• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Young-Earth Creationists: Please Provide Physical Evidence For Creationism

Ikari said:
In general scientific proof is "moot" but specifically to the YEC, knowledge of a measurable system has been made. The Earth is 6000 years old. This is a measurable quantity. At this point we leave the realm of purely philosophical debate and enter the verifiable world of measurement and science.
Click to expand...

I think this misses the point. I'm not even sure what it would mean to measure how old the earth is. What one measures are things like rock stratification, decay rates of unstable molecules, and so on. From those measurements, one infers on the basis of theory the age of the earth. Again, don't take me wrong; I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, or whatever it is YEC proponents claim. However, there's no way to rule out the possiblity that God created the world in such a way as to seem to be much older than it is. God could have created the world with just the right distribution of C-14 molecules in all the right places, for example. He could have created the world with fossils in the rocks, seashells buried ten feet under the summits of mountains, and the universe with just the right amount of red shift. Both theories (i.e. YEC and the scientific abdoxy) entail the same observations, which means that two ideal opponents both agree that they accept all the same evidence. Where they disagree is in how the evidence is to be taken. We have to choose on the basis of philosophical considerations which theory we want to accept.

My point, therefore, is that the YEC can accept all the same evidence that anyone else accepts, and claim that the evidence is not interpretted correctly. When we start talking about how to interpret evidence, whether anyone likes it or not, we're doing philosophy. The YEC can then claim that there are overriding philosophical concerns which incline to their viewpoint. But therefore, the restrictions imposed in the OP are impotent, because they don't grapple with the point that's really under contention. The main reason I am not a proponent of YEC is because the philosophy one would have to accept would be puerile at best. But since that's the real point under debate, it begs the question against the proponent of YEC to try to make the point the OP is trying to make.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think this misses the point. I'm not even sure what it would mean to measure how old the earth is. What one measures are things like rock stratification, decay rates of unstable molecules, and so on. From those measurements, one infers on the basis of theory the age of the earth. Again, don't take me wrong; I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, or whatever it is YEC proponents claim. However, there's no way to rule out the possiblity that God created the world in such a way as to seem to be much older than it is. God could have created the world with just the right distribution of C-14 molecules in all the right places, for example. He could have created the world with fossils in the rocks, seashells buried ten feet under the summits of mountains, and the universe with just the right amount of red shift. Both theories (i.e. YEC and the scientific abdoxy) entail the same observations, which means that two ideal opponents both agree that they accept all the same evidence. Where they disagree is in how the evidence is to be taken. We have to choose on the basis of philosophical considerations which theory we want to accept.

My point, therefore, is that the YEC can accept all the same evidence that anyone else accepts, and claim that the evidence is not interpretted correctly. When we start talking about how to interpret evidence, whether anyone likes it or not, we're doing philosophy. The YEC can then claim that there are overriding philosophical concerns which incline to their viewpoint. But therefore, the restrictions imposed in the OP are impotent, because they don't grapple with the point that's really under contention. The main reason I am not a proponent of YEC is because the philosophy one would have to accept would be puerile at best. But since that's the real point under debate, it begs the question against the proponent of YEC to try to make the point the OP is trying to make.
Click to expand...

That ol' trickster "god." Traditional Christianity believes "god" is omnibenevolent. That would override their claim then. Perhaps dystheism gains notoriety now?
 
Kindness said:
The title says it all. Young-earth creationists often try to poke holes in evolutionary theory in order to bolster their own beliefs, but the truth or falsity of creationism has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution. This thread is the place to provide positive, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of young-earth creationism.

What does count:
1) Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in favor of a young earth and/or special creation
2) Popular publications that cite peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in favor of a young earth and/or special creation
3) University conference papers in favor of a young earth and/or special creation

What doesn't count:
1) Bible verses
2) Arguments against evolution
3) Creationist websites like Answers in Genesis, DrDino, ICR, etc.
4) Arguments for God's existence (God can exist and creationism can still be false)

I'm interested in seeing your responses. :)
Click to expand...

None of that is even necessary when you've got faith.

