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

  • Duragizer
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    This is why programmers should never try to debug their own code. They can spot an error someone else made in a jiffy, but if they made the error they can stare right at it indefinitely and never see it. I think mostly this is explained by the notion that the programmers know what they meant, so they see their intentions rather than their code.
    As someone who's had to go over their own screenplay at least ten times or so before they caught the majority of typos, I can vouch for this.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Man-o-man, I do pity your abstract students. Or was it "students in abstract"? Students in algebra? Students in abstract algebra? Yeah, that's it - I pity your students in abstract algebra!

    Hey, now wait a minute, what the heck is "abstract" algebra? Oh yeah, I remember now, reminds me of a story ... I once had a girlfriend that I met at museum having a dome structure. She was part of a group and I was very cautious, making sure not to invade her space. I'm not one to play the field so I waited until she was alone in a module. There, I proposed and gave her a ring. Sadly, our one-to-one relationship ended. THE END

    Jorge
    Hey everyone -- Jorge made a funny!!!

    Humor is often an effective Red Herring to avoid dealing with the issue.

    The issue in this case is the YEC spinmeister phrase, "Were you there?".

    I believe that is their main rhetoric salvo to attempt a flanking maneuver contra "historical" science.

    K54
    Last edited by klaus54; 07-29-2014, 12:08 PM. Reason: "The" replaces "It"

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    "Eye witness" vis-a-vis forensic science.

    I see you pull out yet another slimey YEC canard "Wuz U dere, Charley??"

    Well, you wuzn't dere either. And you're ASSUMING 1) God dictated all Scripture to an amanuensis.; 2) The Genesis creation accounts can be "read" only one way (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 3) The creation accounts were MEANT to give a scientifically accurate account of creation (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 4) That the modern YEC (edited out) Ancient ANE (added in edit) culture would have even the foggiest idea what a Hank Morris or Ken Hambone or Jon Sofarti say about it.

    In summary, you ignore historical context and purpose -- or assume that your interpretation of these is the only correct one.

    On the other hand, Creation itself leaves behind (gobs!) of evidence that we can study today WITH OUR OWN EYES!

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the Grand Canyon.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of igneous intrusions -- their geologic context as well as their radiometric age.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the various orogenic regions, which have similar geologic structures indicating the same method of formation (Plate Tectonics), yet vary GREATLY in their erosional appearance. For example the Appalachians vis-a-vis the Rockies, vis-a-vis the Canadian Shield.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see (aided by instrumentation) in the decay rate of radioisotopes produced in SN1987A.

    You've got it ALL wrong. To claim otherwise is gross dishonesty. Of course as per your usual reptilian style you will find a way to project that back to me -- but you're really just looking in a mirror.

    K54
    Man-o-man, I do pity your abstract students. Or was it "students in abstract"? Students in algebra? Students in abstract algebra? Yeah, that's it - I pity your students in abstract algebra!

    Hey, now wait a minute, what the heck is "abstract" algebra? Oh yeah, I remember now, reminds me of a story ... I once had a girlfriend that I met at museum having a dome structure. She was part of a group and I was very cautious, making sure not to invade her space. I'm not one to play the field so I waited until she was alone in a module. There, I proposed and gave her a ring. Sadly, our one-to-one relationship ended. THE END

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    I make typos out the wahzoo and don't notice them til after I've posted.

    However, after 24 years of grading students' paper, I can spot other's typos in 10^44 Planck Times.

    K54
    This is why programmers should never try to debug their own code. They can spot an error someone else made in a jiffy, but if they made the error they can stare right at it indefinitely and never see it. I think mostly this is explained by the notion that the programmers know what they meant, so they see their intentions rather than their code.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Thanks. The odd thing is, I had misspelled it differently at first, noticed it was wrong, and pulled out the wrong letters, so it was still wrong. See what proofreading can do for you?
    I make typos out the wahzoo and don't notice them til after I've posted.

    However, after 24 years of grading students' paper, I can spot other's typos in 10^44 Planck Times.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    IHey, I did not notice you misspelled "commutative". No worries, since my Abstract Algebra students do that frequently as well.

    K54
    Thanks. The odd thing is, I had misspelled it differently at first, noticed it was wrong, and pulled out the wrong letters, so it was still wrong. See what proofreading can do for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    "What do we all think?" I don't know about "all", but lil' ol' me thinks
    you need a 'shrink' followed by a nice room with padded walls.

    "NATURE (creation itself)" cannot be an eye-witness and to even suggest it is wacko-lulu (this includes taking into account some figurative license). In your rabid, fanatical attempts to discredit/dismiss Biblical Creationism you have now resorted to a sort of 'Anthropological Pantheism'.
    I shudder to even try to guess what comes next.

    Jorge
    "Eye witness" vis-a-vis forensic science.

    I see you pull out yet another slimey YEC canard "Wuz U dere, Charley??"

    Well, you wuzn't dere either. And you're ASSUMING 1) God dictated all Scripture to an amanuensis.; 2) The Genesis creation accounts can be "read" only one way (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 3) The creation accounts were MEANT to give a scientifically accurate account of creation (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 4) That the modern YEC (edited out) Ancient ANE (added in edit) culture would have even the foggiest idea what a Hank Morris or Ken Hambone or Jon Sofarti say about it.

    In summary, you ignore historical context and purpose -- or assume that your interpretation of these is the only correct one.

    On the other hand, Creation itself leaves behind (gobs!) of evidence that we can study today WITH OUR OWN EYES!

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the Grand Canyon.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of igneous intrusions -- their geologic context as well as their radiometric age.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the various orogenic regions, which have similar geologic structures indicating the same method of formation (Plate Tectonics), yet vary GREATLY in their erosional appearance. For example the Appalachians vis-a-vis the Rockies, vis-a-vis the Canadian Shield.

    Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see (aided by instrumentation) in the decay rate of radioisotopes produced in SN1987A.

    You've got it ALL wrong. To claim otherwise is gross dishonesty. Of course as per your usual reptilian style you will find a way to project that back to me -- but you're really just looking in a mirror.

    K54
    Last edited by klaus54; 07-28-2014, 02:37 PM. Reason: fixed part 4)

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    AiG. It's all through their site. I've provided a couple of examples above.
    Thanks, R!

    I hadn't seen your post yet when I made my perfunctory one.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Don't mean to be too pedantic, but that's some distance from axiomatic. Which is why methodology is so central to the enterprise of science, and why the blind men and the elephant is a meaningful fable. All observations at any level of abstraction, are models of a lower level, and it's turtles all the way down. At the cutting edge of science, most frequently the challenge is in making the observations, since (1) theory guides observation and the theory isn't filled in; and (2) the appropriate instrumentation hasn't yet been invented, because what's being observed isn't modeled fully enough to devise it.

    And that's why the bulk of science papers are detailed accounts of exactly how the observations were made, and the critiques often argue that the observers aren't seeing what they think they're seeing. As Gould once wrote, while probably everything that exists can be measured, it's NOT the case that everything that can be measured must exist. New developments need time and multiple approaches at observation before intersubjective agreement reaches a point where, as Gould said, it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Beyond some near-unanimous level of intersubjective verification and validation, we can be acceptably confident that we've approximated an understanding of (the presumed) objective reality closely enough to form a solid base for further investigation.

    We should recognize that no two eyewitnesses see the same event, that half the people don't see the guy in the gorilla suit at all, that memories can be manufactured, that people physically SEE mirages and physically HEAR nonexistent voices, and that people are utterly convinced they are communing with "objectively real" entities which are entirely imaginary. Scientists do not need to sign agreements that nothing they discover can disagree with ancient fables, to sincerely see what they expect. The null hypothesis (that what they expect is NOT the default, and the default is difficult to overcome) exists for a reason. So do double blind experiments. The aphorism that seeing is believing is communitive - it's also true that believing is seeing.
    I see what you're saying.

    But, I was countering seer's citation of a paper claiming that all we see of "reality" is the result of a computer simulation. That's really then only hope for the YEC. Other than, of course the Omphalos (or "Grown Creation" as it is sometimes called.) The "axiom" comment was made to counter that.

    Since we can't prove that we are not in a faked cosmos, we have to ASSUME objective reality. E.g., the blind man will eventually figure out it's an elephant with enough data.

    Assumptions based on "common notions" ARE axioms or postulates in logic -- by definition.

    But I don't disagree with anything else you said.

    Hey, I did not notice you misspelled "commutative". No worries, since my Abstract Algebra students do that frequently as well.

    K54
    Last edited by klaus54; 07-28-2014, 12:56 PM. Reason: typos

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    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
    "What do we all think?" I don't know about "all", but lil' ol' me thinks
    you need a 'shrink' followed by a nice room with padded walls.

    "NATURE (creation itself)" cannot be an eye-witness and to even suggest it is wacko-lulu (this includes taking into account some figurative license). In your rabid, fanatical attempts to discredit/dismiss Biblical Creationism you have now resorted to a sort of 'Anthropological Pantheism'.
    I shudder to even try to guess what comes next.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    I was certain I had read something in one of the major YEC organization's propaganda but have no time to look now.

    K54
    AiG. It's all through their site. I've provided a couple of examples above.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    I don't have my own scientists. A key point (axiom?) in the usual philosophy of science is that which is observable by the senses and instrumentation that extends the senses is REAL. Objective reality.

    If that axiom is incorrect, all bets are off.
    Don't mean to be too pedantic, but that's some distance from axiomatic. Which is why methodology is so central to the enterprise of science, and why the blind men and the elephant is a meaningful fable. All observations at any level of abstraction, are models of a lower level, and it's turtles all the way down. At the cutting edge of science, most frequently the challenge is in making the observations, since (1) theory guides observation and the theory isn't filled in; and (2) the appropriate instrumentation hasn't yet been invented, because what's being observed isn't modeled fully enough to devise it.

    And that's why the bulk of science papers are detailed accounts of exactly how the observations were made, and the critiques often argue that the observers aren't seeing what they think they're seeing. As Gould once wrote, while probably everything that exists can be measured, it's NOT the case that everything that can be measured must exist. New developments need time and multiple approaches at observation before intersubjective agreement reaches a point where, as Gould said, it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Beyond some near-unanimous level of intersubjective verification and validation, we can be acceptably confident that we've approximated an understanding of (the presumed) objective reality closely enough to form a solid base for further investigation.

    We should recognize that no two eyewitnesses see the same event, that half the people don't see the guy in the gorilla suit at all, that memories can be manufactured, that people physically SEE mirages and physically HEAR nonexistent voices, and that people are utterly convinced they are communing with "objectively real" entities which are entirely imaginary. Scientists do not need to sign agreements that nothing they discover can disagree with ancient fables, to sincerely see what they expect. The null hypothesis (that what they expect is NOT the default, and the default is difficult to overcome) exists for a reason. So do double blind experiments. The aphorism that seeing is believing is communitive - it's also true that believing is seeing.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, I'm just making the point that this is not coming from the YEC camp, but from your camp - your scientists.
    I don't have my own scientists. A key point (axiom?) in the usual philosophy of science is that which is observable by the senses and instrumentation that extends the senses is REAL. Objective reality.

    If that axiom is incorrect, all bets are off.

    BTW, I'd have to ponder for hours to come up with a stupider argument to trash the methodology and results of mainstream science. I guess quote-mining fringe nonsense gives you guys a LITTLE hope. A little hope in WHAT I don't know, since none of you can come up with an unambiguous reading of the Genesis creation stories. All you DO know is that mainstream science ain't got it right.

    Quite amusing, really...

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    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.
    Sorry, I thought it was quite common jargon.

    After some Googling, here's what I found.

    Originally posted by CreationTips.com
    The Bible is clear that God was the eyewitness, and He tells us He created — He did not set the world to evolve.
    http://www.creationtips.com/theistic.html

    Originally posted by FreeThoughtBlogs.com
    I know it’s a difficult task to decide which young earth creationist argument is the dumbest, but I’ll nominate the argument repeated by Bryan Fischer and his guest from Answers in Genesis this week. The argument: There’s no way we can know the age of the earth, it can only be known by eyewitness testimony and only God was an eyewitness and he gave us the Bible, so that settles it.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...argument-ever/

    Here's a great one from Creation.com contrasting the "forensic method" of "historical science" with eyewitness testimony. It's a long but interesting article.

    Originally posted by John Reed, Creation.com
    One of the strands of error in secular history leads back to Georges Cuvier’s analogy of fossils as the artifacts of the prehistoric natural world. This metaphor implied a superiority of forensic methods, or ‘scientific’ history, to eyewitness testimony. This eased the way for displacing biblical truth with scientific speculation. But Cuvier’s comparison rested on a weak foundation: the uniform prehistory that ‘required’ forensics and contradicted Genesis was never demonstrated—merely assumed.
    http://creation.com/cuviers-analogy

    Here's something from John Ankerberg's site.

    http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php...80.93_Gen._1:2

    Originally posted by The John Ankerberg Show
    The Bible is actually a legal document, not a scientific treatise or textbook – both sides know this.

    1 John 1:1-3 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.”
    The Bible is a collection of sworn statements by eyewitnesses of what they have seen and heard. Genesis 1-3 is an eyewitness account from the only One who could have reported the event accurately.

    The entire Bible is an eyewitness account to the reality of God and his wondrous works and miracles. “We speak what we know and we testify to what we have seen” (Jn. 3:11). God expects us to believe eyewitness testimony. It’s intellectually dishonest to hide behind science in the face of recorded miracles.
    I was certain I had read something in one of the major YEC organization's propaganda but have no time to look now.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    So you agree that's the best YECs have?

    Oh, there's always Omphalos of course.

    K54
    No, I'm just making the point that this is not coming from the YEC camp, but from your camp - your scientists.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 01-22-2022, 04:36 PM
8 responses
44 views
0 likes
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by rogue06, 01-22-2022, 08:37 AM
24 responses
108 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by lee_merrill, 01-07-2022, 08:37 PM
2 responses
25 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by shunyadragon, 01-07-2022, 08:59 AM
30 responses
172 views
0 likes
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by rogue06, 01-02-2022, 01:44 PM
7 responses
40 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X