sneelhorses wrote:
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Quote:
And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.


No. No. A thousand times no (to the Young Earth part, at the very least).

Fossils have been dated through a process called radiometric dating to be millions of years old. That is all.

Radiometric dating has several flaws, most of them are discussed here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm (admittedly this site seems sketchy)
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Besides the possible flaws in these methods, it overlooks a simple exchange of arguments:
- An all powerful God could create rocks that "date" to however old he wants them to be
- Well, why would God try to deceive the human race?
- God did not say that the rocks were millions of years old, people interpreted them that way
- Well didn't God know that humans would date them that way?
- Yes, but that doesn't mean that God wouldn't have created them with certain amounts of radioactive materials inside

I'm sure you could imagine how this argument would continue, but it's not an impossible point.


So you can find articles for the flaws in Radiometric dating but no research articles on your scientifically sound explanation of how the universe was created? Come on man, I'm still waiting here.

comicIDIOT wrote:
How is this flawed? Where are your scientific sources for your claims?You mention "there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe" and yet you haven't given me any of this research and scientific study.

sneelhorses wrote:
2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.
comicIDIOT wrote:
I don't even know what a naturalist is or if there other branches like we have Satanists, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc. I've gone to Bible Study, I've gone to Church. Not with my family but with friends and I've always failed be interested. I admittedly live an ignorant life towards religion of any kind. For me to say I'm a naturalist would be a poor decision on my part, as (1) I don't know anything about this premise and (2) I don't like hopping on to the first thing that sounds like what I believe without knowing more about it.

Naturalism is the philosphical position that everything that exists or happens can be explained by natural processes (e.g., is reducible to physics). It is sometimes also referred to as physicalism or philosophical materialism. It is a strictly stronger assertion than atheism ("there is nothing except the physical universe" vs "there is no god")

Quote:
I believe responsibility from ones actions comes from the emotions that we associate with similar actions over time. For the sake of argument, going forward I'm defining responsibility and consciousness as an emotion, since you can feel responsible just like you can feel happy and sad. Lumping emotion with physics is illogical

It sounds like you're espousing some form of dualism here, which in philosophy of mind is the belief that there is a fundamental distinction between mental processes and physical ones. This is essentially incompatible with naturalism, and there are very few intellectually serious atheists who espouse it (essentially Searle and Nagel, plus probably some number of academic Buddhists if you could pin them down on anything). The naturalist camp is Dawkins/Dennett, et. al.

Quote:
but the chemical reactions underlying the emotions of a job well done are observable through scientific equipment. I don't think "I feel good after volunteering because God wanted me to." I think "I feel good because I helped those who needed my help today and I know I made a difference to them, even if it's the only time they'll smile this month." And thus my definition of Good & Bad. Doing something bad would be something that didn't help someone smile today or from prior experience. "I took the last cookie, I don't like it when others take the last cookie without asking. I should have asked, I was bad." That's obviously a very low level example, as that's something you'd teach a child, but that's the best way to convey my thought here. It could also stem from "I did this before and the recipient wasn't happy. This person didn't have an expression towards my action, I bet I was a bad person." Then we get to more complex situations where some people thought ill of my actions where others supported them over multiple events. So how do I judge if I did the right thing in that scenario? But that's a rhetorical question about morals. Wink

My question is then: why do you believe happiness is a meaningful thing to try and optimize for as a system of morality? Are you asserting that happiness is in some way metaphysical and therefore a superior end to physical aims? Or is it purely a chemical process that you happen to enjoy?

Quote:
This was closely related to the paragraph above but I have taken a tangent since I broke that paragraph in two. I like to took at something and know the reasons for what's happening and "Because God..." doesn't work. I like to look at something and know where it came from and "Because it's in the Bible" doesn't work. The research I've seen has all be people trying to prove that what is written in the bible is true, they have the box of a puzzle and the pieces from hundreds of other puzzles. Where "real" scientists have the pieces to the same puzzles but no box, they have the freedom to say "Oh, this piece goes over here with the pieces for this puzzle." compared to the Christian Scientists who dismiss everything that isn't a part of theirs. They're flying by the seat of their pants, and one piece to a puzzle can completely change the image to a puzzle; maybe it's a corner they hadn't found a piece for and weren't expecting a penguin in this halloween puzzle. Now, we're trying to figure out what a penguin has to do with it where as Christian Scientists would look at the Bible and say "Nope, no penguin in this puzzle." and throw it out.

It sounds like you're opposed more to religion as a reaction against negative ways that you've seen it practiced rather than out of some philosophical objection to God or metaphysics.

sneelhorses wrote:
Agreed here with Caleb,

If your justifications are Biblical, why did you not respond to my scriptural analysis?

sneelhorses wrote:
carbon dating has been proven to be ineffective, and if I remember right, they have very wide error margins.

