Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Jig]

From Wikipedia:

The grasshopper is an insect of the suborder Caelifera in the order Orthoptera. To distinguish it from bush crickets or katydids, it is sometimes referred to as the short-horned grasshopper. Species that change colour and behaviour at high population densities are called locusts.
​

That is, not all grasshoppers are locusts, but all locusts are grasshoppers. And the text is fairly specific:

Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. (Lev 11:21, ESV)
​

It's hard to see what else these critters could be.

Either way, I am not arguing the word "kind" has only one meaning.

So I could use context to argue that the days of Genesis 1 are not 24-hour days? Cool.

Yes. However, I argue the context supports 24 hour days. Only one of us can be correct. This just brings us back to our philosophical influences.

You see, it's not enough for you to prove that science stops working a few million years in the past.

That is not my position. I don't believe the Earth existed a few million years ago. It is not so much that I believe science fails to determine natural events of the past. It fails in recognizing supernatural events.

I read what you had to say about miracles. You stated, "we believe that miracles are given to be seen". Creation of the universe was indeed a miracle, a fantastic supernatural event. Was this event given to be seen by humans? No.

The evidence shows we have a mature Earth. If you interpret it under naturalism, you are required to get vast old ages. However, just as God created Adam fully mature, I believe God created the Earth fully mature. With this is mind, my interpretation does not require vast old ages. Age is subjective.

The problem for creationism is that there is little to no physical evidence for what are, according to them, numerous physically significant miracles occurring under ten thousand years ago.

Depends on how you interpret the evidence.

As such, your arguments need to show that science stops working as soon as ten thousand years ago

Science stops working if there is no natural world in existence. If God did create the universe no more than 10,000 years ago. There would have been no Earth millions of years ago.

 

[shernren]

Yes. However, I argue the context supports 24 hour days. Only one of us can be correct. This just brings us back to our philosophical influences.

It's not about philosophical influences, it's about simple exegesis of the text:

1. How long does a day last when the sun and moon do not exist?
2. How long was the seventh day? Why did it have neither evening nor morning?
​

That is not my position. I don't believe the Earth existed a few million years ago. It is not so much that I believe science fails to determine natural events of the past. It fails in recognizing supernatural events.

Like I said, you have no Biblical reason to believe that. If we take the miracles in the Bible as if they literally happened (and I have no problem with that for most or almost all of them), then they left physical evidence which itself would have been amenable to scientific testing.

Take, for another example, the drowning of the Egyptian soldiers in the Red Sea. Wouldn't we expect, if we dig deep enough (and take the account literally), to find a field of armor-clad corpses? Naturalistic science would not conclude from there that a miracle had happened, for sure - but it would have to conclude that something had happened.

That's the problem that creationism faces - not simply a lack of evidence, but a lack of evidence that by its very self already renders creationism unlikely.

I read what you had to say about miracles. You stated, "we believe that miracles are given to be seen". Creation of the universe was indeed a miracle, a fantastic supernatural event. Was this event given to be seen by humans? No.

The evidence shows we have a mature Earth. If you interpret it under naturalism, you are required to get vast old ages. However, just as God created Adam fully mature, I believe God created the Earth fully mature. With this is mind, my interpretation does not require vast old ages. Age is subjective.

The problem is that there is no biblical evidence that God created the Earth fully mature. All that is required is for the Earth to support life - and it can do that as far as I'm aware without, say, a particular ratio of parent, daughter, and bystander isotopes in rocks that would cause geologists to conclude that it is old. (While we're at it, do you even have Biblical evidence that God created Adam mature? You don't know that, perhaps, 20 years passed between Genesis 2:7 and 2:16. So we're left with only Eve being created mature, which might explain why women are always so afraid of aging.)

The fact is that your theory - that the Earth and the universe were created mature - is neither Scripturally nor theologically motivated, but is simply a desperate cop-out in the face of evidence that destroys creationism. Now desperation is no sin; but it should be honestly admitted.

Depends on how you interpret the evidence.

Really. Is that the way Biblical miracles work?

