|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is uniformitarianim still taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
Young-earth creationists, of which I am one, reason deductively, starting by assuming the Bible is true (and mostly literal) and working down to what we see and have discovered about the world. We will doubt any scientific principle that does not coincide with biblical belief because such principles have come about inductively, based on observations of the present world first and then reaching conclusions.
If the constancy of the viscosity of water were contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, then creationists would question it. The only reason creationists don't question it is because they have no reason to do so. According to creationists, the only absolute truth is in the Bible. Everything else can be questioned if it is in conflict with the Bible. OurPlanetLive.org
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
I know it's old, I just stumbled onto the site from somewhere else and this is the thread that it took me to!
I don't believe that YEC's ALWAYS reason deductively in every aspect of life, that would be absurd. But in the realm of origins, creation and evolution, the reasoning is deductive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
1) It is reasonable if the Bible is true. No one has ever disproved the Bible, nor will they ever, because it's very difficult to disprove something that is true. See Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Powell.
Actually, YEC's don't ignore any evidence. Ever. We look at the exact same evidence that evolutionists look at, it's just a matter of interpretation. We have a bias that the Bible is true, instead of the bias that there is no god. 2) The scientific method is inherently inductive. It may start with a hypothesis, but that hypothesis can be refined based on the results of the experiment. That makes it inductive. Example: of course the current hypothesis of all life evolving from a single organism "works." That's because it's been refined based on what we have discovered scientifically since we dived into the investigation.And again, evidence is evidence. It's there. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence. 3) I do doubt radiometric dating systems because they contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible's teaching. That was my whole point. And those dates cannot be proven to be correct, and in some circumstances they have been proven to be wrong, like in the "dating" of rocks that were formed in the explosion of Mt. St. Helens. The rocks known to be between 6 and 12 years old, but K-Ar dating showed their ages at between 300,000 to 3.4 million years! Why would you put your trust in that method?? Secular scientists are equally dogmatic. Science is an attempt to explain the natural universe by only natural phenomena. It rules out God a priori, and therefore is blinded to the truth. That's why there are questions not answered by secular scientists that are answered by creationists, like Ice Age theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
I think I just did a search for "uniformitarianism" on google and it brought me here. I was doing research for my talk show/podcast "The Drawing Board" on OurPlanetLive.org. It's live tonight at 8pm central, you should give a listen! (I hope that's not technically solicitation; the program discusses the same thing as this thread!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yes I will be discussing the "problems" with uniformitarianism, or at least with the simplified version that is taught in science classes today.
I wasn't there when the earth and sun were made, so I can't say for sure that the sun was here before the earth. If the earth existed before the sun, it was miraculous. Science doesn't speak on the existence of God because it intends to explain nature without God. It's the same thing, for all practical purposes. God created nature, therefore God is supernatural. He has the ability to affect natural processes and has on many occasions. Those are "miracles." I don't doubt that man went to the moon, but did man evolve from nothing? Evolution only explains the facts better than any other non-biblical theory. Where was the false dating results of those rocks refuted? I'm pretty new to this subject and I'm not a science expert, so I don't know. Could you give me a link or a source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
Come on now, I'm a reasonable person. I don't necessarily doubt anything just because I wasn't there, especially when it is recorded by people (like the moon landing was).
Why would all of God's creation be revealing to us the impossibility of the Earth being created before Sun if that isn't the way it happened? Like I said, it's a miracle. It doesn't seem possible that it could be so, but it is. That's pretty much the definition of a miracle. The 'rules' end up with us being able to not have to include god, but it has no intention of excluding god. So it’s not the same. (albeit it being a minor, but very important difference) Then why are there so many unanswered questions in science? And there's never has been "nothing". How can there never have been nothing? Everything in the physical world has to have a beginning. As for the beginning of God, I have no idea. So why aren't the scientist jumping on board? Because they rule out the existence of God a priori and any unanswered questions they have they say "we'll eventually know the answers." Biblical apologetics does not yield "theories". It makes deductions from false premises that the Bible cannot be wrong. Prove that the Bible is wrong and then we'll go from there. I saw that article on the K-Ar dating thing, and if that is the case, and I believe that all rocks are younger than 10,000 years old, why should I trust any radiometric dating results?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonkthompson Junior Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
This is the last post I'll make here (sorry for being off-topic!). I do have a bias, but it is not an anti-evidence bias. AGAIN, it is all a matter of how you interpret the evidence. I don't reject any evidence at all, and neither do creationists. If it is seemingly in conflict with the Bible, I investigate to see how one could interpret it to fit the biblical account. And I haven't been stumped yet, at least with some help.
As Michael Shermer said, you can way all the evidence, and it comes out to about 50/50. You have to make a leap of faith one way or the other, and clearly y'all have made the leap confidently enough to insult anyone who has an opposing view and use vague arguments against what they haven't even said (like all YEC's never use inductive reasoning). So I bid you good day, I'm off to read my Bible. I wouldn't mind if Jesus saw me reading His Word when He comes back.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024