Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

It actually does not violate any laws of Conservation. It's more of just a "rescue mechanism" which are used all the time in Science, see dark matter, dark energy, and oort clouds. So Creationists are not the only ones who use this tactic. The Big Bang has its own starlight issue, so it's a problem for everyone. That's why it comes more down to worldviews than the evidence.

So, all the starlight in the universe/galaxy was instantly created in situ but this does not violate the law of conservation of energy?

Also, the term ‘Rescue Mechanism’ is being misused here. You see them as something conjured up ad hoc to suit any gap in the evidence. What is actually happening is that theories are proposed based on current knowledge. These theories are not accepted as true, they are posed for further investigation and validation. In essence you misrepresented the process when you said;

Like I said, secular scientists invoke their own form of the super-natural when they create un-observable entities such as dark matter, dark energy, and oort clouds. How are these any different than the "God did it" argument? "Let's see, Comets can't last longer than 10,000 years, we see comets today even though the Universe is much older than that, sooooo . . . there must be some magical place we have never seen that makes these comets and spits them out! We will call it an oort cloud and people will believe it exists!". I find it interesting you are not nearly as critical of these arguments on your side of the aisle.

There is no invocation of the ‘super natural’ here; new theories were proposed to suit the observations. These theories are abstract but are modelled on plausible natural ideas. They haven’t been accepted or popularised as true in any way. They are working theories nothing more.

Whereas the ‘God did it’ argument is invoked as an end to the investigation i.e. “We have no current idea how this phenomenon occurs therefore ‘God did it’”.

How do you know that I am not critical of the arguments you mentioned? We’ve never discussed them. All you’ve done is assume something about me and then criticise me for it. In actual fact Statler I am quite critical of these arguments, I don’t accept them as fact but I feel they are plausible. I’m content to allow them to be investigated and see where it leads.

That's just it, there is no such thing as a "simple assumption". Just because your and my worldviews share these assumptions does not make them "simple" or something everyone assumes.

What I’m saying Statler is that these ‘simple assumptions’ have no bearing on the practice of science. They do not overly affect the interpretation of results.

So you are saying that Science always leans towards the most plausible explaination? So let's take Abiogenesis, even with taking into account all the random interactions in the universe since the beginning, the chance of assembling life without intelligent direction is equivalent to guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try. Yet many Scientists believe in Abiogenesis. So it's obvious they do not always lean towards the most plausible explaination since this one is a statistically impossible one.

Tried and failed argument from implausibility. Just because something is implausible does not make it impossible. It may be implausible but it only had to happen once.

Furthermore, what is the more plausible alternative you’re suggesting? If it is ‘god’ then one would be begging the question; how is it that this ‘creator god’ came around without any intelligent direction and is much, much more complicated than the life forms generated by abiogenesis.

‘An eyewitness account’? Is this the Bible?

You can’t summarily claim it as an eye witness account Statler. Its historical accuracy has been widely refuted and only your small (YEC) subdivision of Christianity interprets it the way you do. Others interpret it metaphorically and so on. The majority of Christians in fact do not believe in a Young Earth so your use of the bible is entirely subjective. Furthermore, you use the bible on its self-proclaimed correctness. In light of this claiming it as an eye witness account and basing your argument on it is absurd.

Oh, and we use different dating techniques for different types of material. So using them all arbitrarily would create foolish numbers. The techniques need to be applied in certain circumstances not ad hoc.
You make inference to the best possible solution? What about the fact that global geology shows no evidence of a flood. The fact that we can see structures which were supposedly being built in the time of the flood which were not annihilated by the raging torrents? And all the other evidence you have been shown since arriving here.

[quote=‘Statler Waldorf’]

I just find it interesting that you don't care whether those stories are true or not. If they are true I think it points to a lot of bad science on your side of the aisle. Thta is probably why you thumb your nose at these stories.

I don’t care because you have yet to prove the validity of them. They are just your stories, full stop. Even if they were true, they point to a limited number of exceptions to the general nature of secular science not a whole sale issue. If you wanted me to consider them you’d prove they are factual.

Well I can just point you to the Discovery article I already did. Many reviewers are not concerned with the evidence, they are concerned more with the implications of the article. An article that rightfully destroyed Darwinian Evolution would NEVER get published in a secular journal and you know it. Darwin has become some kind of Science God and to question his findings or even originality of his work (since a Creationist published work on Natural Selection before Darwin even took his voyage) is very similiar to someone bashing the pope in front of a group of Catholics.

Again, one article. One Limited set of reviewers.Thats not enough for the sweeping generalisations your trying to force. You’re not proving anything except one possible case of overzealous reviewing which I read differently to you. You can’t just make claims like ‘an article that destroyed Darwinian Evolution would never get published’ I don’t know this and you don’t know this. Why? Because every experiment conducted into the subject thus far has confirmed it. Trying to argue against it in this way is foolish Statler.

Darwin has become some kind of Science God and to question his findings or even originality of his work (since a Creationist published work on Natural Selection before Darwin even took his voyage) is very similiar to someone bashing the pope in front of a group of Catholics.

This is just an assertion you’ve dreamed up based on your own assumptions about secular scientists. Just another case of you sweeping a giant generalisation you have no proof of.

So you mean to tell me that I could get a Creation research paper published in "Evolution" Journal? Please, you have got to be kidding me. They want articles that all support Darwinian Evolution and you know it. There is actually nothing wrong with this approach, if I want an article that supports Darwinian Evolution I can pick up Evolution Journal, if I want one that supports Creation I can pick up The Journal of Creation- as long as all the journals are available this is not censorship and is a very effective system. When groups say, "well there journals are not scientific because we have changed the definition of what we consider science" this then becomes censorship. Luckily, it is not my side that is doing this.

Please stop saying ‘and you know it’ Statler. Its fucking annoying beyond belief. I don’t know them Statler because they’re you’re assertions . . . don’t try and bolster them by making it seem I’m just shying away from them.

Again, you’re just asserting something about secular journals. I’ll ask you again; Go to their submission guidelines like I did with your ‘Answers’ journal and support your claim.

The reason you can’t publish creationism in secular journals is because the entire thing is based in one way or another on faith and the assumption that the bible is correct. As this is yet to receive any corroboratory evidence, in any field, it has no place in science.

The difference I’m trying to point out is that all secular journals allow any type of article as long as the science (inclusive of any assumptions) is sound and it is related to the scope of the journal. Whereas your creation journals wouldn’t even allow a YEC article which went against the theory of a global flood. It’s ridiculous and basically a method of disseminating propaganda specific to one niche belief.

Actually it would be inappropriate for me or Dr. Lisle to argue against an illogical argument logically. So we must first point out the logical fallacies in these arguments. Once your side corrects these fallacies and presents a logically valid argument then we can began to address the issue on logical grounds.

So, you’ll just look for minor logical fallacies so that you can dodge the actual issue at hand. That is a poor style of debating which merely shield you from having to address the points being presented against you.

[chasm]

I bet you he won't reply. And if he does, he'll say "Go to the Balcony".

[orogenicman]

I bet you he won't reply. And if he does, he'll say "Go to the Balcony".

Not so. The Balcony is now closed.

[Anomalocaris]

I bet you he won't reply. And if he does, he'll say "Go to the Balcony".

Not so. The Balcony is now closed.

It was a humanitarian gesture to prevent him from falling off.

[Dotard]

I think he hasn't left us yet. He'll prob return with new and enlighting answers to all of our questions.

Although I cannot see how he will come up with evidence to back his assertion "we see events that violate natural laws quite often".

Right now he is probably just busy with all his church friends telling them how he has been doing battle against Satan® and his faith remains unscathed or some such self servient ego bolstering bullshit that makes him feel better about himself.

[superstarr]

I see it being funny when we don't know something, therefore God did it. How many things have we "un-God did it"?

[Anomalocaris]

I see it being funny when we don't know something, therefore God did it. How many things have we "un-God did it"?

That may be iron age mentality and may be funny. But when we know something, and still some says god did it, that's a monkey mentality with a vote and it isn't funny.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I'll reserve a spot here, now that I've mostly returned from my unforseen absence and I'll probably have something to say if this 'conversation' continues.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

So, all the starlight in the universe/galaxy was instantly created in situ but this does not violate the law of conservation of energy?

Also, the term ‘Rescue Mechanism’ is being misused here. You see them as something conjured up ad hoc to suit any gap in the evidence. What is actually happening is that theories are proposed based on current knowledge. These theories are not accepted as true, they are posed for further investigation and validation. In essence you misrepresented the process when you said;

There is no invocation of the ‘super natural’ here; new theories were proposed to suit the observations. These theories are abstract but are modelled on plausible natural ideas. They haven’t been accepted or popularised as true in any way. They are working theories nothing more.

Whereas the ‘God did it’ argument is invoked as an end to the investigation i.e. “We have no current idea how this phenomenon occurs therefore ‘God did it’”.

How do you know that I am not critical of the arguments you mentioned? We’ve never discussed them. All you’ve done is assume something about me and then criticise me for it. In actual fact Statler I am quite critical of these arguments, I don’t accept them as fact but I feel they are plausible. I’m content to allow them to be investigated and see where it leads.

---

Well I don’t believe that the beams of light were created in place, but it does not violate the law of conservation of energy because that is a natural law that would have been created simultaneously. You guys always make the error of assuming that the laws of nature predate nature itself, which cannot happen.

I disagree with your assessment of rescue mechanisms. Oort clouds have never been observed, yet many textbooks talk of them as if they are a proven fact; which of course is ridiculous. Old-Earthers just know that Comets can’t last longer than 10,000 years, rather than re-evaluating their old-universe ideas they create a magical cloud of ice that can magically spit out comets every now and then. Have we observed this ever to happen? Nope. It’s a super-natural explanation dressed up in a tuxedo.

So despite these things never being observed, you find them “plausible”? Sounds a bit like a Flying Spaghetti Monster belief system to me.

---

Tried and failed argument from implausibility. Just because something is implausible does not make it impossible. It may be implausible but it only had to happen once.

Furthermore, what is the more plausible alternative you’re suggesting? If it is ‘god’ then one would be begging the question; how is it that this ‘creator god’ came around without any intelligent direction and is much, much more complicated than the life forms generated by abiogenesis.

---

So you believe in things because you think they are “plausible”, but then you turn around and believe in things that you admit are “implausible” because they only have to happen once? So you essentially will believe in anything then? In an interview Richard Dawkins stated that he is “99.99” percent sure that God does not exist, so this would mean that he is 0.01 percent open to God existing. This means according to a poster child of Evolution it is a lot more plausible that God exists than than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try, so then will you believe in God ? Somehow I think you will not, despite your previous reasoning on the subject.

As to your question about “who created God?” I will set up a simple logically valid syllogism for you since valid logic is important to me.

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning.

Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: God is eternal, he has no beginning.

Conclusion: God has no cause.

So just using logic we can easily concur that the “God needs a creator” argument is not logically valid.

---

‘An eyewitness account’? Is this the Bible?

You can’t summarily claim it as an eye witness account Statler. Its historical accuracy has been widely refuted and only your small (YEC) subdivision of Christianity interprets it the way you do. Others interpret it metaphorically and so on. The majority of Christians in fact do not believe in a Young Earth so your use of the bible is entirely subjective. Furthermore, you use the bible on its self-proclaimed correctness. In light of this claiming it as an eye witness account and basing your argument on it is absurd.

Oh, and we use different dating techniques for different types of material. So using them all arbitrarily would create foolish numbers. The techniques need to be applied in certain circumstances not ad hoc.
You make inference to the best possible solution? What about the fact that global geology shows no evidence of a flood. The fact that we can see structures which were supposedly being built in the time of the flood which were not annihilated by the raging torrents? And all the other evidence you have been shown since arriving here.

---

The Bible is not historically accurate? Then why did I just see a program on National Geographic where they were using scripture to find the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? They found the two cities exactly where Scripture said they were and they also found evidence of catastrophe in both cities. The Bible is used in Archeology more than any other holy book.

Well yes certain dating methods are meant for different materials, like radio-carbon dating is meant for organic matter and radio-metric dating is used for igneous rocks. However, when we use just different radio-metric methods on the same igneous rock you get vastly different ages. Sometimes these ages vary by a billion years! What kind of accuracy is that? When we use these methods to date igneous rocks of known ages we get ages that are sometimes thousands of times in error. We never get the correct age. So why would we assume that a method that never gives the correct age on material that has known ages would give the correct age on material that has unknown ages? Sounds like blind-faith to me.

All structures that exist today post-date the global flood. The methods used to date these prior to the flood are shaky at best and use false assumptions.

The Earth is full of evidence for a global flood and I would encourage you to read some of the literature on the subject.

I don’t care because you have yet to prove the validity of them. They are just your stories, full stop. Even if they were true, they point to a limited number of exceptions to the general nature of secular science not a whole sale issue. If you wanted me to consider them you’d prove they are factual.

Again, one article. One Limited set of reviewers.Thats not enough for the sweeping generalisations your trying to force. You’re not proving anything except one possible case of overzealous reviewing which I read differently to you. You can’t just make claims like ‘an article that destroyed Darwinian Evolution would never get published’ I don’t know this and you don’t know this. Why? Because every experiment conducted into the subject thus far has confirmed it. Trying to argue against it in this way is foolish Statler.

First of all, how else do you prove a person event is true rather than saying the event is true? Not sure what else you’d like, kind of ridiculous standards.

Secondly, first it was “No there are no biased reviewers, they just look at the Science”, now it is “Well these are only a few cases of bias, that’s not the norm.”. Moving the goal posts to try and win a discussion is pretty lame.

---

Please stop saying ‘and you know it’ Statler. Its fucking annoying beyond belief. I don’t know them Statler because they’re you’re assertions . . . don’t try and bolster them by making it seem I’m just shying away from them.

Again, you’re just asserting something about secular journals. I’ll ask you again; Go to their submission guidelines like I did with your ‘Answers’ journal and support your claim.

The reason you can’t publish creationism in secular journals is because the entire thing is based in one way or another on faith and the assumption that the bible is correct. As this is yet to receive any corroboratory evidence, in any field, it has no place in science.

The difference I’m trying to point out is that all secular journals allow any type of article as long as the science (inclusive of any assumptions) is sound and it is related to the scope of the journal. Whereas your creation journals wouldn’t even allow a YEC article which went against the theory of a global flood. It’s ridiculous and basically a method of disseminating propaganda specific to one niche belief.

---

No reason to get grumpy.

So you really believe that secular journals will allow any kind of article as long as it has “sound” science? Well let’s take a look at the secular journal track record. We will examine this track record in how it relates to two assertions you made.

Assertion 1: In order to conduct good science you must get published in secular journals.
Assertion 2: The secular peer review process is fair and only critiques the “Science” and nothing else.

Important note: Editors have the final say in what is published in their journals, not the reviewers themselves.

So let’s look at the first assertion, if good science can only be done by people who are peer reviewed and good science always gets published then there should not be any cases that disprove this right? Actually the cases are numerous! Here are some examples…

Case 1: Watson’s and Crick’s work on DNA and the double helix was never peer-reviewed. Bad science? I sure hope not.

Case 2: The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. R Mayer. Mayer’s work was rejected by the leading German physics journal Annalen der Physik. Does this mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not scientifically valid? I sure hope not..

Case 3: Enrico Fermi’s paper on weak interaction theory of beta decay was rejected by the journal “Nature”. Does this mean Fermi was not a real Scientist? Was his work not scientific? I sure hope not.

Even the journal “Nature” admitted (Oct, 2003) it has made huge mistakes by rejecting solid scientific research for publication.
“‘There are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.”

So since it is apparent that good science can be rejected by these beloved journals, now the question naturally arises, “well can bad science get published in secular journals?”. The answer is of course yes. Let’s look at a few examples.

Case 1: The Piltdown man hoax, was published in numerous secular journals and was not labeled a hoax for 40 years.
Case 2: Hwang Woo-suk, falsified data relating to his embryonic stem cell/cloning research was published in “Nature” numerous times.
Case 3: Fraudulent work on superconductivity by Jan Hendrik Schon was published in Nature from 2000 to 2001.

Case 4: German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten systematically falsified the dates on numerous ‘stone age’ relics for nearly 30 years and was published in numerous secular journals.

So since the first assertion appears to be false, let’s look at the second one, do reviewers actually only look at the “Science” and nothing else? Let’s look at what a few actual editors of Journals say on the subject.

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
-Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet

“Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.”
- Robert Higgs, editor of the Independent Review



“Scientists are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to get research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.”

- Dr. Evelleen Richards, University of New South Wales

Now let’s look at the belief that Creationists are rejected only after their work is looked at and found to be non-scientific. According to Karl Giberson, editor of Research News & Opportunities in Science this is simply not the case. Looks like they are rejected before the work is even examined; it also looks like extra measures (dishonest ones) are taken to sway people’s opinions on the subject.
“If an editor chooses to publish a hostile review of a book, common politeness would suggest that the author ought to have some space to respond. But editors have a “higher calling” than common politeness, namely the editorial mission and guidelines that inform every decision as to what will be printed and what will be rejected. I have learned, since becoming the editor of Research News, common politeness is often in tension with editorial priorities … In my editorial judgment, the collection of ideas known as “scientific creationism” (which is not the same as intelligent design) lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?”
- Karl Giberson

Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci also did a study on bias in these journals. They changed the names on certain articles that had been published at one point and re-submitted them. What they found was that the majority of these articles were rejected the second time only because o the names on the article. The reviewers were unaware that the articles were duplicates of previously accepted articles. They also found that this was the case when the institutes were changed from more prestigious ones to less known universities. So t is obvious that a lot of reviewers base their suggestions on names and universities rather than the “Science” in the article.

So it’s pretty apparent that the peer-review system on your side of the aisle is pretty corrupt and not trustworthy. To think that you ot on my about the Answers Journal wanting actual Creation articles for their journal  It is also important to note that no creation journal has ever had a case of fraud. I trust them, and for good reason. So the next time someone says, “Well Creationists don’t get published in our journals!” (a false statement), I think the best response a creationist can have is, “Thank God!”.

So, you’ll just look for minor logical fallacies so that you can dodge the actual issue at hand. That is a poor style of debating which merely shield you from having to address the points being presented against you.

Minor logical fallacies? There is no such ting, all the ones I have pointed out are quite major I assure you. It’s actually the best way to debate. There are two ways to refute an article, you can either point out the invalid logic used by the presenter, or you can demonstrate that one of the two premises is false. Why would I ignore a golden opportunity to refute an argument by ignoring a logical fallacy? It makes my job very easy. Maybe you guys should use proper logic and force me to demonstrate one of the premises is false? Thus far, nobody has even gotten to that point.

I appreciate the dialogue and I find it quite interesting. Keep it up, and I will keep an eye out for your response Sam. I am tired now, and going to go watch some NFL Total Access, haha.

---

[quote='chasm' pid='103100' dateline='1288708471']
I bet you he won't reply. And if he does, he'll say "Go to the Balcony".
Oh no! Why would you commit yourself to something that can be so easily disproven? I obviously did respond and I did not say "go to the balcony". Tootles.

[orogenicman]

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning.

Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: God is eternal, he has no beginning.

Conclusion: God has no cause.

---

The Bible is not historically accurate?

No more so than a James Pattern novel can be considered to be historically accurate.

Then why did I just see a program on National Geographic where they were using scripture to find the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? They found the two cities exactly where Scripture said they were and they also found evidence of catastrophe in both cities. The Bible is used in Archeology more than any other holy book.

Just because the Bible references historical places and landmarks doesn't mean that all of the Bible is true. Catholics and Jews understand that the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally, and since they wrote the books contained in it, I'll go with that. The Bible says that slavery and bigomy is acceptable. Do you believe that is true?

Well yes certain dating methods are meant for different materials, like radio-carbon dating is meant for organic matter and radio-metric dating is used for igneous rocks. However, when we use just different radio-metric methods on the same igneous rock you get vastly different ages. Sometimes these ages vary by a billion years! What kind of accuracy is that? When we use these methods to date igneous rocks of known ages we get ages that are sometimes thousands of times in error. We never get the correct age. So why would we assume that a method that never gives the correct age on material that has known ages would give the correct age on material that has unknown ages? Sounds like blind-faith to me.

Well, not one word of that nonsense is true.

All structures that exist today post-date the global flood. The methods used to date these prior to the flood are shaky at best and use false assumptions.

The Earth is full of evidence for a global flood and I would encourage you to read some of the literature on the subject.

I find it rather convenient that you make such extraordinary claims and yet refuse to meet me for an afternoon of real field geology so you can be shown that such claims are nothing but lies. If you are so certain of your facts, what are you afraid of?