. . . Baby
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think this misses the point. I'm not even sure what it would mean to measure how old the earth is. What one measures are things like rock stratification, decay rates of unstable molecules, and so on. From those measurements, one infers on the basis of theory the age of the earth. Again, don't take me wrong; I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, or whatever it is YEC proponents claim. However, there's no way to rule out the possiblity that God created the world in such a way as to seem to be much older than it is. God could have created the world with just the right distribution of C-14 molecules in all the right places, for example. He could have created the world with fossils in the rocks, seashells buried ten feet under the summits of mountains, and the universe with just the right amount of red shift. Both theories (i.e. YEC and the scientific abdoxy) entail the same observations, which means that two ideal opponents both agree that they accept all the same evidence. Where they disagree is in how the evidence is to be taken. We have to choose on the basis of philosophical considerations which theory we want to accept.

My point, therefore, is that the YEC can accept all the same evidence that anyone else accepts, and claim that the evidence is not interpretted correctly. When we start talking about how to interpret evidence, whether anyone likes it or not, we're doing philosophy. The YEC can then claim that there are overriding philosophical concerns which incline to their viewpoint. But therefore, the restrictions imposed in the OP are impotent, because they don't grapple with the point that's really under contention. The main reason I am not a proponent of YEC is because the philosophy one would have to accept would be puerile at best. But since that's the real point under debate, it begs the question against the proponent of YEC to try to make the point the OP is trying to make.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah...the whole "god's a lying jerk" defense. I mean, how do we know there are atoms? Maybe some god just made it so there looks like there are atoms; but there really isn't. I mean, you haven't seen an atom...have you? So we INFER that the atom exists.

Blah blah blah, we can wax stupid all we want; but this sort of "trickster" defense is lame, stupid, and pushes nothing. You claim a number, you claim a measurement; that's how it works. Once you claim something within the measurable realm, your claim can be verified.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah yeah...the whole "god's a lying jerk" defense. I mean, how do we know there are atoms? Maybe some god just made it so there looks like there are atoms; but there really isn't. I mean, you haven't seen an atom...have you? So we INFER that the atom exists.

Blah blah blah, we can wax stupid all we want; but this sort of "trickster" defense is lame, stupid, and pushes nothing. You claim a number, you claim a measurement; that's how it works. Once you claim something within the measurable realm, your claim can be verified.
Click to expand...



Yep, Loki and Trickster Coyote are lying around in Valhalla or Spider Woman's House, wasted out of their minds, laughing their asses off as they watch those stupid humans try and figure out the universe that the two wastrels created just for the fun of it. Every time the humans think they've got a grasp on the "Universe and Everything", one or the other creator changes the parameters just a little bit just to mess with the fools.
 
Kindness said:
The title says it all. Young-earth creationists often try to poke holes in evolutionary theory in order to bolster their own beliefs, but the truth or falsity of creationism has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution. This thread is the place to provide positive, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of young-earth creationism.

What does count:
1) Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in favor of a young earth and/or special creation
2) Popular publications that cite peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in favor of a young earth and/or special creation
3) University conference papers in favor of a young earth and/or special creation

What doesn't count:
1) Bible verses
2) Arguments against evolution
3) Creationist websites like Answers in Genesis, DrDino, ICR, etc.
4) Arguments for God's existence (God can exist and creationism can still be false)

I'm interested in seeing your responses. :)
Click to expand...

It might all be related to the following graphic:

ReligiousCircularLogic.jpg
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
That ol' trickster "god." Traditional Christianity believes "god" is omnibenevolent. That would override their claim then. Perhaps dystheism gains notoriety now?
Click to expand...

Well, that was Anselm's idea...but there have been plenty of others. Surely you're aware of at least some Christian traditions which conceive of omnibenevolence as consonant with a God who will save only a small portion of humanity, for example. I suspect most YEC proponents belong in one of those.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah yeah...the whole "god's a lying jerk" defense. I mean, how do we know there are atoms? Maybe some god just made it so there looks like there are atoms; but there really isn't. I mean, you haven't seen an atom...have you? So we INFER that the atom exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do infer them. The evidence we have for them would in principle be consistent with an indefinite number of other hypotheses.

