Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but were all the kids born on the day the parent died? Otherwise, the math is WAY off ....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please positive Evidence for a young earth
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
My apologies. I must have misremembered. I was sure you had specifically opposed recognition of gay marriages by the state, such as mine.
Tom
7 Theories on the Origin of Life
As the quote said (by a scientist if I am not mistaken -- though I could be mistaken)
Your moving the goal posts here in an obtuse way. Again Virtually 95%+ of all scientists do not vary significantly on their almost universal support of the science of evolution, history of the earth and the universe.
You have added the question of the theories (?) concerning abiogenesis, the Origin of Life. When you add this you need to provide more of a coherent explanation. Abiogenesis is indeed a relatively new science, and different hypothesis of origins have been provided to explain different aspects of abiogenesis, and they are actively being tested and falsified by the objective methods of science. I do not believe there are 7 conflicting hypothesis (not really theories) of abiogenesis.
Please clarify.
Last edited:
No... I think you need to clarify.
I have given you a very specific site that says there are 7 theories. Each theory is supported by certain scientists as they are viewing what facts are available to them. It also supports the quote of another person that I gave at the beginning.
If anyone needs to clarify it would be you. please note:
1: 95% of all scientists (where did you quantify it?)
2: "do not vary significantly"-- which means they do vary because, AS I SAID, scientists can look at the same facts and come up with a different position.
3: ALMOST - also gives credence to my position for it signifies NOT ALL.
last and not least.
What in the world are you arguing about. And why are you making it such an issue.
You just quote mined the blog poster. He was saying that while every set of facts do have several viable modes of interpretation, the interpretations are still constrained by those facts and interpretation based on wrong facts, like YEC is simply wrong. Here is the entire paragraph,
Yes, there are always alternative answers or interpretations possible for any set of facts and the author of aDotR is espousing a framework for directing one to the right interpretation. Confirmation bias can act as a positive interpretive tool if what is being confirmed is what initially was an accurate interpretation. In the context of science and faith issues, if one can be certain that they have begun with the correct relationship of Genesis and science than interpretation of the facts through that worldview framework should lead to true inferences about the natural world. But if the initial presuppositions are incorrect the flip side it true and will inevitably result in ever more elaborate ad hoc explanations to maintain belief. The difficult question becomes what happens when the evidence on which ones confidence is based is finally questioned? Does the entire edifice of belief implode or simply adapt through examination of the original presuppositions. As I just suggested, one way to identify if there is a problem is to identify when a belief system (call it a worldview) results in more problems than solutions to a set of observations. It probably won’t surprise anyone that one reason I am critical of the creation science paradigm is I find that the arguments it presents from science exhibit all the signs of being a set of ad hoc explanations whose sole purpose is to provide continual assurance that the original assumption that Genesis must be interpreted as teaching a young earth.
Thus the author is espousing the entirely opposite conclusion than the one you suggested. He was saying that YEC is NOT one of those viable alternatives explanations about the facts of geology and earth sciences.
I did not interpret your response as a reference at first, and yes these are not really competing theories they are a number of hypothesis that are often over lapping to offer possible explanations the may be tested for the Origins of life. Options 4,5,6 and 7 are actually over lapping hypothesis concerning different aspect of abiogenesis, This reference is a layman's brief description and really not representative of the science of abiogenesis today.
From: Views on evolution among the public and scientists | NCSE
Numerous polls over recent years. Actually the figures are more like 97-98%
Whereas nearly all scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, only two thirds of the public agrees, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 98% of scientists responding chose the former option and only 2% chose the latter option; 65% of the public responding chose the former option and 31% chose the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 90% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 35% preferred the former option and 24% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 66% said yes, 29% said no.
Demographically, acceptance of evolution was correlated with level of education: "Three-quarters (75%) of college graduates believe that humans have evolved over time, compared with 56% of those who ended their formal education with a high school diploma or less." The report adds, "Beliefs about evolution also differ strongly by religion and political group, as was also the case in past surveys," but deferred the details to a future publication. Judging from similar previous surveys, rejection of evolution was probably associated with conservative political attitudes and religiosity.
The same questions were asked in a Pew Research Center survey (PDF) in 2009, providing a basis for a longitudinal comparison. In 2009, 97% of scientists and 61% of the public accepted evolution, while 2% of scientists and 31% of the public rejected evolution. Among scientists who accepted evolution, 87% attributed it to natural processes and 8% to divine guidance; among members of the public who accepted evolution, 32% attributed it to natural processes and 22% to divine guidance. Members of the public were asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on two surveys, one conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in August 2014, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in September and October 2014. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's report (PDF), issued on January 29, 2015. "
Let's reword this without wiggle room for obtuse objections. NO, scientists DO NOT look at the same facts and come up with a 'different position.' The key here is what is a 'different position'? No fundamentally 97-98% scientists do not have different positions concerning the science of evolution, nor question of the age of the universe, which is the subject of the thread.
Your obtuse vagueness on whether scientists agree on the science of evolution and history and cosmology of our physical existence. It is an avoidance of the subject of the thread to raise the blue smoke and mirrors fog index of what scientists believe. It is a problem considering the subject of the thread, which is . . .
Please positive Evidence for a young earth
Last edited:
No worries.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
There is no reasonable evidence for a young Earth - only fantastical thinking and bizarre rationalizations.
All arguments for a young earth that I have seen can equally well be used to argue that the universe was created last Thursday along with all of our memories.
