BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:53 PM

Evolution is true. There are gaps and there are uncertainties for sure, but, in its general thrust, it is true. I know this will hurt certain persons, but they are simply going to have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:49 PM

For the sake of those sensible people who don't hang around on those strangulated, dying threads, Pete, and once and for all, there are no "scientific creation models." And, yet again, you rattle on about creationist scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, etc. You will not respond, I know, because you never do, but all I ask is that you give us the names of these creationist scientists so that we can peruse their publications ourselves. But I won't hold my breath, as I fully expect the usual "you wouldn't understand anyway, even if I told you, Steve" response. Sorry...that should have been "steve."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:43 PM

"....i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism."

Evolutionism, unlike creationism, is not a belief but a scientific theory supported by tangible evidence - something that creationists refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't mesh with their particular creation fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM

Well..it says you get until October...unless you are 'saved' and are 'taken up' on May 21....so I suppose you can get in a lot more tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: BanjoRay
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:03 PM

The world was created 6000 years ago by God. However He's not really a very patient being, because after such a brief amount of time
the world's going to end in May.
It was fun while it lasted.......

I wonder how many tunes I can play between now and then?

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

penny-ijust looked on creation.com.todays article expands what i just posted to you.dont suppose you would read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

that was a wordy denial of my point jack.
i am not denying that scientific creation models may change.
so do evolutionist models.
and i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism.
how do you suppose creationist scientists can publish in peer reviewed journals when evolutionism is jealously guarded.
the best they can do is offer debate on equal terms,which is often declined on the grounds[?]that creation might be seen to be taken seriously!.

so the literal creator is not nice penny?well the god you posit presumably;uses deep time and death and suffering over aeons to get things going?
he dont look very pretty either.
and it dont add up theologically either .cf other thread.
best wishes though.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:26 PM

I haven't heard of the Magical Sky Fairy before, Foolestroupe. What a great idea! ;-) What does she look like? I'm envisioning something along the lines of Kate Blanchett, dressed in medieval robes and holding a magic wand. I could definitely go for that. If she looks like Shirley Temple, though, I'd be a bit disappointed, and if she sang "The Good Ship Lollipop", I'd be totally disillusioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:05 PM

"at least darwin acknowledged the possibility of conclusions opposed to his own[origins"

Creationists deny any other possibility, and declare that they will pray to their own Magical Sky Fairy to help brainwash any doubters to be converted to the Only True Position, without needing to do any further research . They then, as per the convoluted mind games of proponents of 'The Law of Fives' will do any rationalising necessary to keep their beliefs, unlike followers of Science, will will discard things and start research again.

Recent research on aging, for example, has rejected 'oxidative stress' and other ideas as not relevant - in spite of the 'faith' of some of the very researchers that these things really DO work ... :-)

In any lab research on animals, the test animals will do as they damn well please, in spite of what the prejudices of the researchers are.

See this graphic - a picture is worth a thousand words.

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM

I don't think Kent is delusional. I just think his heart has checkmated his mind in this particular case.

False dichotomy. Amounts to the same thing.

And how do you know its only "this particular case? An idiot who believes the 6000 year nonsence will embrace any absurdity, however preposterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:50 PM

"God is an artist and the universe is his creation"

I remember a Star Trek episode, where the core troublemaker of the episode was a spoilt child who was mostly omnipotent, but was about equivalent to a 3-5 year old. The infant's 'creation' was a jumbled inconsistent mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM

Don - "It is perfectly good science put to extremely bad uses."

Don, you are absolutely correct about that. ;-) I agree with what you said 100%, I just did not elaborate quite far enough in my previous postings. So...what I really object to in science is two separate things, then:

1. bad science. (invalid or misleading theories and conclusions)

and...

2. good science that is devoted to an extremely bad use.

Those are the two areas of science that concern me. I am totally in favor of good science that is devoted toward a positive use.

Same deal with religion: I am in favor of religion that is put to a positive use. I object to religion that is put to a negative use. I don't particularly mind people using various mythological tales...if they use them in a positive way that doesn't hurt anyone. Most cultures have been enriched by their inherited mythos, and it has also been very beneficial to the world of creative art.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:24 PM

in other words, what Don said. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:22 PM

Wow. I've heard of weird science, but bad science?

