Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Captain Scarlet]

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 are creating a straw man. You are not arguing supernatural against natural, you are arguing evolution against YEC. You have restated the terms of the debate to suit your argument. Evolution is the best natural explaination, but it isn't necessarily the only natural explanation. As for supernaturalism, there are a very large number (almost finite) of possible theories one of which is YEC. It is a bifurcation and disproving evolution does not demonstrate that YEC nor Yahweh did it. Or are you going to argue that if evolution was found to be false tomorrow, that Yahweh or YEC or whatever is stronger explanation than Lord Vishnu, Woden or even extra-terrestial causes?

I've already suggested how you should start to create an argument for convincing people of YEC. But as a start a similar battery of evidence from: taxonomy, paleontology, paleobotany, stratigraphy, bio-geography, molecular biology, geochemistry, dendrochronology. Of course there is more, but start there. These present a body of evidence wholly consistent with evolution and inconsistent with YEC. What evidence would you accept for evolution?

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

But you didn't. You have never asked me for my credentials, I have never given them. You have assumed something which isn't true. Stated it was obvious becuase of something I have written and then not responded when I asked you to specify. In addition you assert that people like myself hold our views becuase of a particular world view. This is a circumstantial ad Hominem and a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.

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!”.

Nope. C14 anomolies in diamonds are just that currently, and you are refusing to accept that a viable hypothesis is contamination.

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.

Are you saying that any serious scientist would include the possibility of there discipline being able to identify a supernatural cause to a natural effect? If you are then I would respectfully question your credentials as a scientist