Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

[leroy]

Is relying on the only thing we have evidence for and the only thing we can test really a bias? Or do you think a creationist chose that word for negative impact?

Just wondering…..how do you know that naturalism is the only thing that has evidence, if you have a bias towards naturalism? Wouldn’t you exclude by default any non-naturalistic explanation?

Wouldn’t it be better to take the best naturalistic hypothesis vs the best supernatural hypothesis and compare them on the basis of explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with prior knowledge, predictive power and other criteria typically accepted by science?

 

[Heyo]

Why couldn't the YEC believer just say that the majority of the scientific community is mistaken in this instance?

He could if he was suffering from delusion of grandeur. Calling all the scientists who have dedicated their life to the science of biology (and came all to the same conclusion) wrong takes some balls.

Or the YEC believer could assert the superiority of divine revelation.

And that revelation could only be interpreted correctly by him and a few of his colleges while all other believers interpret it wrong.

 

[Yazata]

My guess is that most YEC would not claim a massive world-wide conspiracy, but rather a massive bias towards naturalism.

I have to say that I haven't paid much attention to what YEC's say since I strongly disagree with them. But yes, I don't think that it's accurate to call them conspiracy theorists and I certainly wouldn't call them that myself.

Speaking about scientists, I agree that science's commitment to ("bias" towards) methodological naturalism does kind of rule out special divine revelations as a source of scientific knowledge. If basically the only justification for YEC comes from special revelations supposedly contained in scripture, then YEC isn't going to find any role in science.

This doesn't render YEC impossible though, just unscientific. The idea (very popular among atheists) that the boundaries of reality are coextensive with the limits of science, is metaphysical naturalism. I think that just by its nature metaphysical naturalism isn't justifiable.

The fact that most scientists are not YEC can be explained by appealing to this bias.

Sort of. Even if we reject science's methodological naturalism, there's no guarantee that scientists would all be YEC's. It isn't the only alternative. There's may different ways that things could be, limited only by our imagination. Some scenarios might involve creator gods, such as God being responsible for the "big bang". Some might not envision a creator god at all. For example ancient Indian tradition imagined an infinite past without an origin. Since they believed in reincarnation, that meant that all of us, while being unique new phenomenal personas, are populated by selves (the unseen seer) that are already infinitely old. Each of us has already seen it all, we've all been gods, men, insects and hell demons in past lives, moving up and down the scale as our karma dictates, forever without a beginning or an end. Sort of the antithesis of YEC.

 

[Heyo]

Really? can you quote any creationists site where they claim “conspiracy” as an explanation for the scientific consensus for an old earth?

No, I can't. But I'm not an expert on YEC, maybe you can link to a site that has an other explanation than conspiracy theory? My guess is that they don't answer the question at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just wondering…..how do you know that naturalism is the only thing that has evidence, if you have a bias towards naturalism? Wouldn’t you exclude by default any non-naturalistic explanation?

Wouldn’t it be better to take the best naturalistic hypothesis vs the best supernatural hypothesis and compare them on the basis of explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with prior knowledge, predictive power and other criteria typically accepted by science?

There is no evidence other than physical evidence.

What is the best supernatural hypothesis? How is that determined objectively? Why is your personal belief a better explanation than the ghost of alien Bigfoot? So far, none have been shown to be valid. Even those that you have posited rely on physical evidence or rather a biased or misinterpretation of that evidence. You rely on logical fallacies and an ongoing effort to get others to bear your burden of proof to promote your views. Surely you are not claiming something that requires such weak and misleading tactics is the best explanation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He could if he was suffering from delusion of grandeur. Calling all the scientists who have dedicated their life to the science of biology (and came all to the same conclusion) wrong takes some balls.

Not to forget that some of those biologists are theists that believe in God.

And that revelation could only be interpreted correctly by him and a few of his colleges while all other believers interpret it wrong.

An assertion without evidence that can be ignored as easily as it is made. Lots of believers believe they are the only ones with the truth.

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence other than physical evidence.

What is the best supernatural hypothesis? How is that determined objectively? Why is your personal belief a better explanation than the ghost of alien Bigfoot? So far, none have been shown to be valid. Even those that you have posited rely on physical evidence or rather a biased or misinterpretation of that evidence. You rely on logical fallacies and an ongoing effort to get others to bear your burden of proof to promote your views. Surely you are not claiming something that requires such weak and misleading tactics is the best explanation?

I am just saying that it is better to compare both supernatural and natural explanations using the criteria accepted by science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power parsimony etc)..... Rather than rejecting by default all supernatural explanation... Would you agree with this statement? Yes or no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am just saying that it is better to compare both supernatural and natural explanations using the criteria accepted by science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power parsimony etc)..... Rather than rejecting by default all supernatural explanation... Would you agree with this statement? Yes or no?

There is no means to evaluate supernatural explanations. How can one be accepted as the best when it cannot be compared to all the other supernatural claims? How can any of them explain anything physical? There is no valid evidence of any predictive power to any supernatural claim.

I do not throw out all supernatural explanations. I am just not fool enough to claim that I can demonstrate something about them to others that I cannot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am just saying that it is better to compare both supernatural and natural explanations using the criteria accepted by science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power parsimony etc)..... Rather than rejecting by default all supernatural explanation... Would you agree with this statement? Yes or no?

A supreme being created everything. Everything is just the consequence of the supernatural magic that exists in what we perceive as the universe. How would either of these be demonstrated or compared? What is a supreme being? What is supernatural magic? What evidence is their that definitively demonstrates either?