Science is essentially a collection of known facts about physical porcesses. These facts are either true or false. If false facts are applied to a design...because birds flap their wings to fly, any man-built flying device must have flappable wings...the design usually fails, revealing the flaw in the facts. But because facts are true or false, not good or evil, a collection of facts that leads to failure is flawed science, not bad science.
Are ICBMs bad science? They function extremely well at delivering bombs to their targets. If flawed science is employed, the missile may explode before reaching the target. But is the science bad, because an ICBM can kill vast numbers of humans? Can a missile also be launched into space that carries a satellite which predicts hurricanes, thus saving vast numbers of humans? It is essentially the same science, and it is by nature neither good nor bad. Those are human value judgements. Sound science yields a functional tool like the missile. Whether man uses it to kill, save, heal, or poison, is up to man.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:19 PM

""Badly done science or science that is deliberate in creating horribly destructive things (like poison gas or atomic bombs) (and that's what I mean by "bad science") is still going through the outward motions and all the formalities and procedurs of science, but it leads to invalid theories, viciously destructive inventions, and/or misinterpreted results.""

The basic flaw in that reasoning LH, is blindingly obvious. The production of poison gas, nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons is not bad science.

It is perfectly good science put to extremely bad uses. Logic demands that you do not blame the bullet, nor yet the gun, but blame instead the murderous human being who pulls the trigger.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

Are you sure?

Bad mathematics is mathematics that leads to an incorrect answer, but it's still mathematics.

Bad military strategy leads to defeat on the battlefield, but it's still military strategy.

Bad reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions, but it's still reasoning.

Badly done work leads to poor results, but it's still work.

Badly done science or science that is deliberate in creating horribly destructive things (like poison gas or atomic bombs) (and that's what I mean by "bad science") is still going through the outward motions and all the formalities and procedurs of science, but it leads to invalid theories, viciously destructive inventions, and/or misinterpreted results. It is still science, it's just not very useful science, that's all. It still requires labs, research papers, trained staff, reference materials, controlled conditions, and all the other acoutrements of science, so it's still science. Just piss poor science. ;-) And it happens all over the place at the behest of corporations (who desire a certain result) and governments (who desire a certain result). Their desire for that result is what creates the bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:34 PM

L.H; What you refer to as "bad science" quite simply ain't science . It is misguided or deliberately misleading activity passed off as science. (Man oh man, how my own profundity astonishes me!)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

A person may believe what they wish to.

When they act on that belief to cause harm there is a problem.

When they do not act to avert harm because of their belief there is a problem.

When they cause harm to themselves through action or inaction because of their belief there is a problem.

I did not start out to redefine Asimov's laws of robotics by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM

"Good, then, Shimrod. Maybe we can impose a Scientific Inquisition on Kent and give him the option to repent or die."

No, no, no, no!!! As I wrote in my posting (if you had bothered to read it)he should be perfectly free to believe whatever he likes. Although, because what he believes is complete nonsense, those beliefs don't deserve much respect. But he and his fundamentalist chums should only be vigorously opposed if they attempt to impose their nonsense on the rest of society. Remember that in some countries, including (to an uncomfortable extent) the US, religious fundamentalists have considerable political influence. In my opinion that makes them dangerous - and dangerous people should never be appeased.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:33 PM

Christian fundamentalism doesn't work for me either, Don T, for reasons similar to what you have posted. It never did work for me, but I grew up as a child in an atheistic family, so it's hardly surprsing that I rejected the entire Christian mythos the moment I encountered it.

Later I began to see much value in many of the philosophical concepts expressed in the Gospels, and those are the main thing about Christianity that I like and find value in. Concepts such as: being forgiving, being loving, being kind, being truthful, being honest, being loyal, being just, etc...

Those are the things I find in Christianity that I like very much. I have no particular interest in the rather odd idea of Jesus dying on behalf of anyone's sins...or being the one and only "Son of God"...but I like what Jesus apparently had to say about human conduct toward other humans and toward life in general.

Most of the Christians I've ever known were not fundamentalists, and most of them believed in modern concepts like evolution, for example. Therefore I don't necessarily see Christianity confined within the shoebox of Christian fundamentalism.

