RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/1/2008 6:35:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
The chalk cliffs of Dover and other limestone layers are attributed to major algal blooms during the Flood. It is thought that ocean turbulence, decaying fish, temperature changes, and/or nutrients from freshwater flow or upwelling could be factors in algal blooms, and all would have been present in large quantities during the Flood. Woodmorappe and another scientist found algae could reproduce quantities large enough to create all the limestone layers in the world, and more, in as little as 200 years.


Did the global flood last for 200 years?

Essentialsaltes has already covered the nutrient problems. There simply is not enough biomass to produce that much chalk in a year. The other problem, as with exponential growth in all microorganisms, is the build up of waste products. E. coli can divide once every 20 minutes but last I checked we are not 2 feet deep in E. coli, and for the very same reasons there is simply not enough nutrients to produce all of this chalk in a single year. Not to mention the fact that all of this biomass had to be buried quickly in order to produce the fossil record, oil, and coal that is found worldwide. You can't have it both buried and floating around in the water.

Again, YEC mechanisms require magic.

quote:

Furthermore, since algal growth tends to be "highly episodic", that is, algae tends to go longs periods of very slow growth and then suddenly bloom in huge quantities, it is conceivable for massive algal blooms during the Flood to have been profuse enough to create the limestone layers.


Sorry, but it is not conceivable just as it is inconceivable for there to be a 2 foot thick mat of E. coli world wide.



Godhead -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/3/2008 9:41:50 PM)

Evidence for a young Earth… [:D]

Evidence for rapid formation of geological strata, as in the Biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: Lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by millions of years: lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (Worms, roots, etc.); Lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (Which traverse several rock layers vertically - these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried) ; thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a thousand years – certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The Earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less then 10000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in the rocks, that it has not has time escape – certainly not billions of years. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star - the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) SNRs., and few moderately old SNRs (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 cm a year ( 1.5 inches), and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years for it to reach it present position. This give the maximum possible age of the moon, not actual age. This is fare too young for evolutionist who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger then the radiometric dates that moon rock give us. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Salt is entering the sea much faster then it is escaping. The sea is not nearly as salty enough for this to be happening for billions of years. This shows a possible maximum age of the ocean to be millions of years and not billions of years believed by evolutionist. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/3/2008 10:11:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Godhead

Evidence for a young Earth… [:D]

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 cm a year ( 1.5 inches), and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years for it to reach it present position. This give the maximum possible age of the moon, not actual age. This is fare too young for evolutionist who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger then the radiometric dates that moon rock give us. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)


This is false. A billion years * 4 cm = 40000 km, which is far less than the current earth moon distance of 384,403 km

You already used this same argument in post #83. In post #84, I explained why it was wrong, and showed how you could easily check whether it was true or false. You are incorrigible. Good day to you.



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/3/2008 10:24:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Godhead

Evidence for a young Earth… [:D]

Evidence for rapid formation of geological strata, as in the Biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: Lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by millions of years: lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (Worms, roots, etc.); Lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (Which traverse several rock layers vertically - these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried) ; thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a thousand years – certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The Earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less then 10000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in the rocks, that it has not has time escape – certainly not billions of years. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star - the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) SNRs., and few moderately old SNRs (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 cm a year ( 1.5 inches), and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years for it to reach it present position. This give the maximum possible age of the moon, not actual age. This is fare too young for evolutionist who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger then the radiometric dates that moon rock give us. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Salt is entering the sea much faster then it is escaping. The sea is not nearly as salty enough for this to be happening for billions of years. This shows a possible maximum age of the ocean to be millions of years and not billions of years believed by evolutionist. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)



I hope you didn't waste good money on this collection of PRATTS.



WormHeart -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 5:42:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Other than that minor clarification, you're doing a great job fending off the pagan hordes! [;)]


But I havent even joined yet! [8D]

WormHeart



hellohellohi -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 9:32:35 AM)

quote:

The Earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less then 10000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)


I've never heard this. Can you explain how they came to this conclusion? The Answers Book doesn't sound like a primary source but rather a compilation. Are you familiar with the primary findings and analysis? I would prefer if you summarized it or analyzed it for me and brought it to the forum, but a reference would also be nice.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 10:24:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
What assumptions are behind the belief that the conclusions of science are trustworthy?


1. That the world is an objective reality
2. That our perceptions (with due cross-checking) are a reliable indicator of that reality.
3. That carefully applied logic leads to valid conclusions.
4. That accurate predictions about future observations confirm the validity of the theory which led to those predictions.


These are all axioms which can be and have been disputed. But they are the bedrock of scientific investigation. Are there any which you find particularly problematic?


In general, all of them.

I have no problem with the idea that the world is an objective reality. However, if by "the world" you mean the world that is subject to natural law, excluding the supernatural world, then I have a problem. If you argue that the point is moot, because there is not any such thing as a supernatural world, then I don't believe that assumption. Likewise, if you argue that the supernatural world can have no effect on the natural world, then I likewise don't believe that assumption.

I also believe that objective reality can be observed beyond the limits of what humanity is capable of. To some extent, therefore, humanity's observations and conclusions are "collectively subjective" if I can coin a term.


I believe our perceptions sometimes mislead us. Some situations where perception is misleading can be accomodated with the scientific world outlook, but not all situations. Scientists (good ones, anyway) are careful not to accept naive observation, without examining aspects of that observation that could distort the results.

I believe that the universe is more complex and subtle than a universe that can be adequately described by first order logic. In the area of physics, I'll point to Heisenberg. In the area of mathematical logic, I'll point to Godel. That doesn't necessarily mean that carefully applied logic leads to invalid conclusions. What is does mean is that there are assertions that are true, but cannot be proven true.

Accurate predictions about future observations can demonstrate the robustness of theories, but not necessarily validate them. Scientific theories are therefore always provisional, awaiting data that would falsify them.

There's nothing wrong with scientists taking a provisional, but fairly firm, belief in theories that have stood the test of time. What is wrong is for non-scientists to butress a purely materialist world view based on the idea that today's science is incontrovertably true, for the indefinite future.

And predictions about the future can be made on a non scientific basis as well. For example, Jesus' prediction regarding the temple in Jerusalem, that not one stone would be left on top of another. That's a pretty startling prediction, and it came true, exactly, within a generation after Jesus death.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 10:35:48 AM)

quote:

If this observer told us the sky was actually orange, not blue...
My eyes say it's blue, photographs say it's blue, spectrometers measure it as blue. At that point, we might as well say we're living in 'The Matrix' or we are brains in vats, or deceived by demons. Or we can decide that this observer may not be correct after all. How could we ever establish (since our own observational skills are suspect) that her credentials (of being a better observer than we) were valid?


Photographs taken from the surface of the moon say that the sky is black.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 10:40:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes


This observer could communicate the truth to us and we could check it. If this new truth passes this test, then we would gain in knowledge and be freed from our pale shadow. If this new truth does not pass this test, then we are in a quandary. Either the new truth isn't truth, or we are so deceived, we can never know the truth.

...

If they are repeatable miracles, they can be studied under controlled conditions that would help to establish the reality of the phenomenon. For more unique events, anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it is not really the stuff of science.


The above sounds, to me, like "man is the measure of all things." But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is that one of your assumptions?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 12:20:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes


This observer could communicate the truth to us and we could check it. If this new truth passes this test, then we would gain in knowledge and be freed from our pale shadow. If this new truth does not pass this test, then we are in a quandary. Either the new truth isn't truth, or we are so deceived, we can never know the truth.

...

If they are repeatable miracles, they can be studied under controlled conditions that would help to establish the reality of the phenomenon. For more unique events, anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it is not really the stuff of science.


The above sounds, to me, like "man is the measure of all things." But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is that one of your assumptions?


That's a pretty ambiguous statement; I'm not sure I know what it means, and I'm sure I don't know what you think it means. So I'll try to expand on what I said, and hopefully it will be clear.

My assumption is that humans can (presuming a pragmatic and definitive test can be arranged -- not every statement will be like this) tell whether a statement is true or false. Given the statement, "The sky outside right now is orange," I can look out my window and see that the sky is... well, not blue, but somewhat grey. Anyway, it's not orange. I conclude that the statement is false. And I believe that my conclusion is justified. With a more complicated statement, justification may not be quite so absolute, but provisional, depending on how 'definitive' the test is.

If my assumption is wrong... humanity might as well just give up. We'll never know anything with certainty. Rather than admit defeat, I'll stick with my assumption.

Even with my assumption, observation and the scientific method will never produce all truths. Not only will some questions not meet the pragmatic and definitive test criteria, but given a finite amount of time, we can't verify everything. Human knowledge will be incomplete.

So now we get to your thought experiment:

quote:

But what if there were something dreadfully wrong with humanity in general such that when we apply the scientific method, to the best of our ability, what we arrive at is not truth but a pale shadow of truth?


I agree that we will never have complete truth. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a pale shadow of truth.

quote:

What if there were another observer of the universe that were not subject to such a limitation? What if that observer communicated with us? What then?


