Carnivores and the Fall

[Jig]

If that were true, there would have been no atheists in the world before an old age was posited for our planet.

Just because the idea of billions of years allows someone the room to be an atheist, moral relativist, or philosophical materialist, it doesn't mean all atheists, moral relativists, or philosophical materialist are such just because of the idea of billions of years.

And Kent Hovind would have paid his taxes. And the highest rates of divorce wouldn't occur in the Bible Belt. There's no truth to your assertion. YECs are just as prone to amorality as any other Christians.

That has nothing to do with my assertion. My assertion merely pointed out that if the universe was indeed supernaturally formed less than 12,000 years ago, philosophical materialism cannot be true and the ideas that stem from it would also fail (atheism and moral relativism).

If any one of the assumptions or methods were flawed, the methods would never agree more often than would be expected by chance.

At least that is what's assumed, right? I say the fact that they agree is greatly influenced by the assumptions made for each method. Especially since the assumptions made are the same for all of them, not to mention circular.

Now, if you're just going to say that God simply created these rates so that they would all agree independently on the age of bothe earth and life -- that the world and the life in it are young, but only seem old --

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Though I still respectfully disagree.

I do not use words like young or old because age is subjective. I do not think the world seems old, I observe that it is mature. That has nothing to do with age. If you mean by your statement, "the world and the life in it are young" to suggest that I believe that life hasn't been on the planet for longer than 12,000 years, than I would agree.

can you really blame people for thinking that these things actually are old?

Yes. Age is subjective. They believe the Earth is old for philosophical reasons not scientific reasons.

 

[vossler]

If that were true, there would have been no atheists in the world before an old age was posited for our planet. And Kent Hovind would have paid his taxes. And the highest rates of divorce wouldn't occur in the Bible Belt. There's no truth to your assertion. YECs are just as prone to amorality as any other Christians.

I'm sorry to jump in but this line of discussion is quite interesting. Are you saying that evolution doesn't promote atheism?

 

[Mallon]

Just because the idea of billions of years allows someone the room to be an atheist, moral relativist, or philosophical materialist, it doesn't mean all atheists, moral relativists, or philosophical materialist are such just because of the idea of billions of years.

Then what merit does saying an understanding that the universe is billions of years old leaves "room" for atheism have? Atheists would still be atheists if the world were only 100 years old.
You know what leads atheists to reject the Bible? The fact that it doesn't agree with modern science. YECs choose to reject modern science on that basis, but I think a better approach would be to reject the idea that the Bible has anything authoritative to say about science. It doesn't, and it never claims to. Take that away, and atheists have less reason to reject God's written word.

At least that is what's assumed, right?

Wrong. It's a necessary consequence of uniformitarianism. There is no other explanation.

Age is subjective.

"Old" is a subjective term, I agree. "4.6 billion years old" is an absolute term.

Regardless, there's really no point in continuing here if you're going to continue to insist on philosophical relativism. Again, we evidently have no common ground from which we can argue (other than our faith in Christ).

Are you saying that evolution doesn't promote atheism?

Yes. Atheists like Dawkins are on record as saying that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but they are just as wrong in thinking science can disprove God's existence as the anti-evolutionists. It's a misapplication of the philosophy of science. If there were any validity to the idea, Christians wouldn't be evolutionists!

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm sorry to jump in but this line of discussion is quite interesting. Are you saying that evolution doesn't promote atheism?

Yes. And the Pope isn't a Southern Baptist, and polar bears don't live in the Sahara desert.

In fact, YE creationism is a very effective promoter of atheism. Often, people who have been falsely indoctrinated to believe creationism is a Christian belief, lose their faith when they learn that it can't possibly be true.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Creationism will have much to answer for at Judgment.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just because the idea of billions of years allows someone the room to be an atheist, moral relativist, or philosophical materialist, it doesn't mean all atheists, moral relativists, or philosophical materialist are such just because of the idea of billions of years.

So it really doesn't matter after all? Very good.

My assertion merely pointed out that if the universe was indeed supernaturally formed less than 12,000 years ago, philosophical materialism cannot be true and the ideas that stem from it would also fail (atheism and moral relativism).

And if we were all actually good people, and the bad things we do were really when we were taken over by the Evil Fairy, none of us would be sinners.

But reality is sometimes inconvenient.

If any one of the assumptions or methods were flawed, the methods would never agree more often than would be expected by chance.

At least that is what's assumed, right?

Statistically verifiable. We know that confirmation from independent sources greatly increases confidence in the conclusion.

I say the fact that they agree is greatly influenced by the assumptions made for each method.

Sounds interesting. Show me how the "assumptions" for Ar/Ar testing affects the outcome for other sorts.

And show how ages obtained by other methods is affected thereby. Explain each method and tell us how assumptions alters the result.

Especially since the assumptions made are the same for all of them, not to mention circular.

Tell us how "circular" is involved.

Yes. Age is subjective. They believe the Earth is old for philosophical reasons not scientific reasons.

Explain how Rutherford's discovery of a radiological clock was done for philosophical reasons.

Facts will be required.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry to jump in but this line of discussion is quite interesting. Are you saying that evolution doesn't promote atheism?

No indeed. Evolution does not promote atheism.

Any assertion that it does is usually grounded in a misunderstanding of what evolutionary science is actually about.

 

[vossler]

Yes. Atheists like Dawkins are on record as saying that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but they are just as wrong in thinking science can disprove God's existence as the anti-evolutionists. It's a misapplication of the philosophy of science. If there were any validity to the idea, Christians wouldn't be evolutionists!

No indeed. Evolution does not promote atheism.

Any assertion that it does is usually grounded in a misunderstanding of what evolutionary science is actually about.

Here's a link that certainly shows a link between atheism and evolution. In this international survey there appears to be a direct correlation. The evidence is pretty clear that those who believe in evolution are far less likely to believe in God.

 

[juvenissun]

I need to give a model? Since when have creationists ever attempted to do that. Try to find a creationist source that identifies the original species created, or the species that came off the ark. You won't find it because once creationist start stating something testable, their views may be proven wrong. There's also no model that works for a worldwide flood that can explain everything we see. Once we invoke strong currents and turbulation to form some structures, we've eliminated the possibly, under that model, of things like chalk cliffs being formed. Earlier you said you just had to show it was possible, now you are saying that you need a working model. Showing that one thing is possible is, in my opinion, very different then providing a working model that explains all the evidence, which is something that creation scientists have never been able to do. The old earth model explains the data better, as is the consensus of the academic world, the burden is on you to show otherwise.

You are confused on the common methodology of science:

If we "think" that a system is possible, then we will try to make a model to illustrate the mechanism by which the system could work. The model demonstrates how is that system possible. You do not need any real evidence or a lot of data in that model. You just provide a mechanism. Finding evidence is something of the next step.

Creationist never simply say that something is created, then period. There is always a system attached to the creation. For example, creationist said that there were no death before the Fall. SO THAT, all created beings ate veges regardless the shape of their teeth. This is how a particular component works in the system of creation. Creationist also said that a Global Flood is possible. The mechanism is, in fact, explained in the Bible. If you don't think the Global Flood is literally true, then you may take what the Scripture says as a working model.

If a troll did destroy a bridge, then you need to "make up a story" to tell the mechanism of destruction. Then we can proceed to evaluate your model.

 

[juvenissun]

No indeed. Evolution does not promote atheism.

Any assertion that it does is usually grounded in a misunderstanding of what evolutionary science is actually about.

Glaudys, you have faith to God (I am sure evolution is not a reason for your faith). That is good, you can play your game of evolution. We can only pray that it won't affect your faith.

But please do not promote evolution to those who's faith are weak. You need to help them FIRST to establish their faith, hopefully, they would have chance to flounder your evolution theory afterwards.

 

[philadiddle]

I'm sorry to jump in but this line of discussion is quite interesting. Are you saying that evolution doesn't promote atheism?

I read the following responses to this and the link you provided to some surveys. Maybe we can take a step back and you can explain what you mean by "promote".

 

[Mallon]

He's all yours now, The Barbarian.

 

[The Barbarian]

Glaudys, you have faith to God (I am sure evolution is not a reason for your faith). That is good, you can play your game of evolution. We can only pray that it won't affect your faith.

If she is a Christian, it will pose no danger to her at all. Indeed, as you have seen, it is creationism that promotes atheism.

But please do not promote evolution to those who's faith are weak. You need to help them FIRST to establish their faith, hopefully, they would have chance to flounder your evolution theory afterwards.

People whose faith is weak are precisely those most likely to fall away when they learn the implications of creationism. Creationism is, at best, an additional stumbling block for those seeking Him.

 

[Mallon]

Here's a link that certainly shows a link between atheism and evolution. In this international survey there appears to be a direct correlation.

Correlation isn't causation. The US also tops the list in number of McDonald's fast food joints. Are we to believe that YECism causes people to eat a lot of Big Macs?

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys, you have faith to God (I am sure evolution is not a reason for your faith). That is good, you can play your game of evolution. We can only pray that it won't affect your faith.

But please do not promote evolution to those who's faith are weak. You need to help them FIRST to establish their faith, hopefully, they would have chance to flounder your evolution theory afterwards.

Some people's faith is weak because they already accept evolution, and have been wrongly told that it is not Christian to do so. They need to hear that they can be Christian even if they accept that evolution is sound science.

And for those who's faith may fail because they have been fed anti-evolutionary creationism and are finding out how weak it is---they too need to hear that evolution does not promote atheism and that you can have a strong faith and sound science.

If we truly believe that God created this world, there is nothing in this world that can damage our faith in God. Only misunderstandings of this world or of what we think scripture says (not what it actually teaches).

I think the greatest danger to faith comes from learning that people you trusted as Christian teachers have been lying to you about science. How then can you trust them on more important matters?

