The limits of Observational Science

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:04 pm

Latest reply to the indoctrinated one:



Micah

"When you make the claim real evidence, that means you believe in unreal evidence. So yes, you did suggest that some evidence is real and some is not." LIAR. Science only deals with real evidence.

"You’ve yet to prove this." You've yet to prove the opposite.

"The reason they publish those scientific papers is because science does confirm Genesis." No, it does not.

The world we live in is one where evolution appears to be true. And you did write: "The argument is, in an evolutionary worldview there is no reason to believe in these laws. Its arbitrary, because evolution cannot provide a rational justification for why these laws should be laws". Thus you imply that scientific laws - discovered not made up by humans - are arbitrary. They are no such thing.

"Historical science is a great tool when used under the correct worldview." No, it's a great tool when you study and interpret the available evidence.

"But you must still justify why things are the way they are if you wish to be un-arbitrary."
In YOUR opinion. But you are a bigot.

"Where? Substantiate your claims." HERE: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... o-the-past

"But they are, because only in a God created universe would we expect invariant laws that don't change with time(because God himself is invariant and unchanging)." That is not a scientific argument. Merely an assumption.

"The Bible comes from God and is therefore perfect on matters of science. No one has proven this to be false...". LIAR. Even many Christians AGREE that the Bible is NOT 'perfect on matters of science'.

"science(when done under the proper worldview) will always confirm the Bible".
Your favourite slogan.

Which really means that you oppose real science done under the so-called 'worldview' that the ONLY thing which matters is physical evidence - because such science does not REMOTELY confirm Genesis."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:55 pm

More fun (I'm not reproducing ALL my posts here, just the longer more substantive ones):


Aaron

"why would lying and bigotry be morally wrong in an evolutionary worldview...". Yawn.

In the article I flagged, Jason Lisle wrote: "Uniformity is distinct from uniformitarianism. The former asserts a consistency in the way the universe operates (if conditions are the same, one can expect the same outcome). In other words, the laws of nature are constant, but conditions and specific processes may be quite different in time or space. Conversely, uniformitarianism asserts that there is a consistency of conditions and processes". That is sheer drivel - Lisle demands that radioactive decay rates increased a million fold during Noah's Flood to 'account' for Earth being determined as extremely old from the evidence. Thus he wishes for scientific laws/processes to vary - arbitrarily. Utter nonsense. Non-YECs do not require such Ad hoc 'explanations' such as those championed by Mr Lisle. There is no scientific evidence AT ALL that in the case of radioactive decay rates over time uniformitarianism will lead to inaccurate results.

"if in your scientific study, the only thing that matters is physical evidence, then could you please tell of an instance when only physical evidence, without assumptions or interpretation based on prior knowledge, pointed to evolution?" NO. Because I have never suggested that interpretation of the evidence is unnecessary. However, scientific interpretations should be based upon evidence (in the light of what is already known from other evidence as applicable) ONLY. But that is NOT how 'creation science' operates. Interpretations contrary to scripture are FORBIDDEN in creation science, regardless of physical/measurable evidence.
Like other YECs I have encountered online, you play with words trying to trip people up with arguments from logic. I am treading carefully :)

Ashley
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:21 am

http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... mment-2748

The latest from Robert:
"Maybe you could point me to the areas in science that I should “square the results with what is already known to be true via scientific investigations carried out by others” that we’re supposed to follow and which we’re supposed to ignore. If all those scientists in the past were wrong about something that big, why should I believe they are right now? How do we determine scientifically at what point is the tipping point of the truth assumption being wrong and who makes that decision?"

In response to these exchanges (shown in reverse chronological order):

Me:
"No, Robert. Sometimes previous assumptions have been overturned by the scientific method".

Robert:
"Actually, if you follow though with your logic, we would never have gotten past the majority thinking that the earth was flat, since everything would have had to be adapted to that view."

Me:
"Robert
“That sounds strikingly similar to what you were calling an abuse of science.” Utter garbage. And confirmation that you don’t think science can learn anything about the past and thus are anti-science".

Robert:
"That sounds strikingly similar to what you were calling an abuse of science."

