big bang continued

[Enoch2021]

 

Pages and Pages of back and forth.....extrapolations from assumptions is all that it is.

 

It's certainly not "Science".  Science is bound to It's Method...."The Scientific Method":

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

If you can't put it in here....call it what you want, but it's not Science....Plain and Simple.  You can't get to Step 1 with any of this "Age" of the Universe/Earth.  In fact, it's one Monstrous Begging The Question (Fallacy).

So another words, "If you weren't there [at the beginning] you can't be confident how old something is"?

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Yes.  As a "Scientific" Inquiry, it's invalid.

[Bonky]

So another words, "If you weren't there [at the beginning] you can't be confident how old something is"?

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Yes.  As a "Scientific" Inquiry, it's invalid.

So the proper scientific response to the question, "About how old was this tree?" would be "We have no idea".

 

[Enoch2021]

 

So another words, "If you weren't there [at the beginning] you can't be confident how old something is"?

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Yes.  As a "Scientific" Inquiry, it's invalid.

So the proper scientific response to the question, "About how old was this tree?" would be "We have no idea".

 

 

 

======================================================================================

 

 

Yep, That's Right.  You could extrapolate from an Assumption, if inclined.

 

Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon (Verb, as in action).  What "action" are you Observing here?  When you go ahead and TEST this, what's your Independent Variable....Your Eyelids?

 

Are you trying to trap me here ?  It's Tantamount to bringing the pigeons to the cat.

 

How do you know that multiple rings weren't laid down in a year? You don't; Ergo, Assumption. If you disagree, Please put that into the Scientific Method and Validate.

 

What "kind" and How "Old" is this Tree, by the way?

[Bonky]

 

 

So another words, "If you weren't there [at the beginning] you can't be confident how old something is"?

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Yes.  As a "Scientific" Inquiry, it's invalid.

So the proper scientific response to the question, "About how old was this tree?" would be "We have no idea".

 

 

 

======================================================================================

 

 

Yep, That's Right.  You could extrapolate from an Assumption, if inclined.

 

Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon (Verb, as in action).  What "action" are you Observing here?  When you go ahead and TEST this, what's your Independent Variable....Your Eyelids?

 

Are you trying to trap me here ?  It's Tantamount to bringing the pigeons to the cat.

 

How do you know that multiple rings weren't laid down in a year? You don't; Ergo, Assumption. If you disagree, Please put that into the Scientific Method and Validate.

 

What "kind" and How "Old" is this Tree, by the way?

 

 

 

Well I don't know of anybody who states that we can date a tree up to the minute it started to sprout leaves.  But to suggest that we just have no idea how old a tree is because there might be multiple rings [an anomaly] seems absurd.  If you actually look into dendrochronology you'll find out that they actually have methods for detecting these false/missing rings.  

 

So do you extend this logic you are proposing to other types of claims, such as historical claims?  IE we don't believe things unless we were there to verify it?

[Enoch2021]

Well I don't know of anybody who states that we can date a tree up to the minute it started to sprout leaves.  But to suggest that we just have no idea how old a tree is because there might be multiple rings [an anomaly] seems absurd.  If you actually look into dendrochronology you'll find out that they actually have methods for detecting these false/missing rings.  

 

So do you extend this logic you are proposing to other types of claims, such as historical claims?  IE we don't believe things unless we were there to verify it?

 

 

 

======================================================================================================

Well Bonky,

 

First, "No Idea" is your Strawman (Fallacy) that you erected.

 

Second, I said it was "Unscientific"...of which it is. Or you would have put it in the "Scientific Method"  by now.

 

 

Well I don't know of anybody who states that we can date a tree

 

Is this your Test?

 

 

multiple rings [an anomaly]

 

An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.'

Mirov, N.T., The Genus Pinus, Ronald Press Co., New York, 1967.

 

Does that sound like an anomaly to you?

 

Either put this in the Scientific Method or come up with some actual "Science". 

 

 

So do you extend this logic you are proposing to other types of claims.  IE we don't believe things unless we were there to verify it

 

I extend this to all "Science" claims that claim "Science" that are not.  SEE: Scientific Method.

 

There are other techniques besides the Scientific Method that are employable to arrive @ Truth.

[Bonky]

======================================================================================================

Well Bonky,

 

First, "No Idea" is your Strawman (Fallacy) that you erected.

 

Second, I said it was "Unscientific"...of which it is. Or you would have put it in the "Scientific Method"  by now.

You stated that "no idea" was a proper scientific response to the question "About how old is this tree?". I don't see any misrepresentation.

 

 

 

multiple rings [an anomaly]

 

An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.'

Mirov, N.T., The Genus Pinus, Ronald Press Co., New York, 1967.

 

Does that sound like an anomaly to you?

 

So you found a species of tree where this isn't uncommon. For many trees it is an anomaly. So it sounds like you would agree that the experts can tell certain growth traits of certain species which would mean they could ACCOUNT for this in their dating analysis.

Listen Enoch, I appreciate you wanting to get involved in discussion with folks in this forum and in this thread. I'm not interested in pursuing a discussion with you however. Just by looking at some of your other posts in this forum  [statements like "My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan." ]  we don't have near enough common ground to have a fruitful discussion. I hope you'll understand.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

 

 

===============================================================

 

So you found a species of tree where this isn't uncommon.

 

Yes... they are Bristlecone Pines, the "Oldest" Tree species on the Planet

 

 

[statements like "My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan." ]

 

Well @ least it's Well Supported.

 

 

we don't have near enough common ground to have a fruitful discussion. I hope you'll understand.

 

No Problem

[Tristen]

 

Hey again Bonky.

 

Concerning the ice cores you said “Well for starters I don't know why anyone would assume anything about the ages ahead of time”

 

You have to make assumptions about the history of the ice sheets in order for the analysis to make any sense. If you don’t assume that the deeper layers have been subjected to hundreds of thousands to millions of years of compression, then you have no reason to assume that the markers found at that scale must be annual layers. These assumptions form the logical foundation of this entire line of evidence; without which, there could be no “age” inferences.

Surely they figured the ice has been around a while. What I mean is, I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis. I don't know that we can say the same for the creationist camp. They have a certain age they must work within correct?

 

 

“If you assume the layers are young, can you account for the variations in seasonal dust storms and volcanic eruptions such as the 1815 Tambora Eruption?”

 

I can account for the markers. Regarding the dust storms, a rapid, volatile deposition model has no problem with sub-annual dust layer oscillations. It’s only if you assume the uniformitarian, standard deposition model, that these oscillations can be considered to be generally annual.

 

I have no problem with volcanic markers. However, their usefulness is determined by the accuracy of external data, and with a few exceptions, we only have accurate external data for the past 200-or-so years; and even then, only really for the northern hemisphere. So this data cannot be used to account for any time before accurate records of volcanic activity.

 

So from what I understand we only "see" some eruptions in the ice core record as some volcanic eruptions aren't big enough to transmit aerosols to these remote regions [ice caps]. With this in mind, here's a pretty good article that outlines many volcanic events in the first 200M of ice core data from East Antarctica.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/dai00-1.pdf

*As a side note I found another research paper that showed spikes going down several hundred meters*

According to this model, we're seeing eruptions from almost 2200BC. Now according to a biblical model, shouldn't 2200BC be the beginning [roughly] of when the ice started to accumulate [post flood]?? How do you account for all the volcanic events that go much lower than this??? I'm trying to understand how we can make sense of this ice core record using a young earth model and somehow not have significant volcanic events happening around the clock.

 

 

“I'd need to see a detailed analysis done that makes sense of all these different markers and do so within a few thousand years time”

 

Why? The logic is simple. Dust markers represent dust deposition, depth hoar represents certain types of low temp storms, volcanic markers represent volcanic activity etc. There is no reason beyond assumption to conclude that these represent anything beyond what they actually represent; no reason to assume that they are annual markers unless your model requires it.

Like I've stated above, your timeline is so short, don't you have volcanic events [of global scale] happening constantly?? I'm sure creationists agree that volcanic markers are there, but how do they account so many in such a short time scale?

 

 

 

“Is there a study that I can read that handles this task?”

 

You could try the following;

 

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_3/j15_3_39-42.pdf

 

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_1/j16_1_45-47.pdf

In the latter document you provide, Oard either intentionally tries to be deceptive, or he exhibits poor reading comprehension skills. He states "The wild Ice Age fluctuations reveal serious problems with the uniformitarian interpretation. Because of the rapid changes in oxygen isotope ratios, uniformitarian scientists now are forced to believe that the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!

Let's look at his reference and see what they actually said:

"From the central Greenland ice cores we now know that the Earth has experienced large, rapid, regional to global climate oscillations through most of the last 110,000 years on a scale that human agricultural and industrial activities have not yet faced.

These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably up to 20øC in central Greenland, twofold changes in snow accumu-lation, order-of-magnitude changes in wind-blown dust and sea-salt loading, roughly 100 ppbv in methane concentration, etc., with cold, dry, dusty, and low-methane conditions being correlated. The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation, change in as little as 1-3 years."

Do you see how he, knowingly or not, misrepresented the journal? This is such a monstrous gaffe that I'm half inclined to think this was intentional.

Also, Oard states

Thus, during the 700-year post-Flood Ice Age, the oceans would have gradually cooled and the ice sheet thickened with time. Since the Ice Age ended about 4,000 years ago, precipitation would continue to build the thickness of the ice sheet. This precipitation would be greater immediately after the Ice Age because the ice sheet would have been thinner than it is today.

I see conjecture on top of conjecture....where's the science?

 

 

I don’t think you need these resources – just think for yourself. Separate the assumptions from the facts and interpretations and you’ll have the big picture. You don’t have to surrender your preference for the secular interpretation, just recognise that it employs unverified presupposition that warrants a more measured amount of confidence than you have supposed.

I do want the resources, I expect to see real research from creationists. That is, if they want their position to be considered "scientific". If not, then yeah, I don't need to see anything from them. To compare what you provided me above, here's a journal that discusses climate variabiltiy in the Vostok ice core. Do you see a difference in the amount of data that is supplied along with the conclusions compared to what Oard offered?

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

 

 

 

“And does this Verneshot scenario account for the high concentration of iridium and presence of tektite?”

 

Yes – one of the original papers can be found here;

 

http://physastro-msci.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/VerneshotEPSL2004.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,786

 

It’s also worth re-noting that, according to the latest secular story, the Chicxulub crater predates the famed K-T layer by 300,000 years (Keller et al. (2004). “Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction”, PNAS, Vol. 101). So the story you are attributing to Chicxulub is out-of-date. It’s also worth noting that both iridium and osmium are found in terrestrial volcanic emissions (not just meteors).

So the research paper you list is obviously secular that talks about timescales [and multiple mass extinctions] completely inconsistent with a young earth. This paper actually doesn't tie the Chixculub event with a vernseshot either. This paper was actually interesting to read through, what I'd like to see is something that covers this same data in a biblical timeframe.

Gerta Keller has an alternative theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs, I wouldn't go so far to say that the jury is out on this. It's so interesting how lovingly you embrace secular science when it suits you and turn around and abandon it elsewhere.

 

 

 

But I already know your opinion. I know that you prefer the secular explanations. I know that you believe alternate explanations to be barely worth consideration. What I am curious to find out is if you can provide any rational justification for this exclusive confidence.

It's not just that I prefer secular explanations, there's a reason why I shy away from creationist explanations. The creationist camp is not shy about their firm belief that their conclusions MUST, by default, support a biblical model. Creationists have often criticized mainstream science by noting how the science community has changed it's position from time to time [in light of new data]. What this also shows is that science isn't just marching lockstep with some storyline they're obligated to uphold.

 

Given the popular propaganda, I, as the creationist, am the one who is supposed to be avoiding the science, not you. It must sooner or later strike an ironic nerve in you that in our discussion, I am the one who is eager to discuss any facts you care to provide, and to confine the discussion to evidence and argument, whilst you are content to rest your position on unsupported fallacy and subjective opinion.

I gave you my assessment of what I see coming from mainstream science and what I see coming from creationism. What objective opinion should I be tapping into pray tell?

 

 

 

“Once again, you're registering a 9 on the tension scale. It's honestly not necessary Tristen.”

 

The tension is all in your head (or maybe this is a continuance of an earlier strategy to paint me as precious). I am simply responding to the points you raise.

You misrepresented my position, I gave examples of people who I think don't serve the creationist camp very well. Never did I say their "personalities" were why I reject creationism. I see you didn't bother to address that point.

 

 

 

“I'm not seeing creationism replace the current accepted theories or hypothesis with something that explains the data better”

 

What do you mean by “better”? Humans are too prone to bias to make this standard useable; i.e. it’s entirely subjective. The goal of an argument is to be rational.

I haven't found the creationist position to be rational. I see some criticism of conclusions held by mainstream science but I don't see much in the way of why a biblical model is superior. I mean the primary response I get for when extinction events took place is "It happened during the flood". So yes, you can count me as one that isn't impressed by that.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky, you said “Surely they figured the ice has been around a while. What I mean is, I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis. I don't know that we can say the same for the creationist camp. They have a certain age they must work within correct?”

 

Then why did they need a recount to find the missing 25,000 “years”/layers? (Meese et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102). Clearly the model pre-existed the observations.

 

Both ‘camps’ operate on unverifiable presupposition. Both ‘camps” operate within a predefined framework. You incapacity to recognise this speaks to a lack of objectivity.

 

 

 

“So from what I understand we only "see" some eruptions in the ice core record as some volcanic eruptions aren't big enough to transmit aerosols to these remote regions [ice caps]. With this in mind, here's a pretty good article that outlines many volcanic events in the first 200M of ice core data from East Antarctica.

 

http://bprc.osu.edu/...ore/dai00-1.pdf”

 

There are several issues to consider with regards to this research;

 

Firstly, your argument is employing circular reasoning. Your original argument extolled the use of volcanic activity to date ice cores. This study uses ice core data to date volcanic activity. There needs to be something outside of the logic circle attesting to these events – such as recorded history. As stated in a previous post, there isn’t much of this type of external evidence available.

 

Secondly, the paper verifies my above statement; with only 8 out of the 54 events qualifying as acceptable markers.

 

Thirdly, the research ‘dated’ the collected cores assuming a mean deposition rate – but the authors readily acknowledge that these estimates “may not be representatives of the much longer time period covered by this core” – so to their credit, an acknowledgement of the fundamental flaw associated with uniformitarian inferences.

 

Fourthly, there is an acknowledgement in the study that ice core acidity can result from non-volcanic events; “acidity or sulphate signals may arise from atmospheric and geological effects which may be locally important, but unrelated to volcanic aerosols”.

 

Finally, the authors acknowledge the logistical limitations (and therefore mitigated confidence) of their research; “the flux data reported in this study should be considered tentative and used with caution”.

 

 

 

“According to this model, we're seeing eruptions from almost 2200BC. Now according to a biblical model, shouldn't 2200BC be the beginning [roughly] of when the ice started to accumulate [post flood]?? How do you account for all the volcanic events that go much lower than this???”

 

You are judging creationist claims by a secular model. This meets the definition of irrational. An argument is only rationally obligated to be logically consistent with its own premise.

 

 

 

“I'm trying to understand how we can make sense of this ice core record using a young earth model and somehow not have significant volcanic events happening around the clock”

 

The study found 54 events which they attributed to volcanic activity (only 13 of which were considered large). I’m surprised that the number is so low; given the geological upheaval which would result from a global flooding event.

 

 

 

“Like I've stated above, your timeline is so short, don't you have volcanic events [of global scale] happening constantly?? I'm sure creationists agree that volcanic markers are there, but how do they account so many in such a short time scale?”

 

Geological instability is expected during and after the flood. Like I said above, I am surprised that only 54 events were described. There should be a lot more evidence of volcanic activity resulting from the expected geological volatility. Geology is not my area of speciality, but I would expect many of the earlier markers to be extensive (resulting from the merging of multiple event signals). I suspect this evidence actually exists lower in the ice cores.

 

 

 

    “Is there a study that I can read that handles this task?”

    You could try the following;    

   

    http://creation.com/...j16_1_45-47.pdf

In the latter document you provide, Oard either intentionally tries to be deceptive, or he exhibits poor reading comprehension skills. He states "The wild Ice Age fluctuations reveal serious problems with the uniformitarian interpretation. Because of the rapid changes in oxygen isotope ratios, uniformitarian scientists now are forced to believe that the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!

Let's look at his reference and see what they actually said:

Quote

    "From the central Greenland ice cores we now know that the Earth has experienced large, rapid, regional to global climate oscillations through most of the last 110,000 years on a scale that human agricultural and industrial activities have not yet faced.

    These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably up to 20øC in central Greenland, twofold changes in snow accumu-lation, order-of-magnitude changes in wind-blown dust and sea-salt loading, roughly 100 ppbv in methane concentration, etc., with cold, dry, dusty, and low-methane conditions being correlated. The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation,."

"Do you see how he, knowingly or not, misrepresented the journal? This is such a monstrous gaffe that I'm half inclined to think this was intentional."

 

No I don’t.  The original paper first made claims about the kinds of change including “up to 20°C”, then made claims about the rate of the change including “change in as little as 1-3 years”. Those are the claims summarised in Oard’s statement (and referenced). I don’t see any misrepresentation (perhaps you mean something else that I haven’t noticed).

 

However, I wonder if you caught the point Oard’s statement – i.e. that acknowledgement of such rate changes demonstrates the insolvency of uniformitarian assumptions.

 

 

 

Also, Oard states

Quote

    Thus, during the 700-year post-Flood Ice Age, the oceans would have gradually cooled and the ice sheet thickened with time. Since the Ice Age ended about 4,000 years ago, precipitation would continue to build the thickness of the ice sheet. This precipitation would be greater immediately after the Ice Age because the ice sheet would have been thinner than it is today.

“I see conjecture on top of conjecture....where's the science?”

 

This is a nonsense question. Oard’s paper scrutinises the assumptions and interpretations attributed to the ice core data. Conjecture plays an important role in all historical model formulation; secular or otherwise. Since these events were not directly observed, conjecture is necessary for any historical model. And even though the authors of the secular studies address their assumptions – you seem blind to it. How is it that you only see the “conjecture” in creationist arguments? Oard references the flood-ice age model at the start of the discourse containing your quote. It’s easy to decontextualize a statement, and then cry “conjecture”.

 

 

 

“I do want the resources, I expect to see real research from creationists. That is, if they want their position to be considered "scientific". If not, then yeah, I don't need to see anything from them. To compare what you provided me above, here's a journal that discusses climate variabiltiy in the Vostok ice core. Do you see a difference in the amount of data that is supplied along with the conclusions compared to what Oard offered?

http://www.daycreek....images/1999.pdf”

 

This is pseudo-scientific nonsense. Scientific validity is not determined by “the amount of data that is supplied”. Oard uses the data needed to justify his conclusions.

 

It sounds like what you’re saying is that if creationists don’t drill our own ice cores, then we have no right to examine the data or scrutinise the subsequent claims. That’s not how science has ever worked. We don’t dispute the facts of the research – we question the application of assumptions, interpretations and implications. One of the reasons we publish research is to make it subject to broader scrutiny (peer reviewed publication is not the end of the process – as many assume). The scientific community is constantly criticising each other regarding their publications – as it should. That is exactly what Oard has done.

 

 

 

    “And does this Verneshot scenario account for the high concentration of iridium and presence of tektite?”    

    Yes – one of the original papers can be found here;   

   

    It’s also worth re-noting that, according to the latest secular story, the Chicxulub crater predates the famed K-T layer by 300,000 years (Keller et al. (2004). “Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction”, PNAS, Vol. 101). So the story you are attributing to Chicxulub is out-of-date. It’s also worth noting that both iridium and osmium are found in terrestrial volcanic emissions (not just meteors).

“So the research paper you list is obviously secular that talks about timescales [and multiple mass extinctions] completely inconsistent with a young earth”

 

Yes – and I obviously disagree with these assumptions and interpretations. The capacity for objective critical thought permits me to examine the paper without having to be tied to their underlying speculations.

 

In context - I used this theoretical paper to demonstrate the point that when it comes to past claims, the mere existence of one story accounting for the facts does not necessarily make that story true.

 

 

 

“This paper actually doesn't tie the Chixculub event with a vernseshot either”

 

I’m not sure what you mean here. The paper explicitly names Chicxulub as a primary example of a possible verneshot event.

 

 

 

“what I'd like to see is something that covers this same data in a biblical timeframe”

 

But when I point you to articles explaining the facts within the Biblical paradigm, you ignore the arguments; preferring to make silly, unjustified, innuendo-laced comments like “where’s the science?” Articles on the current creationist models are freely available for those inclined to look – but you refuse to recognise that the same logical methodology is used to investigate both secular and creationist models - i.e. models are formulated within the confines of the starting faith framework, then the facts are examined to see how well they can be fitted to the model. You seem to believe that if an interpretation doesn’t fit your preferred premise and model, it should be automatically rendered invalid – but you don’t seem to be able to rationally defend that position; preferring fallacy and opinion over rational argument.

 

There are no secular or creationist facts. We don’t have to find our own facts. Facts either exist, or they don’t. No existing fact can be disregarded with any scientific legitimacy. We don’t have to redo the research in order to address the facts – because our dispute is not with the facts. And we don’t have to redo the research in order to scrutinise the underlying logic of scientific claims.

 

 

 

“Gerta Keller has an alternative theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs, I wouldn't go so far to say that the jury is out on this”

 

Absolutely correct! Have you considered why? At the outset you presented supreme confidence in an elaborate scenario about the origin of the Chicxulub crater. Hopefully by now you are starting to understand why such high confidence in past claims cannot be scientifically justified.

 

The main implication of Keller’s research is that Chicxulub cannot be responsible for the putative extinction event – so he needed to come up with another story to explain the extinctions. That’s how it’s done with historical models. Other explanations have since been presented.

 

 

 

“It's so interesting how lovingly you embrace secular science when it suits you and turn around and abandon it elsewhere”

 

I neither “lovingly embrace” nor “abandon” any science. As I have previously stated, the capacity to distinguish between fact and theory is fundamental to scientific analysis. The facts are independent of ideology. Nothing in the scientific method obligates any person to accept any theory associated with any research. The facts are rationally indisputable (given the assumption that observation can be trusted). And I am rationally permitted to interpret the facts; regardless of how they have been interpreted in the original research.

 

 

 

“It's not just that I prefer secular explanations, there's a reason why I shy away from creationist explanations. The creationist camp is not shy about their firm belief that their conclusions MUST, by default, support a biblical model”

 

And the secular “camp” “MUST, by default”, conform to naturalistic boundaries. Both frameworks have limitations. We’ve been over this already. The rejection of only one paradigm based on the existence of logical limitations is Special Pleading. None of these limitations renders either paradigm to be invalid with regards to truth – so neither can be legitimately rejected based on the existence of these limitations.

 

 

 

“Creationists have often criticized mainstream science by noting how the science community has changed it's position from time to time [in light of new data]. What this also shows is that science isn't just marching lockstep with some storyline they're obligated to uphold”

 

Except that they are obligated to naturalistic ideology (and therefore, in effect, dismiss the possibility of any supernatural cause).

 

In context, there is no criticism of secular science changing its position, but in subsequently claiming their position to have survived scrutiny after changing their position.

 

 

 

    Given the popular propaganda, I, as the creationist, am the one who is supposed to be avoiding the science, not you. It must sooner or later strike an ironic nerve in you that in our discussion, I am the one who is eager to discuss any facts you care to provide, and to confine the discussion to evidence and argument, whilst you are content to rest your position on unsupported fallacy and subjective opinion.

“I gave you my assessment of what I see coming from mainstream science and what I see coming from creationism. What objective opinion should I be tapping into pray tell?”

 

The issue is not that you have an opinion, but that you express your opinion without rational support. The reason this conversation exists is because we differ in opinion. So your unsupported expression of opinion adds nothing to the discussion.

 

 

 

    “Once again, you're registering a 9 on the tension scale. It's honestly not necessary Tristen.”    

    The tension is all in your head (or maybe this is a continuance of an earlier strategy to paint me as precious). I am simply responding to the points you raise.

“You misrepresented my position, I gave examples of people who I think don't serve the creationist camp very well. Never did I say their "personalities" were why I reject creationism. I see you didn't bother to address that point”

 

It’s possible that I misunderstood the primary direction of your original question. Nevertheless, I still think I addressed this point by a) pointing to the logical fallacy involved in the rejection of creationism based on an impression of 3 people who b) have tenuous authority to speak on behalf of all creationists.

 

It’s also important to note that all you did was provide a list of names. You didn’t actually provide any argument as to why any of these people “don't serve the creationist camp very well” – because whether or not this accusation is true is dependent upon the arguments they present, not the mention of their names.

 

 

 

“I haven't found the creationist position to be rational. I see some criticism of conclusions held by mainstream science but I don't see much in the way of why a biblical model is superior”

 

Rational does not mean “superior”. Which model is “superior” is purely subjective. Rational means that the conclusions, arguments and evidence are logically consistent with the premise.

 

 

 

“I mean the primary response I get for when extinction events took place is "It happened during the flood". So yes, you can count me as one that isn't impressed by that”

 

What “extinction events”? Are you still judging creationist claims by secular models? According to the Biblical model, most life on earth was wiped out in the flood, but samples of each life “kind” were preserved. Any “extinction events” were subsequent to the flood.

[Bonky]

Edited July 17, 2014 by Bonky

[Bonky]