And to say such a nonsense unmasks the bias contra creationism you fell for 
How do you control for the fact the scientific consensus has been both dramatically wrong, and slow, if not outright hostile, to adopting the truth throughout much of the history of science? It seems relying on consensus is a very weak form of seeking truth. Those who lead the next scientific revolution are often ones who buck the scientific consensus.
1 Like
If you know anything about dating, you know about error bars and also the fact that at times older rock may be brought up from the depths in the lava flow. After all, 3 billion years from now 100000years means the difference in 3.000.000,000 years and 3,000,100,000 years.
Also, if Lyell was correct, then his findings would naturally be confirmed. Later measurements were not dependent on Lyell, just consistent with him. Truth is true, whether you like it or believe it, both theologically and scientifically.
Seems that one has to have a lot of confidence in radiometric dating methods, if you ask me.
The same way I control for the existence of unicorns. What mature, well-supported scientific theories have simply been tossed out as fundamentally wrong?
1 Like
Jesus was clearly a YEC and confirmed the historicity of the global flood in Noah’s day. He also said that he is the truth. So is it true that the world is old and evolution took place? Tell Jesus what’s true in your eyes and try to defend it when you meet him! Good luck.
I think a better question is which theories considered mature and well supported in their time have been thrown out? I suspect that condition applies to most thrown out theories that were accepted by the consensus.
Maybe you’re right:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed all of them – it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 17:26–30)
Apparently Jesus believed in a global flood and a global sulphur storm!
(Or maybe there are other ways to read Jesus’ words.)
3 Likes
Global? It had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrha! How you don’t see that is beyond ridiculous.
There have been those rare and notable revolutions - when geocentrism was outright overturned; and when theories of relativity or QM made their respective splashes. Such things are possible - and rare. There is a good reason they are rare. As evidence accumulates towards something, it takes a lot to unseat that something, and rightly so. How much evidence would you need to see before feeling compelled to reconsider that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa? Or that your friend has invented a perpetual motion machine? Chances are you will dismiss most of those things as almost certainly hoaxes without even troubling yourself to deeply investigate every claim. Might you be wrong? Perhaps - but if somebody really had done those things, it is up to them to scale that tall mountain showing why or how their new idea should or can unseat everything that has proven so useful and clarifying before.
It’s easy to point at major past points where science was in the wrong. What is less celebrated is the legion of times where science gets it right - many times even in the face of common sense! A lazy person might not spend the investigatory energy they ought toward every claim, but they could do a lot worse than just going with current scientific consensus. Such a person will not be the one to usher in the next revolution, to be sure. But they also won’t spend their life being wrong about 99% of everything.
I am not so sure the revolutions are as rare as you claim…
We might actually be seeing the opposite, where the successes are celebrated, and massive failures mostly ignored and downplayed.
There’s an interesting wiki article on the topic of paradigm shifts that is worth checking out.
One thing I forgot to mention was that revolutions when they do come (whether rare or not) are typically ushered in, not by people who have been busy denying science, but by those who are quite well aware of what they are working against. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and such were not busy trying to attack other scientists for alleged or real biases. They were busy doing science and making their fledgling theories to stand up on their own two feet.
So at least when it comes to Sodom, you don’t read global destruction into Jesus’ words, even when he speaks of how it “destroyed all of them” and even when he uses it as a picture of his second coming. I recommend the same approach when it comes to Jesus’ parallel statement about the flood.
1 Like
I think we would all benefit in a course on the history of science, or at least browse the related wiki articles.
The bible interprets itself and in genesis there’s a clear distinction between a global flood event and a local destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. The whole bible is god’s word and god manifested himself in the person of jesus. Did he lie in genesis or in jesus?
1 Like
I’m pretty sure I’ve read Kuhn’s work “structure of scientific revolutions” and all about paradigm shifts (though admittedly - not recently). In any case I’m well familiar with how hard it is for any given scientific milieu to “move on” to something else, and rightly so. If consensus were a “flighty thing” then it would be much less useful through so much of history and more would be lost than the comparatively few times when “moving on” was called for.
Imagine it this way: you know that your eyes sometimes deceive you. Mirages and optical illusions do indeed exist. Now imagine a life where you simply discard your vision as a useless thing - because after all, you can point to those times you were deceived, right? So does it follow then, that you are better off living your life as a blind person? People who actually are compelled to live with blindness will have some unequivocal insights to share with anyone who thought that way.
[if there is some particular wiki article you feel I would benefit from (paradigm shifts?) - feel free to link.]
I am not proposing discarding vision, but acknowledging that effects such as the “invisible background gorilla” exist, and so we should not merely lean on “consensus” but give prominence to the facts and argumemts over consensus and authority. Appeal to consensus is a form of appeal to authority, which is the weakest kind of evidence for an argument.
Your earlier claim was that “Jesus was clearly a YEC and confirmed the historicity of the global flood in Noah’s day.” I think we’ve now established that Jesus’ words on their own tell us nothing about how big the flood was or how big the sulphur storm was. One will see in Jesus’ words the events they already think Genesis speaks of. But to see this as confirmation that one is reading Genesis right is circular.
2 Likes
I know that is certainly true in strict logic. Strictly speaking, a geometric theorem should not be considered true on the strength of its presence in a respected textbook.
But I think the fallacious nature of authority is itself weakened as we move away from strict logic/proof and into the more evidential/probabilistic world of science. Science itself, on its cutting edges does indeed (rightly) look to empirical verification as the higher court over any claim to authority. But as scientists begin leaning on each others work and the work of those from other fields, they do not (cannot) perform all that work of verification themselves and must at some point move forward trusting to their colleagues’ integrity (a trust bolstered by peer-review one hopes). And furthermore as we get even farther away from actual lab and research work into the world of science education, there is yet more leaning on authority (and rightly so - or at least we are obliged to do so if we hope for our education to get very far at all). And lest the scientific purists decry science education as “no longer being science at all”, they would then need to be reminded that they could not be engaging in their current science were they not first helped to clamber up onto the mountainous shoulders of many giants from before (i.e. - science education). Without the substance of the entire blade to back it up, the cutting edge of a knife cannot itself have any independent existence whatsoever. Without science education, science (in its contemporary form) disappears.
1 Like
Jesus kept the sabbath - the seventh day of the creation week. What does that tell you?