Building the Ark .... Take 2

[Canuckster1127]

Please name me one piece of data that OECers have access to, that YECers don't?

Well, while I was a student in an evangelical Christian School ..... that would pretty much be anything that contradicted YEC. Does that count?

[zoegirl]

It aint picking. It is a common logical fallacy. A version of reificaton. One that evolutionists fall into often. So, maybe you can understand why I'm frustrated to hear it within the Christian community.

or perhaps you knew exactly what I meant when I just was tired and wrote what most people would have understood, that data, when presented, is then analyzed. A conclusion is made. There can be wrong conclusions, there can be right conclusions. We agree that the data shows that the universe is old.

Either way Zoe, it is an example of trying to justify one position and degrade another.
The problem I have with it, is it is arbirtary and without real merit. Please name me one piece of data that OECers have access to, that YECers don't?

I never said that we do have access to data that you don't....YEC'ers have exactly the same data available to them. It's a shame that because that data is somehow "tainted" that they immediately view it with prejudice.

So what is the gist of this type of statement? I can't speak specifically for you, but I've seen this kind of statement often. And I think when you boil it all down it comes to, "OEC positions better comply with the secular worldview." Not that there is anything wrong with agreeing with secular positions. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We don't assume that all secular findings the work of the devil. But this isn't specific. It's ambiguous.

Okay, for the record, this is what I said

yes, I think all of us would agree that OEC is just what the data presents...if new data shows differently there's nothing that prevents the conclusion changing.

If you would like me to clarify what I meant (which would have been a rather....easy thing to do)....the majority of us agree that the data from a various and sundry sources allows us to draw some pretty solid conclusions about the age of the earth.

And what it infers is that the OEC position is more legitimate because it better complies with secular scientific interpretations.

I would argue it's more legitimate because the data provides overwhelming evidence....the fact that secular scientists happen to agree is hardly relevant. You may not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the secular science you are willing to even accept as valid is mighty convenient to your purposes.

(Although I would argue that as well. There are a litany of areas where secular interpretations of data are at odds with OEC positions.) Not only is it making faulty assumptions about data and what it can do.

Clearly you are wanting to make a grand case out of a simple statement. We look at evidence all of the time, we examine data. we make conclusions. Boom, all I meant....good grief, you are nit-picking.

It also makes the error of assuming that secular positions are objective and have a high, if not final authority, even though no specific data is mentioned.

Hmmm....I hardly think you want to bring that charge up. YEC camps are hardly innocent of bias, in fact, CLEARLY they approach data with one overriding thought....to find evidence to support young earth. Let's see...plenty of examples of poor science from YEC in the past and, of course, I would argue now. But again, I was hardly striving to make a huge case for OEC. I was simply (for the record,) stating that most of us simply agree that the data points to old earth.

There is hardly a huge conspiracy among scientists about the age, there are many many agnostics and Christian scientists who have no ulterior motive in examining the data and arriving at a conclusion. They simply examine the data. To them and to us, the data is clear.

As a teacher I sincerely hope you wouldn't use arbitrary statements regarding data like this in the classroom. Like I said, if you have any raw data that does what you are claiming, I'd love to see it.

you're so sweet...but don't worry, I don't jump to conclusions...like making an entire case from one simple statement without asking for clarification....hmmm why does that sound familiar

[jlay]

We agree that the data shows that the universe is old.

No we don't. And that is exactly what I'm talking about.

It's a shame that because that data is somehow "tainted" that they immediately view it with prejudice.

This is a fundemental problem with your postion. You are ascribing a quality to data that it simply doesn't have. You are equating data on OEC ages, to be equivalent with things like math equations, that can actually be proven. There is no interpreting of 2+2=4. That is a proven fact. The data you are claiming does not operate this way. You can not look through a telescope and see "made in 4.6 billion b.c." Nor can you do this in the fossil record.

I would argue it's more legitimate because the data provides overwhelming evidence...

Zoe, data is evidence. Why do you continue to make this same fallacy?

we make conclusions

There, we finally agree.

Hmmm....I hardly think you want to bring that charge up. YEC camps are hardly innocent of bias, in fact, CLEARLY they approach data with one overriding thought....to find evidence to support young earth.

What? And my dad can beat up your dad. Zoe, errors on YECer side don't make errors on the OEC side OK. We are talking about something very specific here. I haven't made this personal regardless of what you say you think I know. Making charges against YEC is not an answer to my challenge. It is a lazy diversionary tactic. Is that seriously how you see it?

you're so sweet...but don't worry, I don't jump to conclusions...like making an entire case from one simple statement without asking for clarification....hmmm why does that sound familiar

If you have any raw data that does what you are claiming I'd love to see it. So far, you've tried to attack my motives. Defer blame. Apparently bring up something from another thread. And, continue to make the same logical fallacy of reification over and over. You can't defend the fallacy by simply repeating it. All you have to do is provide one piece of raw data that does what you claim. As far as I can see, your clarifiaction still embraces that data in and of itself is biased towards OEC. Am I missing something?

the majority of us agree that the data from a various and sundry sources allows us to draw some pretty solid conclusions about the age of the earth.

