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

  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But these are scientists suggesting this:
    So you agree that's the best YECs have?

    Oh, there's always Omphalos of course.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I do not think it's a viable option.



    Yet it's being seriously considered and discussed.



    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.
    "Trolling" is the response of someone who has nothing to offer in a debate.

    If by "trolling" you mean seeking truth, then, yes, I'm a troll.

    If by "trolling" you mean trying to figure out why modern YECs are so cock-sure of their Genesis "reading" but can't articulate it unambiguously, then, yes, I'm a troll.

    If asking a YEC to explain the jargon terminology "Eye Witness Account of Creation" is trolling, then, yes, I'm a troll.

    Are you a well-read YEC? Are you familiar with the basics of geology, biology, and astronomy? Are you aware of the "mountains" of evidence supporting Deep Time and History?

    Why do I ask? Because if you were both, the only consistent explanations would be either an alien's computer simulation or Omphalos.

    At least those are the only honest answers. And the sooner you realize that, the better for you.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    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
    Naturally, no YEC was there to see that God had a direct or indirect hand in the writing of any part of the Bible. Nor were they there to see that Genesis 1 recorded anything that actually happened, and if this did actually happen, that the recording was done with 100% accuracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    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, 03:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Kbertsche
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X