Ikari said:
Blah blah blah, we can wax stupid all we want; but this sort of "trickster" defense is lame, stupid, and pushes nothing.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in what I said that requires a "trickster" defense. It could be that the facts of the universe would incline non-biased human beings to believe in YEC, but most of us are in the grip of some theory or other that keeps us from seeing the clear and simple truth.

Ikari said:
You claim a number, you claim a measurement; that's how it works.
Click to expand...

If your claim is that a claim that involves numbers necessarily involves measurement, your claim is obviously false. Here are a few counterexamples:

1) I like Paraguay 200% more than Indonesia.

2) The square root of -1 is imaginary, but the square root of 1 is not.

3) There are fewer than 1.69x10^140 points in the universe.

4) 2 is a prime number.

All of these are claims involving numbers. 1 is obviously not measurable (I could, for instance, state 1, but secretly like Indonesia and despise Paraguay). 2 is true by definition, but there's nothing we can measure to verify it. 3 is probably false, but again, how could we possibly measure it (even if we had universe-sized rulers)? 4 is also true by definition, but again, there's no measuring involved in making it true or false.

But again, this misses the point. The claims that:

1) The earth is ~5 billion years old

and

2) The earth is ~6000 years old

are not measurable. Their truth or falsity are inferred from other measurements. We have to interpret the data. And again, once we start doing that, we're doing philosophy, not science.

Ikari said:
Once you claim something within the measurable realm, your claim can be verified.
Click to expand...

May be false, depending on your definitions. One way to read that makes it practically a tautology. But if that's not how you mean it, it's also probably false. How would we verify, for instance, a claim that there are intelligent beings smaller than the Planck length?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes, we do infer them. The evidence we have for them would in principle be consistent with an indefinite number of other hypotheses.



There's nothing in what I said that requires a "trickster" defense. It could be that the facts of the universe would incline non-biased human beings to believe in YEC, but most of us are in the grip of some theory or other that keeps us from seeing the clear and simple truth.



If your claim is that a claim that involves numbers necessarily involves measurement, your claim is obviously false. Here are a few counterexamples:

1) I like Paraguay 200% more than Indonesia.

2) The square root of -1 is imaginary, but the square root of 1 is not.

3) There are fewer than 1.69x10^140 points in the universe.

4) 2 is a prime number.

All of these are claims involving numbers. 1 is obviously not measurable (I could, for instance, state 1, but secretly like Indonesia and despise Paraguay). 2 is true by definition, but there's nothing we can measure to verify it. 3 is probably false, but again, how could we possibly measure it (even if we had universe-sized rulers)? 4 is also true by definition, but again, there's no measuring involved in making it true or false.

But again, this misses the point. The claims that:

1) The earth is ~5 billion years old

and

2) The earth is ~6000 years old

are not measurable. Their truth or falsity are inferred from other measurements. We have to interpret the data. And again, once we start doing that, we're doing philosophy, not science.



May be false, depending on your definitions. One way to read that makes it practically a tautology. But if that's not how you mean it, it's also probably false. How would we verify, for instance, a claim that there are intelligent beings smaller than the Planck length?
Click to expand...
Reading scientific data is not philosophy....
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Reading scientific data is not philosophy....
Click to expand...

No, but deciding what it means is.
 
I think Ashurbanipal is right to an extent -- ultimately, the philosophical question of how evidence should be interpreted is important. A deceitful god could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago to look like it was billions of years ago, of course, such a god could have created the Earth 30 seconds ago in the same way.

In order to do science, we bracket such epistemological issues and assume our senses are valid and that we can learn about reality by analyzing empirical evidence. Without this assumption, science is impossible.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, but deciding what it means is.
Click to expand...
We are talking about the age of a planet there is no philosophy involved its scientifical data that determines the age there wasnt any philosophical thought involved.
Because of plate tectonics which recycles the Earths crust there are no primordial rocks to look at. SO scientists have a probable age based on things like the age of the solar system etc. The assumption is that the Earth is no older than the Solar system. But we have been able to analyse rock from the moon and primitive asteroids to give us a accurate age of the solar system. ANd there are some other things that also cofirm the age of the solar system. And the probability of Earth being a rogue planet caught up by our sun has no basis.

Again there isnt any philosophy involved its all just science.
 
Kindness said:
I think Ashurbanipal is right to an extent -- ultimately, the philosophical question of how evidence should be interpreted is important. A deceitful god could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago to look like it was billions of years ago, of course, such a god could have created the Earth 30 seconds ago in the same way.

In order to do science, we bracket such epistemological issues and assume our senses are valid and that we can learn about reality by analyzing empirical evidence. Without this assumption, science is impossible.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to assume the existence of a god. Why would anyone waste their time making wild assumptions about gods anyways? If we are going to put worth into gods we may as well just forget about science completely. Whats next are we to also include the imaginations of a child as well? Perhaps the Earth is only as old as the oldest story written by humans? Or perhaps the Earth is as old as what the nursery rhymes say? Any old wizard certainly could have made the Earth look old right?

Its silliness to make assumption about the stories told in folklore. Why stop with the Christian god why not also talk about North American indigenous folklore's as well?
 
I'm very much an atheist, I was simply pointing out that epistemology (the nature of knowledge / how we know what we know) cannot be ignored when talking about science.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes, we do infer them. The evidence we have for them would in principle be consistent with an indefinite number of other hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Some finite number along with a handful of base assumptions. But this is no different than radioactive decay or any other form of energy emmission which is measured. Yet here you claim that the inference of the atom is correct, yet the inference on the age of the earth could be wrong. At least try to aim for a touch of consistency in your arguments.

ashurbanipal said:
There's nothing in what I said that requires a "trickster" defense. It could be that the facts of the universe would incline non-biased human beings to believe in YEC, but most of us are in the grip of some theory or other that keeps us from seeing the clear and simple truth.
Click to expand...

Your entire thing IS the trickster defense. Some god or deity is tricking us. That's the trickster defense.

ashurbanipal said:
If your claim is that a claim that involves numbers necessarily involves measurement, your claim is obviously false. Here are a few counterexamples:
Click to expand...

And here's why you're wrong

ashurbanipal said:
1) I like Paraguay 200% more than Indonesia.
Click to expand...

Subjective; but if you really want to measure it then we hook electrodes to your head and measure brain activity and chemical levels

ashurbanipal said:
2) The square root of -1 is imaginary, but the square root of 1 is not.
Click to expand...

This is of course measured and defined

ashurbanipal said:
3) There are fewer than 1.69x10^140 points in the universe.
Click to expand...

Points of what? If you want to talk nonsense and say "well see blah blah blah"; then yes nonsense certainly will be nonsensical. If you're talking about particles, we know how many observable particles there can be.

ashurbanipal said:
4) 2 is a prime number.
Click to expand...

Measured system

ashurbanipal said:
All of these are claims involving numbers. 1 is obviously not measurable (I could, for instance, state 1, but secretly like Indonesia and despise Paraguay). 2 is true by definition, but there's nothing we can measure to verify it. 3 is probably false, but again, how could we possibly measure it (even if we had universe-sized rulers)? 4 is also true by definition, but again, there's no measuring involved in making it true or false.
Click to expand...

Those are all measurable systems. Thanks for proving my point.

Do people even take science anymore?

ashurbanipal said:
But again, this misses the point. The claims that:

1) The earth is ~5 billion years old

and

2) The earth is ~6000 years old

are not measurable. Their truth or falsity are inferred from other measurements. We have to interpret the data. And again, once we start doing that, we're doing philosophy, not science.
Click to expand...

The earth's age is a measurable quantity. Duh.

ashurbanipal said:
May be false, depending on your definitions. One way to read that makes it practically a tautology. But if that's not how you mean it, it's also probably false. How would we verify, for instance, a claim that there are intelligent beings smaller than the Planck length?
Click to expand...

Or we know time and we know certain decay rates and we know many other facts and numbers which allow us to accurately extract the age of the planet as well as the age of the universe.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, but deciding what it means is.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, it's science. Let's not be stupid. Philosophy is a powerful force and a necessary discipline. Yet data is data, the numbers are the numbers; and if you want to make a claim you must have the numbers which support your claim. That's it. If you say the earth is 6000 years old, the age of the earth being a measurable system, you produce that number to back the claim. If the number says something else, you don't just get to say "oh well maybe some god is tricking us all" or make up other stuff. The data is the data, the truth is in the data, the numbers are the numbers. Your claim either pans out or it dies; all on the back of data.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
We are talking about the age of a planet there is no philosophy involved its scientifical data that determines the age there wasnt any philosophical thought involved.
Click to expand...

