Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,109 Year: 990/14,231 Month: 990/1,514 Week: 23/234 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Why is uniformitarianim still taught?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 74 of 89 (548119)
02-25-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jasonkthompson
02-25-2010 5:06 PM

Re: Creationists use inductive logic.
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.
Which means they can't be true or false, just valid or invalid, because its all based on the premises being assumed to be true.
For example:
If you use deductive reasoning in the realm of origins then you are an idiot.
You use deductive reasoning in the realm of origins.
Ergo, you are an idiot. (no offense)
Not that induction leads to the TruthTM, but at least its derived from facts and its conclusions are tentative.
I just stumbled onto the site from somewhere else and this is the thread that it took me to!
What website? (out of curiosity)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 5:06 PM jasonkthompson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 5:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 77 of 89 (548125)
02-25-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jasonkthompson
02-25-2010 5:22 PM

Re: Creationists are not hypocrites
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.
The Bible says that the Earth was made before the sun. Its wrong.
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.
Science doesn't speak on the matter of the existence of god (and you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution).
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.
But it doesn't. What if god IS natural? Then science would certainly study her.
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.
Induction is a little different than that. It works like this:
Let: We have only observed black ravens. We will hypothesize that all ravens are black. The conlusion that all ravens are black is tentatively held until a non-black raven is observed.
Whatever problems you have with that, just remember that with it, we put a man on the moon. It works.
With evolution, the theory has held up and has not been falsified and has explained the facts better than anything else. There's no reason to not accept it (except for religios conviction).
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??
You really should look further into this PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). There's nothing wrong with our dating methods. And don't trust creationist websites because they have been shown to be liars.

To avoid cross-posting, I'll reply to your reply here:
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!)
Will you be discussing the "problems" of uniformitarianism?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 5:22 PM jasonkthompson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 6:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 81 of 89 (548143)
02-25-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jasonkthompson
02-25-2010 6:08 PM

Re: Creationists are not hypocrites
Yes I will be discussing the "problems" with uniformitarianism, or at least with the simplified version that is taught in science classes today.
Oh dear. You're doing a disservice to Christianity.
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.
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?
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.
It intends to explain nature, period. It has nothing to say about a god that is outside of nature, its not "without God", there's no qualifier like that there.
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)
God created nature, therefore God is supernatural. He has the ability to affect natural processes and has on many occasions. Those are "miracles."
Okay. And?
I don't doubt that man went to the moon,
Where you there?
but did man evolve from nothing?
Of course not. And there's never has been "nothing".
Evolution only explains the facts better than any other non-biblical theory.
So why aren't the scientist jumping on board?
Biblical apologetics does not yield "theories". It makes deductions from false premises that the Bible cannot be wrong.
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?
I could probably spend a lot of my time explaining it in great detail to you. And all you'd have to do is fall back on to "I wasn't there", "It must have been a miracle", "I still assume the Bible can't be wrong"...
{If you build your faith upon such a weak foundation as the Biblical inerrancy, (please don't tell me you're one of the nutjobs who say they would denounce Jesus if even one error is pointed out in the Bible), then you're destined for either a catastrophic collapse, or misperceived (unless falsely assumed) support.}
... so I'm not gonna put a lot of effort into it.
Basically, they used a dating technique with a minimum detection that was greater than the age of the sample. Like measuring the width of a hair with a yardstick...
ZOMG! It measured to 0.01 yards! That's over 9 millimeters! What a bogus technique! This thing couldn't measure anything...
I spent all of a few minutes googling and found the AIG and ICR articles (lies) on the subject. I did find this one from the "other side":
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
I haven't looked through it so I don't know how good it is. It certainly looks more thorough than my explanation, if you care to really see both sides of this issue. Perhaps others here would care more enough to give you something better.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 6:08 PM jasonkthompson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 8:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023