big bang continued

[Tristen]

I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible. That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible.

 

As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons.  It's not like randomly expecting the world to suddenly appear from an explosion, at all, because this is hardly an explosion in any ordinary sense. In this case, spacetime itself has undergone a rapid expansion as the laws of physics themselves froze out as we know them now. The most extraordinary thing about the big bang is the very low entropy conditions out of which our universe began. The oscillatory model isn't necessary to explain anything and I should point out there are a lot of different multiverse models by which cosmologists, most admittedly atheists, have developed to try to explain the existence of the observable universe and its particular parameters. I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.

 

 

Hi alphaparticle, you said “I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.”

 

I agree that shiloh, in his expression of amusement, employed the logical fallacy Appeal to Ridicule. However I find it a bit precious that you take issue with this - considering that your original post heavily employed the Ad-hominem fallacy in representing your detractors as “believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science” and “scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus”. And your expression of dissapointment is little more than Innuendo. It is inconsistent to pretend that you want a rational discussion, having derided your opponents with logical fallacy.

 

 

“I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating”

 

So do we have the right to disagree with you about the importance of the Biblical creation account – or should we be prohibited from communicating our sincerely held beliefs - because you happen to find our beliefs “distracting” and “deflating”? This is an issue that has implications for the trustworthiness of scripture, and is identified as the primary hurdle inhibiting non-Christians from considering our faith, and as a major influence on the decision of former Christians to depart from the faith. So some of us consider this issue to be important – and believe we have the right to defend the integrity of scripture as written.

 

 

“There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion”

 

Evidence does not lead to conclusions. Facts do not speak for themselves. Evidence refers to facts that have been interpreted to support a conclusion (i.e. as ‘evidence’ for said conclusion). Interpretation is a subjective process – reliant upon the presuppositions and biases of the interpreter.

 

 

 

“These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally”

 

Claiming that we are “wishing away” evidence employs another logical fallacy known as a Strawman Misrepresentation of our position. The scientific method explicitly permits the scrutiny of any scientific claim – no exceptions. Any suggestion that we not be permitted to do so is founded in faith – not objective science. And that right to question is amplified in the context of historical claims; that have neither been scientifically observed, nor can be subjected to repeated experimentation.

 

There are many proposed models of the universe which do not incorporate the Big Bang. Some models are galactocentric, others are infinite, and still others propose a multiverse model. Some have a flat universe, others a contracting universe, as well as an array of differently-shaped universes. There are even several creationist models. The current preferred creationist model incorporates time dilation. All models including Standard Cosmology (i.e. the most popular Big Bang model) are highly speculative and scientifically unfalsifiable. Standard Cosmology is an excellent example of how these models can be tweaked to adapt to any evidence – and as such, has been forced to ‘evolve’ over time to incorporate an ever-increasing array of unobserved conceptualisations.

 

Therefore, we all have the rational right to point out the fundamental weaknesses in logic and evidence of Standard Cosmology (along with any other model).

 

 

“It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology”

 

And I am happy to consider their position. But it is not my position (which I also support using scientific evidence and reasoning – and therefore is also a “scientific position”). Do I also have a right to express a position?

 

In being honest with myself, I cannot find these long-age models in the scriptural text without having to read them into the text from some external source.

 

* If we claim metaphor: a metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation – which does not exist in the creation account.

 

* Metaphor is unnecessary. The core concepts of Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry are not so difficult to understand. The concept of a very old universe with humans descending from animals is hardly too complex; even for a putatively primitive mind.

 

* A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as an historical account.

 

* Using the above measures, if creation is not true, then the ultimate Author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses can be rejected (or mitigated), then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as anything other than history, then that is exactly what we are doing.

 

* The long ages concept does not exist in the text. It has to be read into the text from external sources. Human science is fallible and must be constantly updated and revised to account for new evidence. There is no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account.

 

* Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. The logical default of secular models being correct is that Jesus, and the other authors of scripture are ignorant of truth. So again we call into question the divine inspiration and integrity of the whole Bible.

 

* The Genesis account is necessary to explain the origin of death and suffering. God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God (as described in the Bible) create such a cruel, survival of the fittest, universe?

 

* Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Saviour?

 

So from my perspective, the creation account is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy. I understand that not everyone will agree, however I have provided a rational argument – including some fairly substantial logical hurdles that would have to be overcome by those adhering to secular models whilst wishing to maintain a Biblically-consistent world view.

 

 

“I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible.”

 

No one is claiming an “impossible contradiction”. But there are obvious, prima-facie contradictions. And every effort I have heard in attempting to resolve these contradictions, has fallen back on either eisegesis or the arbitrary labelling of Genesis as symbolic.

 

 

“That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible”

 

Here you combine the logical fallacies of Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion. Nevertheless I admit a “restricted reading of the Bible” – i.e. restricted to what is actually in the text. My conscience does not permit me to force my opinions and presuppositions onto scripture – or to make the Bible conform to demonstrably fallible human standards; such as “scientific consensus”.

 

 

“As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons”

 

This is more innuendo and unsupported assertion. I dispute Standard Cosmology for scientific and logical reasons – yet I realise how meaningless this statement would be in the absence of any argument.

 

 

“I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.”

 

I am not just a “theist”. I am a Christian; i.e. a Biblical theist. From the perspective of my faith, the Bible is the Word of God. In it, a model of reality/history is presented that explicitly contradicts the secular models in time-scales and orders of events. And I consider that I have every right to defend the integrity of the Bible wherever I percieve it to be undermined.

[Bonky]

“It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology”

 

And I am happy to consider their position. But it is not my position (which I also support using scientific evidence and reasoning – and therefore is also a “scientific position”). Do I also have a right to express a position?

 

In being honest with myself, I cannot find these long-age models in the scriptural text without having to read them into the text from some external source.

I know you weren't responding to me but I just found your post interesting. I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Your post kind of reminds me of a quote from Kurt Wise [Geologist]:

 

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Now Wise didn't state what his scientific reasons were for a young earth, but I see a similar approach that you've taken. When looking at the bullet points for your stance on a young earth they appear to be based on scripture alone. The reason why I bring that up is that in the reply above you stated you woud consider the position of those who believe in big bang cosmology.

I guess I'm a bit confused, if scripture is the ultimate authority, why would any evidence or position matter [evidence/position contrary to scripture]? What do you have to consider?

Edited June 24, 2014 by Bonky

[enoob57]

if evolution happened in the way it is claimed, then why are there still monkeys and why do we not continue to evolve?

If evolution were true the fossil record would support it, but it doesn't. Most of the fossils that they have trotted out usually end up being frauds. The history of the supporters of evolution is fraught with all kinds deceptions and fraudulent claims.

Shhhhh... (they don't want to talk about that)

To be fair, we have had some dubious evidence as well.

it is one thing to have questionable evidence.  it is another thing altogether to intentionally try to defraud the public.

What are you talking about...most scientist don't even bring religion into the lab much less try to disprove it.  To the vast majority of scientists, God is irrelevant (in their work).

You see jerry satan is the foe of God and is subtle by exchanging a lie for truth... God's Own response

to his capabilities in this are those of lies will receive lies but those of truth will reject lies...

All men are born into lies and are themselves lies >the miracle of God< to be born again (new)! Now this

is what the born again receive

Rom 1:18-22

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and

unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that

which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly

seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and

Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were

thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

KJV

because this is truth from God and the heart of this matter is sealed in His Person

as the 'IS' of eternity -> we merely stand giving witness of that truth => if you are

born even in this sin ridden world in a sin ridden body God 'IS' still seen and all

men turn from this sight to denial of God or reason apart from God leaving them

without excuse (according to God Himself) by His Creative Witness alone...

Love, Steven

[Tristen]

 

“It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology”

 

And I am happy to consider their position. But it is not my position (which I also support using scientific evidence and reasoning – and therefore is also a “scientific position”). Do I also have a right to express a position?

 

In being honest with myself, I cannot find these long-age models in the scriptural text without having to read them into the text from some external source.

I know you weren't responding to me but I just found your post interesting. I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Your post kind of reminds me of a quote from Kurt Wise [Geologist]:

 

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Now Wise didn't state what his scientific reasons were for a young earth, but I see a similar approach that you've taken. When looking at the bullet points for your stance on a young earth they appear to be based on scripture alone. The reason why I bring that up is that in the reply above you stated you woud consider the position of those who believe in big bang cosmology.

I guess I'm a bit confused, if scripture is the ultimate authority, why would any evidence or position matter [evidence/position contrary to scripture]? What do you have to consider?

 

 

 

Hi Bonky, you said “Now Wise didn't state what his scientific reasons were for a young earth, but I see a similar approach that you've taken. When looking at the bullet points for your stance on a young earth they appear to be based on scripture alone. The reason why I bring that up is that in the reply above you stated you woud consider the position of those who believe in big bang cosmology.”

 

I think you have somewhat decontextualized my response. I was responding to the claim that there is no contradiction between the secular models and the Biblical model. I presented Biblical points for the purpose of demonstrating the contrary claims of the two positions.

 

So in context, I am happy to consider any argument which attempts to reconcile secular models with scripture.

 

Nevertheless, the ability to consider an opponent’s argument only requires the capacity to be objective; it does not require a surrendering of one’s own position. Objective consideration of arguments is a test of rational integrity – not truth. If conclusions, arguments and evidence are logically consistent with premise, then the argument can be considered rational.

 

In the context of a naturalistic faith premise, I have no rational issue with Standard Cosmology. My main problem with Standard Cosmology is that its advocates tend to exaggerate confidence in the model; far beyond what is scientifically, or even logically, justified.

 

 

The quote you provided was poorly worded, and I take issue with several of its underlying premises; namely contained in the statement: “if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism”.

 

Firstly, due to the historical nature of all models (including creationist and secular models), none are subject to direct observation or repeated experimentation. Therefore all models are logically unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could force the surrendering of any proposed model.

 

Second, No facts speak for themselves – so they cannot “turn against” any position. The term evidence simply refers to facts; after they have been interpreted to support a particular position. Since interpretation is a subjective endeavour, subject to human presupposition, it cannot speak to ultimate truth.

 

Therefore the proposal of “all the evidence in the universe” turning “against creationism” is logically unsustainable.

 

 

“I guess I'm a bit confused, if scripture is the ultimate authority, why would any evidence or position matter [evidence/position contrary to scripture]? What do you have to consider?”

 

The Biblical model of reality incorporates a rational Creator which implies a rational, ordered creation. The model makes temporal/historical claims. If the Biblical model is correct then the facts must be consistent with the model. That is, all of the facts must be able to be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model.

 

I think your question implies a tension between faith and science that has not been established in argument.

 

It firstly implies that if evidence arises which is contrary to the model, that there are only two choices available; either a) reject the science, or b) reject the faith premise. Standard Cosmology has undergone so many revisions because it has encountered contrary evidence – yet neither the model, or the underlying naturalistic faith was abandoned. So the implication that Biblical creationists be required to choose one or the other employs the logical fallacy called Special Pleading.

 

It secondly implies that facts in existence have rendered faith and science to be mutually exclusive. Yet no one has ever presented a fact which cannot be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model. So again, there is no objective logical reason for a Biblical creationist to surrender their faith or abandon the scientific method.

 

Thirdly, it misrepresents the scientific method – which, unlike faith, does not permit absolute levels of confidence. As the naturalistic faith prevails in spite of contrary evidence, objectivity requires that the same rational right be afforded to the Biblical faith. The scientific method is designed to be wrong most of the time. It is the failure of a test (i.e. falsification) that is most informative in science. Passing a test improves confidence, but does not establish the truth of an hypothesis (because we don’t know what we don’t know). But absolute confidence is permitted by faith – which is why no one has ever been logically obligated to surrender their faith (naturalistic, theistic or otherwise) in the light of contrary evidence. Naturalists will sometimes deny that they have faith – but that’s a different discussion.

 

So if I was inclined to be obtuse, I could turn the same question around – replacing Biblical faith with naturalistic faith. If one considers objectivity a virtue, then the same logical standards must be applied across the board.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Tristen

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

Hey Bonky, you said “One could use the term "creationism" and might just be referring to the supernatural creation of our Universe or one could refer to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If it's the latter, we're now looking at biology, geology etc.”

 

I use the term ‘historical’ or the phrase ‘as written’ rather than “literal” – since ‘historical’ speaks to the grammatical context, whereas “literal” is unnecessarily (and unjustifiably) prohibitive.

 

The Genesis account of creation speaks to both the creation of the universe as well as life.

 

 

 

“My understanding is that evolution is falsifiable, if you find a Precambrian rabbit...evolution is in hot water.”

 

I tend to avoid the term “evolution” as much as is practically possible because it can be used to mean so many different concepts. For example, when you say “evolution”, do you mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or the suite of concepts that often find themselves under the 'umbrella' of evolution (such as natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations, common ancestry etc.), or do you simply mean any heritable change in a population?

 

Of all these, I as a creationist, only dispute the claim that Common Ancestry (and its associated time frames) is the only scientifically valid interpretation of the available evidence. I have no issue with natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations etc.

 

 

A rabbit found in Precambrian rock could in no way falsify Common Ancestry.

 

According to the evolutionary account of history, angiosperms (flowering plants) ‘evolved’ around 200 million years ago. In the early 1960s, pollen spores were discovered in Precambrian rock (dated and re-dated to 1.5 billion years old) on Mt Roraima, Venezuela. That's about 1.3 billion years before pollen was supposed to have evolved (according to the Common Ancestry timeline). The find has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny and there is, to date, no scientifically testable explanation, as to how these pollens got into that rock.

 

Stainforth (the scientist who made the discovery) concluded the find to be a "highly intriguing geological problem" (Nature, 1966, Vol. 210). Note that in no sense was it even considered to question the Common Ancestry account.  Contrary evidence gets defaulted to - ‘It's just something we haven't figured out yet’ (i.e. rendering the actual evidence to be meaningless - and the evolution hypothesis to be therefore unfalsifiable). That is, directly contrary evidence could just be a case of "we haven't yet figured out how this evidence fits our hypotheses" – which, to be fair, is a logical possibility - but a possibility which can be used to render any evidence questioning Common Ancestry to be invalid.

 

 

 

“Assuming reality is as we perceive it, we do have experts that analyze data, we don't have a "pope" on a thrown giving a thumbs up or down. I believe, overall historically, that the scientific community has done a pretty good job of going where the evidence leads”

 

According to what standard? You clearly understand that we are all operating on assumptions about reality, but you haven’t considered how those assumptions might influence the interpretation of the facts. If you assume reality to be naturalistic (i.e. only natural explanations can represent truth), then that limits how the facts can be interpreted. But a purely naturalistic reality is an unverifiable faith assumption. Scientists are not simply following evidence, but interpreting facts within the context of their particular faith paradigm.

 

Up until the late 1700s (around the time of James Hutton), science was primarily interpreted within the Biblical theistic faith paradigm. Then the naturalistic faith paradigm was proposed for science, and after an initially gradual adoption, has become the default paradigm of most secular scientists - to the point where the only science most people are ever exposed to is naturalistic science; giving people the false impression that it is the only valid scientific paradigm.

 

In reality, all that has occurred is a switch from one starting faith presupposition to another. Science would not be possible without faith assumptions. As you have acknowledged, even the trust of observation (fundamental to the scientific method) is an unverifiable faith assumption; as is the assumption of a rationally ordered universe (such that observation, experimentation and repeatability have meaning).

 

So the naturalistic faith paradigm is not fundamental to science – and its adoption can be traced historically. Having grown up in a secular household, upon conversion to Christianity as a young adult, I was astonished to discover that creationists still existed. That’s because every piece of scientific information I had previously been exposed to had been presented from a naturalistic perspective. My new faith forced me to re-examine the science – finding that I had allowed myself to be fed a naturalistic-faith-biased account of science.

 

 

 

“being born of a virgin and rising from the dead doesn't establish that everything you say will be true or that you are the Son of any God. That's not the topic here, I just wanted to throw that in b/c if Hitchens is right, technically the Creator embraces illogical arguments.”

 

I don’t think you’ve established any logical fallacy here whatsoever – apart from a Strawman oversimplification of the Christian position.

 

 

 

“Ironically I thought it was creationists who state things such as "If you find one area where the bible is wrong, you can toss the rest out"”

 

Either the Bible is the trustworthy word of God, or it is not. No sincere believer could consider scripture subject to fallible human judgement. That is, if we consider the Bible to be the Word of God, then we don’t get to decide which parts are acceptable or not.

 

If we are dealing with historical claims, then it is logically impossible to declare the Bible “wrong”. Historical claims are unfalsifiable – no matter which model or evidence is provided. Even regarding repeatable, testable Biblical claims, we should have the same right as the secular community to plea to ignorance – i.e. we don’t know yet how this evidence can be made consistent with our model – however to date, no such explanation has been necessary.

 

For example, there is a popular myth that Christians once believed the earth to be flat. The shape of the earth is both testable and repeatable (i.e. not historical). If the Bible explicitly stated that the earth is flat (and did so in an obviously literal context), that would be a problem for someone like me. But I would still reserve the rational right to say “I don’t currently have an answer for that question” – without having to surrender my faith.

 

 

 

“If the context is young earth creationism, it seems to me there's quite a bit of evidence that doesn't support that model”

 

More correctly – there are many facts which have been interpreted to be inconsistent with the creationist/Biblical model.

 

The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support naturalistic models of reality can alternatively be interpreted, both individually and collectively, to support the Biblical model of reality.

 

 

 

“based on many conversations with YEC's [i keep changing the term i know] I'm not sure how one can be a YEC and NOT embrace various conspiracy theories. Let me give a recent example so I can show I'm not just being a troll. In a recent discussion about the global flood, I was actually being told that there's all kinds of evidence for the global flood but the scientific community just won't accept it. Does that not sound like a conspiracy theory to you?”

 

It’s not an organised “conspiracy”, but a general failure to recognise how the prevailing faith paradigm influences which interpretation of the evidence is preferred (likely due to confirmation bias). There is evidence of catastrophic flooding across the planet – that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how that evidence should be interpreted. And that can depend on the faith presupposition of the interpreter.

 

That said, scientific journal editors have publically expressed their bias against manuscripts with creationist implications. And there is a growing list of scientists who have lost professional careers upon professing their creationist beliefs. And even at least one example of an evolutionist scientist who lost his job for teaching his students to engage with creationists (for the purpose of correcting them/us/me). That’s not the entire scientific community, but there is an element within the scientific community that refuses to tolerate any rational engagement with the creationist community. It’s not secret – so I don’t know if it qualifies as a conspiracy or not.

 

 

 

“If it's biblical creation, my view is that I don't know how one would embrace both”

 

Then I respectfully suggest that you haven’t given objective consideration to the informed creationist position. My area of specialisation is molecular biology (i.e. microbes and genetics). I have found no inconsistency between my creationist position and any raw/uninterpreted data. It’s only after humans put their presuppositions onto the facts that such inconsistencies arise.

 

 

 

“I'm not sure what you're referring to in the first statement [As the naturalistic faith prevails in spite of contrary evidence, objectivity requires that the same rational right be afforded to the Biblical faith] I'll need an example”

 

There is the Precambrian pollen example I mentioned above. Other examples might include soft tissues found in allegedly 190 million year old dinosaur fossils (when every experiment suggests these proteins cannot last more than a couple of million years (or less) – even in perfect preservation conditions).

 

Historically, both Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry models have undergone massive changes. These changes were forced by observations which contradicted the then-current models. At no time did these contrary evidences mandate a rejection of the naturalistic-faith, or the supporting models. The models were not abandoned, but changed to suit the evidence; or written off as unsolved mysteries. Yet creationists are expected to surrender our faith upon every new allegation of evidence which is allegedly contrary to our model.

 

 

 

“As you've mentioned, science has various mechanisms to see if what someone is hypothesizing is true”

 

No. Science does not deal in absolutes such as true/false, right/wrong, proof etc. Legitimate science only claims confidence and probability.

 

 

 

“What mechanism do you have with faith in the supernatural [biblical claims] to know that your "absolute confidence" is justified? Another words, I'm sure we can find examples of people who have faith in something you find absurd or delusional [supernatural claims etc]. How do you know that you're any different?”

 

I can’t speak to the claims and experiences of others – though I would note that prejudging a claim as “absurd” would reflect poorly on my own objectivity.

 

My current faith is founded on a combination of study and experience (including experience of fellowship with God – though I understand this means little outside of myself). The Bible also indicates that faith can be supernaturally delivered. I have completed informal studies in philosophy and history and formal studies theology and science. I have specifically studied many allegations against the integrity of scripture and found simple logical remedies to account for every allegation (e.g. most allegations of Biblical contractions don’t even qualify as technical contradictions when properly examined). Ultimately, having studied various belief systems (including the non-religious ones), I have come to the conclusion that the Biblical model of reality is by far the most consistent with the reality I observe and experience. And my life experience as a Christian for over two decades has abundantly reinforced that position.

[Bonky]

[Bonky]

More correctly – there are many facts which have been interpreted to be inconsistent with the creationist/Biblical model.

Right and not just by random people, but folks who are experts in the relevant fields. I think that has some weight to it.

The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support naturalistic models of reality can alternatively be interpreted, both individually and collectively, to support the Biblical model of reality.

Well I'll say this. When I look at creationist criticisms of mainstream cosmology and other scientific evidences for "deep time", I merely see the questioning of the confidence in the conclusions. I'm not seeing alternative hypothesis.

 

 

 

It’s not an organised “conspiracy”, but a general failure to recognise how the prevailing faith paradigm influences which interpretation of the evidence is preferred (likely due to confirmation bias). There is evidence of catastrophic flooding across the planet – that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how that evidence should be interpreted. And that can depend on the faith presupposition of the interpreter.

There is evidence of flooding in many areas all over the globe. Was there a global flood? I personally think the evidence should be pretty overwhelming. Wouldn't it show up in the ice cores that we retrieve from the arctic regions? Wouldn't the fossil record be a jumbled mess all across the globe no matter where you look?

 

That said, scientific journal editors have publically expressed their bias against manuscripts with creationist implications. And there is a growing list of scientists who have lost professional careers upon professing their creationist beliefs. And even at least one example of an evolutionist scientist who lost his job for teaching his students to engage with creationists (for the purpose of correcting them/us/me). That’s not the entire scientific community, but there is an element within the scientific community that refuses to tolerate any rational engagement with the creationist community. It’s not secret – so I don’t know if it qualifies as a conspiracy or not.

We'd have to examine each of these scenarios to see what exactly happened. So far, no I'm not seeing any global conspiracy to undermine evidence that supports the Bible. What about the times when an archaeologist or whatever uncovers something that supports a Biblical place or person? That evidence didn't see to get ignored. If we did declare that there was a global flood, would it prove that EVERYTHING in the Bible is therefore true? Nope. So why would anybody ignore this evidence again?

 

 

 

Then I respectfully suggest that you haven’t given objective consideration to the informed creationist position. My area of specialisation is molecular biology (i.e. microbes and genetics). I have found no inconsistency between my creationist position and any raw/uninterpreted data. It’s only after humans put their presuppositions onto the facts that such inconsistencies arise.

 

I wouldn't expect microbes to speak for or against "deep time". I'm looking at the bigger picture. To be a young earth creationist, you essentially have to suggest that the extreme vast majority of mainstream science is dead wrong in EVERY area of inquiry that suggests deep time. Keep in mind, the "deep time" merely needs to exceed about 10k years right? We're not talking a difference of a 1000 years, the discrepancy is mind boggling.

Here's my logic. I feel that mainstream science seems to be doing something right. After all, we have robots on Mars and we're growing human organs in labs. I've had the opposite experience that you've had, I don't see any evidence of anything supernatural or paranormal. I don't see any evidence that prayer has any affect on reality. I could go on but I think we get the gist. I feel pretty confident that mainstream science is collecting and analyzing the data correctly [regarding anything that establishes deep time].

If we look at things with a young earth view I find serious problems. When did the Chixculub meteor impact earth? There was only a global nuclear winter that devastated life on earth. As a result we have a band [K–Pg] that is global in scale showing evidence of fires and containing iridium. When did this happen in the biblical model of time?

There is the Precambrian pollen example I mentioned above. Other examples might include soft tissues found in allegedly 190 million year old dinosaur fossils (when every experiment suggests these proteins cannot last more than a couple of million years (or less) – even in perfect preservation conditions).

Actually I heard about this a while back and in what I was reading there WAS suggestion that iron [i think it was iron] could enable proteins to last that long. After I typed this up I found the article I believe I read a while back:

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

Historically, both Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry models have undergone massive changes. These changes were forced by observations which contradicted the then-current models. At no time did these contrary evidences mandate a rejection of the naturalistic-faith, or the supporting models. The models were not abandoned, but changed to suit the evidence; or written off as unsolved mysteries. Yet creationists are expected to surrender our faith upon every new allegation of evidence which is allegedly contrary to our model.

I don't think it makes logical sense to throw out an entire theory because you find a flaw. If the flaw or new data is FATAL to the theory then I'd say yeah. Creationists are the ones who admit that there CAN'T be any data that is contrary to the biblical model.

 

 

 

“What mechanism do you have with faith in the supernatural [biblical claims] to know that your "absolute confidence" is justified? Another words, I'm sure we can find examples of people who have faith in something you find absurd or delusional [supernatural claims etc]. How do you know that you're any different?”

 

I can’t speak to the claims and experiences of others – though I would note that prejudging a claim as “absurd” would reflect poorly on my own objectivity.

 

My current faith is founded on a combination of study and experience (including experience of fellowship with God – though I understand this means little outside of myself). The Bible also indicates that faith can be supernaturally delivered. I have completed informal studies in philosophy and history and formal studies theology and science. I have specifically studied many allegations against the integrity of scripture and found simple logical remedies to account for every allegation (e.g. most allegations of Biblical contractions don’t even qualify as technical contradictions when properly examined). Ultimately, having studied various belief systems (including the non-religious ones), I have come to the conclusion that the Biblical model of reality is by far the most consistent with the reality I observe and experience. And my life experience as a Christian for over two decades has abundantly reinforced that position.

Okay so it sounds like personal revelation has a lot to do with why you believe what you believe. Is there anything that can falsify your position? Also, how or why would we permit a view that embraces "personal revelation" to weigh in on naturalistic evidence?

[Tristen]

Hey Bonkey, you said, “No but it would certainly mess with the "associated time frames" that you mention … It's interesting that you state "the find has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny" and the article that I came across time and again complained of the opposite. That scientists haven't found this an interesting paradox to figure out. The article mentions that Nature magazine has never released an article revisiting this mystery because nobody has intensely investigated it.”

 

Honestly, I think you have just made my point for me. You claimed that a rabbit found in Precambrian rock would falsify “evolution” – since such a find would be irreconcilably inconsistent with the Common Ancestry account. I direct you to an article in highly respected secular journal, Nature, revealing fossils which are 1.3 billion years out-of-date – and you default to ‘it needs more investigation’. So what is to stop you from employing that same rationale to a rabbit in the Precambrian? You don’t have to question Common Ancestry, you just have to say, “We haven’t figured it out yet … it’s an intriguing geological mystery” and leave it at that.

 

The original discovery was made in 1963. The 1966 article I referenced in my previous post lists the subsequent (i.e. 1963-1966) excursions confirming the find (i.e. finding more fossilised pollen spores in re-dated Precambrian rock). [NOTE: I made an error in my previous post: the rock layer was dated to “no less than 1.7 billion years” and angiosperms are said to have ‘evolved’ no earlier than 380 million years ago – still a 1.3 billion year gap]

 

By way of update: Hochuli & Feist-Burkhardt (Frontiers of Plant Science, 2013) found pollen in Anisian (Middle Triassic) rock layers. This is only 100 million years too early, but still out of place according to the current Common Ancestry story. In this case, they might just consider extending the range of angiosperm “evolution” – which is convenient; just tweak the Common Ancestry story till it fits the evidence – then proclaim to the world how Common Ancestry has survived so much scrutiny; since it is (now) consistent with the evidence. It’s much more difficult to extend the range 1.3 billion years without anyone noticing – so we’ll just leave it for now and hope no one brings it up till we find an answer.

 

 

 

“I don't know why it would question the common ancestry account”

 

The context is your claim that a fossil found so far out-of-date would falsify “evolution” (i.e. your rabbit in Precambrian rock). I have provided you a real-life example of such a find in the secular scientific literature – and it hasn’t come close to questioning your faith in the Common Ancestry account of history. That’s what makes historical claims unfalsifiable; they are not directly observed; therefore providing a constant opportunity for us to rationalise our way around the actual evidence – whenever it conflicts with our deeply held presuppositions.

 

 

 

“I would look at DNA/genetics for that, not rocks.”

 

You again forget the context of my response. It was your claim that “evolution” could be falsified by out-of-date fossils (a “Precambrian rabbit”). Precambrian is a geological designation, not a biological (or genetic) classification. I am more than happy to discuss the genetic evidence.

 

 

 

“The article I read [which I have to admit was well written] mentions that there are off chances that "contamination" could be involved.”

 

Good point – however there is no evidence provided to support the hypothesis for contamination; so it’s currently speculation. Now what could possibly compel an objective scientist to speculate beyond the actual observations? Could it be that there is some pre-existing paradigm to which the scientists feel obligated?

 

So then, what stops us from speculating that a rabbit found in Precambrian rock is due to contamination? Yet another logical ‘out’ for Common Ancestry – further demonstrating the unfalsifiable nature of all historical claims (including Common Ancestry).

 

 

 

“Here is the article by the way:”

 

I have the originals articles if you would like a copy (pdf files). However, I don’t know how to get them to you through this forum.

 

 

 

“You'll have to define "faith" as you're using it here”

 

Faith means high confidence in a claim; independent of our capacity to verify the claim.

 

 

 

“I think the reason why we assume naturalistic explanations is because that's historically what we come across”

 

Unfortunately, naturalistic can have multiple connotations. I’m using the philosophical connotation which claims that no truth exists beyond what can be naturally defined. It’s subtly different from atheism and materialism – but the same general vibe; i.e. only natural explanations are valid. It is a faith paradigm because the absence of supernatural causes cannot be verified. It is the default faith paradigm of most scientists.

 

The reasoning in your statement here is circular. Since observation is a purely natural process, our observational experience is comprised, through logical necessity, of exclusively natural observations.  That does not verify the assumption that there are only natural explanations. Consider observing the miracle of someone rising from the dead – All that is observed is a body, formerly meeting the criteria of dead, yet now meeting the criteria of alive. There is no way to verify through observation any supernatural intervention – but that doesn’t render supernatural intervention to be automatically, logically impossible.

 

 

 

“RIGHT!! How well did that work out for us? Name a time when the church got involved with supernatural explanations that actually panned out?”

 

Anyone can find silly examples of opposing arguments and proceed to mock their opponents based on those examples. I’m not talking about supernatural explanations per se. I’m talking about scientific investigation in the context of God’s creation. Within this paradigm, the foundation for most modern science was established, for example; modern astronomy and cosmology is performed on the shoulders of Christians such as Copernicus and Galileo.  Gregor Mendel, an explicit creationist, is considered the father of genetics. You mock Newton, but his immense contribution to physics and mathematics remain foundational to our current understanding of the universe etc. And it was the church who constructed the first scientific institutions – such as Oxford University. So all-in-all, it worked out pretty well for us.

 

 

 

“When you mention "faith" here are you talking about our confidence in our senses and our ability to interpret the data? You use the term "faith" a lot when talking about secular science and my suspicion is that you want to put secular science on the same platform as religious "faith". Just in case this is true, I'll let you know in advance that I'm not going to buy that”

 

So your pressupositions overide your capacity to give fair considertion to my arguments?

 

What you “buy” is irrelevant to what is rationally justifiable. The majority of modern science is conducted within the naturalistic faith paradigm – i.e. the unverifiable assumption that no God has ever interacted with the physical universe. This paradigm only permits certain interpretations of the evidence – and arbitrarily dismisses interpretations that do not conform to the paradigm. But this paradigm is no more or less verifiable/falsifiable than the Biblical theistic paradigm. Therefore both paradigms are faith paradigms; and on the same “platform” whether you “buy” it or not – unless of course you can verify that no God has ever interacted with the physical universe.

 

 

 

“So what are you saying here? Are you suggesting that when looking at data or evidence, we have a panel of naturalistic scientists, witch doctors, Christians and pagans that all weigh in on how to interpret the data??”

 

The scientific method does not place any limitations on who is permitted to scrutinise scientific claims.

 

Nevertheless, I find your list telling. Only those who approach the data from a naturalistic perspective are afforded the title of “scientists”. That’s a very narrow world-view. I am a Christian with a science degree from a secular university – where do I fit on your list? If the “witch doctors, Christians and pagans” are scientifically educated, then they have as much right as anyone to “weigh in” on how the data is interpreted, as any atheistic (or “naturalistic”) scientist.

 

 

 

“Are you saying demon possession could be a valid scientific explanation for odd mental behavior?”

 

It depends how you define “valid scientific explanation”. The hypothesis is a logical possibility – though until tested, is little more than speculation.

 

In the context of our conversation this is a false analogy – since it requires the capacity to test/measure the supernatural source of observed behaviour. Our debate is dealing with historical models containing temporal (and therefore testable) claims – not the faith premises which underpin them. Both secular and creationist models make unverifiable assumptions about the existence and interaction of God in the universe. In both cases, the logical method utilised does not directly test those assumptions – but the historical claims stemming from those assumptions.

 

 

 

“Well let's play it this way, does the exhibition of extreme power prove that one is truthful and of divine origin?”

 

No. The Bible is very clear that not all who operate in supernatural power represent truth or God. The problem here is that you (and Hitchens) are making assumptions about our beliefs that are over-simplistic and untrue.

 

 

 

“Maybe so but if you want to convince people that a particular claim is true, you probably should care about the evidence”

 

I think you have missed my point which is – Historical claims are all logically unfalsifiable. So no evidence could immediately warrant the surrendering of faith in any historical model.

 

It is not the job of a scientist to “convince people that a particular claim is true”. If you advocate for a particular claim, it is your job to demonstrate that you claim can be rationally supported through evidence and argument.

 

And an opposing position should not care about the evidence, but the facts. If you can interpret a fact as evidence supporting a secular model, then great. But if I can interpret that very same fact to be consistent with the creationist model of reality, then the only reason to prefer one interpretation over the other is the biased application of a faith paradigm.

 

 

 

“Now you've shown me one example of a case where pollen appears where it shouldn't be. It didn't sound like an air tight case to begin with”

 

So your response to evidence is to dismiss it with empty innuendo. I wasn’t claiming ‘air tightness’. In fact I was demonstrating the opposite. You provided standards that you claimed would falsify “evolution”. I provided an example from 1966 which met those standards – yet here we are almost 50 years later with Common Ancestry remaining the prevailing scientific dogma for the history of life on earth.

 

So what are you disputing? Are you disputing that pollen spore fossils were found at this location? Or are you disputing that the rock layers were dated to 1.7 billion years old? What is the justification for you dismissing this evidence?

 

Remember that my point with this evidence was to demonstrate that such a find could not falsify “evolution”. I think your response has accomplished this nicely.

 

 

 

“You speak here as if "this happens all the time" and I don't think that's been supported”

 

The Precambrian pollen is an extreme example (albeit, one that best meets your criteria for evolutionary falsification), however evolutionary range expansions are very common in the scientific literature. I am happy to go through some of those if you think I am exaggerating.

 

 

 

“Oh sure you wouldn't have to surrender your faith, but there may be a consequence for this if you're vocal about it [people questioning mental health]”

 

Only those people who lack the rational perspective to realise that no knowledge, scientific or Biblical, is absolute. And only those who are unaware how often their own faith models have been forced to encounter seemingly insurmountable evidence (at the time of discovery).

 

 

 

“Right and not just by random people, but folks who are experts in the relevant fields. I think that has some weight to it”

 

The logical fallacy you employ here is Appeal to Authority. Authority in itself does not add weight to any claim because of the possibility of scientists being wrong, or lying, or succumbing to confirmation bias etc. Each argument has to be rationally assessed on its own merits.

 

 

 

“When I look at creationist criticisms of mainstream cosmology and other scientific evidences for "deep time", I merely see the questioning of the confidence in the conclusions”

 

Criticising the weakness of an opposing position is a perfectly rational debate strategy.

 

 

 

“I'm not seeing alternative hypothesis”

 

Then respectfully, you are not looking.

 

 

 

“Was there a global flood? I personally think the evidence should be pretty overwhelming. Wouldn't it show up in the ice cores that we retrieve from the arctic regions? Wouldn't the fossil record be a jumbled mess all across the globe no matter where you look?”

 

No & No. These questions demonstrate how a paradigm can hinder our capacity to give objective consideration to an opposing position. According to the preferred creationist model, Greenland ice sheets were accumulated post flood. Creationists also consider sedimentary burial order during the flood to be associated with the habitat and mobility of each organism – so a general pattern of succession is expected in the fossil record.

 

 

 

“If we did declare that there was a global flood, would it prove that EVERYTHING in the Bible is therefore true? Nope. So why would anybody ignore this evidence again?”

 

I haven’t accused anybody of ignoring evidence. I have made the case that everybody prefers the interpretation of facts that is consistent with their faith presuppositions. And I don’t have a problem with that (since I do the same). The problem is that most people are seemingly unaware that their preferred interpretations are influenced by unverifiable presuppositions – and therefore feel justified in dismissing other interpretations because they are based on different unverifiable presuppositions.

 

 

 

“I'm looking at the bigger picture”

 

This is more innuendo. You need to justify the implication that I have ignored the “bigger picture”.

 

 

 

“To be a young earth creationist, you essentially have to suggest that the extreme vast majority of mainstream science is dead wrong in EVERY area of inquiry that suggests deep time”

 

“Wrong” would be an unscientific claim. I would say ‘highly disputable with interpretations dependent upon unverified naturalistic assumptions’. If I could offer an interpretation of all of those very same facts, individually and collectively, so that they are consistent with the Biblical model, then my model also represents a logically valid “bigger picture”.

 

 

 

“I feel that mainstream science seems to be doing something right. After all, we have robots on Mars and we're growing human organs in labs”

 

Neither of which has any necessary reliance upon the truth of any historical model.

 

 

 

“I feel pretty confident that mainstream science is collecting and analyzing the data correctly [regarding anything that establishes deep time]”

 

This is another false analogy – comparing operational (or experimental) science with historical modelling. They use logically different methodologies. Legitimate scientific confidence cannot be attributed to historical models without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. Experimental science can attribute scientific confidence through direct and repeated observations. That’s what makes operational science falsifiable, and historical science not.

 

 

 

“If we look at things with a young earth view I find serious problems. When did the Chixculub meteor impact earth? There was only a global nuclear winter that devastated life on earth. As a result we have a band [K–Pg] that is global in scale showing evidence of fires and containing iridium. When did this happen in the biblical model of time?”

 

Again we encounter a problem with making such bold claims about what happened in the past.

 

See;

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/11/90M29/index.xml?section

 

Claims pertaining to what has happened in the past will always remain subject to adjustments and revision – because the claims themselves were never scientifically observed.

 

 

 

“I heard about this a while back and in what I was reading there WAS suggestion that iron [i think it was iron] could enable proteins to last that long. After I typed this up I found the article I believe I read a while back:”

 

This further demonstrates the power of the naturalistic bias. What this experiment shows is that proteins soaked in artificially concentrated levels of haemoglobin, in laboratory controlled conditions, can preserve soft tissue for 2 years. This is taken as evidence that tissues encountering haemoglobin at naturally occurring levels, in unideal conditions, can survive for 65-199 million years. Do you seriously contest that secular science is separate from faith?

 

 

 

“I don't think it makes logical sense to throw out an entire theory because you find a flaw”

 

I didn’t suggest that. I am suggesting two problems pertaining to unjustified confidence.

1) Secular models have often required adjustments due to encountering contrary evidence to the then-current models. Yet advocates of secular models commonly claim that the models have survived large periods of scientific scrutiny in order to bolster confidence in the models. A model has only legitimately survived scrutiny since it most recent adjustment.

2) In a context where secular models are often espoused as beyond question (or even “fact”), demonstrating the logical weaknesses of these models is a perfectly rational strategy.

 

And we are not referring to a single “flaw”. The role of presupposition has implications for the interpretation of every single fact presented in support of the secular models.

 

 

 

“how or why would we permit a view that embraces "personal revelation" to weigh in on naturalistic evidence?”

 

If presupposition disqualifies a person from considering the evidence, then every human is disqualified.

 

There is no contradiction in my position. My paradigm considers the possibility of natural and supernatural explanations. The naturalistic paradigm only considers the possibility of natural explanations, and dismisses the possibility of supernatural explanations. So which perspective is more restrictive when it comes to consideration of truth based on the facts?

[Bonky]

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bonky