Suppose we are visited by our Space Brothers (or gods or God, if you like), and they tell us that humanity is subject to limitations that they are not. And they share some of their truths with us. Then I see three possibilities. (In all of the following, assume that Mr. Space Brother speaks perfect human, and we all have a common understanding of the meanings of words.)

#1: They share truths that do not meet the pragmatic and definite criteria. "The maximum number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 59." People shrug and either believe it or not, as they like. But no one has any real justification for this belief, other than accepting the Space Brothers as an authority (which is not a test, it is merely an additional assumption).

#2: They share truths that we never would have discovered for ourselves (due to our limitations), but they do meet the pragmatic and definite criteria, and when tested, we verify them. "In base 97, the decimal expansion of pi and the decimal expansion of e have the same digit every 97 places." After some numerical computation, this is verified for the first 500 million places. Later, having been given this big hint, some mathematician rigorously proves the statement true. Yay, we have learned something true from the Space Brothers! And we have justified our belief in it through a successful test.

#3: They share truths that we never would have discovered for ourselves (due to our limitations), but they do meet the pragmatic and definite criteria, and when tested, we disprove them. "The sky outside right now is orange." We look at the sky, and see it is blue. "uh, Mr. Space Brother sir, the sky isn't orange, it's blue."

"That, puny earthling, is because you are flawed and limited. I do not suffer these limitations, and therefore I can see the truth. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

ok, now let's go through this slowly.

IF Mr. Space Brother is right, then my original assumption is wrong.
If my assumption is wrong, we cannot tell truth from falsehood reliably.
Among other things, because of this limitation, we could never determine whether it was true that the Space Brothers had a better access to truth than ourselves. We could never know, of our own knowledge, that Mr. Space Brother was right.
So we could never trust any truths that we came up with ourselves, and we could never trust beliefs that the Space Brothers shared with us.
So, as I said before, either we accept my assumption, or we just give up and say that we can never know anything.

There are a couple other possibilities.

IF Mr. Space Brother is wrong, then my assumption is not invalidated. Mr. Space Brother may huff and puff, but we can insist that the sky is blue, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. Although you have eliminated this possibility in your set-up, it's at least a logical possibility.

Regardless of whether Mr. Space Brother is right or wrong, one could choose to believe he is always right, despite the contrary evidence of the test. I know the sky looks blue, but I have faith in the Space Brother, so I know the sky is actually orange. Note that to take this path, one would have to already decide that contrary evidence is irrelevant -- it is just further sign of human fallibility. Therefore, no future evidence or tests can influence this position. The Space Brother might be right, or he might be wrong. A person in this position could never tell the difference.

Finally, although I said in my set-up that there was no language barrier, some people might say, "Perhaps when Mr. Space Brother says 'orange', he doesn't mean orange, but something else. Or maybe he actually said oarrringe, and we don't know quite what he meant by that. Or, since Mr. Space Brother only told that one NY Times reporter that the sky was orange, maybe the reporter made a mistake in her notes."

Have a safe and fun 4th! Thanks for keeping me from my housework!



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 1:06:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
What assumptions are behind the belief that the conclusions of science are trustworthy?


1. That the world is an objective reality
2. That our perceptions (with due cross-checking) are a reliable indicator of that reality.
3. That carefully applied logic leads to valid conclusions.
4. That accurate predictions about future observations confirm the validity of the theory which led to those predictions.


These are all axioms which can be and have been disputed. But they are the bedrock of scientific investigation. Are there any which you find particularly problematic?


In general, all of them.

I have no problem with the idea that the world is an objective reality. However, if by "the world" you mean the world that is subject to natural law, excluding the supernatural world, then I have a problem. If you argue that the point is moot, because there is not any such thing as a supernatural world, then I don't believe that assumption. Likewise, if you argue that the supernatural world can have no effect on the natural world, then I likewise don't believe that assumption.



First thank you for a very thoughtful response.

Next, as a Christian, I agree that reality includes a metaphysical as well as a physical aspect and I believe that metaphysical aspect is just as real and objective as the physical aspect. I agree that the supernatural does impinge on the natural world.

My point is, however, that the natural world is indeed real and objective. Much modernist creationist theology strongly implies (albeit unintentionally, I think) that the natural world is not real--that it is subjective rather than objective. Christian theology insists on the objective reality of both physical and metaphysical nature and science insists on the objective reality of physical nature while remaining non-committal about metaphysical nature.

So the statement was primarily about the natural world without implying the non-existence of the supernatural or a lack of impact of yhe supernatural on the natural world.

quote:

I also believe that objective reality can be observed beyond the limits of what humanity is capable of. To some extent, therefore, humanity's observations and conclusions are "collectively subjective" if I can coin a term.


I have no problem with that. However, that does not negate the objectivity of what is observed within the limits of human capabilities. Or do you think it does?


quote:

I believe our perceptions sometimes mislead us. Some situations where perception is misleading can be accomodated with the scientific world outlook, but not all situations. Scientists (good ones, anyway) are careful not to accept naive observation, without examining aspects of that observation that could distort the results.


Of course they do. That was the point of the proviso "with due cross-checking". Science is often counter-intuitive to naive observation. The question, however, is whether our perceptions are inherently and routinely misleading, and therefore unreliable in most circumstances, or whether--with due cross-checking both by multiple observers and through multiple lines of evidence--we can develop a reasonably coherent and correct working model of natural reality. Science assumes the latter. I contend that Christian theology-specifically the doctrine of creation- also upholds that assumption.

quote:

I believe that the universe is more complex and subtle than a universe that can be adequately described by first order logic. In the area of physics, I'll point to Heisenberg. In the area of mathematical logic, I'll point to Godel. That doesn't necessarily mean that carefully applied logic leads to invalid conclusions. What is does mean is that there are assertions that are true, but cannot be proven true.


No problem there. Again, note that this does not negate that some assertions are demonstrably validated by sound logic. IOW, you are looking at some of the fringe cases where we have to make more careful distinctions than in the general run of science or logic, and where we sometimes have to acknowledge real limitations on what can be known in these ways.

What also needs to be noted is that these are fringe cases on the limits of science. For the most part they do not invalidate or contradict ordinary experience and observation. Outside quantum mechanics, for example, Newton's laws of motion are as valid as ever they were. We need to note where science has strength as well as where it has limitations. Or to put it another way, we need to acknowledge not only the limitations of science, but also the limitations of the limiting cases.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us we cannot simultaneously be certain of the velocity and position of an electron. It does not tell we cannot measure accurately the decay rate of radioisotopes.

quote:

Accurate predictions about future observations can demonstrate the robustness of theories, but not necessarily validate them. Scientific theories are therefore always provisional, awaiting data that would falsify them.


I'll accept that. I certainly agree that scientific theories are always provisional. Yet even so, they are often robust and form a good basis for continuing to work with them.

quote:

There's nothing wrong with scientists taking a provisional, but fairly firm, belief in theories that have stood the test of time.


We seem to have much the same understanding of the nature of scientific theories and their role in science.

Would you agree then, that evolution is a robust theory, often tested but not falsified, that has stood the test of time, and therefore warrants the provisional acceptance of the scientific community?

If not, why not?

quote:

What is wrong is for non-scientists to butress a purely materialist world view based on the idea that today's science is incontrovertably true, for the indefinite future.


Of course that is wrong, not only for non-scientists, but also for scientists who do the same. However, it does not require an attack on scientific theory to point out that this is wrong. Rather, one needs to show that the science does not and cannot lead to these philosophical conclusions. IOW don't throw the baby (science) out with the bathwater (materialist philosophy).

Biological evolution is science. It no more buttresses materialism than does any other theory of science from relativity to thermodynamics.

The problem is not evolution. The problem is accepting the materialist proposition that evolution is inherently materialist. What believers need to concentrate on is to show that this proposition ("evolution is inherently materialist") is a lie.

So long as believers think that proposition is true, they aim at the wrong target: science instead of materialism.

quote:

And predictions about the future can be made on a non scientific basis as well.


No doubt, but such predictions, by definition, are not part of science, nor do they negate scientific predictions. Again, let us note not only the limitations of science, but the limits of the limitations.



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 1:14:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

quote:

The Earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less then 10000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)


I've never heard this. Can you explain how they came to this conclusion? The Answers Book doesn't sound like a primary source but rather a compilation. Are you familiar with the primary findings and analysis? I would prefer if you summarized it or analyzed it for me and brought it to the forum, but a reference would also be nice.


You must be new to these conversations. This is an old chestnut that most creationists have long since dropped.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 1:23:39 PM)

Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful reply.


With regard to "man is the measure of all things", I'll admit to having posted without doing my homework. Looking it up, I find that it's originally from Protagoras:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

I agree that it's somewhat ambiguous. A lot of what we say in this discussion is far more ambiguuous than any of us like to admit.


I'll give one possible interpretation: that if humanity, after deep analysis and thorough debate concludes that a given proposition is false, then that proposition cannot be true. This interpretation admittedly sidesteps some comments both you and I have made concerning accepted truths being provisional at any given point in time. In other words, that man is the final arbiter of objective reality.

I don't believe that, by the way. I believe that God is the final arbiter.



Now let's turn to Mr. Space Brother and the orange sky. Suppose that, after deeper analysis, we discover that Mr. Space Brother has eyeballs that are sensitive to a different range of electromagnetic radiation than what we call "visible light" It turns out they can't see blue and violet, but their range of visible light extends deep into the infrared and microwaves. And, through their eyeballs, the sky is indeed, orange. What then?

What if God not only could visit earth, but already has. What if, during His visit, he said such things as "I come that you may know the truth. And the truth will make you free." What if, roughly twenty centuries later, skeptical humans refused to believe the accounts handed down to them, because they aren't scientific or repeatable? What then?

I strongly suggest that your assumption could be wrong, but that humanity should not "give up", if that means what I think you meant. There's a long distance between humanity being able to consider itself the ultimate arbiter of truth and humanity having to despair of there being any such thing as truth.

I'm not sure, but I think that your assertion concerning pi and e in base 97 could be proven false. There are certainly assertions that sound, for our purposes, very similar, that have been proven false for pi and e. It sounds to me as though, if your assertion were to prove true, one could then prove that pi and e are rational, or at least algebraic, which pi at least is not. (I'm not sure about e). But that's neither here nor there.

Finally, I'm going to posit one that should drive both Bible believers and science believers nuts: What if God knows certain truths that cannot be rendered at all accurately in any human language? What then? Do we dismiss those truths as being irrelevant to the human existence? Do we wait for God to endow us with His language? Do we believe God regarding the truths He can share with us, even while admitting that there a some truths beyond those truths?



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 1:46:28 PM)

quote:

My point is, however, that the natural world is indeed real and objective. Much modernist creationist theology strongly implies (albeit unintentionally, I think) that the natural world is not real--that it is subjective rather than objective. Christian theology insists on the objective reality of both physical and metaphysical nature and science insists on the objective reality of physical nature while remaining non-committal about metaphysical nature.


I'm going use this statement as a jumping off point for a major digression. (Maybe I should start another discussion).

I regard it as not coincidental that the bulk of scientific progress in the last millenium has occurred in the paert of the world that can be aclled "Christendom". I think that the reason Christians and the products of Christian culture have put so much effort at uncovering the laws of the universe is that we believe that an orderly God creates an orderly universe. There are parts of the world where many Gods quarrel with each other over petty things that make humans seem noble by comparison, and where the search for order in the universe has been almost nil.

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 1:52:24 PM)

quote:

If they are repeatable miracles, they can be studied under controlled conditions that would help to establish the reality of the phenomenon. For more unique events, anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it is not really the stuff of science.


Are you saying that the Big Bang is not the stuff of science, because it's a unique event?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 2:17:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

If they are repeatable miracles, they can be studied under controlled conditions that would help to establish the reality of the phenomenon. For more unique events, anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it is not really the stuff of science.


Are you saying that the Big Bang is not the stuff of science, because it's a unique event?


No, the evidence for the Big Bang is not anecdotal.



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 2:45:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

My point is, however, that the natural world is indeed real and objective. Much modernist creationist theology strongly implies (albeit unintentionally, I think) that the natural world is not real--that it is subjective rather than objective. Christian theology insists on the objective reality of both physical and metaphysical nature and science insists on the objective reality of physical nature while remaining non-committal about metaphysical nature.


I'm going use this statement as a jumping off point for a major digression. (Maybe I should start another discussion).

I regard it as not coincidental that the bulk of scientific progress in the last millenium has occurred in the paert of the world that can be aclled "Christendom". I think that the reason Christians and the products of Christian culture have put so much effort at uncovering the laws of the universe is that we believe that an orderly God creates an orderly universe.


I agree. However, we should not forget that the first movement toward what we call science came from Greek pre-Christian culture. And that many aspects of that culture became embedded in Christianity. Christians have been scientific insofar as they have inherited not only the mantle of Moses, the prophets and the apostles, but also the mantle of Plato, Aristotle and their disciples.


quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.


I don't think it is ironic. I think it is false. The image of science and faith at war was nurtured by atheists of the 19th century. It is an unbalanced and untrue picture of the actual relationship of science and faith. I always have a problem with Christians uncritically accepting an atheist perspective. Why take it as a given that Andrew Dickson White was correct?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602246.html



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/4/2008 2:50:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I'll give one possible interpretation: that if humanity, after deep analysis and thorough debate concludes that a given proposition is false, then that proposition cannot be true. This interpretation admittedly sidesteps some comments both you and I have made concerning accepted truths being provisional at any given point in time. In other words, that man is the final arbiter of objective reality.

I don't believe that, by the way. I believe that God is the final arbiter.


I guess I would say that man is the final arbiter of the 'reality' he experiences. If that 'reality' turns out to be an illusion, then we have no way of determining what is real.

quote:

Now let's turn to Mr. Space Brother and the orange sky. Suppose that, after deeper analysis, we discover that Mr. Space Brother has eyeballs that are sensitive to a different range of electromagnetic radiation than what we call "visible light" It turns out they can't see blue and violet, but their range of visible light extends deep into the infrared and microwaves. And, through their eyeballs, the sky is indeed, orange. What then?


I would say this violates my condition that we know our words mean the same thing as the Space Brothers'. When we understood these physiological differences (and this could be easily tested by experiment), we could then understand what he meant by orange, and understand the discrepancy.

quote:

What if God not only could visit earth, but already has. What if, during His visit, he said such things as "I come that you may know the truth. And the truth will make you free." What if, roughly twenty centuries later, skeptical humans refused to believe the accounts handed down to them, because they aren't scientific or repeatable? What then?


What then? Beats me. I guess God gets to decide what happens then. I'm not quite sure what you're asking.


quote:

I'm not sure, but I think that your assertion concerning pi and e in base 97 could be proven false.


Oh, I'm sure it is false, and it would be pretty easy to check. It's about 99% certain to be wrong after checking even the first digit.

Both e and pi are transcendental. I don't know whether that makes my suggestion obviously impossible, but it was just an example. The Space Brother could factor some googol-sized composite number, and human mathematicians could easily check whether the factorization was correct, even if they had no way of factoring the original number.

quote:

Finally, I'm going to posit one that should drive both Bible believers and science believers nuts: What if God knows certain truths that cannot be rendered at all accurately in any human language? What then? Do we dismiss those truths as being irrelevant to the human existence? Do we wait for God to endow us with His language? Do we believe God regarding the truths He can share with us, even while admitting that there a some truths beyond those truths?


If we can't even fathom the statement, we would have no way of knowing what it was we were accepting as true (or rejecting as false). Pragmatically, they have no relevance, but they might not be irrelevant. Suppose God told you that, if you got to Heaven, you would be smurped with 1000 floopies every day. Probably you'd trust him, and maybe even look forward to all those floopies that would smurp you, but you wouldn't have any idea what it meant. But, assuming the best, when you went to heaven, you'd get smurped by a lot of floopies, and maybe then you'd understand.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 4:45:49 AM)

quote:

I would say this violates my condition that we know our words mean the same thing as the Space Brothers'. When we understood these physiological differences (and this could be easily tested by experiment), we could then understand what he meant by orange, and understand the discrepancy.


That's not what I intended. I intended that we both mean the same thing by "orange" and "blue", and have sorted out the linguistic differences.

The light from the daytime sky, which the human eye perceives as blue, is really multicolored. This could be verified with a prism. It's sunlight that's been diffused by the atmosphere. The diffusion effect is stronger at the violet and blue end of the visible light spectrum than it is at the orange and red end.

Skylight also includes infrared light and ultraviolet light, which our eyes cannot see. Our eyes and our brains integrate the relative frequencies of all those colors into a color that we perceive as a shade of blue. Mr. space brother's eyes and brain could integrate the same body of light into a different color, namely orange. Especially if his eyes were sensitive to infrared but not sensitive to blue and violet.


So, it's not so much that the sky IS blue as that humanity perceives it as blue.

This is a rather long winded explanation. But the main point is that perception and objective reality are not exactly the same thing.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 4:55:32 AM)

quote:

Oh, I'm sure it is false, and it would be pretty easy to check. It's about 99% certain to be wrong after checking even the first digit.

Both e and pi are transcendental. I don't know whether that makes my suggestion obviously impossible, but it was just an example. The Space Brother could factor some googol-sized composite number, and human mathematicians could easily check whether the factorization was correct, even if they had no way of factoring the original number.


I apologize for making too much of a deal about whether your example was false. I understood it as you intended, as an exempla gratia.

Incidentally, when Voyager I was launched on a one way voyage, it was equipped with some payload that might explain who we are to some intelligence that might fnd it. The task of setting out that explanation in a way that might be understood by beings that think very differently than we do was a challenging one. It's worth a glance.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 5:06:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

My point is, however, that the natural world is indeed real and objective. Much modernist creationist theology strongly implies (albeit unintentionally, I think) that the natural world is not real--that it is subjective rather than objective. Christian theology insists on the objective reality of both physical and metaphysical nature and science insists on the objective reality of physical nature while remaining non-committal about metaphysical nature.


I'm going use this statement as a jumping off point for a major digression. (Maybe I should start another discussion).

I regard it as not coincidental that the bulk of scientific progress in the last millenium has occurred in the paert of the world that can be aclled "Christendom". I think that the reason Christians and the products of Christian culture have put so much effort at uncovering the laws of the universe is that we believe that an orderly God creates an orderly universe.


I agree. However, we should not forget that the first movement toward what we call science came from Greek pre-Christian culture. And that many aspects of that culture became embedded in Christianity. Christians have been scientific insofar as they have inherited not only the mantle of Moses, the prophets and the apostles, but also the mantle of Plato, Aristotle and their disciples.


I agree. However, we should also remember that it was Galileo's willingness to depart from Aristotle's conclusions based on his own observations that marks the beginning point of modern science. Treating the thoughts of classical Greeks as revealed truth rather than as provisional conclusion was the biggest obstacle to the forward march of science.



quote:


quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.


I don't think it is ironic. I think it is false. The image of science and faith at war was nurtured by atheists of the 19th century. It is an unbalanced and untrue picture of the actual relationship of science and faith. I always have a problem with Christians uncritically accepting an atheist perspective. Why take it as a given that Andrew Dickson White was correct?




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602246.html


I'm not following this part at all (but I haven't read the article yet). I don't think I am accepting an atheist perspective. In a different thread, I'm suggesting we teach Bible truth in schools, but not in the science curriculum. That's hardly going along with the atheist's perspective, as I see it.



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 9:10:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I agree. However, we should also remember that it was Galileo's willingness to depart from Aristotle's conclusions based on his own observations that marks the beginning point of modern science. Treating the thoughts of classical Greeks as revealed truth rather than as provisional conclusion was the biggest obstacle to the forward march of science.




quote:


quote:

I always have a problem with Christians uncritically accepting an atheist perspective. Why take it as a given that Andrew Dickson White was correct?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602246.html


I'm not following this part at all (but I haven't read the article yet). I don't think I am accepting an atheist perspective. In a different thread, I'm suggesting we teach Bible truth in schools, but not in the science curriculum. That's hardly going along with the atheist's perspective, as I see it.


Interestingly, in both these responses, you make a similar leap--that to accept another's perspective means to accept their conclusions. Yes, Galileo did depart from Aristotle's conclusions. But he did so when he adopted Aristotle's method of reasoning from observation rather than the medieval style of reasoning from authority. So in many ways. he was a truer disciple of Aristotle than the scholastics were.

Similarly when you approach science as an attacker of religion, you are adopting the perspective of Andrew Dickson White. You and he may have chosen opposite sides in this "war" but you both agree there is a war. Most historians, however, would say Dickson White is wrong. The war of science on religion is a misinterpretation of the historic relation between the church and science based on some non-typical examples, such as Galileo's run-in with the Inquisition.

Similarly with your earlier comment on those who "butress a purely materialist world view based on the idea that today's science is incontrovertably true, for the indefinite future."

When you and other Christians adopt the attitude that science (and in particulary, evolution) is inherently materialistic, you are adopting a materialist perspective. You obviously don't agree with that perspective, yet you allow it to cage your thinking, to set the parameters of reality. You fight against a prison of your own making because you have let materialists tell you what the nature of science is.

You will never be successful in a fight against "materialistic science" as long as you let materialists choose the turf on which you battle. To win, you have to pull out the rug from underneath them and separate science from materialism.

Let me give one more example: Back in the early '80s, I had my one and only encounter with Duane Gish of the Institute for Christian Research. He included a Canadian stop in his speaking tour, and it happened I was with a fundamentalist Baptist church at the time. I had never heard of YEC before and was curious what he could present to support it. (My own background in creationism had been the more traditional Old-Earth form. I understood anti-evolution thinking, but had not encountered anyone before who denied geology.) Well, Gish lost me right near the beginning of his lecture when he defined evolution. He did not take a definition from any standard biological text. Instead he used a definition from a popular work on evolution by Julian Huxley, a well-known scientist and atheist. Huxley's definition included an atheistic slant on evolution as if one had to be an atheist to accept evolution. Since I had much earlier read Teilhard de Chardin, I knew this was not the case. Others in the audience also knew this was not the case. So one of the first questions he had to deal with was a challenge to the definition of evolution he used.

His response was to insist that the atheist Huxley's definition of evolution was truer than a standard scientific one.

That is what I mean by adopting an atheist or materialist perspective. When creationist conclusions, no matter how at variance they are with materialist conclusions, depend at the outset on adopting materialist pre-suppositions, then they are set on the wrong foundation. Creationism is at bottom a response to, an opposition to, materialism that begins by adopting the basic premises of materialism as true.



Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 10:38:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I agree. However, we should also remember that it was Galileo's willingness to depart from Aristotle's conclusions based on his own observations that marks the beginning point of modern science. Treating the thoughts of classical Greeks as revealed truth rather than as provisional conclusion was the biggest obstacle to the forward march of science.




quote:


quote:

I always have a problem with Christians uncritically accepting an atheist perspective. Why take it as a given that Andrew Dickson White was correct?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602246.html


I'm not following this part at all (but I haven't read the article yet). I don't think I am accepting an atheist perspective. In a different thread, I'm suggesting we teach Bible truth in schools, but not in the science curriculum. That's hardly going along with the atheist's perspective, as I see it.


Interestingly, in both these responses, you make a similar leap--that to accept another's perspective means to accept their conclusions. Yes, Galileo did depart from Aristotle's conclusions. But he did so when he adopted Aristotle's method of reasoning from observation rather than the medieval style of reasoning from authority. So in many ways. he was a truer disciple of Aristotle than the scholastics were.

Similarly when you approach science as an attacker of religion, you are adopting the perspective of Andrew Dickson White. You and he may have chosen opposite sides in this "war" but you both agree there is a war. Most historians, however, would say Dickson White is wrong. The war of science on religion is a misinterpretation of the historic relation between the church and science based on some non-typical examples, such as Galileo's run-in with the Inquisition.


I don't think I said that I approach science as an attacker of religion.

What I said was:

quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.


By this, I did not mean that science was an attacker of religion. What I meant was that certain people were using science as the launching point for an attack on religion.





quote:

Similarly with your earlier comment on those who "butress a purely materialist world view based on the idea that today's science is incontrovertably true, for the indefinite future."

When you and other Christians adopt the attitude that science (and in particulary, evolution) is inherently materialistic, you are adopting a materialist perspective. You obviously don't agree with that perspective, yet you allow it to cage your thinking, to set the parameters of reality. You fight against a prison of your own making because you have let materialists tell you what the nature of science is.


Again, I didn't take the view that science is inherently materialistic. I took the view that certain people who are basically materialistic use science to buttress their world view. And I think that's true. And I think you and I would agree that that's a misuse of science.



Either I am not expressing myself clearly, or you are not reading my comments carefully, or both.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 10:39:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

quote:

I would say this violates my condition that we know our words mean the same thing as the Space Brothers'. When we understood these physiological differences (and this could be easily tested by experiment), we could then understand what he meant by orange, and understand the discrepancy.


That's not what I intended. I intended that we both mean the same thing by "orange" and "blue", and have sorted out the linguistic differences.

...


Right, but I would say that when we want to 'scientifically' define blue, we would say that the frequency spectrum of the sky-light has a maximum within a range of so-and-so many nanometers, just as the sun's light has a maximum that peaks around yellow. If Mr. Spaceman's eyes can't perceive blue, he could still perform an experiment that would correctly determine the color if he really understood what we meant by blue. I think your objection is still one of imperfect communication.



Carico -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/5/2008 11:19:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case....

Here are a few ground rules, just to make sure we get a quality discussion:

  • Present the absolute best scientific evidence you know of that supports 6 day creation (or some variant of YEC). You have slam dunk evidence of a young earth? Show it here.
  • Please be able to expound upon and discuss any evidence you preset... no deluge of factoids from a lengthy copied and pasted list. If you want to use info from such a list, fine, but just pick one or two arguments that you feel are the absolute best and be prepared to support and discuss them.
  • This is about science, not theology/philosophy. Present objective scientific evidence. Even the most religious among us should realize that Bible quotes arent considered scientific evidence. Lets keep it objective and scientific.



    • That's like telling someone to prove Einstein's theory without using Einstein's theory. [:D]

    Excluding the bible is no more objective than only including the bible. So scientists prove they aren't interested in objectivity but in purely trying to prove the bible wrong, thus making science biased, not objective. [;)]

    1) God established the 7 day week by creating the earth to rotate around the sun in a specific set time frame that humans have incremented into the 12 hour day and 12 hour night.

    2) No ancient cultures have ever passed along accounts of a 4.5 billion year earth

    3) Those who believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth can't account for when the first fully formed human walked the earth, what language he spoke, or where he lived

    4) There is no reason or purpose given for the earth suddenly being formed just to remain empty for most of its life. So an old earth is not logical. It's merely a ridiculous opinion given from those with very active imaginations who try to claim they know better than God does

    5) The dating techniques aren't accurate which is why scientists are constantly trying to improve them

    6) The reality of the way the world and the universe works proves Genesis correct. But scientists have to make up new tribes of people that no one in history can verify in order to claim that the earth is older than what the bible says. [:D] Thus, an old earth is a fairy tale because it can't be documented by history either. [;)]



    Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI