YEC explanations

[Willtor]

There were likely earthquakes and volcanism as well during the flood. They may have actually been the cause of it to start with. A lot of the earth's interior is still made of water.

What makes you say the Earth's interior is made of water? It was my understanding that it was mostly iron, sulfer, and various other elements (mostly metallic, I think).

 

[Mallon]

A lot of the earth's interior is still made of water.

As someone with a degree in geology, I would leave to hear you back that statement up.

 

[Calminian]

It's one thing to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. It's quite another to believe that such a stance is supported by science. For those who believe the latter, I've always wondered about their explanations of:

Depends on what you mean by "supported." Science can only truly support one worldview—naturalism. Science can only operate under the assumption of naturalism (methodological naturalism). If you are any type of theist at all, you are at odds with science strictly speaking.

The only difference between TEs, OECs and YECs is how far back in time they believe a miracle (an addition to natural processes) occurred. Science does not support theism because it cannot investigate the supernatural realm. One can evaluate the naturalistic conclusions of science and conclude there must be a God, but at that moment they cease using a naturalistic method of investigation (specifically science).

Science has a place in this debate, but it's certainly not a central one. This is a philosophical issue dealing with miracles, namely the miracles recorded in Genesis. The theist who claims that science falsifies YECism is actually defeating his own view. If it were true science would also falsify theism. Of course that is ridiculous as science falsifies neither.

 

[Mallon]

Depends on what you mean by "supported."

I mean exactly that. That there is scientific evidence for the Creationist view. You know, the type of science ICR claims to do.

If you are any type of theist at all, you are at odds with science strictly speaking.

Not at all. Science has nothing to say about theism one way or another, as you admit above. Its methods are naturalistic, but that's where it ends.

One can evaluate the naturalistic conclusions of science and conclude there must be a God

That's the type of "science" that Intelligent Design claims to do, but every one of its claims have thus far been falsified.

This is a philosophical issue dealing with miracles, namely the miracles recorded in Genesis.

I agree. That is why I directed the question specifically at those who believe that science upholds the biblical account of Creation.

 

[Calminian]

I mean exactly that. That there is scientific evidence for the Creationist view. You know, the type of science ICR claims to do.

ICR is very open about the Bible being their starting point. They presuppose the miracles in Genesis are true.

Not at all. Science has nothing to say about theism one way or another, as you admit above. Its methods are naturalistic, but that's where it ends.

Then, likewise, science has nothing to say regarding the miracles of Genesis. You just defeated your own argument.

That's the type of "science" that Intelligent Design claims to do, but every one of its claims have thus far been falsified.

ID is completely different. ID shows that naturalism taken to its logical conclusion concludes intelligence is the only explanation for what we observe. They do not get into whether that intelligence is God or not.

I agree. That is why I directed the question specifically at those who believe that science upholds the biblical account of Creation.

The Bible upholds the biblical account and science does not falsify it. Science can be used and can offer some help in finding the truth. But strictly speaking science does not support theism—TEism, PCism nor YECism. Are you under the impression that science supports your brand of origins theology?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Depends on what you mean by "supported." Science can only truly support one worldview—naturalism. Science can only operate under the assumption of naturalism (methodological naturalism). If you are any type of theist at all, you are at odds with science strictly speaking.

science can be "used" to support any worldview you desire. Science is silent on the issues most important to world view formation: ethics, morality, why to get up in the morning, what makes life worth living, the good, the beautiful, the noble, etc.

this extension of science from technic to worldview is a metaphysical extension done in spite of the methodological nature of science not because of it.

for example, science doesnt do sufficiency arguments. it never can make the fundamental naturalist worldview claim that matter in motion is ALL THERE IS.

what appears to happen is that naturalists like Dawkins and Dennett do this metaphysical sleight of hand to convince most people to assent to statement like the above Science can only truly support one worldview—naturalism but it is not a scientific statement, but a metaphysical one. and a false one at that.

 

[Mallon]

ICR is very open about the Bible being their starting point. They presuppose the miracles in Genesis are true.

Yes, and then they attempt to find supporting scientific evidence for Old Testament Bible stories. That's why they call themselves the Institute for Creation Research. This is my whole point.

Then, likewise, science has nothing to say regarding the miracles of Genesis. You just defeated your own argument.

I have not defeated myself. My entire argument is directed SPECIFICALLY at those who subscribe to the idea that the earth preserves evidence of the Flood and Creation accounts. Sure, science can't detect miracles -- so to all you Creationists out there: stop claiming that such biblical miracles ought to be taught in the science classroom.

The Bible upholds the biblical account and science does not falsify it.

It does if you claim the earth preserves evidence of Noah's Flood, as I've been saying the whole time. If you think otherwise, then please address the three lines of evidence I have laid out in the opening post. This is the whole point to the thread -- let's get back to that.

 

[RichardT]

Yes, and then they attempt to find supporting scientific evidence for Old Testament Bible stories. That's why they call themselves the Institute for Creation Research. This is my whole point.

I have not defeated myself. My entire argument is directed SPECIFICALLY at those who subscribe to the idea that the earth preserves evidence of the Flood and Creation accounts. Sure, science can't detect miracles -- so to all you Creationists out there: stop claiming that such biblical miracles ought to be taught in the science classroom.

It does if you claim the earth preserves evidence of Noah's Flood, as I've been saying the whole time. If you think otherwise, then please address the three lines of evidence I have laid out in the opening post. This is the whole point to the thread -- let's get back to that.

I don't think creationism should be taught in the classroom. But I think that young earth arguments coulnd't hurt.

 

[KerrMetric]

But I think that young earth arguments coulnd't hurt.

Correct as long as they are used as an example of how to get things wrong.

 

[Pats]

Correct as long as they are used as an example of how to get things wrong.

I see a lot of these hit and runs..... honestly I don't understand why bother posting at all? This does not explain your view point or add any information to the conversation other than that you don't agree. I mean, we could read your profile to ascertain that information.

 

[KerrMetric]

I see a lot of these hit and runs..... honestly I don't understand why bother posting at all? This does not explain your view point or add any information to the conversation other than that you don't agree. I mean, we could read your profile to ascertain that information.

Really. You mean Orkney Islands and surfing the web give that away? You must be psychic.

There was nothing to add to that is why I posted an ad lib.

My view - the young earth view is based upon misunderstanding or blatant twisting of the facts in a pseudoscientific mish mash of nonsense.

That clear enough?

 

[Pats]

Really. You mean Orkney Islands and surfing the web give that away? You must be psychic.

You got me, I didn't read your profile.

There was nothing to add to that is why I posted an ad lib.

My view - the young earth view is based upon misunderstanding or blatant twisting of the facts in a pseudoscientific mish mash of nonsense.

That clear enough?

Saying that the young earth view is based on misunderstanding and calling it a pseudoscientific mish mash maybe explains to me that you have a strong disregard for the theory, but as far as adding anything to the conversation, it's about as clear as mud.

And if you don't want to add to the conversation, you're not obligated... so why bother posting? Just to slam and go?

 

[KerrMetric]

Saying that the young earth view is based on misunderstanding and calling it a pseudoscientific mish mash maybe explains to me that you have a strong disregard for the theory, but as far as adding anything to the conversation, it's about as clear as mud.

And if you don't want to add to the conversation, you're not obligated... so why bother posting? Just to slam and go?

Of course I have a disregard for it since it is a falsified theory that really never got above the level of hypothesis.

In fact I gave as much of a response as the post I replied to about presenting young earth arguments. The only scientific benefit of presenting such arguments would be to show they don't hold up as science.

Primarily on here it is the same posters presenting the same "sound bites" for a young earth - posters I might add seem to have never understood any science whatsoever. You can lead the horses to water but you'll be darned to see them drink.

 

[Pats]

Of course I have a disregard for it since it is a falsified theory that really never got above the level of hypothesis.

I'm not questioning your motives for your stance on a young earth. I'm saying that your post(s) contain little to no other information beside it.

In fact I gave as much of a response as the post I replied to about presenting young earth arguments. The only scientific benefit of presenting such arguments would be to show they don't hold up as science.

Primarily on here it is the same posters presenting the same "sound bites" for a young earth - posters I might add seem to have never understood any science whatsoever. You can lead the horses to water but you'll be darned to see them drink.

It sounds like you are saying that Creationists don't understand science anyway, so why explain it to them?

If this is how you feel, you're entitled. But, again, why bother even responding to creationists if that's how you feel? Because your post(s) just look like you drop in to slam and go.

Your above statement lacks observation since I am new around here, and although I admit some of my initial arguements have been the same old ones, I have at least entertained some of the reasponses I've recieved. (I am not the only newby I've noticed around, btw.)

It just seems that some people might want to have discussions in order to learn or debate, and your post seemed hardly conducive to either. It seemed to serve no purpose other than to say, "I don't agree."

 

[KerrMetric]

There have been myriad discussions of these topics on the board. I just posted an ad lib for the heck of it. If someone brings up specifics then I might respond. My experience over years of this topic in various forums has been that 99% of the problems stem from people just not understanding or bothering to learn the actual science. 1% are people who know better but do it anyway based upon ideology.

 

[RichardT]

There have been myriad discussions of these topics on the board. I just posted an ad lib for the heck of it. If someone brings up specifics then I might respond. My experience over years of this topic in various forums has been that 99% of the problems stem from people just not understanding or bothering to learn the actual science. 1% are people who know better but do it anyway based upon ideology.

What do you call AiG and ICR ? Are they just as blind on the actual science as we are ?

 

[Dannager]

What do you call AiG and ICR ? Are they just as blind on the actual science as we are ?

I'd say they're split about half-and-half between the knowledgeable yet dishonest 1% and the ignorant 99%. It doesn't help that AiG throws out evidence that doesn't agree with scriptural record to begin with. That's not good science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'd say they're split about half-and-half between the knowledgeable yet dishonest 1% and the ignorant 99%. It doesn't help that AiG throws out evidence that doesn't agree with scriptural record to begin with. That's not good science.

an interesting thing is that both of these organizations have a real problem retaining people. they split, they summarily fire people, names just seem to disappear over the years. they really aren't able to recruit and keep people very well.

 

[KerrMetric]

What do you call AiG and ICR ? Are they just as blind on the actual science as we are ?

I'd say they are headed by delusional liars (Gish for ICR and Ham for AIG). I'd say some of their staff are similarly flawed and are not above outright lies or deliberate obfuscations of the facts. I would say some others are honest but are just pontificating about material they don't know much about.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, and then they attempt to find supporting scientific evidence for Old Testament Bible stories. That's why they call themselves the Institute for Creation Research. This is my whole point.

My point was they are honest about their approach. They start with the presupposition that the Bible is historically accurate. They start with a worldview that includes miracles, namely an ex nihilo creative miracle. They then combine their scientific knowledge, their historical knowledge, and their theological/biblical knowledge so they can rightfully discern what the evidence reveals. They have a superior method because they don't limit themselves to naturalistic assumptions.

My biggest concern with scientists is that they don't grasp the assumptions their field is based on. Science is not objective when it comes the methodological naturalism.

I have not defeated myself. My entire argument is directed SPECIFICALLY at those who subscribe to the idea that the earth preserves evidence of the Flood and Creation accounts. Sure, science can't detect miracles -- so to all you Creationists out there: stop claiming that such biblical miracles ought to be taught in the science classroom.

First I don't think the subject of origins belongs in a science classroom at all. I think students deserve better than that. The truth is, it belongs in a philosophy class where all forms of evidence can be looked at. Students need to hear about Aristotle's and other philosopher's logical arguments against an infinite regression of causes. But if society is going to insist on covering the issue in the science class, then let's get ID in there also.

Second you need to stop claiming that science supports your brand of theology more so than it does YECism. The truth is, science will never conclude what you believe either. The difference is, AIG and ICR are honest about the fact that they are not limiting themselves to scientific knowledge. They openly state they start with the Bible. That's admirable.

It does if you claim the earth preserves evidence of Noah's Flood, as I've been saying the whole time. If you think otherwise, then please address the three lines of evidence I have laid out in the opening post. This is the whole point to the thread -- let's get back to that.

The problem is with the premise of the thread. I don't agree with the premise. You seem to believe that science is the only evidence out there. Yet when Paul told us God is revealed in the observable creation, the scientific method didn't even exist. God doesn't want us to observe the creation with the bias of methodological naturalism. You seem to be asking people, including creation ministries, to do just that. Why?

Honestly you will never understand this debate until you come to grasp with the concept of presuppositions. You'll never be able to truly understand the evidence if you limit yourself to the scientific method. But when you open yourself to all forms of evidence, including but not limited to science, you'll finally understand creationism. And you'll become a much better thinker.

Creation ministries use scientific evidence along with other forms of evidence (the Bible, etc.) in their rational arguments for a young earth. You irrationally limited yourself to methodological naturalism. Why be irrational? Why limit yourself?