Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[Perfection]

If by some shape or fashion or some form that evolution proves to be true without a doubt

I'd argue it is! The scientific community has already accepted evolution for a very long time now, there is absolutely no debate whatsoever in scientific circles about the validity of evolution. It is considered a solid fact with evidence so sound that it merits no further debate.

 

[Lotus49]

Are you saying that all/most YECers don't really believe what they are saying? I find THAT a massive stretch.

No, they don't believe what they are saying... but they want to, because it would justify a weak faith, giving it firmer ground to stand on. Take away the literal (mis)translations / speculative (mis)interpretations, with their creative (albeit absurd) attempts to connect them with hard reality, and suddenly the ground is rocky - where they begin to slip between the cracks, terrified.

I would say to them; be hot, or be cold - don't be luke warm.

 

[drachasor]

No, they don't believe what they are saying... but they want to, because it would justify a weak faith, giving it firmer ground to stand on. Take away the literal (mis)translations / speculative (mis)interpretations, with their creative (albeit absurd) attempts to connect them with hard reality, and suddenly the ground is rocky - where they begin to slip between the cracks, terrified.

I would say to them; be hot, or be cold - don't be luke warm.

I think you are massively underestimating the ability of humans to make themselves believe things that are manifestly false.

-Drachasor

 

[drachasor]

Cirion0000, is it fair to say that in order to make you believe the Bible can be wrong, that you would require a good deal of quite extraordinary evidence?

-Drachasor

 

[warpus]

To answer this question I will have to be pretty hypothetical. If by some shape or fashion or some form that evolution proves to be true without a doubt, I am certain that the Scripture will support whatever evidences come to light somehow.

There isn't really any doubt, though.

We've based the entire discipline of modern biology on the idea of evolution. If evolution is false, then I'm really curious what the alternate explanation is, and why our understanding of biology makes so much sense.

Nothing is 100% certain.

There would be major problems indeed if somehow it's true that the universe is millions or even billions of years old. In that case, I really do not see how the Bible can be true - because, if even one aspect of the Bible can be disproven, then the whole thing is forfeit.

The Universe is billions of years old though! There is plenty of evidence available to support that claim, I'm not sure how you can ignore it.

And you know, a lot of the Bible is metaphorical. Do you think it's all meant to be literal?

edit: damn xposts

 

[drachasor]

I'd argue it is! The scientific community has already accepted evolution for a very long time now, there is absolutely no debate whatsoever in scientific circles about the validity of evolution. It is considered a solid fact with evidence so sound that it merits no further debate.

The Universe is billions of years old though! There is plenty of evidence available to support that claim, I'm not sure how you can ignore it.

And you know, a lot of the Bible is metaphorical. Do you think it's all meant to be literal?

edit: damn xposts

I think the more fruitful line of inquiry is what he regards as adequate proof. It is obviously not the same thing as what scientists regard as proof.

-Drachasor

 

[warpus]

I think the more fruitful line of inquiry is what he regards as adequate proof. It is obviously not the same thing as what scientists regard as proof.

-Drachasor

Scientists don't look for proof, they look for ways to disprove.

 

[Perfection]

Scientists look at lots of things, don't take a simplistic eigth grader approach to it.

 

[drachasor]

Scientists don't look for proof, they look for ways to disprove.

I won't say you can't find a scientist that will refuse to say evolution is proved, but I will say it is easier to find one that will say it is proved.

They seek to confirm/disprove*, and enough confirmations on large enough a range constitutes a scientific proof of a theory over that range.

Regarding theories that have been made. You can make a more elaborate explanation (e.g. they seek to test a theory or find exceptions to better the theory, etc). Some scientists, of course, seek to come up with explanations/theories. I suppose in general they seek to find models for reality and test how well those models fit. One can look at it as trying to disprove models, and functionally it is very much like this. That ignores the part where they are coming up with a model, or at least glosses over it a bit.

-Drachasor

 

[LightFang]

I thought a scientist was just a person with expert knowledge in a scientific field.

 

[drachasor]

I thought a scientist was just a person with expert knowledge in a scientific field.

A scientist is someone that DOES science, almost always in a particular field. That certainly implies a great deal of knowledge about that field.

