Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 147 (445112)
01-01-2008 9:09 AM


I'm proposing this as a companion thread to What evidence is needed to change a creationist, where Lithodid-Man has requested that creationist responses not be discussed. The creationist responses tell me that creationists have trouble seeing when evidence is connected to conclusions. In some cases they draw conclusions unrelated to the evidence, and in others they reject conclusions clearly indicated by the evidence. I'll use this opening post to address Buzsaw's Message 13.
Lithodid-Man described his topic this way:
Lithodid-Man writes:
In this thread I want to hear what evidences it would require to disprove creationism to our EvC creationists. This is referring specifically to the theory of special creation, creation Ex Nihilo...
So, I want to hear exactly what evidence (if any) it would take to make you question, all or in part, the post-Morris version of creationism. A hypothetical fossil find, archeology, a discovery in cosmology, any possibility is welcome. Flood and Exodus material completely acceptable as well.
Replying now to Buz's Message 13:
Buzsaw writes:
1. Falsify all the fulfilled Biblical prophecies. LOL!
Buz sees fulfilled Biblical prophecies as evidence for creationism. Since, for example, Daniel predicts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, therefore there was a global flood.
This is a common feature of creationist thought, drawing conclusions about things unrelated to the evidence under consideration, so it seems valid to conclude that to convince creationists of science you first have to find a cure for incredibly fuzzy thinking.
2. Falsify the fact that God reveals himself to those of us who acknowledge him. According to the Bible he draws near to and reveals himself in manifold ways to those who draw to and acknowledge him.
There are two problems with this statement. First, science can only comment on the evidence for a phenomenon, and so far there is no evidence of this phenomenon.
Second, science doesn't falsify phenomena. It seeks to explain and understand phenomena by gathering and interpreting evidence. It is the hypotheses and theories regarding phenomena that are falsified, not the phenomena themselves.
There is a class of phenomena where it is the observations that are in error, such as the canals on Mars and N-Rays, but science takes care of this problem through the requirement of replication. For example, you might get different astronomers to draw pictures of the canals of Mars and see if they match. Astronomers did produce such drawings, and of course they never matched, and so even though some astronomers of note were canal advocates (e.g., Percival Lowell) the possibility of canals on Mars never won broad acceptance within science, and as better telescopes became available it became obvious the canals were not really there, but were just an artifact of staring for a long time at a blurry image.
3. Have your secularist researchers go to Nuweiba Beach at Aqaba and falsify the alleged chariot wheels encased in coral as well as all the corroborating evidence in the area relative to the Biblical Exodus account.
Once again we see the lack of any connection of evidence, in this case supposed evidence for Exodus, to any creationist position. For instance, one would never reason, "Because Exodus happened, therefore there was a global flood." Or more specifically but having nothing to do with creationism, one would never argue, "Because Exodus was a real event, therefore the Red Sea actually *did* part and the Egyptian army *was* drowned when the parted waters returned."
5. Empirically account for all the design evident in the DNA, the human cell and brain logically and mathematically relative to the mathematical probabilities.
This is a legitimate request actually related to creationist beliefs. Buzsaw requests that science explain how the design apparent in nature could have arisen naturally.
6. Explain why your theory can circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics relative to your contention that there was no before the BB.
This is legitimate, too. We've typically done a poor job on the Big Bang, where I think we should resort more often to "We don't know." Not that we aren't working on it, not that we don't have some ideas, but the truth is that we do not as yet know what caused the Big Bang or what came before it.
7. Falsify the evidence of the supernatural relative to bo good and evil such as voodoo, the accult and such as is experienced from time to time in churches; things like exorcism, healings etc.
This is the same fallacy as point 2. Science observes phenomena, it doesn't falsify them. All science can say about phenomenon for which there is no evidence is that it is what it is. There's no evidence, so science has nothing to say.
8. Explain the probabilities mathematically as to how so many factors relative to life on earth just happen to be right in order for life as we observe it to exist; things like a the properties of the atmosphere etc, the location of sun and moon relative to earth, the properties of the planet's surface such as soil, water, gravity, the intensity of the sun's heat, etc, etc.
Seems like a good question, but the anthropic principle is very difficult to discuss.
9. Verify that life began naturally void of ID, existed long enough to begin to multiply and the mathematical probabilities of procreation of life to the extent that is observed today. I know we've been told, but nothing has come close, better than ID, yet to convince me.
This is perhaps Buz's best point. Creationists don't accept scientific arguments concerning the origin of life or the origin of species because it just seems so incredibly miraculous that matter and energy could just do this all by themselves without guidance. It is easier for them to accept the miracle of God than the miracle of unguided matter and energy creating life.
But this doesn't explain from where springs all the creationist nonsense. Just because it seems impossible for life to spring from non-life, that doesn't mean that science is wrong about the Big Bang, wrong about the age of the universe, wrong about the age of the earth, wrong about radiometric dating, wrong about how floods affect geology, and so forth.
To have legitimacy, creationism has to develop consistent criteria for what it accepts and rejects in science. Creationists accept science that gives them better televisions and computers, or spectacular pictures of Jupiter and Eta Carina, but they reject it if it comes anywhere near their belief in the Bible, and this criteria has nothing to do with evidence or the quality of evidence. This inconsistency regarding the assessment of evidence is a primary reason why creationism isn't science, because it illustrates how creationism is just a random list of scientific theories they reject based upon their religious beliefs.
--Percy
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
Edited by Percy, : Fix introductory paragraph.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 4:36 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 2:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 10:23 AM Percy has replied
 Message 49 by TheDarin, posted 01-04-2008 1:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 147 (445121)
01-01-2008 9:19 AM


Thread moved here from the Faith and Belief forum.

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 3 of 147 (445140)
01-01-2008 10:27 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 4 of 147 (445259)
01-01-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-01-2008 9:09 AM


this means that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by.
percy is spot on.
because theories are tentative religion can reject it on that basis alone, but undeniable truths in science cannot be ignored. the theories are more logically understandable given there's more evidence than : "because it was written"

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:09 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 147 (445266)
01-01-2008 4:54 PM


General Appeal
In many threads in which Tesla participates the discussion turns from the topic to trying to convince Tesla that he's talking nonsense. Rather than having this problem engulf yet another thread, I propose that we just ignore Tesla in this thread. Moderation will catch up with him in time.
--Percy

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 147 (445453)
01-02-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-01-2008 9:09 AM


It's good that you initiated this thread for the purpose of discussing connecting evidence to valid conclusions. You must remember however that I admitted that there were items in the list which were impossible for verification. The reason I included these is that Litodid's proposal didn't require verifiable evidence for the reasons we were to list. What he wanted from us included things which pertained to corroborating personal evidence which lends reason for us to remain creationists.
For me, it amounts to a combination of personal experiences as observed in the life of my own family and friends, including church circles as well as physical evidence which is more science related.
I've said that to say that the closer creationist's get to the book and the god of the book, the more Jehovah reveals to us experientially. We cannot verify this beyond ourselves, circles of others involved or folks who observe changes effected by un-natural experience.
The more something can be corroborated, the more sensible it becomes to us. The list of sensible corroborating items pertaining to my personal experience is longer than the list which would make sense to you or Lithodid.
Percy writes:
Buz sees fulfilled Biblical prophecies as evidence for creationism. Since, for example, Daniel predicts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, therefore there was a global flood.
Daniel predicted the rise and fall of no less than 5 major world class empires which would follow the Egyptian beginning with the Babylonian, the first in his vision. The Roman was the last to fall. The last/5th (emerging) is to include all nations, tribes and tongues of the planet.
One prophecy does relatively little to lend support to the global flood. However it's one major link in a long chain of other corroborating evidences for the credibility of the Biblical model in explaining/interpreting what we observe as Biblical model creationists.
Percy writes:
This is a common feature of creationist thought, drawing conclusions about things unrelated to the evidence under consideration, so it seems valid to conclude that to convince creationists of science you first have to find a cure for incredibly fuzzy thinking.
Implicating my typical creationist thinking as fuzzy is disingenuous in that Lithodid did not ask for verifiable reasons.
When the supernatural gets involved, the creationist model requires a greater amount of corroborating evidence than the evolutionist model which enjoys the status of acceptable theory. Much of this applies to personal experience observable only to those who participate in the experiential aspects of it. This applies to both the evil (demonic) for example) and the good.
I'm sure the folks known as Spiritualists at Lilly Dale here in upstate NY know what I'm talking about relative to experiential evidence of the supernatural.
That's all I have time for presently. New Years Cheers and may God's blessings be on you and yours in '08!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 2:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 01-02-2008 5:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 147 (445458)
01-02-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
01-02-2008 2:24 PM


Buzsaw writes:
Implicating my typical creationist thinking as fuzzy is disingenuous in that Lithodid did not ask for verifiable reasons.
Actually, if you read Lithodid-Man's opening post (Message 1) you'll see he said that the reasons didn't have to be plausible.
But my Daniel example (and I'm familiar with the whole prophecy, I was just keeping things simple, as always) wasn't an example of an implausible reason, but of making an invalid connection between evidence and conclusions, i.e., arguing that fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy makes it more likely that a global flood really did happen.
That's what this thread is about, making invalid connections between evidence and conclusions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 2:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:39 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 147 (445502)
01-02-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
01-02-2008 2:24 PM


Amount of Evidence
When the supernatural gets involved, the creationist model requires a greater amount of corroborating evidence than the evolutionist model which enjoys the status of acceptable theory.
No Buz, the evolutionist model is an acceptable theory because of the great amount of corroborating evidence it has. The creationist model only has "evidence" if we take your tack to accepting unverifiable annectdotes. Compared to the evidence available in support of the competing model yours has an amount indistinguishable from zilch.
You are pretending it needs a "greater" amount because we are so against it. You are wrong. We are against it because it doesn't have any evidence. The model you are competing with has a mountain of evidence going for it and just because you have little to no clue about that doesn't make it go away.
For you to connect evidence to valid conclusions you first have to get a little, teensy tiny grasp on what evidence there is out there. Then you have to get a wee, tiny understanding of our reasoning works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 2:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-03-2008 7:58 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 144 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-15-2008 10:19 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 147 (445565)
01-02-2008 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-02-2008 2:47 PM


That's what this thread is about, making invalid connections between evidence and conclusions.
The more Biblical claims that are shown to be true the more other claims are probably true. If prophecy is evidenced as true then these facts make creation claims more credible. This is why prophecy is denied with equal vigor as creation claims because once the supernatural is proven all of the other claims logically come with it.
Evolution, on the other hand, that is common ancestry, is based on far-fetched extrapolation. In other words, "recent time" homology evidence, by extrapolation, is used to conclude for things millions of years ago. This is an invalid connection if there ever was one.
Evolutionists are completely blind to these invalid connections based on scant physical and circumstantial evidence. In fact, uniformitarianism is the ultimate "invalid connections between evidence and conclusions" doctrine.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 2:47 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2008 2:30 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 147 (445610)
01-03-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
01-02-2008 10:39 PM


The more Biblical claims that are shown to be true the more other claims are probably true. If prophecy is evidenced as true then these facts make creation claims more credible. This is why prophecy is denied with equal vigor as creation claims because once the supernatural is proven all of the other claims logically come with it.
No. Proof of the supernatural would not prove the story about the magic tree and the talking snake. This is why it is possible to believe one but not the other.
Evolution, on the other hand, that is common ancestry, is based on far-fetched extrapolation. In other words, "recent time" homology evidence, by extrapolation, is used to conclude for things millions of years ago. This is an invalid connection if there ever was one.
What the heck are you talking about?
. In fact, uniformitarianism is the ultimate "invalid connections between evidence and conclusions" doctrine.
Again, your babble seems to have no relevance to anything.
I suspect that this is because instead of attacking real science, of which you are ignorant, you are attacking an imaginary set of scientific doctrines that you've made up in your head. Your elliptical references to the nonsense in your head will not be understood by people who don't share your delusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-03-2008 8:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 11 of 147 (445635)
01-03-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2008 2:30 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
The more Biblical claims that are shown to be true the more other claims are probably true. If prophecy is evidenced as true then these facts make creation claims more credible. This is why prophecy is denied with equal vigor as creation claims because once the supernatural is proven all of the other claims logically come with it.
No. Proof of the supernatural would not prove the story about the magic tree and the talking snake. This is why it is possible to believe one but not the other.
CFO is not only repeating the mistake of making an invalid connection between evidence and conclusions, but there's also the shadow of the fallacy of argument from authority lurking in the background. CFO already believes that the Bible is accurate and true in every respect, and this is an argument from authority.
But he understands that others might not accept that the Bible is infallible, so he argues that the more of the Bible that is shown true, the more likely it is that the portions not yet shown true are also true, which is the mistake you just noted of reaching a false conclusion from the evidence.
But even if we accept CFO's premise that proving one part of the Bible true increases the likelihood that other parts are true, that would still be asking science to accept an argument based upon the authority of the Bible, and the argument from authority is one of the most obvious and easiest fallacies to recognize. Science builds knowledge upon evidence, not upon declarations of what is so by supposed authorities.
Evolution, on the other hand, that is common ancestry, is based on far-fetched extrapolation. In other words, "recent time" homology evidence, by extrapolation, is used to conclude for things millions of years ago. This is an invalid connection if there ever was one.
What the heck are you talking about?
Yeah, pretty much the right reaction. CFO seems to believe that Exodus is relevant evidence regarding evolution while fossils and genetics are not. And that's the whole point of this thread, trying to answer the question of how we get creationists to see that proving things like Exodus and prophecy have nothing to do with evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2008 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2008 9:05 AM Percy has replied
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-03-2008 5:06 PM Percy has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 147 (445640)
01-03-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
01-03-2008 8:41 AM


Avoiding Our Point
You and NN seem to be avoiding the point CFO and I are trying to convey. No, Exodus and prophecy don't have anything directly to do with evolution. We are not saying it does. What we are saying and rightly so is that these lend support to the literacy of the Biblical record/model. Therefore they lend support to creationism and work to question the TOE.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-03-2008 8:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 01-03-2008 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-03-2008 3:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 47 by Tusko, posted 01-04-2008 8:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 147 (445649)
01-03-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
01-03-2008 9:05 AM


Missing the Point
Your point has been directly addressed, I don't know how you could miss it.
Buzsaw writes:
No, Exodus and prophecy don't have anything directly to do with evolution. We are not saying it does. What we are saying and rightly so is that these lend support to the literacy of the Biblical record/model.
Literacy? Did you mean literal inerrancy?
Therefore they lend support to creationism and work to question the TOE.
The point you're missing is that arguing in this way invokes the fallacy of argument from authority, and it draws conclusions unrelated to the evidence. More specifically, showing some aspects of the Bible true is unrelated to the truth of other aspects. This is also the fallacy of argument from authority, and it does mean that you believe that proving things like Exodus and prophecy is somehow related to evolution.
To believe the argument from authority you must believe that the increasing evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity discovered during the 1920's means that Einstein's pronouncements about quantum theory (e.g., "God does not play dice") were becoming more likely true. But it doesn't work that way. Einstein's pronouncements on both relativity and quantum theory, completely different areas of study at the time, depended only upon the supporting evidence. Their truth or falsity were independent of one another. As Einstein was found to be right about relativity, that didn't mean that his opinions about quantum theory were more likely right.
The mistake creationists make is to see relationships and interdependencies where none exist.
Science doesn't work the way you would like it to work. Science is based upon evidence, not revelation, not authority, and certainly not upon conclusions drawn from unrelated evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2008 9:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 147 (445652)
01-03-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-01-2008 9:09 AM


Percy writes:
This is perhaps Buz's best point. Creationists don't accept scientific arguments concerning the origin of life or the origin of species because it just seems so incredibly miraculous that matter and energy could just do this all by themselves without guidance. It is easier for them to accept the miracle of God than the miracle of unguided matter and energy creating life.
Can a pot make a Potter? It’s not only easier to believe in Gods hand, it also makes more sense.
Percy writes:
To have legitimacy, creationism has to develop consistent criteria for what it accepts and rejects in science. Creationists accept science that gives them better televisions and computers, or spectacular pictures of Jupiter and Eta Carina, but they reject it if it comes anywhere near their belief in the Bible, and this criteria has nothing to do with evidence or the quality of evidence.
Now here you’re lumping formal sciences with evolutionary science. What has evolutionary science ever done for any one, except maybe make a hand full of people rich on the ignorance of the rest of the religious. And to think of the wasted lives devoted to finding the unfindable almost brings tears to my eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:51 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 01-03-2008 11:06 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 147 (445653)
01-03-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 10:23 AM


Now here you’re lumping formal sciences with evolutionary science.
I think you are confused about "formal sciences". It isn't the formal sciences that gave you televisions and computers, though they may have given you the software you run on those computers.
What has evolutionary science ever done for any one, ...
A lot of modern medicine is derived from evolutionary biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 10:23 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024