No, that is false.

FreedomFromAll said:
Because of plate tectonics which recycles the Earths crust there are no primordial rocks to look at. SO scientists have a probable age based on things like the age of the solar system etc. The assumption is that the Earth is no older than the Solar system. But we have been able to analyse rock from the moon and primitive asteroids to give us a accurate age of the solar system. ANd there are some other things that also cofirm the age of the solar system. And the probability of Earth being a rogue planet caught up by our sun has no basis.

Again there isnt any philosophy involved its all just science.
Click to expand...

That all looks like there's philosophy involved to me. I'm a philosopher; I ought to recognize when philosophy is present. Philosophers invented science, especially in its modern manifestation. We wrote the rules by which scientists still operate. Why anyone would think scientists don't do philosophy as an integral part of their work is therefore not obvious to me.

For instance: why assume the earth is no older than the solar system? I'm not saying I don't agree, because I do, but that doesn't make the question meaningless. There was a reason that assumption was made. What was it?
 
Ikari said:
Some finite number along with a handful of base assumptions.
Click to expand...

Theories, taken as models, can be indefinitely modified depending on which base assumptions one takes. Quine pointed out that nothing is sacrosanct in this point; we might one day find some reason to give up one or more axioms of logic (indeed, the dialetheists are making a good case that we ought to give up the law of non-contradiction...we'll see whether they gain any traction in 20 years or so).

Ikari said:
But this is no different than radioactive decay or any other form of energy emmission which is measured.
Click to expand...

Yes, precisely no different.

Ikari said:
Yet here you claim that the inference of the atom is correct, yet the inference on the age of the earth could be wrong. At least try to aim for a touch of consistency in your arguments.
Click to expand...

I think both inferences are probably correct, but both could be wrong. That's not inconsistent. The original point was to reply to the OP that while it sounds good to come onto boards like these and demand evidence from YECers, it's actually rather feeble to do so, since YECers accept all the same evidence anyone else does. They give a radically different interpretation. The point under contention is not what the evidence is, but what we are to take the evidence as saying.

I'm saying this because I think YEC is stupid and should be defeated. But until you've clarified where the argument actually is, you cannot successfully argue. Until you can see the target clearly, you cannot hit it.

Ikari said:
Your entire thing IS the trickster defense. Some god or deity is tricking us. That's the trickster defense.
Click to expand...

No. I repeat:

Ash said:
There's nothing in what I said that requires a "trickster" defense. It could be that the facts of the universe would incline non-biased human beings to believe in YEC, but most of us are in the grip of some theory or other that keeps us from seeing the clear and simple truth.
Click to expand...

The trickster defense posits the notion that there is active deceit going on, of the sort that con men or stage magicians practice. I need nothing like that; it could be that we are deceiving ourselves, and God is simply disinclined to do anything about it. Perhaps God holds that human free will is paramount, and so despite a great desire to have us see the truth, is unwilling to interfere in our self deception. God may be in the position of a parent who sees an otherwise successful adult child make a horrible and life-changing decision. The parent may try to persuade or cajole, or even prevail upon friends to help, but ultimately, he or she can do nothing, because the child is free to make their own decisions. Indeed, the force of human self-deception in history is so powerful, I cannot imagine why we wouldn't be a little in awe of it.

Ikari said:
Subjective; but if you really want to measure it then we hook electrodes to your head and measure brain activity and chemical levels.
Click to expand...

I thought my claim was about how much I like Paraguay relative to Indonesia. Not about what chemicals and neurons are firing. Indeed, after careful examination, the words "I like Paraguay 200% more than Indonesia" don't make any mention about chemicals or neurons. If you think my liking something is reducible to chemicals and neurons, then you're doing philosophy, and in any case, no remotely successful reductive account of the mind/brain relation exists.

Ash: 2) The square root of -1 is imaginary, but the square root of 1 is not.

