YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

I apologize for not being able to post yesterday. Please be patient with me over the next day or two as I attempt to catch up. There are many comments I would like to respond to and especially enjoyed the diversion into the area of sin (although, all things being equal, I prefer to talk about science over theology - and philosophy is number 2.)

I might be impossible to respond to each individual post but I will do my best to at least address each general topic. So far, I love the way this thread is going better than the last one. I'm certainly learning a lot and ICEBINEG and I are engaging in a great round of personal messages as well.

As I mentioned before, if I can understand how genetic mutations can generate new information (not just rearrange and degrade existing information) I will be more open to the idea that macroevolution is even possible. If it is possible and indeed a fact then an old earth is required. That would call into question for me the reliability of the Bible and even the very existence of God. But I am willing to go there because I care more about knowing what is true than living a lie.

A question for you Best before I make a stab at explaining how mutations can generate new information - how do you feel about the concept of irreducible complexity?

The reason I ask is that your answer will influence how I frame my response and what analogies I'll use.

You don't need to answer to answer each post individually, Best. I don't think anyone would expect that. You can just enter into the general discussion - which will generally meander quite naturally, as people's viewpoints are shared.

"Interestingly, modern science says that both neanderthals and someone from ancient Greece would be much smarter than anyone alive on the planet today."

"Would you provide a source for this statement please"

Sure. Here are few. I remember it because it was just in the new recently.

usa.greekreporter.com/2013/02/22/ancient-greeks-smarter-than-us/

www.aboutgreeks.com/2013/02/were-ancient-athenians-smarter-than-we.html

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/humans-getting-dumber-stanford-study_n_2121823.html

"The following link indicates that Dr. Rudolf Virchow may have been the first to suggest Neanderthals had rickets. I understand that others have been found which were upright and dated older and so we wouldn't expect to find that view espoused in the journals today."

"So why did you quote it as a fact?"

Are you saying that only information found in mainstream peer-reviewed journals today should be considered fact?

To be clear, so that I don't equivocate on the definition of "fact" I used in the first thread (as something observable with the five senses) I'm saying that the first neanderthals found DID show signs of rickets. That is a fact. Later, "neanderthals" were found that walked upright and apparently show no signs of rickets. (I'm taking your word that this is also a fact.)

If this is is the case, I'm not sure how creationists explain the slight differences in morphology between neanderthals and humans. If they could interbreed, then from a creationist's, perspective it is just microevolution and no explanation is necessary (just as the differences between a chihuahua and a great dane don't require one.)

"And for best, if neanderthals are really humans with rickets, why do they look so very unlike rickets sufferers now - in other words, why are there no neanderthal-like skeletons in (say) the Spitalfields dig?"

I had to look up the Spitalfields. (I'm in Canada so I've never heard of this.) My understanding is that this is a mass grave in London from the 13th century. In my view, neanderthals lived almost 4,000 years before that - plenty of time for minor differences in morphology (microevolution) to develop into what we call modern humans today.

"Well there is massively more evidence to support inflation than speed of light variation...so guess which one I subscribe to?"

ICEBINEG, the physicist in the video said there was absolutely NO evidence for inflation. Who should I believe?

"If it is the word of GOD surely it's morality should EXCEED that which we have NOW not be strikingly similar to the morality present a few thousand years ago. The same goes for the bible really....when the morality of humans exceeds the morality of god...well what are we left with?"

I believe the Qur'an is not the word of God. Your belief that God's morality should be like ours assumes that our morality evolves and gets better with time whereas I believe our morality gets worse with time. If our morality were like God's we would have Garden-of-Eden-like conditions and the world would be perfect. Many have tried to create a Utopia on earth by eradicating religion and it has always resulted in millions of deaths. God has promised to do it one day, however, and God always keep his promises.

"Just that it's normally easy to distinguish rickets from other bone pathologies, so the lavish claim that ALL neanderthals are really ricket-sufferers is what I'm keen to probe."

Allow me to save you some trouble and I'll withdraw that claim. For now I will just say that those who show no sign of rickets are simply modern humans with a slightly different morphology. The fact that they can interbreed is all I need to prove they are the same biblical "kind."

"Findings that humans have a predisposition for beliefs in deities is absolutely not proof that such deities actually exist and should not be taken as such. Therefore, your assumption that 'god exists,' based on research like this, is flawed."

Hi Sabrina. I was hoping you might know me better by now as I would never claim to have PROOF for God. And I hope I would never make a non sequitur such as, "We are predisposed to believe in God. Therefore God exist."

My arguments are always very limited. My evidence that children are born with a belief in God is meant only to refute the oft-made claim that we are all born atheists. But it is also surprisingly consistent with the Bible which states we all have an innate knowledge of God.

However, if I were an atheist, I would come up with an equally rational explanation as to how our belief in God is a product of evolution because it confers a survival advantage. I would point to research which states that people who attend church regularly are happier and live longer. See? We all have valid evidence for our beliefs. I just want you to understand the way I view the evidence.

"Sadly the bible presumably has little to say on the topic of jam in electronics..."

I'm pretty sure it is covered by Commandment #5. (Note: May appear differently in Catholic Bibles as they removed Commandment #2.)

"Ol'Besty hasn't yet started down that sort of route, not really, but his overall tone does display a certain amount of irritation that mere women are pissing all over his bad science and ignorance and correcting him on facts..."

Not at all, SGB. Men and women are different but equal. And I would say women are in many ways superior. I'm not sure why but, on the first thread, my own internal bias lead me to conclude that the mean ones were male and the kind ones were female. (Must be something Freudian although I swear I don't have "daddy issues.")

"I strongly dislike the idea of 'sin', especially when applied to children. It's something that pushed me away from going to (RC) church. Children/toddlers are naturally self-centred indeed, as are adults. However, doesn't that fit in nicely with Darwin's idea of natural selection - survival of the fittest etc?"

I don't have anything to add about the whole witchcraft thing but I should mention that the word "sin" was originally an archery term which simply means "missing the mark." Because no one is perfect, we all miss the mark and are thus sinners. The point is that in the atheistic worldview where there is no absolute morality, the concept of a mark that can be missed is nonsensical. Dawkins says there is no right and no wrong.

And yes, if I were an atheist I would appeal to biological evolution rather than to culture for a source of morality. The problem comes in that we cannot live that way to have a productive and moral society. Atheism asks us to live inconsistently with our natures which I think is illogical (not to mention virtually impossible). It also tells us that we don't have free will but that we should pretend we do. At every turn, the atheist worldview cannot be lived consistently.

phys.org/news186830615.html

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/201005/is-free-will-real-better-believe-it-even-if-its-not

"I find this 'sin' idea horrible. Especially when applied to children."

Remember that to God, all sins are equal. There is no hierarchy of bad sins and worse sins. (That seems to be a Catholic invention. Tell me, someone - do they charge more money to be absolved of the worse ones?)

As mentioned above, sin is merely missing the mark. Non-believers sometimes think that to be a sinner, you have to kill someone. But Jesus was clear that God cares about your heart. If you even dislike someone, it is as bad as murder. If you even look at someone with lust, it is committing adultery. I sin habitually every day. (In fact, as we speak, I am imagining Pedro without any clothes on.) LOL!

"All of us commit sins - in the sense of not being perfect. God never ever stops loving us, even for a second, but we can reject his love if we like; we're free to say no to him. If we do, he will take us back in a heartbeat. Literally. But we have to want to go back to him. Hell is not a punishment so much as the chosen, willed absence of God."

I couldn't agree more. In fact, as previously mentioned, I don't think the Bible even teaches hell as a place of eternal torment. I think those who choose to be absent from God will simply cease to exist - just like before they were born.

"There are some terrible ills in the world - but is it fair to say that people are inherently evil, as Best did? I can't agree - because I think I'm a good person, and most of the people in my life are good people."

I'm sure you and everyone on this board (yes, even Pedro ) are good people. I have no doubt of that and never meant to imply any such thing. But if we are measuring by God's standards, we must understand how He sees us - not how we see ourselves. Isaiah 64:6 says all of our good deeds are like filthy rags to God.

"And Best, if you think I've misrepresented you anywhere in here, by all means set the record straight!"

Thanks, Age. I think you understand me pretty well. I would point out to everyone else that this is mostly because you and I have talked more often and in person. It is much easier to understand someone when you're talking one-on-one and in person.

I would just take exception with a few word choices as I feel they over-state my position.

"First, he sees mainstream science as making many starting assumptions (eg. naturalism, uniformitarianism, Copernican principle, atheism, etc...), so it's perfectly reasonable for his side to have their own."

This is not merely my opinion. All of science is based on philosophy. It can be no other way and do not object to it. I merely acknowledge it as reality.

"We may be biased, but you guys are too... so we're even."

I don't see bias as a bad thing the way some do. It's whose bias is correct that is at issue.

"Mainstream science reviews it's own work and they're biased (see above), so it counts for nothing. Because of the same bias, creationist papers will never get a fare shake from the mainstream, so not submitting papers to them in the first place makes perfect sense. Meaning creationist papers are reviewed "in house" so as to be treated fairly. (personally, I assume this means being passed around the lunchroom at the ICR, but of course I'm biased...)"

Creationist scientists, for the most part, do submit their work to mainstream journals when they do work outside the field of origins. The guy who invented the MRI is a young-earth creationist as is the guy who developed the reigning model of plate tectonics. When a creationist chemist goes into the lab to work on a new medicine for example, he/she adopts the primary assumption of science - namely that every effect must have a natural cause. They don't invoke God or supernatural explanations. This is how it should be.

But when we begin to think that science can answer ALL questions we are in danger of falling into the trap of believing in scientism which is self-refuting and thus false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle (who incidentally coined the term "big bang") said, "Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down."

So if a creationist geologist doing work on the global Flood wants to be taken seriously, he has to submit it to his own journals where competing theories are hotly debated but everyone agrees with the same starting assumptions.

"Having adjusted the playing field so, creationist material (I refuse to call it science) can be presented on an equal footing as an opposing opinion that has equal weight to the now devalued mainstream science."

They are not trying to devalue mainstream science but merely interpreting it in light of different assumptions. And to claim that they are somehow not REAL scientists is to commit the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

All in all, I think you summed up my position fairly well. And thanks for having my back. Love ya, buddy.

One thing I want to say about peer-review journals. Twice I have alluded to them being a myth and surprisingly no one has challenged me on it. Here is why I say that.

Biochemist Rupert Sheldrake (again), in his book "7 Experiments That Could Change The World," lists the following problems with the peer-review process:

1. journals tend to favour prestigious scientists and institutions

1. independent replication of experiments is rare because:

i) it's too difficult ii) not enough time and resources iii) it would not get published. Journals favour original research.

1. Deceptions can easily pass unchallenged as long as the results match prevailing expectations (see the Piltdown Hoax and Haeckel's embryo drawings)

1. When a replicated experiment fails, it is often chocked up as a failure to reproduce precise conditions. No one wants to accuse their colleagues of fraud.

Ultimately, the peer-review process is a good one but it is not infallible as I'm sure you all would agree. I just like to be realistic about the limitations of science. I frequently get comments like, "Why do you submit your evidence for peer-review and collect your Nobel Prize?" But anyone who works in any field of science for any length of time will know that this is false.

"I also find it particularly hard to understand why Best seems to feel that any mainstream science myst be atheistically biased. There are plenty of Theist schollars in every scientific field . . ."

January, I'm not saying mainstream science is atheistic by nature but that it limits itself to natural causes. This is the way it should be. Theists who do scientific research refrain from invoking supernatural causes when they enter the laboratory..

"and they certainly have no vested interest in proving the bible wrong."

I agree that this is generally the case. However, I would point out that Charles Lyell, one of the founders of modern geology, sought to "free the science from Moses" meaning he wanted to explain the rock layers through long, slow, gradual processes without any reference to catastrophism or a global Flood. For the most part he succeeded in convincing everyone that there was no longer a need to accept the Bible as true.

"I'll point out again that I don't have starting assumptions and I don't believe that science has either given that it's the pursuit of knowledge."

Pedro, at the risk of being accused of quote-mining again (I wish I didn't have to say that every time), the great Max Planck said:

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

Science is based on many assumptions and philosophies. I do not contest them in the slightest. I'm NOT saying "you guys are biased so we can be too." We all have our biases and I'm simply calling for an honest recognition of them. But I would also add that many of the assumptions of science cannot be rationally justified unless God exists.

"Jan indeed - your point about science not being secular is a good one. My current boss is evangelical christian (after a beer or two) and is a physicist and a fellow of the royal society."

Yes, my choice of the word "secular" was indeed a poor one. "Mainstream" captures my intention far better.

"I think the situation is that in the absence of the bible and organised religion, some people would presumably still come to the conclusion that there was a higher power."

Agreed.

"This is because they feel it in themselves."

And because the evidence for design is powerful (until someone tells you it is merely an illusion of design.) Francis Crick said that biologists have to keep reminding themselves that what they are seeing under their microscopes was not in fact designed but evolved. It's a sort of indoctrination really.

"However, I don't think that in the absence of the bible and organised religion, ANYONE would look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion that the universe is 6500 years old."

You're absolutely right. They wouldn't. I'm not saying this is a test from God but He IS asking us to trust His Word over what our own natural impulses tell us. Science and common sense tell us that crucified men don't rise from the dead either but I believe Jesus did.

So - the real nature of this 'debate' is how much weight to give the evidence coming from the world around us as opposed to the bible. Clearly those people who believe the bible to be the collected musing of ancient desert tribes etc. are going to give it a fantastically lower weighting than those that think it is the literal word of the universal creator."

I would believe that too provided that I:

1. had never looked at the evidence for the reliability of the Bible
2. or, like philosopher Thomas Nagel said, "I don't want God to exist."

"As age pointed out, best thinks we are biased (as is all mainstream science) as we believe in evolution."

To be clear, that is not quite my position. One is not biased because they believe in evolution. They believe in evolution because they are biased.

"So any mainstream publications will be just as biased in his view as creationist articles are in our view. That leaves both sides at an impasse."

Perhaps we can now seek not to convert but to understand.

"I'm still enjoying the discussion though!"

Me too.

In fact, as we speak, I am imagining Pedro without any clothes on.

Ummm... I just got a bit of sick in my mouth.

I frequently get comments like, "Why do you submit your evidence for peer-review and collect your Nobel Prize?" But anyone who works in any field of science for any length of time will know that this is false.

I presume you meant "don't". But your problem is not that they wouldn't take your paper because you're not a prestigious scientist. It's because you're not a scientist at all. But even so, you take your understanding from supposedly prestigious scientists who agree with your world view, yet they also seem to be unable to demonstrate anything even close to sufficient to support a young earth. If they had or could, it would revolutionise scientific understanding. But it hasn't so I genuinely can't invest in their conclusions.

Pedro, at the risk of being accused of quote-mining again (I wish I didn't have to say that every time), the great Max Planck said:

I'm sorry, I don't remember saying that I subscribed religiously to the quote of Max Planck. Lots of people who's work I admire have said things I don't agree with.

Perhaps you can demonstrate which starting assumptions I have. As I don't have any, I'm certain I can refute every suggestion you have.