Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists (from a smart creation scientist)
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 50 (37604)
04-22-2003 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by zephyr
04-22-2003 4:21 PM


quote:
Let us not discount theistic evolutionists' beliefs
Theistic evolution is a good example, but I'm speaking more about basic logic. If a person definitively proved the non-existence of God, rendering creationism absolutely irrelevant, it still wouldn't prove evolution right. Similarly, if a person showed concretely that evolution was impossible, it wouldn't say anything about how our species did come into being. Only how it didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by zephyr, posted 04-22-2003 4:21 PM zephyr has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 50 (37609)
04-22-2003 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dan Carroll
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Why would one of you being wrong mean that the other is right?
I don't mean to dump this on you specifically, this is just something I see whenever Creationists and Evolutionists meet up... each side seems convinced that if they prove the other one wrong, it somehow proves that their side is right.
This is certainly true. What I should have said to booboocruise was "if you can convice us that creationism is right, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary (thus disproving science), I'll become a creationist." I didn't intend to set up a false dichotomy, but I do see that's exactly what I did. My error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2003 6:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 50 (37616)
04-22-2003 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
04-22-2003 5:39 PM


No prob. Like I say, I don't mean to dump it on you. But if there's one thing I've learned on message boards, it's that logical fallacies are the enemy.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 50 (37637)
04-23-2003 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by zephyr
04-22-2003 4:21 PM


Interesting
Written debates do not interest me. Some of you may say that it's because I'm afraid. Well, partly. I'm afraid that what I type may be misinterpreted (if we are not talking face-to-face, it is much easier to focus on the wrong part of an argument, or to misunderstand a certain aspect if it lacks initial clarity on a subject, like my geology-expertise, or lack thereof).
Okay, I am a YEC, but I agree that proof for and against creationism is not abundant enough, or conclusive enough, to make a rational decision for the majority. Therefore, we must look into logic, historical references, statistics and variations at the molecular level, and reasoning to help build a convincing case for a particular side, and I openly admit it is difficult to do so when staring into a computer screen and typing comments one letter at a time.
The Bible has remained consistent, for the most part, throughout history. The dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1947, and they were the oldest known historical records pertaining to the old testament (at least 3500 years old). Surprisingly, the stories and teachings found there parallel, almost exactly, those found in the modern Bible. So, if the Bible is at least consistent within the past 3500 years, then maybe it has great historical value. (That's from the logical point of view, at least).
Now, I'm not trying to make the all-powerful claim that creation is proven, (Lord knows I would not be here, now, typing this if I could). I am, however, trying to understand the validity of science.
An article I read on the atheist website "infidels.org" claimed that "there ARE NO creation scientists." That is simply a lie. Even if the evolutionist refuses to recognise a creation scientist as that, it would not disprove the existence of creation scientists. "science" comes from Latin "sciens" with means "knowledge." So, at the heart of its meaning, a creation scientist simply is someone is educated or "knowledgable" in creationism. Dr. Gentry, (author of "Creation's Tiny Mystery") is one of the most trustable creation scientists I have ever heard of (even talkorigins admits his evidence is quite sound).
Well, Dr. Gentry was one of the ones questioned in the 1981 Arkansas case, where they were trying to include 'alternatives to evolution' in the curriculum. Get his book for dozens of documentation and appendices on that whole thing.
Sources:
Comfort, Ray. "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists."
Gentry, Dr. Robert. "Creation's Tiny Myster."
Mayr, Dr. Ernst. "What Evolution Is." (this one is an evolutionist's perspective)
In Christ,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by zephyr, posted 04-22-2003 4:21 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2003 2:43 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 04-23-2003 4:21 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 37 by Dr Cresswell, posted 04-23-2003 5:48 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 50 (37643)
04-23-2003 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 1:02 AM


Re: Interesting
Booboo, in another thread you made fairly serious, albeit vague, references to scientists and scientific organizations that have committed fraud, hidden or obfuscated evidence contrary to evolution, and refused to admit error. You were asked to provide specific examples of the claim. I find it difficult to take you seriously on this thread concerning the validity and honesty of "creation" scientists - especially Hovind and his ilk - when you seek to avoid substantiating your assertions concerning other scientists.
Please respond to this post (click on the link).
I would also be quite happy to discuss any claim or "creation science" research, article or statement here, but only if you bring to the table the specific argument. I won't argue websites. I am willing to accept provisionally your claim that "creation" scientists are in fact true scientists (tm), on the condition that you provide specific examples of their science in the context of creationism AND remain willing to discuss them here. In writing. Otherwise, I will take your claim to there being in existence a legitimate species called "creation scientist" as being disconfirmed.
Pick an example you feel compelling and be prepared to discuss it. Stop hemming and hawing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:02 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 50 (37647)
04-23-2003 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 1:02 AM


Re: Interesting
Hi Booboo,
The dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1947, and they were the oldest known historical records pertaining to the old testament (at least 3500 years old).
I am afraid that to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls are 3500 years old is complete bunkum, what is your source for this?
The DSS have been dated at 200 BCE - 70CE, they have actually proved to be an embarassment for Christians, as some of the people writing these documents were contemporaries of Jesus and fail to mention him.
So, if the Bible is at least consistent within the past 3500 years, then maybe it has great historical value. (That's from the logical point of view, at least).
Well, logically you need to make sure that your premises are vlaid, in this case you need to demonstrate that the 'bible is at least consistent within the last 3500 years.'
If you really think that the Bible has remained consistent throughout history I am afraid that you are in for a shock as well. The bible has been edited many times and different versions give conflicting accounts of biblical events and dates. Which version do you think is the most accurate, and why?
If you would like to discuss the evolution of the Bible and/or the reality of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then it would be nice to open another thread and do this.
Of course you do say that written debates do no interest you, is it because you prefer to catch your opponents unprepared?
So, every time I have ever argued/debated/discussed evolution and creation with others I was going on what I had available (books, notes, etc.) The opponents were either unprepaired or not very knowledgable in the field of evolution/creation.
This hardly constitutes a debate Booboo, and is certainly nothing to shout from the rooftops about. I do not see what satifaction, or furtherment of your own knowledge, you can gain from 'debating' someone who is unpepared or not very knowledgeable in the topic under discussion.
Best Wishes
Brian.
Edited because I cannot count!
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:02 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 50 (37656)
04-23-2003 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 1:02 AM


Re: Interesting
quote:
Written debates do not interest me.
Personally I much prefer written debates to face-to-face ad hoc discussions (I think formal debates where both sides are fully prepared are a different situation again, and far to rare these days). It gives both sides a chance to check facts and produce supporting material, which can never be a bad thing. Also, particularly with online discussions such as this forum, you can get a far wider range of input from people from a wide range of Christian perspectives and cultures.
quote:
"science" comes from Latin "sciens" with means "knowledge." So, at the heart of its meaning, a creation scientist simply is someone is educated or "knowledgable" in creationism.
I'd say words change their meaning. That "science" is derived from a latin word (scientia btw, not sciens) meaning knowledge doesn't mean that science means knowledge. When you say something the words mean what the hearer thinks they mean - in this case "science" would mean something like "the systematic observation and classification of natural phenomena inorder to learn about them and formulate laws that can be verified by further investigation" and "the body of knowledge obtained in this way" (quoting from the Chambers dictionary which happens to be on my desk).
The qusetion then becomes is do Creation Scientists, in the fields of Creationism, systematically observe and classify natural phenomena? I'd reluctantly concede that they do - though I'd disagree with the conclusions likely drawn I'd accept a Creation Scientists description of a series of geological strata as data.
Do Creation Scientists formulate laws? Of course they do. Do they formulate them based on the data? Well, not entirely - they would take the Genesis accounts to be additional data. But then scientists will always formulate laws by including additional "non-scientific" factors such as philosophical expectations (just remember Einstein included a Cosmological Constant in General Relativity because of the expectation that the universe is static), Creation Scientists are just more open about these additional factors.
It's when you get to can these theories be verified by further observation that things become debatable. Creation Scientists claim that they can be, other that they can't. And in some cases those of us who don't hold YEC views will point out that there is evidence that contradicts Creationist theories (such as all those radiometric dates significantly older than 6000 years). But thats what a forum such as this is for, to discuss things like this.
In conclusion then. Are "Creation Scientists" scientists? I'd reluctantly concede that those who are actively involved in Creationism research probably are. (Just like mainstream science there are people who's research input is small but are great communicators, and I'd include them as scientists too). There are also a number of charlatans and frauds - no true scientist would knowingly base a theory on data that has been repeatedly and conclusively proven to be false. And to be fair there are such people on the other side too - the talent Dawkins has for setting up and demolishing straw men comes to mind.
I'd also say that the quality of the science produced by Creation Scientists seems to be pretty poor. But then I suppose the "bias" in mainline peer reviewed journals will make it impossible for their work to get published outwith the dedicated Creationism journals.
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:02 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 50 (37663)
04-23-2003 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 2:18 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
quote:
When I wrote: "from a smart creation scientist" I was not referring to myself
So when you wrote at the start of post 1 of this thread (line 2):
quote:
Here's a little of my logic:
You didn't mean that it was YOUR logic.
Perhaps you can explain that.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 2:18 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 50 (37690)
04-23-2003 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
04-22-2003 3:53 PM


Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
The problem is, whether you can demonstrate what I've learned is wrong or not, you cannot demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the BIBLE is wrong (it has a record of being irrefutable for over 1900 years now). Anyway, I agree that there is inconclusive evidence for SOME of the creationists' arguments, but again you cannot use circular reasoning for an anti-creationist argument.
Let me demonstrate:
'I walked into a museum (a secular one) and they offered to show me around. We arrived at a piece of geologic strate, extracted from the 1936 archaeological dig in Wyoming. He (the tourguide) said: "please do not touch the slab of stone--it's seventy MILLION years old."
I simply raised my hand and asked how he KNEW it was that old. He replied, "We determine the age of geologic rock layers by the index fossils found within... this one contained bones of a plesiosaur, and therefore was seventy million years old."
I said "okay" and he then proceeded to take us to the skeleton of a tyranosaurus rex and said, "please do not touch the bones--they are ninety million years old."
I, again, asked him how he KNEW and he replied, "we determined the age of the bones by what ROCK LAYER we find them in."
(CIRCULAR REASONING)
I personally have been to New England, and let me say, walking along the Atlantic beach is almost a definite find for fossils. However, Nova Scotia has an overabundance of polystrate fossils (trees extending through multiple layers of geologic strata).
First off, there is no proof that the geologic strata is reliable, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated that oxygen wasn't present during the birth of the world. I have yet to come across evidence for an old earth.
In fact, the majority of evolutionist websites I find nowadays are just anti-creationist websites, and they are not legitimate EVOLUTION websites.
I know this is going to spark somebody's temper, so don't expect more argument out of me (Jesus' teachings taught me that, if you cannot win a major movement, then win people individually). Jesus didnt spend his time trying to change the Roman Empire--he just saved PEOPLE.
In Christ,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-23-2003 3:29 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 42 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-23-2003 3:37 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Cresswell, posted 04-23-2003 6:10 PM booboocruise has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 40 of 50 (37694)
04-23-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:18 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:18 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 41 of 50 (37695)
04-23-2003 3:29 PM


(it has a record of being irrefutable for over 1900 years now).
Off-topic, I know, but this means that the Bible irrefutably supported slavery for 1750 of those years, and then irrefutably opposed it after that? Shall I start a thread on this, booboo?

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 50 (37698)
04-23-2003 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:18 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
quote:
The problem is, whether you can demonstrate what I've learned is wrong or not, you cannot demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the BIBLE is wrong
I pointed out why this argument is a logical fallacy here.
Since you didn't respond there, I guess you missed it. No problem, though. I'm happy to provide the link.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:18 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 50 (37731)
04-23-2003 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:18 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
quote:
The problem is, whether you can demonstrate what I've learned is wrong or not, you cannot demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the BIBLE is wrong (it has a record of being irrefutable for over 1900 years now).
Is that the Bible that is not wrong? or your interpretation? or the interpretation of the "smart creationist" you appear to be talking for?
Because the thing is I'm an evangelical Christian. I accept the Bible to be God-breathed; useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness; equipping the people of God for good works; the supreme authority in matters of doctrine. And as I read the opening chapters of Genesis I don't see any requirement from the words themselves (or anywhere in the rest of Scripture which build on them, or even the vast majority of post-Biblical commentry on them) to read them as an account of actual literal historical scientific accounts. I believe the Bible is not wrong, and I believe that God used the process of evolution to create.
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:18 PM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 7:46 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 50 (37740)
04-23-2003 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Cresswell
04-23-2003 6:10 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
Dr. Cresswell:
The problem is that I used to be a progressive creationist (I believed that the Bible should be combined with evolution, because I was taught in school that it was a fact). Basically this is how it goes:
When I was 10 I started going to church.
Then, in 7th and 8th grade I was taught evolution so frequently and thoroughly that I tried to combine the Bible with evolution (hence I believed that the six days were not literal).
Then, in eighth grade I attended a Sunday school class that focused on creationism and evidence against evolution. That was when I began to doubt that the earth really was ?billions of years old? and, not only did I become a full young earth creationist, but I also finally had the evidence and the research to back it up (at least at a high school level).
The problem I have with evolution (from a Biblical view) is this:
Matthew 19:4 says: "...he who made them at the beginning made them male and female..."
Now, if evolution is real, then why did Jesus say that the distinguished differences between male and female was the beginning?
Also, Exodus 20:11 says: "For in six days the Lord created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
In that verse the original Hebrew word used for ?days? on the dead sea scrolls was the Hebrew word ?yom? which was to refer to a literal, 24-hour day.
Also, six times in Genesis chapter one it says: ?and there was evening and there was morning on the (first, second?) day?? If there was morning and evening on the ?first day? then what honest reason would somebody have to conclude that the author of Genesis was not being literal? Seriously, the combining of evolution and creation was only done in the last century by people who thought that the Bible had errors and needed to be ?reinterpreted.?
If the Bible has errors, then the whole of Christianity is at stake?please read
Matthew 4:2 ? ??Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from? God.?
You see, Jesus told Satan, in the desert, that man lives on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God?otherwise man is wrong, and that is what the problem with people who combine evolution and creation?they specifically go against Jesus? teachings, as well as the other above verses.
Also, I am not talking for a creation scientist?I was talking for myself, but quoting from Vance Ferrell?s reference book (perhaps I didn?t go enough into detail on that one).
I do not suggest AT ALL that the Bible should be twisted, interpreted, speculated, refuted, or otherwise fitted to mean that creation and evolution should be ?one and the same.? They are clearly two separate things according to Jesus, Moses, St. John, and God the Father.
Please think about that,
In Christ,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Cresswell, posted 04-23-2003 6:10 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 7:49 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Cresswell, posted 04-24-2003 2:54 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 50 (37741)
04-23-2003 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 7:46 PM


Re: Demonstrate what we learn is wrong...
ignore the abundant question marks in my last reply, they are typographical errors that were originally " " 's when i was typing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 7:46 PM booboocruise 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