Ikari: This is of course measured and defined
Click to expand...
Really? Just what is being measured?

Ikari said:
Points of what?
Click to expand...
Id est geometrical points. You know, there are supposed to be an infinite number of them on a line. But how would we measure any claim about there being some number of points?
Ikari said:
Measured system
Click to expand...

Again, just what is being measured?

Ikari said:
Those are all measurable systems. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Hardly anything is proven until you can show me what is being measured. I take measurement to entail a physically realized process. Your remarks about points vs. particles leads me to believe you make the same assumption. So, what is being measured in the cases above? Show me something physical--if for example you claim that we can measure whether 2 is a prime number or not, I'll expect you can also measure things like the mass of the number 2, it's location in space, and so on.
Ikari said:
Do people even take science anymore?
Click to expand...

I don't know about 'people' but I've taken a great deal of science at the undergrad and graduate level from reputable western universities.

Ikari said:
The earth's age is a measurable quantity. Duh.
Click to expand...

Really? How much mass does the earth's age have? What is its location in spacetime? Can you break me off a chunk, stick it in an envelope, and mail it to me?
My point is that what's being measure are other things (all of which do have mass, location, and so on), and then age is inferred. That inferrence requires certain background assumptions. If you change those background assumptions, you change what the evidence tells us. And which background assumptions we choose, we choose for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Indeed, I don't even know what it would mean to choose background assumptions on scientific reasons.

Ikari said:
Or we know time and we know certain decay rates and we know many other facts and numbers which allow us to accurately extract the age of the planet as well as the age of the universe.
Click to expand...

This is consonant with the discussion above. But I don't know how this is a response to my point. You said:

Ikari said:
Once you claim something within the measurable realm, your claim can be verified.
Click to expand...

To which I replied:

Ikari said:
May be false, depending on your definitions. One way to read that makes it practically a tautology. But if that's not how you mean it, it's also probably false. How would we verify, for instance, a claim that there are intelligent beings smaller than the Planck length?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what time and certain decay rates and many other facts and numbers which allow us to accurately extract the age of the planet as well as the age of the universe have to do with this point.

Ikari said:
No it isn't, it's science. Let's not be stupid.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it's stupid to question assumptions? Do you believe it's stupid to try to get a clear picture of the overall contours of a debate?

Ikari said:
Philosophy is a powerful force and a necessary discipline.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I agree. I say the same thing about science.

Ikari said:
Yet data is data, the numbers are the numbers; and if you want to make a claim you must have the numbers which support your claim. That's it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ikari said:
If you say the earth is 6000 years old, the age of the earth being a measurable system, you produce that number to back the claim. If the number says something else, you don't just get to say "oh well maybe some god is tricking us all" or make up other stuff. The data is the data, the truth is in the data, the numbers are the numbers. Your claim either pans out or it dies; all on the back of data.
Click to expand...

This is unintelligible. YECers are producing a number--they say the number is ~6000 years. Are you saying they aren't telling us how old they think the earth is? Are you saying that, when challenged to put a number on the age of the earth, they claim there is a god who is tricking us all? I don't think they're doing any of those things.
 
ash said:
The original point was to reply to the OP that while it sounds good to come onto boards like these and demand evidence from YECers, it's actually rather feeble to do so, since YECers accept all the same evidence anyone else does. They give a radically different interpretation. The point under contention is not what the evidence is, but what we are to take the evidence as saying.
Click to expand...

It occurs to me that an illustration might help understanding. Suppose we posit two ideal debatants, one of them a believer in the standard accepted view about the age of the earth. We'll call this person 'scientist.' Against scientist is the opponent 'creationist,' who believes that the world is literally ~6000 years old. If the opening shot goes like this:

Scientist: give me evidence for your claim that the world is about 6000 years old.

The dialogue quickly degenerates into nothing that makes any progress, thus:

Creationist: very well, old chap. I cite all the evidence of science.

Scientist: You cannot be serious. The evidence of science forces us to conclude that the world is at least 4-and-a-half billion, and perhaps 6 billion, years old.

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: No, it doesn't!

Creationist: yes, it does!

Scientist: nu-uh!

Creationist: uh-huh!

