Evidence for God from Science

Adam_777 wrote:Without any outside information this little fellow could easily be mistaken as older based on the physical data:



Is God doing a sneaky trick because evidences could misconstrue old ages falsely? Should we reject the evidence for a young age here because they are mostly based off of nonphysical evidences like hospital records and parent/friend testimony or should we look for potential reasons for the potential false appearance of age in spite of the apparent physical appearance of age?

If we just had the Body, a birth certificate, and one person's testimony would the physical data drive how we interpret the birth certificate and testimony. Which one has more merit? Maybe a number is off on the birth certificate. Maybe the person testifying is not being literal since the body obviously looks older then what the certificate and person's testimony declare.

Should we look strictly at how we interpret the non-physical testimonies to line up with the obvious appearance of age or should we also question to see; if the obvious appearance of age... is indeed so conclusive as to merit how we view all other data?

Adam,

Please don't take this personally, as I'm looking to address the substance of what you're saying and not you personally.

This type of argument is one of the things that once I came to understand what the dynamics were, drove me from the popular YEC camp.

This is what in logic is referred to as a category error and it is rhetorically very effective but for anyone who examines it, the appeal seeks to compare visual misperception in the age of a person in the most unique and extreme instance and then to compare that to the common perceptions of the age of the earth. It compares biology to geology. It seeks to create doubt in the mind of the hearer and then answer that doubt with an appeal to an already assumed answer. It's a rhetorical trick masquerading as science and logic.

The difference in age appearance that is being appealed to in this little rhetorical flourish is not a case of a 10 year old boy appearing to be be 80. The appearance being appealed to in this instance is subjective and on the basis on the documentation you reference can be easily corrected. The difference between the perceived age and real age is about 800%.

The difference in age appearance between a YEC and OEC position today is the case of an earth that from the YEC perspective is 6,000 years old (roughly although some will accept up to 10,000) and (although technically an OEC position isn't bound by current scientific definitions) an earth that appears to be roughly 5 billion years old. The difference in this comparison between perceived age and presumed age (which ironically is moving in the opposite direction) is 0.0000012%. Invert it and you're talking about 833,333% if the comparison is to be accepted at face value.

YEC, as you're presenting it, isn't being based on an examination of the evidence objectively observed and presented. It's appealing on the basis of a flawed logical appeal to doubt, based upon a category error and confusion of the things being compared to create doubt for which the implied solution is the assumption already made by the presenter.

Sadly, my experience and observation with many (not all) YEC proponents in this regard when having this pointed out will be to attempt to defend by introducing more confusion and rhetoric or an unwillingness to concede the point and a move on to the next appeal. It's a static argument. There's rarely a willingness to concede any point and the arsenal is returned to in a seemingly infinite cycle of doubt with the same answer provided.

Then the appeal is back to the Scriptures and what I believe is a flawed hermeneutical approach, which then becomes equated to the Scriptures itself and those who disagree are implied to be or overtly called heretics.

I'm extending things from your presentation here, so again let me be clear that I hope you're not taking this personally but rather hearing the frustration that this type of fallacious presentation engenders not only in the small sector of Christians who are OEC but moreso in those outside of Christianity who are then presented with the proposition that the only way to be a Christian is to commit intellectual suicide and knowingly accept this type of irrational reasoning to a presupposed conclusion.

For the sake of discussion, before you move onto the next presentation, would you please deal point by point with the questions and points I've provided you above and explain to me why this is not a logical fallacy or catergory error or if you accept that it to any degree that it is, why you would appeal to it in this manner.

blessings.

bart

IgoFan wrote:Don't let me misrepresent you, but as a YEC, do you use (or have you used) science to support your position? (e.g., the video links you provided) And is the Bible your final authority even on matters relating to the natural world? But from your perspective, could science basically agree with the Bible regarding the Earth's age?

The Bible is not a science textbook, per say. It is not a textbook on microbiology or astrophysics. However, the important question is this; Is the Bible reliable in the matters it speaks or must we help God with the meaning of His own Words because He doesn't know how to plainly communicate truth as He wants it revealed?

I truly hope you consider watching those first couple videos. I can explain in brief that there is a large scale experiment that shows that the assumptions about stratification and therefore layer ages are almost absolutely misinterpreted by modern day secular geologists. Here are shorter videos presenting the concepts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5yJeSrzyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exxtkN8610

I want to discuss the OP but it will take some careful consideration of the evidence.

Adam_777 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Not when the "incorrect" perspective is a chosen perspective over the obvious correct perspective. OEC, at it's basic levels proves YEC wrong.

Well, I'm convinced....or maybe not. The only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive. This is the evolutionists number one playing card as well. I hope this isn't the case with my fellow believers here. I can admit and ponder the limitations of the scientific method, can you?

It's a false dillema. Science by definition recognizes its limitations. It is by definition limited to that which is material, observable and measurable and it is designed to introduce doubt and allow for correction when there is evidence to support a change in view.

The limitations of science do not favor either a YEC or an OEC position. They are what they are. Science clearly is not the sum total of all truth for a Christian because we do not view the world as only that which is material. An OEC view however is not bound to the current scientific view, even though, in fairness the general age of the universe and the earth is so overwhelmingly supported as to make the OEC position such that to my knowlege, there are no Young earth proponents out there who have come to their position solely on the basis of scientific evidence. The YEC position is assumed based upon a presumption made from revelation and then the search for evidence to support that already espoused position.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sadly, my experience and observation with many (not all) YEC proponents in this regard when having this pointed out will be to attempt to defend by introducing more confusion and rhetoric or an unwillingness to concede the point and a move on to the next appeal. It's a static argument. There's rarely a willingness to concede any point and the arsenal is returned to in a seemingly infinite cycle of doubt with the same answer provided.

I'm not sure why I keep getting psychoanalyzed rather than actually discussing the nature of our perception and capability to get things wrong on a large scale. When you're interested in discussing philosophy of science and the actually evidence, I'm ready. So far I've only received gnat straining attempts to discredit me rather then actual scientific discussion. I thought this was a science forum.

When I've been on here in the past I was eager to discuss actual evidence point by point but the reception I received was very similar. I'm giving individual cases and well done experiments to question the current earth dating dogma but I'm instead being constantly told what YECs think and that's getting old. I'm a YEC, I know what I think... now let's debate with some actual science minus the rhetoric.

Adam_777 wrote:The Bible is not a science textbook, per say. It is not a textbook on microbiology or astrophysics. However, the important question is this; Is the Bible reliable in the matters it speaks or must we help God with the meaning of His own Words because He doesn't know how to plainly communicate truth as He wants it revealed?

It is an equally valid question to ask of the YEC position whether they are adding meaning to God's Words and then seeking to defend those additions despite the disconnect between these added meanings and the clear evidence of God's creation and natural revelation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Not when the "incorrect" perspective is a chosen perspective over the obvious correct perspective. OEC, at it's basic levels proves YEC wrong.

Well, I'm convinced....or maybe not. The only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive. This is the evolutionists number one playing card as well. I hope this isn't the case with my fellow believers here. I can admit and ponder the limitations of the scientific method, can you?

It's a false dillema.

With all do respect Bart there is no dilemma offered to be falsified in my above statement. Please reconsider making statements like this falsely. There is no either/or offered above and frankly your use of logic is falling short. Please demonstrate the false Dilemma if you think there is one. You have not shown its form. Please break it down so others who may be confused can see.

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sadly, my experience and observation with many (not all) YEC proponents in this regard when having this pointed out will be to attempt to defend by introducing more confusion and rhetoric or an unwillingness to concede the point and a move on to the next appeal. It's a static argument. There's rarely a willingness to concede any point and the arsenal is returned to in a seemingly infinite cycle of doubt with the same answer provided.

I'm not sure why I keep getting psychoanalyzed rather than actually discussing the nature of our perception and capability to get things wrong on a large scale. When you're interested in discussing philosophy of science and the actually evidence, I'm ready. So far I've only received gnat straining attempts to discredit me rather then actual scientific discussion. I thought this was a science forum.

When I've been on here in the past I was eager to discuss actual evidence point by point but the reception I received was very similar. I'm giving individual cases and well done experiments to question the current earth dating dogma but I'm instead being constantly told what YECs think and that's getting old. I'm a YEC, I know what I think... now let's debate with some actual science minus the rhetoric.

Adam777,

You've selected one portion of my post and ignored the very specific issues which I took great pains to address on their merits and not you personally.

Debate involves addressing all that the other participant has to say and not picking and choosing to deflect attention from one's unwillingness or inability to address the points and questions raised.

This is not the first time you've done this so I'm calling you on it. Would you please address and explain why the post I responded to isn't a category error and why it should be introduced into a conversation that you claim you want to be based on science?

