings and flaws. Some of their flaws are so glaringly obvious that they can be easily spotted by anyone with no more science than the basic teaching about how to measure things that you get in the first half hour of the first practical class in the first term of the first year of a university physics degree. Basically this:


(Wookin Panub) #43

Because those very scientists themselves admitted that squeezing the evidence for the age of the Earth into six thousand years would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C. That is four times hotter than the surface of the sun, and hot enough to vaporise the entire planet.

You say that you’re not a scientist, but when they’re making that kind of admission, you don’t need to be a scientist, nor do you need any particular kind of “worldview” or “presuppositions” to see that they’re simply not telling the truth when they’re claiming that the evidence supports a young Earth.

In any case, when you look at their claims of evidence for a young Earth, it quickly becomes obvious that they have very, very serious shortcomings and flaws. Some of their flaws are so glaringly obvious that they can be easily spotted by anyone with no more science than the basic teaching about how to measure things that you get in the first half hour of the first practical class in the first term of the first year of a university physics degree. Basically this:

I appreciate the response, but your response is laden with logical fallacies; Arbitrary conjecture, begging the question, circular reasoning. “reductio ad absurdum” I can break it down for you, if you like.


(James McKay) #44

Well yes, do break it down. I would be very interested to see how you manage to contort “arbitrary conjecture” or “begging the question” or “circular reasoning” out of that. And just how, pray tell, is reductio ad absurdum supposed to be a logical fallacy?

And while you’re breaking it down, remember one thing in particular: the 22,000°C heat problem was their own admission.


(Wookin Panub) #45

I never said that reducto ad absurdum was a logical fallcy


(James McKay) #46

Yes you did Wookin. You included it in your list of logical fallacies which you claimed that I had made.


(Steve Mitchell) #47

Since it would not really be possible to prove “false” evidence, does the argument ultimately come down to what we think God would or would not do?


(Wookin Panub) #48

Sorry…I had to step away for a sec. Too hasty with the circular logic fallacy accusation is a stretch

arbitrary (reversible) they can say the same about you in not telling the truth. Begging the question, assuming they are not telling the truth…prejudicial conjecture

it quickly becomes obvious that they have very, very serious shortcomings and flaws. Some of their flaws are so glaringly obvious that they can be easily spotted by anyone with no more science than the basic teaching about how to measure things

arbitrary assertion, begging the question


(Wookin Panub) #49

Please notice the full stop between the fallacy category and reductio ad absurdum


(Wookin Panub) #50

Moreso, how our worldviews see, interpret and shape the evidence. We all have the same evidence. We just have different presuppositions when looking at it.


(David Heddle) #51

The presuppositions, more or less the correctness of quantum mechanics, are the same presuppositions that one relies upon in trusting that one’s computer will successfully deliver messages over the internet, including anti-science messages.

Calvin, on Gen 1:16 (from his commentary)

I have said, that Moses does not here subtly descant, as a philosopher [scientist], on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star [planet] of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.


(Wookin Panub) #52

The presuppositions, more or less the correctness of quantum mechanics, are the same presuppositions that one relies upon in trusting that one’s computer will successfully deliver messages over the internet, including anti-science messages.

I can same the same for you as well, my friend. Because, since you cannot know anything without God. Starting anything, including science without a biblical worldview. You cannot know anything. ergo, anti-science. But I would not say that.

Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.

I have no problem with observable/operational science, and neither the age of the earth nor evolution is observable.


(David Heddle) #53

Nonsense. I can’t deal with outright unsupportable assertions. I’ll leave it to others who are more gracious and charitable.


(Wookin Panub) #54

No offense, but your reality is not contingent on what you think is nonsense or not.

“assertions” You mean evidence. Evidence is your ultimate standard, but evidence is unaided reasoning about the evidence, because evidence can’t speak for itself (fallacy of reification). It’s really your mind’s ability to understand the evidence.


(David Heddle) #55

Nor is your reality contingent on what you think contradicts scripture.


(Wookin Panub) #56

I can’t deal with outright unsupportable assertions

“assertions” You mean evidence. Evidence is your ultimate standard, but evidence is unaided reasoning about the evidence, because evidence can’t speak for itself (fallacy of reification). It’s really your mind’s ability to understand the evidence.


(Wookin Panub) #57

I never made the accusation that your side was wrong nor nonsensical. I merely said that OEC do not have a biblical leg to stand on, and to drive any worldview without the bible driving it will lead to reductio ad absurdum


#58

More than 99% (easily) of the scientists who devote their lives to understanding the natural world through the sciences, including many Christians, would take issue with this claim. I will side with them on this matter. It is analogous to the examination of a crime scene. A skilled investigator has validated tools to interpret forensic evidence leading to facts.


(Wookin Panub) #59

Always willing to exegete scripture. Let’s see where the text leads us.


(David Heddle) #60

For a Christian to assert something that is unbiblical is tantamount to saying something nonsensical. I just used more succinct language.

I actually do not believe that you are willing to exegete scripture. Your form of “proof by assertion” is indicative of a closed mind. No offense intended.