But I am not a Christian. I'm just interested in the more positive aspects of Christianity. Same as I am interested in the positive aspects of Native American religion, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufiism, Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. They all have some very positive aspects, and some excellent concepts to consider, and that's what interests me about them.

Similarly, all nations and all cultures have some positive aspects, and that's why I am willing to find some good in all nations and all cultures.

To utterly oppose in its entirety any religion, any discipline or any culture and see NO good in it at all... just because you don't subscribe to it is to be a purblind fanatic of a certain sort, and it's a very ugly phenomenon. It is that phenomenon that causes some people to post here just so they can throw verbal rotten eggs at the despised "Christian" who dares to post on their forum. No respect. Well, they live in the ugliness of their own thought processes, just like any fanatic does, and they are no better than a religious fundamentalist who rants and raves and tells us we are all going to hell for not accepting Jesus as our personal saviour.

I am not referring to you in those above comments, Don T., but to a few others who drop in here just to stand around and jeer and throw rocks at the "outsider" like a bunch of little kids bullying a strange kid who entered their schoolyard.

****

LEJ - You said: "Science has nothing to do with any presupposition."

Good science has nothing to do with any presupposition. Agreed.

Bad science, however, is based upon and dominated by presuppositions, and there has always been a fair bit of bad science around. Sometimes it dominates the officially sanctioned scene for a period of time. I'll give you a glaring historical example - The Nazis engaged in a great deal of well-funded bad science to prove their fallacious theories about the Aryan "Master Race". That bad science was widely publicized and promoted through the German government and media in the 30s and early 40s, and it was believed by a great many people. It is STILL believed by a few.

The same sort of thing happens now, only it's not the Nazis who are presently doing it, that's all. It's other political and financial forces who are presently doing it, and strictly for their own gain.

It is bad science that worries me...not good science. I am very much in favor of good science...meaning: honest science, without ulterior motives or presuppositions of any sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:30 PM

Going back to Kent's explanation of god creating the world with the appearance of age, with a backstory, as a modern author would do, there is a very large problem with it. Or several.

Firstly, writers, or games developers, are making their worlds in imitation of the real one (no matter here how the real one arose). God would not need to do that. He could start anywhere he wanted. No need to bury fossils or greywackes (see other thread). No need to arrange for stars to have the appearance of great distance, so far that their light could not reach the Earth in 6000 years. The world could look its real age, no problem.

Secondly, the creation of that backstory raises serious questions about the nature of god. (BTW, I take care to use capitals when I write of the God I worship. I do not, as you will see, have any respect for the short history creator.) I'm not sure that Kent is right to claim that authors do not lie in creating their worlds - I've known that Exclusive Brethren abjure fiction because it is not true. It is a specialised form of lie, accepted by writer and reader in the suspension of disbelief. In the case of the creation of the world in the manner of Genesis, it is not suspension of disbelief that is demanded, but belief, and the price of disbelief is damnation. Not the same game, is it? This creator has planted in the world the appearance of age, in incredible detail, knowing, being omniscient, that many people will be convinced by this that it is of great age. Perhaps, as Gosse suggested, to test people's faith. But it is not exactly fair.

This artist god, careless of people's souls, is not exactly the one revealed in Christ. If the world is young, then it is a lie, and the liar unworthy of respect, let alone worship, honour, or being considered holy.

And his world, with its intimately interconnected webs of life, the beautiful, but also the nasty, the parasites such as malaria, schistosomaiasis, the devouring such as the mantis, is not that wonderful. And should some YEC claim that the nasties are all our fault because of the Fall, bear in mind that the potential for those nasties had to be present in the pre-Fall lives of those creatures. Or else, they had to be changed afterwards. If that is slipped away from the creator to a demonic opponent, then that had to be allowed. By the creator. It's another story that did not have to be built in to the narrative, if such it is.

The literal creator is not nice. I realise that I am dabbling with Marcionism, here, but I'm not going down the path to believing in an actual, different, Old Testament deity who is other than the New Testament God who is the father of Christ, and who loved his people enough to save them. The writers of Genesis did not see clearly. Not face to face.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

No, I'm sorry, it just doesn't work for me.

1. A minority of the world's population believe that the Creator passed down the details of Creation to the adherents of a totally different belief system and that those adherents recorded faithfully the train of events that followed for no less than 4000 years.

