I am coming to realize that YEC’s are not the only ones who see a slippery slope. An OEC’s slippery slope is in a different place, to be sure, but it is nonetheless a place he wants to avoid.
This is an issue of the Bible versus Science, which I think Kepler, Galileo, and others settled long ago. My issue is the Bible versus scientifically-generated history. I don’t see that issue in play here.
That’s not apparent to me. Please explain.
It’s an observation of the present which enables a projection (assumption, estimate) of the past.
No it is not like that. As both I and Casper and Joshua have pointed out, it would mean all the laws of physics would be completely different. this would mean virtually everything we thought we knew about the universe would be wrong. Just for a start, the speed of light would be completely different. As I pointed out, the entire universe would look very different, and the earth and humans might not even exist. It is not possible for the earth to e very young and for the universe to look the way it does.
It would change all of the calculations and projections.
When we look at stars, we are literally looking back in time. We are looking at events which actually took place thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years ago. We are observing actual events in the past, not the present. This is the case every time we look anywhere into deep space. We are literally observing the past.
As pointed out previously several times, if the past was really different then the present would be different. The present is the way it is, because of the past. That’s how we know YECs are wrong, and that’s why YECs are unable to make accurate scientific predictions. They can’t even tell us where to find mineral resources, or explain where black holes are most likely to be found.
The YEC theory about the past which they believe explains the present had to resort to absurdities such as accelerated nuclear decay on a scale sufficient to raise the earth’s temperature to 22,000°C. They themselves admitted that there is no known thermodynamic mechanism that can remove that much heat fast enough. They themselves also admitted that any mechanism that could have removed that much heat would also have had to have cooled rocks faster than water otherwise the oceans would have frozen over. And that’s before you even start to look at the problems with accelerated nuclear decay that they didn’t admit.
I think this is the most telling part of this entire thread where there’s the slippery slope and counter argument for YEC:
Slippery slope: if Genesis one doesn’t mean seven literal 24 hour periods then how can I trust anything in the Bible
Counter argument: I know other threads have tried to make this point, which is related to many many other ways to look at the book of Genesis while still keeping the main point
For OEC:
Slippery slope: if the earth is really not billions of years old then how can we trust anything in science
Counter argument: I would still argue that the main difference for this one is that there is no other actual framework or explanation outside of ‘God made our universe to look like it’s followed certain precise natural laws for billions of years’
The important concept that you are failing to grasp is that although science is about predictions, it’s not about predicting the future–it’s about predicting what we don’t currently know.
Thus, there’s no problem applying the scientific method to past events. You can even use the scientific method for yourself when other people already know the things you don’t currently know.
Your original objection to my question was incorrect. You treated observations about the present as being essentially different from projections about the past. That distinction is invalid. Which leaves my question unanswered: why should we trust any observations if we can be so completely wrong about some of them? You were asking why scientists are resistant to the idea that we can just discard observations about the past and still go on with our work. I’m trying to tell you – but you don’t seem to be interested in the answer.
What implications have I failed to recognize? If we can be completely deceived by our senses, by our memories, by our reason, then how can we know anything? In particular, how can we know that God is telling us that the earth is actually young?
I have to congratulate you. Right here on this list you made history. You invented a new semantic category:
“History Fables Created by Applying True Sciences”.
Having done so, you dismiss it as too vulnerable to error.
Mike, “histories” created by science are part of science. Evolutionist, or even Geologist or Chemist is going to accept this false distinction.
In fact, it is the scientific analysis of “history” (as in the miles long ice cores from the arctic regions) which help build science. The facts of history are typically more solid than the science built from the facts!
@Swamidass, if you haven’t already posted on this, perhaps you can offer your pennies ? …
First I don’t understand how you can call a physical object an assumption or estimate.
Second, if God is going to tell me that this is not what it appears to be, what is it? I have what is plainly a dinosaur nest in my hand. This dinosaur nest didn’t come from the present. So what do you think God is trying to tell me? It is only 6,000 years old? It might only be 6,000 years old? It is older than 6,000 years, but I shouldn’t consider that? If I consider it to be more than 6,000 years old I shouldn’t trust that number?
I need to know what you mean by “something is not as it appears” before I can tell you if I could trust God.
It’s a standard YEC argument. Anything they don’t have an answer to is “just an assumption” or “just an interpretation” by default. They even describe tests of assumptions as assumptions themselves.
We have a name for this kind of thing in the world of software development: Pokémon exception handling (“gotta catch 'em all”). For those of you who are familiar with computer code, it looks like this:
try {
Evolution.FindResponseToEvidence(Earth.Young);
}
catch (Exception) {
Evolution.RespondWith("It's only an assumption.");
}
Needless to say, it is generally considered to be a bad practice since it can lead to data corruption. I once had to spend a whole month cleaning up a database that had been turned into an unmanageable mess by this particular antipattern.
I don’t understand how anyone who believes in the omnipotence of God and the limitations of a creature can assume to know precisely how the universe would look different if it were created by supernatural processes over six days rather than by natural processes over billions of years.
You can conduct a controlled experiment in the past?
If we can’t estabish agreement on the foundational question, what’s the point in building on it with further discussion?
If you, and those who agree with you, are right, then no historical claim in the Bible can override a historical finding of science. Let me then say this to the Bible believers among you: You may think that the historical claims you cling to in the Bible are safe from scientifically-generated history (SGH) - and they may be…for now. But science did not discredit Noah’s Flood as a global event…until it did. Science did not discredit the historicity of Adam and Eve…until it did. Science did not discredit any historical claim of the Bible…until it did. If you think SGH has claimed all the biblical territory that it ever will, you are thinking myopically.
I’m perfectly willing to concede that, as some of you suggest, we should give way to science on matters of history for the same reasons and in the same way we gave way to science on matters of science. But if you do so on the matters in contention now, be assured that it is only a matter of time before other matters will be in contention. Ultimately, this will lead to questioning the resurrection of Christ Himself.
Recognize that we have nothing but human testimony (with divine affirmation, for those who accept such affirmations) to assure us that the resurrection of Christ was a historical reality. If SGH is superior to human testimony (even with divine affirmation) in the book of Genesis, what principle will you invoke to say that it is not superior when it comes to matters in any of the other 65 books of the Bible?
If God is granting that SGH is superior history to the Bible’s, He is granting it for all matters for all time. This is the inevitable consequence of your logic.
Thus, there’s no problem applying the scientific method to past events.
Nice try at a straw man fallacy. Didn’t you beg off discussing science before because you said you didn’t understand it?
You’re not getting the essence of science. It’s about making empirical predictions about what you don’t know. Experiments are not an essential part of it.
“Empirical” in this context refers what you will directly observe. Science is about avoiding the human tendency to cheat and rationalize, so all of your interpretations must be baked in to the hypothesis.
Here are two examples involving intelligent agency in the past:
Solving a murder.
The game Clue, in which the incredible value of disproving hypotheses is demonstrated. Have you ever played it, Mike?
What’s different about the matters in contention now, exactly?
And what’s wrong with questioning the Resurrection or any other aspect of our faith?
You seem to think that any deviation from what you think is right is a fatal mistake … even if it is based on natural evidence provided to us by God.
Do you think God is going to torment believers who chose a path based on his own creation … when everything pointed to it?
Frankly, it is as if you Hope that Science will turn up wrong, so you can avoid any conflicts between information.
But after Newton diiscovered Gravity … nobody thinks that someone is going to make a new discovery and find out that there really isn’t Gravity.
They might conclude that there is no Gravity particle… but gravity as we know it, here and now, ,is certainly here to stay!
God gave us consciences to Use Them! You seem to think that Consciences are fairly useless things. A guy has to be right - - even if his conscience tells him otherwise.
We can know that if it was created by supernatural processes over six days instead of by natural processes (created and initiated by God), over billions of years, it would not look like it was created by natural processes (created and initiated by God), over billions of years. It would not display all the huge amounts of evidence which prove it has a past in deep time. We can know for certain that it would not look the way it does now. Even several high profile conservative YEC sites recognize this.
The question you need to ask yourself in this regard, is why the universe does not show any evidence of being 6,000 years old.
I don’t think the question is if God could do that or not (“how the universe would look different”), it’s why God would possibly deliberately create that dichotomy.
How could it be questioned? Simply put, there are never going to be multiple trains of evidence contradicting it, as there are for a young earth.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.