jlay wrote: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
zoegirl wrote: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