Me:
"Reply to Robert (below):
Speaking personally, in such a hypothetical situation I would probably try to square the results into what is already known to be true via scientific investigations carried out by others ie that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years’ ago and the universe is over 13 bn years’ old. It’s not a question of ‘worldview’, merely of what science has already ruled out."


I don't plan to waste any more time on THAT exchange. I suspect he is being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to make me go away (but I may post further replies to others there as appropriate). The opinion that Earth was flat was pre-scientific - I cannot believe he is such an idiot not to realise that.

If he accuses me of running away I will post this link (which I've already mentioned to someone else).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:22 am

Further post (at least I'm not being censored). If I sound angry, it's because these YECs attempt to mug critics with bad logic and expect a higher standard of proof from their opponents than they think they have to offer themselves.


To Micah

"But the burden of proof is on you." Bullying for God? Your so-called
science is unfalsifiable in your eyes I believe.

"Creationists have demonstrated many times how all the supposed
evidence fits within a biblical framework." Not by science they
haven't. Only by make-believe.

"Why would they publish papers if they didn’t think the science
confirmed Genesis?" If they really think that they are deluded.

"i’m getting tired of repeating myself". Me too because you are
(collectively) anti-science and pay no attention and just keep
repeating slogans (or in Robert's case ask idiot questions (see here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3195&start=15).

You are clearly indoctrinated against science. You have to be because
it is no friend to young Earth creationists. That's just the way things
are.

"because there is no justification for why they should be invariant or
unchanging in that worldview". That is just assertion and dogma.

"your worldview must be the correct one or you will come to the wrong
conclusions about the past." GARBAGE.

"So i’m a bigot for wanting you to provide a reason?" In this
particular context, yes.

"Creationist don't deny uniformity in nature. They deny
uniformitarianism. The first address the natural laws(the ones we’ve
been discussing so far), the latter addresses conditions and processes.
Laws do not change, conditions and processes do." Lisle gobbledygook.
He is saying that scientific constants for want of a better term can
vary (vastly) over time, yet we know that the constants in question do
NOT vary. You are just quibbling about whether he was referring to
laws/processes/constants or something else. The point is that
Lisle engages in highly far-fetched special pleading to force evidence
to confirm to his understanding of Genesis. That is NOT science. It is
fantasy.

"The Oort cloud is a perfect example of and Ad hoc explanation
proposed by evolutionists". Rubbish. Do all comets approach the Sun from
close to the ecliptic (the orbital plane of Earth, which is similar to
that for the other seven planets) which might be the case of they all
came from the Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk? No, they certainly do not.

But YECs normally hate details like this and love uttering slogans and
attacking real scientists. For Jesus presumably. It won't wash. If I am
wrong God is a big liar in his creation.

"The RATE group has provided very detailed analysis of how radioactive
decay rates are not constant so no, your claim is false." The RATE
group's research is FRAUDULENT. Trust me. Or read what non-YECs say
about it.

"If it was merely an assumption it would have been easily refuted by
you." No. It is an assumption not a fact because you cannot prove it to
be true. You just assert it to be true, dogmatically.

"God has revealed himself in His Word." That's what the Muslims say
too.

"But in an evolutionary worldview, why would it be wrong to lie?"
Yawn. I was - sorry to say this - speaking the truth.

"Show how some evidence does not fit with the Bible." The existence of
supernovae.

"No one is impartial." YECs are probably the least impartial people on
the planet when it comes to science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:45 pm

A further post made at the Lisle blog:

"Aaron and others

"What you may not understand is that biblical creationism is not, “Evidence says this, but the Bible says this, so we have to reinterpret the evidence.” It is more, “Evolutionists look at the evidence and come to conclusions contrary to biblical ideas, but really the evidence can fit perfectly with the Bible."

Except that when you examine the specific ways in which young Earth creationists 'explain' evidence as a 'perfect' fit to the book of Genesis it is always far-fetched, whereas the true and more complex scientific explanation - which YECs must claim is 'wrong' or 'unverifiable' - is much more compelling and convincing.

Please be reminded that I have ALREADY posted a detailed example of that. My rebuttal of where JB's Amazon.com book review of 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Dawkins sought to argue that Dawkins' criticism of how YECs force the record of fossil burial to be explained by Noah's Flood alone is 'in error' (my phrase not his - as this is briefer than repeating JB's actual words).