Then that Creator sent his son as an emissary, and a sacrificial lamb, to relieve them of the burden of their sins and set them on a new path, discarding those of the original faith who chose not to follow, but believing implicitly in the testament they had produced.

The other major religions treat their Creators' emissaries as holy men and prophets.

Only Christians believe that their prophet was divine. Only Christians believe that their holy book is literally true in all particulars, and only a small percentage of Christians at that.

Why do you suppose this is so?

2. In the last Century the natives of a particularly lightning prone part of Africa used their deductive powers to decide that the lightning strikes were in fact the devil M'Shimba M'Shamba stalking the forest on legs of fire.

What makes YEC beliefs intrinsically better than the beliefs of those natives?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM

umm..ok,Leej... my point was kinda that the terms lose something when used loosely on "the layman level" and that "some agreement" is often illusory. ...but...let's see how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:44 PM

Good, then, Shimrod. Maybe we can impose a Scientific Inquisition on Kent and give him the option to repent or die.
LH...I used an example of Greek Polytheism because it was an easy way to illustrate the point, not to imply that you are a Greek Polytheist, or that your beliefs are flawed. I believe a religious or spiritual belief can be in complete accord with scientific fact, and still concern itself with ultimate truth. There are more things on earth than are dreamt of in science. A rainbow is more than moisture, light, and angle of view.
Bill D. I bow to your credentials re induction, deduction, etc. Our discussion is taking place on the layman level, and I think there is some agreement on the terms' meaning in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:26 PM

"OK, Gang: a survey: if idiotic, ignorant, or deluded are inappropriate-

What are appropriate descriptors/characterizations for those who maintain that the earth is only 6000 yeas old? Or for that matter, the earth is flat, that Newton's laws don't apply, etc.

As a corrollary, why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?"

No, Greg, 'idiotic, ignorant AND deluded' will do nicely and 'profound ignorance and idiocy should NEVER be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded'! Nevertheless, they should be perfectly free to wallow in their own ignorance - if that's what they want to do - but if they want to impose their stupid views on the rest of us, to gain political influence, indulge in terrorism or deny the human rights of women and children then they need to be resisted vigorously!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:22 PM

A brief aside:

It would be well for those who wish to discuss Inductive Reasoning in this matter to be sure that they understand how it is applicable and the various forms of it.
   It is not a simple concept to wrap one's head around. (I studied it in several classes, and STILL have to be careful when I claim its use.)
Beyond that, take a look at Abductive reasoning...(and several of the ideas listed at the bottom of the Inductive page)


One good way to get a grasp of Induction is to play or study the card game New Eleusis, in which the object is to figure out the 'rule' of the game the dealer has made up and is following. After playing the 'game' awhile, it becomes obvious that as a game, each 'round' can be either so easy that it is no challenge, OR the rule can be so complex and convoluted that it is essentially impossible to discern. Think about how this applies to our reasoning processes when trying to cope with serious issues like Life, The Universe & Everything.

sorry for the interruption....(maybe)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:15 PM

"...why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?"

No need to bring politics into this thread.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:09 PM

I think you are right that much religion is based on inductive reasoning (such as: "I know in my heart there is an all-powerful Creator, therefore he must have made the world in 7 days, like it says in the Bible"). Some of religion, however, is based on direct experiences of some sort which various people have had, in which case it was deductive reasoning, based upon the personal observation of those people when they had the experience, that started off the religion. LH

I need to clarify my view, I suppose. I am not saying there is no inductive reasoning in religion. If I am an ancient Greek and I watch the sun travel across the sky every day, I will inductively deduce that it is moving and the Earth is still. I may next reason that it has to be some sort of vehicle. Which follows it must be some extraordinary vehicle, like the Chariot of Apollo. There. I have deduced, based on my own observation, that the sun is in fact the Chariot of Apollo. If I have a powerful telescope, I may even be able to look for the wheels, and at this point I am using science to justify my conclusion. Are those sunspots and solar flares, or spokes?
That's what I'm saying. Science has nothing to do with any presupposition. I'm not saying it isn't used that way by religions, governments, etc. But that is the flaw in the Creationist Belief.

And Greg F, I don't think Kent is delusional. I just think his heart has checkmated his mind in this particular case.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:06 PM

OK, Gang: a survey: if idiotic, ignorant, or deluded are inappropriate-

What are appropriate descriptors/characterizations for those who maintain that the earth is only 6000 yeas old? Or for that matter, the earth is flat, that Newton's laws don't apply, etc.

As a corrollary, why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:37 AM

"HAD noticed that and it's a superb model. Like others I am interested in your continuing level-headed information. I hope you will continue to "pass" on engaging in argument."

I didn't notice, I had the "Mudcat Insult Blocker" turned on.

I come into this post a sceptic and remain one. But, I am willing to respectfully hear a poster out (if they are respectful, that is). If not, I would just ignore 'em. Or, I would just go on to another thread, like the "herring salad" one, where insults are much fewer:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:14 AM

   it seems to me that Kent makes a pretty reasoned approach to his belief.

So, EJ, a reasoned approach to delusion? Interesting, if oxymoronic.

You are advocating attempting to have a reasoned discussion with s lunatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:52 AM

Every discovery opens a new field for investigation of facts, shows us the imperfection of our theories. It has justly been said, that the greater the circle of light, the greater the boundary of darkness by which it is surrounded.

— Sir Humphry Davy

Pinched from here.

"they interprete the evidence according to their worldview as creationists also do"

How they assemble the evidence to support their world views is vastly different, and not comparable. Creationists like to paint themselves as scientists but their version of science flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of science - evidence and reproducibility. If the evidence means a theory is wrong then a new theory has to be formulated. This happens all the time and although (as pointed out by LH), some scientists will shoehorn facts into theories they are espousing many do not, the assimilate the data, reassess and move on. It's what makes science so exciting and full of wonder.

Creationism, however, starts with the 'fact' as stated in The Bible and then work from there. They can never accept the facts don't fit what it says in The Bible because to do so would undermine their entire faith. Ah - faith. There's the word that brings the Creationist house of cards tumbling down, this is the bedrock of their so-called 'science'. You cannot practice empirical science if you are unable to accept changes in your fundamental beliefs, if you cannot accommodate new data that renders old ideas defunct.

Kent has posted some interesting material here, but is posting it with disclaimers like "I am not trying to persuade you that what they claim is true. I do want you to understand what it is that they claim." Fair enough, but something about that last sentence seems a little . . . odd. You can't just post this stuff and expect no-one to try to refute it. And you can't post statements telling us God is an artist and the universe is his creation and expect no reaction to the total lack of evidence presented so far to back that up, apart from some wishy-washy analogy about paintings, acorns and a rather tenuous view of art creation peppered with the odd neologism.

I love dinosaurs. I mean I'm obsessed with them. When I was growing up all my picture books had naked, scaley green dinosaurs. Now, they all have feathered, colourful dinosaurs and knowing the work being done on dinosaur integument we have some exciting times ahead. Our view of these incredible animals has changed beyond all recognition in the 170-odd years since they were first described; how few back then suspected that the birds we share the planet with are actually living theropod dinosaurs - wonderful. All this has been discovered by the careful gathering of data, rigorous scientific method and careful and considered analysis. And if new facts came to light that proved to successfully challenge the current established viewpoint and meant we would have to re-write the evolution of these incredible creatures then so be it (it's happening right now with the Triceratops-Torosaurus debate).

Until Creationist science is willing to have it's most fundamental views and beliefs challenged (as opposed to the preaching of sermons like Kent's) or to present solid evidence to the contrary, for peer review and debate then for all the blather it's nothing more than pseudo-scientific superstitious bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:27 AM

Kent,

Noticed how Kent dodges the insults and tries to answer as if he were rational?

I HAD noticed that and it's a superb model. Like others I am interested in your continuing level-headed information. I hope you will continue to "pass" on engaging in argument.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:42 AM

I've never understood a common premiss to these threads.

If the universe was started off by a creator does that necessarily mean that the creator was what we would consider to be intelligent?

I read one interesting SF book based on the idea that our universe was a by-product of God making another universe and that the other one was the one that he intended to create.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:41 AM

seems to me that creationists are generally upfront about their presuppositions,scientist or layman.
i,m not so sure about most evolutionists,especially judging by most ,but not all posters here.
they interprete the evidence according to their worldview as creationists also do.
at least darwin acknowledged the possibility of conclusions opposed to his own[origins..p3

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:09 AM

Kent is certainly correct--the Author gets to place the story in time. And Kent, as the Author of his own beliefs, is placing his, and naming the Protagonist in the tale. What's wrong with that? It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, or empirical rationalism, or whatever you call it. It's the creation of a timeline by an author exercising his right to do so.

He is not saying (as far as I can see) that he expects anyone to believe his story is an objective truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:53 AM

Fair comment, LH, you could be right. I'm just curious. (so they say..)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:21 AM

Maybe he's just here to express himself. That's why I usually post here. I like expressing myself in various ways. That's also why I play live music.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:14 AM

Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

No it's not, I just can't see the difference between claiming that everything before 4000 BC is illusory, or everything before last week, including the Bible. It doesn't preclude God's creation of the universe. Feel free to illustrate the difference and why you believe one and not the other. I assure you my interest is perfectly genuine. I may not necessarily share your beliefs but I would like to understand them, and why you have them. Why else would you be here, if not to educate others?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:06 AM

Good post, LEJ.

You're absolutely right that "there is no agenda to good science." In a perfect world all science would be good science. Alas! We do not live in a perfect world, and there's quite a bit of bad science happening out there, and what bad science there is is mostly being done in service to big corporations, the military, and the intelligence community...people who do have very powerful agendas behind what they are hiring scientists to do for them.

I think you are right that much religion is based on inductive reasoning (such as: "I know in my heart there is an all-powerful Creator, therefore he must have made the world in 7 days, like it says in the Bible"). Some of religion, however, is based on direct experiences of some sort which various people have had, in which case it was deductive reasoning, based upon the personal observation of those people when they had the experience, that started off the religion.

There are a number of spiritual experiences that a person can have (quite outside of organized religion itself)....and a person's own observation of what occurs in such a case is deductive reasoning, based on his or her own direct observations. I've had such experiences, experiences I was not consciously looking for and definitely did NOT expect to occur, experiences that took me totally by surprise and were undeniable in their reality, and they did not fall within the definition of "organized religion" at all, as far as I was concerned, but they were experiences with highly spiritual qualities.

I cannot reproduce then in a lab, nor would I try to, because they came to me totally by surprise, and I didn't ask for them or arrange them. I would know how to arrange them. They just happened...like a car crash or a rainbow...you didn't plan for it, you weren't expecting it...but when it happened, you KNEW it was real.

I think that a great many religions were started precisely because certain people had such experiences...it made a huge impression on them...it filled them with a belief they'd never had before...and that gave them zeal to tell other people, and so it went from there.

That's not a case of inductive reasoning. It's a case of reacting to a real and powerful event that occurs, and interpreting it by the best deductive reasoning you are capable of at the time, given your own general level of knowledge and awareness.

Yes, religions partly come about because people want to have a Father or Mother God above them so they can feel more secure. That's the inductive part. But religions also partly come about due to real transformative experiences that come upon people unexpectedly regardless of what they had in mind prior to having that experience. And that can inspire a new religion to be founded!

It's therefore a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning that you find in most religions, specially in the very early stages when they are starting out. The "Monkey-see, monkey-do" mass conformity to holy books and religious rules starts to set in later, as the religion becomes firmly established and consolidates all its hierarchical stuff.

Spiritual (and a few other unusual) experiences I've had have not moved me to join any religion...or to start any religion. They've simply made me keenly aware of certain subtler aspects of life that I was quite unaware of before they happened. I used deductive reasoning...based upon my own direct experiences. I cannot reproduce them in a lab, and I wouldn't try to, because I was not the author of those experiences. I was the recipient of them. Was there an author behind those experiences? I don't know. But they did happen. That I know without a doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:10 AM

"Heresy is when someone doesn't believe in your God. There is no word for the circumstance when you don't believe in his."
                                          - Samuel Clemens
First, it seems to me that Kent makes a pretty reasoned approach to his belief. He is taking the time to discuss it in a rational manner, while being pasted with rotten tomatoes by the supposed Scientific Rationalists in the crowd. I agree with what Don Wysiwig said...if you disagree, destroy his points in a rational fashion. The old argument that goes "everybody knows that's wrong, stupid!" just doesn't work. Frankly, with the ridicule and teasing, Kent looks like one of the few adults in the discussion.

