Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

Biblical Creationism has made many successful predictions -mmmm

Creationists knew the Universe had a beginning long before the rest of secular science caught up. Even Richard Dawkins admits this in his "God Delusion" debate with John Lennox. - There really are only 2 options for this;it had a beginning or it is eternal. Getting a 50:50 bet right isn't impressive. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.

So first it was, “Creationism has made no successful predictions.”- now it is “well the predictions that creationists have successfully made were not impressive enough for me.” Moving the goal posts I see. If this was such an easy prediction, then why did it take all the secular scientists so long to figure it out?

Creationists also predicted that there would be measurable levels of C14 in both coal and diamonds, something thought to be impossible by Evolutionists. Low and behold, there’s C14 in coal and diamonds (over ten times the minimal detectable amount) - Whats an evolutionist? I don't think evolutionary theory has anything to say about c14 in coal. Coal is fully petrified fossial organic vegetation. C14 levels would deteriorate quickly geologically speaking, but that does not rule out post fossilisation introduction of c14 and other forms of contamination. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.

The age of the Earth is closely tied to Evolution. That’s why the high school textbook “Teaching About Evolution” has two whole chapters dedicated to the age of the Earth. Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

Creationists also predicted that many species that were thought to be extinct could be found still today. Low and behold, we find numerous species such as the Coelacanth that were thought to be extinct for millions of years. How does that bolster your case? - Evolutionary theory makes no prediction of what happened to a certain group of Crossopterygian fish prevously only known from fossils found in Permian marine sediments. As far as evolution is concerned its a so what, there are many animals that have survived through many geologic ages relatively unchanged. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.

If you can’t see how organisms suddenly appearing in tact and identical to today’s creatures in the fossil record is evidence for Creation then I don’t know what to tell you. It most certainly can’t be used as evidence for evolution.

Creationists also predicted that all the major phyla of Organisms should appear at once in the fossil record. Low and behold, the Cambrian explosion holds all of the major phyla of organisms. When you say at once, the Cambrian explosion was about 50 million years of rapid expansion of life forms as they radiated out to fill available ecological niches which accompanyed an increase in atmospheric oxygen (enriching the seas), global arming and a retrenchment of ice sheets. There have also been other similar explosive radiations (at least in a geological sense as an explosion ould take millions fo years). I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

50 million years is not nearly enough time for all of those different phyla to evolve. The genetic differences between them are far too great, and mutations occur far too slowly. Besides, the millions of transitional fossils depicting this evolution of all these phyla are still MIA. You are really operating under a faith based system.

Creationists also believed that finding soft tissue in Dinosaur fossils was a very real possibility. Low and behold, we find soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils. All it tells us is that the process of petrification isn't consistent between different sediments, which is what you'd expect. The bone itself was petrified and that still takes a very long time to achieve. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

If this is no big deal then why did Mary Schweitzer have to do the test 17 times before she would believe it? The answer is because it’s young Earth implications were so undeniable that she thought it was impossible. This is the same reason Jack Horner didn’t believe her when she told him, and many reviewers told her what she was finding was impossible. They all knew the implications. It is impossible for soft tissue to survive for 65 million years. It’s amazing it even survived for a few thousand. So if you don’t see the obvious implications of this evidence, then you really are just ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your paradigm.

At least Creationists can explain why certain evidence points to an older Earth and yet is still consistent with their young Earth model. Evolutionists just ignore young Earth evidence like you have just done, and then say there is no evidence to support a young Earth.

[Anomalocaris]

What you said clearly touches on the "and get results" part, but if fails to address the main part of what I was getting at. I was wondering how scientific/methodological naturalism could be used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistimology for establishing truth claims, which is, essentially, what Void was claiming. So, Chuck, maybe you can address my real point.

Name a competitor and we shall examine the relative efficacy.

If you are unable to come up with a another epistimology capable of not just claiming, but demonstrating in the sense normally understood, equal efficacy in establishing the truthfulness of a claim, then you have no respectable grounds to challenge his claim.

[Thor]

Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

A YEC accusing scientists of "ignoring evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm"?



Oh, and your bullshit about Carbon-14 in diamonds and coal being evidence of a young Earth is refuted in this scholarly article: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

[rjh4 is back]

What you said clearly touches on the "and get results" part, but if fails to address the main part of what I was getting at. I was wondering how scientific/methodological naturalism could be used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistimology for establishing truth claims, which is, essentially, what Void was claiming. So, Chuck, maybe you can address my real point.

Name a competitor and we shall examine the relative efficacy.

If you are unable to come up with a another epistimology capable of not just claiming, but demonstrating in the sense normally understood, equal efficacy in establishing the truthfulness of a claim, then you have no respectable grounds to challenge his claim.

You are avoiding the question, Chuck.

How is scientific/methodological naturalism used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims (without being circular)?

My ability to name a competitor for you to evaluate is irrelevent to the question. I didn't make the claim. Void did. Therefore, I think he is responsible for answering the question. Or if you agree with the claim and would like to answer, feel free. But since I didn't make any such claim, why should I have to provide anything in order for my question to be answered?

Note, if you cannot answer the question, why not simply refrain from responding?

[Anomalocaris]

Oh, please. Your ability to name a competitor is the crux of the question. Scientific/methodological naturalism can demonstrate certain efficacy in establishing truth claims. It assesses its own relative efficiacy to other competing systems by observation. The inability of even one single motivated hecklers like you to even begin to demonstrate comparable efficacy in alternate epistemology is the basis for Scientific/methodological naturalism to establish the working hypothesis that itself is the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims yet propounded.

If you are unable to name a credible competitor, then stop heckling those who would postulate Scientific/methodological naturalism to be unsurpassed and unrivaled.

[Statler Waldorf]

Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

A YEC accusing scientists of "ignoring evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm"?



Oh, and your bullshit about Carbon-14 in diamonds and coal being evidence of a young Earth is refuted in this scholarly article: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

This just demonstrates your youthful idealism concering the infallibility of scientists. First of all, trying to refute work that has been peer-reviewed wtih an non-reviewed article is pretty lame. Secondly, arguing for contamination that was never observed is not scientific. Assuming un-observed contamination occurred is a way of cramming the evidence into the paradigm. Shocking.

[orogenicman]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)

______________________________

[theVOID]

Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results.

Void,

Unless I am missing something, that statement in itself is a truth claim.

So please explain for all of us how scientific/methodological naturalism (or any other natural epistemology) establishes the truthfulness of your statement (without your argument being circular, of course).

Long time no see Rjh4! Where have you been hiding?

As for my argument:

1. Methodical naturalism is the foundation of science.
2. Science has discovered more truth claims and applications there of than any other methodology, Therefore:
3. Methodological naturalism is the most effective methodology for determining truth and obtaining application thereof.

Keep in mind: Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism nor is it the only method that can arrive at truth claims. Reliablism, for instance, can arrive at true claim, so can Introspection (A priori truths) and others. There were also true claims being made prior to the advent of science. My argument is that it is the most effective methodology (by a fucking huge margin) and it's even when time is taken out of account.

Methodological naturalism is not an epistemology, as I just noticed I said earlier. Fuck it, it was late and I was drunk/stoned. My argument is my somewhat more sober articulation.

Methodological naturalism is a method for determining truth that makes an assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but you do not necessarily have to be a metaphysical naturalist to use the epistemology though most are (Scientist theists who actually do science work with the assumption of methodological naturalism).

[Captain Scarlet]

Ooh Statler quite a tantrum, from a 'logician' such as yourself

So first it was, “Creationism has made no successful predictions.”- now it is “well the predictions that creationists have successfully made were not impressive enough for me.” Moving the goal posts I see. If this was such an easy prediction, then why did it take all the secular scientists so long to figure it out?

I never said Creationists don't make predications! You have invented the goalposts to move all by yourself. I'll wait for you to revoke that. Sure Creationists make lots of predictions, mostly garbage: see Kent Hovind. He also has a lot of interesting theories; one which sticks in the mind explaining the formation of the polar ice caps from a comet impact. Brilliant! You remind me of him :-). What I actually said was:

"When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research?"

It has still not been answered, but hey take your time.

The age of the Earth is closely tied to Evolution. That’s why the high school textbook “Teaching About Evolution” has two whole chapters dedicated to the age of the Earth. Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

I think what you meant to say was that evolution requires time to take effect, and to get to current bio-diversity a lot of time. I would agree with that. Thus when we look at the age of the earth it is good support that evolution did infact have enough time to take effect. c14 It is not strong evidence against the ages of coal seams as there are many other stronger indicators including the process of petrification, stratigraphy, well preserved fossilised remains of plants in the coal seams from amongst the matrix. For sure its an anomoly, but I'd rather wait for the research first, wouldn't you?

If you can’t see how organisms suddenly appearing in tact and identical to today’s creatures in the fossil record is evidence for Creation then I don’t know what to tell you. It most certainly can’t be used as evidence for evolution.

No I can't see how they remotely provide evidence for creation. Just as the crocodile has a common ancestor with alligators and caymens, but in itself is relatively unchanged from the Cretaceous period. There is no proof of creation here. If someone found a living dinosaur tomorrow that would not prove creation. However if someone found humans remains in a Cretaceous sedimentary layer, then we would have some evidence disproving evolution, but not evidence supporting "YAHWEH did it".

50 million years is not nearly enough time for all of those different phyla to evolve. The genetic differences between them are far too great, and mutations occur far too slowly. Besides, the millions of transitional fossils depicting this evolution of all these phyla are still MIA. You are really operating under a faith based system.

Are you an expert in evo-devo? How do you know this?

If this is no big deal then why did Mary Schweitzer have to do the test 17 times before she would believe it? The answer is because it’s young Earth implications were so undeniable that she thought it was impossible. This is the same reason Jack Horner didn’t believe her when she told him, and many reviewers told her what she was finding was impossible. They all knew the implications. It is impossible for soft tissue to survive for 65 million years. It’s amazing it even survived for a few thousand. So if you don’t see the obvious implications of this evidence, then you really are just ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your paradigm.

I would imagine she tested the result 17 times because scientists are skeptical, tend to care about the truth and be rigorous around validating it. I guess she was a little surprised as it is a unique find (at least thus far!). Bare assertion and incredulity on your part, to assume that she had it in for YEC. But how does it prove YEC? Again it demonstrates how petrifiction is not a linear process but varies with environment and conditions, although given the enormous timescales involved most dinosaur remains are fully petrified, whereas those from more recent strata are less so and for ancestral hominids are not petrified at all given they are 100-200k years ago.

You are going to have to do a lot better than this rag-tail assortment to show evidence FOR creation. Still it is no surprise when you look at the stats. for Intelligent Design (creation by any other name; and before you argue with that - yes it is!)

when 20m scientific papers were searched through a couple of years ago:
the keyword evolution appeared 115k times
the keyword intelligent design 88 times (yes eighty-eight and not thousands)
of the 88, 77 were in engineering journals
of the 11 remaining 8 were critical of intelligent design
the remaining 3 failed to get published in research journals

So far your arguments a taking a very familiar line. One put down by Dawkins in the blind watchmaker:

Dawkins quotes Montefiore: "As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises. If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage."

Dawkins gives this translation of Montefiore's paragraph: "I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears might benefit from being white."

Perhaps you would like to add Bishop Hugh Montefiores argumentation to your arguments/evidence FOR creation as well?

[rjh4 is back]

Long time no see Rjh4! Where have you been hiding?

It has been a while. I have been following some of these threads a bit, I just don't post as often as I used to.

As for my argument:

1. Methodical naturalism is the foundation of science.
2. Science has discovered more truth claims and applications there of than any other methodology, Therefore:
3. Methodological naturalism is the most effective methodology for determining truth and obtaining application thereof.

Keep in mind: Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism nor is it the only method that can arrive at truth claims. Reliablism, for instance, can arrive at true claim, so can Introspection (A priori truths) and others. There were also true claims being made prior to the advent of science. My argument is that it is the most effective methodology (by a *** huge margin) and it's even when time is taken out of account.

While one might be able to argue the truthfulness of premise 2 (depending on how one counts "truth claims"), I won't as I think the argument is pretty good over all. I misunderstood and thought you were saying that methodological naturalism is the only method to arrive at truth claims as I do not think I have read any previous posts by you saying you thought there are other valid ways of arriving at a true claim. (You may have said it before here, and if you did, I missed it. Or I did read it before and forgot.) Anyway, kudos to you on your argument.

Methodological naturalism is not an epistemology, as I just noticed I said earlier.

Yeah, that thought also crossed my mind last night and I thought about mentioning it today. No need now.

...it was late and I was drunk/stoned.

Why do you get drunk/stoned, Void? I know it is a more personal question and if you want to ignore it, that is fine and I won't press it. I was just wondering.

Methodological naturalism is a method for determining truth that makes an assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but you do not necessarily have to be a metaphysical naturalist to use the epistemology though most are (Scientist theists who actually do science work with the assumption of methodological naturalism).

In principle, I disagree here. I do not think methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism. I do think it requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and so we can discover through methodological naturalism how nature works. But it never requires one to assume that nature is the only reality (metaphysical naturalism). However, in practice, I'm not sure how one would distinguish my position from yours, except possibly in the mindset of the scientist doing the work.

---

"When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research?"

Captain,

Please give an example of a prediction that evolution (common descent) has made in the fields of medical research and agricultural research that could not also have been predicted just as well by supernatural creation by a God who initially created various "kinds" and who built into the DNA of those "kinds" the potential for the evolution (change) of those original "kinds".