Definitions and assumptions

[juvenissun]

Oh really?

Want to try?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Want to try?

Well it's a bizarre claim that over 50% of science corresponds to a 6000 year old earth. I've yet to see any correspondence. I certainly haven't seen you present anything that supports it. But you've gone further now, you've said over 50% of science. Well, with that amount of support for your statement, you should have quite a list to present.

 

[Naraoia]

Have anyone seen a collection of definitions and assumptions for the very basics of Science, Atheism, Creationism and Theism?

Not that I remember. However, are there really any unifying assumptions for (a)theism other than the belief in god(s) or lack thereof?

People are using their own definitions and basis for their arguments and have to explain them over and over. It's like watching two people standing on different sides of a river debating who's on the right side.

I wonder if part of the problem (and perhaps part of the reason that you have to ask this question at all) is that people are unaware of their own assumptions and definitions, or maybe don't really have any until they are called out to state them explicitly. Case in point, the goalpost-shifting that almost invariably happens when "macroevolution" comes up. This is how it usually goes:

1. Creationist demands an example of macroevolution, or something "evolving into something else".
2. Someone whips out one that they think is an example - one of our well-worn lists of observed speciation, something from the Lenski group's long-term evolution experiment, the evolution of multicellularity in algae or yeasts, etc.
3. Creationist retorts with a variation on the "still just a fruit fly/bacterium/[insert organism] line.

In these cases, I often suspect the creationist doesn't really know what they are demanding at point 1. There is only the conviction that the evolutionists can't provide it.

I suppose similar things must go on on both sides, but obviously I'm more sensitive to those over the river

(BTW, don't rivers actually have officially defined left and right banks? )

In fact, I would say there are at least 50% overlap between creationism and YEC. And there are also more than 50% overlap between YEC and science.

I'm intrigued to know how you quantify an overlap between YEC and science...

 

[Naraoia]

Also, OP, don't think I've met you before, but I like the way you think! Welcome to the madhouse!

 

[Elendur]

Not that I remember. However, are there really any unifying assumptions for (a)theism other than the belief in god(s) or lack thereof?

I think you're right. But that is something that many tend to forget, mixing atheism and science.

I wonder if part of the problem (and perhaps part of the reason that you have to ask this question at all) is that people are unaware of their own assumptions and definitions, or maybe don't really have any until they are called out to state them explicitly. Case in point, the goalpost-shifting that almost invariably happens when "macroevolution" comes up. This is how it usually goes:

1. Creationist demands an example of macroevolution, or something "evolving into something else".
2. Someone whips out one that they think is an example - one of our well-worn lists of observed speciation, something from the Lenski group's long-term evolution experiment, the evolution of multicellularity in algae or yeasts, etc.
3. Creationist retorts with a variation on the "still just a fruit fly/bacterium/[insert organism] line.

In these cases, I often suspect the creationist doesn't really know what they are demanding at point 1. There is only the conviction that the evolutionists can't provide it.

I suppose similar things must go on on both sides, but obviously I'm more sensitive to those over the river

(BTW, don't rivers actually have officially defined left and right banks? )

Thank you for that example, that's exactly what I'm seeing over and over that's why I started this thread, so that the most common misconceptions can be averted.

Regarding the river; It seems that they have defined the sides as if you were looking downstream. But I made that example just for someone to point it out fun that you noticed. I also left it to be interpreted as "correct", but that's probably what most read it as.

Also, OP, don't think I've met you before, but I like the way you think! Welcome to the madhouse!

Thanks, I registered about 1-2 weeks ago, so the chances are big we haven't met. I can return the compliment, from what I've read I like the way you think as well.
Always nice to hear that I'm doing something right at least I hope I'll stay for a while.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm intrigued to know how you quantify an overlap between YEC and science...

Can we put an estimation on everything? That is not too hard.

 

[juvenissun]

Well it's a bizarre claim that over 50% of science corresponds to a 6000 year old earth. I've yet to see any correspondence. I certainly haven't seen you present anything that supports it. But you've gone further now, you've said over 50% of science. Well, with that amount of support for your statement, you should have quite a list to present.

Of course I do.

What do you know about YEC except the 6000 years number? Let me guess: zero.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And there are also more than 50% overlap between YEC and science.

I would have to say this is probably true. Actually the overlap may be much closer to 100%, except that it is nearly 100% refutation of YEC by science.

When science touches YEC, YEC usually tends to shrivel up and fade away into the "religious doctrine" it is, as opposed to scientifically robust statement.

But I'd be interested to see what Juvenissun shows us as the 50% overlap between YEC and science.

Everything I've read from the YEC community that tries to "sound like" science seems to have some pretty big flaws or poor technique.

Groups like the R.A.T.E. group appear to be trying to do science. That doesn't mean it is resulting in anything that actually meets the standards of quality science.

 

[Naraoia]

Can we put an estimation on everything? That is not too hard.

Sure. Can we put a meaningful estimation on everything? That's much harder.

 

[juvenissun]

I would have to say this is probably true. Actually the overlap may be much closer to 100%, except that it is nearly 100% refutation of YEC by science.

When science touches YEC, YEC usually tends to shrivel up and fade away into the "religious doctrine" it is, as opposed to scientifically robust statement.

But I'd be interested to see what Juvenissun shows us as the 50% overlap between YEC and science.

Everything I've read from the YEC community that tries to "sound like" science seems to have some pretty big flaws or poor technique.

Groups like the R.A.T.E. group appear to be trying to do science. That doesn't mean it is resulting in anything that actually meets the standards of quality science.

Actually, as I think about it further, I think the YEC/Science overlap should be something like more than 90%, even up to 99.9%. The only one which is slightly less scientific is the 6000 years figure, which only use arithmetics.

 

[Elendur]

Actually, as I think about it further, I think the YEC/Science overlap should be something like more than 90%, even up to 99.9%. The only one which is slightly less scientific is the 6000 years figure, which only use arithmetics.

Please explain what you are basing this on.

 

[juvenissun]

Please explain what you are basing this on.

If there are 100 pieces of arguments for YEC, then the 6000 years age is only one of them which used the method of addition. The other 99 pieces are arguments that have some scientific contents.

 

[Elendur]

If there are 100 pieces of arguments for YEC, then the 6000 years age is only one of them which used the method of addition. The other 99 pieces are arguments that have some scientific contents.

But that doesn't make it 99% overlap.

Yes, in that case 99% of YEC falls into the science, but you haven't calculated on how much of the science fall outside of YEC.

Also: Arguments are not definitions or assumptions, and those are what define the overlap.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The only one which is slightly less scientific is the 6000 years figure, which only use arithmetics.

Emphasis added for hilariaty.

Sorry, Juvenissun, but YEC is about as far from science as anything imaginable.

What YEC operates from is a bishop's addition of numbers of ages of characters from a book of unknown provenance, by an unknown author or group of authors linked into a creation myth.

The only reason it has any validity in anyone's mind is because it is crafted to be explicitly supportive of the creation myth in the book of unknown provenance by unknown authors that looks, in many ways, like countless other creation myths.

May as well decree the Rand Corporation book of random numbers a holy book and start adding up the first 17 numbers, multiply by 10000 and decree it a "scientific assessment of the age of the earth".

It isn't based on observation, it isn't based on evidence, it isn't based on any known mechanism in physics (ie you have to basically dismantle all of physics and hydodynamics and chemistry in order to make it work), ergo it is pretty far from science.

 

[juvenissun]

But that doesn't make it 99% overlap.

Yes, in that case 99% of YEC falls into the science, but you haven't calculated on how much of the science fall outside of YEC.

Also: Arguments are not definitions or assumptions, and those are what define the overlap.

Very good. My mistake. So, should we say that 99% of YEC are included in science?

 

[juvenissun]

Emphasis added for hilariaty.

Sorry, Juvenissun, but YEC is about as far from science as anything imaginable.

What YEC operates from is a bishop's addition of numbers of ages of characters from a book of unknown provenance, by an unknown author or group of authors linked into a creation myth.

The only reason it has any validity in anyone's mind is because it is crafted to be explicitly supportive of the creation myth in the book of unknown provenance by unknown authors that looks, in many ways, like countless other creation myths.

May as well decree the Rand Corporation book of random numbers a holy book and start adding up the first 17 numbers, multiply by 10000 and decree it a "scientific assessment of the age of the earth".

It isn't based on observation, it isn't based on evidence, it isn't based on any known mechanism in physics (ie you have to basically dismantle all of physics and hydodynamics and chemistry in order to make it work), ergo it is pretty far from science.

Making such a comment will not help you a bit. You are wasting your time.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Making such a comment will not help you a bit. You are wasting your time.

I'm wasting my time? Well, that's definitely usually the case when talking to you, but I can't help but notice you don't substantively deal with the issues I raised.

See, Juvie, that's the difference between you and I. I actually make a point that contains at least some sort of justification for the conclusion I draw.

You just "decree".

That approach won't help you one bit.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You are wasting your time.

You are correct, good sir!

 

[Elendur]

Very good. My mistake. So, should we say that 99% of YEC are included in science?

Wait...
So instead of "in that case 99% of YEC falls into the science" you say "that 99% of YEC are included in science?"?
How is that any different from what I wrote? That doesn't define how much of science is outside of YEC.

 

[Naraoia]

May as well decree the Rand Corporation book of random numbers a holy book and start adding up the first 17 numbers, multiply by 10000 and decree it a "scientific assessment of the age of the earth".

Now I want to know what that number is!