RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
Actually your post didn’t take me much time at all to reply to because it was just a matter of pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of basic exegesis. Captain’s took a bit more time.
Quote:
Oh brother, Creationists developed the scientific method!!! It’s as simple as that, so of course they use it. Hate to break it to you, everyone “ignores” evidence that contradicts their worldview because they use their worldview to interpret the evidence. Go to any scientific convention today and I challenge you to stand up in the middle of the room and shout “Isaac Newton was not a real scientist!” You’ll be laughed out of the room. This is a silly game that has been disproven time and time again. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is not anymore more valid when you commit it than anyone else.
Quote: 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.
You call me ignorant and then you post this? First of all, a Creation Scientist developed the scientific method, you’re welcome.
Secondly, everyone has a worldview, and everyone interprets the evidence according to their worldview. You should study up on the basic nature of evidence before you post things like this.
Quote: 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.
I am sorry but this is just more ignorant intellectual refuse. Of course scientists have preconceived ideas and presuppositions. I’ll list a few for ya.
1. Their senses can be generally trusted.
2. Their memories are generally reliable.
3. There is expected uniformity in nature; the future will resemble the past generally.
4. If they are naturalists then they believe beforehand that all truth claims can be found in nature alone.
5. There are laws of logic that need to be adhered to.
Of course all scientists hold the above preconceived ideas before they conduct any science, you suggesting they do not is ridiculous.
Quote: "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.
Again, more garbage. Creation scientists work at some of the most prestigious labs in the world and have helped with some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in modern history (The Apollo Space Program for example). So keep making these ridiculous claims, they are easy to respond to.
Quote: 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.
Where do you come up with this stuff? They conducted scientific inquiry using the scientific method when it came to operational sciences, just like every other creation scientist out there. So this in no way makes them secular. When it comes to origins sciences they had no beef at all with believing in a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago just like creation scientists today. I am sorry, but I will let the actual developer of the scientific method determine what is and is not appropriate science rather than your misinformed opinion.
I didn’t realize you were the final authority on what is and is not proper astronomy haha. Since you seem to believe that there are “true” and “false” synchronism conventions despite what Einstein said on the subject; do you also believe there are “true” and “false” measurements of length and weight? Is saying something is a mile long instead of 1609 meters “false” in your view? You are small time man.
Quote: 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.
Using the Einstein Synchronism Convention yes, nobody is disputing that. You just need to read up on synchronism conventions I guess.
Yup! Very good. I have no idea why you would apply rules that only apply when using the ESC to the ASC. I think it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what synchrony conventions really are.
I hope you don’t do this all the time, “No that can’t be one inch long! That violates the metric measurement system! It has to be 2.54 Cm long!” “Well I was using the English measurement system, not the metric.” “What! The English measurement system? That doesn’t even exist!” lol.
special relativity Wrote: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.
Yup! Guess what synchrony convention that uses!! ESC! Guess what synchonry convention Dr. Lisle is using! ASC. So again, why you would make this silly argument is beyond me. Like Einstein said, there is no “true” measurement of time, therefore as long as you declare which synchrony convention you are using (As Lisle has) you are completely in step with old Albert.
Quote: The ASC paper gets funnier the more you read it when I realized that this person lacks a basic understanding of astronomy.
Yeah because it’s not like he has a Ph.D in astrophysics (graduating top of his class at Colorado), did his graduate work with NASA’s SOHO Spacecraft, and is a member of the American Astronomical Society. I think it’s pretty obvious that it is you who needs to brush up on your physics and astronomy. I don’t even like astronomy and I have been able to point out your errors.
Ahh! So people during Bible times were “dumb” enough to think the earth was flat, but “smart” enough to know that circular objects have ‘corners’? Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Besides, you atheists can’t ever agree on this point, most atheists I have talked to believe the Bible describes the earth as flat and square. I guess your other question can be turned around on you, how do you know when any author is using a metaphor? Usually you take into account the intent of the piece of writing, just as I have done here. The Bible was never intending to inform its readers about the shape of the earth, as I have pointed out before they were quite aware of its real shape anyways.
What a waste of time. I think it’s beyond obvious when the Bible is using a metaphor and apparently so does every major theologian throughout church history. It’s even more apparent when a person examines the original Hebrew because of the verb usage. Take a look at the example you used about God sitting above the circle of the earth watching over the people below like grasshoppers. Of course God is not actually sitting above the earth and the earth is not actually a flat circle. This verse is using anthropomorphic language to illustrate a point. God is omnipresent and omniscient, so he knows all and is everywhere. So his relationship to man is like he is watching over him from far above where he can see all he does. I thought this was pretty obvious, it’s obvious to me and all major theologians, I am still a bit perplexed as to why it is not obvious to you. Then again, the Bible says it is, you just suppress the truth (Romans 1).
Well it’s probably because what you request is more of a fool’s errand than anything else. It would be no different than me saying, “Prove to me that Poe really didn’t believe that Ravens had eyes made of fire.” You would go about doing this exactly as I have with the Bible. You would say, “Well the intent of the passage is not to inform the reader about the material that Raven’s eyes are made of.” Or even, “Well it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor because we know that Raven’s do not have fire in their eyes.” To all of which I could just say, “You are not providing me with any reason to believe that Poe didn’t really believe Ravens had fire in their eyes.” So in short, you are asking for a level of proof that cannot be given no matter what the piece of writing and who the author. I think looking at the author’s intent and the manner in which the terms are used is pretty reasonable.
Quote: 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.
Oh good, well then you can’t really object to the text then because it just says Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth. It never says how he was shown all the kingdoms, so I don’t see any issue with the text. I believe Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms, exactly what the text says happened.
Quote: 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.
Ok, sure, you go ahead and believe the sun orbits the earth; I’ll believe the earth orbits the sun from the framework of the sun.
You are just making these rules up again. If Poe had described the Raven as having fiery eyes every time we see it in the story I still would not think that Poe really thought Ravens had eyes made of fire. I would still think that he is using a metaphor. You seemed to have also ignored the passage in Luke that talks of day and night happening simultaneously on earth which of course implies a spherical earth. So there are times the Bible implies a spheroid, just not when it is using metaphors to convey different points to the readers.
Quote: I suggested that the earth is moving regardless of what 'frame of refence' you have: a notion that completely contradicts the passage I quoted.
Nope sorry, the earth never moves in relation to itself, just as a car is never moving in relation to the car. Basic physics.
Again you are just making these rules up. Myself and all the major theologians throughout history think it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor, but what do they know? They only spent their entire lives studying this book.
Simile and Metaphor in Descriptive Writing Wrote: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.
That’s not the same rule you were using before. You said the metaphor has to be constructed exactly the same as a simile just minus the “as” or “like”. This definition clearly does not say that, and to the contrary says metaphors can be constructed just like statements (despite what you said earlier) like “The Air is syrup”.
Quote: Then you're clearly the only one of the two of us who have heard it used.
Apparently.
Oh brother, they can trace lineage yes, but they cannot tell from my genes how long my great great great grandfather lived. To suggest that is ridiculous. A shortening of telomeres could have very easily happened at the bottleneck event of the flood, just so happens that we stop seeing such extended lifespans after this event. Has nothing to do with evolution, in fact genetics shows us that we are in fact “devolving” since the number of known genetic disorders and diseases is far greater today than it was in the past, which of course is exactly what we would expect from a biblical point of view. Dr. Robert Carter is a geneticist and has done extensive work with gene sequencing and he sees no problem with people having greatly extended lifespans in early history, I will take his word for it.
Quote: ... not what the bible says, but good try all the same.
Really? Which passage? I noticed you didn’t give one. So my point stands un-refuted. I don’t think you want to enter into a theology discussion with me my friend.
Quote: You realize that your view of God's character is at odds with his actions in the bible, right?
Actually it is very much consistent with God’s actions in the Bible. God is perfection, truth, and determines what is right and wrong so whatever he does is good by definition. To say otherwise shows a basic ignorance of Christian theology.
Quote: 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.
According to whom? You? I am sorry, you do not determine right and wrong for me.
Quote: 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.
I noticed you failed to point out how babies are not cosmic accidents without any real value in your worldview. So I guess the point stand un-refuted.
Quote: Murder is murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.
Definition of Murder Wrote: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).
So murder didn’t exist before Noah Webster told us what it was? Besides, it says there it is covered by US Law, of course US Law does not apply to God because it applies to humans only, a point I already made. Go ahead and keep on trying to apply America’s legal definitions to God though, it’s kind of funny. If God really did commit murder maybe you should try and bring him to trial and see how far you get lol.
Quote: 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.
To the contrary! It’s the Christian worldview that gives humans the highest values since they are created in God’s image. You just believe we are a bunch of animals, so we have no more value than the bacteria in my toilet. God does treat his children greatly; he gives them all saving grace. We are not his children until we are given saving grace, so every one of his adopted children spends eternity in heaven. Do you even read the Bible? Lol.
Quote: 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.
Actually because the Bible gives us the only basis for the preconditions of intelligibility it is directly responsible for everything we have discovered in science. Without the Bible being true conducting science would not only be a waste of time, but the practice of science and obtaining any knowledge would be impossible. So you should be thankful that we live in a biblically accurate universe where you can do science.
National Geographic actually had a special on this recently that disagrees with your wikipedia article. They are a bit more of a scholarly source in my humble opinion
Oh come on now :-) Scripture quite clearly says that God uses means to accomplish his pre-ordained ends. Look at Job. It actually cost me nothing, and I learned from the experience, so it wa sno big deal. I have faith it will all work out for good in the end, and thus far it has. By the way, how have you been? I am looking forward to reading your reply my friend.
