Calling all young earth creationists!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah! I see. Funny enough, the one I most recently read was one for kids.

Others will disagree, but I would highly recommend the stuff by Stephen Jay Gould. I would also suggest Why Evolution Is True by Coyne.

Now, here's little old me, stuck in the middle, not knowing who to believe.

It is a difficult place to be. I rarely if ever have the expertise necessary to judge without the slightest equivocation the competing claims of 'experts'. But when faced with the overwhelming consensus of multiple scientific disciplines on the one hand and eisigesis, ad hoc fallacy, and conspiracy theories on the other, the continuously reaffirmed consensus of science strikes me as the preferred inference by many orders of magnitude.

 

[Youtellme]

It is a difficult place to be. I rarely if ever have the expertise necessary to judge without the slightest equivocation the competing claims of 'experts'. But when faced with the overwhelming consensus of multiple scientific disciplines on the one hand and eisigesis, ad hoc fallacy, and conspiracy theories on the other, the continuously reaffirmed consensus of science strikes me as the preferred inference by many orders of magnitude.

I know what you mean. There was also a time when Galileo was the only person to have figured out that the earth revolved around sun, despite the general consensus.

 

[Man of Faith]

See, earlier you framed it like this:

Godless – evolution (it happened we just have to figure out how)
Faithful – creation
Theist/Catholic/Christian – evolution (just trust science)

And while I think this is a little oversimplified, I would say that it's a fairly accurate representation of the sides an individual may take on the issue, in that it covers that creation is a strictly theistic, faith-based position; while evolution can be a position held by both atheists and theists that is based on scientific inquiry rather than faith.

However, in this post, you're basically saying that the first and third groups are approaching it with bias, whereas the "faithful" group can "see clearly" that evolution "didn't happen".

It's a shame. For a moment there, I thought you were actually showing some objectivity. Turns out it's just you saying "I know what I believe is true and that makes me completely unbiased". I find it very difficult not to laugh when people say things like "I communicate directly with God and I know he exists and his word is the Bible, and this means I know X, Y or Z are false". It's basically like saying "I am extremely biased and have a mindset that is entirely dependent on X, Y and Z being false because I've decided that's what I want to believe, and this means I know X, Y and Z are false." If you want to come across as unbiased, it's best not to explain your bias first.

Here is what I think you are missing. The position of creation does take faith of course because it is considered anti-scientific, however the evidence for evolution disappears once that faith position is taken. Let’s say I am being told by one person that under a rock is a letter from a loved one and I can have it if I lift up the rock, and by another person I am told that there is a rattle snake under the same rock. Well if I take the faith position and believe the first person, lift up the rock and there is a letter, then I can see clearly that there is no rattle snake under the rock. I can see clearly now that I had faith and lifted the rock.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is what I think you are missing. The position of creation does take faith of course because it is considered anti-scientific, however the evidence for evolution disappears once that faith position is taken.

Faith can effectively 'disappear' whatever proves inconvenient. :yes:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here is what I think you are missing. The position of creation does take faith of course because it is considered anti-scientific, however the evidence for evolution disappears once that faith position is taken.

It does? I'm pretty sure facts don't disappear the moment you stop believing in them.

Let’s say I am being told by one person that under a rock is a letter from a loved one and I can have it if I lift up the rock, and by another person I am told that there is a rattle snake under the same rock. Well if I take the faith position and believe the first person, lift up the rock and there is a letter, then I can see clearly that there is no rattle snake under the rock. I can see clearly now that I had faith and lifted the rock.

But this isn't discovered by faith - it's by lifting up the rock. It makes no difference what you believed beforehand - whether it be that there is a note under the rock or a snake under it. The result would have been the same regardless of which claim you believed. To put it another way: facts and evidence are what are consistently true regardless of your beliefs.

 

[Man of Faith]

It does? I'm pretty sure facts don't disappear the moment you stop believing in them.


But this isn't discovered by faith - it's by lifting up the rock. It makes no difference what you believed beforehand - whether it be that there is a note under the rock or a snake under it. The result would have been the same regardless of which claim you believed. To put it another way: facts and evidence are what are consistently true regardless of your beliefs.

It's not the facts that are in dispute, it is the interpretation of the facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not the facts that are in dispute, it is the interpretation of the facts.

That is mostly correct: There is the scientific interpretation, and the unscientific interpretation (which is also bundled with misrepresentation, misinformation and obfuscation of the facts).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know what you mean. There was also a time when Galileo was the only person to have figured out that the earth revolved around sun, despite the general consensus.

I'm obviously wasting my time ...

 

[Youtellme]

I'm obviously wasting my time ...

No you're not. You get my point tho?

 

[Ouroboros]

Godless – evolution (it happened we just have to figure out how)

I'm not quite sure what you exactly meant with your list, but you're suggesting that if someone is godless, they have to accept evolution as true, i.e. that's the only alternative they have? Currently maybe that's true, but I can consider a couple of alternative (godless creationist) answers too, with just a little imagination. So I'm not sure true a true implication from "godless" and "evolution". Just saying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No you're not. You get my point tho?

Of course:

• Humanity has made enormous intellectual progress consigning the consensus of the past to the category of naive superstition.
• Therefore consensus is not a sure thing.
• Therefore scientific scholarship is worthless in making a provisional determination.

It is a remarkably dull point.

 

[Youtellme]

Of course:

• Humanity has made enormous intellectual progress consigning the consensus of the past to the category of naive superstition.
• Therefore consensus is not a sure thing.
• Therefore scientific scholarship is worthless in making a provisional determination.

It is a remarkably dull point.

But a point none the less. The point is that the general consensus can be wrong and ought not to take an arrogant stance of being right.

 

[fantome profane]

Now, both sides seem to make very strong arguments. For and against. Both sides are scientists, albeit that the "creationist" side will probably not be regarded as real scientists.
Now, here's little old me, stuck in the middle, not knowing who to believe.

When you talk about "both sides" you have to realize that 99.9% of all biological scientists (people with scientific degrees in a relevant field and are working in that field in some way) accept the theory of evolution and common descent as facts. The two sides are not equal, far from it. If you are getting you information from the internet you could get the impression that the two sides are more or less equal, but this is not the case. Among those who have seriously studied the evidence there is near 100% consensus. Even Michael Behe who you mention accepts the theory of evolution and common descent.

Tell me, from your research on the internet and youtube can you name three people who have a degree in biology and reject evolution? Can you name one?

The same is true for the age of the earth. 99.9% of all geologists will tell you that the earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old. It is only uneducated people who have not studied the evidence who will give you a different answer.

99.9% of all physicists and cosmologists will tell you that the universe is also billions of years old.

 

[Youtellme]

...Tell me, from your research on the internet and youtube can you name three people who have a degree in biology and reject evolution? Can you name one?

This lady. Paola Chiozzi
Articles by Paola P Chiozzi - Expression of P2X7 Receptor Increases In Vivo Tumor Growth. | Pubget

And this guy, although, I don't know if he has a degree in biology.
Biometrics 2011 - The Lecturers - Tistarelli (bio)

The same is true for the age of the earth. 99.9% of all geologists will tell you that the earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old. It is only uneducated people who have not studied the evidence who will give you a different answer.

99.9% of all physicists and cosmologists will tell you that the universe is also billions of years old.

That's all fine by me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But a point none the less. The point is that the general consensus can be wrong and ought not to take an arrogant stance of being right.

So taking the position that you're right is arrogant, regardless of how many facts and evidence you possess that indicates as much?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There was light before the sun, obviously. Genesis 1:3 "let there be light".

Of course there was but was it focused like the sun? Perhaps not because, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night." It kind of suggests that before that there was either no division or some other division.

 

[Man of Faith]

Of course there was but was it focused like the sun? Perhaps not because, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night." It kind of suggests that before that there was either no division or some other division.

It says that the day and night were seperated before the sun and moon were placed and that gives us the morning and evening that we need to call the days normal 24 hour days. So there was day and night, light and darkness before the sun and moon. Simple as that. There is no sun in heaven and no darkness either. Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

[Draka]

If the sun went out today, what would happen when you turned on a flash light?

I'm still stuck on this. If the sun went out today I couldn't turn on a flashlight.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm still stuck on this. If the sun went out today I couldn't turn on a flashlight.

Why not?

 

[Draka]

Why not?

Well, first off, I'd most likely already be dead because it takes a hell of a long time for a star to die and we'd freeze to death before it would actually go out completely. If the sun were to burn out where do you think we'd get our heat? We'd freeze to death, period. We'd be dead. Forget flashlights. The sun is what not only provides the Earth light, but the warmth to sustain life itself.