OK, let's stop there. Clearly, the debate has lost any sense of intellectual rigor or insight on both sides. What scientist ought to do is reply this way:

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: What in the world makes you think that?

Creationist: Well, let's examine fossil evidence. We see fossils stuck in the strata of rocks. Given the terrible power of God and the fact that there was a primordial flood, it's clear that these are the bones of animals-wicked animals, since God turned them to stone after he killed them-that got stuck in the layers and layers of geological strata deposited by the swirling powerful waters of the flood.

Scientist: I see. I don't believe in any of that stuff. I think it's better to posit fewer entities where possible.

Creationist: whatever does that mean?

Scientist: it means that you're supposing too many entities--namely, God, and presumably angels, demons, and so on, if you really want to flesh out your account.

Creationist: So what?

Scientist: I operate by a principle, called the principle of parsimony. It says that, all other things being equal, the theory which posits fewer entities is the one to be preferred. My theory is simpler because I can explain everything your theory explains, but I can do it on fewer entities.

Creationist: Well, now, why should I accept this principle?

Scientist: For practical reasons if no other. Simpler theories are easier to modify or replace if we get them wrong. But there are other reasons. For example, the great regularity seen in nature seems to indicate that, at bottom, there is no person in the natural order. Persons seem to arise out of regular matter, not the other way around. So if we can ascribe regularity to something like the laws of nature, we should do that. And in doing so, we explain everything we need to explain without any reference to a mysterious entity.

.......................

Of course, the conversation is rather artificial. I think the real conversation, even between two ideal interlocutors, would be both much longer, and would cover the territory very differently. However, the point is that the creationist doesn't need to deny any observation the scientist takes to be true. The argument, therefore, lies in how those observations are to be interpretted.
 
ashurbanipal said:
It occurs to me that an illustration might help understanding. Suppose we posit two ideal debatants, one of them a believer in the standard accepted view about the age of the earth. We'll call this person 'scientist.' Against scientist is the opponent 'creationist,' who believes that the world is literally ~6000 years old. If the opening shot goes like this:

Scientist: give me evidence for your claim that the world is about 6000 years old.

The dialogue quickly degenerates into nothing that makes any progress, thus:

Creationist: very well, old chap. I cite all the evidence of science.

Scientist: You cannot be serious. The evidence of science forces us to conclude that the world is at least 4-and-a-half billion, and perhaps 6 billion, years old.

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: No, it doesn't!

Creationist: yes, it does!

Scientist: nu-uh!

Creationist: uh-huh!

OK, let's stop there. Clearly, the debate has lost any sense of intellectual rigor or insight on both sides. What scientist ought to do is reply this way:

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: What in the world makes you think that?

Creationist: Well, let's examine fossil evidence. We see fossils stuck in the strata of rocks. Given the terrible power of God and the fact that there was a primordial flood, it's clear that these are the bones of animals-wicked animals, since God turned them to stone after he killed them-that got stuck in the layers and layers of geological strata deposited by the swirling powerful waters of the flood.

Scientist: I see. I don't believe in any of that stuff. I think it's better to posit fewer entities where possible.

Creationist: whatever does that mean?

Scientist: it means that you're supposing too many entities--namely, God, and presumably angels, demons, and so on, if you really want to flesh out your account.

Creationist: So what?

Scientist: I operate by a principle, called the principle of parsimony. It says that, all other things being equal, the theory which posits fewer entities is the one to be preferred. My theory is simpler because I can explain everything your theory explains, but I can do it on fewer entities.

Creationist: Well, now, why should I accept this principle?

Scientist: For practical reasons if no other. Simpler theories are easier to modify or replace if we get them wrong. But there are other reasons. For example, the great regularity seen in nature seems to indicate that, at bottom, there is no person in the natural order. Persons seem to arise out of regular matter, not the other way around. So if we can ascribe regularity to something like the laws of nature, we should do that. And in doing so, we explain everything we need to explain without any reference to a mysterious entity.

.......................

Of course, the conversation is rather artificial. I think the real conversation, even between two ideal interlocutors, would be both much longer, and would cover the territory very differently. However, the point is that the creationist doesn't need to deny any observation the scientist takes to be true. The argument, therefore, lies in how those observations are to be interpretted.
Click to expand...

That hypothetical argument went on way too long. It should have went like this:

Scientist: give me evidence for your claim that the world is about 6000 years old.

The dialogue quickly degenerates into nothing that makes any progress, thus:

Creationist: very well, old chap. I cite all the evidence of science.

Scientist: You cannot be serious. The evidence of science forces us to conclude that the world is at least 4-and-a-half billion, and perhaps 6 billion, years old.

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: No, it doesn't!

Creationist: yes, it does!

Scientist: *Slap!*
 
Well, if hitting someone with whom I disagree makes me right, I have a new strategy to adopt, I suppose...
 
Knowledge=power said:
That hypothetical argument went on way too long. It should have went like this:

Scientist: give me evidence for your claim that the world is about 6000 years old.

The dialogue quickly degenerates into nothing that makes any progress, thus:

Creationist: very well, old chap. I cite all the evidence of science.

Scientist: You cannot be serious. The evidence of science forces us to conclude that the world is at least 4-and-a-half billion, and perhaps 6 billion, years old.

Creationist: speak for yourself. That's not what the evidence says. I've looked it all over quite carefully. It shows that the earth is ~6000 years old.

Scientist: No, it doesn't!

Creationist: yes, it does!

Scientist: *Slap!*
Click to expand...

It's measured. What all these other YECers here are trying to do is to try to argue that 3 is 1. Oh, it's not scientific, it's philosophy....3 can be 1 for small values of 3. 3 is 3. Deal with it.
 
X Factor said:
It was a theological question before it was ever a scientific one.
Click to expand...

Not really. Theology is mainly just the science of ages past. It's people clinging to what were reasonable explanations for physical phenomena at the time, but are no longer.

Fisher said:
So people have to argue for creation without acknowledging there was a creator---kind of a rigged slot machine you are running isn't it?
Click to expand...

Fine, take it as a given that god exists. Now prove that the world was created according to YEC. God existing has no bearing on the validity of that theory.


I find it very funny that the only responses in defense of YEC have basically been to discredit the idea that we can determine the age of the world. Either the numbers aren't reliable, or science is just assuming things, or our observations aren't reliable. Not that there is any evidence to discount the entirety of the scientific method, nor will these apologists stop using it for other areas that don't contradict their religion... but it must go when it makes them uncomfortable.

However, this argument demonstrates, I think, the future that religion must take in order to survive. No longer can religion make factual claims without evidence. It must abandon the elements of magic and superstition and deal with human beings, and human morality. If Christianity would confine itself to the positive teachings of Jesus, like charity, peace, and brotherhood, and devoted its energy solely to promoting those things, it could be invaluable to the world, rather than being a force for regression.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, that is false.



That all looks like there's philosophy involved to me. I'm a philosopher; I ought to recognize when philosophy is present. Philosophers invented science, especially in its modern manifestation. We wrote the rules by which scientists still operate. Why anyone would think scientists don't do philosophy as an integral part of their work is therefore not obvious to me.

For instance: why assume the earth is no older than the solar system? I'm not saying I don't agree, because I do, but that doesn't make the question meaningless. There was a reason that assumption was made. What was it?
Click to expand...



The question of the age of the Earth is a scientific question it is not a philosophy question. If you believe that the current theory pertaining to the age of the Earth is wrong the only way that you can refute that figure is through science.

And I did not claim that philosophy is unused by science that was all you. I did though make the claim that the specific question is a question for science not philosophy. The truth of the answer is what is constant, historically science has got the answer wrong many times. Young Earthers though are complete idiots because they do not even attempt to use any logic or any science. All what young Earthers have done is make assumptions based on a folklore. AT least scientists have tried to figure out the answer in real terms. And like I said a philosopher isnt ever going to be able to prove their philosophy on how old the Earth is no matter how rational and logical their philosophy was.
 
X Factor said:
It can also be a theological question. Are science and religion necessarily mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

No, they are not. I'm not even sure who these "young-earth creationists" are, but I do know as a practicing Christian that evolution, which is demonstrable, has never been a challenge to my faith. Nothing that has been empirically stated and is observably true has ever cost me a second of conflicting thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom