YECism's big headache.

[Praxiteles]

This was mentioned in another thread, but I thought it worthy of its own.

The main tactic that proponents of Young Earth Creationism seem to employ is to try to pick holes in the Theory of Evolution, or in theories and evidences in other disciplines that are in conflict with their preferred view of origins.

However what many don't seem to realise is that even if the ToE were overturned tomorrow, YEC is in no better a position. YEC doesn't explain the evidence. It is not the default "other explanation" that its proponents would like to believe.

Comments? Brickbats? Bouquets?

Cheques?

Cheers,
Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
This was mentioned in another thread, but I thought it worthy of its own.

The main tactic that proponents of Young Earth Creationism seem to employ is to try to pick holes in the Theory of Evolution, or in theories and evidences in other disciplines that are in conflict with their preferred view of origins.

However what many don't seem to realise is that even if the ToE were overturned tomorrow, YEC is in no better a position. YEC doesn't explain the evidence. It is not the default "other explanation" that its proponents would like to believe.

Comments? Brickbats? Bouquets?

Cheques?

Cheers,
Prax

I completely agree. Even though evolution has been proven, and accepted by science and physics. They (people that believe in YEC) always try to find a hole and try to say cause of this hole it isn't true. Or try to find a hole in the theory of the big bang, but hey whats else is new.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by seesaw
I completely agree. Even though evolution has been proven, and accepted by science and physics. They (people that believe in YEC) always try to find a hole and try to say cause of this hole it isn't true. Or try to find a hole in the theory of the big bang, but hey whats else is new.

Well, seesaw, I'm pleased you agree!

Be careful with your terminology, though.  While in science theories are accepted, they are never proven.  There is no such thing in science as proof.  There are facts, hypotheses and theories, but never proofs.

Proofs we leave to mathematicians. 

 

The point to this thread is, however, it wouldn't help YECists even if they did successfully refute the ToE (or cosmological theories, or geological theories etc).

Cheers,

Prax

 

Edited to hide evidence of appalling proofreading skills

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
This was mentioned in another thread, but I thought it worthy of its own.

The main tactic that proponents of Young Earth Creationism seem to employ is to try to pick holes in the Theory of Evolution, or in theories and evidences in other disciplines that are in conflict with their preferred view of origins.

However what many don't seem to realise is that even if the ToE were overturned tomorrow, YEC is in no better a position. YEC doesn't explain the evidence. It is not the default "other explanation" that its proponents would like to believe.

Comments? Brickbats? Bouquets?

Cheques?

Cheers,
Prax

I've been saying that for a while. It's a logical fallacy called a False Dilemma. Basically it says "choice A is wrong, so the answer must be choice B." The problem is that they don't consider the possibility of choice C, D, E, or F-Z.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
This was mentioned in another thread, but I thought it worthy of its own.

The main tactic that proponents of Young Earth Creationism seem to employ is to try to pick holes in the Theory of Evolution, or in theories and evidences in other disciplines that are in conflict with their preferred view of origins.

However what many don't seem to realise is that even if the ToE were overturned tomorrow, YEC is in no better a position. YEC doesn't explain the evidence. It is not the default "other explanation" that its proponents would like to believe.

Comments? Brickbats? Bouquets?

Cheques?

Cheers,
Prax

Yeah, I posted a thread where I asked for evidence for YEC besides "evidence" against evolution (false dichotomy). It didn't really get anywhere.

I have yet to even see a scientific theory of creationism, let alone actual evidence for this always illusive theory.

-jon

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
I've been saying that for a while. It's a logical fallacy called a False Dilemma. Basically it says "choice A is wrong, so the answer must be choice B." The problem is that they don't consider the possibility of choice C, D, E, or F-Z.

Indeed.

Well, perhaps we need to say it more loudly and more frequently.  Would it help?  Probably not.  Maybe some will read and understand though.

Cheers,

prax

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
Yeah, I posted a thread where I asked for evidence for YEC besides "evidence" against evolution (false dichotomy). It didn't really get anywhere.

No, of course not.  For a YEC, the only evidence they deem necessary for a young earth is an argument against the evidence for biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, physics etc etc.

I suppose that it would be amusing under other circumstances.

I have yet to even see a scientific theory of creationism, let alone actual evidence for this always illusive theory.

-jon

Jon, I think you've coined a beautiful word there - illusive - a hybrid of elusive and illusory.  Both apt under the circumstances!

 

[fieldsofwind]

welp... I've posted info pertaining to the ice-caps that supports a young earth... Amount of helium in the atmosphere that supports it.... and there is more to come....

However, if one does assume that the dating proceedures are faulty... then why would it not support something much younger??? Simple... same goes with the fossil records and what not...

And remember there Mr. Prax... This 'evidence' that I post... or the 'evidence' that others post does not alter in any way what I hold on to. One can say... why then do you post... and my reply is that there should be evidence presented for both sides on a debate forum... I checked here and saw that the balance was far in favor of evolutionists

What I did... having never researched this stuff before... was decide to change that little problem... so I did a BUNCH of reading on both sides of the issue to get ready... and then began posting...

On my other thread I have a series of questions that anyone of you can choose to address individually if you like... I don't need a link... I could go there, (and probably have gone there), on my own... Post a reply so that everyone can read it and see your position.

take care

FOW

 

[fieldsofwind]

oh yea... and to those that say... "you've only been doing this for a week and you think you know it all"... nope... don't know it all, and don't need to!

most likely everyone here that posts pertaining to evo/creation is posting based off of the readings done on studies/experiments carried out by persons other than themselves...

simple as that

 

[Praxiteles]

G'day there, windy fields!

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
welp... I've posted info pertaining to the ice-caps that supports a young earth... Amount of helium in the atmosphere that supports it.... and there is more to come....

Er...  yes, you have.  I must admit that I didn't read those posts particularly closely, since there was so much stuff in there and I didn't feel as if I had the time to tackle it all at once.  However, with regard to your helium and ice caps - no, they don't support a young earth.  If you got that info from creationist sites, the odds are very good that it's faulty.

Believe me, Fields, scientists don't ignore genuine difficulties.  Those that you find on creation websites are (and often have been) thoroughly addressed.

However, if one does assume that the dating proceedures are faulty... then why would it not support something much younger??? Simple... same goes with the fossil records and what not...

  But why would one assume thate they were faulty, when various different methods give such similar answers?  If one method gives the wrong answer, fair enough, but how would one explain different methods giving the same wrong answer?

And remember there Mr. Prax... This 'evidence' that I post... or the 'evidence' that others post does not alter in any way what I hold on to. One can say... why then do you post... and my reply is that there should be evidence presented for both sides on a debate forum... I checked here and saw that the balance was far in favor of evolutionists

What I did... having never researched this stuff before... was decide to change that little problem... so I did a BUNCH of reading on both sides of the issue to get ready... and then began posting...

On my other thread I have a series of questions that anyone of you can choose to address individually if you like... I don't need a link... I could go there, (and probably have gone there), on my own... Post a reply so that everyone can read it and see your position.

You're to be congratulated for dipping your toe into what must appear to be a shark infested pool!

If you want to discuss issues, then by all means lets address them.  But one at a time, if you please.  I post from work, and don't have the time to do huge posts.

take care

FOW

You too,

Prax

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Jon, I think you've coined a beautiful word there - illusive - a hybrid of elusive and illusory.  Both apt under the circumstances!

Thanks, but I don't think I get the credit. M-w.com lists illusive as a synonym for illusory.

-jon

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
Thanks, but I don't think I get the credit. M-w.com lists illusive as a synonym for illusory.

-jon

You're dead right!  Gee, and just when I was beginning to think that I did indeed know it all...

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Pete Harcoff]

With respect to YEC arguments, the biggest problem is they've already firmly established their conclusion. In other words, it's not about trying to figure out an explanation to fit the evidence; it's about making the evidence fit the explanation.

Now, YEC's might claim scientists do the same thing with evolution, but one must keep in mind why the theory of evolution was even postulated in the first place. It certainly wasn't a bunch of bored scientists trying to figure out how to tick off a bunch of Christians.

Even more frustrating (when arguing against YEC's) is that YEC's themselves can't seem to agree on certain things (such as, how old is the Earth, as my 6000-10000 years old? thread pointed out). Until YEC's can start agreeing on things, how do they expect to get anyone else to agree with them?

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
With respect to YEC arguments, the biggest problem is they've already firmly established their conclusion. In other words, it's not about trying to figure out an explanation to fit the evidence; it's about making the evidence fit the explanation.

Now, YEC's might claim scientists do the same thing with evolution, but one must keep in mind why the theory of evolution was even postulated in the first place. It certainly wasn't a bunch of bored scientists trying to figure out how to tick off a bunch of Christians.

This is the crux of the problem, isn't it?  YECism isn't arguing based on science - it's all about using scientific sounding terms to justify a theological position.  This is why it's so frustrating for those discussing the topic from a scientific viewpoint, since at face value it seems as though a science based argument is taking place.

Of course, that's an illusion.

It's equally frustrating for YECists, I don't doubt, since they seem to think that all the "science" is a smokescreen for rubbishing their spiritual beliefs.

Of course, it isn't.

Even more frustrating (when arguing against YEC's) is that YEC's themselves can't seem to agree on certain things (such as, how old is the Earth, as my 6000-10000 years old? thread pointed out). Until YEC's can start agreeing on things, how do they expect to get anyone else to agree with them?

Well, if the science isn't as important as the religious belief, it hardly matters if the "scientific details" don't match.  The priorities are completely different.

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[blerg1234]

I was just thinking the other day... I've seen the results of Satanists casting spells and other nasty things like that... So obviously there must be some 'higher power' of evil. All things being equal, wouldn't there also be a 'higher power' of good, meaning God, and then doesn't that support biblical evidence/theories/guesses/whatever you want to call it?

Of course, that was just something I was thinking about my mind tends to wander a bit

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by DavidPartay
I was just thinking the other day... I've seen the results of Satanists casting spells and other nasty things like that... So obviously there must be some 'higher power' of evil. All things being equal, wouldn't there also be a 'higher power' of good, meaning God, and then doesn't that support biblical evidence/theories/guesses/whatever you want to call it?

Of course, that was just something I was thinking about my mind tends to wander a bit

G'day David!

I honestly don't know what to say to that.  If you think you've seen magic, then a discussion of the scientific merit of arguments will have little meaning for you.

And, in answer to your question, no.  Science can say nothing about the supernatural.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DavidPartay
I was just thinking the other day... I've seen the results of Satanists casting spells and other nasty things like that...

I urge you to get in touch with your Satanist pals and have them contact James Randi immediately for a chance to claim the million-dollar prize.

Fat chance.