 

[gluadys]

Here's a link that certainly shows a link between atheism and evolution. In this international survey there appears to be a direct correlation. The evidence is pretty clear that those who believe in evolution are far less likely to believe in God.

The link shows nothing at all about evolution promoting atheism.

It is a survey of very questionable value for measuring atheism. They note for example, that they got only a 63% positive response from Americans on the first question (I know God exists and have no doubts about it.) which is much lower than the Gallup poll response of a 94% positive to a similar, but milder question (I believe in God or a higher spiritual being.)

Now, I have no doubts about the existence of God, but while I would respond positively to the phrasing "I believe that God exists." I would not likely respond positively to the phrasing "I know God exists."

And look how narrow the question on the Bible is. It not only demands belief in the bible, but that it be identified as "the actual word of God" and "to be taken literally word for word". That wording would get a negative response from a great many Christians who would nevertheless respond positively to "The bible is a revelation from God and was written by authors who were divinely inspired."

Several questions really need to be defined before one can answer positively or negatively. What does it mean to say "I definitely believe in the Devil?" or "I definitely believe in Hell"? or "I definitely believe in Heaven"? What if one believes that we will live forever on a cleansed and redeemed earth--as described in the book of Revelation? Does one answer "yes" or "no" to "I definitely believe in Heaven?"

There are a good many reasons why many Christians would have problems answering some of these questions positively, so the suggestion that a correlation between negative responses in this survey and positive attitudes to evolution has anything to do with atheism is deeply flawed. Many Christians would show up in this survey as "unbelievers" when they are not.


What it does show (as it actually says) is that those who accept human evolution do not accept creation science.

But one does not have to be an atheist to reject creation science. The majority of Christians reject creation science.

So, this is absolutely worthless if the aim is to show that evolution promotes atheism.

 

[vossler]

Correlation isn't causation.

Correlation may not be causation but most people would certainly see it as an interesting relationship.

 

[vossler]

The link shows nothing at all about evolution promoting atheism.

Maybe not, but it sure is interesting.

So, this is absolutely worthless if the aim is to show that evolution promotes atheism.

I personally think that if someone did a survey that asked questions such as:

"Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?"
"Is heaven a real place only reserved for those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?"
"Is Hell a place reserved for Satan, his minions and those who reject Jesus?"
"Is God a living God who wants to know you personally?"
"Is homosexuality a sin?"
"Is abortion a sin?"

If these questions were asked to 100 people who claim to be Christians I would conservatively guess that less than 10% of them would say yes to each of them. I would also guess that of those 10 at best only 1 would believe in evolution. Of the remaining 90 I believe the number of those who believe in evolution would be greater than 50%.

So can I categorically state that evolution promotes atheism, no but the correlation certainly is interesting. My own experience tells me that when I meet someone who claims to be a Christian but doesn't answer in the affirmative to any of the above questions I can predict with a fair degree of certainty the likelihood that they also believe in evolution goes up ex potentially.

 

[Mallon]

Correlation may not be causation but most people would certainly see it as an interesting relationship.

There's no doubt a relationship between evolution and atheism. But it's not a causal one. Skeptical people (among whom atheists pride themselves) tend to subscribe to the best in science, and that includes evolutionary theory.
Likewise, there is a correlation between low levels of education and YECism:

 

[gluadys]

Maybe not, but it sure is interesting.
I personally think that if someone did a survey that asked questions such as:

"Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?"
"Is heaven a real place only reserved for those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?"
"Is Hell a place reserved for Satan, his minions and those who reject Jesus?"
"Is God a living God who wants to know you personally?"
"Is homosexuality a sin?"
"Is abortion a sin?"

If these questions were asked to 100 people who claim to be Christians I would conservatively guess that less than 10% of them would say yes to each of them. I would also guess that of those 10 at best only 1 would believe in evolution. Of the remaining 90 I believe the number of those who believe in evolution would be greater than 50%.

Quite likely. But that has nothing to do with atheism. It just means they are Christians who don't agree with your particular take on what it means to be a Christian.

 

[Jig]

So it really doesn't matter after all? Very good.

I never said it didn't matter. I pointed out that a recent creation event cannot support philosophical materialism, which is the root to atheism and moral relativism. To believe in philosophical materialism one must also believe in the hypothesis of billions of years. A hypothesis of 12,000 years or less can only be explained by a supernatural agents activity.

But reality is sometimes inconvenient.

One day you may be eating your own words.

Sounds interesting. Show me how the "assumptions" for Ar/Ar testing affects the outcome for other sorts.

According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g.basalt) contain excess 40Ar, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth’s mantle by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.

And show how ages obtained by other methods is affected thereby. Explain each method and tell us how assumptions alters the result.

Funny how you are asking me how assumptions alter results. I thought that was obvious. You should be telling me how they don't alter the results since your sides position brought up that these independent tests verify that such assumptions are correct.

Tell us how "circular" is involved.​

Fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

​