Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

Well I don’t believe that the beams of light were created in place, but it does not violate the law of conservation of energy because that is a natural law that would have been created simultaneously. You guys always make the error of assuming that the laws of nature predate nature itself, which cannot happen.

It would have been created simultaneously? In genesis god supposedly creates the Earth, among other things 3 days before he got around to Starlight, the Sun, the Moon etc ... So according to Genesis the natural world already existed when light was conjured into it. I also don’t see any reference to a separate creation of natural law, so a literal reading of genesis would suggest they came into force when the natural world was created. I suppose you have an answer for this simple interpretation though.

I disagree with your assessment of rescue mechanisms. Oort clouds have never been observed, yet many textbooks talk of them as if they are a proven fact; which of course is ridiculous. Old-Earthers just know that Comets can’t last longer than 10,000 years, rather than re-evaluating their old-universe ideas they create a magical cloud of ice that can magically spit out comets every now and then. Have we observed this ever to happen? Nope. It’s a super-natural explanation dressed up in a tuxedo.
So despite these things never being observed, you find them “plausible”? Sounds a bit like a Flying Spaghetti Monster belief system to me.

In all fairness Statler you can’t use your personal opinions as a definitive proof of your argument. This is a logical fallacy I’m afraid, what you’re saying is;

“I have never seen a text book which I consider to represent Oort Clouds as a working theory therefore everyone believes in them and Science is using super-natural explanation”

Obviously your subjective experiences count for nothing in the same way that I could say;

“All the material I’ve reviewed regarding Oort clouds suggests that is a working theory and not an established fact”

Obviously in light of this you can’t just assert it as a super-natural explanation.

Perhaps the reason they are continuing to work on the theory rather than instantly changing their opinion is that Comets simply represent one unknown in an otherwise scientifically sound model of the Solar System and Universe. You could hardly expect a scientist to deny this in light of one unknown factor without fully investigating the matter.

There are many unobserved features which are plausible Statler, it seems foolhardy for a proponent of Science to conclude that only the observed is plausible.

Actually it seems foolhardy for someone who believes in an unobservable, super natural deity to challenge me supposing an unobserved feature is plausible. Yes, I believe the theory is plausible that comets originate from gatherings of ice and particulate matter termed ‘Oort Clouds’.

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude it as fact but it is more probable than the mountains of evidence from background radiation, distant starlight etc, etc ... all being suddenly nullified by one unknown factor. This is how science works Statler, in your words “develop a model, test your model” ... if that comes up short in one area you investigate and re-evaluate.

So you believe in things because you think they are “plausible”, but then you turn around and believe in things that you admit are “implausible” because they only have to happen once? So you essentially will believe in anything then? In an interview Richard Dawkins stated that he is “99.99” percent sure that God does not exist, so this would mean that he is 0.01 percent open to God existing. This means according to a poster child of Evolution it is a lot more plausible that God exists than than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try, so then will you believe in God ? Somehow I think you will not, despite your previous reasoning on the subject.

First of all, let me clarify because you either don’t get it or are attempting to misquote me;

I do not believe in things I find plausible. If I find a theory plausible I consider it a more valid theory than something which is far more implausible. Essentially I’m just applying Occam ’s razor. If these theories are validated with sufficient evidence I will hold them as true until proven otherwise. There is no belief required.
Also you’re mixing up two different contexts.

I said I find a theory plausible (Oort Clouds), I then said that arguing a theory involves an improbability and is therefore wrong is faulty logic. Further to this my point was that Abiogenesis is a more plausible explanation than ‘god’.

So essentially I haven’t said anything of the sort ‘I’ll believe anything’.

On the contrary I felt I made it quite clear that by default I work the principle of plausibility as shown by current science.

Also you misinterpret what Dawkins was saying; firstly in that he wasn’t talking about plausibility as much as he is talking about his rational position as an ‘Agnostic Atheist’ essentially accepting that he can never know for sure that there is no ‘Super-natural’ god but that given the evidence, he holds that it is highly improbable. I’m afraid misrepresenting someone’s point out of context does not lend credence to your argument Statler.

As to your question about “who created God?” I will set up a simple logically valid syllogism for you since valid logic is important to me.

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: God is eternal, he has no beginning.
Conclusion: God has no cause.

So just using logic we can easily concur that the “God needs a creator” argument is not logically valid.

Can we?

I suppose the logical fallacy of assuming god is eternal based on a book which claims to be the irrefutable word of the being you use it to prove doesn’t affect your valid logic? I call ‘Assuming the Proof’ or ‘Circular Reasoning’ on this. So argument refuted I guess.

Also, as a point – While the work is still tentative, it is currently observed that some subatomic particles can come about with no observed cause. This could simply mean the cause is yet to be observed or that it is possible for subatomic interactions to occur spontaneously. If this is found to be the case, the principle could be worked back to the singularity before the Big Bang. This is not so much an argument as just a little aside I’ve wanted to mention for a while.

The Bible is not historically accurate? Then why did I just see a program on National Geographic where they were using scripture to find the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? They found the two cities exactly where Scripture said they were and they also found evidence of catastrophe in both cities. The Bible is used in Archaeology more than any other holy book.

Okay, so let us suppose that a right a book today; the book is based in England as I currently know it and features various historic cities and localities described in intricate detail. Let us then say that the subject of this book is the quest of a Super Hero through this land to rescue a maiden from an evil wizard with a angry per dragon. In the future, this book could be used to locate cities and features which have long since vanished but finding these cities would not automatically prove the epic tale of my Super Hero would it?
The bible is used in archaeology on the understanding that it was written after the events it describes using real locations from that part of the world. Using it in such a way does not mean that we have to accept the whole thing by default.

Well yes certain dating methods are meant for different materials, like radio-carbon dating is meant for organic matter and radio-metric dating is used for igneous rocks. However, when we use just different radio-metric methods on the same igneous rock you get vastly different ages. Sometimes these ages vary by a billion years! What kind of accuracy is that? When we use these methods to date igneous rocks of known ages we get ages that are sometimes thousands of times in error. We never get the correct age. So why would we assume that a method that never gives the correct age on material that has known ages would give the correct age on material that has unknown ages? Sounds like blind-faith to me.

Statler, I don’t mean to be rude here but where did you pull this from?
I’ve been reading and studying geology and paleo-environments, among other things for a number of years now. I’ve even done some dating and I’ve never seen these ‘Billion’ year inaccuracies you keep mentioning. I’m willing to hear you out Statler but I’m going to need your source for this.

All structures that exist today post-date the global flood. The methods used to date these prior to the flood are shaky at best and use false assumptions.

So, assumptions that don’t agree with your worldview are by default false?

What are these false ‘assumptions’ Statler?

That there was no global flood? – No geological evidence for a global flood, nor a consistent break in pollen records, nor a consistent break in glacial cores etc ... etc ... It’s not a false assumption if it’s supported by evidence Statler.

The Earth is full of evidence for a global flood and I would encourage you to read some of the literature on the subject.

As I said Statler, I have been reading the literature on the subject; for six or seven years. I’m not ignorant of geology, in fact it makes up a large portion of my degree.

With this in mind I am yet to see this evidence of which you speak.

First of all, how else do you prove a person event is true rather than saying the event is true? Not sure what else you’d like, kind of ridiculous standards.

That’s essentially the point, they are anecdotal points which are incredibly weak as they are so easy to falsify. I could write a list here of dozens of conversation and lectures I have had which show various things. They would go no way to convincing you though because they are anecdotes. It’s not ridiculous standards; I’m just making it clear that I find anecdotal ‘evidence’ is just a waste of breath.

Secondly, first it was “No there are no biased reviewers, they just look at the Science”, now it is “Well these are only a few cases of bias, that’s not the norm.”. Moving the goal posts to try and win a discussion is pretty lame.

When did I say there were no biased reviewers? We were talking generalisations about the process as a whole not about specific incidents. I was saying that the process is generally fair and science based. I’m not moving the goal posts you’re taking what I’ve said out of context in order to discredit me.

No reason to get grumpy.

I wasn’t getting grumpy. I find your sarcasm on the forums disingenuous and counterproductive, as I found the fact that you kept saying “And you know it” annoying.

I’m sorry you find it ‘grumpy’ when someone calls you on this.

So it’s pretty apparent that the peer-review system on your side of the aisle is pretty corrupt and not trustworthy. To think that you ot on my about the Answers Journal wanting actual Creation articles for their journal  It is also important to note that no creation journal has ever had a case of fraud. I trust them, and for good reason. So the next time someone says, “Well Creationists don’t get published in our journals!” (a false statement), I think the best response a creationist can have is, “Thank God!”.

To be honest Statler, I was quite impressed at your sourcing of quotes with regards to this subject. Obviously the peer review system in secular science has had and still has issues, many of which are being addressed by recent reforms in the nature of peer review (Double Blind Reviewing etc ...). I suppose I was a little reluctant to concede this earlier. I would note that a lot of the purported incidents are related to the medical and biological journals (based on a quick Google I admit). While the system is not perfect and can be restrictive in some instances it is on the whole useful as a means of assessing the viability of work.

I would also note Statler, that your own Dr. Lisle thinks that creationist peer review on your own side of the ‘aisle’ is still lacking as well. I might suggest you take that into account before blindly trusting any journal.

... lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?”
- Karl Giberson

This quote doesn’t exactly support your point . I think Mr Giberson is making it clear that in the eyes of secular science ‘Creationsim’ has been completely discredited by both scientists and religious scholars.
I’d like your opinion on that Statler; even the majority of religious scholars, more knowledgeable than many YEC adherents completely disagree with you. So if secular science doesn’t accept creationism and religious scholars don’t accept creationism what makes you think your limited number of adherent are right?

Minor logical fallacies? There is no such ting, all the ones I have pointed out are quite major I assure you. It’s actually the best way to debate. There are two ways to refute an article, you can either point out the invalid logic used by the presenter, or you can demonstrate that one of the two premises is false. Why would I ignore a golden opportunity to refute an argument by ignoring a logical fallacy? It makes my job very easy. Maybe you guys should use proper logic and force me to demonstrate one of the premises is false? Thus far, nobody has even gotten to that point.

You might want to take a look at this post from P.Z. Meyers ‘Pharyngula’ website. It shows the inconsistency of the logical fallacy approach to debate, in that instantly slotting any comment that does not agree with you into a class of ‘logical fallacy’ is a tactic used to avoid answering difficult questions.

It also makes mention of the use of small, out of context quotes used in an attempt to discredit someone ... which I have to say is something you have tried a number of times.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/...lastin.php

Cheers

Sam