// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Eye Witness" claim of the YEC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Eye Witness" claim of the YEC

    In addition to the YEC apologist jargon terms, "just-so story", "science falsely-so-called", ... whatever...

    There is the rhetorical trick that would make the most expert advertisement writer jealous -- the claim that the Genesis stories give an "Eye Witness" account of creation. The assumption is that Elohim was "there" at "time zero" and since the Bible is absolutely correct in terms of both theology AND science AND that their "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is the ONLY possible one, then no evidence; historical, scientific, anthropological, linguistic, or theological can be correct if it contradicts their "reading".

    Confer Section 4 of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

    https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

    Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

    I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

    What do y'all think?

    K54

  • #2
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    In addition to the YEC apologist jargon terms, "just-so story", "science falsely-so-called", ... whatever...

    There is the rhetorical trick that would make the most expert advertisement writer jealous -- the claim that the Genesis stories give an "Eye Witness" account of creation. The assumption is that Elohim was "there" at "time zero" and since the Bible is absolutely correct in terms of both theology AND science AND that their "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is the ONLY possible one, then no evidence; historical, scientific, anthropological, linguistic, or theological can be correct if it contradicts their "reading".

    Confer Section 4 of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

    https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

    Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

    I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

    What do y'all think?

    K54
    Creationists have a very distorted definition of "eyewitness" much different from the rest of the world.

    According to Dictionary.com the definition of eyewitness is "A person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it."

    A written account describing how a person supposedly saw something is not an eyewitness account. At best it is second hand hearsay, i.e. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

    That the account is hearsay doesn't automatically make the description wrong but it does mean that the description must be independently verified before being accepted as accurate.

    Many Arthur Conan Doyle detective stories have "eyewitness" accounts of clients meeting with Sherlock Holmes but that isn't evidence Sherlock Holmes was a real live historical figure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

      I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

      What do y'all think?

      K54
      These are not "eye witness" claims by definition. All of the above must be interpreted through preexisting assumptions. And since science is an ongoing discipline who knows what conclusions it will come to tomorrow. There are after all paradigm shifts.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        These are not "eye witness" claims by definition. All of the above must be interpreted through preexisting assumptions. And since science is an ongoing discipline who knows what conclusions it will come to tomorrow. There are after all paradigm shifts.
        Problem for the YECs is there's so much consilient evidence from so many different scientific fields for an old Earth that almost no new discovery could cause science to overturn that conclusion. It would take something really over-the-top extraordinary like discovering we actually are living in a big recently created computer simulation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Problem for the YECs is there's so much consilient evidence from so many different scientific fields for an old Earth that almost no new discovery could cause science to overturn that conclusion. It would take something really over-the-top extraordinary like discovering we actually are living in a big recently created computer simulation.
          So you say.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So you say.
            Well, me and virtually every other scientist on the planet. So I'm in good company.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              Problem for the YECs is there's so much consilient evidence from so many different scientific fields for an old Earth that almost no new discovery could cause science to overturn that conclusion. It would take something really over-the-top extraordinary like discovering we actually are living in a big recently created computer simulation.
              Hasn't this been seriously proposed already?

              Source: New York Times

              We don’t know. But one fanciful possibility is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics — not in what we commonly take to be the real world. According to this theory, some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation, and we are unknowingly part of it. Thus when we discover a mathematical truth, we are simply discovering aspects of the code that the programmer used.

              This may strike you as very unlikely. But the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.

              © Copyright Original Source



              http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/op...imulation.html

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                These are not "eye witness" claims by definition. All of the above must be interpreted through preexisting assumptions. And since science is an ongoing discipline who knows what conclusions it will come to tomorrow. There are after all paradigm shifts.
                So what do you YECs mean by "eye witness claims", that is other to create deception.

                K54

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Hasn't this been seriously proposed already?

                  Source: New York Times

                  We don’t know. But one fanciful possibility is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics — not in what we commonly take to be the real world. According to this theory, some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation, and we are unknowingly part of it. Thus when we discover a mathematical truth, we are simply discovering aspects of the code that the programmer used.

                  This may strike you as very unlikely. But the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/op...imulation.html
                  C123,

                  Do you believe that the study of nature and the history it reveals is NOT an eye-witness account?

                  Geologists, biologists, astronomers, etc. have eyes, they gather and store evidence, and they come up with consilient (the new cuss word for creationists) explanations.

                  Would God lie in the record of the rocks, genes, and stars?

                  If you YECs weren't so cock-sure that the Genesis creation stories were MEANT TO BE A SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE ACCOUNT, you would simply open your "eyes" and see the truth.

                  Did it ever occur to you for ONE MINUTE that if YOUR "reading" of the PURPOSE of the Genesis stories is wrong, then YOU are "distorting Scripture"?

                  This whole controversy seems so silly to me. And even sillier that a certain sect of Christianity keeps propagating nonsense at the expense of creating a strawman for cynics to ridicule.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    In addition to the YEC apologist jargon terms, "just-so story", "science falsely-so-called", ... whatever...

                    There is the rhetorical trick that would make the most expert advertisement writer jealous -- the claim that the Genesis stories give an "Eye Witness" account of creation. The assumption is that Elohim was "there" at "time zero" and since the Bible is absolutely correct in terms of both theology AND science AND that their "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is the ONLY possible one, then no evidence; historical, scientific, anthropological, linguistic, or theological can be correct if it contradicts their "reading".

                    Confer Section 4 of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

                    https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

                    Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

                    I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

                    What do y'all think?

                    K54
                    Can you post a quote from a YEC that claims Genesis 1 is an "eye-witness" account? As far as I'm aware, this is not a common YEC claim.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Hasn't this been seriously proposed already?

                      Source: New York Times

                      We don’t know. But one fanciful possibility is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics — not in what we commonly take to be the real world. According to this theory, some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation, and we are unknowingly part of it. Thus when we discover a mathematical truth, we are simply discovering aspects of the code that the programmer used.

                      This may strike you as very unlikely. But the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/op...imulation.html
                      So do you think that the Universe being a computer simulation is a viable option?

                      I mean it's a fanciful nerd alternative to Omphalos or Last Thurdsay-ism.

                      If this is the best YECs have then...

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        So do you think that the Universe being a computer simulation is a viable option?
                        I do not think it's a viable option.

                        I mean it's a fanciful nerd alternative to Omphalos or Last Thurdsay-ism.
                        Yet it's being seriously considered and discussed.

                        If this is the best YECs have then...

                        K54
                        I never even implied anything about this being "the best YEC's have to offer". You are reading quite a bit into my post. I am going to do my best to make this my last response to your trolling.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          So what do you YECs mean by "eye witness claims", that is other to create deception.

                          K54
                          Well they would say that God was the eye witness. And relayed that information to man.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            So do you think that the Universe being a computer simulation is a viable option?

                            I mean it's a fanciful nerd alternative to Omphalos or Last Thurdsay-ism.

                            If this is the best YECs have then...
                            K54
                            But these are scientists suggesting this:

                            Indeed, there may be. In a recent paper, “Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation,” the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage outline a possible method for detecting that our world is actually a computer simulation.
                            Last edited by seer; 07-27-2014, 04:49 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              Can you post a quote from a YEC that claims Genesis 1 is an "eye-witness" account? As far as I'm aware, this is not a common YEC claim.
                              Organisations like Answers in Genesis often make these kinds of claims:-

                              "And by the way, in response to the arbitrary assertion that there were no eyewitnesses, doesn’t the Creator God qualify as a reliable eyewitness? After all, if He is who He says He is, then not only is He the Truth, but He is also the source of all truth. In the creation account we read how God created from nothing all of time, space, and the earth. Then He prepared the heavens with the stars (including comets, planets, galaxies, and more), and He made the earth to eventually be man’s abode complete with water, land, animals, and plants. Throughout this account, we are repeatedly told that God was present to see what He had made, and the Scriptural record is there to tell us what God said He did."


                              "God was the eyewitness to creation since He is the Creator, and He would have relayed to Adam and Eve what He had done or they would have already known since they were obviously created with knowledge (as seen by their use of language in Genesis 2–3)."


                              Like the phrase "But that is not molecules to man evolution", you will find the phrase (or something like it) "But we have the account of the eyewitness who was there" a lot across AiG articles.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              27 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              21 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              49 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              210 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X