They typically rely on a denial of uniformitarianism, although they also *misunderstand* what uniformitarianism actually proposes. Instead of saying that all processes have constant rates through time, it *actually* means that we can apply physical laws verified in the present to test hypotheses about the past.
They typically rely on a denial of uniformitarianism, although they also *misunderstand* what uniformitarianism actually proposes. Instead of saying that all processes have constant rates through time, it *actually* means that we can apply physical laws verified in the present to test hypotheses about the past.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post.
Obviously, if there are 7 proposals on the table, 6 of them are wrong and perhaps even all 7.
Certainly the quoted post could be wrong (or right) in his position of it being incorrect.
My point is simply that there are differences in viewpoints when facts are given (not all the time but in unanswered questions all the time).
Anything determination of what I was saying is, again, simply other people coming to different conclusions to the facts that I stated.
When I took my college statistics class, the professor said in reference to polls and questionnaires, "You can make numbers say anything you like" ! How you word it, how you present it et al makes a difference.
Let's look at the poll you reference with an emboldened section highlighted by me:
To understand that correctly, one must factor in the following:
1) How many were sent out and how many returned the questionnaire.
2) Did they send out to all or a section of scientists.
3) Were the scientists in "a pool" of those who were mostly of a particular position (since birds of the same feather tend to flock together"
4) Were any of the scientists pressured into having a position because of impact it would have on their career (A known consequence if someone differs in position.)
These important factors can change and skew any results
As I said, the Bible doesn't necessarily dictate if it is young or not. There is a Biblical position of an older earth that was created and then came to destruction in Genesis 1:1-2 which could dictate an older earth. Young earthers may simply be looking at the new earth created afterwards.
Even though off topic, I addressed this. This was a layman's source, and as I mentioned most are over lapping hypothesis, and no some of these hypothesis, of even most could be in some way correct. Yes, abiogenesis has different hypothesis proposed
Actually no, in the context of the thread as previously demonstrated. Yes, there are often difeerent hypothesis and yes, theories for the origins of life and cosmology, unanswered questions, and this is the reality of how science works and progresses. In the context of this thread this nothing more than a bogus fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance,' where the detractors of science conclude that science does not have all the answers and disagree therefore . . .
In the context of the thread and your off topic wanderings, NO!
Please positive Evidence for a young earth
Last edited:
More off topic blue smoke and mirrors fog index. I am a scientist and I know better. These are not important factors. There are many polls from different sources over recent history that agree.
There is no positive evidence for any of these or any other variation scenario based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, whether young earth or old earth, because both include a flood for which there is no positive evidence. .
I disagree. To say these are not important factors would open you to incorrect interpretations of data. EVERY scientist knows that to get results one MUST control all variables.
All I did was LOGICALLY interpret what was said.
Very biased and quite unbiblical (as one who studies the Bible can speak with some authority).
I know this is about a young earth (to which Christians have differing viewpoints)... would you like to tackle the flood too?
Anybody can have an opinion on anything. We are discussing if young earth is a justifiable theory given the facts of geology or not. Are you suggesting any or every opinion or theory is justified as long as one holds it?
Did I ever suggest that?
In the layman's reference 4,5,6 and seven may all be falsified as part of the over all science of abiogenesis hypothesis.
Appealing to authority without an adequate argument is a fallacy.
I have fifty years experience and education as a geologist, geomorphologist, and soil scientist.
I also have some college background in philosophy and theology. I use reputable academic sources and not my own claims of 'authority' when debate these issues.
The flood?!?!? I would love to. There is absolutely no 'positive evidence' for a world nor regional flood on the proportions of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible.
I have studied all the claims of apologists for the flood, like the Black Sea filling, and none fit the scenario of a Biblical flood, especially within the time frame the Bible describes.
Since the first accounts of the flood are Babylonian myths I consider the flooding of the Tigris Euphrates Valleys to be the origins of the myth.
Last edited:
If you are suggesting that the polls on scientists are biased, it's upto you to demonstrate it. You cannot dismiss things you do not like as "biased" without providing evidence for your conclusion. Here is the data.
Number of scientists who responded
The link has full questionnaire and detailed tables of the types of scientists who were polled etc. All data is in the open.
The survey was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of AAAS from Sept. 11 to Oct 13, 2014. The margin of sampling error for estimates about the full U.S.-based membership of AAAS is +/- 1.7 percentage points. The margin of error for Working Ph.D. Scientists is +/- 2.5 percentage points; for Active Research Scientists it is +/- 2.9 percentage points. See Appendix B for details about the survey methodology.
An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views
Here is the survey question
ASK ALL:
Q16 Which comes closer to your view: [RANDOMIZE RESPONSE OPTIONS: Humans and other living
things have evolved over time;
Humans and other living things have existed in their present
form since the beginning of time]
ASK IF EVOLVED (Q16=1): Q17 Do you think that... [RANDOMIZE RESPONSE OPTIONS: Humans and
over living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection;
A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in
the form it exists today]
2014 , 2009
Humans and other living things have evolved over time 98, 97
Humans and other living things have evolved due to 90, 87
natural processes such as natural selection
A supreme being guided the evolution of living things 8 , 8
for the purpose of creating humans and other life in
the form it exists today
No answer Q17 1 , 2
Humans and other living things have existed in THEIR 2 , 2
present form since the beginning of time