Well, usually the job is broken down a bit further. In physics, for instance, you have theoreticians that come up with theories to explain phenomenon (and sometimes point out new ways, in general, to test theories). Experimentalists who do the job of testing a theory (which involves a lot of complicated work setting up test apparatuses, and also come up with new ways to test theories). You also have computationalists, who simulate the effects of a theory on a computer (and check to see if the result is anything like what we observe in the real world).

-Drachasor

 

[Perfection]

I thought a scientist was just a person with expert knowledge in a scientific field.

Well that's pretty redundant. If I were to define science at 2AM out of my ass in one sentance, it would be basicly the creation of rigorous models empirically sound models of reality.

 

[Lotus49]

I think you are massively underestimating the ability of humans to make themselves believe things that are manifestly false.

-Drachasor

Ah, but as you say they 'make themselves believe things that are manifestly false'... so surely at some deep level of the subconscious they cannot escape the reality in which they know they are purposely narrowing/closing their minds, thus some level of doubt on the matter beneath the surface will always remain.

 

[Perfection]

I think the more fruitful line of inquiry is what he regards as adequate proof. It is obviously not the same thing as what scientists regard as proof.

-Drachasor

I wanna ensure he understands the prevelence in the scientific community first.

 

[Samson]

@ Cirion0000

What course are you doing?

 

[ToxoXI]

Here's the deal, there is no significant present scientific debate for creationism, the number of professional scientists with such a viewpoint is extremely small and it plainly contradicts with practically every single field of science.

Have been away from this thread for awhile (I posted earlier), but the quote above sums it up for me.

And I have to admit, I am still flabbergasted to think that people do really believe in "Creationism'. I know I shouldn't be - I've read about it enough times in the paper. But to be having this discussion with people in this thread who actually believe it - well - sort of makes it a bit more personal - and even more 'flabbergasting'.

 

[Perfection]

Well, it doesn't surprise me that people believe it, what is surprising is when a scientifically literate person does.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Hebrews had a word for sphere or ball when Isaiah was written. The fact that they used "circle" shows that the metaphor is not describing reality (which then makes me doubt that the person making the prophecy had any supernatural knowledge). As well, each rabbi which transcribed those verses were passing on a false metaphor.

Even more importantly, the scientific knowledge regarding the shape of the earth was available at the time, but Isaiah was apparently ignorant of those data. Additionally, that verse could easily be used to state that the Earth is flat if two arguers didn't have more information.

 

[m4gill4]

Do you believe in the Pythagorean theorem? How about Gravity? Do you believe in the forces of aerodynamics? How about electromagnetism?

You either believe in a rational universe with measurable laws and forces, or you don't. You can't pick and choose which science you want to believe in and which is heresy/blasphemy.

The word of the day is Empiricism. I suspect that among many YEC's, this method of information gathering is rather taboo. You don't "know" anything! You only believe. There is a BIG difference. A man only achieves intelligence by gaining understanding for himself. Stephen Hawking is a genius because he empirically gathered data, formed hypotheses, devised experiments, conducted them, and revised his hypotheses accordingly. What have you got? An old book written by men, and compiled and revised by men with overt political agendas.

Can't you see how easily manipulated you are? You don't know why the sky is blue! You might say, because Jesus likes it that way. I would say, and could reproduce and prove, that the sky is composed of a homogeneous mixture of gases which tend to absorb most of the visible spectrum and reflect only the blue, waves of which are generally around 480 nanometers in length.

Your "faith" is in actuality little more than willful ignorance. You can feel safe and assured by your quaint little book, while the vast body of human progress has been and will continue to be achieved by rational men who base their understanding on empirical observation.

How ironic that Christians refer to themselves as Jesus'

 

[warpus]

I would say, and could reproduce and prove, that the sky is composed of a homogeneous mixture of gases which tend to absorb most of the visible spectrum and reflect only the blue, waves of which are generally around 480 nanometers in length.

The sky is actually God's colour - orange.

We see it as blue due to Satan's trickery. He wants us to think that the Earth is the home of humanity. IT IS NOT.

We belong on Mars.