by Steve Risner Is it alarming to anyone else that 25% of your children will stay connected with their faith once they leave high school? It’s shocking to me. So my point in writing this is to try to 1) encourage you, 2) equip you to deal with this, and 3) to challenge you a little. This is a very big deal and it’ll take a little commitment to handle it. But we’re talking about the futures of our children, so I’m guessing the work is worth it.
According to Barna, 1% of our teens have a Biblical worldview. This is defined by Barna as:
• that absolute moral truth exists
• that the Bible is completely inerrant
• that Satan is a real being, not symbolic
• that a person cannot earn his way into the kingdom of God though good works
• that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
• that God is the supreme Creator of the heavens and the earth and reigns over the whole universe today Studies also suggest that students spend, on the average, about 30 hours a week in class and 30 hours a week online or watching TV saturating their minds with the secular humanistic philosophies so prevalent in our society. They will, on the average, also spend about 45 minutes a week in Sunday school or some sort of spiritual training. The problem with this is not that we don’t have enough for them at church. The trouble is, I believe, that many parents have made the church where their kids learn about God and how to live practically as a Christian rather than at home. We aren’t preparing our children to enter into a world that hates Jesus. So today I’d like to give you some ideas as to how to combat this at home. Raising our kids in His ways is the highest priority God has given us. The battle here is between worldviews. Let me explain what I’m talking about. Our worldview is what helps us filter everything we encounter in the world. It’s true that some things we experience will shape our worldview, but for the most part, our worldview will actually shape how we interpret our experiences. Your worldview is much like your heart in this respect. Your heart is beating all day everyday no matter what you’re doing whether you’re aware of it or not. Your worldview is constantly at work whether you are thinking of it or not. Is your worldview consistent? Or do you have ideas or philosophies about life that are actually at odds with each other? For example, I have a friend who, for a long time, would say he believed in evolution. At the same time, he would also admit he believed the creation story in the Bible. He one day realized these two beliefs were in contradiction to each other so he needed to make a decision. He chose the Bible, God’s Word, over man and his word. I fear this is a common problem, and the inconsistency can lead to destruction or a falling away from the truth. Our worldview will answer a large variety of questions for us including: “Where did I come from?” “What is the purpose or meaning of my life?” “Who am I?” “Where am I going or what happens after this life?” These questions cannot be answered by science. They are well out of the scope of what science is capable of teaching us. These are philosophical questions or even spiritual questions and must be entertained as such. As a parent, I’ve come to realize that saturating my child in the Christian or Biblical worldview isn’t enough. They need to be shown what secularism or humanism says. They should be shown what the Biblical responses to humanistic philosophies are in a logical, consistent way. When exposed for the foolish arguments they are, our children should easily be able to conclude that secularism is a denial of reality and that it must first borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. All of us, and our kids, will be exposed to secular worldviews—there’s no way around that. It will happen whether they’re in public school, Christian school, or home school. I would much rather walk my child through the tough questions or accusations made by atheists instead of having them be unequipped and be hit with them head on as they enter the “real world.” Exposing them to atheist writings and ideas and explaining God’s position according to the Bible on those same positions is critical. Only teaching the Christian side of the issue is often a sentence of struggle and confusion leading to a falling away. Any argument can seem logical if it’s presented well. If the most foolish ideas are presented to you in a polished fashion, it can lead to doubt. Truth be told, there is nothing wrong with doubt as long as you have the critical thinking skills necessary to work through a dilemma. But if you hear an argument and have no idea how to respond, you could be set up for failure. Let’s equip are kids to deal with these issues rather than ignoring them. Tim Lambesis, a founding member of a huge Christian band, over time became an atheist due to his inability to work through the secular philosophies he was exposed to in college. He says, “At a Christian school, you’re presented with one argument… So later in life when a counter-argument surfaces, your whole world is thrown into shock, because you’ve been indoctrinated. I’m not blaming religion. But this was one of the factors that sent me into this massive moral decline.” I have seen several atheists who claim they’ve walked away from their Christian faith speak about science and how it brilliantly demonstrates this or that, insinuating that the argument is over science. This is nonsense. The argument has never been scientific. Science cannot tell you about origins—of the universe or life. It’s so far out of the scope of what science can actually do. Many don’t get this. Many in science don’t get this, which is frightening since they’re teaching our children philosophy and religion and backing it with a science degree. We need to give our kids the chance to think for themselves and help them understand the difference between science and philosophy. Higher education is not pro free-thinking nor is it pro Christian. So equipping our children to enter into a world that hates Jesus Christ is essential for them to keep the faith, to run the race, and fight the good fight. Parents, be encouraged that you can raise them right. But be challenged because it will take time and effort on your part. Study the secular philosophies and questions atheists have that can shake your child’s faith and be prepared to work through them with your kids. Don’t run from atheist literature. Read it and be prepared for a response. The Word tells us to “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he won’t depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). Deuteronomy 11 starting in verse 16 says, “Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them…Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind the on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors.” God gives us a divine order: raise your children to know His ways and equip them to go into a world that hates Him lest they turn from Him and bow down to other gods. The “other gods” of today are man, science, money, power, sex, the experience, momentary happiness, and so many other things. Fill your life with righteousness and your kids will see it. If you live a fake faith—different on Sunday at church versus the rest of the week—they will not want anything to do with your “faith.” As we fill ourselves with righteous living, we have less and less desire for the things of the flesh. Be encouraged and don’t back down. To get a start, you can read my 3 blog posts on arguments for the existence of God here, here, and here and share them with your kids. This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities.
182 comments:
"I have seen several atheists who claim they’ve walked away from their Christian faith speak about science and how it brilliantly demonstrates this or that, insinuating that the argument is over science. This is nonsense. The argument has never been scientific. Science cannot tell you about origins—of the universe or life. It’s so far out of the scope of what science can actually do. Many don’t get this. Many in science don’t get this, which is frightening since they’re teaching our children philosophy and religion and backing it with a science degree...". With respect I completely disagree. I also suspect that no Christians would say this if scientific enquiry consistently pointed to an approximately 6,000 year old Earth - and universe. And you don't have to be an 'atheist'/agnostic/ex Christian/non Christian to take a more positive view of what science can reveal. (By the way astronomers view distant stars as they were in the past.)
When "scientific enquiry" shows an ancient world and universe, it is through a materialistic evolutionary worldview. Evidence supporting a young earth and universe (and there is a great deal of it) are constantly rejected out of hand because they do not fit the long ages paradigm.
As for what "science can reveal", that is up to the worldviews of the scientists and the science press, since they are redefining the evolving "scientific methods" that they use, and are using it to define morality itself, and are misleading the public.
For it to be called science, it must carry three key characteristics: observability, testability, and repeatability. In other words, if science can prove the earth is billions of years old, then there must be a scientific EXPERIMENT (not a set of equations that lacks the experimentation to back it up) that a YEC could perform by following the lab manual and get the same results.That being said, for a YEC to call something scientific (and it really would help for our 'rivals' to actually learn what we are calling science and what we aren't), there should be a lab manual for the experiment that an evolutionist could follow and replicate the results.
To quote Nikola Tesla:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolatesl401270.html
In reality, origins it outside the realm of what science can address.
Contradiction is not refutation, assertion is not evidence, ignored evidence by secularists is still forcing data to erroneously fit a deep time worldview. Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. Interpretations are based on presuppositions and worldviews.
A worldview consists of the sets of presuppositions and convictions of the person holding it. It acts as a filter for determining:
1) What you consider to be true or false.
2). What possible answers you will consider to viable
3). What authorities you consider to be valid or not.
Most of these issues are resolved sub-consciously and usually only come to mind when brought to your attention.
Now, let's take a look at how Ashley reveals these issues. It is rather clear Ashley uses himself to discern what is true or what is not. Whether he thinks this the case or not, this is precisely what he demonstrates. If he wishes to claim otherwise, he needs to portray himself VERY differently.
He very clearly refuses to accept anything that would support the Bible as have any validity which has a significant impact on how he is capable of viewing science. He demonstrates an attitude that only science can determine that which is true (which is self-refuting because science cannot even prove itself). Anyone who rejects God as being a possible answer is NOT open-minded, very clearly closed-minded, bigoted, and blind to reality. Now an argument could be stated about us not being open-minded, bigoted, and 'blind to reality', but again, your worldview determines what you consider to be reality. And what you consider to be reality, does not always reflect reality.
Lastly, what authorities does Ashley accept? He certainly rejects anyone that might speak in favor of the Bible has having valid authority. He accepts those who claim to be Christian but show anything BUT Christianity as having authority (while still getting much of it wrong). He accepts 'majority opinion', particularly those who have three letters after their name but still show the same problem he does: refusing to consider God in the picture.
None of this can be demonstrated or refuted via science. This is what worldview issues are all about. And if Ashley wishes to fight against all this (I suspect he will), he needs to approach things very differently because this is what his actions say and they speak louder than any claim he can make.
Sorry, rushing. The word 'viewpoint' was missed after "(admittedly false)".
(Also some of my words in single quotes are paraphrases of Caine rather than direct quotes of his words.)
"in case they think I am a Christian pretending to be a Christian-hating atheist". For clarity (including for any from the P Z Myers thread reading this) - I am a very determined opponent of young Earth creationism. Neither a still practising Christian nor an atheist (more an agnostic) who hates all Christians.
//"in case they think I am a Christian pretending to be a Christian-hating atheist". For clarity (including for any from the P Z Myers thread reading this) - I am a very determined opponent of young Earth creationism. Neither a still practising Christian nor an atheist (more an agnostic) who hates all Christians.//
Did you know the Greek word from which "agnostic" comes from actually means "ignorant"? If you truly are an agnostic, it means you do not know one way or the other. If you do not know one way or the other, you CANNOT make any claim that we are wrong.
Do you hate all "Christians"? I'd say no, you don't. You just hate the ones that stand on Scripture as having authority and saying "This the truth." You do hate God and the only "Christians" you don't hate are the ones that don't believe him. Not all who claim to be Christians are Christians. And the Bible makes very clear that those who leave the faith, were never part of it to begin with.
"I really don't care what others think of you." Well the atheists might care what you think of me. Possibly. They might realise that I was not invading their 'rude' blog - their expression - as a 'covert Christian' pretending otherwise.
What Prof Tertius (a Christian though not of your fundie variety) wrote is RELEVANT to Bob because it is mostly ABOUT him. I only flagged it here when he tried to criticise my opening post. I knew of course he would attack it falsely instead of dealing with its contents.
But, whilst atheists can be very angry and jump to wrong conclusions, I always knew that YECs had their head firmly in the sand.
As I said to somebody at the 'atheist' thread "if Caine is implying that part of Christianity is a wish to be truthful as far as possible (unlike creationist fundamentalist science deniers which I never was and the UK is largely free of them) then yes I have not left that bit of it behind" (post 86). But those atheists - the ones who attacked me - seem to have little or no interest in truth either (all they do is come out with the 'f' word).
"And the Bible makes very clear that those who leave the faith, were never part of it to begin with." Yes - the Bible is a cruel and judgmental, primitive, book (as I suspect is the Koran but I have no intention of finding out).
Bottom line to my above comments. Bob made a FALSE claim in his blog re the 'Lucy' fossil, implying that the fossil would be 'shelved' and that it was a 'science reversal' like 'Phlogiston'. Prof Tertius provided correction in his blog - but Bob REFUSES any correction from any non-YEC source (and perhaps even from a YEC source who knows).
Re post 22 - I think you meant "Christian pretending to be an atheist" Charlie.
No, I meant atheists pretending to be Christians. Christians don't pretend to be atheists. It is the devil who appears as an angel of light. Not the angels who appear as a devil. But anyone who holds to a concrete standard that does not change can easily discern who is real and who isn't. And it sure is interesting how that "cruel, judgmental, primitive" book still withstands EVERY challenge you and all the experts in the world throw at it. As many of us have been saying, the world does NOT revolve around you. And because God would not serve you as you wanted to be served, you left him. He didn't leave you. He just didn't give you want you wanted. And your hatred of him for not bowing to your desires has made you blind to everything else. You are not capable of seeing truth because you let your hatred and your anger rule your life. You are a slave to it. And the only way you can be free of such hate is to let it die...on the cross. Only by laying your life down, your dreams, your desires, your will, your emotions, and trusting in Jesus, can you be freed from this hate. But in doing so, God will resurrect it, has he has us. That is what you and "Professor Tertius" never had. The POWER of Christianity. The power that changes lives. You think God failed you, but he didn't. God doesn't fail. What failed was your image of who he is and what he does. And you've chosen a 'god' in science that WILL fail you. Science cannot save you. It cannot calm a fear or dry a tear. It cannot give an answer to our existence for how or why we are here. Only God can provide that answer. And you have a simple choice. To go with him or not. And if you think he is a moral monster, he is worthy to be praised regardless...just for creating you. And you WILL glorify him one way or the other. Through your repentance or through you receiving what you are asking for: eternity without him.
Well one or more of those atheists thought I was doing what MY wording describes, Charlie, whether you like that or not (and your wording makes no sense in the context). Please see post 84 where someone insisted, wrongly: "you are trying to defend christianity and the christian god, holding up Islam as a religion of horrible, awful people".
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/25/the-god-monster/#ixzz3YTde5Csn
The god who does not believe in second chances was given many chances to reveal himself to me in a meaningful manner.
Instead I lost my mind for a period, attempted suicide in 2004, and became physically disabled in consequence.
But this is NOT about me, contrary to your repeated claims. Thus I am not going to follow you further down that side alley.
The person in question named Caine (clearly a hater of Christians) showed aggression towards my posts and he also weirdly accused me of 'bigotry' in them. That revealed that he appeared to think or strongly suspect that I was a Christian 'invading' an atheist thread - rather than merely an atheist who was suggesting or implying that "the Christian god is a bit nicer than the Muslim one".
(I have quit the thread because I was tired of refuting all the lies about me there.)
I'm not following that thread, Ashley. It is not relevant to this forum. And if my wording did not make any sense, it means you do not get out as often as you claim. Because having atheists pretend to be Christians is a staple behavior for them to attempt to get into our circles. They don't do a good job at holding their Trojan Horse disguise too well.
