The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

An important thing to do would be to see if we can't deduce approximately when the fall happened. Then we need to come up with some kind of theological reason why God would choose to have fallen nature appear like a universe that hasn't 'fallen', but is merely a naturally existing old universe.What reason would God have for making all dating techniques point towards the same conclusions? What reason would God have for Supernova 1987A? The only reason I can think up is deception, but we know God cannot lie. If God is real, all these things lining up so wonderfully cannot be a coincidence, he must have done it on purpose (otherwise he would be unaware of the consequences of his actions, but since God knows all, we have a contradiction; ergo he must have done it on purpose).As it stands, the only way we can use the Bible to extract when the fall happened is through the use of genealogies. Should we take heed of these genealogies?

Are you suggesting the fall coincidentally sets up a world with independent evidences which are consistent with an old earth?

Yes, I got that the first time around.What I'm saying is that the laws of physics had to be variously changed yet converged mysteriously towards one specific conclusion, an old earth. All the laws of physics must have, for some reason, been different in such a way as to provide independent lines of evidence that arrive at the same conclusions. Over and over and over again.Did God intend these incredible coincidences to happen, or is it just an astronomical coincidence?

Yes, that works for one kind of physics. Let's say, radiodecay. But other fundamental laws of physics would also have to have changed, in exactly the right way.We would have needed a different speed of light (so that supernova 1987A for example would give us wrong dating using two different methods), the physics of coral biology would have to have changed by just the right amount, tree growth, ice cores, sedimentation/deposition, genetic mutations - the whole shebang. Each of the different laws of physics would have had to have been subtly altered in such a way as to provide a consistent series of dating methods across the board.Your distortion analogy works only for one law which was affected consistently in the past, but as more and more laws are affected each in a different way, there seems to be more and more of a coincidence/conscious act.

The philosophical differences are pretty much insurmountable. A lot of this thread seems to have been focusing on the philosophical problems with the Creationist's position, but there is something else to consider.Most of the EvC debate isn't philosophical. It isn't Creationists saying "I don't think Evolution happened because science is inadequate to deal with the issues". Sure, there are many such discussions, and yourself and Faith have engaged in that side of things.However, the real core, the real central part of the debate is not really a philosophical divide. Its creationists trying to misrepresent the science behind evolutionary theories attempting to convince others that evolution is a faith/religion rather than a science; to have the theory struck from the schools. Have evolution branded bad science and the practitionars shown up as being frauds or worse.All this because of the philosophical/theological differences which, because they cannot be honestly resolved, have to be resolved dishonestly.I'm happy with people believing anything they choose to believe. However, the debate 'battlefield' is not here, the warzone is when someone tries to convince others that a scientific theory will make them immoral athiests likely to get sexual diseases:

quote:

---

1963 is when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system. Anybody remember that? A few got out, brought evolution in, same time. 1963 is when sexually transmitted diseases began to climb; this is for kids 10 to 14 years of age. 1963 is when divorce rates began to go up... Unwed birth rates for girls 10 to 14 years of age have increased 100%.

---

(Hovind)Or some other propaganda. The war was declared by the young earth creationists who are upset that science has effectively falsified their worldview using a methodology that so many people trust as accurate. They should withdraw from the battle if they want to claim its an unsolvable philosophical divide and cease their anti-science propaganda battle, remove themselves from the courts and public debates etcTo repeat: The EvC controversy is not about the philosophical differences of the two worldviews. That is unresolvable. The controversy is about propaganda, anti-science, confusion, hokey mathematics, lies and fraud.

GFC,
I trust you are enjoying the debate? We both agree that the convergence of different physical phenomenon towards the same dating conclusions is not likely to be a coincidence. If it wasn't a coincidence then there must be some reason why these different dating methods consistently give the same dates.It seems your resolution to this is to say 'we don't know/we can't know'. Philosophically the only entity that had any control over this physics change was God. Either God intentionally or unintentionally changed physics which resulted in the dating method convergence. I don't think God can unintentionally do anything, therefore God intentionally had this dating convergence occur. If this line of reasoning pans out then God is a deceiver.The only other possibility is that God was not involved in the physics change, but that lends us to a further problem: God is all powerful and all knowing. If that is the case God knew that the laws of physics were going to change in the convergent manner they have and let it happen. Letting such a thing happen (when you have the power to prevent it) is pretty much as bad as making it happen a certain way to start with. It also implies that God is not in Total Control over His Creation, which I think is absurd or the laws of physics have free will, which is also absurd. Your examples are not all inclusive. There are plenty of different methods that converge on the same results. A quick example:Supernova1987a - it went supernovae. We can measure how long ago it happened by measuring (using trigonometry) the distance to the supernova and calculating how long light would take to reach us from there. This assumes the speed of light is constant. If the speed of light was different in the past then the date we get would be wrong.We can measure the radioactive decay of elements from the supernova - doing this gives us the same results of the age of the supernova. So if the speed of light changed the radiodecay rates must have also changed in a totally different way to produce the same result.More information on this can be found in Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A). There is an open thread where you can discuss your ideas: Greenland Ice CoresThis message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 28-March-2006 07:52 PM

Several reasons spring to mind:1) Did you ever see what happened when NASA ignored the Moon Landing Hoaxists? The movement gained in strength and NASAs silence was taken as strong evidence for the hoax.2) Pride: Evolutionists don't like people calling them stupid/fraudsters/liars etc. They don't like a good science being trashed by snake oil salesman and they want to defend their integrity.3) Caring about the subject: If people talk crap about my pet subject, I feel obligated to correct misunderstandings or falsehoods, even if I don't feel the person listening will take note - but it means that people who witness the exchange don't go away with the wrong impression4) Dislike of propaganda: I really don't like propaganda, it sickens me. I really don't like people who don't know better being 'educated' that evolution isn't real science etc. I want people to have the information they need to make their own mind up, rather than listening to one obviously biased side, not hearing anything contrary and so believing it to be true.5) Enjoyment of debate. I enjoy debating in a wide range of topics. I find that I learn things during debate, and on some major issues have found that I have gained enough information to change my mind on a subject (War in Iraq, Fox Hunting, gun ownership are some examples of my mind being changed through the process of debate). A lot of people on this forum also like debating other subjects (As can be attested by the Coffee House).6) Some other reasons that haven't sprung to mind. This is mostly true, but its those on the fence that we debate for the benefit of. Also - some people are anti-evolution and not religious. We try and convince those through reason. Finally there are those that are young that were taught by parents/pastors etc. They have a right to be given accurate information about the actual science so that they realise the caricature that has been presented is erroneous.I believe someone on this board called it 'intellectual child abuse' or some such thing. I think it important to combat it. Hopefully a Christian as yourself who adamantly believes in YEC but rejects the attempt to bamboozle others should help fight the hokey 'science' that gets put forward. Unfortunately for ID, not directly mentioning religious sources doesn't help it become science, it keeps it from being religion but still means it is a seperate philosophy from science (teleology is the name of the philosophy and it is contrasted to philosophical naturalism). Until there is some explained mechanism for how the hypothetical designs are implemented in nature, and evidence/falsification tests are designed it remains seperate from science and its methodology for explaining world around us.