Questions about/problems with YEC

[Gwenyfur]

so...based on that statement, you can have a degree in anything, so long as you study something long enough and pioneer a whole new field of study?

really the whole premise of debate here is on contradiction, dodge, or insubstantiation after another...it seems hostile, pointless, and after a few short weeks here, I've found that you are about the only polite TE here...G-d bless ya for that!

 

[ebia]

so...based on that statement, you can have a degree in anything, so long as you study something long enough and pioneer a whole new field of study?

What? The ToE doesn't stand on Darwin's authority. When was the last time anyone said anything to the effect of "The Theory of Evolution is correct because Darwin said so"?

The ToE stands on the basis of the evidence collected since. Darwin then gets some kudos because his theory has done so well, not the other way around.

 

[Dannager]

so...based on that statement, you can have a degree in anything, so long as you study something long enough and pioneer a whole new field of study?

I'm not going to be so close-minded as to say that a degree is required to be able to make a phenomenal discovery, since I've seen plenty of examples contradicting this. It helps to have a relevant education but in Darwin's case he did not. Evolutionary theory, however, stands independent of Darwin. You can't use personal references to Darwin to defend it, nor can you use personal references to Darwin to attack it.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Yet all over this forum, there are posts saying "that can't possibly be right because it's a theologian's idea"
even if there's proof supporting the position...

 

[notto]

Yet all over this forum, there are posts saying "that can't possibly be right because it's a theologian's idea"
even if there's proof supporting the position...

Where? Are you sure you are not confusing this with 'that can't possibly be right because there is peer reviewed research that falsifies it and the idea is based on religious belief in contradiction to the evidence'?

Can you give one example to show us what you mean?

I haven't seen a case yet where an idea was simply discounted because it was a theologians idea. Perhaps I missed it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Which is exactly what every person does TO OEC YEC when they cite research...

Because what they site isn't valid science. Like it or not, they are not valid authorities.

You cite soemone else's research as your proving point instead of doing your own...

That isn't the fallacy. What the fallacy is, is citing a source that has no professional expertise.

interesting that it's a double edged sword when looked at logically...

Not one bit.

I'm guessing taht 90% of the TE's on this board spend very little time in the lab testing their theories...they just spend time reading up on the research being done by others...who are more specialized and knowledgeable in their fields of study...

This is all a Straw Man...you are giving a false definition of what that fallacy is and attacking it.

but when a creationist uses the Bible, or a research that differs from theirs it's Fallacy of appealing to authortiy...

The Bible has nothing to do with science. It is an invalid authority when it comes to science. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Darwin may not have had a degree, but his application of science was impeccable and professional. And what he discovered was in turn affirmed by those with degrees and still is affirmed. Even if you want to state Darwin wasn't a valid authority, those who have done further experimentation and have proven his hypothesis to the point that it has become a theory with extraordinary proof behind it means that you cannot deny the authority of those who've done just that. They are scientists, in the correct disciplines of science, who've done the experiments first hand, and have come to those conclusions.

They are authorities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, I said he was a geologist, not a mathematician. All that aside, I agree with him. Even if I allow for all of your calculations (and I have no idea where you got your numbers), and even if I agree that long-lived animals could diverge so quickly (I don't; you can ask me about the reasons for this, if you like), and even if I agreed that 269 boxcars would be sufficient for the food alone (on very meager rations, to be sure), and even if I thought that space could be used that efficiently (there is no engineering project in existence, to date, that does), and even if I allowed that a ship of those dimensions in the shape required to allow that kind of efficiency could float on a large body of water (it couldn't), there are still weaknesses: 1. There were 7 (possibly 7 pairs) of each clean animal. 2. What about dinosaurs? 2a. Did they still exist? 2b. If not, how did they all die before the flood? 3. How did the animals distribute themselves across the (now) divided globe in that time frame?

You or I or anyone who has a little knowledge of building things can easily design the ark, around the parameters given by God. Instead of criticizing sit down and design the ark for yourself. You'll quickly see that it would do everything God intended it to do. Most notably, it would have the strength to come to rest on the uneven ground of the mountain top without breaking up.

Watching a John Huston movie, or a National Geographic presentation, about the flood is poor research.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Incidentally, using the exact dimentions the Bible literally gives for Noah's ark, it is mathematically impossible to fit all the pairs of both clean and unclean animals in the ark.

And, mind you, according to the YECs interpretation, Noah would have to fit all other life in there too, since a Deluge like that would destroy pretty much all fresh water as well as land plants and fungi.

Sorry, but it doesn't compute.

Wrong. Even if the flood story were allegory every aspect of it would have to function as described. Actually, the story is far too detailed, and just too good, not to be true. 8^)

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

My recommendation for non-YEC literalists is to visit G.R. Morton's web site.

You might find a copy of his books for sale at ebay or somewhere (Amazon has it listed but no copies immediately available.)

main page:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
flood articles:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#flo
article on Genesis
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis.htm

 

[Willtor]

You or I or anyone who has a little knowledge of building things can easily design the ark, around the parameters given by God. Instead of criticizing sit down and design the ark for yourself. You'll quickly see that it would do everything God intended it to do. Most notably, it would have the strength to come to rest on the uneven ground of the mountain top without breaking up.

This isn't in regards to anything I said. I said it wouldn't float on a stormy sea, not that it wouldn't set well on a mountain. Although, now that you mention it. . .

Watching a John Huston movie, or a National Geographic presentation, about the flood is poor research.

I wouldn't know.

 

[gluadys]

Wrong. Even if the flood story were allegory every aspect of it would have to function as described. Actually, the story is far too detailed, and just too good, not to be true. 8^)

This is the second time recently that I have seen a story described as "too detailed" to be allegory. Where does this nonsense come from? Many allegories are extremely detailed.

 

[KerrMetric]

Wrong. Even if the flood story were allegory every aspect of it would have to function as described. Actually, the story is far too detailed, and just too good, not to be true. 8^)

You mean detailed like the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings? Or a Tom Clancy novel or the Da Vinci Code?

 

[Dannager]

Wrong. Even if the flood story were allegory every aspect of it would have to function as described. Actually, the story is far too detailed, and just too good, not to be true. 8^)

You don't do a whole lot of reading, do you? Because that is a rather foolish statement to make.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is the second time recently that I have seen a story described as "too detailed" to be allegory. Where does this nonsense come from? Many allegories are extremely detailed.

What I'm saying is that even an allegory has to make sense, be practical, plausible, to be a useful vehicle for truth, information, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You mean detailed like the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings? Or a Tom Clancy novel or the Da Vinci Code?

Were those allegories?

 

[gluadys]

You mean detailed like the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings? Or a Tom Clancy novel or the Da Vinci Code?

All of them. Keeping in mind that neither Tom Clancy nor Dan Brown were writing allegories.

One could also say detailed like Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost or John's Book of Revelation.

The point is that detail is found in both allegorical and non-allegorical writing. It is not a way of discriminating between genres.

Just as complexity is not a way of discriminating between organisms or organic features that can or cannot be a product of evolution.

 

[Dannager]

What I'm saying is that even an allegory has to make sense, be practical, plausible, to be a useful vehicle for truth, information, etc.

Which the Genesis account is. Thus, allegory.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You mean detailed like the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings? Or a Tom Clancy novel or the Da Vinci Code?

No. I meant like the flood story in Genesis.

 

[gluadys]

What I'm saying is that even an allegory has to make sense, be practical, plausible, to be a useful vehicle for truth, information, etc.

But that has nothing to do with the level of detail.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All of them. Keeping in mind that neither Tom Clancy nor Dan Brown were writing allegories.

One could also say detailed like Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost or John's Book of Revelation.

The point is that detail is found in both allegorical and non-allegorical writing. It is not a way of discriminating between genres.

Just as complexity is not a way of discriminating between organisms or organic features that can or cannot be a product of evolution.

All that is fine, and I agree. But I'm talking about the flood account of the bible.