Imagine the Israelites standing on the shores of the Red Sea, when Moses raises his staff, and suddenly the waters ... remain just as still as before. The Israelites turn back and scream "You've doomed us! We have no path of escape!" And Moses replies, "Depends on how you interpret the evidence ... "

Imagine the widow who fed Elijah finding out that her oil and flour jars have run out after all, two days after he had promised her that they would remain full. One day, two days, still nothing in the jars. The woman curses Elijah, "You lied to me! Now my son and I will starve to death!" And Elijah replies, "Depends on how you interpret the evidence ... "

Imagine John racing to Jesus' tomb, after Peter has told him that Jesus has been raised from the dead. John peers inside only to see a neatly-bandaged corpse, complete with the nail wounds of crucifixion and a large spear-rammed hole through the side. John says to Peter, "If that was your idea of a joke, it was an awful one. Jesus is still dead as a doornail!" And Peter replies, "Depends on how you interpret the evidence ... "

Are God's miracles really that shy? I doubt it.

Science stops working if there is no natural world in existence. If God did create the universe no more than 10,000 years ago. There would have been no Earth millions of years ago.

But I'm using your own assumptions and showing you their logical conclusion.

Assumption 1: The universe was created less than ten thousand years ago.
Assumption 2: Because past science is historical, it cannot unambiguously determine how the universe was created.

Missing premise: Historical science cannot unambiguously use evidence more than ten thousand years old.

Do you agree with this premise?

 

[Jig]

I have a very busy schedule with college, ministry, family, and work. I literally have to set aside much of my free time to address each reply I get each day. It has been an overload. It is three/four against one. There is too much information for me to process and address properly. I have been getting sloppy with my replies and I'm falling behind.

I cannot continue with this thread even though I wish I could. Thanks for the discussion. I will add one thing...think of this as my conclusion.

Both positions presented here are philosophical in nature. There both make unprovable assumptions and interpret both Scripture and evidence differently.

As such, there is no objective way to prove these positions wrong. My main argument has been to show that their position is equally as philosophical in nature as creationism.

 

[shernren]

I can respect that. I've got a thesis due in a week. All the best with everything!!

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

I cannot continue with this thread even though I wish I could. Thanks for the discussion.

OK. That makes sense, we all get busy, like I did last week. If you choose to come back, here is the last post of mine that you didn't respond to:

******************************
(from post # 235)
Do you agree that you operate on methodological naturalism in your daily life, checking for natural causes first, and if they are sufficient, not resorting to supernatural ones? That's all anyone is doing with regard to evolution, anyway.

Jig wrote:
<B>

Okay, I went to your link. I saw nothing but observation this and observation that. This website did not help your claim that observation is not needed to use the scientific method.

</B>

Just because it used the word "observation" doesn't mean that only future events can be studied. Please don't just look for words and say that it proves your point. The website shows that the scientific method steps are consistent with studying events in the past, as long as you can still make predictions. The subsequent steps are to make a hypothesis, then a prediction of test results based on that hypothesis, then to test it by experiment. For isntance, one can predict that the ratio of isotopes in a rock with a trilobite fossil will be below 0.02%, or such. That's because The scientific method does not require direct observation of whatever is being studied, it simply requires making and testing a prediction. I'm still waiting for any reason why the OJ application of science below is somehow "not science"

1. Might OJ have killed her?
2. Observe blood stains, flight information, gloves, etc.
3. Hypothesize that OJ killed her,
4. Predict that if OJ killed her, OJ's DNA will be found in the blood.
5. Test the blood for OJ's DNA
6. Support the hypothesis if OJ's DNA is found, reject it if not.

This is science also. In fact, deduction and inference are used all the time, in science - that's why your "historical" vs "operational" idea doesn't fit the real world.

For instance, if a doctor observes that I have cells in my liver with certain properties, he may diagnose cancer if those fit the properties of cancer cells. That's using deduction and inference, just as most of science uses. He doesn't have to culture every cell to see it if grows in a cancerous way. It's like the whole thing about "does your dog have a heart?". I can find that and post it if it will help you understand deduction in science.