Which rebuttal JB has twice ignored - and everybody here has so far totally ignored it too. Suggesting that YECs ignore rebuttals to their claim as well as awkward evidence/unwelcome interpretations of the evidence.

http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/p/creatio ... ience.html

This is just the way things are. And it's not down to me but down to either God or Nature. the Bible isn't scientific. YEC behaviour merely serves to highlight this, and is misguided in as much as it may turn people off the Bible altogether (thus secularists may not mind that much).

"I suppose the question I would really like to ask you at this point is, “Why does creation bother you so much?” I don’t suppose you participate in debates with Shinto scientists or post on forums “campaigning against the influence of Hindu reincarnational studies in the UK classroom.”" Indeed, not. I've never been a follower of Shinto or Hindu religion.

By the way, I have been banned (or censored) on or from other YEC discussions like this (for spurious reason ie I was not abusive or rudely attacking Christianity is general). If interested, see: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3201

I am grateful that my posts here have been left on view."

AND THEN WHAT DO I READ UPON POSTING THE ABOVE? "YOUR POST IS AWAITING MODERATION."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The limits of Observational Science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:25 pm

Another, attempted, reply to the rather tedious Micah:

"Micah

Your science is 'creation science' and creation science is NOT part of science.

"Like i said before, if you have a problem with how creationists interpret the evidence then show it. So far you just keep stating your opinion over and over." READ MY MARCH 2012 REBUTTAL OF THIS BOOK REVIEW, MICAH (SEE PAGE 12 OF THE DISCUSSION): http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AFXXSP41 ... hisHelpful

"They publish papers because they think they are deluded?" Is English your first language? I suggested that they ARE deluded, not that they think they are.

"i am not letting you get away with not answering the questions." Bully for you. Except that I HAVE answered most questions.

"How is it no friend to young earth creationists?" If it was a friend to YECs, YECs would not complain about science and scientists (evolutionists and old-agers), try to 'refute' the science they object to for theological reasons, and publish their own journals disagreeing with mainstream science. As I have already pointed out in these conversations.

You are either dim or a time-waster or both.

Assuming Jason does not censor this reply (as I'm now apparently on 'pre-moderation' I look forward to seeing whether he agrees with you about the Oort Cloud; you appear to be suggesting that mainstream astronomers are either incompetent or engaging in a wicked deception of the public - but perhaps the real deceivers are the anti-scientific YECs).

"Thats a reason, something you still havent provided for the evolutionary worldview." It's just the ways things are. (You say you have another reason - bully for you.)

"In an evolutionary worldview, why is it wrong to lie?" It just is. I assume you agree?

"How does supernovae not fit with the Bible? Seems perfectly fine to me." An arbitrary an unsupported claim given that they happened well over 6,000 years ago and that dying stars are not mentioned or implied anywhere in Genesis.

"Yet another arbitrary claim." Well, you've just made one. And my claim was based on how YECs have behaved towards me over the internet. They are highly evasive - and closed-minded, dogmatic and defensive when it comes to science.

They often ban dissenters who raise science topics from YEC websites too - see my reply to Aaron (assuming it survives the pre-moderation that I have been put onto, though it will also appear here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3195&start=15)

"The Bible doesnt need to mention something for the evidence to fit within a Biblical framework." It does when it comes to evolution, apparently."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jason Lisle blog

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:28 pm

I've just realised that the pre-moderation was triggered by the inclusion of two links.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jason Lisle blog

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:25 am

To Aaron:

"Please explain how YEC explanations are “far-fetched.” No, I've wasted enough time.

You have not refuted what I wrote at the Amazon.com review and reproduced here - assuming you actually read it.

And yet you imply that the evasive (and arbitrary) one is me.

You are asking questions that require no further answer to the one already offered which you have not shown to be incorrect based on what we see and what is known. The universe obeys scientific laws - fact.

"You seem to be implying that if an explanation is more complex, it is more true or convincing." In the case I referred to, yes.

"If I’m not getting too personal, may I ask why you walked away from Christianity?" Because God didn't show up.

And that is ALL I am prepared to say."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jason Lisle blog

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:11 pm

A further comment just added here: http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... mment-2830

"Micah

Thanks for looking at my comments made on the Boudreault Amazon.com review of the Dawkins book.

On your first response, human/hominid and dinosaur fossils have never been found buried alongside each other (the latter lived in the sorts of habitats that humans live in, at a warmer time in pre-history - though of course YECs insist this happened less than 5,000 years ago, when the climate was similar to today).

"The floodwaters would have naturally fossilized the things in lower ecological locations first and then fossilized more as the floodwaters rose." Unless you are referring there to plants/trees only, that is a somewhat different notion to the 'head for the hills' idea dogmatically asserted by eg Answers in Genesis. They need something like this, because species which are recent in Earth history, and live in low-lying/coastal locations are not consistently found buried deep in the geologic record - thus YECs have to claim that they fled inland/uphill.

"Because the order in the fossil record is not the result of millions of years of layers being laid down." But what I was attacking was the 'head for the hills' idea, as I made clear at the time as my link showed. You appear to be trying to defend - against real science - something different that would still be, you hope, consistent with Genesis.

"Of course some degree of randomization is allowed...". But there is not enough randomization for the Bible-inspired explanation - viz the flood record is 'explained' by a catastrophic worldwide flood as described in Genesis - to be scientifically plausible as well as a faith position. It is a fact that literally nothing that you could remotely call a mammal has ever been found in Devonian rock or in any older stratum - the words of Dawkins on page 100 of his book.

"randomization makes no sense in the evolutionary view which says that there should be a much more specific order in which creatures show up (i.e. creatures that lived millions of years after another should not appear in the layers before it that are much older)". You are showing ignorance there. We do not see a random record of fossil burial and the old Earth and evolutionary scenario DOES make sense. As some evangelical Christians do admit.

"Yes, and this is supported by the fact that there are fossilized footprints of animals in layers lower than where their bodies are found." All this may show is that there have been various local floods, or landslides and so forth, in Earth's long history.

We find ape-like fossils, and bird fossils buried in higher rock layers in any given place but don't only/mostly find them at higher altitude/further inland locations - as 'head for the hills' would require to be the case. I agree that I should have written "only or mostly fossilised at higher altitude" but that slight correction does not change the point I made at Amazon.com - ape fossils are found high in the fossil record rather than far from the sea/at high altitude.

Creatures which YECs say were buried first by the Flood should still be at the top of the geologic record, because creatures buried later should be found (again at shallow depth) in different locations ie far inland or at altitude. Yet the species which science says are very old and perhaps extinct (which YECs claim were buried first by the flood) are found at DEPTH, often with more recent fossils found higher up in the same location or in rocks of more recent age at other similar locations.

Also, fossils have sometime been found at very great depth.

I doubt that Jason will correct you as that would probably mean agreeing with me.

"Even fossilized ammonites are found in the Himalaya Mountains". What is now these mountains was once below the ocean. Before India collided with Asia. (How would a big flood transport marine shells so far inland to the Himalaya, and at shallow depth/high altitude, as I think most shells do not float but sink?)

"Only an evolutionist would think that the creature survived ‘millions of years’ after the dinosaurs had perished." Only a YEC would deny such a (scientific) finding.

"Still there is an order to the rock layers, it is not an order that describes which animals evolved before which though, it is an order that describes the burial order of the flood." You have not demonstrated that, and at times have tried to pretend that the record of fossil burial is 'random'. There is order and a flood catastrophe does not account for it.

"Also it’s a straw man to say creationists complain about science. We love science, so you’re claim is unfounded." YECs are anti-science. But they have stolen the word 'science' from real scientists in order to falsely claim that their apologetics arguments are 'scientific'. Science must proceed by assuming naturalism (not ruling out God as God could make 'natural' things happen) but YECs oppose naturalism and also claim that the book of Genesis is 'infallible scientific and historical truth' (even after this laudable idea has been proven wrong by real scientific investigation - which fact other less dogmatic Christians eg at Biologos have accepted).

"You assume the refutations are against science without providing any backup to your claim." I have backed up my claims here.

"You did not provide a reason for why lying would be wrong in an evolutionary worldview, and sorry, but I don’t think you can." So what if I can't? YECs need to understand that this does not invalidate the (mainstream) science that their critics put forward.

I forgot to point out that science/scientists knows/know that stars do NOT explode after less than 6,000 years of existence. They simply don't.

"How so?" YECs add things to scripture eg a fossil record or a 'rapid' ice age that are not there. But in the case of evolution/millions of years they refuse to do the same."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jason Lisle has belatedly cut out parts of my postings

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:33 pm

My latest response:

""Wow! Robert wins by knockout blow. Very nice." (New comment by Jason.)
After quoting the exchanges with Robert, my post at the BCSE community forum included my thoughts on Robert's question that I ignored (I've mentioned in other posts here that some of my postings have been reproduced at the BCSE community forum (in case of censorship). And indeed I have just discovered, days after I posted them, that Jason has part-censored some of my postings and has inserted [abusive ad hominem fallacy cut]).

This is the specific BCSE thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3195&p=45291&hilit=lisle#p45291
Please see in particular my post made at the BCSE website timed at 5.21 am BST on 13 April.

As far as I recall, when answering a post by another participant here, I referred to the post by Robert which I ignored as containing an 'idiot question'. Thus not answering an idiot question is not conceding victory - and Robert has not suggested that it was.

I will now check exactly what Jason censored."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jason Lisle warning about a possible ban

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:31 pm

Very typical YEC behaviour if he carried that out (though not unique to them).

Lisle has also EDITED a post of mine which was also reproduced in full in this thread - timed at 12.04 am BST on 13 April. THIS is how it now reads:



Micah

"When you make the claim real evidence, that means you believe in unreal evidence. So yes, you did suggest that some evidence is real and some is not."

[abusive ad hominem fallacy cut]

[Editor's note: libelous comments and unwarranted ad hominem attacks are not permitted on this blog, and may result in the person being banned. I am very happy to allow critics to post on my blog, but I expect them to behave themselves.]

Science only deals with real evidence.

"You've yet to prove this." You've yet to prove the opposite.

"The reason they publish those scientific papers is because science does confirm Genesis." No, it does not.

The world we live in is one where evolution appears to be true. And you did write: "The argument is, in an evolutionary worldview there is no reason to believe in these laws. Its arbitrary, because evolution cannot provide a rational justification for why these laws should be laws". Thus you imply that scientific laws - discovered not made up by humans - are arbitrary. They are no such thing.

"Historical science is a great tool when used under the correct worldview." No, it's a great tool when you study and interpret the available evidence.

[abusive ad hominem fallacy cut]

[Editor's note: libelous comments and unwarranted ad hominem attacks are not permitted on this blog, and may result in the person being banned. I am very happy to allow critics to post on my blog, but I expect them to behave themselves.]

"Where? Substantiate your claims." HERE: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... o-the-past

"But they are, because only in a God created universe would we expect invariant laws that don't change with time(because God himself is invariant and unchanging)." That is not a scientific argument. Merely an assumption.

"The Bible comes from God and is therefore perfect on matters of science. No one has proven this to be false...".

[abusive ad hominem fallacy cut]

Even many Christians AGREE that the Bible is NOT 'perfect on matters of science'.

"science(when done under the proper worldview) will always confirm the Bible".
Your favourite slogan.

Which really means that you oppose real science done under the so-called 'worldview' that the ONLY thing which matters is physical evidence - because such science does not REMOTELY confirm Genesis."

If you compare the edited post with the original, you will see that the three 'abusive ad hominem' fallacies (what pomposity) cut from the post were as follows:

"LIAR"

""But you must still justify why things are the way they are if you wish to be un-arbitrary."
In YOUR opinion. But you are a bigot."

"LIAR"

I would admit that I was fairly robust in my comments. I did later make clear that I was not taking exception to the tone adopted by the various people addressed in my posts under the blog even though I disagreed with their assertions, and also admitted to being 'curt' on occasion.

But in the first and third case above 'Micah' was stating things that were blatantly untrue, even if he wished them to be true, and thus calling him a 'liar' was NOT 'unwarranted'. But perhaps "that is not true" might be preferable.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron