nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→YEC v. OEC: Long reply to Jazzman
::Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "[[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong]]."
::Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "[[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong]]."
That one [[logical fallacy]] has blinded more men to more great scientific discoveries than has any other. It's really simple to fall into through no fault of one's own. It blinded me, too, for many years, until--well, [[John Newman]], the former slave trader, said it best, didn't he? "I once was lost, but now am found;/Was blind, but now I see."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::That one [[logical fallacy]] has blinded more men to more great scientific discoveries than has any other. It's really simple to fall into through no fault of one's own. It blinded me, too, for many years, until--well, [[John Newman]], the former slave trader, said it best, didn't he? "I once was lost, but now am found;/Was blind, but now I see."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't understand all the physics and maths behind Humphreys' model, but I don't think it's true to say that originally there was no "time" dimension. Rather, time was almost stationary (or went backward?). And you mean [[John Newton]], not Newman. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't understand all the physics and maths behind Humphreys' model, but I don't think it's true to say that originally there was no "time" dimension. Rather, time was almost stationary (or went backward?). And you mean [[John Newton]], not Newman. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can
::::I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can
:::'''Peer review''': This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason ''not'' to believe that the fraud took place.
::::'''Peer review''': This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason ''not'' to believe that the fraud took place.
:::'''Incorrect creationist arguments''': I took these from the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguements. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississipi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.
::::'''Incorrect creationist arguments''': I took these from the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguements. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississipi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.
:::'''Why should...''': None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabalize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?
::::'''Why should...''': None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabalize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?
:::'''Great Flood''': I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.
::::'''Great Flood''': I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.
:::'''Relativity''': I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.
::::'''Relativity''': I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.
:::Again, my intent was never to argue the ''science'', the whole time I've been asking about the ''theology''. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, my intent was never to argue the ''science'', the whole time I've been asking about the ''theology''. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Almost all exposure of fraud is by those with a vested interest. The Piltdown fraud was exposed by evolutionists who realised that Piltdown was inconsistent with what they "now" (at the time) believed about the evolution of man, so they had a motive to find fault with it. But I think your main point is that fraud has to be demonstrated as such, not just claimed. On that, I agree, but that can be regardless of motive and regardless of worldview (creationary or evolutionary).
:::::Okay, I retract (and replace) my comment about you misrepresenting the creationist arguments. The page you relied on did not make the point clear (I have clarified it now), but it is true that most creationists (i.e. creationists associated with the main YEC organisations, such as ICR, CMI, AiG, and etc.) do not argue that the arguments listed on the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page ''prove'' scientifically that the world is not old. The point of those arguments, despite it not being clarified in the leading paragraph of the relevant section of that page, is to show that arguments based on uniformitarian assumptions give inconsistent results, so such arguments are not absolute and not reliable. The Mississippi example is to show that the ''evidence'', according to uniformitarian assumption, is inconsistent with the supposed age of the river, not that it is inconsistent with the age of the planet.
::::: I find that if I "read in context" in cases such as these, I often misunderstand the context. You need to be clearer as to just what you are getting at. Creationists (by and large) don't argue that you must take the Bible literally. They argue that you should take it the way it was meant to be understood, e.g. poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and literal history as literal history. And if the literal history is not trustworthy, how can you have confidence that the spiritual pronouncements (e.g. that heaven exists) are trustworthy? I believe that Occam's razor encourages us to take the creation account literally. Which is the most straightforward explanation? That the universe was created by a Being capable of creating it, or that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason? The problem is not God leaving "certain clues" to "destabilize", but man's rejection of God's testimony and his determination to find an explanation that leaves God out. God clearly told us how long it took, so there is no ambiguity there. As for metaphor, we all use metaphors all the time, yet almost everyone can understand when metaphors are used and when someone is being literal, simply by their understanding of the language. That is, whether or not metaphor is used is dependent on the structure of the text. Revelation uses many metaphors, Genesis uses a few, but not so many. Genesis 1 uses almost none. That's a simple fact about the text itself. You can't claim something to be metaphor simply because it is inconsistent with an opposing claim.
::::: As far as the ice is concerned, I forgot to pick TerryH up on this. The ice wasn't formed ''during'' the flood, but ''after'' the flood, in the [[ice age]] which lasted for several hundred years.
::::: Humphreys' "white-hole cosmology" is based on Einstein's theories, but with a different starting assumption (a bounded universe) than the Big Bang (which assumes an unbounded universe). Einstein himself could not support it, of course, because the idea wasn't proposed until well after he was dead! :-)
::::: The reason that people care is simply because the secular (man-made) ideas on the origin and age of the universe, the Earth, life, etc. are in conflict with the biblical account, and many people therefore (correctly) choose one over the other, and (incorrectly) choose to reject the Bible, with the result (if they don't change their mind) that they reject the gift of salvation. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/291 here].
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 7 July 2007 (EDT)