Carbon-dating is quite effective, but it's not relevant on the time scales in question, which would require K-Ar dating. However K-Ar dating is still effective.

sneelhorses wrote:
In addition, all we can discover about the speed of light is the two-way speed (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light), it is a flawed assumption to say that light has to have taken millions/billions of years to reach earth.

It's a shame that Jason Lisle is wasting his intellect in this fashion. Anisotropic synchronization conventions make Maxwell's equations unworkably complex, rather than objects of mathematical beauty. Moreover it doesn't get you out of the fact that evolution is observable in action, and works, and creates new information in the process, contrary to all sorts of YECy propaganda. Moreover we can backtrack transposons to create phylogenetic trees and give pretty precise dates of species divergence.

sneelhorses wrote:
And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.

How's that? We have fossils of all sorts of transitionary forms, including feathered dinosaurs Wink
sneelhorses wrote:
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Quote:
And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.


No. No. A thousand times no (to the Young Earth part, at the very least).

Fossils have been dated through a process called radiometric dating to be millions of years old. That is all.

Radiometric dating has several flaws, most of them are discussed here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm (admittedly this site seems sketchy)
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm


The first site is a student's personal site. Not credible.
The second site is Ken Ham. Religious bias out the wazoo. Not credible.
The third is sketchy as you mentioned. Not credible.
The last one is a site about new earth. Religious bias out the wazoo. Not credible.

Calculations have an accuracy beyond faith, I'm afraid. It's math. Physics. In calculus textbooks. It's proven fact. Look at the sig figs. That tells you the accuracy, not biased sources or sources without citations.
I think I will be limiting my posts here for the following reasons:
I have been pushed to cite source after source, each one dismissed because it doesn't agree with the "accepted" "science" that has become commonplace today. It seems that the only sources that will not be dismissed as "religiously biased" are those of a secular science society, which of coursed will be biased in that manner. I, contrary to the rest, have not been pushing the secularists on this topic to cite Christian references that I won't dismiss as "religiously biased" since the source of the post does not agree with my worldview. It seems that the people on this thread already have unchangeable bias to the point where they won't accept a scientific study if it does not meet their requirements. In addition, as mentioned before, this type of discussion is not the focus of this forum, and unfortunately I have been spending much more time here than any other part of the site. As a challenge to illustrate my point, however, I would like a secularist/atheist to cite a Young Earth Creationist source that agrees with your worldview, then I will attempt to cite a secular site that agrees with Young Earth Creation. Farewell, I do appreciate the thoughts and challenges this conversation has provoked, and I will take my leave with no bitter feelings. God bless.
I want to be super clear, as one Christian to another. Hopefully this helps someone, since you've now ignored twice my earlier remarks on scriptural interpretation.

There is no "secular bias" involved in rejecting Young Earth Creationism, there's only "reality bias".
I won't try to debate you guys on a logical level because I'm a presuppositionalist. Everyone has presuppositions: mine is that there is a God. Beyond that, as elfprince said, noone can prove God using logic, so good luck convincing any Christian to do that. You guys make presuppositions the same as me, but being a presuppositionalist just means I grant it and you refuse to.

Therefore, I won't try to debate atheists anymore. It's totally fruitless, not to mention they're using "quantum mechanics" as a god to say "quantum mechanics" created everything billions of years ago and we can never understand it fully is no different from saying God created everything thousands of years ago and we can't understand it (as it pertains to the ORIGINAL creation of the world). To say a big explosion came out of nowhere - quantumly so it's scientificy - and when the dust settled we had everything in it's place is very stupid.

And I'm not going to debate elfprince as a "old-earth-creationist" Christian. I see from what I read in your posts you believe the Bible is untrue, and a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible isn't a Christian at all. You are the one undermining the gospel by stating part of the bible is needed to be heard for salvation and part of it needs to be ignored because it doesn't agree with current popular views.

Lastly, what you are doing is dismissing sources of information because they support YEC. In essence you are saying "we cannot get information from this article because of what it contains", which touches on a genetic fallacy, Ad hominem fallacy, and sounds somewhat like circular reasoning!
CalebHansberry wrote:
And I'm not going to debate elfprince as a "old-earth-creationist" Christian. I see from what I read in your posts you believe the Bible is untrue, and a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible isn't a Christian at all. You are the one undermining the gospel by stating part of the bible is needed to be heard for salvation and part of it needs to be ignored because it doesn't agree with current popular views.


Are you implying that saying that Genesis is not a Historical account makes you not a Christian? If so you are saying the Catholic church, the Pope and St Augustine are not Christian?

Do you also not realize that implying Quantum Mechanics isn't real also means you don't believe modern Processors or even GPS work as well as we can visibly see them work, because they rely on bit of quantum mechanics based knowledge and technology. GPS would not be anywhere near as accurate as it is if Einstein hadn't been right about relativity.
Well, that's for the person to decide for themselves. "What is my opinion on the Bible, do I really think it's the word of God?" They could be a Christian, but a confused one who has more to learn about believing God, or they could be just claiming to be a Christian but actually not caring what God says, which attitude is wrong.

Bear in mind St. Augustine did not believe in "old-earth-creation", and did believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. As he says here:
Quote:
"On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand. ..."

The Catholic church I decline to discuss.

I'm not saying Quantum Mechanics "is not real". I'm saying your trying to use it as a explanation for the beginning of matter is a cop-out. It's not actually a logical cause at all, as this article points out: Beginning of the Universe - Beginning of Time
CalebHansberry wrote:
I won't try to debate you guys on a logical level because I'm a presuppositionalist. Everyone has presuppositions: mine is that there is a God. Beyond that, as elfprince said, noone can prove God using logic, so good luck convincing any Christian to do that. You guys make presuppositions the same as me, but being a presuppositionalist just means I grant it and you refuse to.

The reformed abuse of presuppositionalism is terrible. Having differing presuppositions doesn't mean "give up on arguing" it means "recurse to a lower base-case until you can agree on something and work up from there". You'll notice that's pretty much what I'm doing with probing questions here.


Quote:
And I'm not going to debate elfprince as a "old-earth-creationist" Christian.

"Theistic evolution" please. I'm not a day-age/progressive creationist, which is what is usually meant by old-earth-creationism.

Quote:
I see from what I read in your posts you believe the Bible is untrue,

You should read them more carefully then (or just read this essay).

Quote:
You are the one undermining the gospel by stating part of the bible is needed to be heard for salvation and part of it needs to be ignored because it doesn't agree with current popular views.

This statement is incorrect on at least 4 counts: I'm not advocating that we ignore anything, nor that we do so because it doesn't agree with current popular views, nor are the views with which it conflicts particularly recent/current. Moreover it is completely correct, if somewhat simple, to say that only part of the bible is necessary for salvation, even though that's not at all what I'm arguing for.

Quote:
Lastly, what you are doing is dismissing sources of information because they support YEC. In essence you are saying "we cannot get information from this article because of what it contains", which touches on a genetic fallacy, Ad hominem fallacy, and sounds somewhat like circular reasoning!

There are YECs who I can have a friendly conversation with. My rejection of AIG/Ken Ham has more to do with Acts 8:18-25
Quote:
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”


CalebHansberry wrote:
They could be a Christian, but a confused one who has more to learn about believing God, or they could be just claiming to be a Christian but actually not caring what God says, which attitude is wrong.

I considered not posting the following, because it's really personal, and kind of ugly, but I decided to post it anyway in the hopes that shock-value will accomplish what being polite could not. If you're not up for that, I recommend not enlarging the font.

This is the sort of arrogant wrong-headed condescension that has completely destroyed our generation's interest in Christianity. As someone who has seen dozens of young Christ-loving scientists driven out of the church, and struggled to help a few of them feel welcome, like the little dutch boy with his finger in the dike, I'm going to be completely honest and say that if you said that to me in person I would have a hard time not punching your face in on behalf of all of the young Christians who've had their faith destroyed by people with your attitude, but I'm reminded that God will take care of it. If you're going to be a YEC, fine, whatever, but keep it to yourself instead of spreading the poison around. And just to be super extra clear, you're currently being told off by an evangelical Baptist, not some theological liberal who only goes to church for the music and the coffee.

CalebHansberry wrote:
Bear in mind St. Augustine did not believe in "old-earth-creation",

Yep, but his reasons for rejecting the 6-day narrative as literal historiography are still sound. Calvin, Wesley, and Aquinas all fall into this camp as well.

Quote:
and did believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. As he says here:
Quote:
"On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand. ..."

"Inerrancy" is not the same as "literalism". This seems to be a distinction that you (and many others) struggle with.
elfprince13 wrote:
Naturalism is the philosphical position that everything that exists or happens can be explained by natural processes (e.g., is reducible to physics). It is sometimes also referred to as physicalism or philosophical materialism. It is a strictly stronger assertion than atheism ("there is nothing except the physical universe" vs "there is no god")


This sounds like something I can relate to, I'll have to read into this a bit more.

Quote:
It sounds like you're espousing some form of dualism here, which in philosophy of mind is the belief that there is a fundamental distinction between mental processes and physical ones. This is essentially incompatible with naturalism, and there are very few intellectually serious atheists who espouse it (essentially Searle and Nagel, plus probably some number of academic Buddhists if you could pin them down on anything). The naturalist camp is Dawkins/Dennett, et. al.


I don't think there can be a distinction between mental & physical processes, as I learn to either reproduce or not to reproduce actions based on previous results, when I encounter a situation I am not familiar with I draw upon past experiences and determine the best and/or most moral thing to do.

Quote:
My question is then: why do you believe happiness is a meaningful thing to try and optimize for as a system of morality? Are you asserting that happiness is in some way metaphysical and therefore a superior end to physical aims? Or is it purely a chemical process that you happen to enjoy?


I don't think we should optimize a system for happiness, I find happiness to be a form of Euphoria where it lasts and eventually fades and always trying to be happy will require more and more stimulation to stay happy. I'm sitting in my chair now and I'm not happy but I'm not sad. I am not trying to be happy; happiness is, for an example, going out with friends and having a laugh at one another over dinner - happiness is having a good time.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer that middle question just yet but I find happiness to be the product of chemical processes.

Quote:
It sounds like you're opposed more to religion as a reaction against negative ways that you've seen it practiced rather than out of some philosophical objection to God or metaphysics.


I can't say that's true, as all my direct experiences have been positive. However few that may be.

sneelhorses wrote:
I have been pushed to cite source after source, each one dismissed...


I'm not looking for sources. I'm looking for research studies and research articles. You said, again, that there is no scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe. You can't say something is scientifically proven if there aren't any scientific articles; your inability to link to any is concerning. The article can even say "We tested this specimen and it matched what the bible said" as long as the author includes the scientific research that went into it.

I've said it above, and it should be quire clear, I'm not educated in religion at all. I don't have the capabilties to dismiss anything. I'm trying to understand why you say there is no other scientifically sound explanation but I'm having immense trouble getting research that backs up the claim you made. I'm starting to think there aren't any proper research articles and studies and that you're just repeating what others have told you.
comicIDIOT wrote:
Quote:
It sounds like you're espousing some form of dualism here, which in philosophy of mind is the belief that there is a fundamental distinction between mental processes and physical ones. This is essentially incompatible with naturalism, and there are very few intellectually serious atheists who espouse it (essentially Searle and Nagel, plus probably some number of academic Buddhists if you could pin them down on anything). The naturalist camp is Dawkins/Dennett, et. al.


I don't think there can be a distinction between mental & physical processes, as I learn to either reproduce or not to reproduce actions based on previous results, when I encounter a situation I am not familiar with I draw upon past experiences and determine the best and/or most moral thing to do.

Hmmm, I think, based on your phrasing, that you might have misunderstood my question. Certainly your mental processes are informed by your experience of physical processes, the question I'm getting at is if you believe everything that you experience / everything that happens in your mental processes can be explained (in principle) purely in terms of physics and chemistry, or if you believe that there is some "spark of consciousness" which can't (even in principle) be described by physics. (And maybe that's what you were answering, and I'm just misreading you).

Either way, my point is that if you believe something more than physics is required to explain consciousness, that suggests that some form of religious/supernatural beliefs must be valid, and if you don't your use of words like "best" and "most moral" are ill-grounded. How can a set of particle trajectories be moral or in any objective sense "better" than another set of particle trajectories? What class of function is maximized by your ideal system of morality?

Quote:
Quote:
My question is then: why do you believe happiness is a meaningful thing to try and optimize for as a system of morality? Are you asserting that happiness is in some way metaphysical and therefore a superior end to physical aims? Or is it purely a chemical process that you happen to enjoy?


I don't think we should optimize a system for happiness, I find happiness to be a form of Euphoria where it lasts and eventually fades and always trying to be happy will require more and more stimulation to stay happy. I'm sitting in my chair now and I'm not happy but I'm not sad. I am not trying to be happy; happiness is, for an example, going out with friends and having a laugh at one another over dinner - happiness is having a good time.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer that middle question just yet but I find happiness to be the product of chemical processes.

If you think these ideas are interesting, I would recommend doing some light reading in metaphysics/epistemology/ethics to get a feel for some of the different schools of thought. It's hard to converse about some of these things if you don't have a decent map of the territory.

Quote:
I can't say that's true, as all my direct experiences have been positive. However few that may be.

Fair enough, that was just my impression based on how you were describing your view of the relation between science and religion. It sounded like you were more bothered by how specific interpretations of religion led to specific problematic understandings of science than by anything about religion in general.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 21 of 21
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement