How do I ignore evidence? ( for YECs)

[hithesh]

I posted a similar post a few days ago, but I did not receive a single YEC response, perhaps because the title might have been a bit abrasive: "Why are scientist so dumb".

My question is for YECs, if it was not for the Genesis account of creation,
and if you were presented just the evidence at hand, would you still assume the earth was just 10,000 years old?

Why do you feel that the dating methods are so much in error that they have to be off 99.9%, in order for a YE position to work?

And why do you feel that 97% of those in professions that observe the evidence, agree that the earth is much older than 10,000 years,
even though their are a number of prominent scientist in these field who are believers?

If the consensus was this high among individuals whose professions are based on observing evidence for other particular events,
those fractional few who take the opposing position, would be deemed as delusional, such as holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, etc....

How do YECs distinguish themselves from such positions?

Provide a good enough response, and you can even make a believer out of me.

 

[busterdog]

As shakespear said, "Let me count the ways..."

Science is just not credible on such issues. Its broad generalizations about timelines and origins are speculation. The refusal of science to accept its own limitations is pretty convincing evidence that I needn't worry much about any of that evidence. I don't mind addressing it from time to time and even noting stuff that is challenging. But, I am not losing sleep about it. I think the evolutionists would first have to admit interesting evidence in favor of a young earth. Then I would believe in an exchange of ideas.

For example, when someone says that the whole idea of flood geology was determine "dead" in 1831, I laugh. I am just not going to even enter that debate.

Science itself has so polarized all discussion, even on rather limited issues, that trying to tackle the big issues is pointless.

 

[laptoppop]

How do I ignore evidence? ( for YECs)
assumes that we ignore evidence. Flawed insulting strawman argument.

 

[vossler]

My question is for YECs, if it was not for the Genesis account of creation,
and if you were presented just the evidence at hand, would you still assume the earth was just 10,000 years old?

I don't know, but I'd probably just agree with what everyone (scientists and the like) were telling me. It really would have no bearing on my life one way or the other.

Why do you feel that the dating methods are so much in error that they have to be off 99.9%, in order for a YE position to work?

Simple, they don't comply with what God has told us.

And why do you feel that 97% of those in professions that observe the evidence, agree that the earth is much older than 10,000 years, even though their are a number of prominent scientist in these field who are believers?

Same as above.

If the consensus was this high among individuals whose professions are based on observing evidence for other particular events, those fractional few who take the opposing position, would be deemed as delusional, such as holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, etc....

How do YECs distinguish themselves from such positions?

Why is this even a question? I'm not here to satisfy man and what he thinks, my job is to honor, exalt and glorify God and His Son Jesus. Part of the process includes believing and trusting in His Word.

Provide a good enough response, and you can even make a believer out of me.

I have no illusions of making a believer out of you. If there's one thing I've learned here in OT there is nothing I could ever say that would be considered 'a good enough response.'

 

[Dannager]

How do I ignore evidence? ( for YECs)
assumes that we ignore evidence. Flawed insulting strawman argument.

Not if it's true. Though perhaps "ignore" is the wrong word. "Arbitrarily discard" might serve the statement better.

 

[laptoppop]

Nope. Not the *evidence*. We differ in the *interpretation* of the evidence and the *conclusions*.

People have tried to make a case from AIGs statement of faith -- but nobody has come up with any *evidence* that has been ignored. As in all models, there is ongoing work to advance the model and incorporate more and more details, etc. -- but nobody is *ignoring* or *discarding* any real observations.

 

[Dannager]

Nope. Not the *evidence*. We differ in the *interpretation* of the evidence and the *conclusions*.

Interpretations of evidence do not exist. Art has interpretations. Literature (the Bible included) has interpretations. Music has interpretations. Radiometric dating does not have interpretations. Evidence leads to one, and only one, valid conclusion. You can call it what you want, but what creationists do is arbitrarily discard evidence that they don't like. That's the long and short of it.

EDIT: If this is difficult to understand, realize that every time that AiG or any other creationist body tries to explain that their interpretation of the evidence is different, they really mean that they don't want to agree with the conclusion the evidence leads them to, and are making up a reason for arbitrarily discarding said evidence.

People have tried to make a case from AIGs statement of faith -- but nobody has come up with any *evidence* that has been ignored.

The fossil record, genetics, radiometric dating, the entire field of physical anthropology, etc. All the evidence that would lead them to be forced to conclude that evolution is valid has been arbitrarily discarded because they don't like it. That's why that portion of their statement of faith exists.

As in all models, there is ongoing work to advance the model and incorporate more and more details, etc. -- but nobody is *ignoring* or *discarding* any real observations.

Yes, they are. The only people advancing the model, incorporating details or improving the theory in any way are scientists working in their various fields. Creation "science" has never, ever, not once, contributed to the advancement of science. The only achievement it can lay claim to (if it can be called an achievement) is harming children's education by instilling a completely baseless distrust of science in them (for instance, suggesting that science deals in interpretations).

 

[laptoppop]

Ummmmm, no.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

 

[sfs]

Nope. Not the *evidence*. We differ in the *interpretation* of the evidence and the *conclusions*.

People have tried to make a case from AIGs statement of faith -- but nobody has come up with any *evidence* that has been ignored. As in all models, there is ongoing work to advance the model and incorporate more and more details, etc. -- but nobody is *ignoring* or *discarding* any real observations.

Where are these creationist interpretations being hidden? I've been looking for a creationist interpretation of pretty much any actual data in genetics for years, but I've never found one. I've asked on the web, and I've written to major creationist organizations, but nothing ever turns up. There is an enormous amount of data about the genetics of many species, including lots of information about frequencies and patterns of human genetic variation. Evolutionary models are routinely used to explain the specifics of the data (i.e. actual numerical predictions are made). All I have ever seen from creationists is the statement that different interpretations are possible. Why is that?

As for your claim that observations aren't being ignored, could you please point me to a creationist who will address these data? Just for starters -- there's lots more data out there.

 

[laptoppop]

Excuse me? Have you missed all the Mark Kennedy brain development posts?

 

[sfs]

Excuse me? Have you missed all the Mark Kennedy brain development posts?

Uh, no, I didn't miss Mark Kennedy's brain development posts. Did you miss all of my responses to Mark Kennedy's brain development posts, in which I attempt to correct his misunderstandings of genetics, and explain what various scientific papers are really talking about? And where in Mark's posts does he provide an alternative model for anything? He spends a lot of time talking about the (supposed) inadequacy of evolution to explain genetic features, but where does he offer the creationist model that would replace it?

 

[hithesh]

Excuse me? Have you missed all the Mark Kennedy brain development posts?

Well, Mark Kennedy doesn't seem to understand too well how evolution works, we had to teach him some basic mechanics the other day. I'm still waiting on a respone as we speak.

I admire Mr. Kennedy's responses, he seems to put a good deal of effort into them, and I'm always open for debate, and I'm willing to convert if someone were to convince me well enough.

 

[hithesh]

How do I ignore evidence? ( for YECs)
assumes that we ignore evidence. Flawed insulting strawman argument.

If you tell a flat-earther he's ignoring evidence he'll bite you as well.

The reason I asked, how do YECs distinguish themselves from Flat-earthers, is to see if we can define what it means to ignore evidence.

Does the flat-earther ignore evidence or just "interpret" the evidence differently?

 

[shernren]

On a purely methodological level, a blatantly offensive OP doesn't work, because it puts creationists on defensive, and when they are thinking hard about defending themselves they will naturally be harder to attack. Instead, be helpful. Then, when they refuse help as they inevitably will, that is a sign of ignoring evidence - although of course one must be willing to follow through with the offer if it is taken up!

For example, I have a standing offer to busterdog to help him understand the mathematics behind how pulsar data disprove c-decay theory. To his credit he has never tried to mention pulsar data ever since, and he has quieted down on his c-decay line, but if he ever brings it up again there are references and context available that show that he had the chance to understand how to incorporate data into his theory and didn't take up that chance.

Of course, at that time I wasn't thinking of it as a means to undermine credibility - I genuinely wanted to have fun teaching math (as well as getting a little boost out of knowing that I can teach a little math a lot better than my lecturers ), as well as have fun exploring the data. Come to think of it. There is no point trying to trap or attack creationists. It is when people are defensive that they are, well, defensive, and that never helps. But slip them into a candid discussion and their true colors show. In fact, if you sincerely believe that creationists ignore evidence, then they are their worst enemy, since they will betray their ignorance of evidence at every turn (as laptoppop did with his three stratigraphic threads which are now foundering, although silence is not consent). Their fruit will show them for who they are, and all our shouting at them will make no difference.

Just engage them. There is no need to persecute something you believe to be so horribly wrong anyway. If they are of God, then we will have erred; if they are of man, then they don't deserve that much effort from us.

 

[hithesh]

Just engage them. There is no need to persecute something you believe to be so horribly wrong anyway. If they are of God, then we will have erred; if they are of man, then they don't deserve that much effort from us.

I think I'm missing how it's wrong for me to assume that what many YECs are doing is ignoring evidence, when they themselves admit they do, to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis?

If you say that no matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your belief in 10,000 year old earth, then how can this position be anything other that "ignoring evidence"

I don't know of any YECs who admit that if the evidence pointed to an older earth, that they would change their position.

I also don't think that "ignoring evidence" is always a bad thing, in fact I "ignore the evidence" to believe in an improbable event such as the resurrection.

Am I wrong???

 

[jeffweeder]

Ive never believed in a flat earth, and its silly to say the Bible suggests its flat.Ive never seen such a thing in scripture.

what evidence is there for a old evolutionary earth?

Its obvious that the earth is intelligently designed right?

 

[shernren]

I think I'm missing how it's wrong for me to assume that what many YECs are doing is ignoring evidence, when they themselves admit they do, to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis?

If you say that no matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your belief in 10,000 year old earth, then how can this position be anything other that "ignoring evidence"

I don't know of any YECs who admit that if the evidence pointed to an older earth, that they would change their position.

Even if they are ignoring evidence, it does you no good to come out and say "hey you ignorant fools! Look at me! I'm an evolutionist and you can't do anything about it!" You put them on the defensive and cause them to watch their own words. I certainly know YECs who would be willing to change their position given evidence. I was once one of them, and I was a YEC not because I ignored evidence but I didn't know it existed.

Don't try to show them that they ignore evidence by shouting in their ears. Do it by bringing forward the evidence they ignore as they struggle with fitting their half-baked theories into the real world. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

I also don't think that "ignoring evidence" is always a bad thing, in fact I "ignore the evidence" to believe in an improbable event such as the resurrection.

Am I wrong???

Then you have no grounds whatsoever to criticize YECs for ignoring evidence, and frankly, I feel disturbed to hear you say that. If there was evidence that conclusively showed that the Resurrection did not happen, then I would stop being a Christian. The only point of being a Christian is because Christianity is true.

 

[jeffweeder]

Then you have no grounds whatsoever to criticize YECs for ignoring evidence

,

you cheeky little rascal

and frankly, I feel disturbed to hear you say that. If there was evidence that conclusively showed that the Resurrection did not happen, then I would stop being a Christian. The only point of being a Christian is because Christianity is true.

Yes indeed, Jesus was the image of a great God, could you dream up a better one?
So nice to hear you say that.

 

[theFijian]

Does the flat-earther ignore evidence or just "interpret" the evidence differently?

It is intresting to see how Creationists come over all postmodern when it comes to their scientific 'interpretations'.

 

[Dannager]

It is intresting to see how Creationists come over all postmodern when it comes to their scientific 'interpretations'.

Yeah.

The normal world:
Literature allows for multiple interpretations.
Empirical evidence, however, does not.

The creationist world:
Our literature (the Bible) does not allow for multiple interpretations.
Empirical evidence, however, does.