Evidence for God from Science

Those who are interested can go here,

http://www.reasons.org/best-tnrtb-gravi ... e-universe

RTB released a recent article talking yet another piece of evidence that shows even more that the universe and our earth are older, much older, than six thousand years!

Oh well, no wonder why young earthers are so afraid of evidence!

Derrick, I visited the site, and the other article linked.

Oh well, no wonder why young earthers are so afraid of evidence!

You do understand that your comment is ridiculous and fallacious.

The expansion of the universe after the big bang creation event affects various observable quantities in the universe. It changes the appearance of the cosmic microwave background radiation, alters the brightness of distant supernovae, and modifies the way galaxies cluster together. Consequently, scientists can determine the composition and history of the universe by analyzing the relevant observations. For a more detailed description of how this works for the CMB, see this article on measuring cosmological parameters.

For one, this article injects old earth presuppositons. Such as that the big bang did occur, and that it occured billions of years ago. And then deduces that observable (that being observable today) quantities are affected. Remember the big bang has not, nor can be observed. It also assumes that it is the only potential cause of cosmic microwave background radiation. It also presupposes that scientist can 'determine' history. This is a common error. That being that science can determine history. It can not.

Remember the big bang has not, nor can be observed. It also assumes that it is the only potential cause of cosmic microwave background radiation. It also presupposes that scientist can 'determine' history. This is a common error. That being that science can determine history. It can not.

If science cannot determine history, then YEC and OEC should both call it quits. There is no validity whatsoever in any attempt and therefore this is all useless.

Zoe, I never said that we can't know history, or even use science to infer what might have happened in history. But science does not "determine" history.

You're splitting hairs Jlay and splitting them in a way that is pretty much just manipulative in my opinion. The word "determines" in this case is not active in the sense that history is determined by science, but rather passively acted upon in the sense that the use of science determines and brings to our awareness what that history in fact was.

The only reason I can see for attempting to obfuscate and cloud the meaning in this manner is to attribute to another a sense in the statement that they did not intend. That's a strawman argument and a rhetorical debating technique, not a legitmate point. Science can indeed be utilized to determine for our knowlege what the earth reveals in terms of natural history. Of course that science and conclusion can be wrong or only partially true and open to continual re-evaluation. The same can be said in terms of Theology. Both rely upon the interperative lens of man's understanding.

The difference I see in this instance is that you appear to me, to be attempting to minimize science to the point of non-reliance when you find that science to be at odds with conclusions you have drawn theologically without considering that the possibility exists that the theology is faulty or that elements of misunderstand compound within both elements. That's my primary argument with many (not all) within the YEC movement. They in effect elevate their theology to the inerrant word of God itself and then use that as the measure to judge all who disagree with them.

God help us if we enter into a form of theological rationalism that divorces itself of the natural world it relegates it as something lesser in this context. That's one of the primary errors of gnosticism and also I believe at the heart of the Augustine quote in my signature below. There is no argument between nature and God's revelation as God is the common author of both. Science and Theology sure. Man's element of flawed perception and interpretation in both areas can lead to misunderstanding.

Let's not resort to these types of rhetorical maneuvers by elevating one nuance of a meaning to the exclusion of others in order to keep someone on the defensive and possible avoid the implications of what was said. Science does indeed determine history in the context of what it reveals to us what has taken place in the past. It's sufficient for many things that we rely upon in the context of judicial law, and other elements that undergird our understandings in many areas. It's certainly not absolute. But it's more than you attempt to diminish it to by isolating it to only one shade of meaning, and obviously a shade that wasn't intended by the original claimant.

Maybe try asking some questions to clarify before jumping on and assuming things like this. It might lead to more productive and less confrontive conversations.

Just a thought.

blessings,

bart

Interesting too that the YEC belief system itself does in fact use the structures ..... And the words... As we shall say of... Science.

In other words.. YEC also uses science to determine history.

Bart,

Nothing personal, but i think you read a lot more into my reply than you accuse me of doing with the word determine. I read my reply to the actual article. My reply, below the quote, was addresses to the content of the article, not to a poster.
I think it is very important to distinquish the limitations of science. And, to rightly define how the word science is being used. The fallacy of equivocation is very common, and one that should be pointed out when it happens. Such as when people jump from using operational science to forensic science to try and prove or determine something. The words are often interchanged to obscure. Often not intentionally. The word determine is one of many that is often the victim of equivocation. I provided the quote from the article in context of how the word was being used, and took exception. I saw the article mentioning observalbe science and equating it to things which are not observable to "determine" something. Now you can certainly disagree with me on how I'm reading their use of the word, but i definately take excpetion to your lenghty accusation of my motives and thoughts.

Seems odd to me that someone can make a statement like, "Oh well, no wonder why young earthers are so afraid of evidence!" to start the thread. And yet, you feel obliged to right a paragraph, on what you think i am thinking. Perhaps you should extend the same advice to Zoe, since she came to some conclusions that were not my intent, as I later pointed out.

Jlay,

I don't fault you at all for responding to the original statement. It was somewhat provocative and frankly, I would have responded in a similar tone to someone making a generalization of my position in this specific instance.