Now, here's my problem with YEC. For a theory to hold water scientifically, there must be legitimate evidence that spawns the theory. This is called deductive reasoning, and that is how science works. There is no agenda to good science. It is the Truth, whatever that turns out to be. It does not pre-suppose a motive. If there was indeed a Big Bang that started the universe expanding, as the preponderance of scientific evidence currently indicates, there is no great necessity in determining what made it happen. Nothing currently known in science indicates a primary cause. Should evidence come to light as to the nature and circumstance of the primary cause, then a theory can be pronounced regarding that cause.

Inductive reasoning is how Religion works. I know in my heart there is an all powerful creator. All science is explainable in terms of this belief. That, my friend, is a leap of faith, and all theories stemming from it are therefore unscientific due to the nature of that process.

Kent said "Smokey, I am just trying to explain what YEC is. Saying why I beleive it is not really my purpose". But the purpose for any scientific "belief", or Theory, is ALL about the why, Kent. It is about a conclusion based on scientific evidence. I really feel that Creationists of every stripe reverse that process, and base the evidence on their conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:01 AM

That was a very interesting post, Kent! I'm glad to hear from someone who is willing to calmly think about something and express those thoughts, rather than to just hurl his favorite "attitude" in other people's faces and rant at them. It's refreshing.

Yes, if there was a Creator God who decided to create a Universe, just like a human author creates a story, then he or she could do it as just as you say.

I don't know if there is such a Creator God. But it's an interesting idea you set forth there.

That's just the sort of thing that programmers do when they design a computer game with an interactive world like "Oblivion", for example. They design a game with a large and detailed world, a world that already has its own historic "past" when the game begins, and that leads off into an unforseeable future for that world, since the future depends on the actions of:

1. the person playing the game
2. the character the person is managing in the game
3. and a lot of other characters who also act independently of the will of the person who is playing the game

We can create a digital version of a small Universe now, using software, people it with all kinds of characters who act independently within their various capabilities and tendencies, and who also react to one another's actions. If you play Oblivion, for example, problems may arise because a minor character you need later in the game just happens to run into trouble somewhere and falls off a bridge or gets killed by a bear or a bandit. It happens...though rarely...and I once had to look up a code from the game designer to spontaneously recreate such a character in the game so I could complete a particular mission. Your own conduct also determines your character, your reputation, your legal status in that world, your fame or infamy, and your success or failure...just as in the real world we live in. You can end up as a an admired hero, a despised thief, a hated murderer...or just an average person who muddled through and remained fairly obscure...or you can die young...it's all up to you. What a great parallel to our real lives!

In this case the game designers would be equivalent to the Creator God of Oblivion...and I (the player) would be sort of like a great oversoul who helps guide the central character of the story.

Very neat stuff! ;-)

If our Universe had been created in a sort of similarly analagous fashion, now wouldn't that be interesting? We would all have bit parts in some gigantic game. A very few might have a fairly major part in that game.

I'm not saying that's the case....but it's one possibility among many.

I am humble enough to admit that I have no idea how the Universe came to be, and I don't expect to ever know for sure, though I hear theories about it. All ancient peoples had creation stories to explain the origins of the world, the stars, and the people and other creatures on this planet. Those creation stories appear in great variety. At least two of them are in the first book of the Bible. I suspect that those two came from much earlier sources.

There's no point in people being snide and flip about stuff like this...stuff that they can't possibly have the final answer to....but that won't stop a lot of people here from being snide and flip about it...because although they know quite well that they don't know the truth about EVERYTHING, they are quite capable of being arrogant and bloody-minded enough to imagine that they know categorically what things AREN'T true and never could be! ;-D And they'll tell you about that immediately if you state something they don't believe in.

I'm not so confident that I can just decide for sure what isn't true when it comes to things like the hypothetical existence of a God. And that's why I say that I don't know if there is a Creator God such as you allude to. I have no way of knowing, and the Bible can't help me out with that, because I don't necessarily consider the Bible to be an authoritative source...nor do I totally discount it as a useful source. Again....I don't know for sure about stuff like that, and I probably never will. And I accept that. I am not afraid of being uncertain about things like that. Seems to me that a lot of other people are afraid. They'd rather be categorically against something they've decided not to "believe" than admit that actually...in truth...they simply don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:00 AM

Smokey,

But I'm NOT saying what you say I "might as well be saying".

Smokey, you get to decide when your creations start. If you write a song that begins, "One foggy night in late November", I can't come along and say "Well, Smokey, you might as well start with a clear afternoon in July". I don't get to choose the time your creation starts. That is up to you.

If God exists, and if He chose to create a universe, He got to decide when it started. He could have created eggs. He could have created chickens. He could have chosen not to reveal when He made the universe. He could have chosen to reveal it. I think He chose to reveal it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

And now to bed.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:32 PM

As I see it, you might as well be saying the universe started with this thread and anything prior to that is just implied and illusory.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM

I hope to post some more comparisons between AEN and YEC tomorrow but tonight I am going focus on the most basic idea behind YEC, the concept of creation.

Many of you create works of art. Whether your works of art are songs, poems, novels, paintings, sculptures, quilts, or whatever they may be, your works often (perhaps always) have two aspects. One aspect I will call the "idea", the art as it appeared in your mind, the story of the novel, the image of the painting, the pattern of the quilt, etc. The other aspect I will call the "artifact", the physical embodiment of the idea, the ink marks on the paper, the oil and pigment on the canvas, the stone of the sculpture, the cloth of the quilt.

If the work of art has a narrative, then that work has two timelines. The artifact, the physical embodiment, has what I will call the "artifactual" timeline. Thus, the artifactual timeline of "Macbeth" begins around 1603, when the play was written. The artifactual timeline of Michelangelo's "David" begins around 1501, when the stone was carved. The artifactual timeline of The Hobbit began sometime in the 1930s.

A narrative work of art also has what I will call the "ideal" timeline. Thus, according to the work's "ideal" timeline, the opening scene of "Macbeth" begins around 1040. According to the work's "ideal" timeline, Michelangelo's "David" captures a moment just after David has removed Saul's armor and has resolved to fight the Philistine with a sling. According to it's "ideal" timeline, The Hobbit takes place in the Third Age of the Sun. Some versions of "Barbry Allen" begin one morning in the month of May. You get the idea, because your own stories, songs, paintings, and so forth have this same characteristic of two timelines, one for the artifact and one for the idea.

The "ideal" timeline of a narrative characteristically extends not only forward from the beginning of the work, but also BACKWARD in time from the beginning of the work. Macbeth, for example, married Lady Macbeth BEFORE "Macbeth" begins. David has already removed his armor. Smaug stole the Arkenstone before The Hobbit begins. Barbry broke up with young Johnny Green before that fateful morning in May.

What does it mean to say that something occurred "before the beginning" in a work of art? Does it mean that there was an earlier ARTIFACT? Did Shakespeare first write "The Courtship of Macbeth"? Did Michelangelo first sculpt an infant David? Is there a ballad that begins "One evening in the month of April"? Of course not.

How can something occur BEFORE the beginning? It's not difficult really. You do this in your own works all the time and with ease. As creator, you simply begin your creation "in media res", as they say. In other words, you begin in the middle of things. If you want to paint a big old oak tree scarred by lightening, you do not have to first paint a acorn, then paint a seedling, then a sapling. You can create an oak tree that is mature from the beginning. You can paint the lightening scar without first painting the storm.

Is this dishonest? Of course not. You are not trying to fool anyone. You will tell anyone who asks that your oak tree BEGAN as old, scarred tree. You could have painted an acorn first if you had wanted to, but you didn't. You are an artist and it is easy for you to make a mature, complete creation.

You think God could do the same sort of thing?

That is the basic idea of YEC. God is an artist. The universe is his creation. He could have created an "acorn". He could have created an "oak tree". The Koran, the Torah, and the Gospels say he created an "oak tree". I am not trying to persuade you that what they claim is true. I do want you to understand what it is that they claim.

Good night!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:32 PM

"the Bible is the word of God"

Not according to the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:59 PM

Anything more to offer up Kent?

I am all ears:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:46 PM

First there was my father- then there was me.

(Oh, yes, a woman got into the act too.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:24 PM

Kent...Do you have "credible" sources of detailed information to share?

You're kidding, Right? Please tell me you're kidding.........

His position is absolute lunacy with nothing but delusion, invention, and wishful thinking as a "source".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:51 PM

I gotta post here, because I AGREE with what Little Hawk said...and that don't happen just every day!