Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[BukiRob]

Hello Bukirob.

I have a reasonable understanding of the scientific perspective.
Familiar with the Genesis text. Though I have a very relaxed view
of the ancient texts, therefore, I have no doctrinal position regarding
the text of Genesis.

Feel free to offer your understanding of the Genesis text. I doubt
that I will struggle with your viewpoint, Bukirob.

I was quoting Schroeder. His point was, and I agree, that having a "familiarity" is a fairly weak stance.

Schroeder has a PhD from MIT in physics and was a professor in said subject at MIT he also has a PhD in Earth Science. As such he is very qualified to address the scientific side of the argument

He currently teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem,Israel) where much of his time is researching and teaching the ancient commentaries from the Jewish sages who studied Torah. As a man who is fluent in Hebrew and has studied it for most of his life and teaches Jewish studies he is equally qualified to speak as to what the Torah says about creation.

So when Schroeder says you have to know both the science and the Torah he isn't talking about knowing it from afar or from a LAY perspective.

He isn't saying you cant debate it but the people lay people (like you and I ) often lean upon for our foundation of belief DO NOT have a deep grasp on BOTH which will lead you into error. It leads to error when it comes to the science and it leads to error when it comes to what scripture is actually communicating.

Part of the challenge that people who are "familiar with the text of Genesis" have is that they are almost oblivious to what the great rabbinical thinkers have to say about what Bereishit has to say from a Jewish Rabbinical perspective and that, IMO is a critical error. Not that the ancient rabbi's are automatically right, but rather they are FAR more familiar with the language and can expand and illuminate what the deeper meaning of the text is saying that if you aren't Jewish or you dont read Hebrew you simply WILL NOT SEE.

I think it is particularly fascinating that He is able to speak to BOTH and shows how they are actually in complete harmony with each other.

 

[Radrook]

It is only evidence when they say it is evidence otherwise it isn't evidence regardless of how compelling it might be. That is why discussions of this kind are useless.

 

[SkyWriting]

What I am asking specifically to be discussed in this thread is for participants to present examples of "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" from the creation science literature. Also keep in mind that I would like to focus on examples related to the Earth Sciences, not the biological sciences. Thank you.

• Still Searching for Geology's Holy Grail

Hecht, J. 2015. Rise of the upper crust. New Scientist. 226 (3017): 36-39.
Gazel, E., et al. 2105. Continental crust generated in oceanic arcs. Nature Geoscience. 8 (4): 321-327.

• Shark Jaw Opens Questions about Coal Formation

Angel, B. Shark Fossil Found in Western Kentucky Coal Mine. WKMS. Posted on publicbroadcasting.net April 7, 2011, accessed April 12, 2011.
Tarbuck, E. J. and F. K. Lutgens. 1993. The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology, 4th ed. New York: MacMillan, 551.

• Chinese Dinosaurs Were Fossilized by Flood

Zhuchengtyrannus magnus. Palaeocritti―a guide to prehistoric animals. Posted on palaeocrittic.com, accessed April 5, 2011.
Hone, D. W. E. et al. A new tyrannosaurine theropod, Zhuchengtyrannus magnus is named based on a maxilla and dentary. Cretaceous Research. Published online before print March 30, 2011.
T-Rex's cousin found in China. The Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk April 1, 2011, accessed April 4, 2011.

• Japan's Earthquake Altered the Length of a Day
• Texas Canyons Highlight Geologic Evidence for Catastrophe
• Chilean Earthquake Highlights Darwin Error
• Strata Data Axes Asteroid Dinosaur Demise
• The 'Mystery' of Octopus Fossils
• Confirmation of Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks
• Evidence for a Young World
• Were the Huge Columbia River Basalts Formed in the Flood?
• How Did the Vertical Columns at Devil's Tower Form?
• Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?
• The Global Flood of Noah's Day
• Up with Catastrophism!
• Geology and the Flood

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, 9 hours and 24 views after the initial post I see no examples of Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" presented. Anyone?

When demanding geological arguments, please don't
let your biological time frame yank your chain.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I am asking specifically to be discussed in this thread is for participants to present examples of "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" from the creation science literature.

From ICR:

On the other hand, if the speed of light is found to be changeable under various conditions, this lends credence to the creationist view that basic physical constants are changeable. ICR’s RATE project found evidence that nuclear decay rates have changed in the past.10 Since decay rates, the speed of light, and other constants are tied to each other through physical laws, it’s becoming easier to justify the view that many parts of the cosmos could have been affected by processes that operated in different ways and at different rates in the past.

 

[Armoured]

Well, 9 hours and 24 views after the initial post I see no examples of Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" presented. Anyone?

I think the difference is at which point you form your conclusions, whether before or after looking at the same evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the difference is at which point you form your conclusions, whether before or after looking at the same evidence.

Didn't ICR change its stance on the moondust argument?

 

[Radrook]

Same evidence different conclusion?
DNA considered a consequence of an intelligent organizing mind.
DNA considered a consequence of mindless chemical reactions.

 

[Speedwell]

Same evidence different conclusion?
DNA considered a consequence of an intelligent organizing mind.
DNA considered a consequence of mindless chemical reactions.

No, that's not it either.

Gravity considered a consequence of an intelligent organized mind.
Gravity considered a consequence of the mindless attraction of masses.

Water considered a consequence of an intelligent organizing mind.
Water considered a consequence of the mindless formation of covalent bonds.

See what I mean?