RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
December 29, 2010 at 10:30 am
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2010 at 10:32 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(December 28, 2010 at 9:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.The real question is why you can't accept evolutionary theory as THE best explanation of 100's of thousands facts evidenced from a very wide range of disciplines. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for creationism at all:
So the real question is, what exactly would you accept as evidence for creation?
- Coelocanths in the present day do not evidence animals being magic'd into existence and are even consistent with evolution
- C14 in coal is an unexplained phenomona under research. What is in no doubt is that these sediments take a long time to petrify and attest to the fossilised remains of plants no longer seen on the earth. Plants that have never been seen in the relatively recent past (000's of thouands of years) with quaternary deposits of pollens and seeds. Even if true, which I remain skeptical of, it does not evidence a being issuing an incantaion to spontaneously create plant life.
- Soft tissues within dinosaur bones are evidence of the extreme and variable conditions in which petrification occurs. So how does this prove that a large immaterial hand descnded through the clouds and zapped them into existence.
I don't apply 'my world view' to these facts to deny YEC, I just apply a skeptical mind and do not OVER-ATTRIBUTE relatively peripheral findings against a mountain of facts which are best explained by ToE...and still are.
To convince me you need to state the model under which the YEC would form a coherent theory. Then explain why that better explains the facts. Then provide a mechanism by which we can test its efficacy. That would be the scientific method. You are a scientist aren't you?
-
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.