I stand by my comments however as to the isolating of the least favorable definition or context of a word or phrase that is being used either in a different sense or more broad sense. It's a debating technique I've observed for quite some time and it's not unique to you (or to me as I freely admit I can and occassionally can do the same thing.) I simply suggest that when that type of approach becomes rhetorical tool which in the end clouds the conversation or if you suspect rightly that what you suspect is happening then you ask the person to clarify what they mean rather than assuming the nuance most conducive to you argument (which is simply a form of strawman argument.)

In terms of Zoe, you're free to resolve any issues you wish with her directly. Redirecting attention to her doesn't change or diminish the issues pointed out here.

blessings,

bart

How can i ask the person who wrote the article? Are you being reasonable here? it would appear that you are lumping my reply to Derrick, and my reply to the article. Derrick isn't in a position to speak for the author of the article. So, your request is a bit unrealistic.

i don't have an issue with Zoe regarding her comments. My comment about Zoe was not about any issue I had with her, but to illustrate the fact that you are simply not being consistent or fair in your ciriticism. I'm asking you why you chose to single me out in such a way, for not asking questions, (of an author which is not participating here) when it was in fact Zoe who would have been the one to do it. Since she obvioulsy took exception to my reply, and the fact that I am here and able to dialogue and respond. Instead of asking me a question to clarify my position, she jumped to a conclusion that I was not implying. i don't have an issue with that. But it seems hypocritical that you would attack my observation of the fallacy of equivocation, and ignore the other. Sorry, but this just comes across as Axe grinding.

It's your choice to take it or leave it, of course.

You may wish to believe that this is directed to this specific instance and imagine that I was responding to your handling of Derrick. Latching onto one element of my response which in this specific instance is not possible (asking an article author what sense a word's usage was intended) doesn't address the larger statement which is based on long-term observation and impression. That also is a debating tactic which seeks to draw attention from the larger point in the hopes that the topic of conversation will now become the minor theme identified rather than the primary one which is either uncomfortable or unwinnable.

I'm not going for the bait. Again, you can take it or leave it, but the observation is kindly intended even if you are unwilling to consider it.

blessings,

bart

I stand by my comment as well. Of course science has limitations. But you can't make a blanket statement such as "science can't determine history" and yet conveniently use science to generate a history to one's liking. That's why I said what I said. If science can't help us determine what has happened in the past, then we should all just throw our collective hands in the air and simply rest on scripture. And to be honest, I can respect someone who holds that view. If someone came to me and said, "well I'm just not really sure we will ever be able to trust the data or that we could ever have an accurate view, so I am unsure and we simply rest on the surety that God did it"...then great, at least that's honest and using it across the board. And at some level, that is where I am at. I'm sure that we will never be able to unlock all of the mysteries and ultimately we know that God did it.

But if science is useful, even with its limitations, then we should use it without fear, without bias, and without the need to "find" the right data.

Bart,
Quite frankly I am insulted that you are accusing me of baiting. We may not agree, but that is just untrue. As i said, i think you have taken far more liberty in trying to put me on the couch and draw all these conclusions about my devious debate tactics and maneuvers. We obviously have much differing views on how able the scientific method is able to magically view the past.
There is really no point in me commenting on it further.

The comments are addressed to your comments and you're welcome to either address them or not as you see fit. We obviously do have differing views and that's fine. I'm as free as anyone else here to point out when I believe issues are being addressed and when they are being evaded or attention diverted elsewhere.

I've made no assertions of "magic" with regard to the scientific method. I think it says more of your view of it, than anything I've stated and I say that respectfully but clearly.

Again you're free to comment or not as you see fit.

blessings,

bart

But if science is useful, even with its limitations, then we should use it without fear, without bias, and without the need to "find" the right data.

Zoe, if I was being highly suspicious i would say that this implies that I am against what you state here.
I agree that the scientific process is useful. I agree it has limitations.
I agree that we should use it without bias.
In the sense that you are using the word fear, i would agree.

I guess one major disagreement we would have is in regard to the amount of bias that infiltrates the scientific method. And thus I see the comment about the need to 'find' the right data, as being equally on the other foot.

One of the common errors in the secular world is the one that says we must choose between science and faith. We both agree that this is a ridiculous assertion. Perhaps you can understand my frustration when I hear those similar type of things being cast at YEC, from OECers on this board. And the only reason I mention that is some of the undertones I've seen in post here at this board. Since you (Bart) have taken the liberty to comment on my motives, I''ll do the same. I see sublte hints to disparage YEC, and to paint me as a science hating, rhetoric filled, shady character using baiting tactics. And thus disparage myself. And, I'm as free as anyone else here to point out when I believe issues are being addressed and when they are being evaded or attention diverted elsewhere. Afterall, i pointed out specific areas where I found fault with the article. This issue at hand. You've gone into a lenghty dissertations about my motives, tactics, etc. Diversion?


Bart, my comment regarding magic results from what I see is people placing more 'faith' in the scientific method than is justified. We have no ability to look into the past, regardless of what some want to think. Everything we do in operational and forensic science is done in the present. We look at the present, and make inferences about the past. When we look at a fossil, we look at it in the here and now. When we look at background radiation we look at it in the here and now. And the list goes on. And when the word determine is used, which we know has two definitions, I see that as innapropiate as a scientific statement. Obviously, you don't agree. In fact I see these errors so common that it appears they are just accepted, and it is almost taboo to point them out.