Notice also that the doctor is assuming that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. He's assuming that what was observed before to be cancer is how things work in this different place (his office). After all, the original work on HeLa cells wasn't done at his office. You accept that, right? Even though the physical laws may be different in his office, since they were never measured?

​

But they are not talking about "today" in historical science, they are talking about the past: millions and billions of years ago. Beyond observational sciences scope.

Yesterday can't be observed again either. It's irrelevant. You mentioned that there were "many assumptions", Yet when I pointed out that the only assumption was that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. You were going to list the other assumptions, and I'm still waiting.

You didn't answer if you agreed that Genesis has clear metaphors in it. Maybe make that Q7? And you were going to say which verse labels the genre of the Song of Solomon (Q8).



<B>​

Scientists assume things were similar (such as decay rates) 2 billion years ago. This also implies the world was in existence 2 billion years ago. The premise evolutionists use is just "begging the question".

</B>

The data is the only thing that says the world was in existance 2 billion years ago. It's not an assumption. For instance, a general dating method could give an age of anything between 0.0000003 nanoseconds to 842 terayears. The fact that the methods give a much smaller age of just billions of year, and that they all agree, is the evidence speaking, not an assumption, because no prior age was assumed.

​

I don't ignore the evidence - evidence is neutral. I don't even ignore the interpretation of the evidence you are trying to give me. I just choose to believe in another interpretation of the evidence.

Evidence is not neutral. That's why science can advance at all.

Think were we'd be if every piece of evidence were greeted with "oh, evidence is neutral, so that can mean anything." Oh, that vaccination prevented the disease? No, evidence is neutral so it might not work, so let's not use it. Oh, geological evidence shows layers found above oil deposits? No, evidence is neutral so no point in drilling there. The point is that letting the evidence guide our knowledge is what brought us out of the dark ages, and that's exactly the opposite of denying evidence by saying that all evidence is neutral.


<B>​

Chasing the supernatural moment as far back as possible, huh? Wouldn't want it to mess up your assumptions. Either way, some supernatural moment in the past had to occur. God could not have done everything naturally. Purposed creation is not natural.

</B>

Following where the evidence leads. No assumptions needed other than the one we've already agreed upon. I have no problem with a supernatural moment at some time, just that I don't posit one when the evidence shows that it wasn't where you are putting it. Why aren't you arguing that God created everying (including your memories) five minutes ago? Hint: our one agreed upon assumption

(question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?

(being discussed)

​

Question 2a. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct?
​

<B>

This question implies that I was wrong. I already told you that I do not believe I was wrong.

</B>

OK, let's review this.

​

1. Jig claims that dendrocronology works by taking isolated sets of tree rings, and then using carbonn 14 dating to put them in order.
2. The actual method doesn't use carbon 14, but links the different sets by overlapping long sections that are well beyond what could match by chance.
3. Jig then claims he wasn't wrong.

Jig, is that accurate?

Question 2b. Do you recognize that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

<B>

All this means is that tree rings can be counted.

</B>​

​

No, it doesn't. When I took the time to explain how the series of different widths of the tree rings gives a matching series that is far too detailed to match by chance, did you understand that? If not, then what part of that did you not understand?


question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?

Still waiting for assumptions other than that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places.

what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)


Q5 - what a real, peer-reviewed journal is.

<B>
​

Yes. Do you know that there is more then one valid venue to display scientific work?

</B>

No, there isn't. Peer review is one of the ways we can tell pseudoscience from real science. No scientist with legitimate findings need fear peer-review, even evolution deniers like Behe and Sanford can publish in peer-reviewed journals, as long as their data supports what they are claiming.

<B>
​

So those creationists and design advocates who actually have professional degrees in their respected fields, don't understand their field? Or is it that they don't agree with the assumptions the status quo field has made?

</B>

Again, still waiting to hear what those assumptions are, other than the one we've already agreed on. Besides, they do publish in peer reviewed journals. Just do a lit search on Behe, or on Sanford or so on, and you'll see that they are free to publish real data.

<B>
​

It does not need to be in an Darwinain bias peer-reviewed journal.

</B>

Still waiting on why all those scientists, with different religions, different worldviews, different ages, different countries, different backgrounds, and different fields of study are all biased against something.

<B>
​

You're focus on what's different and not on what's similar. Their religious background and motivations have little to do with their work within naturalistic science. All the same assumptions are made.

</B>

Their religious backgrounds and motivations have little to do with their support for evoluiton and an old earth, and their rejection of creationism? Are you not the same person who agrees that the Bible is the main reason why they reject an old earth? And again, what assumptions are made other than the one that we've agree upon?

I am claiming that your position is equally philosophical.

Sorry, it's based on evidence. Which philosophy is it based on? That philosophy of the thousands of Christians who support it, or the that of the thousands of Muslims? Or maybe the philosophy of the Hindus? Or that Atheists? Or that of the Buddhists? Creationism is pure philosophical based on a literal interpretation of selected parts of Genesis, while the findings of science are based on evidence.


<B>
​

Could the Earth have formed within the last million years? No. Evolutionists must have an old Earth to work or their theories cannot make sense.

</B>

Again, you ignore history and how science works. The biologists who have discovered biological evolution are not the geologists who are independently finding the 4.5 billion year old age for the earth. This is starting to sound like the old creationist line that all of science is in a black helicopter conspiracy against Christianity, even though millions of scientists are Christians themselves. That leads to Q6:

Q6 - Do you know about the Rev. Adam Segewick?


(Because an old earth was first worked out in the Christian framework).



Thanks, have a good day -

Papias

*************************************************

Defining "created kind" is difficult. In a sense this mimics the situation with the term "species".

No, it doesn't, because in science, the fact that the evidence for evolution is accepted means that it is expected that species will morph from one to the other. In other words, the very fact that the species problem exists is support for evolution. The very fact that the kind problem exists is, by the same logic, a problem for evolution denial (creationism).

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind.

So are you saying that the idea that there may be more than one kind is unfalsifiable under creationism, and so as a result creationism fits the definition of pseudoscience? In other words, that the idea of "kind" is experimentally meaningless?

Unorthodox fringe theology.

The United Synagog of the Conservative Jews (representing 30% of all the Jews in the United States) is "fringe theology"? Wow. If that's fringe, then what is mainstream?

I will add one thing...think of this as my conclusion.

Both positions presented here are philosophical in nature. There both make unprovable assumptions and interpret both Scripture and evidence differently.

As such, there is no objective way to prove these positions wrong. My main argument has been to show that their position is equally as philosophical in nature as creationism.

Jig, evolution is quite falsifiable, and so there are all kinds of easy, objective ways to prove evolution wrong, in any of the dozens of scientific fields that supply evidence in support of evolution. As explained before, evidence is not neutral, or science could not advance and we'd still be living in caves. Being that science has advanced, it is clear that evidence is not neutral. Maybe immersing oneself in the unfalisfiable and therefore pseudoscientific publications of creationism leads one to think that everything is just as hollow. Luckily for us and our society, science comes to real, and therefore really useful, conclusions.

Papias
​

 

[Papias]

Hey, Jig, welcome back!

Papias

 

[Jig]

Hey, Jig, welcome back!

Papias

I know you want me to continue this discussion, but for some reason this thread sucked up a good portion of my time. I was answering three different people all with relatively large amounts of information to process with each reply. Give me some time and I'll respond to your last post, but that will be my last post. Will that make you happy?

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

Give me some time and I'll respond to your last post, but that will be my last post. Will that make you happy?

It'll be nice to get a reply to my previous post, but how can I know if that'll "make me happy". You could again, in that last post, throw out a bunch of clear falsehoods, like you did in your incorrect description of dendrochronology and many others, and simply not posting again is not that much different from refusing to acknowledge that those statements were incorrect.

Thanks though, I guess....

Papias

 

[Papias]

THe Monkey Bible project looks interesting. From what I've seen, it sounds like a great story about very important topics. However, maybe just start a thread on it?

Papias

 

[Preecher]

To know that many consider we who believe in the Biblical creation account should be labeled as child abusers should alert Christians to the serious times in front of us. Just send the CPS to condemn Christian parents. What better way to control people than by their children?