Gentelmen,
Please stop any personal comments and stay focused on the OP at hand.
And just to stop the finger pointing or the "He started it first." childish replies, Just move forward and discuss the topic of the OP. I could careless about what you are doing elsewhere on the internet. Please stop bringing that here. Use the other forum that you are on to deal with your personal issues. Thank you.
Well, I guess my first order of business is to sincerely thank each of you for reading my blog and commenting. I really do appreciate it.
Bob: I would first like to thank you for your comments--about half way through your comments you addressed the blog in question and you said some things that I appreciate. Thank you for your support. I believe it is critical that we teach our kids how to think rather than what to think. If they know HOW to work through problems, spot fallacies, and smell a rat, they'll be more equipped to deal with the painfully obviously inconsistent nature of atheism/agnosticism. Kids are taught fraudulent material--e.g. Haeckel's drawings and not taught any of the issue evolutionism has. They are not taught an alternative and since it's shoved down their throats by a teacher/authority, they are more inclined to just accept it. They're hardly given a choice. Parents and Christian brothers and sisters who care need to get in their and demonstrate: Christ like living, maturity, logic/reason, and a great deal more understanding on an emotional, social, and spiritual level. We're losing our kids because we're fake Christians and we're losing our kids because we don't take the time to study and prepare an answer. If we don't, how can we expect our kids to do it?
Ashley
Thank you for taking time out of your life to be involved here. You stir the pot and you can bring up some interesting points.
You say a more positive view of science is needed--by me and others like me, I assume. That's a fair statement given the information you have. I'm curious what makes you think that I don't have a favorable view of science--specifically. I love science. Science classes were always my favorite classes in school--biology, a and p, geology, astronomy...to a lesser extent chemistry but I also loved physics. My schooling has earned me the credits to have a bachelor's in science (just like good ol' Bill). I love science but, unlike you I believe, I understand its limitations. It certainly has them and I hope you understand that. But perhaps my understanding is simply more in depth than yours and so I appreciate the limits more. It could be because things I hold dear to me--life, meaning and purpose, love for people and especially for my wife and children, destiny and ambition, and compassion--work considerably outside the world of science.
It is actually a pretty solid fact that the philosophy of science, as Tesla's quote supports, does not allow for science settling anything in regards to origins. We can use scientific facts to support our beliefs--you and me both--but that's all we're doing. We're supporting our beliefs or our faith. Here is what I know to be true (please address this as detailed as possible): the study of origins--of the universe, life, the earth, whatever we're talking about here--is like this: we have facts. We have many facts. We both use these facts. You will say I ignore certain facts that go in the face of my belief but this is not true at all. In fact, it's almost insultingly a slap in the face as I feel I've studied your side and my side on this matter quite well. True, I don't know it all...in fact, compared to the amount of knowledge out there to gain on this topic, I know very little as does anyone else on earth. But I've concentrated on the basics for over 20 years--many of which were at a college/doctoral level. I'm in the process of reading The Origin of Species (which is filled with errors a 7th grade biology course could point out). I don't deny any scientific fact. There could be some I question, but that's another story. Questioning something is actually healthy. Denying an undeniable fact is stupid. I don't do that. I don't think Charlie does, either. I don't think Jason does. I don't know Bob well enough to say for sure, but I'll assume he doesn't either.
If we look at a series of facts (which are really just dots on a page so to speak) and you connect them to tell a certain tale and I connect them to tell a different tale...well, that's the issue. How can you slam your fist down and name call and cry liar and bigot and all this other stuff when you and I have both used the same facts (which there is an excellent chance you don't know for sure what a fact is) and arrived at different conclusions? Why is your conclusion, based on the exact same info, superior to mine? If two forensics experts are brought into a murder trial and, after reviewing the exact same information arrive at different scenarios, is one a fool and anti-science and the other a scientist? Please explain your answer to that.
Indeed, Steve. Christianity is different than any other belief system out there, not merely because it is the only intellectually coherent position, but primarily because it has POWER. No other system is capable of transforming a person like Christianity can. But so many people today want to show a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. And this power goes far beyond head knowledge.
But how can a one time past event no human was around for and no human can imagine be a scientific field of study? Theory written on a piece of paper is far from factual information. That's what Big Bang and Darwinism is all about --ideas on paper with a few facts mixed in to give it some sort of foundation.
In terms of Lucy, I will be excited to see what you have to say in regards to my blog coming out this week on "her." I'm definitely not saying this fossil collage will be thrown out. Evolutionists have proven time and again they'll not toss out much of anything even after it's been proven fraudulent, let alone just incorrect. But this latest bit of knowledge on her brings the number of confirmed species lumped together to no less than 3. That's pretty neat. And I'm pretty sure not one of those species is anything like a human. But let's play: what do we KNOW about "Lucy?" List for me all the facts about Lucy no one can argue. I'm very interested in what you'll come up with here. You tell me the facts and I'll tell you what I think the actual facts are. Thanks.
Ashley, are you aware of any of the holes, fallacies, or errors found within the theory of evolution? What about the Big Bang? Are there problems with it or are both of these ideas flawless? Can you tell me what some of them are, if you believe there are any?
It is absolutely astounding to me that Ashley opening admits he "hates all Christians" and then complains about some atheists that gave him a hard time (elsewhere and in a place completely unrelated to this blog) who seemed to hate Christians. You know personally fewer than .1% of the Christians of the world. Why would you hate them? You said it, sir. Not me. So please don't bother denying it or walking it back.
Hatred shows weakness. It's an easy thing to do. Love is what takes strength and courage. This is especially true if the person in question would be considered an "enemy." Basically, that just means someone that doesn't like you or is unkind to you or goes out of their way to be mean to you. It's easy to hate that person, proving it's for the weak. Love is hard. It's a choice. And it's a command from God--love. I'm sorry that you've had such a painful history, Ashley. I truly am and I will pray for peace and healing in your life. I hope that doesn't sound condescending or anything. I truly mean it. My time is exceptionally important to me and my prayer time is not near long enough. But I will make time to pray for you because I care about you and want you to find peace and find wholeness and healing. You are angry at God. I actually believe you have no doubt in the God of the Bible. But you're angry with Him and you blame Him for your current situation. I would encourage you to talk with Him about it. Tell Him your thoughts on it. Share your anger with Him. Share your pain. He wants to help you more than you want help. Work it out. You can do it. It's never too late. You claimed that God is a God of no second chances. Oh, praise God that is so far from the truth!!!! I can't stress that enough. It's only too late once you leave this place for good. Until then, He'll extend every chance possible. He changes lives so radically every day. Would you like to hear about my dad and his radical change? I'll tell you, but only if you're interested.
You also claimed that the Bible is a cruel and judgmental book and some other things. That's a very strange interpretation of the Word, to me. The Bible is a love story. God is holding out His hand over and over and over saying, "I love you. I love you. I want you to know Me. I love you." And man is constantly pushing Him away, seeking after his lusts to please his flesh. This leads to misery (which I think you can attest to)and frustration. The peace, joy and hope that only can come from knowing Christ personally is something thousands have died for--even when given a choice to live.
I notice you didn't comment on my blog about the birth of Christianity and how the only way to explain it is that Christ was raised from the dead. Please take a look at it. Thanks.
Ashley said, "...he weirdly accused me of "bigotry" in them..." talking about posts in yet another unrelated internet forum. I just felt that the irony here was so enormous considering our first interaction that it couldn't go without saying so. Thanks for the chuckle.
Charlie
Thanks for jumping in here. You're posts are spot on and I appreciate you taking this on. While I'm hip deep in raising kids, ministering, and working as well as a bit of play here and there, I had no idea there was so much going on here until Jason mentioned it to me. I appreciate you, brother.
I'm reposting this comment from a previous post because I didn't get a reply there:
//
Let's assume your view that accepting on not accepting a literal Genesis is driven by philosophy. Let's look at scientists who do not feel the need to accept a completely literal Genesis. These scientists come from a variety of nations, cultures, religions, and political viewpoints. As far as I'm aware, all of them accept that the best interpretation of the evidence is that the earth is ~4.54 billion years old. What leads these scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds to accept the same age, if not science? A rejection of the Bible does not directly lead to the acceptance of a ~4.54 billion year old earth. One could even reject the Bible as a valid source for evidence and still come to a conclusion that agrees with the Bible.
//
//It is absolutely astounding to me that Ashley opening admits he "hates all Christians" ... You said it, sir. Not me. So please don't bother denying it or walking it back. //
I think you misplaced a parenthesis in your mind when reading Ashley's comment.
He said:
//Neither a still practising Christian nor an atheist (more an agnostic) who hates all Christians.//
But I think you and Charlie interpreted it as:
//Neither a still practising Christian nor an atheist (more an agnostic who hates all Christians.)//
David, still waiting on the scientific experiment that shows it. Still waiting on the lab manual that any of us could take an follow WITHOUT having to depend on their word for it. It's not science. It's a philosophy.
Have you asked the scientists why they believe Evolution? The majority will tell you "because the majority of scientists believe it". Most of the 97% of scientists haven't actually checked it out. And most actually don't care because it has nothing do with their field. 70 of 70 scientists in one poll were asked if they would do anything different in their fields if Evolution were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false. They responded with a unanimous "no". It has nothing to do with science.
You didn't answer my question. I didn't even mention evolution. Why are there not dissenters who say the earth is 900 million, or 3 trillion years old?
My apologies to Ashley. I believe I did misread your comment on hating Christians. I'm very sorry.
David said "You didn't answer my question. I didn't even mention evolution. Why are there not dissenters who say the earth is 900 million, or 3 trillion years old?"
I think he did answer your question if your question was --why do different scientists agree on the age of the earth as being 4.5 billion years?
Charlie's answer seems to be because that's what everyone else says. Do you feel that scientific facts are based on majority opinion?
This is interesting:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/setting-evolution-aside-even-basic-geology-disproves-creationism/
Now I will catch up with all the 16 new comments.
David said "Let's assume your view that accepting on not accepting a literal Genesis is driven by philosophy."--no assumption necessary. It's the way it works. The "philosophy of science" makes it so. If you can prove that all the scientists you're talking about didn't first start with the presupposition that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that they believed that was necessary because they also presuppositionally believe that evolution requires it, then we can try to figure this out. Otherwise, you're making my point for me.
"Let's look at scientists who do not feel the need to accept a completely literal Genesis."--let's look at scientists who do believe in a natural reading of Genesis. Scientists like Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Damadian, Steno, Linnae, Mendol, Faraday, and a very long list of other HUGE names in science all were creationists and Biblical creationists at that. Every major branch of scientific inquiry was founded by a Biblical creationist.
And let's be honest about why this, the age of 4.5 billion years, is the "best explanation for the evidence." Charles Lyell (a lawyer not a scientist) was bold enough to say his intention when making up his story about the geologic column was to remove Moses from geology. Does that sound like an unbiased approach? Then, Darwin used these ideas to manufacture a slow progression of living things from simpler ones to more complex ones (there is no such thing as a simple life form--not even close). So it all hangs on whether or not Darwinism is a reality.
I'm having a hard time focusing...lots of distractions. I'll be back later if you're interested in further discussion.
Thank you for your interest in my blog.
"And if my wording did not make any sense, it means you do not get out as often as you claim." Your wording made no sense for the context I was discussing - as I have already explained.
In reply to Steve's comments, or to what I think he is asking me, my point is that young earth creationists - in order to try and make some use of it - unreasonably restrict what science can and has learnt about origins (aside from whether the universe began naturally or a God caused its beginning), especially the age of the Earth and wider universe. They claim to 'love' science - but then cripple it and try to redefine it and artificially limit it (as so-called 'observational science' ie excluding ANY 'historical science' only).
Ashley, are you suggesting that Isaac Newton limited science? He wrote more on theology than he did on science. Carl Linnae? Pasteur? Bacon? Bacon defined the scientific method. He, a creationist, determined what science is and what it does. You have made it a religion and decided anyone that disagrees with the majority (not the facts but the majority opinion of those facts) is not a scientist.
Do you think there are limits to scientific inquiry? You seem to be saying there are none. Can you explain, if there are limits, what they are? If there are none, can you explain how that is possible? Can you explain how something we have never observed, can never observe, and cannot even test is scientific? The Big Bang fits into this category. Abiogenesis does as well. The formation of our solar system would be a good one for you to explain how it's possible scientifically explain.
Please, also, describe for me the scientific method. What are its steps? What are its limitations? How can it be done incorrectly?
"David, still waiting on the scientific experiment that shows it."
If science pointed to a universe that was less than 10,000 Charlie would not be 'waiting' for anything.
"My apologies to Ashley. I believe I did misread your comment on hating Christians. I'm very sorry."
Apology accepted. (I was responding to comments as I read them so have only just seen Steve's later apology.)
Some of my best friends here are Christians from my former church. One is broadly YEC as well.
Why don't we leave Lucy to next week? You have a lot of explaining to do for "her" that's for sure.
"let's look at scientists who do believe in a natural reading of Genesis. Scientists like Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Damadian, Steno, Linnaeus, Mendel, Faraday ...". If I am not mistaken, most of these people are long since dead. Thus we do NOT know that they would reject the more recent finding that Earth and the universe are billions of years old and do not share a common age either.
"Ashley, are you suggesting that Isaac Newton limited science? He wrote more on theology than he did on science. Carl Linnae? Pasteur? Bacon? Bacon defined the scientific method. He, a creationist, determined what science is and what it does. You have made it a religion and decided anyone that disagrees with the majority (not the facts but the majority opinion of those facts) is not a scientist.
Do you think there are limits to scientific inquiry? You seem to be saying there are none. Can you explain, if there are limits, what they are? If there are none, can you explain how that is possible? Can you explain how something we have never observed, can never observe, and cannot even test is scientific? The Big Bang fits into this category. Abiogenesis does as well. The formation of our solar system would be a good one for you to explain how it's possible scientifically explain.
