The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[George]

Bonky -- I'm not sure if you ever saw the interesting explanation of how the earth can be both 6000 years old / and the galaxy is15.5 billion years old at the same time?  It's done by an MIT professor -- who is not a Christian, but an orthodox Jew and shows using the theory of relativity how both science and the Bible are in fact one and the same.

 

[Tristen]

Hey Bonkey, You said, “Replace "argument" with "claim" and reread your last statement. You're actually stating my position in this discussion, interesting isn't it?”

And

“So it seems that pretty much anything can be propped up and supported”

 

What I find “interesting” is that you choose to respond to a criticism of Innuendo with more Innuendo.

 

 

 

“Like I've said before, part of the issue is bad publicity in my opinion. …What does the young earth have speaking for them? The banana man Ray Comfort, Dr. Dino Kent Hovind who's in jail for tax evasion”

 

So regarding Ray Comfort: I consider Ray Comfort to be a sincere creationist. However, he is an evangelist, not a scientist. That means he has no formal education in critical thinking. Now that obviously doesn’t disqualify him from participation in the discussion. The problem I have is that you have taken one poor scientific argument from a non-scientist as a representation of the entire creationist position. If I was to apply the dumbest argument I could find from an atheist to all atheists, you’d be right to call me on it.

 

I think “publicity” is irrelevant. Only you can control how fairly you consider each argument. I would consider Creation Ministries International (CMI) to be the most reliable creationist organisation – as its contributors and administrators are comprised mainly of highly credentialed scientists.

 

There are also ‘lone wolf’ creationists like Kent Hovind (Carl Baugh is another) who are prone to using arguments that CMI explicitly denounce.

(http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use )

 

 

 

“Creationist organizations are admitting up front they won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”

 

The reason Unsupported Assertions are logically fallacious is because they provide nothing specific to respond to – Just more empty Innuendo.

 

 

 

“Your aren't free to interpret the evidence any way other than a way that supports scripture. That's very telling to me”

 

Evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with the secular evolutionary paradigm. Most secular scientists default to the same paradigm. Likewise, the self-evident role of creationists is to demonstrate that the very same facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm.

 

Preferring one interpretation and paradigm is not the same as failing to consider the alternatives. Informed creationists explicitly consider secular interpretations in order to provide a response. I readily acknowledge that the facts can be broadly interpreted to support the secular paradigm. However, when creationists dare to provide an interpretation that is inconsistent with the secular paradigm, we are labelled as having departed from reason (Dawkins), pseudoscience, scientifically ignorant, reality denying, evidence denying – even child abusers (Krauss). So who really isn’t “free to interpret the evidence any way other than a way that supports” there faith perspective?

 

 

 

“The Bible states that we aren't just natural beings, that there's a spiritual side to us and that we indeed can interact with the supernatural. What I'm saying is I've never seen Christians that had access to knowledge I don't or abilities that I don't have. No special discernment, insight or access to divine power that I can see. I'm not using this as evidence against the Christian position as much as an explanation as to why I'm still skeptical”

 

Requiring supernatural experience for faith has a couple of weaknesses.

 

1) We can only ever observe the natural. Our observing something spectacular does not verify that the cause is supernatural.

 

2) This is more theological – the Bible actually teaches that we cannot automatically trust supernatural experience. Faith in the authority of scripture is the standard against which supernatural claims are considered.

 

 

 

“black holes are really not that much crazier than evil spirits, it's just that I have evidence of the one and not the other”

 

Black holes have not been directly observed. Therefore, confidence in black holes requires an element of faith to bridge the gap between actual observations and the existence of black holes. Nevertheless, this is a false analogy in the sense that if black holes exist, then they are current, natural phenomena; theoretically observable given future technology. Whereas, if the Big Bang theory is true, it can never be naturally observed, not even theoretically, regardless of advances in technology. That radically increases the logical gap between observation and claim - and ergo, the amount of faith required to fill that gap.

 

 

 

“Is the big bang really that bizarre a conclusion based on CMB and redshifting of galaxies?”

 

A somewhat “bizarre” question given that I am defending the methodology as rational.

 

 

 

“the God as described by the Bible thinks my conclusion is not only unreasonable but worthy of torment. I don't find this portrayal of "the most logical, all-wise being" to make sense, therefore I reject it”

 

I’m sure if you start a thread, people will be happy to engage in a theological/philosophical discussion regarding the implications of perfect justice and a perfectly just deity.

 

 

 

“If you follow the Bible you must also agree with what it says about people like me”

 

The Bible says that “people like” you are so important to God, that He permitted the torture and slaughter of His perfect, innocent Son, in order to provide you with an opportunity to be saved from the just consequences of your own sin – even with no guarantees that you would accept the offer.

 

 

 

“You may be nice to me but at the end of the day you have to conclude that I'm wicked, in league with the devil, "against Christ" etc like the Bible proclaims”

 

In various contexts, the Bible gives information regarding the motives of unbelievers. You appear to have compiled these together and assumed they all should be specifically applied to you. I consider that to be a misapplication and mischaracterisation of scripture. It is unreasonable when Christians do it you to, and it is unreasonable when you do it - and it would be unreasonable if I did it.

 

 

 

“Maybe not slave but culture certainly does play a factor”

 

Everyone has biases. Objectivity requires that we be able to consider issues beyond these biases. That’s why I advocate so heavily for the standard of rationality. Rationality doesn’t speak to right or wrong, only to logical cohesiveness. That way an opposing position can be respected, without having to necessarily surrender one’s own perspective.

 

 

 

“So you too seem to want to assess things through your own lens and not necessarily someone else, am I so different?”

 

If we can’t consider issues beyond our own biases, then there is no point to any discussion – because our biases will filter out any argument that is inconsistent with our perspective.

 

 

 

“Excluding evidence you don't like isn't rational and yet it seems to be the bedrock of the creationist camp”

Which facts have we (“the creationist camp”) excluded from consideration? – specifically.

“The amount of decay detected in meteor samples. The RATE team acknowledged this, they consider it a "problem" for the young earth model”

 

So without a reference, I can only respond to the information you have provided and assume it’s accurate.

 

Acknowledging the weaknesses and assumptions of research is considered good scientific practice (and is evident in a vast majority of scientific papers). Yet you here are equating such acknowledgement with disregarding evidence (though it is explicitly considered). We must be dealing with different versions of English.

 

 

“one of their solutions was divine action [miracle]”

 

It’s hard to deal with this claim without context. God-of-the-gaps arguments are inherently weak. If this was a conclusion of a scientific paper, then it would represent a serious scientific indiscretion.  If it is the stated opinion of someone associated with the project, then it is innocuous.

 

 

 

“    “what's the point of describing a being as all powerful, knowing, wise etc etc?””

    The point is to recognise that if I disagree with the decision of said “being”, it may be because I don’t have access to the information upon which the being's decision is made. I therefore cannot simply dismiss that the “being” is all-knowing, just because the “being” doesn’t conform to my expectations. Maybe there’s a path of reasoning I haven’t considered.

“I know this won't be popular here but this sounds like "might is right".”

 

I don’t know what you mean here.

 

 

 

“The principle that you are laying on the table is that an all powerful, wise, benevolent being can do or require something that seems to be against what one would consider benevolent and it's ok. They're all knowing and you're not. Why doesn't this work for Allah?”

 

Why wouldn’t it?

 

 

 

“Plenty of people reject a God that asks his followers to behead others. They proclaim this behavior as ghastly, yet your thought process is exactly what these folks use to justify their behavior”

 

Yep – I am in the first group of people who reject beheadings as “ghastly” based on the Judeo-Christian ethics of the society I was brought up in (even though my personal upbringing was fundamentally secular).

 

 

 

“And then there are people who just didn't think about this stuff much while they were alive and then they died. Now they're being tortured forever right next to the person who was spitting in God's face”

 

Well – the implications of perfect justice, the responsibility of humans to seek God, do good people go to hell – all good theological/philosophical topics for a new thread.

 

 

 

“in my experience, pretty much every ID advocate is a Christian”

 

Most of the organisational representatives of ID are explicitly evolutionist. There is obvious conceptual overlap with creationism (and so arguments are often shared and there is some cross-promotion), but ID and creationism are separate entities and philosophies.

[Enoch2021]

Hey Bonkey, You said, “Replace "argument" with "claim" and reread your last statement. You're actually stating my position in this discussion, interesting isn't it?”

And

“So it seems that pretty much anything can be propped up and supported”

 

What I find “interesting” is that you choose to respond to a criticism of Innuendo with more Innuendo.

 

 

 

“Like I've said before, part of the issue is bad publicity in my opinion. …What does the young earth have speaking for them? The banana man Ray Comfort, Dr. Dino Kent Hovind who's in jail for tax evasion”

 

So regarding Ray Comfort: I consider Ray Comfort to be a sincere creationist. However, he is an evangelist, not a scientist. That means he has no formal education in critical thinking. Now that obviously doesn’t disqualify him from participation in the discussion. The problem I have is that you have taken one poor scientific argument from a non-scientist as a representation of the entire creationist position. If I was to apply the dumbest argument I could find from an atheist to all atheists, you’d be right to call me on it.

 

I think “publicity” is irrelevant. Only you can control how fairly you consider each argument. I would consider Creation Ministries International (CMI) to be the most reliable creationist organisation – as its contributors and administrators are comprised mainly of highly credentialed scientists.

 

There are also ‘lone wolf’ creationists like Kent Hovind (Carl Baugh is another) who are prone to using arguments that CMI explicitly denounce.

(http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use )

 

 

 

“Creationist organizations are admitting up front they won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”

 

The reason Unsupported Assertions are logically fallacious is because they provide nothing specific to respond to – Just more empty Innuendo.

 

 

 

“Your aren't free to interpret the evidence any way other than a way that supports scripture. That's very telling to me”

 

Evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with the secular evolutionary paradigm. Most secular scientists default to the same paradigm. Likewise, the self-evident role of creationists is to demonstrate that the very same facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm.

 

Preferring one interpretation and paradigm is not the same as failing to consider the alternatives. Informed creationists explicitly consider secular interpretations in order to provide a response. I readily acknowledge that the facts can be broadly interpreted to support the secular paradigm. However, when creationists dare to provide an interpretation that is inconsistent with the secular paradigm, we are labelled as having departed from reason (Dawkins), pseudoscience, scientifically ignorant, reality denying, evidence denying – even child abusers (Krauss). So who really isn’t “free to interpret the evidence any way other than a way that supports” there faith perspective?

