YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world

Post Reply New Topic

OK. So to whom do you leave the task of accurately interpreting the data? My vote would go to those most familiar with it.

Anyone with the relevant background knowledge in the field in which the data is being interpreted can interpret it cogently.

Bias can effect the accuracy of the data in subtle ways, such as throwing out large amounts of data that may be important. This is why experiments and observations have to be repeatable. If many people make the same observations and agree on the same measurements then you can be reasonably sure that the data is accurate and its collection is reasonably unbiased (bias in different people is bias to different ends). Scientists are trained to be objective and unbiased anyway. Additionally, you have to be objective in interpreting that data to find the best possible explanation that fits it. You simply can't have already decided the conclusion before analyzing those measurements, be it because it was written in a book (the Bible) or because of some preferred ideology. An ideology is something on the human level, it's irrelevant to the truth.

I agree with you here. But I have a question regarding the bolded text, the phrase,

"You simply can't have already decided the conclusion before analyzing those measurements, be it because it was written in a book (the Bible) or because of some preferred ideology. An ideology is something on the human level, it's irrelevant to the truth."

What if atheism were the preferred ideology in question, rather than Christianity or creationism, would your statement hold for it as well?

Yes it would. I also know from experience that those scientists who believe in evolution as well as the ones who believe in the Big Bang theory as the correct cosmological are not all atheists, if that's what you're implying. They actually have all kinds of beliefs but this doesn't effect their work.

Cool.

Nope, I'm not implying that they have to be atheists. For all it matters, they could be sun worshipers or priestesses of Aphrodite if they liked.

This is not about any particular point in your assault on evolution but on the general attitude of your attacks. The basic assertion that the universe is approximately 6000 years old is obviously ludicrous since its consideration, not to speak of acceptance, is not any attempt to justify much of the factual nonsense in that collection of folklore known as the Bible but rather an intellectual violence at the basic vital function of the human capability to use reason and observation to make sense of the universe as we observe and analyze it. It has roots in the most ancient legend of Adam's desire to know and understand fully his world and God's declaration that Adam had committed the ultimate sin of seeking knowledge. Religion has always asserted that there are provinces of understanding forbidden to humans and the underlying conflict between science and religion is that science operates with no restrictions on its attempts of understanding. The ultimate question about God's anger becomes that man seeks to become like a god and why shouldn't he? It is God's hubris that is in question and that is totally offensive to religious people.

YECs should only speak for themselves.

BTW it seems the author is a fraud: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

I would argue that that is not necessarily what it is about. there are many ways of interpreting the proverbial "fruit of knowledge". and even if that is the case, I once heard a theologian suggest that it was not Adam's taking of the fruit, but that he tried to hide it from God, and then tried to pass blame for his action onto others instead of taking responsibility for the choices he made.

I've been silent on this up until now because cosmology and physics seem to be the primary fields involved, and I know little about these fields and do not like talking about things I do not fully understand.

I do feel that a lot of modern science, at least in the field of cosmology is not based on the traditional scientific method of observation->hypothesis->experimentation->data->repeat->theory, but seems to just go
observation->theory. While I have no problem with scientists trying to make sense of their observations, I feel that so-called "theories" are formed based on nothing other than observations and then defended fanatically as though they where undeniable fact. We may have made enough observations to make a cosmological theory seem valid, but scientists past made enough observations to make spontaneous generation and a flat world seem valid, and further observation refuted both. While I am fine with scientists agreeing on the most likely scenario based on their observation, I feel that these conclusions are defended far to fanatically, be it by the scientists themselves, the documentaries and books that explain them to the laypeople, and whosoever may argue them on an internet forum. though I admit cosmology is an "outside looking in" field for me, and this may just be because I don't know enough about these theories to understand why they deserve such fanatical devotion. But at the same time I argue that nature has thrown the scientific community many a curve ball in the past, and it is arrogant and foolish of us to believe nothing we accept as fact now will be the laughing stock of future generations. I feel we must always test out theories with whatever new technology is at our disposal, always second guess ourselves, even if the experiments yield no new insights in what was being tested, they may give us other useful information, and at the very lest will help to justify our faith in what science has discovered thus far. If you completely disallow yourself to be wrong, even when history teaches that you very well may be, how are you any better than a YEC who will never let any scientific evidence budge his or her stance?

On the other hand, YEC's have cried wolf far too many times, and I am therefore skeptical of any claims they make as a result. If their enemy is truly junk science, then why do they fight junk science with junk science? You would think with all the wealthy christians in the world the YECs could get funding for comprehensive experimentation. the YECs need, in my opinion, to learn patience, to not fly off the handle at every percieved breakthrough for their cause only to find it has already been refuted later. If what they believe is true, then answers will come to them someday. They just need to keep faith. Sadly, their reputation is probably too ruined at this point and even if they do make some kind of breakthrough, it will be ignored by the scientific community simply because experience has taught that they should be ignored. Still, I do feel that our previously held conceptions need to be constantly challenged in the name of science. And if the YECs are the only ones with the courage to do so, more power to them.

and that is my two cents.

I am in total agreement with you that you are pretty much in the dark about current scientific cosmology.

Well you can be snide about it, or you could explain what I'm missing.

Since Sand now sees you as one of his opponents, he thus thinks you are missing out on his snideness and seeks to drag you into a flame war.

Careful there. You are starting to get personal.

Trying from a different angle are we? Now you're going to try tattling and accuse me of attacking you to the moderators?

Have the last word if you like, your little insinuation game is getting boring.

Not at all. Merely an observation. How else would you characterize your remark on my character?

I've only read an introductory book and some online articles regarding formal, so I'm not sure what I'm missing.

NotC =/=> E
NotE ==> C

So

NotC == E OR NotE

so

Some NotC == NotE

where NotE ==> C

so

Some NotC == C ?

Correct me, please.