Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Diamond72]

as I said science operates without concerning itself with the god question

A lot of science comes from religion. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who discusses philosophical concepts, and Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the commentators who deal with the spiritual physics of the universe, often referred to as Kabala. Today their teaching is carried on by the Hasidic who try to bring it to a level people can understand.

 

[Diamond72]

Wow, Wise is just like so many Christians on this site who keep insisting they know the "inner struggles" of non-Christians. How very disappointing.

He does not deny science. He maintains his integrity.

 

[Diamond72]

Are there any Christians who died of cancer in your town?

I had a one in 1200 chance of survival. Can you beat that with your atheism? We see miracles all the time. We see people healed all the time. It can be difficult to prove because they are so fully restored that you do not always see that they were ever sick and needed healing. I remember doing remodeling work for a guy that had cancer. He said he may not be alive when I finished the project. The day I finished I asked him about that. If anything he was better. That was when I began to see the healing power of God. I remember my dad was mad at me because I would not let him die. But he got my brother to kill him. So we have to decide whether we represent life, health, and healing or death and destruction. That is our choice. Clearly God wants us to choose life.

 

[Diamond72]

[citation needed] Darwin got gradualism from a Christian geologist.

Charles Lyell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, FRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a Scottish geologist who demonstrated the power of known natural causes in explaining the earth's history. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology (1830–33), which presented to a wide public audience the idea that the earth was shaped by the same natural processes still in operation today, operating at similar intensities. The philosopher William Whewell termed this gradualistic view "uniformitarianism" and contrasted it with catastrophism, which had been championed by Georges Cuvier and was better accepted in Europe.[1] The combination of evidence and eloquence in Principles convinced a wide range of readers of the significance of "deep time" for understanding the earth and environment.[2]

That brings us to Gould and his punctuated theory.

As I said: Gradualism leads to massive failure like what happened at Oroville Dam. You have people trained in gradualism who are not prepared to deal with catastrophic events. There was also the oil spill in the Gulf that they were not prepared to deal with and they needed to turn to people who understood catastrophic events. This is really very simple because it is just a higher water pressure that can be measured easily.

 

[Astrid]

I think Hitchens is pretty on point about religion in general. As for my opinion of the pope, try Tim Minchin.

[Edit to add:] Until I started to read this site (a couple years before joining) I was vaguely aware of Hitchens and had never read anything he wrote. I was rather annoyed at Dawkins for spoiling his pro-science, anti-creationism rep with an anti-religion screed. (I was already admitting to myself that I was an atheist when both of their books came out.) Like I said to someone else earlier today (on probably a different thread) about Neil Tyson -- it's perfectly reasonable for non-believing science communicators to not go "anti-religion" or even soft-peddle there non-belief (if they even admit it). The anti-(anti-religion) backlash may not be worth it when trying to connect with general audience that are largely believers.

Going anti religion is just being tiresome and
boring.

 

[Diamond72]

YEC creationism is not science. When it pretends to be it is pseudoscience.

YEC Creationism is HISTORY. But history is backed up by Science. Archeology has been used for the last 100 years to prove the Bible is accurate and true. YEC Creationism is a history of the last 6,000 years. It started with Bishop Usshers book 500 years ago. At the time they knew NOTHING about ANYTHING before Adam and Eve. Now we have massive amounts of information about what took place before Adam and Eve. This is what they call the neolithic revolution that leads to civilization. Noah saved the domesticated animals and cultivated plants. Science is very interested in how civilization spread from the Middle East to Europe and from there to the rest of the world. All the evidence that science has points to Noah and his family. Because very few people were involved with this.

We always start with the city of Jericho. One of the oldest cities in the world. The first thing we teach in Bible school is about Josuha and the battle of Jericho where the walls came tumbling down. You can go to Jericho today and the wall is still there on the ground in the ancient part of the city. This is a miracle that they did not repurpose those stones for something else. God preserved it for us to study today. So we can know that Jericho was a real city and we can know that the Bible is accurate and true.

Note Göbekli Tepe is older than Jericho but it is not a city. People did not actually live there. Maybe it was a restaurant because they found the remains of a lot of food there.

 

[Diamond72]

Second, depending on what Elderege actually believed, he may be just as much of atheist by the definition I (and many other atheists) use.

By definition, an atheist is anti-God, but they have no evidence at all to back up their belief. Science is Agnostic because they admit there is no evidence to show there is no God. I realize every atheist has their own individual story to tell, but you can not mess with the dictionary and the meaning of the words they are using. We have very few words to work with in Genesis chapter one. All of creation is reduced down to 31 verses.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is not going to argue with Creationists. He sees it as a waste of his time.

 

[Diamond72]

However, if you make a claim about a god that has an implication in the natural world, we can, and will test it.

Good, test it. Many people come to a saving knowledge of the truth when they test the Bible to see it is true.

My claim is that the Bible is accurate and true to the best of our ability to use science & History to examine what we read in our Bible. For example, we can use the science of Botney to examine what plants were on Noah's Ark. They make a clear distinction between wild middle east plants and cultivated plants. If people would read their high school biology book they would have a much better idea of what Eden was all about. This is what we call a biodiverse ecosystem. I have a book here because my brother was reading it on vacation. "The Songs of Trees" is a powerful argument against the ways in which humankind has severed the very biological networks that give us our place in the world.

Jesus talks about this in Matthew 13:32 "It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of garden plants; it grows into a tree, and birds come and make nests in its branches.” Even a tree can support a lot of life. Science goes a long way to help us understand what we read in our Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

The problem was solved not by reinforcing the dam, but by repairing the spillway.

They used helicopters to bring in stones to fill in the hole. It was actually my idea. California's four seasons are fire, flood, mud and drought. California is beautiful, but they are on a very unstable piece of real estate. Disasters are a very common occurrence there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A lot of science comes from religion. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who discusses philosophical concepts, and Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the commentators who deal with the spiritual physics of the universe, often referred to as Kabala. Today their teaching is carried on by the Hasidic who try to bring it to a level people can understand.

Please write down the Hamiltonian of this spiritual physics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I had a one in 1200 chance of survival. Can you beat that with your atheism? We see miracles all the time. We see people healed all the time. It can be difficult to prove because they are so fully restored that you do not always see that they were ever sick and needed healing. I remember doing remodeling work for a guy that had cancer. He said he may not be alive when I finished the project. The day I finished I asked him about that. If anything he was better. That was when I began to see the healing power of God. I remember my dad was mad at me because I would not let him die. But he got my brother to kill him. So we have to decide whether we represent life, health, and healing or death and destruction. That is our choice. Clearly God wants us to choose life.

Again with the anecdotes. Differential outcomes between groups (christians v. atheists in this case) *requires* careful statistics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, FRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a Scottish geologist who demonstrated the power of known natural causes in explaining the earth's history. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology (1830–33), which presented to a wide public audience the idea that the earth was shaped by the same natural processes still in operation today, operating at similar intensities. The philosopher William Whewell termed this gradualistic view "uniformitarianism" and contrasted it with catastrophism, which had been championed by Georges Cuvier and was better accepted in Europe.[1] The combination of evidence and eloquence in Principles convinced a wide range of readers of the significance of "deep time" for understanding the earth and environment.[2]

I am aware of Lyell. It was your claim that "Darwin got gradualism" from him. That's the part you need to demonstrate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Going anti religion is just being tiresome and
boring.

That's why I don't waste time campaigning against it. But... If it comes up in conversation, I am opposed to religion. I'm also opposed to nuclear war, but I don't spend time campaigning against that either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said: Gradualism leads to massive failure like what happened at Oroville Dam. You have people trained in gradualism who are not prepared to deal with catastrophic events. There was also the oil spill in the Gulf that they were not prepared to deal with and they needed to turn to people who understood catastrophic events. This is really very simple because it is just a higher water pressure that can be measured easily.

That's engineering, not geology or biology. Understanding catastrophic failures is *definitely* part of engineering. They just aren't always good at anticipating all of the ways things can fail.

(And the catastrophism you are referring to is a discredited geologic theory. It's the one that claimed all of the basic geological structures were created by Noah's flood. It is not a biological theory either.)

 

[Astrid]

I am aware of Lyell. It was your claim that "Darwin got gradualism" from him. That's the part you need to demonstrate.

Even if he did, so what?
Building on others' work is how
humans progres.
It was- as I understand it- a revelation,
deep time was, to educable peoplec
anyway, and if Darwin set forth with
thoughts of deep time in his mind
that's hardly a criticism of his work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

YEC Creationism is HISTORY.

Very much not so. It is theology.

But history is backed up by Science.

Wrong.

Archeology has been used for the last 100 years to prove the Bible is accurate and true.

Again, not true. It is archeology that demonstrates that the whole exodus story (massive departure, generation in the desert, conquest of Canaan) is not correct. Sure they've found some of the later kings of Israel (well after David), but nothing even as far back as David is documented.

YEC Creationism is a history of the last 6,000 years. It started with Bishop Usshers book 500 years ago.

Yes, I would put the initial blame on Ussher. Then it mostly sits fallow until about 100 years ago in the US with the rise of "the fundamentals" and of Pentecostalism.

At the time they knew NOTHING about ANYTHING before Adam and Eve.

Huh? The *ONLY* place "Adam and Eve" are mentioned are in the bible and that's been around for a very long time.

Now we have massive amounts of information about what took place before Adam and Eve. This is what they call the neolithic revolution that leads to civilization.

See there you go. YEC is wrong because YEC is dogmatic about Adam and Eve being the absolute beginning. There was nothing before (except that creation week thing) and *certainly* no humans.

Noah saved the domesticated animals and cultivated plants.

That would certainly make the ark less crowded, perhaps, even plausible, but it would mean that he didn't save all the animals like the story would have us believe. (And YEC *insists* upon.)

Science is very interested in how civilization spread from the Middle East to Europe and from there to the rest of the world.

Certain sciences, yes, but not all. Civilization (living in settled villages, perhaps with agriculture) arose independently in China, Central America and perhaps also India and east Africa. Science is interested in those too.

All the evidence that science has points to Noah and his family.

Quite the opposite. All genetic evidence points to the *impossibility* of only Noah and his family surviving a disaster.

Because very few people were involved with this.

That's the actual problem with the story. Not enough people left.

We always start with the city of Jericho. One of the oldest cities in the world.

This is true, so far.

The first thing we teach in Bible school is about Josuha and the battle of Jericho where the walls came tumbling down. You can go to Jericho today and the wall is still there on the ground in the ancient part of the city. This is a miracle that they did not repurpose those stones for something else. God preserved it for us to study today. So we can know that Jericho was a real city and we can know that the Bible is accurate and true.

But it wasn't destroyed at the point in Ussher's timeline for the battle, nor at other times proposed for the exodus. (You can find timelines that will match the collapse of a couple cities in Canaan [potentially even Jericho], but not all of the ones the book of Joshua claims were destroyed.

Note Göbekli Tepe is older than Jericho but it is not a city. People did not actually live there. Maybe it was a restaurant because they found the remains of a lot of food there.

I'm not sure this is correct, but it is irrelevant. Both Jericho and Göbekli Tepe are far older than the time of Adam and Eve by Ussher's timeline.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even if he did, so what?
Building on others' work is how
humans progres.
It was- as I understand it- a revelation,
deep time was, to educable peoplec
anyway, and if Darwin set forth with
thoughts of deep time in his mind
that's hardly a criticism of his work.

I'm not sure what "Diamond"'s point is. Their claims are all over the place including what seems to be a jumble of standard timelines and YEC timelines. This is all quite confusing to address.

 

[Diamond72]

(And the catastrophism you are referring to is a discredited geologic theory.

Catastrophism claims the grand canyon was created in the last 14,000 years. Only problem is they do not talk about how long it took to create all the layers that were exposed in that event. Dr Dino claims it is all flood deposits from Noah's flood. He is the one that got locked up in prison for income tax evasion. Which is basically fraud.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very much not so. It is theology.

Creationism is history and belongs in history class, not science class.

Why is it that, when Darwin does something, it's HISTORY, but when God does something, it's THEOLOGY?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Catastrophism claims the grand canyon was created in the last 14,000 years. Only problem is they do not talk about how long it took to create all the layers that were exposed in that event. Dr Dino claims it is all flood deposits from Noah's flood. He is the one that got locked up in prison for income tax evasion. Which is basically fraud.

Like I said. Discredited geological theory. (I don't need a wife-beating, tax-fraud to discredit it.)