Assumptions vs conclusions

[rmwilliamsll]

It is becoming obvious that YECists can't tell an assumption from a conclusion. consistently. often. and sadly so.

What are the assumptions inherent in the dating methods?
for instance:
radioactive, tree or ice cores, coral growth patterns, varves?

radioactive dating techniques rely on assumptions like:
weak force doesn't change over time, has been substantially the same since the beginning.
growth or history markers, which is the class of the other types of dating techniques require some kind of observational continuity, that is the growth of tree we can see and measure for the last 20 years is substantially the same as the previous 10K years. likewise with ice cores, the snow fall and compression patterns are similiar now to 100K years ago.

The dating patterns are conclusions of science, how old a piece of wood is, is a conclusion not an assumption.

....

 

[gluadys]

It is becoming obvious that YECists can't tell an assumption from a conclusion. consistently. often. and sadly so.

What are the assumptions inherent in the dating methods?
for instance:
radioactive, tree or ice cores, coral growth patterns, varves?

radioactive dating techniques rely on assumptions like:
weak force doesn't change over time, has been substantially the same since the beginning.
growth or history markers, which is the class of the other types of dating techniques require some kind of observational continuity, that is the growth of tree we can see and measure for the last 20 years is substantially the same as the previous 10K years. likewise with ice cores, the snow fall and compression patterns are similiar now to 100K years ago.

The dating patterns are conclusions of science, how old a piece of wood is, is a conclusion not an assumption.

....

Let's not forget as well that scientific assumptions are regularly tested.

For example, that the weak nuclear force does not change over time is an assumption which has been thoroughly tested without ever being falsified. No known terrestrial force changes it. So it is highly probable that it has not changed during the history of the earth.

That last sentence, btw, is a conclusion, not an assumption.

 

[Micaiah]

One of the assumptions (or is it conclusions) that TE's often make when interpretting Scripture is that even though much of the creation story is mythical, there are important truths that can be distilled from the story.

It was interesting to see the responses on a previous thread where I listed some of the 'assumptions' made by those with a liberal interpretation of Scripture. What you will see is high degree of intolerance to statements that appear to misrepresent their position. I saw no attempt to understand the essence of what was said.

I would like to encourage these people to consider God's response when Christians take His inspired words and make them say things that He never intended. When Christians re-define words in ways that suit their own purposes.

Jesus showed the highest regard for the OT Scriptures, and made it clear He considered them the word of God. We should treat them with the same respect.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus showed the highest regard for the OT Scriptures, and made it clear He considered them the word of God. We should treat them with the same respect.

Agreed. I think most TEs do this.

OTOH, I have often seen creationists who do not, though I am not speaking personally here. I am referring rather to those who shoehorn modern scientific concepts like the inflation period of big bang cosmology into scripture. Or even the modern conception of "planet" which is only some 200 years old. During most of human history, and certainly all through the biblical times a planet was considered to be a subset of stars--those stars which are not fixed in a single constellation, but move from one to another. Under the earlier conception of planet, no one ever considered earth to be a planet as it is manifestly not a star.

 

[shernren]

It was interesting to see the responses on a previous thread where I listed some of the 'assumptions' made by those with a liberal interpretation of Scripture. What you will see is high degree of intolerance to statements that appear to misrepresent their position. I saw no attempt to understand the essence of what was said.

I once saw a thread on the Open Forums that went "YECism is dangerous because YECs believe they have a mandate to conquer the earth and therefore to disregard environmental conservation." I didn't see a lot of tolerance from YECs for that. I didn't see any attempts to understand the essence of what was said (that YECism is very often seen as hasty and shallow theology forwarded with political motivation). Point is that we were intolerant towards those statements because they were, well, misrepresentative. Not because being TE has made us any less Christlike than we would otherwise be.

Like gluadys said, most TEs (at least whom you will see here on CF) take the Old Testament seriously and as no less than the word (although maybe not the Word, depending on theological accuracy) of God. I for one find no offense whatsoever in believing that my God is creative enough to talk to me not only in histories and in prophecies but also in myths.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of the assumptions (or is it conclusions) that TE's often make when interpretting Scripture is that even though much of the creation story is mythical, there are important truths that can be distilled from the story.

it is a hermeneutical principle. how to extract meaning from a text. the assumption will be which level of the hermeneutical task inspiration and authority are at. words or principles appear to be the choices.

....