|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists are Killing Me | |||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4081 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I've been doing some evolution/creation reading because I'm teaching some students in a group home school at our church/village. Some of these creationists are killing me.
I just read a debate at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html. In it the creationist presents an argument based on sediments on the bottom of the ocean. He says:
quote: Can someone tell me why, in a debate, one side would attempt to present evidence that, if accurate, would shoot down both sides of the debate? This creationist wants an age for the earth of less than 50,000 years, yet here he's presenting evidence for a minimum age of 30 million!!! Later, after the evolutionist side said that short period comets don't fit the young earthers position, either, the young earther in the debate says:
quote: Well, isn't that nice. It doesn't fit his "theory," he agrees, but if we multiply the figures by 40, then it would be okay! Wow, I guess that settles that. I'm 41. That would make me a lot older than my 8-year-old son, but if we adjusted his age by a factor of 6, then he'd be older than me. Since this is a lot smaller adjustment than the creationist has to make in that debate, can I therefore reasonably conclude that my son is older than I am? Add to that the embarrassing behavior of a creationist who posted an advertisement for Creation Ex Nihilo magazine on another thread, for what reason I cannot imagine. When I had to convince my friends and brothers in the church with me that we needed to drop young earth creationism, the behavior of creationists and the form of arguments they use were the best evidence I had. One of my friends once said, "The reasons I believe in evolution aren't the greatest. I believe because Shammah (that's me) has done the research for me, and I don't want to be found agreeing with those people who defend a young earth."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It doesn't shoot down both sides. The proper question should be "Why owuld the creationist present evidence that shoots down his side?" Sediment doesn't stay on the bottom of the ocean, so this isn't really a problem for an old earth. Sediment can get scraped off of the oceanic crust as that crust is subducted under another plate, or lifted up as two plates crunch together, or the sediment might just get pulled into the mantle with the rest of the crust it rides upon. I'm not sure what is going on with the short period comet argument. I have heard an argument which runs something like "If the earth were 4.5 billion years old there shouldn't be any short period comets as they would have all been swallowed by the sun by now." Maybe there is a connection. The problem with this argument is that there are mechanisms which can pull long period comets or other bodies into short period orbits thereby replenishing the stock of short period comets. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Cresswell Inactive Member |
Another example of just not getting it ...
A few years ago I went to a series of talks by Ken Ham (OK, there was someone else, but I forget their name). During this he showed this cartoon of two castles - one labelled "atheism" sitting on a rock called "Evolution" and the other "Christianity" sitting on a rock called "Creation" - with people firing cannon balls at the other castle. My first thought was, "Well my Christian faith has Christ as a foundation not Creation" closely followed by "the atheists I know wouldn't consider Evolution as the foundation of their beliefs either". If you're going to use this sort of illustration then subjects such as Creation, science, Biblical passages are more akin to the walls of the castles or cannon balls than the foundations. But I don't hold the model of conflict between science and faith to be either an accurate description of the current or past situations, nor useful as a way forward. Oh, and Ken Ham kept showing the same cartoon again and again, as though repetition of a stupid idea will make it seem sensible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote:Every time I've seen this it starts with "The Oort Cloud has never been observed, it's just a theory...." Fine, but short-period comets come from the Kuiper Belt, and 600+ Kuiper Belt Objects are now cataloged. I've got some AiG articles on this at home - I'll start a thread on it. It is fascinating to see how AiG crawdad-walks down through the years, as their "gaps" close up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Magic, of course, not being a theory and hence perfectly acceptable as an explaination. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Cresswell Inactive Member |
"It's just a theory" .... some sort of incantation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
I subscribe to a "Copenhagen" view of theories. That is, that a theory is like Picasso's description of art: "Art is a lie that tells us the truth." But to say this not to imply that theories are somehow untrue or that all theories are equally valid. (O'Brien was wrong: we can’t rise up and float about the room merely because the party wishes it!)
A theory is just a story, but it is a story about reality; a story about how things work. Not all theoretical models are equally valid. The best theories explain all of the existing observations and predict the answers to new questions that we didn't even know we'd be asking when the theory was developed. In my opinion, RM&NS meets this test, while creation science doesn’t. Since RM&NS is just a theory it will probably fail someday and be replaced by a truer story about reality. But that story will no doubt owe a lot to RM&NS and — in hindsight — its proponents will realize that we can tell that new story because of the truths we learned from the old one. Much of Christian thought relies on a fusion of theology with Hellenistic philosophy. This is to be expected: the first century world was heavily steeped in the juice of Hellenism. In this context, the creation science use of just a theory as a disparaging remark makes sense. God is seen as the great, absolute geometer — laying down Platonic rules with a straight edge and compass. In this view, just a theory is a damning criticism of a body of ideas, since a theory is equal to the truth. Perhaps I’m more comfortable with the Copenhagen approach, since — though I’m Christian — my philospophy and theology are more Zen-like. Maybe God isn’t the great geometer; maybe God is directly concerned with the suchness of real things and natural laws are there just to make things easy for congnitive brains like ours. -Neil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4081 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
quote: In my own defense, I did say "if accurate." What I meant was that if the argument was valid and really proved what it said it did--a thirty million year old earth--it would disagree with both sides. I agree that it doesn't. I read a great description of the way the geologic column can be seen complete from the coasts of America and Europe, where very old layers exist, to the midAtlantic ridge, where only the newest layers can be seen, because the ocean has been slowly expanding over that time. That's probably an awful description I just gave, but it seemed to apply even to the sediment argument. We're not expecting 4 1/2 billion years in the Atlantic, anyway, because it's not that old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It wasn't your argument was it? It was something someone had presented to you.
quote: Then what you were asking is why someone would shoot down there own theories? The only person who could really answer that would be the person who presented the argument. My subjective take, though, is that most creationists are more anti-evolution than pro-creation, and will do great harm to themselves in an effort to wound the bad guys-- kinda like suicide bombing really. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4081 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
quote: That, I think, is the only possible explanation. The suicide bombing analogy is interesting. I'm actually wondering if any YEC's want to offer some alternative explanation, because it doesn't seem to me there is one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
It could also have something to do with a disregard for science. Scientific inconsistencies aren't a problem if your beliefs are based in faith. With faith, all things are possible.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
quote: I wonder whether the situation isn't actually the opposite. There are a large number of fundametalist Christians who believe in creation based on faith, but who are completely disconnected from the "creation science" movement. Also, the very few faith-based believers who also do real science (e.g. Kurt Wise) openly admit the cognitive disconnect. However, I think a lot of people in the creation science movement place too much emphasis on science -- in a sense, they believe what they accuse "evolutionists" of believing: that science is a religious belief system. This forces them to try to reconcile their two belief systems: Christianity and science. It also fuels a need to find legitimacy via science. So, fundamentalists see science and faith as belief systems. Creation-science fundamentalists believe in both science and faith, so they couch the argument as creation+science vs. "evolutionism." Also, as someone who is trained as both a scientist and an engineer, I think engineers have a tendency to deify science. Scientists take a more pragmatic view: science works because it's the best method that several thousand years of human thought has been able to achieve. (To fellow Christians: I'm not trying to be snide or judgemental, I'm just trying to describe how it looks to a non-fundamentalist Christian. I may be wrong and I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.) -Neil [This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 02-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
As a part-YEC I might throw in a thought. I much follow (micro) evolution with regards to present past and future events.
Drugs Cipro and Levaquin, I'm afraid (as a physician), are finding more and more resistance in bacteria, forcing me to perform more cultures for empirical antibiotic tx to combat foot ulcers in devolved humans, e.g., diabetics (if you will). NS and plasmid adaptation are finally taking their toll against these wonder drugs, yet in APRIORI (pre-engineered) genomal defense mechanisms, inherent in bacteria. Albeit, bacteria and viruses may out-evolve humans one day, rendering them extinct. It appears that survival of the fittest will war against all life forms. The ToE is subconsciously respected by all in the adverse competitive environment(s) we seem forced to war against. Thus the ToE, to this creationist, is highly respected in its proper paradigm(s) of biology for example.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024