Sort of like with Pulchroboletus rubricitrinus. A type of Boletus mushroom. Like almost all in that family, when cut open it’s flesh begins to quickly turn blue.
If someone knew nothing about mushrooms, and I sliced it open in front of them they could believe it was from some supernatural magical force. If we had no way to test it, we could just come up with all kinds of reasons on why God turned it blue. Or we could study it out, and over time learn that when the cell walls are broken open, it exposes the colorless variegatic acid to oxygen which turns it into the bluish quinone methide.
I know the reasons why the scientific method has been established. Actually it was a Christian who established it. But nevertheless you cannot explain everything naturally.
For instance the fulfilling of prophecy.
Creation itself is not naturally explainable. What about the cause for the global flood?
Not everything can be found out on the basis of naturalism. And being a Christian means to be a supernaturalist by definition. That doesn’t mean that God manipulates everything we can investigate all the time, of course. Otherwise we couldn’t investigate anything. But that’s not the will of God. He wants us to be able to notice his works in the book of creation. He left his fingerprints in creation for us to be discovered. That’s exactly what Romans 1:20 says.
A little openness for the supernatural should therefore be a must for the scientist. That doesn’t mean that he should always look for supernatural explanations.
I kind of agree with this. Maybe an example from everyday experience will help.
When I see a newborn with her joyful (and maybe tired!) parents, I see evidence of God giving hope and life. Not only to the parents, but also to me and indeed to everyone they know. I’ll bet you’ve had those thoughts, too, @Henry_Dalcke.
Faith is what perceives this evidence. Faith does not exclude the scientific perspective; but it does not necessarily include it either.
When a doctor or a biologist sees the newborn, they see evidence that a sperm from the father fertilized an ovum from the mother, which produced a zygote that implanted in the mother’s uterus and became a fetus. And so forth.
Science is what perceives this evidence. Science does not exclude the faith perspective; but it does not necessarily include it either.
No one is claiming you can. We are just saying that “explaining things supernaturally” isn’t science. Why is this a problem? Science is not the only method for acquiring knowledge, or for discovering truth.
Empirical science is what can be observed/measured, studied, hypothetically described, used to predict natural phenomena, experimentally verified, and repeated.
Empirical science abduces from cause to effect on the basis of direct observation.
This is a perfect example for empirical science:
Forensic science - in contrast - deduces from effect to cause on the basis of assumptions about the past.
And forensic science is the branch of science that matters in questions of origins. Here’s where the worldview-dependant interpretation of the observable data comes into play.
YEC does not endorse “observational science” either.
The measured decay rates allow only one interpretation of a given sample dating. YEC does not interpret that evidence differently - YEC dismisses that evidence. A huge difference. A conjecture about speeded up decay in not an interpretation but a dismissal.
Assigning a date to an artifact from radiometric dating may be “historical” science, if you please, but it is at least based results from real, solid, repeatable, experimental, empirical, OBSERVATIONAL science in that decay rates have indeed been measured time and again. The YEC speeded up decay conjectures enjoy absolutely zero observational or historical support. It is ironic there is this YEC emphasis on observational science when to much of their literature is based on “how do you know it wasn’t different back then” brush-offs of observational science.
YEC does not know what to do with the cosmological consequences of tinkering with the nuclear forces. YEC does not know how to protect the inhabitants of Noah’s Ark from their own self-radiation. YEC does not know how to stop the Earth from melting or vaporizing from accelerated decay. There is not a shred of science, historical, forensic, or observational, even with numbers worked out on paper, in support of accelerated decay.
If you are going to put out some superficial comment there that there is actual, laboratory evidence for accelerated decay rates [under any conceivable terrestial condition], please do some very deep digging first and have your data and math in order. Be assured, there isn’t.
Sure. That’s why my position is that evolution and creation are inherently religious and only to a degree supported by evidence.
That’s completely incorrect. There is no evidence supporting deeptime! I could only repeat myself again and again. There is not a single dating method that works. And not one of them isn’t based on completely unprovable assumptions. There’s nothing to dismiss, as faulty dating methods could only give false dates.
You have a completely blind spot regarding that whole radiometric dating thing.
It’s >useless< in it’s entirety. You can’t date >anything< correctly with it. No matter what materials you use and even if the decay rates had been stable. It simply doesn’t work. But I don’t think that you will understand that in just one life cycle.
You are equivocating the observation of real-time processes / observable cause-and-effect-relations and the observation of effects which have its causes in history and are open for interpretation - like fossils, for instance. Profound difference. Kinda ironic, huh?
You are planting a forest of straw men! Learn about the premises of another worldview first, before you conclude based on premises that no creationist sets up. sigh
Be assured, there isn’t any way to find out the original conditions of the samples to be dated.
Freshly formed magnetic stones have been dated to hundreds of thousands of years. Living snails have been dated to thousands of years of age. Two parts of a single frozen mammoth have been dated to two completely different ages. What does it need for you to accept that it’s not working? A personal revelation from God? You’re blinded by the light, my friend!
These are identified problems with accelerated decay which are acknowledged by the YEC RATE project. Do you think you can have decay without heat generation?
There are several different ways of dating things and good scientists use at least two ways twice each to ensure its accuracy.
So science is not a faith. Evolution is not faith. It’s science. Creationism ( literal six day creationism 6-10k years ago) is a faith. It’s also a faith based off of people not completely understanding the literary context of genesis 1-2. So it’s not even based on actual doctrine but out of context scripture. Same as if someone demanded a literal interpretation of revelation.
There are multiple unrelated measurements consistent with one another regarding deep time. You may not accept them, but they are still accurate and true. Radiometric of course which you have discussed, but also just plain observational as we look at deep space and see light in transit for billions of years, observational of processes such as intragalactic collisions that have been going on for millions of years, geologic processes that require millions of years, measured rates of plate tectonic movement consistent with erosion patterns of the same age, and magnetic reversals just to name a few off the top of my head.
The question is not whether or not they are true, but rather how does that affect your worldview and interpretation of scripture.
Also just to add this out there. Lots of people draw these conclusions about genesis not being literal based solely off of the writing style. I drew these conclusions before I even worried about the scientific aspect.
Completely false. There is not a shred of evidence in support for evolution! Nothing! There are phenomena that are being interpreted on the basis of evolutionary >assumptions<!
Get me the best piece of evidence for evolution you know of and I will tear it apart in mid air! Promise!
Completely incorrect. Everyone reading the genesis account impartially and without a Guru interpreting it for him would conclude that it clearly means what it says. >You< are the one taking it out of context and squishing evolution and deeptime into it! Stick with reality, I highly suggest you!
My interpretation of the creation mythology has nothing to do with evolution or deep time. It’s strictly about the patterns it set ups, the common thread it shares with other Mesopotamian ancient beliefs, and the contextual clues it gives. All things I drew on my own reading the Bible repeatedly. Only afterwards did my beliefs in evolution develop.
Instead of me showing you all the evidence again and again where you feel you’ve answered it let’s try this.
Show me the scientific proof that mankind was made from dust formed into a man and breathed on?
Show me the scientific evidence that a woman was created from a man’s rib/split side?
Show me the scientific evidence that a snake can be smart enough to deceive people and speak?
Show me the scientific evidence that animals were created fully formed?
Show me the scientific evidence that the world was just water at one time yet not frozen without the sun?
Show me the evidence that Hebrew was the first language ever developed?
Show me the evidence for the true dating system that places the world at around 6k-10k years?
you’re totally missing the point ! i don’t make any scientific claims. I only developed a new way to interpret the observable data. The burden of proof is not on me! It’s upon those who try to defend evolution and deep time as being scientific!
I would also be interested in your showing evidence of a young earth, outside of Biblical interpretation, that are valid. It is easy to show something is 6000 years old, but how about showing nothing is older than 6000 years? The list that AIG has has been thoroughly debunked, so looking for perhaps the one or two things you consider most convincing.