 

 

 

“The Bible states that we aren't just natural beings, that there's a spiritual side to us and that we indeed can interact with the supernatural. What I'm saying is I've never seen Christians that had access to knowledge I don't or abilities that I don't have. No special discernment, insight or access to divine power that I can see. I'm not using this as evidence against the Christian position as much as an explanation as to why I'm still skeptical”

 

Requiring supernatural experience for faith has a couple of weaknesses.

 

1) We can only ever observe the natural. Our observing something spectacular does not verify that the cause is supernatural.

 

2) This is more theological – the Bible actually teaches that we cannot automatically trust supernatural experience. Faith in the authority of scripture is the standard against which supernatural claims are considered.

 

 

 

“black holes are really not that much crazier than evil spirits, it's just that I have evidence of the one and not the other”

 

Black holes have not been directly observed. Therefore, confidence in black holes requires an element of faith to bridge the gap between actual observations and the existence of black holes. Nevertheless, this is a false analogy in the sense that if black holes exist, then they are current, natural phenomena; theoretically observable given future technology. Whereas, if the Big Bang theory is true, it can never be naturally observed, not even theoretically, regardless of advances in technology. That radically increases the logical gap between observation and claim - and ergo, the amount of faith required to fill that gap.

 

 

 

“Is the big bang really that bizarre a conclusion based on CMB and redshifting of galaxies?”

 

A somewhat “bizarre” question given that I am defending the methodology as rational.

 

 

 

“the God as described by the Bible thinks my conclusion is not only unreasonable but worthy of torment. I don't find this portrayal of "the most logical, all-wise being" to make sense, therefore I reject it”

 

I’m sure if you start a thread, people will be happy to engage in a theological/philosophical discussion regarding the implications of perfect justice and a perfectly just deity.

 

 

 

“If you follow the Bible you must also agree with what it says about people like me”

 

The Bible says that “people like” you are so important to God, that He permitted the torture and slaughter of His perfect, innocent Son, in order to provide you with an opportunity to be saved from the just consequences of your own sin – even with no guarantees that you would accept the offer.

 

 

 

“You may be nice to me but at the end of the day you have to conclude that I'm wicked, in league with the devil, "against Christ" etc like the Bible proclaims”

 

In various contexts, the Bible gives information regarding the motives of unbelievers. You appear to have compiled these together and assumed they all should be specifically applied to you. I consider that to be a misapplication and mischaracterisation of scripture. It is unreasonable when Christians do it you to, and it is unreasonable when you do it - and it would be unreasonable if I did it.

 

 

 

“Maybe not slave but culture certainly does play a factor”

 

Everyone has biases. Objectivity requires that we be able to consider issues beyond these biases. That’s why I advocate so heavily for the standard of rationality. Rationality doesn’t speak to right or wrong, only to logical cohesiveness. That way an opposing position can be respected, without having to necessarily surrender one’s own perspective.

 

 

 

“So you too seem to want to assess things through your own lens and not necessarily someone else, am I so different?”

 

If we can’t consider issues beyond our own biases, then there is no point to any discussion – because our biases will filter out any argument that is inconsistent with our perspective.

 

 

 

“Excluding evidence you don't like isn't rational and yet it seems to be the bedrock of the creationist camp”

Which facts have we (“the creationist camp”) excluded from consideration? – specifically.

“The amount of decay detected in meteor samples. The RATE team acknowledged this, they consider it a "problem" for the young earth model”

 

So without a reference, I can only respond to the information you have provided and assume it’s accurate.

 

Acknowledging the weaknesses and assumptions of research is considered good scientific practice (and is evident in a vast majority of scientific papers). Yet you here are equating such acknowledgement with disregarding evidence (though it is explicitly considered). We must be dealing with different versions of English.

 

 

“one of their solutions was divine action [miracle]”

 

It’s hard to deal with this claim without context. God-of-the-gaps arguments are inherently weak. If this was a conclusion of a scientific paper, then it would represent a serious scientific indiscretion.  If it is the stated opinion of someone associated with the project, then it is innocuous.

 

 

 

“    “what's the point of describing a being as all powerful, knowing, wise etc etc?””

    The point is to recognise that if I disagree with the decision of said “being”, it may be because I don’t have access to the information upon which the being's decision is made. I therefore cannot simply dismiss that the “being” is all-knowing, just because the “being” doesn’t conform to my expectations. Maybe there’s a path of reasoning I haven’t considered.

“I know this won't be popular here but this sounds like "might is right".”

 

I don’t know what you mean here.

 

 

 

“The principle that you are laying on the table is that an all powerful, wise, benevolent being can do or require something that seems to be against what one would consider benevolent and it's ok. They're all knowing and you're not. Why doesn't this work for Allah?”

 

Why wouldn’t it?

 

 

 

“Plenty of people reject a God that asks his followers to behead others. They proclaim this behavior as ghastly, yet your thought process is exactly what these folks use to justify their behavior”

 

Yep – I am in the first group of people who reject beheadings as “ghastly” based on the Judeo-Christian ethics of the society I was brought up in (even though my personal upbringing was fundamentally secular).

 

 

 

“And then there are people who just didn't think about this stuff much while they were alive and then they died. Now they're being tortured forever right next to the person who was spitting in God's face”

 

Well – the implications of perfect justice, the responsibility of humans to seek God, do good people go to hell – all good theological/philosophical topics for a new thread.

 

 

 

“in my experience, pretty much every ID advocate is a Christian”

 

Most of the organisational representatives of ID are explicitly evolutionist. There is obvious conceptual overlap with creationism (and so arguments are often shared and there is some cross-promotion), but ID and creationism are separate entities and philosophies.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Tristen, Outstanding Post!  Measured, well thought out answers IMHO....A+  

 

 

Bonky...

 

 

“black holes are really not that much crazier than evil spirits, it's just that I have evidence of the one and not the other”

 

 

Define a Black Hole....?

 

Provide "Scientific Evidence" of their Existence......?

 

 

“Is the big bang really that bizarre a conclusion based on CMB and redshifting of galaxies?”

 

 

errr, Say What??

 

Define the CMB....?

 

Validate the CMB...?  Then, show how this supports the big bang--- (begging the question fallacy)......?

 

Define Red Shift......?

 

Validate Red Shift...?  Then, show how this supports the big bang---- (begging the question fallacy)....?

 

 

regards

[Bonky]

[Guest]

So regarding Ray Comfort: I consider Ray Comfort to be a sincere creationist....

 

However, he is an evangelist, not a scientist....

 

That means he has no formal education....

 

in critical thinking....

 

You helped me to firm up my point, which is just to say that the YEC camp....

 

has folks publicly giving lectures etc and they're laughable at times....

 

try to do damage control to keep these rogue speakers....

 

from filling Christian minds with nonsense....

 

 

Critically Speaking

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

Ray Comfort Is Spot On

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

And Those Who Put Their Faith In Metaphysical "Science"

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Are Not Critical In Their Thinking

 

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: Romans 1:20

 

Relating To Things That Are Thought To Exist

 

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. Romans 1:21

 

But That Cannot Be Seen, Measured

 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22

 

Nor Reproduced,  You See?

[Bonky]

Tristen, I checked out the CMI website briefly. I'm going to spend more time readying, I only got to skim through the plate tectonic/drift article. On the About page they have:

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

My response to their guideline is..., "What is deemed as scripture is subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

[Guest]

My response to their guideline is...,

 

"What is deemed as scripture is subject to interpretation

 

by fallible people who do not possess

 

all information."

 

~

 

Fallible Folk

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:1-3 (NIV)

 

Often Assert Fallacies

 

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.  Exodus 20:11(NIV)

 

And Most Seem

 

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13-14

 

Determined

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)

 

To Fall

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

[Tristen]

Hey Bonky, you said “You helped me to firm up my point, which is just to say that the YEC camp has folks publicly giving lectures etc and they're laughable at times. I'm also not necessarily talking about me and my reaction, I'm talking about the public and their reaction. We're talking about folks showing grainy fake looking photos of huge skeletons and claiming that everyone was 12' tall back in the day [Hovind et al]. To your point even other creationists try to do damage control to keep these rogue speakers from filling Christian minds with nonsense.”

 

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with a discussion between you and me.

 

Who is “the YEC camp”? Should I simply 'same' all evolutionists, then apply the dumbest, fringe arguments I can find from that group as though they represent all evolutionists? Or should I rather consider arguments based on their own merits?

 

 

 

    “Creationist organizations are admitting up front they won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”    

    The reason Unsupported Assertions are logically fallacious is because they provide nothing specific to respond to – Just more empty Innuendo.

“Not empty innuendo, I provided the quote from ICR in recent posts, I didn't realized I'd have to post it again:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

--Answersingenesis.org”

 

The wording of your original question was vague. You claimed they “won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”. What do you mean by “won’t allow”? You appear to be implying that they ignore facts, or refuse to consider or discuss facts. Remembering that “evidence” means an interpretation of facts to support a particular position, these implications are not justified by this quote.

 

Interpretations are subjective, highly dependent upon the presuppositions of the interpreter. Therefore, no one is obligated to accept any interpretation uncritically. In the same way that evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with their paradigm, the explicit (and self-evident) role of creationism is to interpret the facts to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm. That is the only implication of this statement – that creationists will not simply accept an interpretation that disagrees with scripture, but will rather examine the facts to see if the facts can be alternatively interpreted to fit the Biblical model.

 

So, the actual reference is https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

- Which is a page titled “Statement of Faith” that exists for the sake of employees of the ministry; explicitly “to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture”. And so the great evil committed in this statement is the acknowledgement that their interpretations are influenced by a particular paradigm – which is actually true of all science (even when not acknowledged).

 

 

 

“And the classic from Kurt Wise:

"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 turns 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."

--Kurt Wise creationist”

 

So you argument is that – since “Kurt Wise” said it, it must be the standard position of all creationists? Yet I have already discussed with you my disagreement with blind faith. So what does Kurt’s statement have to do with our discussion?

 

 

 

    Evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with the secular evolutionary paradigm.

“Except for when they don't like when they realized the piltdown man was a fraud”

 

I’m not sure how acknowledging fraud relates to interpreting evidence. That this particular fraud propagated for so long in the clear sight of the scientific community speaks to my point – that even those trained in critical thinking are prone to seeing the facts in the context of their pre-existing worldview (without applying the requisite skepticism and scrutiny of those facts that conform to their own paradigm). It also speaks to the desperation of some to promote the evolutionary worldview – that they would resort to fraud; and the ease with which they can pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community – who is eager to believe.

 

 

 

    Most secular scientists default to the same paradigm. Likewise, the self-evident role of creationists is to demonstrate that the very same facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm.

“I guess to them that's so”

 

Do you have an argument indicating otherwise? Or are we just going to settle on your Innuendo?

 

 

 

“I don't think the fossil record supports the flood event whatsoever”

 

Good story. Whatever you do, don’t start a threat asking creationists for facts that can be interpreted to support the Biblical flood. Just stick with your own opinion and assume you are right.

 

 

 

“Creationists seem to be happy to just acknowledge that we have fossils [as evidence] but don't seem too worried that there's animals found in one layer and none of the others etc.”

 

- As long as we are “happy” in our ignorance. Under no circumstances should you start a thread asking creationists to interpretation fossil succession in a manner that is consistent the Biblical model.

 

 

 

“The message I get from YEC's [as supported above] is that they are NOT able to consider "alternatives" if the alternatives are not supporting scripture”

 

I suppose that depends what you mean by “consider”. If by “consider”, you mean ‘simply accept what we are told without any critical examination’, then I agree that this is discouraged. If by “consider”, you mean that we are permitted to scrutinise the facts and formulate alternative interpretations to account for those facts, then we are permitted (at least in the opinion of this “YEC”).

 

 

 

“Who said the only valid evidence is the evidence from direct observation? … I think you're taking the word faith and making some custom modifications to it to suit your needs”

 

Observation is the fundamental currency of the scientific method. Legitimate scientific confidence can only be attributed by reference to observation. The justification is in the logic that underpins the scientific method. Until we can verify that an entity actually exists (through observation), then we can never verify any causal relationship between the putative entity and the other facts.

 

Faith is a different kind of confidence. Faith is a measure of confidence beyond observation. Blind faith ignores observations. Rational faith considers observations, but is the only way to attribute confidence to a claim which cannot (or has not) been observed.

 

As a rule, we have all agreed to assume that observation can be trusted. So observations can generally be considered to be rationally indisputable – i.e. we can be all-but certain something exists because it is observed to exist. That’s what makes observation such an important aspect of the scientific method when it comes to attributing confidence to claims.

 

 

 

“Who said that scientists have ultimate confidence in black holes or the big bang?”

 

You equated confidence in Big Bang with confidence in Black Holes. I’ve heard others equate confidence to secular models with to confidence in gravity, or the sky being blue, or other such nonsense. Some have claimed evolution to be fact – even proven fact. I recently viewed a video by Neil deGrassy Tyson claiming that the evidence for Big Bang is so indisputable, that Big Bang Theory should be considered scientific law. How many examples of such language do you need from “scientists” claiming superlative confidence in secular historical models for this claim to be valid?

 

I only referenced black holes because you presented them as analogous to the Big Bang.

 

 

 

“If you follow the Bible you must also agree with what it says about people like me”

The Bible says that “people like” you are so important to God, that He permitted the torture and slaughter of His perfect, innocent Son, in order to provide you with an opportunity to be saved from the just consequences of your own sin – even with no guarantees that you would accept the offer.

“He permitted? Who's idea was it that Jesus needed to sacrificed to begin with? I imagine God has free will right?”

 

Yes.

 

 

 

“Does everyone necessarily agree with what is rational?”

 

Rational people are obligated to provide an argument expounding their position.

 

 

 

“Then do you agree with statements of faith like the one's I posted earlier? They make it sound like you can't consider the idea that you could be wrong.”

 

I’m not sure what “faith statements” you are referring to. Like ‘truth’, “wrong” is an absolute claim. Confidence in absolutes can only ever be claims of faith.

 

 

 

“I wasn't criticizing the RATE team, I was stating that they acknowledge that radio decay is a problem under a young earth model. The institutions like ICR/AIG have a policy that forbids offering this as evidence of an old earth. It won't be acknowledged.”

 

I’d have to see the “policy”, or an example of what you mean, before I could offer my analysis.

 

The point of this exercise was to offer evidential support for your generalized claim that creationists typically ignore facts. If our intentional ignorance is so common, perhaps you could provide an example that is a bit easier to examine and reference. Before you present anything, I would encourage you to consider whether or not the facts have actually been ignored by creationists, or have the creationists simply disputed the provided interpretation. Don’t simply believe the propaganda of those from an opposing position who presume to tell you who we are. Examine the claims for yourself.

 

 

 

“The principle that you are laying on the table is that an all powerful, wise, benevolent being can do or require something that seems to be against what one would consider benevolent and it's ok. They're all knowing and you're not. Why doesn't this work for Allah?”

Why wouldn’t it?

“Because it potentially justifies their actions”

 

The logical fallacy you have applied here is called an Appeal to Consequence. Just because we don’t like or understand something, doesn’t necessarily render it to be untrue. Each argument should be assessed on its own rational merit. That applies equally to the claims of Islam (even extremist Islam) as it does to the claims of Christianity.

[Enoch2021]

Hey Bonky, you said “You helped me to firm up my point, which is just to say that the YEC camp has folks publicly giving lectures etc and they're laughable at times. I'm also not necessarily talking about me and my reaction, I'm talking about the public and their reaction. We're talking about folks showing grainy fake looking photos of huge skeletons and claiming that everyone was 12' tall back in the day [Hovind et al]. To your point even other creationists try to do damage control to keep these rogue speakers from filling Christian minds with nonsense.”

 

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with a discussion between you and me.

 

Who is “the YEC camp”? Should I simply 'same' all evolutionists, then apply the dumbest, fringe arguments I can find from that group as though they represent all evolutionists? Or should I rather consider arguments based on their own merits?

 

 

 

    “Creationist organizations are admitting up front they won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”    

    The reason Unsupported Assertions are logically fallacious is because they provide nothing specific to respond to – Just more empty Innuendo.