 

[leroy]

There is no means to evaluate supernatural explanations. How can one be accepted as the best when it cannot be compared to all the other supernatural claims? How can any of them explain anything physical? There is no valid evidence of any predictive power to any supernatural claim.

I do not throw out all supernatural explanations. I am just not fool enough to claim that I can demonstrate something about them to others that I cannot.

Well for example if a man claims to have supernatural powers and can predict the future there would be ways to test his claims right?

You can easily compare all the hypothesis
1 he is lying
2 he was lucky
3 he has supernatural powers.
Etc

What's so hard to belive about this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well for example if a man claims to have supernatural powers and can predict the future there would be ways to test his claims right?

You can easily compare all the hypothesis
1 he is lying
2 he was lucky
3 he has supernatural powers.
Etc

What's so hard to belive about this?

Bait and switch. None of that tests the supernatural. It tests a physical man with questions that can be determined on physical evidence. Not knowing how a person predicted future events does not automatically default to the supernatural. You just love God of the Gaps.

 

[leroy]

A supreme being created everything. Everything is just the consequence of the supernatural magic that exists in what we perceive as the universe. How would either of these be demonstrated or compared? What is a supreme being? What is supernatural magic? What evidence is their that definitively demonstrates either?

You are making very interesting claims, but once again you are avoiding a direct answer to my question:

Which alternative is the best
1 reject supernatural explanations by default

2 evaluate both natural and supernatural hypothesis according to the criteria commonly used in science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, predictive power etc) a descide which one is better according to those criteria


Why won't you answer Cleary and directly to the question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well for example if a man claims to have supernatural powers and can predict the future there would be ways to test his claims right?

You can easily compare all the hypothesis
1 he is lying
2 he was lucky
3 he has supernatural powers.
Etc

What's so hard to belive about this?

Theories have predictive power. Are you claiming they are supernatural? Have you established that prediction can only be true if it is supernatural? How did you do that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making very interesting claims, but once again you are avoiding a direct answer to my question:

Which alternative is the best
1 reject supernatural explanations by default

2 evaluate both natural and supernatural hypothesis according to the criteria commonly used in science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, predictive power etc) a descide which one is better according to those criteria


Why won't you answer Cleary and directly to the question?

I answered your question. An example you could learn from.

You assume they are rejected by default when it has been explained to you why they are rejected. You don't like to listen to what you don't want to hear.

Once again, you have avoided my questions regarding how you determine anything about a supernatrual explanation to even know if it is an explanation, let alone the best.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making very interesting claims, but once again you are avoiding a direct answer to my question:

Which alternative is the best
1 reject supernatural explanations by default

2 evaluate both natural and supernatural hypothesis according to the criteria commonly used in science (explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, predictive power etc) a descide which one is better according to those criteria


Why won't you answer Cleary and directly to the question?

Show me that a supernatural explanation has explanatory power. How can the unexplained be parsimonious? You simply have nothing to offer here but what you want to believe and that has no explanatory value, parsimony, predictive power, etc.

 

[leroy]

Bait and switch. None of that tests the supernatural. It tests a physical man with questions that can be determined on physical evidence. Not knowing how a person predicted future events does not automatically default to the supernatural. You just love God of the Gaps.

Ok in this case you arbitrarily descided not to call it "supernatural" but it would still be true that one can test for hypothesis that contradict know scientific laws (weather if you personally what to call them supernatural or not is irrelevant)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok in this case you arbitrarily descided not to call it "supernatural" but it would still be true that one can test for hypothesis that contradict know scientific laws (weather if you personally what to call them supernatural or not is irrelevant)

No. You arbitrarily called it supernatural and declared that supernatural was the only answer.

You can test anything, but that does not make the test meaningful or useful. You have yet to establish a means to test the supernatural. Just because you do not understand your own examples does not make them supernatural.

 

[leroy]

I answered your question. An example you could learn from.

You assume they are rejected by default when it has been explained to you why they are rejected. You don't like to listen to what you don't want to hear.

Once again, you have avoided my questions regarding how you determine anything about a supernatrual explanation to even know if it is an explanation, let alone the best.

Once again you are not answering, amazing!!! There is something really wrong with you.... Just answer yes or no


As for your question I would say that something is supernatural if it contradicts a well known law of nature...

 

[leroy]

No. You arbitrarily called it supernatural and declared that supernatural was the only answer.

You can test anything, but that does not make the test meaningful or useful. You have yet to establish a means to test the supernatural. Just because you do not understand your own examples does not make them supernatural.

So exactly which of these 2 statements do you find controvertial

1 Someone that can see the future with detail and accuracy (for example the scores of 1000 soccer games in a row) would be an example of supernatural

2 You can objectively test this against naturalistic hypothesis

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok in this case you arbitrarily descided not to call it "supernatural" but it would still be true that one can test for hypothesis that contradict know scientific laws (weather if you personally what to call them supernatural or not is irrelevant)

I have a set of beliefs and a belief system that I cannot test in any way known to demonstrate it objectively to others. My belief is based on faith and not on demonstrable, objective evidence.

You have a set of beliefs and a belief system that you cannot test in any way known to demonstrate it objectively to others. Your belief is based on faith and not on demonstrable, objective evidence.

This apparently bothers you so deeply that you have chosen to attack what can be tested and objectively demonstrated in an effort to destroy it so that your beliefs can assume superiority by default.