Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Statler-

So instead of responding to any points with concise points of your own, you've apparently decided to spend an enormous amount of time responding to every single statement in a giant block of horrendously disorganized text which I can only assume took you an enormous amount of time to write up, to ultimately still provide so very little of substance?

... this is disappointing but I may as well respond to anything worth responding to.

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.

Creation scientists do not use the scientific method and will ignore results and evidence that contradict their worldview. That is what makes them not actual scientists.

Actually your just displayed your ignorance as to what Creation Science is. It is not the study of the supernatural. Creation scientists do not sit around and study God, they study the natural world. They just believe that the accounts of creation and other accounts in the Bible are completely accurate. Nowhere in the definition does it say that a scientist must believe in natural origins to the natural world he studies, he just has to study the natural world. I completely believe that guys like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler were indeed scientists. Again, you are just committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy when you try and play these semantic games; though I do enjoy the debate my friend.

Seriously? .... No... Seriously? Are you even trying anymore?
For someone who has frequently cited how ignorant we are for this and that, the amount of stupid in the above statement is staggering. There's no way to sugarcoat this.

Yes, what you call "creation scientists" study the natural world. I can accept that there are people with this worldview who do the thing you described.

Here is where they are different from scientists because apparently telling you about this the all the previous times didn't quite make it through;
Scientists study the natural world through the use of the scientific method.
"Creation Scientists" decided on a worldview and constantly look for science that this worldview is accurate.
Scientists don't have preconcieved beliefs about the natural world. All of their views on the natural world is because the natural world evidenced their conclusions and these conclusions have been building up for centuries.
"Creation Scientists" I'm sure have a great deal of who-ha in the world of theology but unless they moonlight with the secular scientists and discard their preconcieved notions at the door, they only tend to splash with like-minded people.

You keep referring to Kepler, Bacon, and Newton as though they were in the second branch, yet you've no evidence from anywhere to actually point out how their contributions to science wasn't itself secular in nature. No one here denies that there are scientists with faith around. They're not nearly as numerous today as they were in the past, but all the same their science was a result of good use of the scientific method, independant of their beliefs. Even so, they recieved grief from the church because of this and all the attempts to rewrite history isn't going to change what happened.

Oh brother. You obviously still do not understand the ASC. It does not violate relativity at all, it’s actually greatly supported by it. Einstein himself said there is no “true” measurement of time. So to say that there is and the ASC violates the true measurement of time is in itself violating Einstein’s work.

As to the gravitational well, saying that its founder does not understand gravity and you do is ridiculous. He has had over 30 peer reviewed articles published in the most prestigious secular journals and works at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico as a Nuclear Physicist and received the “Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.” I think the guy knows a thing or two about physics.
Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model is also a completely valid model despite what you think. I am sure you are well aware that Carmeli was not a Creationist; his model just solves the distant starlight problem for creationists.

That's cute that you believe that, but I've read all the papers I could find on the topic on the internet (since that's the only place this can be found) and despite that theory (nor any of the others) not appearing at all in any of the astronomy circles I frequent this is still brought up in some creationist circles, this has as much plausibility as Elvis and Charlie Chaplin not being dead and married to one another in a hidden island in the Galapagos. I've already discussed all this at length with another creationist who had a similar penchant for stating facts but never actually backing them up.

Yes, a lot of people have stated that ASC does indeed not violate relativity but those who do have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity plainly states that the speed of light is the same. everywhere and to all observers.

ASC states that:

the speed of light in any one direction is not necessarily constant.

and...

The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. If we select Einstein synchronization, then we have declared that the speed of light is the same in all directions. If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving directly away. Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.

1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

The ASC paper gets funnier the more you read it when I realized that this person lacks a basic understanding of astronomy by stating that because there are young stars, the universe must be young. Anyone who has casually read an astronomy book can correct this mistake. In any case, ASC is a joke.

The shape of the earth is consistent everywhere in the Bible except for this passage? I have already pointed out that you have pointed to some verses you believe talk of a flat circular earth like a coin, and other verses talk of corners and edges. Of course these are all metaphors so we would expect this, but your claim that all of the descriptions are consistent is of course false. So you still need to get your story straight, did people in Bible times believe the earth was circular and flat or square and flat?

The description of the earth in this passage is no different than any of the others. I didn't find the reason it was mentioned as such as relevant because the circumstances and reasons for the mentions throughout the bible are quite different from passage to passage.
In short, the passage gave me no reason that this particular passage represents the earth in any way, shape, or form, as different from the manner to which the bible has already and later continues to establish in terms of its shape and scope.
You managed to 'catch' me on something I found wholly irrelevant to the overall point I was making.

