Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Ashendant]

The Bible gives us the very preconditions for intelligibility that we require to conduct science. We are told that God is truth and God will never contradict himself, this gives us the foundation for all laws of logic. We are also told that God upholds his creation in a consistent manner, this also allows us to expect uniformity in nature and that the future will be consistent with the past. The Bible also gives us the foundations for absolute morality, which allows us to make "should" and "ought" claims which are also necessary for knowledge and science. Given an evolutionary worldview there would be no basis for any of these things and all knowledge would be impossible.

Couldn't the same be the same about the universe? the universe is truth and it will never contradict itself, if the universe contradicted itself we wouldn't be here.

Absolute morality? that's why priests still rape children, while society as moved one besides, your so called "absolute morality" was stolen from the Egyptian book of the dead(yes another religious book but at least this one had things thought out and the bible/torah just copied it halfassed ignoring other important rules)

That's just the god of gaps argument, filling gaps in knowledge with the word "god did it" just because we don't know.

One example of an error in your videos is that the first one asserts that Christians believe dinosaur fossils are a result of the devil. There is no prominent creationist today that believes this. Quite the opposite, we welcome recent findings dealing with dinosaur fossils because they are help to strengthen our model.

Actually many believe it...

Ridiculous I know, but getting anywhere in religion isn't based on factual merit.

Are you still whining about the fact that I don't view youtube as a scholarly source? I suggest you get over it. The fact that I hold my sources to a higher standard than you do should be no reason for you to be upset.

Then your standards are pretty much skewered because you ignore claims that have been peer reviewed with a lot of proof, and choose to accept claims that have either proven false or just show a small contradiction in a large more broading theory, besides the point that the reason of that contradiction is most probable justified with other insignificant causes