So truth is determined by majority opinion poll?

[zoegirl]

We agree that the data shows that the universe is old.

No we don't. And that is exactly what I'm talking about.

the we I was originally talking about...those of us that support OEC...."we" agree that the evidence allows us to come to the conclusion that the universe is old

It's a shame that because that data is somehow "tainted" that they immediately view it with prejudice.

This is a fundemental problem with your postion. You are ascribing a quality to data that it simply doesn't have. You are equating data on OEC ages, to be equivalent with things like math equations, that can actually be proven. There is no interpreting of 2+2=4. That is a proven fact. The data you are claiming does not operate this way. You can not look through a telescope and see "made in 4.6 billion b.c." Nor can you do this in the fossil record.

Dude, I have not, nor will not equate data to mathematical facts. You are putting words in my mouth. I told you before that it was a simple statement, made when I was tired (did you read my previous post?!?!?!?) and I CLARIFIED MY STATEMENT!! Had you actually done that before making your rather tiresome tirade you would have easily found this out.

I would argue it's more legitimate because the data provides overwhelming evidence...

Zoe, data is evidence. Why do you continue to make this same fallacy?

Okay...why are you continuing this tirade?? When we (all right, let me be perfectly clear for you....*we* meaning OEC), examine the evidence we find it provides overwhelming support for coming to the conclusion that the universe is old.

we make conclusions

There, we finally agree.

you're so sweet...but don't worry, I don't jump to conclusions...like making an entire case from one simple statement without asking for clarification....hmmm why does that sound familiar

If you have any raw data that does what you are claiming I'd love to see it. [/quote]

Plenty of evidence on the main site as well as thousands of websites, we can talk about the evidence and their conclusions...

So far, you've tried to attack my motives. Defer blame.

No, I'm merely annoyed that you have decided to make this into such a HUGE deal. Somehow you are thinking I was on some hidden mission to lob bombs on YEC when all my statement was saying is that we on this board think the evidence is for an old earth. Amazingly enough that *is* what this website proclaims.

Apparently bring up something from another thread.

what?

And, continue to make the same logical fallacy of reification over and over. You can't defend the fallacy by simply repeating it. All you have to do is provide one piece of raw data that does what you claim. As far as I can see, your clarifiaction still embraces that data in and of itself is biased towards OEC. Am I missing something?

YES, YOU ARE....you are being ridiculous here. And overly....sensitive...and trying to stir up something that is not worthy of being stirred up.

*I* think that the evidence strongly supports a conclusion for an old universe and old earth.

*You* think otherwise. It's as simple as that.

You are certainly welcome to bring up specific lines of data (speed of light, radiactive decay). If you think I was making any other fallacy, it is simply in your imagination (and if you had simply taken the time to ask for clarification, you could have avoided this)

the majority of us agree that the data from a various and sundry sources allows us to draw some pretty solid conclusions about the age of the earth.

So truth is determined by majority opinion poll?[/quote]

Dude, you are simply trying to misunderstand here, aren't you? It is simply a true statement. The majority of us do agree....and that, amazingly enough, is ALL I MEANT.

[RickD]

What Genesis 1:30 is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die. Therefore plants really all the "meat" for all animals..

Now Gman, when I read Genesis 1:30 after 1:29, with what you said in mind, it makes sense the way you explained it.

Yes, I believe that is simply a misunderstanding of the text because God already created light in Genesis 1:3. Also if you look at it in the Hebrew, it's a bit clearer. In the fourth day it doesn't say that God created the sun, moon and the stars. It states that he "made" them, which is the Hebrew word "asa" translated as the verb "made". When the Hebrew word "asa" is used it is usually used to denote an action already completed.

Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Genesis 1:16 simply does not specify when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However in Genesis 1:1, it does says that it was created using the Hebrew word "erets" or "hashamayim we ha' erets," heavens (plural) and the earth (singular). "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. All matter and energy and whatever else it contains....

Yes, Gman, I agree with you. I was simply stating that any YECs that I have heard, believe the sun was created after the earth. I was simply making a statement from that point of view.

Ok, now for honesty... For me, the only real problem I see with the OEC view is getting Christ's genealogy into a 50 thousand year lifespan. Most OEC believers believe that Adam was formed first on the earth some 40 to 50 thousand years ago and about 40 thousand years for Noah's flood... Now that is a long time to fit Christ's genealogy into that timelime.. Perhaps I see this the greatest problem for the OEC view.

. I don't really have a problem with that because I don't see the genealogies as having to be complete. If there is just one name left out, it opens the door to there being many more names left out. But now that you've explained to me in layman's terms how Genesis 1:30 fits with 1:29, I will have to come up with another OEC problem .

[musician]

What do you guys think? Worthwhile investment in promoting said museum?

Seems like a great idea to me, especially if it is an encouragement to those Christians who feel bombarded all day.

I didn't realize the YEC/OEC thing was a hot topic here. I tend to fall in the YEC camp by default I suppose, though the issue isn't terribly important to me at this stage.

- Nathan

[Canuckster1127]

What do you guys think? Worthwhile investment in promoting said museum?

Seems like a great idea to me, especially if it is an encouragement to those Christians who feel bombarded all day.

I didn't realize the YEC/OEC thing was a hot topic here. I tend to fall in the YEC camp by default I suppose, though the issue isn't terribly important to me at this stage.

- Nathan

No worries, Nathan. OEC is a primary focus of our main board and a lot of the conversation but all are welcome and it doesn't have to be important to you.

[zoegirl]

eh...occasional skirmishes....we're good, though.

[musician]

No worries, Nathan. OEC is a primary focus of our main board and a lot of the conversation but all are welcome and it doesn't have to be important to you.

Thanks. I don't mean to sound like a turd, but I used to get embroiled in stuff like limited atonement, and it was then that I decided that the things that were most important God made the most clear. I've seen perfectly suitable elder candidates rejected over infant baptism, and even struggled myself with whether my non-immersion (adult) baptism is "legit", so at the moment I can't see expanding and taking a new "position".

The thing that is frustrating to me about modern science is that as an "average Joe", I really don't stand a chance of beginning to understand it, nor do I have the time to investigate it with any degree of appropriate diligence. And yet, it seems like it now as if we are no longer allowed to live and act alongside it with out it jumping in and begging the question about all of our core beliefs. I also hate to make such a blanket statement, but it seems to me that wisdom is not one of the things pervading academia these days, so there is an aspect of mistrust there as well.

I prefer art.

- Nathan

[Gman]

The thing that is frustrating to me about modern science is that as an "average Joe", I really don't stand a chance of beginning to understand it, nor do I have the time to investigate it with any degree of appropriate diligence. And yet, it seems like it now as if we are no longer allowed to live and act alongside it with out it jumping in and begging the question about all of our core beliefs. I also hate to make such a blanket statement, but it seems to me that wisdom is not one of the things pervading academia these days, so there is an aspect of mistrust there as well.

I prefer art.

- Nathan

When you boil it all down, you will find that we really don't talk much about science in these discussions anyways. A LOT of it has to do with one's philosophy.. You just can't avoid it..

[zoegirl]

Here's a picture of the planned "theme-park"....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06 ... _LO_MST_FB

[Gman]

Here's a picture of the planned "theme-park"....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06 ... _LO_MST_FB

Zoe, one can't see it unless you log into it.. You could also upload it to http://tinypic.com/.

[zoegirl]

weird, sorry, here is the actual website of the theme park

http://arkencounter.com/

http://arkencounter.com/media/ (picture)

[kmr]

In my opinion, and, mind you all, this is only an opinion of a fallible human being, you can't read the flood story and call it a local flood. I mean, really, water that rose over the tops of all the mountains? It uses powerful language, too: Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out... (Gen. 23). Even the birds all died, when if it were a local flood they could have flied away. Then, to top it all off, God promised never to flood the world again, a promise that we are reminded of around the world every day in the rainbows, and yet there have been numerous floods since. So, either the whole story either happened literally, as it was told, or it was entirely symbolic (such as reflecting Christ in some way, like a parable). For the latter idea, most of the OT stories reflect the stories of Christ in one way or another. But I personally have to rule out the local flood.

[Gman]

In my opinion, and, mind you all, this is only an opinion of a fallible human being, you can't read the flood story and call it a local flood. I mean, really, water that rose over the tops of all the mountains? It uses powerful language, too: Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out... (Gen. 23). Even the birds all died, when if it were a local flood they could have flied away. Then, to top it all off, God promised never to flood the world again, a promise that we are reminded of around the world every day in the rainbows, and yet there have been numerous floods since. So, either the whole story either happened literally, as it was told, or it was entirely symbolic (such as reflecting Christ in some way, like a parable). For the latter idea, most of the OT stories reflect the stories of Christ in one way or another. But I personally have to rule out the local flood.

Most of your questions are answered here kmr...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html