Second, I never mentioned the earth being flat and square. Just flat and circular. Both the bible and I have been quite consistent with this and despite the fact that you keep saying that all these are metaphors, you've done nothing to provide evidence otherwise. Flat objects like coins by definition have corners. It's harder to concieve of because coins are so much smaller than this theoretical flat-earth but once you start scaling a coin-shaped object upward, the corners become rather clear.
Or you could find a coin and look at it edge on since things with edges have corners quite by definition. Either way, this has been rather consistent.

Third, in regards to metaphors, neither you nor the bible have not satisfactorily demonstrated "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" or "something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol" according to the literal definition of the term in all instances in terms of every quote I posted being the same metaphor.
Furthermore, you keep going on about J.R.R Tolkien's work and other examples in regard to literary metaphors. Metaphors are often used to provide a great deal of atmosphere to a tale and give information to a reader. In your 'the Raven' example,

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Let's compare this to one of my quotes, using an entire biblical passage.

1Then Hannah (A)prayed and said,
"My heart exults in the LORD;
(B)My horn is exalted in the LORD,
My mouth speaks boldly against my enemies,
Because ©I rejoice in Your salvation.
2"(D)There is no one holy like the LORD,
Indeed, (E)there is no one besides You,
(F)Nor is there any rock like our God.
3"Boast no more so very proudly,
(G)Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth;
(H)For the LORD is a God of knowledge,
(I)And with Him actions are weighed.
4"(J)The bows of the mighty are shattered,
(K)But the feeble gird on strength.
5"Those who were full hire themselves out for bread,
But those who were hungry cease to hunger.
(L)Even the barren gives birth to seven,
But (M)she who has many children languishes.
6"(N)The LORD kills and makes alive;
(O)He brings down to Sheol and raises up.
7"(P)The LORD makes poor and rich;
(Q)He brings low, He also exalts.
8"®He raises the poor from the dust,
(S)He lifts the needy from the ash heap
(T)To make them sit with nobles,
And inherit a seat of honor;
(U)For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S,
And He set the world on them.
9"(V)He keeps the feet of His godly ones,
(W)But the wicked ones are silenced in darkness;
(X)For not by might shall a man prevail.
10"(Y)Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered;
(Z)Against them He will thunder in the heavens,
(AA)The LORD will judge the ends of the earth;
(AB)And He will give strength to His king,
(AC)And will exalt the horn of His anointed."

Interestingly, the passage I highlighted also cross-referenced a few other points:

4"Where were you (A)when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,

3"The (A)earth and all who dwell in it [a]melt;
It is I who have firmly set its (B)pillars. Selah.

5He (A)established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not [a]totter forever and ever.

So... the thing about metaphors like how Tolkien and Poe and others use it is that they use it in a way for a particular purpose. Poe, in the above example, used it in a way to tell a story that described how the main character saw the raven itself. What Poe did do is remain consistent within the individual story with the metaphors to describe the internal and external torment of the tormented character.

The bible is a collection of stories from different authors during different time periods telling their stories in different ways but keeping all of the details in the same in the sense that whether we're talking about someone's dream sequence or a definative statement of what's happening, the details in regard to the Earth's shape is remarkably consistant upon all 'metaphors' despite differing authors and contexts of several passages, such as the ones above, that don't connote that the shape of the earth is different in any way as to how they describe it. In other words, the bible has given me no reason that the depictions of the earth are, itself, a metaphor for something else in all instances.
As such, this does not fit the definition as described in any dictionary I could find, nor the ones I typically refer to on the internet.

Forth, you, personally, have not provided me any reason of any kind to believe that your objections are valid. You were quick to provide counterevidence of weather systems that I honestly thought weren't in the bible and I was proven wrong on that point, but you've been silent on everything else... other than, of course, your word, which isn't good enough by itself. I have provided, to the best of my ability, the proper context and necessary points I needed to make my case and I've linked every source I've used but you've done nothing but tell me that I'm wrong.
You've not made the case nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary of most of my points.
I can only conclude that you don't because you can't.

A better answer is that people in Bible times were well aware of the actual shape of the earth, thus why they use metaphors to convey points rather than to inform the reader of the earth’s shape.

I'm sure it's better in the sense that it helps explain your point of view better, but until you find a part of the bible that mentions the earth as something other than what I've described it as, then don't bother.

Again, reading something into the text that is not there. It just says they went up there and Christ was shown all the kingdoms. Never says they had to be up there in order to see all the kingdoms. Bad exegesis.

I didn't read into the text at all. I quoted word-for-word which states, clear as day, exactly what it said and nothing else.
So far, you're the only one stretching and lawyer-interpreting the bible to say something other than what it literally says.

Well I am sure you are aware the sun does not actually “rise” above the horizon, it just looks that way because it is the Earth that is moving. So these are descriptive terms used by everyone because they make sense even though they are not scientifically accurate. So I see no issue with them being used in scripture. Job is also a poetic book; we know this from the Hebrew verb usage. So to interpret it otherwise is again poor exegesis.

Actually, the Sun does rise above the horizon. If you had bothered to check the definitions for those terms, you'd understand why. I even linked them and everything.
Either way, nice way to totally avoid addressing the actual topic. Given that I've already sort of addressed all of your responses in general, I'm just going to skip all of these non-answers of yours since you're clearly just eyeballing the answers and speeding through as fast as you can anyway.

The Bible uses poetic, metaphoric, and other literary elements just as Tolkien did. It’s a shame you give him a pass but not the Bible. Special pleading. Keep in mind Tolkien’s books are not fantasy and fiction because they use these forms of writing, so the Bible is not necessarily fantasy or fiction because it uses similar writing elements. Writing elements themselves do not determine what is and what is not true.

The thing about other literary authors is that as EE Poe wrote about an actual raven and even though he used metaphor to describe things like its fiery eyes and piercing gaze, he didn't keep describing these exact traits over and over and over again in the story as though they were actual traits of this bird. Instead it's an actual raven haunting a man that was driving himself into insanity over the loss of his wife.
The bible contains metaphor, no doubt, but if the authors of the bible knew the actual shape of the earth and the other examples were all literary metaphors, then these metaphors should be used as a figure of speech that is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance or used as a symbol or a representation of something else.
None of the metaphors that you described as metaphors do this. EE Poe's and Tolkien's and the others all do, in fact, this exact thing.

So you are suggesting you can indeed move the Earth from the relative perspective of the Earth? Wow, I think you should read a physics book.

I suggested that the earth is moving regardless of what 'frame of refence' you have: a notion that completely contradicts the passage I quoted.

Oh really? According to whom? You? When people say, “wow that shook the very foundations of our country!” Are they talking about the US being built on physical foundations? Nope. The verse is using descriptive metaphor to give the reader an idea of the sheer magnitude of the flood event.

... which would be true if
a) the rest of the entire passage of Isa 24 gave any inclination that this was the case
b) there weren't numerous other passages describing literal pillars of the earth throughout the bible (which goes back into what I've already said above)
and c) there is nothing at all in the entire passage that gives the sense that this particular passage is anything other than a description as opposed to a descriptive metaphor.

Seriously? There is no rule that a metaphor has to be constructed just like a simile minus the “as” or “like”. You obviously just made that up. Nor is there a rule saying a metaphor can’t be constructed like a statement. That is made clear by the dictionary definition which uses an example that is built exactly like the “The Air is thick syrup” example you gave.

Yes. I clearly just made that up.

What is a Metaphor?
A metaphor also compares two things, but a metaphor does not use the words like or as. Instead, the metaphor makes a comparison as if the two things are one and the same. The simile examples above are turned into metaphors by changing a few key words.

What? Since it is a simile why would you take it as a literal description of cosmology? If I say, “Wow, the stars look like campfires in the sky!” does that mean that I believe the stars are really campfires? Uh no, because it’s what we call a simile.

because the quote stated that whatever was descending from heaven was like a large sheet because it was clearly describing the shape and look of the manner to which this object descended from heaven. That was the simile.
The fact that it was a bonefied simile doesn't magically make the fact that something large and sheet-like came out of an opening in heaven and was lowered (didn't merely descend, but something actually lowered it from heaven) by its four corners.
This doesn't remove the fact that this passage described something about the biblical cosmology that is totally unlike reality and is one of many passages that describe the solid dome that covers the circle of the earth that can open or close to reveal heavenly beings or watery death.

I have heard them say it, and I am pretty sure that they still know how rainfall actually works. They are just using descriptive language, just like the Bible does.

Then you're clearly the only one of the two of us who have heard it used.

Yet you fail to point out how this would be wrong. The aging of our organs and cells is determined by the length of our telomeres.

... I clearly should have explained myself further, because this totally wasn't the reason I responded the way I did. I know about telomeres.
What you don't know and aren't, as a Y-E creationist, are willing to acknowledge in regard to genetics in terms of 'we used to live for hundreds of years at a time' is that if we, at some point in time in the past, used to generally live for centuries thanks to 'longer telomeres' and 'pure genetics' then this sort of thing tends to show up when researching genetics.

People are, in fact, as I've proven in earlier posts, pretty damn good at this sort of thing to the point to where we can use genetics to trace ancestry - whether it's as a particular family lineage or for the entire species.
... but, well, you know, if you kept up with genetics at all, you'd find a distinctive lack of evidence that our genes were different in the manner necessary to, in the past, allow for lives that were in the order of ten times as long as our lives today with modern medicine.

There is also the matter that in order to believe something like that, you'd have to believe in evolution.

You are judged for your sins, not because you were not given saving grace. When a death row inmate is executed, he is executed for his crimes, not because he didn’t receive a pardon from the governor.

... not what the bible says, but good try all the same.

When Adam fell we all fell, he was our representative, so it is not a design flaw at all. God has just as much freedom in saving babies as He does anyone else. I feel it is consistent with His character that all babies are given saving grace. The Bible does not tell us either way, so that is more just my opinion.

You realize that your view of God's character is at odds with his actions in the bible, right?
Further, he is continually punishing all of humankind for something that god himself introduced to us in the bible. That is not the work of a moral character.

Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, babies are just cosmic accidents that really have no value or purpose. So you are really just borrowing from my worldview when you say their lives have any value at all.

That's your interpretation of what an atheist believes. It's a caricature of a fantasy you and others like you have concocted about people who don't believe in the fantasies you do.

Well murder only applies to humans killing other humans. God has the right to destroy His creation, and to pass judgment upon it (Romans 9). We should just all be glad we get better than we actually deserve.

Murder is murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.

the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

It's that kind of thinking like you stated above that makes me think that your religion worships someone whose consideration and empathy for human life is essentially zero.

If god were a regular shmuck who treated his children this way, he'd be sitting in prison assuming he wasn't formally executed by the state.

Where did I say the verse was describing an eclipse? Nowhere. I was just point out that they do darken the sun from the earth’s perspective; this does not mean that is what the verse is talking about.

You stated that this verse didn't have any issues because an eclipse could describe something like this as one of a number of ways and you closed by saying that there were no issues with this verse (because of things like your example.)
Clearly, shooting down your example for clearly being nothing like what was described did nothing to persuade you.

Oh yes! The old “Newton and Kepler were idiots!” argument. Newton actually spent more time studying the Bible than he did math and science. I think he understood scripture, at least better than you. I do not mind being in the same category as these men, if they didn’t see any issues with scripture’s divine inspiration claim then I guess I can’t really see any issue with it then either.

Ah. Another strawman.
I'm sure they studied the bible plenty. I'm also sure that the bible and it's teachings weren't involved at all with the contributions they made to the scientific community. If you have evidence of any kind to the contrary, please, don't be bashful.

That actually was not a fallacy. I think I made it very clear that they objected to Galileo for reasons that are not in the Bible. Well unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that moving the earth out of the center of the universe is a means of glorifying it, which of course you can’t because it’s not in there. So my claim that they were objecting on non-biblical grounds is completely accurate, and not fallacious.

I'm sure you're sure of that.I'm also sure that you don't know what you're talking about.

The Admonition and False Injunction of 1616

In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe. What, if Copernicus were right, would be the sense of Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"? Pressured later to apologize for his attack, Lorini later said that he "said a couple of words to the effect that the doctrine of Ipernicus [sic], or whatever his name is, was against Holy Scripture."

That sounds like bible-based reasons to me.

Pulling a smattering of quotes out of the Bible and trying to compare them all is bad exegesis, every Bible scholar knows not to do this.

Indeed. It might show the clear and obvious contradictions, like the one I highlighted.
Bad exegesis might be a good reason for you to not think critically about your fantasy story the way you would other books, but clearly that's not a hang up I care to indulge.
Way to avoid the point of that whole exercise, btw. You're clearly quite able to weasel out of any discussion through misdirection of the topic.

No not a problem at all. I’ll let Dr. Sproul answer this one since he is more of a Biblical Scholar than either of us…
[url] http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/number...god-how-c/[/url]

Yeah, let me now when he actually answers my statements because there clearly was no answer in that article.

You just proved my point! The article you pointed me to talked of calculating the one way speed of light by measuring two way speeds off of the mirror on the moon. This of course is not directly measuring the one way speed of light; it is calculating the one way speed of light by measuring the two way speed of light. So my original claim stands un-refuted, it is impossible to directly measure the one way speed of light due to relativity.

It is sooOOOoo cute when you think you've gotten a one-over on me.
Science clearly isn't your strong suit.