Thanks,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:The Bible is not a science textbook, per say. It is not a textbook on microbiology or astrophysics. However, the important question is this; Is the Bible reliable in the matters it speaks or must we help God with the meaning of His own Words because He doesn't know how to plainly communicate truth as He wants it revealed?

It is an equally valid question to ask of the YEC position whether they are adding meaning to God's Words and then seeking to defend those additions despite the disconnect between these added meanings and the clear evidence of God's creation and natural revelation.

This is off topic but please feel free to show me how I'm adding to God's word in a different thread. This one is about physical scientific evidence the last time I checked.

Have you reviewed those links or is it more important to discuss other things besides what the OP requests?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Debate involves addressing all that the other participant has to say and not picking and choosing to deflect attention from one's unwillingness or inability to address the points and questions raised.

What have I deflected? You made your comments and I've made mine. If you have a specific question that you want answered please repeat them one at a time. You haven't addressed all of my points and I wouldn't expect you to. Rather then making accusations about nonscientific issues, you could address the science I've brought up. Like I said if there is something specific please reiterate it rather then requesting the unrealistic proposition of addressing every point made.

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Not when the "incorrect" perspective is a chosen perspective over the obvious correct perspective. OEC, at it's basic levels proves YEC wrong.

Well, I'm convinced....or maybe not. The only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive. This is the evolutionists number one playing card as well. I hope this isn't the case with my fellow believers here. I can admit and ponder the limitations of the scientific method, can you?

It's a false dillema.

With all do respect Bart there is no dilemma offered to be falsified in my above statement. Please reconsider making statements like this falsely. There is no either/or offered above and frankly your use of logic is falling short. Please demonstrate the false Dilemma if you think there is one. You have not shown its form. Please break it down so others who may be confused can see.

I draw your attention to the rest of the post that you didn't quote.

A false dilemma by definition is a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. You use of the phrase "the only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive." That limits things to where there are no other possible options. The remainder of my post addressed and demonstrated another option thus revealing the fallacy of the original proposition.

Would you like to address the substance of what I said?

Thanks,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:A false dilemma by definition is a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. You use of the phrase "the only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive." That limits things to where there are no other possible options. The remainder of my post addressed and demonstrated another option thus revealing the fallacy of the original proposition.

You are straining at two equally ambiguous statements. I think your logic is a little confused but I'll give it to you.

We have yet to actually discuss the dating techniques but I guess that's what I'll get when the science of dating the earth is empty and indeed very ad hoc in its nature.

Adam,

That's kind of you to concede.

Should I assume moving forward that we'll just bounce around in this manner or do you wish to maintain a conversation with both parties addressing the actual points of the other?

Regards,

bart

I know you're the board administrator so I guess if I had my wish I would like to discuss science, it's philosophy and the topic posted in the OP.

Adam_777 wrote:

IgoFan wrote: Don't let me misrepresent you, but as a YEC, do you use (or have you used) science to support your position? (e.g., the video links you provided) And is the Bible your final authority even on matters relating to the natural world? But from your perspective, does science basically agree with the Bible regarding the Earth's age?

The Bible is not a science textbook, per say. It is not a textbook on microbiology or astrophysics. However, the important question is this; Is the Bible reliable in the matters it speaks or must we help God with the meaning of His own Words because He doesn't know how to plainly communicate truth as He wants it revealed?

Is this a "yes" to my question about whether you feel scientific evidence could basically agree with the Bible on issues where the two may overlap, e.g., the Earth's age?

Based on viewing all your video references, the answer seems to be "yes". (My original post and follow up aimed at knowing how many YECs would debate the Earth's age from a scientific basis.)

Adam_777 wrote:I know you're the board administrator so I guess if I had my wish I would like to discuss science, it's philosophy and the topic posted in the OP.

That's fine then. I'm not using my position as a moderator to try to bully you here. It just appears to me that you're being very selective and not engaging with the comments I and others are providing you. That's your choice. But then it's my choice as a participant if I want to continue in that manner too.

This is an OEC board. I hope you know you're welcome, but it's not unreasonable to expect that a YEC position will be challenged.

Maybe it would help if we started with this question.

Can you think of a scientist or an example of how science independent of an assumption of a Young Earth based on interpreting Gen 1 & 2 (or possibly even other faith's scriptures) would conclude that the earth is less that 100,000 years old (which is the outside limit of most YEC proponents.)

blessings.

bart