Please, also, describe for me the scientific method. What are its steps? What are its limitations? How can it be done incorrectly?"
Science - unlike your brand of creationism - knows things now that it did not know when these people walked the Earth. Firm scientific knowledge (no real scientists, only those with hardline religious affiliation, insist in a 6,000 year old universe today) is not an alternative religion - it is much more powerful than that. Which explains why some folk (not just YECs but also eg far-left greens who hate nuclear power or fracking even though both a better than coal-fired power stations when trying to tackle climate change) do not like it and try to question things that are now beyond question. (I accept that the Big Bang is still up for question, and yes even evolution is not perfectly understood. But still insisting on a 6,000 year old universe is anti-scientific.)
Science should investigate all topics, but sometimes it might be hard to arrive at firm answers or prove that what it has discovered definitely happened.
"Can you explain how something we have never observed, can never observe, and cannot even test is scientific?" Yes - but you will inevitably refuse to accept the explanation. Clue - the explanations of science make more sense scientifically than the cobbled together alternative 'explanations' offered by young Earth creationism (which insists that Earth existed before the Sun existed - even if only less than a week sooner).
Can Steve explain scientifically why/how a firm and robust evidence-based scientific explanation of something that occurred in the unobserved past eg the formation of the solar system or the extinction of the dinosaurs is ALWAYS and INEVITABLY false and wrong and also off-limits and not part of science/knowledge either?
"You have a lot of explaining to do for "her" that's for sure."
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
That is, I assume Steve means me (conveniently ignoring the recent deliberate falsehoods put about by Bob and by Georgia Purdom re 'Lucy').
The Lucy fossil species looks very much like a transitional form from the gradual evolution of Homo sapiens. It does NOT look like a knuckle-walking gorilla nor a baboon based on what I have read in abstracts from peer-reviewed science papers.
And why are you putting 'her' in quotes? Presumably because you or Charlie to planning to write some propaganda about how this fossil was a totally non-human and separately created 'ape' (or maybe 'monkey'!) and should be called 'it' not 'her' or 'him'?
Ashley, you cited the Oxford definition in an earlier thread of what science is and what it does. And you are complaining that we are calling you out to HOLD to that definition. We are USING the definition of science that YOU said you agree to. Are you capable of sticking to it? Honest people claim their definitions and STAY with them. Can you do it?
"Ashley, you cited the Oxford definition in an earlier thread of what science is and what it does. And you are complaining that we are calling you out to HOLD to that definition. We are USING the definition of science that YOU said you agree to. Are you capable of sticking to it? Honest people claim their definitions and STAY with them. Can you do it?"
Nobody has asked me for a definition of science in this thread.
What utter nonsense you write about people who disagree with you.
"But it would make life easier for you if I got banned ..."
Please don't give yourself too much credit. At this point, you're more of a nuisance than a challenge.
If you were a bigger person, I suspect you would apologize for your lashing out. But, again, if you call anyone a liar (I don't care if you can prove they are lying) you will have every comment removed and no further comments from you will be tolerated. This is a place for adults and mature people to interact.
" What did you expect me to say in response?"---how about "why would you say that? did I say something you may have misinterpreted? Was my communication not clear? Perhaps I'm to blame. Perhaps we both are. I apologize for the confusion." Or you could have simply NOT called me a liar for misreading your statement. Again...assuming you're a bigger person.
Ashley, Grow up or move on. You act like a child. Perhaps you are and we really do not know it.
Anyway, how we run WVW is actually none of your business. Stay focused on the OP and stop calling people liars. When others associated with WVW make a mistake they admit it.
So, if you are rally not here to learn or grow or add something to the discussion that is worth while move on. Good Evening.
Your "they needed enough time for evolution to have occurred" (paraphrase) explanation does not explain how they came up with an age of 4.5 billion years. If they don't have good evidence, it seems like they would just propose a much broader range. And why did they choose 4.5 bya instead of 8 bya? Why is there consensus at all? There is no need to have a consensus. For example, the Wikipedia page for abiogenesis lists several proposed models, but there is no consensus around a single model. And at the turn of the 20th century, there were many different estimates of the earth's age with no consensus.
I'm not really interested in a creation vs. evolution debate. I'm just interested in what you think the process is that led secular scientists to a fairly specific date. And if that process isn't science, what would you call it?
The Moses thing is irrelevant to my point, but in a society that believes Thor controls the weather, I could image a meteorologist saying they want to take Thor out of weather.
David, do you know that the 'date' of the 'age of the earth' is constantly changing? It has not been 4.5 billion years for the duration of your lifetime (assuming you are a recent high school graduate). It keeps inflating and inflating. It's been relatively stable (according to the claims) for this generation of leading scientists but what will happen to the next generation? And considering how "science" acts on consensus (which eliminates all possible attempts at honest scientific inquiry), who is going to question it and retain their job? One thing is for certain. The 4.5 billion year old earth date does NOT come from scientific processing. If it did, they could provide each of us YEC (the only ones who have an authority and the guts to stand up to the 'consensus) with the lab manual that proves us wrong. Why SHOULD we believe in the 4.5 billion year old earth? Because the 'experts' say so? We have a much more reliable source of authority, one that does not change and does not lie. And one that has NEVER been proven wrong. Many try but none have succeeded. It is really difficult to have radioactive decay take place over billions of years old if the magnetic field would rip apart atoms at less than 50,000 years ago. Ignorance of evidence? Not on our part.
So WHY do people who agree with the substance of Charlie's latest comment (including Steve as well as that self-publicist Ken Ham) claim to 'love' science. When they will NEVER ever listen to the scientific experts if those experts disprove as correct something that people like Ham and certain bloggers on this website have decided, regardless of physical evidence, is non-negotiable and infallible 'truth'?
The Bible implies that Earth is flat. People used to believe that. The Bible implies that the Sun revolves around Earth. People used to believe that.
"It is really difficult to have radioactive decay take place over billions of years old if the magnetic field would rip apart atoms at less than 50,000 years ago." Please post your source for that.
People here are not very keen on outside links being posted. So I will simply state that the dishonesty of Bob Sorensen in declaring on 26 April "I don’t need to address someone who is intent on using fallacies to demonizing me, Christians, and creationists" has just been highlighted by me at a Sensuous Curmudgeon blog entitled 'You Gotta Read This One' which is about that David Montgomery geology article that I highlighted here a few hours ago.
In his blog post, under discussion here, Steve wrote "... equipping our children to enter into a world that hates Jesus Christ is essential for them to keep the faith, to run the race, and fight the good fight". I am assuming that only equipping them with materials written by biblical creationist Christians - not just any evangelical Christian - will do (ie it's solely a 'battle' of 'worldviews' between atheists and young earth creationists and no other perspectives really matter)?
//David, do you know that the 'date' of the 'age of the earth' is constantly changing? It has not been 4.5 billion years for the duration of your lifetime (assuming you are a recent high school graduate). It keeps inflating and inflating. //
I hear this claim frequently from creationists when I bring up the consensus about the age of the earth. Please provide a source to back up your claim.
Ashley, when you read a paper of any sort, do you ever read the entire thing? Or just the parts that put your position into question? Your assumption is proven false in the very OP you quoted from. You can read, can't you? Figure it out.
David, your knowledge of the history of your own theory is 'lacking'? When did the consensus of 4.54 billion years come about? Do you know? What was it before then? More or less? This is YOUR theory. Learn about it. I'm not doing the homework you need on your theory for you. I know the REAL history of my theory. No, Ellen White was NOT the first one who came up with the YEC idea. That LONG preceded anything Evolution has to offer.
Minor correction. Ashely said he was quoting from the comments, not the OP. His comment is still worthless had he read the OP because Steve said precisely the opposite of Ashely's "assumption".
"Ashley, when you read a paper of any sort, do you ever read the entire thing? Or just the parts that put your position into question? Your assumption is proven false in the very OP you quoted from. You can read, can't you? Figure it out." "Minor correction. Ashely said he was quoting from the comments, not the OP. His comment is still worthless had he read the OP because Steve said precisely the opposite of Ashely's "assumption".
I don't know what Charlie is on about here - even with the 'correction' - but it sounds very much like another feeble and misplaced attack. I read the whole of Steve's blog. No - if a peer reviewed science paper is behind a paywall I normally just read the abstract. Does that help?
But Charlie is suggesting that perhaps I "can't read". He wishes. Though his last two posts to me ARE incomprehensible and need clarification. For instance - WHAT assumption of mine is he on about, please? And why is he implying that the OP (opening post) was by Steve. If he means the first comment above (who knows what Charlie means) the first comment was by myself and not by Steve.
I can read and don't normally totally misconstrue others' comments - unlike Steve of course LOL (I know he's busy but he does need to check properly before launching misplaced and embarrassing salvoes).
Another demonstration by Charlie of the bias of YECs against truth and reality. He conveniently seeks to ignore the errors and the dishonest failures of fellow YECs and instead seeks to attack all those who dare challenge YEC anti-scientific blogs.
Still waiting for Charlie's magnetic field source. Which is part of HIS theory not part of mainstream science.
In 1956, Clair C. Patterson published this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703756900369 with an estimate of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years.
Today's estimate is 4.54 ± 0.05. The Wikipedia article on "Age of the earth" has links to a couple of papers that provide this current estimate.
So not only has the estimate changed less than a quarter of one percent in the last 59 years, it has actually been revised slightly downward since then.
Maybe the current estimate is off. Maybe some incorrect assumptions were made. There almost certainly are. Does the possibility that some incorrect assumptions were made mean that it isn't science?
Before the 4.55 estimate, it looks like most of the estimates were fairly wide ranges.
So perhaps you can explain what Steve meant by this paragraph from his post.
//As a parent, I’ve come to realize that saturating my child in the Christian or Biblical worldview isn’t enough. They need to be shown what secularism or humanism says. They should be shown what the Biblical responses to humanistic philosophies are in a logical, consistent way. When exposed for the foolish arguments they are, our children should easily be able to conclude that secularism is a denial of reality and that it must first borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. All of us, and our kids, will be exposed to secular worldviews—there’s no way around that. It will happen whether they’re in public school, Christian school, or home school. I would much rather walk my child through the tough questions or accusations made by atheists instead of having them be unequipped and be hit with them head on as they enter the “real world.” Exposing them to atheist writings and ideas and explaining God’s position according to the Bible on those same positions is critical. Only teaching the Christian side of the issue is often a sentence of struggle and confusion leading to a falling away. Any argument can seem logical if it’s presented well. If the most foolish ideas are presented to you in a polished fashion, it can lead to doubt. Truth be told, there is nothing wrong with doubt as long as you have the critical thinking skills necessary to work through a dilemma. But if you hear an argument and have no idea how to respond, you could be set up for failure. Let’s equip are kids to deal with these issues rather than ignoring them.
//
And explain HOW you got the pathetic idea that he only wants YEC sources presented. Ashely, you have choice but to accept either poor reading comprehension skills or out right slander and lying about what we talk about. Whatever credibility you had is long gone. I've caught you on this NUMEROUS times. You usually hide behind "I might have misread it." cop-outs. But that is exactly what it is. A cop-out. You can't fathom the idea of being wrong in public and you constantly are. If this is the extend of your ability of understanding what you read, I don't buy for a minute you understand anything written by a scientist. And that's being nice.
Haha... I just realized that over the course of my life, the creationist estimate of the age of the earth has changed by a much larger percentage than the scientific estimate has changed since Clair C. Patterson's 1956 paper.
Biblical creationists have the Bible as the ultimate starting point for our worldviews. We believe that the only God, the holy Creator of the universe who took the form of a man (God the Son, Jesus Christ), died on a cross for our sins, was bodily raised from the dead on the third day, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit is indwelling each of God's people.
We believe what the Bible says about creation, spiritual matters, and everything else; we presuppose the truthfulness and accuracy of God's Word. God expects us to live in a manner consistent with our lives in Christ, and we are to be putting aside a willful sin lifestyle (although he knows that "we are but dust" and will foul up now and then).
Evolutionists and atheists do not have a consistent moral foundation for their worldviews. Most presuppose naturalism. Many are more than willing to lie for the sake of momentary comfort and expedience.
It does not take a theologian, but just a bit of rational thought, to realize the foolishness of saying that creationists are lying (or liars for Jesus), an appeal to motive fallacy. What do we have to gain? God hates lying. Are we trying to get people to believe in a holy God by lying? It's not difficult to dismantle this accusation.
I can understand saying, "You're wrong", or "I disagree", but saying someone is lying for the sake of biblical creation science is amazingly vapid.
*****
Steve said, "Denying an undeniable fact is stupid. I don't do that. I don't think Charlie does, either. I don't think Jason does. I don't know Bob well enough to say for sure, but I'll assume he doesn't either."
I have done stupid things, and will do them in the future. But I gave up denying undeniable facts years ago, especially since I renounced evolution, which requires denying undeniable facts.
I don't see how Steve could have been clearer when he said for parents to teach their children what the other people are saying for Ashley to NOT get that point. If you really did read the whole post and UNDERSTOOD it, why would you even conceive the idea that Steve only wants us to hear YEC arguments? That concept was nowhere to be found in his paper. You have a strong tendency of zooming in on one statement and completely ignoring the entirety of the rest of the post. And you have a very strong tendency of getting the bulk of what any of us says WRONG. Ashley, you can't refute what you don't know. You claimed to be an agnostic. Agnostics can't refute anything because they come from a position of LACK of knowledge. If you don't know, do yourself a favor and shut-up and listen. Exercise your brain as you claim you do, instead of your mouth which is what you actually do. If what you post and say is 'exercising your brain' you need a new trainer. My forehead is getting in imprint of my desk because my hand can't get to it fast because of the epicness of your failure to address anything in an intelligent, respectful manner. You want respect? Earn it.
David, in the last 50 years, the 'age of the earth' jumped from about 5950 years to about 6000 years. Do not confuse with very poor 'Christians' such as Progressive Creation or Theistic Evolution who gets BOTH sides badly wrong. However, in Lyell's days, he estimated the earth to be in the hundreds of thousands of years in age. Notice how the only thing that has "stabilized" the age of the earth is radiometric dating, which you know full well none of us here trust to actually carry out the scientific method. Especially considering they won't allow us into their labs to see how they do it. Did you know that no one had actually directly measured the decay rates? Geiger Counters count electric discharages, not decay particles. Liquid scintillation counts photons, not decay particles. I have VERY serious questions about the integrity of such devices being accurate, or should I say...artificially 'consistent' (and unintentionally so).
Bob Sorensen wrote, "Evolutionists and atheists do not have a consistent moral foundation for their worldviews. Most presuppose naturalism. Many are more than willing to lie for the sake of momentary comfort and expedience."
Can you give some examples of the "many" who you claim are willing to lie? This blanket statement borders on slander directed at me and many people I respect.
"Can you give some examples of the 'many' who you claim are willing to lie? This blanket statement borders on slander directed at me and many people I respect."
It does not border on slander in the least. I have documented many on my Weblogs, including Stormbringer's Thunder and Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman. I don't have time to provide you with individual screenshots.
Ever notice how atheists do not take other atheists to task and have them back up their claims against Christians?
Bob Sorensen typed: "I don't have time to provide you with individual screenshots."
I did not ask for screenshots. I asked for examples (names). But if you're not going to provide any, I can only assume that you don't have any.
I see that it is pointless to attempt having an intelligent discussion with you.
"I did not ask for screenshots. I asked for examples (names). But if you're not going to provide any, I can only assume that you don't have any."
You think I'm going to give a list of names? Not hardly, Scooter. And you're using an argument from silence to prove yourself right. Too bad you don't want to see that I am indeed right, and I resent that you're indirectly calling me a liar.
"I see that it is pointless to attempt having an intelligent discussion with you."
Uh, no. I just don't want to waste time with someone else who is illogical and manipulative. I have enough of those types to deal with (as you can see right here).
The most popular name of one who lies for Evolution is Ernst Haeckel, whose fraudulent drawings are STILL used in the textbooks. The next example of an outright liar is the direction of the National Center of Science and Education, Eugenie Scott, who says outright it is perfectly fine to lie to 'reveal a truth'. She is one of the faces of Evolution today.
It is well documented that when money is involved, and pressure is involved, honesty takes a back seat. This applies to any field, not just science. A couple years ago, El Paso went through a school district cheating scandal to artificially alter student testing scores to get more funding from the state (and to not get fined for having low scores). This is not a mere Evolution issue. You see this in EVERY field. Today, money talks louder than ethics. That's also why the rich only get a slap on the wrist for poor ethics and the poor get the full hand of the law. Because money talks, not integrity. And it is well documented when you follow the money about who can do science or not. The ones that control the paychecks enforce Evolution only. That is why 99% of scientists "believe" it. Because if they don't adhere to it, they lose their job and funding. Well documented and a fraction of it was reported in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Notice how those were ID folk, not YEC.
The scientific community has turned mafia and is anything but scientific. The peer-review process while easily stated is never carried out as stated. No Evolution support, no passing peer-review. Well documented, for those who have the courage to look with open eyes. It's really easy to turn a blind eye when you aren't the one being affected. When your paycheck or your belly is not impacted. Follow the money. Science has no need for financial defense or legal defense. Why does Evolution? Nobody has to worry about their paychecks when talking about gravity. Why do they have to about Evolution?
Charlie - WRT "Eugenie Scott, who says outright it is perfectly fine to lie to 'reveal a truth." Do you have a source for this? What was the context?
Charlie - WRT "The scientific community has turned mafia and is anything but scientific." :Scientific community" covers a lot of people in a wide range of disciplines. Does your alleged 'mafia' include meteorologists and climatologists? Does it include geologists?
//David, in the last 50 years, the 'age of the earth' jumped from about 5950 years to about 6000 years.//
That's exactly what I was referring to. That's a change of 0.84%. The secular estimate has only changed by 0.22% in that time period.
(it was a joke, obviously creationists still believe the earth was created on the same date, which is what matters)
//David, do you know that the 'date' of the 'age of the earth' is constantly changing? It has not been 4.5 billion years for the duration of your lifetime (assuming you are a recent high school graduate).//
Would you like to retract your claim or provide some evidence?
"I don't see how Steve could have been clearer when he said for parents to teach their children what the other people are saying for Ashley to NOT get that point. If you really did read the whole post and UNDERSTOOD it, why would you even conceive the idea that Steve only wants us to hear YEC arguments."
I did NOT misconstrue any of that text by Steve, Charlie. You are wasting your time (and mine) trying to prove that I did. Steve's blog also used the phrase "saturating my child in the Christian or Biblical worldview" (as well as them learning what secularism or humanism says). He also stated: "They should be shown what the Biblical responses to humanistic philosophies are in a logical, consistent way".
Hence my comment "In his blog post, under discussion here, Steve wrote "... equipping our children to enter into a world that hates Jesus Christ is essential for them to keep the faith, to run the race, and fight the good fight". I am assuming that only equipping them with materials written by biblical creationist Christians - not just any evangelical Christian - will do (ie it's solely a 'battle' of 'worldviews' between atheists and young earth creationists and no other perspectives really matter)?
What did I misconstrue or express unclearly? NOTHING. I was asking about the Christian equipping NOT about the learning about secularism or humanism that Steve also advocates. You people either cannot understand plain English or you are pretending that you can't I suggest.
"Ever notice how atheists do not take other atheists to task and have them back up their claims against Christians?" What has that got to do with this thread. Which 'atheist' - in this thread - has failed to 'back up' claims (I would need a specific answer ie number of the particular post where this happened, if it happened at all).
Thomas: Sorensen has alleged in some of his past blogs (where he usually calls me 'Haywire') that I lied or was 'caught' lying. I refuted every single such allegation in a thread dedicated to Bob at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (incidentally Bob has falsely stated in the past that there is 'no science' on that forum whereas I frequently discuss scientific topics there - but Bob presumably DISAGREES with the science-based arguments I make there).
Bob may well have encountered some other people who lied in some way though (some atheists do lie as I discovered in discussions with followers of that recent P Z Myers blog). But he makes false claims in his blog - such as the one last week that the 'Lucy' fossil is about to be 'shelved' by scientists.
Thomas: Bob has never backed up any of his allegations against me in his blogs, despite emails requesting that he do so (if he can). He normally keeps his allegations vague and generalised as well.
I think some YECs such as Bob have claimed that Scott 'lied' in saying (to Bob Enyart in 2005 possibly) that junk or non-coding DNA exists.
But the more recent ENCODE project has not disproved the existence of junk DNA as far as I know: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/05/junk-dna-all-garbage
"... the team admits that some low-level transcription might be random, with no function. Their comment that Encode’s value as a ‘public resource is far more important than any interim estimate of the fraction of the human genome that is functional’ might be interpreted by some as a retreat from the initial estimate of 80% functionality. But it’s hard to argue with the idea that Encode raises some profound puzzles that warrant close study ...".
Thomas, have fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk
Eugenie Scott says it is perfectly fine to use fraudulent drawings because they lead to the 'truth' about Evolution. This is not mere misinformation. This is outright intentional deception. I didn't mention Lyell, whom Darwin GREATLY depended upon who deliberately falsified his 'research' on Niagara Falls to "prove" the earth was at least 30,000 years old. The entire theory is built upon lies. Why should anyone believe it?
David, you cited one paper. Was that consensus then? I don't recall hearing the 4.54 billion year old earth date when I was growing up. I've heard in the billions of years range, but not that number until quite recently. Of course, education tends to be far behind reality and very selective on what it presents.
Ashley, communication 102 makes clear that rhetorical questions are not questions but statements in the form of a question. You still are missing Steve's point of the whole OP. If you aren't misconstruing it, you flat out are not getting it. You are great at quote-mining but terrible at comprehension. Quit talking and start listening. You cannot refute or defend anything when your mouth runs ahead of you and all your points go after strawmen that are not being said. Stop listening to what we are not saying. You make a very hasty generalization (the norm from you, not the exception) and you generalized to a false understanding of what we actually call to do. I can see how you might get that idea...but only if you take a cursory skimming over what we say rather than actually trying to figure out what we really are saying. You have not refuted a single thing on any of these forums because you keep arguing points we aren't making.
//Charlie - WRT "The scientific community has turned mafia and is anything but scientific." :Scientific community" covers a lot of people in a wide range of disciplines. Does your alleged 'mafia' include meteorologists and climatologists? Does it include geologists?//
Watch the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and find out. Listen to the testimonies of the hundreds of scientists and educators that have been fired for no reason but daring to question Evolution. It's not just YEC folk. It's ID folk. Anything that dares to question Evolution. It's well documents. Do you have eyes to look?
//I don't recall hearing the 4.54 billion year old earth date when I was growing up. I've heard in the billions of years range, but not that number until quite recently. //
If you don't recall, why'd you make the claim?
//Eugenie Scott says it is perfectly fine to use fraudulent drawings because they lead to the 'truth' about Evolution.// You are exaggerating her level of acceptance of the exaggerated drawings.
I don't know why people want to deal with Thomas, who obviously only came here to sneer at us and be gratuitously disputatious. To assist in some of his points, I did what trolls are unwilling or incapable of performing: searched my material, where I said earlier that such posts exist.
It is all right to lie to students to get them to believe in evolution.
Several links about lying for evolution, including blatant dishonesty from Eugenie Scott, liar for Darwin.
Some material on Haeckel's fraud, and when I posted it a while ago, I had a comments that this bad stuff is still in textbooks.
Tell me again that atheists, agnostics, evolutionists have a consistent moral standard in their worldview. I have supplied evidence to the contrary.
"Why did you make that claim?"
David, because if you know anything about the history of Evolutionary thinking, the 'age of the earth' has been inflating since its inception. What's it going to be 50 from now? When a new 'more accurate' dating method is discovered? 4.54 billion years is not enough time for Evolution do its job. You need trillions of years and then some. Billions of years cannot produce carbon via fusion as required via Big Bang. You need trillions of years. What is the next dating method that is going to give us this?
Was I exaggerating about Eugenie Scott? She justifies using blatantly false data because it is foundational to Evolutionary thinking and because it's 'public domain'? Am I the one exaggerating or is she the one flat out being dishonest? She's not alone.
The St. Louis World Zoo Exhibit had very interesting depictions of Lucy. One classic shot is her with straight finger bones held up to her chin like she is thinking with whites in her eyes (human like whereas apes are pure black). The problem is Lucy's finger bones are curved, just like a monkey.
The Smithsonian Skulls are outright frauds. They are not transitions at all. They are actually Aborigine skulls. They were murdered so their skulls could be dipped in acid to deform them to LOOK like transitions. Who are the ones lying about which theory? It's not the Creationists.
http://creation.com/darwins-bodysnatchers-new-horrors
And for the record, Evolution is not a theory by any means. It does not even fit the definition of a theory. It is actually a model.
Charlie -
Thank you for the link to the video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk
Are you sure that's the right one? I watched it four times and never heard Eugenie Scott utter the word "lie."
She does say that "Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat..." Is that what you're referring to as "lying"? IMHO these are not the same thing.
Scott does say, "It's been known for 10 or 15 years that Haeckel's embryos are not to be relied upon," and that "the basic point that's being illustrated [by Haeckel's drawings] is still valid."
There are of course more modern, and arguably better sources of information on the links between evolution and embryology.
For example the book and the PBS series "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. And for a good treatment of human evolution, with frequent references to the many discoveries based on DNA analysis, I recommend "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade.
Charlie, you claimed that the estimated age of the earth has changed in the lifetime of a recent high school graduate. Stop with the red herrings.
Can you please tell me which YECs discovered these frauds you've mentioned?
You claim the bible is without error. I don't claim that scientists (humans) are without error. You think a single error would invalidate the bible. I don't think these errors and frauds that you are pointing out invalidate the rest of the vast body of research.
"If science pointed to a universe that was less than 10,000 Charlie would not be 'waiting' for anything."--funny. You're right. Waiting for something that has already happened is a strange thing to do. Maybe they do that in the UK. We try not to here in the US.
"I do not 'lash out' BEFORE checking (and re-checking if necessary) the facts in question."
This is the most inaccurate statement you have made up to this point, Ashley. Nearly all of your comments contain lashing out--name calling (In one thread you used the term liar/lying about once per comment made and bigot nearly as many times). This is lashing out. This is childish. If you actually could contribute something useful to talk about it may be different, but at this point, you're just like a rock in my shoe--not worth addressing but you become more irritating as time goes on. Please provide something meaningful to the conversation. I hate to burst your bubble, but you're just blowing hot air over and over and then ending it with "Harumph". You think you're a challenge and you're really laying it on us. That's a joke. My 11 year old could see through much of your comments. You are truly a legend in your own mind.
I will be consulting Jason about allowing you to continue. Again, if you actually provided something useful or meaningful to talk about...even provocative...that would be different. But you're just a clanging cymbal and it's getting annoying.
I realize you've been told all of this by others in other forums and you probably feel it's because you're such a great debater and have so much knowledge on this, but it really isn't that at all. I promise you your threat as a challenger is not the problem--not even a slight amount.
I'm looking for where you answered what the facts were on Lucy. I'll be using it in my next blog. Did you answer my question? Nevermind. I don't want any more input from you if you didn't answer.
David said: Haha... I just realized that over the course of my life, the creationist estimate of the age of the earth has changed by a much larger percentage than the scientific estimate has changed since Clair C. Patterson's 1956 paper.
The Bible has been pretty clear on the years involved--give or take. It's not perfect. But Ussher came up with the approximate age in the late 1500-early 1600's. How has it changed? Please use any reference you need to but give us the answers in your comment. Thanks.
You are right that the age changes a lot for Biblical creationists. We add one year every 12 months or so.
Attempts to calculate the age of the Earth from physical considerations yielded estimates that ranged from 75,000 years (Buffon, 1774) to several billion years (de Maillet, Buffon).
By the early 1800's it was generally accepted that the Earth had a long history. Its age, however, was scarcely settled. The uniformatarians (Hutton 1788, Lyell 1830) pictured the Earth as being indefinitely old.
In the late 1800's physicists, armed with a more advanced physics than that available to Descartes, made new estimates of the age of the Earth and the Sun. There were two basic questions they asked: How long would it take for the Earth to cool from its initial heat of formation to its present temperature and, given the energy sources known at the time, how long had the Sun been shining.
In 1862 Kelvin estimated the age of the Earth to be 98 million years, based on a model of the rate of cooling. This was a minimum acceptable age consistent with geology. Later in 1897 he revised his estimate downwards to 20-40 million years. This was too short for the geologists to swallow.
Currently the best estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years.
This is just a sampling of the ages "science" has assigned to the earth. Notice the last one says the current best estimate...that's pretty darn solid fact there.
No facts from Ashley on Lucy. Okay. That's unfortunate. But when he's pressed, he comes up with nothing useful.
Thomas, I plan to address your comments later. I haven't had time to read them. I hope you're more interesting and mature than Ashley. If you are interested in a dialogue void of name calling, insults, and constant posting of links to other places or comments about things other people said in other forums, I'm excited to chat with you.
Steve - Where would I find your blog? I'd want to look at it before engaging in any further discussion with you. I see that you wrote, "That's what Big Bang and Darwinism is all about --ideas on paper with a few facts mixed in to give it some sort of foundation." Is that really what you think of these ideas? Again, I recommend the works of Shubin and Wade mentioned earlier. They might give you a different perspective on evolution. Also, David Montgomery's "The Rocks Don't Lie" is a good read on debunking the mythology of Noah's flood.
As has been noted here, scientific estimates of the age of the earth have varied greatly over the past few centuries. As with any scientific estimate, the number is always subject to revision in light of new discoveries and new technology. (Note that measurements of the speed of light went through a series of revisions as measurement technology improved. The current speed-of-light figure is apparently very accurate). Given that factual knowledge is generally cumulative (we know more facts than our ancestors did), the estimates tend to get better over time. Call this "faith" if you like -- it's what I believe to be true.
Steve - Is this your blog?
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2015/04/lucys-split-personality.html
"As I posted previously, I see that it is pointless to attempt having an intelligent discussion with Bob. More generally, anyone wedded to the idea of a 6,000 year old earth is not worth my time, as their grasp of reality is lacking opposable thumbs."
Logical fallacies again, with abuse. Why are you here? There are several biblical creationists. I also note that you accept libel at face value so you can put forth further dishonest claims.
By the way, since content is irrelevant to trolls, I'm not surprised that the links I gave supporting the comments of others here were ignored, but attacks on people continue.
Bob, I'm not going to waste my time with you. I'll attempt to continue a discussion with Steve, but not with you.
"I'm not going to waste my time with you". Yes - Bob does not want ANY proper discussion, except with people who already agree with his position.
"Thomas, have fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk"
Why were comments disabled for that video?
"Ashley, communication 102 makes clear that rhetorical questions are not questions but statements in the form of a question. You still are missing Steve's point of the whole OP. If you aren't misconstruing it, you flat out are not getting it. You are great at quote-mining but terrible at comprehension."
No, Charlie. You act as though I summarised (misleadingly) the whole Steve blog. I did NOT. I asked a specific question - OK I used rhetorical language in saying "I assume" - about PART of it (my first comment referred to ANOTHER part). Your attempts to show that I 'can't read' and 'misconstrued' Steve's blog or indulged in 'quote-mining' are frankly ludicrous and just make you look ridiculous and desperate. Which I assume (there I go again) is not what you want.
Steve's blog was not advocating that Christian parents forget about the Bible and just teach their kids the beliefs of secularists instead. In case you did not notice.
I think you need to change your tactics, they aren't working.
"You have not refuted a single thing on any of these forums because you keep arguing points we aren't making."
No, I don't Charlie.
"Since I'm being lied about by a liar yet again (and yet, despite threats to the contrary, abusive troll comments are allowed to remain, go figure), I'll point out that I have indeed backed up my claims about how certain people are unable to comprehend basic logic, misrepresent other people (including biblical creationists as a whole), are bullies, trolls, and more. It's all there on my Weblogs. Also note that misotheists usually stick together in their hatred, and never tell one another, "That's bad logic", or, "That ain't cool, you're giving us a bad name". But this is all consistent with having a fundamentally flawed worldview."
No you have NOT, Bob. If I asked you for ONE example now of how the things you complain about were "done by me" you would REFUSE to provide even one (you ignored ALL my wide-circulation emails asking you to do just that). Therefore - knowing your unending dishonesty - I will not even bother wasting my time with you yet again. The person being lied about by a liar is me not you.
"4.54 billion years is not enough time for Evolution do its job. You need trillions of years and then some."
Well the persuasive fossil record isn't that old Charlie. (Nor as extremely young as you folk insist.)
"The St. Louis World Zoo Exhibit had very interesting depictions of Lucy. One classic shot is her with straight finger bones held up to her chin like she is thinking with whites in her eyes (human like whereas apes are pure black). The problem is Lucy's finger bones are curved, just like a monkey." It's not a problem for those who accept evolution.
"Waiting for something that has already happened is a strange thing to do."
What you are referring to has not remotely happened, Steve. That's why people like Ken Ham complain that "science has been hijacked by secularists". Simply because science has uncovered the reality of deep time.
YECs are incapable of honesty. INCAPABLE.
Look at Steve TWISTING my words:
"Steve said...
"I do not 'lash out' BEFORE checking (and re-checking if necessary) the facts in question."
This is the most inaccurate statement you have made up to this point, Ashley. Nearly all of your comments contain lashing out--name calling (In one thread you used the term liar/lying about once per comment made and bigot nearly as many times). This is lashing out."
I did NOT say that I NEVER lash out. I said that if I do so I check and if necessary recheck my facts FIRST. Including trying to avoid twisting other peoples' words (and Charlie's childish attempts to show I 'misconstrued' or 'quote-mined' your blog - something you would have accused me of if it was true - have all backfired).
"I hate to burst your bubble, but you're just blowing hot air over and over and then ending it with "Harumph". You think you're a challenge and you're really laying it on us. That's a joke. My 11 year old could see through much of your comments. You are truly a legend in your own mind.
I will be consulting Jason about allowing you to continue."
So you want me banned because I am no challenge to you folk. Yeah Right :) :)
"We add one year every 12 months or so." So do we all.
My memory of a very long thread may be faulty but I do not recall being specifically 'pressed' for 'facts' on Lucy in this thread. However, I have posted PLENTY of facts in the past:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1170 (my detailed post dated 24 February 2013)
Thomas,
People with any form of integrity know quickly that if you know something is false and you keep repeating it, you are a liar. Ashley accuses us of this frequently without ever properly investigating our position. One is not a liar if one honestly believes what they claim is true. I don't not call PZ Myers, Craig Sanford, and others liars because they honestly believe what they state is true. But here, Scott KNOWS the Haeckel drawings are less than accurate and chooses to use them anyway.
Is there better evidence than these? By all means, tell the textbooks authors and museum displays? Don't you think for promoting a theory as fact, you'd want to use the BEST evidence there is out there? Why is it the best they have to produce is either fraudulent or 100% compatible (and better supportive) of the Creation Model? Why are the poster childs of common ancestry (peppored moths, Lenski's bacteria, Darwin's Finches) the best they have to come up with when such observations fit precisely with what we expect out of Creation? In fact, they fit better with Creation because all we observe is what we say: "Everything reproduces according to its kind". It does NOTHING to support universal common ancestry.
As for the books you cited: Why should I look at them? What do they have to offer that I haven't heard? Do you understand their arguments? What's worth noting? What experiments do they do that any YEC could follow the lab manual and reproduce the results? Or do we have to take their word for it? When you throw an author and a book out there, here is what I see: begging the question, appeal to authority, and elephant hurling.
If you are going to throw around books, check out A.E Wilder-Smith's "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"? No refutation has been made against it. In fact, a number of ardent evolutionists are known to have become Creationists because of they can't refute it. And in case you are wondering, he is fully credentialed with 3 PhDs in chemistry and published 70 scientific papers. A particular point that Wilder-Smith points out is the inability for Evolution/Naturalism to account for information. DNA CONTAINS information (it is not itself information, it is a medium upon which information is transmitted, big difference). Where did that information come from? As my degree is in computer science, I understand digital information very well. DNA is an enemy of Evolution. Not a friend.
What has been observed in peppered moths, bacteria and some finches does not fit with anything found in the Bible which knows nothing of natural selection, mutations, genes, adaptation of speciation. Which suggests to me that the 'Creation' Charlie speaks of is 'Bible Plus' rather than the Bible only - and intended to 'refute' the theory of evolution.
Part of the reason I accuse YECs of lying - even if they believe their own words - is that they also accuse all those who accept evolution (including Christians who do) of 'lying'.
Francis Collins - an expert in this particular area (and a Christian) - does not remotely consider DNA an 'enemy of evolution'.
For the scientific minded, (if honestly any besides Steve and I who actually do have scientific backgrounds have them) let us use an engineering analogy to what is going on here. Let us build a house. There are two houses being built: one is Evolution and the other is Biblical Christianity. Any engineer knows that to build a house, the foundation is the most important part. If the foundation is faulty, storms will knock it down. Even Jesus understood this with his parable of the wise and foolish builders. So let's examine the foundations of each respective theory.
Evolution have a very poor foundational background of frauds, misinformation, poor information, and unproven hypothetical. Darwin observed changes in turtle shells shapes and finch beak shapes. Nothing wrong here, but this still fits the Biblical model. Darwin suggests this is enough to suggest everything has a common ancestor. Yet he never observed another but a finch come from finches. Darwin expected the fossils to reveal the connections and even stated that if the fossils weren't there, his theory would be toast. The fossils are NOT there. This nothing between the 'kinds'. There is nothing on the branches of the "tree of life". We should see millions of these fossils if Evolution were true.
Worse, geologically, the key aspects were revealed by Charles Lyell who is known for lying about the erosion rates of Niagara Falls which was used to first get clergy to start questioning the Biblical account. We know from a personal letter that this was Lyell's intent. To destroy Moses' account. Then we have Haeckel whose unproven and rather DISproven ideas still dominate Evolutionary thinking to this day. So foundationally speaking, Evolution is built on a foundation of sand. It does not matter what any other 'proof' you offer brings up.
If the foundation is faulty, EVERYTHING that follows it is likewise faulty. You can build the Burj Dubai and the largest building ever conceived, but if the foundation is wrong, the building itself is wrong.
The Bible has never been disproven. Where it deals with science (observable, testable, repeatable), it is backed up. Where it deals with history, the records back it up. Where it deals with practicality (if you obey or disobey its precepts) reality matches it's claims. Evolution is for the gullible. And many have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
//What has been observed in peppered moths, bacteria and some finches does not fit with anything found in the Bible which knows nothing of natural selection, mutations, genes, adaptation of speciation. Which suggests to me that the 'Creation' Charlie speaks of is 'Bible Plus' rather than the Bible only - and intended to 'refute' the theory of evolution.//
And here again is how Ashely demonstrates is ignorance of our position. Does the Bible speak of those specific things (words and terms that did not exist back them) by name? No. But it does say that life reproduces after its kind. Have we ever observed anything that suggests even finches and eagles had a common ancestor? Not to mention apes and humans? No we have not. The Bible speaks of how the world was supposed work and how it no longer does that. The Bible speaks of decay and continual decay. What do observe? Decay, continual decay? What does Evolution REQUIRE? Order from disorder. WITHOUT intelligent input and direction. What do we observe? Absolutely nothing of the sort. There is no such thing as going from disorder to order without an established mechanism (which can only come from an intelligent mind) to guide and direct it. If Ashley has anything to prove otherwise, I'd love to see it. And so would every other Evolutionary expert out there. Because if they knew about it, they would make sure we did too.
If Charlie is right about evolution why do many (often intelligent and scientifically informed) Christians accept it? Are they all 'gullible'? I would suggest the same of Christians who accept without question the extra-biblical claims made by YEC experts.
I exposed not 'ignorance' but the actual nature of Charlie's position - YEC-ism goes beyond what the Bible actually says or implies (though not as much as OEC or TE of course).
"But it does say that life reproduces after its kind." Please give us the Bible verse or verses that specifically say that (I appreciate that there is no verse that states the opposite which is why in the past many Christians believed in fixity of species).
Unless I am reading too much into them, Charlie's 'decay' comments appear to be implying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes the possibility of evolution (or at least evolution for simple to more complex life). In the introductory section of my Amazon.com review of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' I wrote: "Within his (final) chapter 13, Dawkins explained how evolutionary theory does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics - because of solar energy (Earth is not a `closed system'). Sarfati's book does not disagree with this. So when can we look forward to this particular argument about the Second Law being added to CMI's list of `Arguments Creationists should not use'?"
Also, you people seemingly cannot write a single post addressed to me without accusing me of ignorance, 'not understanding our position' or childishness.
//If Charlie is right about evolution why do many (often intelligent and scientifically informed) Christians accept it? Are they all 'gullible'? I would suggest the same of Christians who accept without question the extra-biblical claims made by YEC experts.//
Are they all gullible? Yes. Without standing on the authority of Scripture and not departing, all of man is easily gullible. We have a deceiver who is really good at what he does. The only one he did not get was Jesus. And it is only because of Jesus that the rest of us have not fallen for it either. And Paul in particular warns about false teachers (and he very clearly identifies the types and Evolutionary ones fit the bill to the T). Why would he emphasize on this so much if people weren't so easily impressed? God calls us sheep and for good reason. Easily fooled.
//I exposed not 'ignorance' but the actual nature of Charlie's position - YEC-ism goes beyond what the Bible actually says or implies (though not as much as OEC or TE of course).//
Do I go beyond the Bible? Please show how. You don't even know what the Bible says in its proper context. You know what other people say the Bible says, but that's about it. The Bible is very clear not all who claim to be believers are believers. And you have wonderful tendency of grouping those who claim to be Christians without examining what they are claiming. We call them tares among wheat, wolves in sheep clothing. And Jesus said clearly "If you don't believe Moses, how will you believe me?" Many of the "Christians" you cite are "Religious Humanists" and those whom Jesus will say "I never knew you." If you want to claim 'extra-Biblical' stuff on me, you better know your Bible. And you don't.
//"But it does say that life reproduces after its kind." Please give us the Bible verse or verses that specifically say that (I appreciate that there is no verse that states the opposite which is why in the past many Christians believed in fixity of species).//
Try Genesis 1. Repeats it for plants, birds/fish, and land animals. But why are you trying to impose a modern scientific (and arbitrary definition) to a statement that doesn't use it? That's called poor reading skills at best, equivocation more likely.
//
Unless I am reading too much into them, Charlie's 'decay' comments appear to be implying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes the possibility of evolution (or at least evolution for simple to more complex life). In the introductory section of my Amazon.com review of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' I wrote: "Within his (final) chapter 13, Dawkins explained how evolutionary theory does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics - because of solar energy (Earth is not a `closed system'). Sarfati's book does not disagree with this. So when can we look forward to this particular argument about the Second Law being added to CMI's list of `Arguments Creationists should not use'?"//
It would help if you actually understood what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is and what it means. I do agree many do not use it properly. But the claims against it are also faulty. You do not go from disorder to order without a mechanism that can guide and direct that energy and there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine that does this. That means all usable energy is going downhill and fast. Evolution requires undirected energy to be useable for developing life. So yes, many do misuse the 2nd Law. I'm not one of them.
//Also, you people seemingly cannot write a single post addressed to me without accusing me of ignorance, 'not understanding our position' or childishness.//
When you start showing you know your stuff, we'll stop calling you out on it. When you stop acting like a child, we'll stop calling you out on it. Notice we disagree with David and others just as much as you do. But we don't accuse them of that because they aren't acting like it. You don't want to be treated like a tantrum throwing toddler, quit showing that behavior. Notice how David is calling you out too. It's not just us.
Charlie - You wrote, "As for the books you cited: Why should I look at them? What do they have to offer that I haven't heard?"
Charlie - if you don't look at them, how would you know what they have to offer? (Hint - you won't!) BTW, there are reviews of the books I mentioned at Amazon. You can view the books' tables of contents and excerpts, too.
As for DNA containing information - yes it does. The DNA of domesticated plants and animals that have been bred for various
purposes contain information that reflects the choices made by the breeders. Do you accept that this is true? What Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace) realized was that environmental factors act as natural selectors of traits that favor survival in that environment. Natural selection has the same effect as the selection performed by human breeders; it favors the reproduction of organisms with certain characteristics.
It's no mystery where the new information comes from in the DNA of evolving species; the information comes from the interaction between organisms and their environments.
//But here, Scott KNOWS the Haeckel drawings are less than accurate and chooses to use them anyway. //
When does Scott use the Haeckel drawings?
Charlie wrote, "There are two houses being built: one is Evolution and the other is Biblical Christianity."
I don't think your house-building analogy works very well, because science does not progress linearly the way a construction project does. Sometimes a new idea rests firmly on a previous idea, as when James Clerk Maxwell's equations led to the discovery of electro-magnetic waves. But sometimes, (as with Einstein's discovery of relativity), a new discovery upsets what was previously believed, shaking the whole edifice of science to its foundations.
One bit of bad research, or even an outright lie, does not cause the scientific edifice to fall. Obviously scientists have the same faults that all humans have - ego, greed, pride, and so on. Sometimes these faults lead scientists to fudge their research, to plagiarize, or yes - to outright lie. But the beauty of the scientific community is that it eventually weeds out the false claims and verifies what is true.
I read from time to time the creationist claim that there are no experiments that can verify the truth of evolution, and that
evolutionary theory makes no predictions that have been confirmed. But actually, predictions have been made and confirmed.
A recent example was the prediction that Neil Shubin and his colleagues made concerning where they expected to find the
fossil remains of a creature that linked fishes to creatures with legs. Their expedition went to Ellesmere Island, in Nunavut, Canada. They chose this location because the sedimentary Devonian rocks near the surface were the right age to contain such fossils.
And sure enough, Shubin and his team discovered Tiktaalik roseae, right where they predicted it would likely be found.
//Does your alleged 'mafia' include meteorologists and climatologists?//
I'm guessing his views are similar to those of Heartland Science Director Jay Lehr: "Anti-progress zealots began to realize EPA and environmental issues could be used to stop people from improving their lives by ensuring the economy could not advance and energy would never become inexpensive," he wrote. "Today’s Earth Day is all but a symbol of evil, managed by those who care not at all for humans and in fact do no good for nature or the animal world. Most activities are vile recriminations staged by those who wish to keep the poor just where they are: poor.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/30/the-inadvertent-hilarity-of-the-heartland-institute-vs-pope-francis/
Thomas, I'm asking YOU who has supposedly read them to give some kind of hint of why I should read them and why they are relevant. I'm not interesting in a source war because all that does is us throwing 'my PhD says this', 'no, my PhD says this'. How well do you know what they are saying? Can you tell when a PhD is smoking hot air or when they are talking actual facts? Based on what you have posted so far, I'm not going to hold my breath.
I can say your understanding of what information actually is is....nil. Because what you just stated about information is flat out foolishness. You expect me to take with you with any kind of credibility when you makes statements like that? Information by scientific LAW MUST come from an intelligent mind. It does not from the environment. Please show scientific EXPERIMENTS that show this. And there is no new information about it all. It was all there to begin with. Natural selection is incapable of producing anything new, only shuffling and selecting that which is already there. Shuffle a deck of card for 65 million years and see if you get a Corvette, let alone an Old Maid Card. Ain't going to happen.
Yes, science is SUPPOSED to weed out the false claims and fraudulent research. But then there is a thing called "consensus". And consensus destroys that notion because if the consensus adheres to that which is false, then you have problems. Evolution is consensus, popular opinion, and does not carry out the scientific method, nor the proper peer-preview process. Today, "peer-review" has a key criteria first: must agree with Evolution or automatic rejection, firing, cutting of funding etc.
Tiktallic. Now you really want to make me laugh. Did you get that from Bill Nye? It fails. The hips don't work as the 'predictions' require. Neither do the feet. Got anything else?
David, global warming is a political joke. The climate is changing and yes, man has not been very good managers of resources. But not to the extent the politicians who are not scientists are declaring. The climate has been drastically changing the last few years. What is causing that? Not man's pollution. A much more accurate cause is a shift of the earth's axis via the Japan Earthquake 4 years ago. That's not on man which is against the 'global warming' political agenda. Learn what science is and what it is not. I'm seeing too common a theme here where the science label is slapped around where it doesn't belong.
Charlie wrote, "A much more accurate cause is a shift of the earth's axis via the Japan Earthquake 4 years ago."
Are you serious? Do you have any explanation as to how the alleged axis shift would account for climate change? Have astronomers confirmed this shift? How would an event that happened just 4 years ago explain a trend that has been going on for longer than 4 years?
Climatologists are largely in agreement that rising levels of greenhouse gases are causing more and more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. So far, about 70 percent of the added heat is being absorbed by the oceans. Much of the rest is melting the polar ice caps and other glaciers.
The biggest "political joke" in all of this is "Senator" James Inhofe. I put Senator in quotes, because actually Inhofe is a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry, masquerading as a senator.
Another joke in Congress is Randy Hultgren of Illinois. He claims that climate change is being caused by "cosmic rays from the sun." It's awful to have clowns like Inhofe and Hultgren making government policy on issues of science and the environment.
James Inhofe on climate change:
'Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that "as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night," my point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.'
Inhofe is either delusional, or just pandering to the bible-thumping fundamentalists in Oklahoma.
From the NASA web site:
The March 11, [2011] magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan may have shortened the length of each Earth day and shifted its axis. But don't worry—you won't notice the difference.
Using a United States Geological Survey estimate for how the fault responsible for the earthquake slipped, research scientist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., applied a complex model to perform a preliminary theoretical calculation of how the Japan earthquake—the fifth largest since 1900—affected Earth's rotation. His calculations indicate that by changing the distribution of Earth's mass, the Japanese earthquake should have caused Earth to rotate a bit faster, shortening the length of the day by about 1.8 microseconds (a microsecond is one millionth of a second).
Gross said the changes in Earth's rotation and figure axis caused by earthquakes should not have any impacts on our daily lives. "These changes in Earth's rotation are perfectly natural and happen all the time," he said. "People shouldn't worry about them."
//It's awful to have clowns like Inhofe and Hultgren making government policy on issues of science and the environment.//
The irony is truly epic. Global warming has one face: Al Gore. You don't like politics on issues of science and environment? Why is there is no scientist leading the charge that any laymen know about? Why is Al Gore the one everyone knows about? Shall we say "Double standards"?
By all means, provide actual science that says Infohe is wrong. Have the seasons changes? Only to a minor degree. We still have spring/summer/autumn/winter. That hasn't changed. We've only been measuring temperatures for 150 years. hardly long enough to grasp LONG term global climate cycles. You think the Bible is wrong here because of a few degrees of temperature? Can we say PATHETIC?
You want a joke called "science"? In the 70s the scientific community panics that the planet was cooling. 10 years ago it was 'warming'. Now they don't have darn clue so they wrap it up with 'climate change'. And the joke is on you, Thomas. I didn't buy it.
Did the earth change on its axis? Ask the Inuits. They make a living off the stars and use them to predict the weather and seasons. They can't do that anymore. Check this out from NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html
Catch up with the rest of the world, Thomas. Evolutionary thinking has clearly slowed your mind. As it has the rest of the community. The YEC knew the non-coding parts of DNA were fully functional and the 'motherboard' for the genome 30-40 years BEFORE the mainstream scientists figured it out. Were we given credit? Nope. Mainstream scientists were totally stunned and shocked to find out that "junk DNA" was not junk at all. We've been there the whole time saying "We told you so."
You think I reject science and any "Bible-thumpers" reject science as well. I challenge you to demonstrate you know what science is. So far, I'm unimpressed. Unlike you, I'm quite a bit more up to date on things and much better discerning between fact and fantasy. You've been shown the facts the mainstream media won't tell you. The Evolutionary biased media won't tell you the real facts. They have an agenda and science is not part of it. Keeping you blind, ignorant, unable to think and unable to 'question them', making you effectively a slave to them is their agenda. You think you are a 'free-thinker'. Such a mind set has made you free from thinking.
Charlie wrote, "Global warming has one face: Al Gore."
Not true at all. I recently attended meteorologist Tom Skilling's annual "Tornado and Severe Storms Seminar" at Fermi National Lab in Batavia, IL. It was open to the public, as always. There were several distinguished speakers from the ranks of professional meteorologists and climatologists. Al Gore was not there. Although the main conference topic was severe storms, there were also several references to climate change. There was no argument concerning the cause -- it's clearly the rise in greenhouse gases.
You really ought to learn something about this, rather than simply showing disdain toward those who have studied the issue. BTW, most of the presentations from the seminar are available to view on line.
Charlie wrote, "I challenge you to demonstrate you know what science is."
What in your mind would constitute an acceptable demonstration?
What evidence can you present that shows that you yourself know what science is?
Does the public know about Tom Skilling when talking about that issue? Can they name him? Do you what it means to be the 'face' of a cause or a movement? I did not say Tom Skilling or anyone else was not involved. I said Al Gore is the one everyone knows about. The one the general public thinks about on the topic.
What is science? Define it. What can you do with it? What constitutes science? In an earlier thread, Ashley was able t do nothing but quote Oxford and say "I agree with it" when everything he talks about betrays such a definition. There are three key characteristic one must have to call something scientific. Do you know what they are? I'll give you hint. Every Middle School student could tell you. It has to do with the scientific method.
Charlie - I don't see any science books among the favorite books listed in your blogger profile. Why is that? Here are a few of my favorites:
Before the Dawn (Nicholas Wade).
Storm World (Chris Mooney).
How We Got to Now (Steven Johnson).
The Day the Universe Changed (James Burke).
The Age of Wonder (Richard Holmes).
Physics (Halliday and Resnick).
The Art of Electronics (Horowitz and Hill).
And while I've owned this book since it came out in 1960, I still sometimes browse through American Science and Invention (Mitchell Wilson).
I own all of the above except for Mooney's book.
Global Warming is NOTHING like it is claimed to be. It is NOT settled science by any means. The Weather Station founder has debunked the whole thing as a hoax.
http://americanprosperity.com/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/
Now again, is mankind having an effect on the environment? Yes. But nowhere near the way it is claimed. And if you think the ice caps are melting, apparently the global warming experts thought so too, until the got stuck in the Antartic ice...where there was supposed to be none.
It really helps for you to understand exactly what we are arguing before you call us anti-vaaxers and anti-science. We are anti-Evolution and anti-propaganda. We do not cry foul about gravity. Here is why. We can carry out an experiment that tests and proves gravity. That word 'experiment' seems to a very strange concept to Evolutionists. Because they don't know what it is and if they do, they can't point to a single one that we can follow in a lab manual and carry out ourselves. Do not talk to me about being anti-science. It is Evolution that is anti-science. There is not one trace of scientific methodology that backs it up. What they can reference, is equally if not better compatible with our position. If not for Bible believers, there would be no science for you to work with. Because it was the Bible believers who founded the vast majority of the scientific method. All the papers you've read, Thomas, have replaced experiments with equations and chased those equations and resulted in a model that has no basis with reality. Tesla made that observation quite a while ago.
Yeah, you've read some books. I'm impressed. Do you understand them? Can you tell when they are talking about science and when they veer off? I can. Does not having a collection of books in my 'liked' section make me 'uneducated' on the matter? You seem to have the attitude Ashley has where you only check out what YEC people say with what Evolutionary people say but never actually check out if what the Evolutionary people say is valid to begin with.
And, Ashley, listen to this and listen to this good. Never accuse me of following Ken Ham or others like him, like some guru. I don't. My authority is the Word of God. Unlike you with your authorities, I check out mine. I check out Ken Ham others to make sure they are legit. There are things I don't agree with AiG over. There are things I don't agree with ICR over. There are some things I agree with Evolutionists. They are few, but there are some.
I know science, I have the education to back it up and the pieces of papers that I say I know it. And I know Scripture. Science is worthless and meaningless if not for the Bible being true. Apart from God, you have no scientific laws to work with. Evolution cannot account for scientific laws, let alone the entire theory must violate every one. The only exception I can think of is buoyancy. Evolution is anti-biology, anti-geology, anti-astronomy, anti-physics. It is the biggest hoax played on mankind. And that's what happens when you exchange the truth for a lie. You become gullible to the 'science so falsely called'.
Charlie wrote, "Does the public know about Tom Skilling when talking about that issue? Can they name him?"
Tom Skilling has been a meteoroligist with WGN TV in Chicago since 1978. He's certainly well known for his expertise in the Chicago area. He is not a climatologist; some of the people who gave talks at the Fermi conference are.
If you're asking me to regurgitate a narrow, simplistic definition of science that you might have learned in middle school, I could do that. But science is more complex than that. It's a process -- a rather involved process -- and a search for objective truth. Sometimes it involves experiments, but that's only part of the process. Science also involves observation and measurement. As Lord Kelvin said, “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."
The scientific process also involves peer review. Peer review may involve having peers repeat experiments in order to verify published results. But sometimes it is not possible to devise an experiment that helps to confirm a theory or fact. For example, if I find fresh snow on the ground, I can conclude that it snowed recently. Can I conduct an experiment that "proves" this is so? No, I cannot. If I find deer hoof-prints in the snow, I can conclude that a deer walked through the area after the snow fell. Can I conduct an experiment to prove this is so? No, I cannot. If I find a fossil of a marine creature in limestone, I can conclude that the site where I found the fossil was once a marine environment. Can I conduct an experiment to verify this? Again, the answer is no.
Science of course strives to deal with objective reality. What is reality? My favorite definition comes from the late science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. "Reality is whatever doesn't go away after you stop believing in it."
This quote neatly separates true science from pseudo-science, such as some in this discussion use in their attempts to "prove" the truth of what they have believed since they were first force-fed their biblical world views.
James Burke made an interesting observation about the difficulties many people have in understanding science. Near the end of the last episode of his "Connections" television series, where he is wrapping it all up, he shows a microscopic image of amino acids, and an old painting with a religious theme. He says:
"This stuff [artwork] is easier to take ...understandable. It's got people in it (compared to the microscope image of amino acids).
This (scientific knowledge) is hard to take because it removes the reassuring crutches of opinion, ideology, and leaves only what is demonstrably true about the world."
There is of course far more to what science is. I haven't touched on the topic of paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn described in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I will not attempt to condense his thesis into a blog post; I took a college course that dealt primarily with his book for a whole semester.
One more thing, and that is what science is NOT. Science is NOT religion.
James Inhofe should be told that (contrary to his 'no change God's up there' interpretation) people like Ken Ham blatantly IGNORE Genesis 8:22 and tell us there was an 'ice age' less than 4,500 (after the date of the supposed worldwide flood that no book other than the Bible records as having occurred).
"Never accuse me of following Ken Ham". Glad that you don't think him worth following. And I never said that you DID follow him.
"Evolution is anti-biology, anti-geology, anti-astronomy, anti-physics." LOL. Your real issue is that it is anti-Genesis!
As for Antarctic sea ice and how the trend does not disprove global warming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29822830
Typo: "less than 4,500 years ago".
Charlie wrote: "Information by scientific LAW MUST come from an intelligent mind."
This is nonsense. For example, there is a large meteorite crater in northern Arizona, near Winslow. The crater carries the information (or data, if you like) that a meteorite landed on this spot. Neither the meteorite nor the ground it landed on possessed an intelligent mind.
Charlie, part of your problem appears to be that you rigidly employ simplistic definitions (of dubious value) in an algorithmic manner, rather than actually thinking about issues. Perhaps that's what they taught you in church.
Charlie wrote, "Yeah, you've read some books. I'm impressed. Do you understand them? Can you tell when they are talking about science and when they veer off? I can."
Um... how can you tell unless you have actually read them? Can you tell me what science books you've actually read in the past 5 years?
Charlie wrote, "Tiktallic. Now you really want to make me laugh. Did you get that from Bill Nye? It fails. The hips don't work as the 'predictions' require. Neither do the feet. Got anything else?"
Actually, it's spelled Tiktaalik. I got this from Dr. Neil Shubin, who was part of the team that discovered it. Of course the hips and feet don't "work" -- it's a fossil! The appendages worked when the creature was alive, but not now.
Again, Thomas, I did not say he was not known. I said he is not known in the global warming field. Not publically. Maybe in Chicago, but nationally?
You have some idea of the scientific process. But you missed out the key foundational issues. Like observability, repeatability, and testability. To carry out the scientific method, you must have this. Then you broach what Ken Ham called "historical science". I do agree with the distinction he makes between historical and observational science, but I don't fully agree with him on how to treats historical science. In his debate with Bill Nye, Ham could have dug a little deeper into the distinction.
You use snow as an example. Can you scientifically test and repeat that it snowed the night before? No, but you can use scientific experimentation to determine it. However, there are limitations to it. You cannot just do that willy nilly. For forensics to work you need three things: 1) A known starting point. 2). A historical or eye-witness account of the event. and 3) an ending point.
Now, you can use science to ascertain likely scenarios when one of those factors is missing. If you have wet ground, you can make scientific estimations that it snowed last night. Because you know from scientific observations that snow melts in the sun. However, if you do not know the starting point of the situation or the eye-witness testimony of what happened, it may have just rained or you just have dew on the ground. And here is where Evolution departs. They do not have a known starting point. They assume. They do not have a historical account. They have to assume it. You can scientifically demonstrate that George Washington crossed the Delaware River, but all that does is prove the POSSIBILITY of that happening. You need an eye-witness account to suggest it did happen. And here is where we have the advantage. We have the eye-witness account. I know you reject and hate it, but that does not mean it goes away. And because the eye-witness is the most reliable witness possible, his word rather takes priority.
As you accurately quoted: Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing it. I fully agree. The Bible is the truth, no matter who believes it, or who doesn't. Regardless of their credentials.
I love what Thomas Khun says in that book. Did you catch the part of when evidence that questions the current paradigm is 'ignored, silenced, or indeed modified'? What is the current paradigm? Evolution. What cannot tolerate any evidence that would dare challenge it? Evolution.
Is science religion? No it is not. But scientism is. And people like you and Ashley have certainly treated it like one. You have not defended your position scientifically with facts. You've defended as one defends a religion. And that is the point of the whole OP. Is not about science. It's about our Worldview. Pretending to not have bias is itself a bias, and a egotistical one. We actually recognize what ours is.
Thomas, you have no clue what information is. A meteor impact crater is NOT information. A fossil in the ground is NOT information. That is evidence but it is not information. DNA is not information. It CONTAINS information. Every word in this thread is not information. They CONTAIN information. Information is a message from one source to another to perform a particular task. And no matter what mediums it is transmitted through, it ALWAYS traces back to an intelligent mind. The letters 'a-p-e' do not mean a thing unless someone with an intelligent mind imputes meaning into it.
What books have I read? I listed one from AE. Wilder-Smith. Again, why should I read yours? I can actually talk about what I read from Wilder-Smith. I know what he's saying. I understand his arguments. Do you about the books you've read? Let me ask this another. Can you think for yourself? Or do you have to have an 'expert' tell you what is going on?
RE: Jason Lisle. Not only is that a Genetic Fallacy it is also poisoning the well. He knows the truth and you don't. He knows how to discern the fact from fiction. You don't. And you prove it in your next comment.
The Tiktaalik's joints can't work now because it's a fossil but it did millions of years ago? Really? How do you know that? That is what Gail Kennedy calls "requiring imagination". Do you accept Lovejoy's take on Lucy? If so, you just exposed your double standards again.
Truth is, you hate anything related to the Bible or that might demonstrate the Bible being true. You don't know a thing about practical science because you keep calling that which is not science as science. You do a fine job at parroting the theory of how science is supposed to work but keep referencing stuff that does not do what it is supposed to do. Think, Thomas. You seem to think we can't think because we depend on the Bible. The Bible teaches us HOW to think. Not merely what to think. All you know is what a few 'experts' have told you. With no basis of checking out if they are valid or not. We've checked out the Bible. 100% success rate...if you understand it as its own worldview. If you try to compare it with naturalism where God is not part of the picture, yes you will have conflicts. It is clear whose words you take with higher authority. And it's clear who words I take with higher authority. That's the point of the this OP. It's a clash of worldviews. Your worldview is a filter for which authorities you accept or reject among other things. My authority does not lie nor gets anything wrong. Yours has a much less stellar record.
An no, Ashley, I am not talking about the Bible. I am talking about science. Evolution must violate the very laws it claims to stand on. Yes you are anti-Biblical, but science and the Bible have always been in agreement. Evolution is NOT science. It can only be 'verified' by their own people, requires paycheck and legal protection. What scientific laws require that? Evolution violates the Law of Biogensis. It violates every observation we've made in regards to genes, DNA, and alleles. They go complete opposite directions. Geology is not Evolutions friend either. Geology proves that rivers create valleys and mega-flood events create canyons. Evolution requires rivers creating canyons without a single observation remotely hinting at it. I don't need the Bible to disprove Evolution. It does a fine enough job by itself...for those who have the integrity to look at reality.
Charlie wrote, "For forensics to work you need three things: 1) A known starting point. 2). A historical or eye-witness account of the event. and 3) an ending point."
If you follow the above, you rule out forensic analysis of anything that was not witnessed by a person. So for the aforementioned crater in Arizona, are you saying that forensics does not "work"? Does it not work for analyzing the crater and determining what caused it, or when?
Once again, the adherence to some rigid dogma prevents discussion of that which is obviously true, i.e. that a meteorite impacted the ground (thousands of years ago).
Charlie wrote, "Geology is not Evolutions [sic]friend either. Geology proves that rivers create valleys and mega-flood events create canyons."
This, too, is nonsense. The Grand Canyon was not created by a mega-flood. It was carved over millions of years by the Colorado River. It is a river valley -- it just happens to be a valley cut into sedimentary rock. Many rivers do this (though in less spectacular fashion). Many old towns that have 'ford' in their names are places where it was easy to ford a river. Many river fords were at places where a river ran over hard rock, providing a firm bottom for fording.
Which specific comment of mine is Charlie's latest post - at the time of drafting - addressing (or is it merely an anti-evolution tirade that also falsely claims "science and the Bible have always been in agreement")? Is it "LOL. Your real issue is that it is anti-Genesis!"?
Like I said, evolution is anti-Genesis and that is a key reason why people like Charlie absolutely hate the theory (they also claim that it fails scientifically but their position is an absolute inflexible one that would never change even if new evidence backing up evolution - with or without a God - were uncovered).
//If you follow the above, you rule out forensic analysis of anything that was not witnessed by a person. So for the aforementioned crater in Arizona, are you saying that forensics does not "work"? Does it not work for analyzing the crater and determining what caused it, or when?//
You see to have the sample problem Ashley has. Quote-mine a few lines when a basic reading of the entire post destroys the claims you are making. I addressed precisely the type of situation you mention about craters. No, you don't have a historical account or an eye-witness. But you can figure out a likely scenario. However, all you can do is prove the POSSIBILITY of that being an impact crater. Did you know explosives can create craters too? Not just meteors? You cannot prove what caused it. You can only demonstrate what YOU think is the most likely cause.
The Grand Canyon was NOT carved by the Colorado River. Physics won't allow it. That river cannot carve through solid rock. And we do not suggest the Flood directly caused it. What we suggest matches with many observations we've made on a small scale. A breached dam, massive amounts of water and FAST MOVING amounts of it. We never see a canyon formed via a river like that. The Grand Canyon has vertical walls. Have you ever seen water move? Fast moving, large amounts of water leave vertical walls. Meandering ones as well. Rivers do not do that except at high flood stages. You've done a great job at buying the naturalistic explanations you can read on the displays. But physics and gravity prove you wrong. Why doesn't the park fix it to fit science? Simple: they don't want people like you to think the Bible actually has a solid case. If millions of years took place in that canyon, where is the erosion that would show such time. Anything? Rapid deposition to form SEDIMENTARY layers which has to be deposited with...water is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Open minded people would consider what the Bible has to say. I've considered what Evolution has to say and found it lacking.
//Like I said, evolution is anti-Genesis and that is a key reason why people like Charlie absolutely hate the theory (they also claim that it fails scientifically but their position is an absolute inflexible one that would never change even if new evidence backing up evolution - with or without a God - were uncovered)//
And the fact that it is anti-Genesis makes it a religious/philosophical claim, not a scientific one. It was built to counter Genesis and has no bearing on reality. Not one scientist would change anything they do if Evolution were proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be false. That's from the scientists themselves, not me.
One does not use a thermometer to measure weight, nor does one use a ruler to ascertain the accuracy of a clock. Yet, Evolution, being claimed as science, is used to ascertain the accuracy or lack thereof of the Bible. That means only one of two things. Evolution is NOT science, or the Bible is. Reality is, you have two worldviews competing against each other. And both you and I use that worldview to ascertain what is science and how we can use it. Does Evolution disprove the Bible? Only in the same sense that the Bible disproves Evolution. You guys can't seem to grasp this. I use the Bible as the Measuring Rod (among other things). To explain simply, every ruler must be compared to the standard 'meter stick' that is determined by the SI. Any ruler that does not meet this standard is faulty. Every scientist knows this. And they understand errors but the standard is what SI officially determines a 'meter' is and anything that falls short has error.
The Bible as an ultimate standard is the standard upon which any other standard should be measured. That means the Bible reveals how things should be done, including politics, business, managing a family, and yes even science. And I say that looking at the spirit of the law, not merely the letter.
What you two have revealed is that your ultimate standard is science. That you can only know what is true by what science says. This is not science but scientism. This a religious/philosophical position. Science cannot even prove itself. You cannot use the scientific method including with peer-review to prove science. The Bible does prove itself. I have never been anti-science, nor has Steve or even Bob. I love science and how it works. It's awesome stuff. But I recognize where to draw the line between when you are talking about science and when you are talking about philosophy. Neither of you have talked about science. Ashley thinks we need a more 'positive view' of what science can reveal. I think he's giving science more credit that is can handle. I recognize how you use a thermometer, how you use a meter, how you use a clock. And I also recognize where you cannot use any of these instruments. It is you that are suggesting you can measure temperature with a weigh scale or the length of a field with a amp meter. You are applying science where it does not belong, where it does not have the ability to address the issues. Science CANONT address origins. Nor can it address purpose. Nor can it address identity. Nor can it address your destination. You worldview determines how you see these things. Not science. Your worldview determines what you consider to be valid knowledge or not. That's the point of this whole thing.
Charlie wrote, " .. the fact that it [evolution] is anti-Genesis makes it a religious/philosophical claim, not a scientific one. It was built to counter Genesis and has no bearing on reality."
Wow! What an absurd statement this is! Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin had no agenda other than to explain what they observed on their respective expeditions. No bearing on reality? Maybe it has no bearing on your reality, but I really wonder what your "reality" is.
When James Hutton wrote about Siccar Point and other unconformities in geology, he had no agenda other than to explain what he observed. Siccar Point is still there. It presents clear evidence that the earth is much older than the bible says it is. It is a part of something I refer to as reality. Is it part of yours?
Fortunately, Hutton's work was available to Wallace and Darwin when they did their studies. So it was known by then that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old.
"The Bible does prove itself. I have never been anti-science, nor has Steve or even Bob. I love science and how it works."
Your claim is disproven by your words (even your words in the same post). I can think of a word beginning with 'h' that describes the attitude of young earth creationists towards science.
You obviously don't read as much as you claim you do if you suggest there is no agenda, Thomas. Or just are simply oblivious to it all. It's easy to read the highly publicized material. It's easy to see the claims of no bias. But it takes a little digging to get to the truth of it. Lyell did not say in his main book he intended to destroy Moses' account (he was the one that influenced Darwin). He said it in a personal letter.
Hutton and the others were influenced by a thing called uniformitarianism which is unsubstantiatable. It is not the same thing as uniformity of nature, which science supports. Uniformity of nature allows for Mt St Helens to erupt. Uniformitarianism would require one day's work to take place over millions of years. It's hog wash that most scientists reject except for when attempting to date the earth. This is why they hate Noah's Flood so much. Because none of their dating methods work because of the Flood, which by the way is HISTORICALLY verified. No history exceeds it. You can try radiometric dating pottery and such but carbon dating only works up to about 1000 years before going all over the map. And that 1000 years is ONLY because of calibration to material of KNOWN age. You are truly oblivious to reality. Hatred of the Bible has that affect.
//Your claim is disproven by your words (even your words in the same post). I can think of a word beginning with 'h' that describes the attitude of young earth creationists towards science.//
I also can think of a word beginning with 'h' that describes your knowledge about our attitude of YEC towards science. You are anti-anything remotely related to the Bible, with very poor reading comprehension, and if you read the Evolutionary papers with the same understanding you read our stuff...words cannot describe it. Fortunately, your opinion of what we think is totally irrelevant as it is very wrong. You have NOTHING on us, Ashley. NOTHING. I'm not the one that quotes others and then throws in a comment that has nothing to do with the quote at hand as you just did today in the Lucy thread. That is a classic example of a quote-mine. You need help, Ashley. Serious help.
If you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and you also believe the story of Noah, then you have an obvious problem: how did the various land-dwelling animals get to their current ranges? For example, consider the kangaroos of Australia, the raccoons of North America, and the lions of Africa. How could these critters have gotten from wherever Noah's ark landed to their current homes? (Federal Express was not in business at the time). If the continents were in their current locations, there is no way the animals could have traveled to these far-flung locations.
Or maybe they walked? If you assume that all the continents were touching each other (the supercontinent Pangea from an estimated 225 million years ago), making land travel possible, you've got to explain how these continents moved thousands of miles apart in only a few thousand years. This, too, is an impossibility without resort to supernatural forces and magical thinking.
Supernatural forces and magical thinking are not a part of what any sane person would call 'science.'
Charlie wrote, "Thomas, you have no clue what information is. ... A fossil in the ground is NOT information. That is evidence but it is not information. DNA is not information. It CONTAINS information. ... Information is a message from one source to another to perform a particular task."
Telling me that "I have no clue" is insulting. Do you know how to disagree without being disagreeable? I see no evidence that you do.
You claim "Information is a message from one source to another to perform a particular task." No, I don't agree with that. What you're describing is communication, or a control signal. When you look at a work of art, does it tell you to perform a task? I don't think so. Does the Mona Lisa contain information? I say that it does.
Some abstract artworks are nothing but series of lines. Ripple marks left in swallow sea beds or in sedimentary rocks are similar in form to some abstract paintings. Can we say that the paintings contain information, but the ripple marks do not? Both are subject to analysis and interpretation. And although we may not 'get' the artist's message from the abstract painting, we can at least determine what type of paint was used, and make educated guesses as to how the paint was applied. We can analyze the canvas or other surface that underlies the paint.
Please don't say that "I have no clue" about this or that. It is insulting.
Dang typos ... 3rd time the charm?
Charlie - I think you have confused uniformitarianism with gradualism. All modern science embraces uniformitarianism (the scientific observation that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe). Geology of course embraces uniformitarianism.
Some geologists in the past focused on gradualism (a theory or a tenet assuming that change comes about gradually or that variation is gradual in nature). But this has the obvious flaw of ignoring catastrophic events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Modern geologists recognize both gradual change and catastrophic events as having shaped, and continuing to shape, the planet we live on. The underlying physics behind both are grounded in uniformitarianism.
"Because none of their dating methods work because of the Flood ...". That's not a scientific explanation, it's an ad hoc rescuing device employed to cling onto a false history of our planet. (But I guess radiocarbon dating must work OK for things that really are younger than 4,500 years old. Oops no, Charlie says 'NO' - so it must be true).
And Charlie's dogmatic statement about the planet's magnetic field - which he refused to provide a source for - relies on a wrong uniformitarian assumption (as I have already pointed out).
And Charlie appears not to know what the word 'hypocrite' actually means. It does not mean the things he talks of. "That is a classic example of a quote-mine." And he does not know what a quote mine is either.
IF YOU DISAGREE KINDLY QUOTE BACK TO US MY 'QUOTE-MINE' FROM THE OTHER THREAD.
On Thomas' comments, I've just watched a nature film about Iceland. It's one of the newest islands on the planet and it's range of mammals is very limited indeed. But the Bible suggests that all land was created at the same time (and YECs suggest there was one single continent which broke up during/after Noah's Flood ie all land masses are 6,000 years old or less). Slightly odd that so little in the way of mammals managed to travel from Ararat to Iceland after the flood. Oh well, I guess God chose not to send many of them there.
Charlie wrote, "Those 'bronze-age goat hearders' [sic] have your expert scientists so scared of it they cannot fathom to have its words heard. They cannot refute it. ... Every scientists on this planet combined could not disprove the Bible with any form of honesty. Those who have tried have become Bible-believers. It is posts like this which is why we don't take you seriously."
More laughable assertions from Charlie.
Scientists scared by what's in the bible? Not hardly.
You and your buddies here start from the assumption that everything in the bible is true. Assumption, because there is obviously no proof. Then you try to fit every fact from the universe into your pre-established framework, your "biblical" world view.
BTW, just because somebody doesn't believe that everything in the bible is true does not mean that they hate the bible. I don't believe that Moby Dick or Huckleberry Finn are true stories, but that doesn't mean that I hate those novels. The bible is just another collection of mostly fictional works.
What I find disgusting is the folks who enjoy the fruits of science -- modern medicine, vaccinations against diseases, cheap, powerful computers, the Internet -- while at the same time railing against the science, the scientists and the engineers who make these things possible. If you prefer the "wisdom" of bronze age goat-herders over the scientific world-view, why don't you leave the modern world and go live in a cave?
ashleyhr wrote, "Slightly odd that so little in the way of mammals managed to travel from Ararat to Iceland after the flood. Oh well, I guess God chose not to send many of them there. "
Well don't forget, neither Federal Express nor DHL were flying into Iceland in those days :-)
The arctic foxes arrived from Greenland via sea ice (when the climate was rather colder).
Did the earth change on its axis? Ask the Inuits. They make a living off the stars and use them to predict the weather and seasons. They can't do that anymore. Check this out from NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html
Can you please expand on you claim about the Inuit*? I've never heard that one.
// anti-vaaxers//
I didn't realize you were an anti-vaxxer. That form of anti-science transcends political parties, so it is hard to predict.
*Inuit is a plural noun, no need for an 's'.
My stance is in opposition to young earth creationism and science denial, not Christianity per se (though I was never a fundamentalist simply an evangelical).
ashleyhr - What is your definition of an evangelical?
If you'd like, you could reply to me via email to Realist1948@gmail.com rather than continue in this comment section of blogger.
I hadn't really thought about that but I suppose I'd say a Christian who believes in the gospel message in the Bible and seeks, when opportunities present themselves, to share it (something I was never that good at doing because I feared ridicule and/or accidentally turning people off the Bible if I was too 'pushy' so often kept silent).
//Exposing them to atheist writings and ideas and explaining God’s position according to the Bible on those same positions is critical.//
//To get a start, you can read my 3 blog posts on arguments for the existence of God here, here, and here and share them with your kids.//
You say exposing them to atheist writings is important, then suggest some Christian writing? Shouldn't you be suggesting something written by an atheist? What atheist writing have you read?
(I enjoy the videos by brothers QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees on youtube)
Or are you really just saying they should be exposed to some snippets of atheist arguments in an article written by a Christian?
I wasn't exposed to any atheist writings when I considered myself a Christian, and I wonder if that would have led me to leave the faith sooner. I don't think I read anything espousing secularism before I had already decided on my own that I no longer believed.
Admin:
This thread is being 'cleaned up'. Posts (on both sides) that are demeaning, have insults, rude, or are in response such posts are in process of being removed. As there were 200+ posts when this process began, it may take some time.
David said "You say exposing them to atheist writings is important, then suggest some Christian writing? Shouldn't you be suggesting something written by an atheist? What atheist writing have you read?
(I enjoy the videos by brothers QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees on youtube)
Or are you really just saying they should be exposed to some snippets of atheist arguments in an article written by a Christian?"
That is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. In fact, the interview I reference with Lambesis says part of his falling away was due to the very thing you're suggesting I'm saying. I recently gave a talk concerning this and told parents to read God Delusion and go over it with their kids if they're old enough (mid-later teens I would guess).
The point of this is very simple and I'm sure you get it. You seem like a pretty intelligent person. Go over both sides with your kids and honestly present it to them. The atheist viewpoint is so void of logic and consistency it would be very easy for a child to see it. I'm not afraid of atheist philosophy at all because it's the epitome of foolishness.
I'm not saying anyone here is a fool or illogical. But if you adhere to these ideas of atheism, you may want to rethink that.
Nearly every argument I've ever read/heard against Christianity or the Bible is nonsensical and a strawman. And it's comical that so many "I used to be a Christian" people have no idea what Christianity is which is so evident in their comments. Again, not necessarily directed at anyone here, but this is my experience in general.
Ashley said, "My stance is in opposition to young earth creationism and science denial"
Who is a science denier? That's clearly not the Biblical creationist since most of science stands on the shoulders of Biblical creationists. This is a strawman argument---a logical fallacy and actually weakens your position.
"Slightly odd that so little in the way of mammals managed to travel from Ararat to Iceland after the flood. Oh well, I guess God chose not to send many of them there."
Why is this odd?
"start from the assumption that everything in the bible is true. Assumption, because there is obviously no proof."
There is plenty of support for the
Bible historically, scientifically, prophetically, philosophically. Denying that doesn't make it not true.
"start from the assumption that everything in the bible is true. Assumption, because there is obviously no proof."
There is plenty of support for the
Bible historically, scientifically, prophetically, philosophically. Denying that doesn't make it not true.
ashley said, "But the Bible suggests that all land was created at the same time (and YECs suggest there was one single continent which broke up during/after Noah's Flood ie all land masses are 6,000 years old or less). "
No. No it doesn't. Islands are formed rather commonly. In fact, just this year an island formed in three weeks (not the millions of years we're told in science classes in school) in the Pacific. If you believe the
Bible says "all land was created at the same time" please give me a reference from the Bible. Also, ever heard of Pangea? Okay.
Maybe this was already posted...I can't read all these comments in a night...but: Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine.
found here: https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/where-does-the-ice-age-fit/
Thomas says, "The Grand Canyon was not created by a mega-flood. It was carved over millions of years by the Colorado River. "
how do you KNOW this? We have lots of evidence that suggests Charlie is right. You make claims about "fords" that actually don't matter in this discussion.
Thomas said"One more thing, and that is what science is NOT. Science is NOT religion. "
right. so we should put big bang and darwinism where they should be--in the class of religion. They are not and cannot be science. it's pretty basic.
Lyell claimed his intent in his work (which was a hobby--he was a lawyer not a scientist) was to take Moses out of science. With that agenda in mind, is that "science" for you?
"most of science stands on the shoulders of Biblical creationists". Even if that is true, today's YECs ARE science deniers - and you have not proven otherwise. Ken Ham proclaimed that science had been 'hijacked by secularists'.
The Bible suggests that all continents (or maybe one single original continent) were formed at the same time. And I am not aware that it states anywhere that new offshore islands can be formed over time (since 'creation') by eg volcanic eruptions or a fall in sea level.
Frost, ice and snow occur in Palestine today (an interglacial period) - and all arguments that the Bible refers to an ice age (or that one must have happened less than 5,000 years ago even if the Bible is silent on the subject) are incredibly feeble.
Thank you for approving my comment 181. (Pity the stuff refuting Bob was either failed or allowed but then subsequently deleted.)
Post a Comment