Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

Never heard of that, maybe you're just confusing Subjective information with Objective information

Besides DNA is interpreted by the body of the animal that contains them, it's the body that creates the information and interprets it, there's no need for a creator

Actually it’s a pretty established law, by information theorists, that information never arises devoid of a mental or intelligent source. The body’s ability to replicate (not create) DNA and interpret it is itself written in the DNA. So this would be like saying an operating system has no mental source because there are pieces in it that interpret its code for it. We have never created any piece of code that can come close to matching the scale and information holding power of DNA, to say it arose by natural means is pretty absurd.

If this law that all information can be traced back to a mental source were not valid then it would destroy the fields of archeology and anthropology because they use it all the time.

And still no evidence FOR creationism.

Actually I have provided plenty of evidence for creation. Your unwillingness to accept it as evidence is not my problem, and comes more down to our differing interpretative frameworks. For me, the fact that specified complexity cannot arise by natural means is evidence for a creating intelligence. The fact that when you interpret the evidence using a Biblical framework it is the most consistent is evidence for creation. The fact that the prerequisites for intelligibility can only be explained through a Biblical framework is evidence for creation. We use these inferences to the best possible explanation all the time when we infer human intelligence created something, the need to use them in nature is even more reasonable and more logical in my view.

So the real question is, what exactly would you accept as evidence for creation?

---

@ statler

I noticed this little gem in your sig.....

THE TWO TENANTS OF ATHEISM

"God does not exist...and I hate him."

This gross distortion of what atheism is only goes to prove that your position is based on what you WANT to believe, not on what the evidence suggests.

Therefore how can we take anything else you profess seriously?

---

DNA contains information and the laws of information theory state that information cannot arise by natural unguided processes.

P.s if you could be so good as to quote the specific laws relating to this,
there's a good chap.

---

The classic “Poisoning the Well” logical fallacy.

[url] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...-well.html[/url]

That little gem as you call it is not really that far off. I think you would agree that atheists believe there is no God (using the classical definition of Atheism, not the revisionist one). I think it is also pretty apparent that rather than just stating this, many atheists go out of their way to profess their hatred for Him. I don’t believe that Santa Claus exists, but because I don’t believe he exists I don’t waste my time telling children how evil he is, or how much I hate him. So it looks silly to you when written like that, but this is more just a reflection of the inconsistency of your worldview. Rather than throwing a fit, you should be thanking me for pointing it out to you. : - )

That isn't exactly true though is it?

The results of this part of the RATE groups work have been analysed by experts in AMS i.e. the method used, who have found that the results presented are entirely consistent with levels of contamination OBSERVED and normally accounted for. The only issue here is that the RATE group have failed to account for this before presenting their results which obviously altered their conclusions.

Hey Sam,

Well of course laboratory contamination has been observed, I was speaking about natural contamination which some groups claimed is responsible for the C14. However, what you have said is not entirely true, the AMS testing was done at a professional secular lab. The lab itself stands behind their results and says all possible contamination that normally occurs in AMS was accounted and adjusted for. This can be found in the quality control portion of the RATE groups published work. The second problem with this theory is that contamination of diamonds is actually impossible due to their hardness. So if C14 was only found in coal one or two times the contamination argument might hold some water. The fact that is has been found in coal every time since and is also found in diamonds which are never contaminated does not bode well for the old earth crowd.

Also, I know that the RATE project lasted eight years and had a budget of millions of dollars (You've mentioned it enough ). You have to accept that a project funded by, consisting of and reviewed by a group of people devoted to destroying a certain theory will always be taken with a healthy level of skepticism. That is the case and here, despite your belief that it is entirely conclusive; other are left with doubts, so its natural to await further study.

I am not aware of a single research project that didn’t have a goal in mind, so I don’t think this is a legitimate objection to the RATE project (you may not agree with their goal but that doesn’t mean anything). They were completely scientific in their methodology and handling of data. If they were somehow not being scientific they would not have published their expectations prior to collecting data. You’ll find in the published work that not everything they were hoping to find was found. They were hoping that they would find no evidence that billions of years (at current rates) of radiometric decay did actually occur. They did find evidence that it did occur but they also found evidence that accelerated decay has also occurred. It was a very successful and exciting project that last eight years and cost millions of dollars (through that last part on just for you Sam : - ) )

I just wish you guys were all as skeptical of projects whose goals were to prove secular models and theories like the Miller-Urey experiments. Unfortunately they seem to get a pass and the creation guys have to do ten times better work and withstand ten times the scrutiny.

As I recall Statler, you're an Environmental Scientist. This hardly makes you an expert in evolutionary concepts or in fact, radiometric dating. I appreciate you have some science training but it is arrogant to assume this makes you 'more of an expert' in an unconected field.

Part of my work is population ecology, which of course is closely related to evolutionary theory. So I disagree with you. I am not an expert on radiometric dating, I will admit, but nobody on here is for that matter.

There are many possible reasons why humility is preferable to arrogance, the benefits to your social standing being primary among those. I can't objectively say that the two position are either good or bad but subjectvely, as personal traits we can make a judgement based on how those charecteristics affect our impression of the individual.

Cheers

Sam

That’s one of the biggest issues with the atheistic worldview, it’s internally inconsistent. Atheists make these objective claims that everything is subjective which of course is illogical. They also will make appeals to objective morality (by using “should” and “oughts”) but then when pressed about them they pass it off as just their opinion. I don’t see any reason arrogance is not a good thing using the atheistic worldview. I don’t see any reasoning why dishonesty is not a good thing using the atheistic worldview. Afterall, Muhammad Ali used is arrogance to fuel him to being the greatest boxer of all time. Using a Biblical worldview we can make these statements of “should” and “ought” because it provides a basis for objective statements and morality. Not really saying this to you in particular Sam, just kind of venting haha. I can tell you’re a decent guy.

You are joking, right? Some have already been pointed out previously and there is a real long list every time your post.

If the list is so long then it should be fairly easy for you to point them out right? Please do, I take logical reasoning very seriously and appreciate it if people point out where I am not being proper. However, I can also point out why I do not feel I am committing the fallacy they point out of course.

All your arguments so far asserts is that if evolution is false then creation is more likely true; that is a bifurcation.

Well we kind of already addressed this earlier in the thread, but here goes. What I am doing is actually not a bifurcation. The only two propositions that can be presented for our existence are natural means or supernatural means. So when you have two contradictory possibilities as these most certainly are you can use the principle of the excluded third. Once this is done, a person can then apply disjunctive reasoning to provide evidence for one by providing evidence against the other. Since everyone on here agrees that Evolution is the best (and only really) natural explanation for the natural means and Creation was the accepted supernatural explanation prior to evolution, evidence against evolution is evidence for creation. Darwin uses this exact same logic in the Origin of Species and it is completely valid.

Don’t forget to answer, what exactly you would accept as evidence for Creation.

You seek to assert your own credentials and run down other peoples in ad hominem attacks.

Questioning someone’s authority or expertise on a subject is not an ad hominem attack.

C14 argument is an argument from incredulity. There are plenty of others.

This one is interesting because I think it actually applies to your position more than mine. My argument was completely scientific, “we observe C14 in diamonds, C14 decays far too quickly for the diamonds to be 1.5 billion years old- therefore the diamonds are not 1.5 billion years old.” This is scientific because it is completely based on observation and inductive reasoning. Your argument was more along the lines of the argument from incredibility, “C14 would mean the diamonds would be far too young which is incredible therefore unobserved contamination must have happened!”.

Can you also explain what you mean when you say a 'secular colleague', (on the assumption you are talking about a scientist). By definition science is secular because it is based on methodological naturalism, not supernaturalism and therefore the term is redundant.

Actually by definition Science is, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” (Webster’s). By definition your explanations only have to explain the physical and natural world, the conclusions and explanations themselves do not have to be natural. So I disagree. Naturalism is not the only true science. Believing it is the only true science, is a great way to exclude possible answers to the big questions before you have examined all the evidence. So you are more just pulling a bait and switch with the words science and naturalism. Science has always been and always will be the effort to make true statements about physical reality. The truthfulness of these statements is in no way dependent upon whether they are naturalistic or super-naturalistic.