The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Sam]

Hey Sam

Thanks for reading the article. I think you will find that Lisle does not actually like the "Beams created already in place" argument. I believe he is just explaining different Creation Models at this point in time.

I admit on further reading he does go on to online a different primary viewpoint on the 'Distant Starlight Problem'. It is worth noting however that at no point does he admit any of the many logical flaws present in the argument or put up any case against it. The fact he is willing to accept it as a theory without evidence and a huge implausibility at its root is of concern.

Well I think you are have actually gotten to the very heart of the issue. That evidence itself does not favor one side or the other. If I use anti-biblical assumptions or purely naturalistic assumptions I can certainly interpret the evidence to fit an old universe/world. However, this interpretation cannot then be used to argue against someone who uses biblical assumptions because I assumed the Bible was not true from the very beginning. So I would be assuming the proof or begging the question. Where if I assume the Bible is true and then interpret the evidence from there I can argue for a young Earth rather easily. Even though both sides are looking at the same evidence. Dr. Lisle is well aware of this, he goes into this is very great detail in his DVD, "The Ultimate Proof for Creatioin". Where he takes teh argument down to really a debate between Worldviews where it should be occuring. Have you read the entire article yet? I think it gets pretty interesting.

We can argue from varying viewpoints untill the proverbial cows show up Statler but the argument you & Mr Lisle are proposing misrepresents a key issue. There is no sound reason for believing that secular scientists allow theie worldview to effect their science. Throughout my education I have always been taught to address my own bias and mistakes openly and as such repress them from my findings, this is a practice common to all student of science.

What Mr Lisle continously asserts is that at university he became aware of how scientists worldviews affect their studies; note that not once have I seen any corobatory evidence, no surveys and no figures. I have noticed your 'stories' about friends and a few refuted claims of bias however, they are far from conclusive with regards a large scale issue in the academic community.

I will give you an example of how pre-suppositions can effect the interpretation of the evidence on both sides.

When red blood cells were found in T-rex bones in the late 90's and ealry 2000's both sides interpreted this same evidence completely different based upon their pre-suppositions.

The evolutionary side first said that they could not have been red blood cells. Why? Well they know that red blood cells could not have lasted 65 million years. One of their pre-suppositions was that T-rex lived that long ago. So these fossils had to be that old

When the structures were in fact shown to be red-blood cells then the Evolutionary side just said, "well I guess red blood cells CAN last 65 million years".

The Creation side said, "well we are not surprised you found red blood cells because T-rex only lived 4500 years ago."

See how that works? Same evidnece, two very different interpreations based completely on pre-suppositions.

But this is the entire story is it Statler? The 'Evoloutionists' 'pre-suppositions' were based on the accumulated evidence of their, radiometric dating, archeaolgy etc ... Using this pre-existing information they made a judgement on red blood cells based on the fact they had not been seen before. When this was proved to be an exception to the current model, it was adapted. This is how science works.

What the creationists did was interpret the evidence within their pre-suppositions of a young-earth despite the fact that all the evidence accumulated by science points the other way and therfore summarily claim that they must be right. If you feel my interpretation is wrong here please let me know. You're more guilty of these logical fallacies you keep pointing out than anyone.

Another example of this was given by one of the Geologists at CMI. He said that he and his friend (an old Earth Evolutionist) were talking one day. The creationist asked the evolutionist what it would take for him to believe that Dinosaurs and Man co-existed. The evolutionist said he thought probably finding a fossilized dinosaur print with a fossilized human print inside of it.

Well in the mid 90's there were a set of prints being looked at in Texas that looked like human prints with dinosaur prints (later found out to not be human prints). While this research was going on the creationist asked his firned if he was going to believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed if these tracks proved to be valid. The friend told him that he had been thinking about their conversation and said that he had decided that if human tracks were ever found with dinosaur tracks then that would actually be evidence for time travel. Both sides can sit there and make up these rescue mechanisms to preserve their preconceived ideas of how the world works.

But this is just a story Statler. A CMI Geologist (Biased?) is attempting to prove that evolutionist has the same neccesity for pre-suppositions as him and so relates this story. I can't really speak as to the validity of the story so I'm not going to push the point any further.

Well they are actually very concerned with methodology. It's not like you could just write up some paper that said the Earth was young and they would accept it. It's a creation journal so it comes to me as no surprise that they would want creation articles published in it. Just like a psychology journal would want articles concerning psychology published in it and the journal Evolution probably wants articles that support the theory of Evolution. As long as they are very strict about methodology (which they are) then I do not see a problem with that statement. I could write up the World's best research paper, have flawless methodology, but if my outcome pointed to a Creator or a Young Earth I can bet it would not get published in Evolution or Science. Both sdies want a specific kind of article, wich I guess is ok as long as we are allowed to read both sides' journals. Your thoughts?

Unfortunately Statler I disagree. You keep saying that creationists always follow the scientific method, true?

Well tell me how it scientific to make sure that evry paper published agress with your viewpoint even down to the 'historical/grammatical details' of your beliefs (paraphrased from the Answers Research Journal Sumission Guidelines). It just isn't, they are simply saying that they will not entertain anything outside of their theory, not even subject ... just their theory.

Your claim that it is a 'Creation' journal and so would naturally only accept creation articles is void because the journal claims to be a technical journal for biology, geology, astrophysics etc ... So what they are doing is simply censoring the infromation they diseminate. In comparison the only guidelines for secular journals are in methodology and scientific practice. Please provide evidence if you want to argue this point.

As to your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' - Your might be right, it could have an excellent methodology but if you have not interpreted it within the context of the majority of the published literature or provide demostarble proof of why you are correct over them you would not be publsihed. Obviously Bible quotes would have no place in this literature (as they do in Answers) because the Bible is heavily disputed source of non-scientific nature. So using it as a point of evidence or interpretation is soley based on your worldview and would simply be begging the question.

Also, I can't believe you resorted to mocking the peer review system based on sporadic reports of possible bias. If it such a joke Statler, why do your people make such an effort to copy it?

Cheers

Sam