“Not empty innuendo, I provided the quote from ICR in recent posts, I didn't realized I'd have to post it again:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

--Answersingenesis.org”

 

The wording of your original question was vague. You claimed they “won't allow evidence that goes against scripture”. What do you mean by “won’t allow”? You appear to be implying that they ignore facts, or refuse to consider or discuss facts. Remembering that “evidence” means an interpretation of facts to support a particular position, these implications are not justified by this quote.

 

Interpretations are subjective, highly dependent upon the presuppositions of the interpreter. Therefore, no one is obligated to accept any interpretation uncritically. In the same way that evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with their paradigm, the explicit (and self-evident) role of creationism is to interpret the facts to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm. That is the only implication of this statement – that creationists will not simply accept an interpretation that disagrees with scripture, but will rather examine the facts to see if the facts can be alternatively interpreted to fit the Biblical model.

 

So, the actual reference is https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

- Which is a page titled “Statement of Faith” that exists for the sake of employees of the ministry; explicitly “to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture”. And so the great evil committed in this statement is the acknowledgement that their interpretations are influenced by a particular paradigm – which is actually true of all science (even when not acknowledged).

 

 

 

“And the classic from Kurt Wise:

"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 turns 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."

--Kurt Wise creationist”

 

So you argument is that – since “Kurt Wise” said it, it must be the standard position of all creationists? Yet I have already discussed with you my disagreement with blind faith. So what does Kurt’s statement have to do with our discussion?

 

 

 

    Evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with the secular evolutionary paradigm.

“Except for when they don't like when they realized the piltdown man was a fraud”

 

I’m not sure how acknowledging fraud relates to interpreting evidence. That this particular fraud propagated for so long in the clear sight of the scientific community speaks to my point – that even those trained in critical thinking are prone to seeing the facts in the context of their pre-existing worldview (without applying the requisite skepticism and scrutiny of those facts that conform to their own paradigm). It also speaks to the desperation of some to promote the evolutionary worldview – that they would resort to fraud; and the ease with which they can pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community – who is eager to believe.

 

 

 

    Most secular scientists default to the same paradigm. Likewise, the self-evident role of creationists is to demonstrate that the very same facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm.

“I guess to them that's so”

 

Do you have an argument indicating otherwise? Or are we just going to settle on your Innuendo?

 

 

 

“I don't think the fossil record supports the flood event whatsoever”

 

Good story. Whatever you do, don’t start a threat asking creationists for facts that can be interpreted to support the Biblical flood. Just stick with your own opinion and assume you are right.

 

 

 

“Creationists seem to be happy to just acknowledge that we have fossils [as evidence] but don't seem too worried that there's animals found in one layer and none of the others etc.”

 

- As long as we are “happy” in our ignorance. Under no circumstances should you start a thread asking creationists to interpretation fossil succession in a manner that is consistent the Biblical model.

 

 

 

“The message I get from YEC's [as supported above] is that they are NOT able to consider "alternatives" if the alternatives are not supporting scripture”

 

I suppose that depends what you mean by “consider”. If by “consider”, you mean ‘simply accept what we are told without any critical examination’, then I agree that this is discouraged. If by “consider”, you mean that we are permitted to scrutinise the facts and formulate alternative interpretations to account for those facts, then we are permitted (at least in the opinion of this “YEC”).

 

 

 

“Who said the only valid evidence is the evidence from direct observation? … I think you're taking the word faith and making some custom modifications to it to suit your needs”

 

Observation is the fundamental currency of the scientific method. Legitimate scientific confidence can only be attributed by reference to observation. The justification is in the logic that underpins the scientific method. Until we can verify that an entity actually exists (through observation), then we can never verify any causal relationship between the putative entity and the other facts.

 

Faith is a different kind of confidence. Faith is a measure of confidence beyond observation. Blind faith ignores observations. Rational faith considers observations, but is the only way to attribute confidence to a claim which cannot (or has not) been observed.

 

As a rule, we have all agreed to assume that observation can be trusted. So observations can generally be considered to be rationally indisputable – i.e. we can be all-but certain something exists because it is observed to exist. That’s what makes observation such an important aspect of the scientific method when it comes to attributing confidence to claims.

 

 

 

“Who said that scientists have ultimate confidence in black holes or the big bang?”

 

You equated confidence in Big Bang with confidence in Black Holes. I’ve heard others equate confidence to secular models with to confidence in gravity, or the sky being blue, or other such nonsense. Some have claimed evolution to be fact – even proven fact. I recently viewed a video by Neil deGrassy Tyson claiming that the evidence for Big Bang is so indisputable, that Big Bang Theory should be considered scientific law. How many examples of such language do you need from “scientists” claiming superlative confidence in secular historical models for this claim to be valid?

 

I only referenced black holes because you presented them as analogous to the Big Bang.

 

 

 

“If you follow the Bible you must also agree with what it says about people like me”

The Bible says that “people like” you are so important to God, that He permitted the torture and slaughter of His perfect, innocent Son, in order to provide you with an opportunity to be saved from the just consequences of your own sin – even with no guarantees that you would accept the offer.

“He permitted? Who's idea was it that Jesus needed to sacrificed to begin with? I imagine God has free will right?”

 

Yes.

 

 

 

“Does everyone necessarily agree with what is rational?”

 

Rational people are obligated to provide an argument expounding their position.

 

 

 

“Then do you agree with statements of faith like the one's I posted earlier? They make it sound like you can't consider the idea that you could be wrong.”

 

I’m not sure what “faith statements” you are referring to. Like ‘truth’, “wrong” is an absolute claim. Confidence in absolutes can only ever be claims of faith.

 

 

 

“I wasn't criticizing the RATE team, I was stating that they acknowledge that radio decay is a problem under a young earth model. The institutions like ICR/AIG have a policy that forbids offering this as evidence of an old earth. It won't be acknowledged.”

 

I’d have to see the “policy”, or an example of what you mean, before I could offer my analysis.

 

The point of this exercise was to offer evidential support for your generalized claim that creationists typically ignore facts. If our intentional ignorance is so common, perhaps you could provide an example that is a bit easier to examine and reference. Before you present anything, I would encourage you to consider whether or not the facts have actually been ignored by creationists, or have the creationists simply disputed the provided interpretation. Don’t simply believe the propaganda of those from an opposing position who presume to tell you who we are. Examine the claims for yourself.

 

 

 

“The principle that you are laying on the table is that an all powerful, wise, benevolent being can do or require something that seems to be against what one would consider benevolent and it's ok. They're all knowing and you're not. Why doesn't this work for Allah?”

Why wouldn’t it?

“Because it potentially justifies their actions”

 

The logical fallacy you have applied here is called an Appeal to Consequence. Just because we don’t like or understand something, doesn’t necessarily render it to be untrue. Each argument should be assessed on its own rational merit. That applies equally to the claims of Islam (even extremist Islam) as it does to the claims of Christianity.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Excellent comments again Tristen,

 

Just a couple comments to you ( since Bonky can't support his claims...the relevant ones)

 

 

This is hilarious and speaks Encyclopedic Volumes....

 

I recently viewed a video by Neil deGrassy Tyson claiming that the evidence for Big Bang is so indisputable, that Big Bang Theory should be considered scientific law. How many examples of such language do you need from “scientists” claiming superlative confidence in secular historical models for this claim to be valid?

 

 

  Did he actually say this?

 

He has: Harvard University (A.B.), University of Texas at Austin (M.A.). Columbia University (M.Phil., Ph.D.).  So a BS (   ) in Physics from Harvard and a PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. (** He also has a degree in Philosophy)

Multiple Awards from NASA and the Academy of Sciences, Presidential Appointments et al.  And....

 

 

He couldn't pass a 5th Grade General Science Class    ; Why?  Well...

 

 

Scientific Theories:  Explain the "HOW/WHY".

 

Scientific Laws:  Describe the "WHAT". 

 

 

"Theories" NEVER EVER become "LAWS" and Scientific Laws NEVER EVER become Scientific Theories.  They're 2 completely different animals.

 

"A theory doesn’t become a law. End of story, end of this issue of Science 101." ---Science 101; Background boosters for elementary teachers.  LOL

http://web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/8710/NSTA_Science101theorylaw.pdf

 

 

 

After he graduates 5th Grade General Science; plop this down on his desk    ....

 

(Source: http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang ): 

 

" * Summary of our List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For descriptions and links to journal references, see below.

 

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies

- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction

- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions

- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist

- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth

- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos

- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed search has implied simply never existed

- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity

- Solar system formation theory wrong too

- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center

- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center

- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart

- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected

- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes

- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies

- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies

- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved

- The mythical CMB prediction and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions that were never made

- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang."

 

 

Maybe Neil "smokin de-grasse" Tyson should stick with "Philosophy" or Incoherent Propaganda 101.

 

 

 

 

Bonky:  “Creationists seem to be happy to just acknowledge that we have fossils [as evidence] but don't seem too worried that there's animals found in one layer and none of the others etc.”

Tristen:  As long as we are “happy” in our ignorance. Under no circumstances should you start a thread asking creationists to interpretation fossil succession in a manner that is consistent the Biblical model.

 

 

"Fossils as evidence", eh?  Evidence of a FLOOD?  Or Evidence of Dead Things that Died all of a sudden like?

 

And what do you say to this...

 

 

 

                                  

 

 

 

regards

[Bonky]

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with a discussion between you and me.

 

Who is “the YEC camp”? Should I simply 'same' all evolutionists, then apply the dumbest, fringe arguments I can find from that group as though they represent all evolutionists? Or should I rather consider arguments based on their own merits?

I think earlier you were stating that people don't even give young earth arguments any consideration, I was trying to offer one reason why that might be. I'm not using Ray Comfort to criticize the young earth model, I am however stating that for some secular folks, Ray Comfort is their initial exposure to the creationist model. Not long ago Ray stated on his facebook page that gravity didn't exist in space.

 

 

 

Interpretations are subjective, highly dependent upon the presuppositions of the interpreter. Therefore, no one is obligated to accept any interpretation uncritically. In the same way that evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with their paradigm, the explicit (and self-evident) role of creationism is to interpret the facts to be consistent with the Biblical paradigm. That is the only implication of this statement – that creationists will not simply accept an interpretation that disagrees with scripture, but will rather examine the facts to see if the facts can be alternatively interpreted to fit the Biblical model.

 

So, the actual reference is https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

- Which is a page titled “Statement of Faith” that exists for the sake of employees of the ministry; explicitly “to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture”. And so the great evil committed in this statement is the acknowledgement that their interpretations are influenced by a particular paradigm – which is actually true of all science (even when not acknowledged).

I think it's a bit beyond interpretations being influenced.

 

 

 

“And the classic from Kurt Wise:

So you argument is that – since “Kurt Wise” said it, it must be the standard position of all creationists? Yet I have already discussed with you my disagreement with blind faith. So what does Kurt’s statement have to do with our discussion?

It's a pattern or a theme that I've seen, I just find it shocking to hold this position.

 

 

 

   Evolutionary biologists interpret the facts to be consistent with the secular evolutionary paradigm.

“Except for when they don't like when they realized the piltdown man was a fraud”

 

I’m not sure how acknowledging fraud relates to interpreting evidence. That this particular fraud propagated for so long in the clear sight of the scientific community speaks to my point – that even those trained in critical thinking are prone to seeing the facts in the context of their pre-existing worldview (without applying the requisite skepticism and scrutiny of those facts that conform to their own paradigm). It also speaks to the desperation of some to promote the evolutionary worldview – that they would resort to fraud; and the ease with which they can pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community – who is eager to believe.

The piltdown fraud happened in the early 1900s you realize that right? You claim they didn't apply skepticism and scrutiny to the situation but they absolutely did. There was doubt from the very beginning, it wasn't until later that they could prove that it was a fraud. Who is "they" when you say they resort to fraud? Are you talking about scientists or con men? It was scientists that exposed the fraud for what it was.

 

 

  

Good story. Whatever you do, don’t start a threat asking creationists for facts that can be interpreted to support the Biblical flood. Just stick with your own opinion and assume you are right.

I know I've heard some of them already, no thread needed.

 

 

  

- As long as we are “happy” in our ignorance. Under no circumstances should you start a thread asking creationists to interpretation fossil succession in a manner that is consistent the Biblical model.

Again I see no point in starting a thread to hear what I've already heard. We covered some ground on this already and didn't get very far. You stated that mobile animals were able to make their way to higher ground. I replied that what about after they died, rushing to the top of a hill only works when you're alive, if you're dead you're getting mixed up with all the other corpses.

 

 

   

I suppose that depends what you mean by “consider”. If by “consider”, you mean ‘simply accept what we are told without any critical examination’, then I agree that this is discouraged. If by “consider”, you mean that we are permitted to scrutinise the facts and formulate alternative interpretations to account for those facts, then we are permitted (at least in the opinion of this “YEC”).

Not discouraged, flat out rejected in advance.

 

 

  

“Who said the only valid evidence is the evidence from direct observation? … I think you're taking the word faith and making some custom modifications to it to suit your needs”

 

Observation is the fundamental currency of the scientific method. Legitimate scientific confidence can only be attributed by reference to observation. The justification is in the logic that underpins the scientific method. Until we can verify that an entity actually exists (through observation), then we can never verify any causal relationship between the putative entity and the other facts.

 

Faith is a different kind of confidence. Faith is a measure of confidence beyond observation. Blind faith ignores observations. Rational faith considers observations, but is the only way to attribute confidence to a claim which cannot (or has not) been observed.

Your use of the word faith is not found in the dictionary, please make up your own word instead of taking words and tweaking the definitions.

 

 

As a rule, we have all agreed to assume that observation can be trusted. So observations can generally be considered to be rationally indisputable – i.e. we can be all-but certain something exists because it is observed to exist. That’s what makes observation such an important aspect of the scientific method when it comes to attributing confidence to claims.

Having said that indirect observations have also led to discoveries, so they can prove useful as well. I'm not stating that indirect evidence will necessarily lead to concrete evidence of this or that.

 

 

  

“Who said that scientists have ultimate confidence in black holes or the big bang?”

 

You equated confidence in Big Bang with confidence in Black Holes.

Earlier I was stating that black holes, as described by secular scientists, are "crazy" sounding. I was trying to show that I'm not opposed to believing crazy sounding claims. Whether black holes actually exist is irrelevant to my point.

 

I’ve heard others equate confidence to secular models with to confidence in gravity, or the sky being blue, or other such nonsense. Some have claimed evolution to be fact – even proven fact. I recently viewed a video by Neil deGrassy Tyson claiming that the evidence for Big Bang is so indisputable, that Big Bang Theory should be considered scientific law. How many examples of such language do you need from “scientists” claiming superlative confidence in secular historical models for this claim to be valid?

 

I only referenced black holes because you presented them as analogous to the Big Bang.

I could be losing my memory/mind, but I don't remember bringing up the big bang [at least not originally, I thought that was you]. I remember bringing up black holes however. I couldn't find this quote or video from Neil, I was curious to hear what he had to say.

 

 

Yes.

So it was God's choice to require his son to be sacrificed. It was God's choice to decide that humans go to hell to be tormented forever [i have met Christians that didn't believe in hell] if they die and don't believe. Doesn't sound all loving to me.

 

 

 

The logical fallacy you have applied here is called an Appeal to Consequence. Just because we don’t like or understand something, doesn’t necessarily render it to be untrue. Each argument should be assessed on its own rational merit. That applies equally to the claims of Islam (even extremist Islam) as it does to the claims of Christianity.

You're misreading what I'm saying. I see the reaction of Christians everywhere when we see extremists being violent. My reaction to this, based on the principle you're putting forward, is that these actions aren't necessarily bad after all. You yourself said we don't have access to all information so who's to challenge God? Edited May 10, 2015 by Bonky