Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[redfern]

The articles /authors you refer to would agree that thorns, pain, suffering and death entered the world as a consequence of men's sin. They may not agree with the narrow definition I have used for the word entropy...(deterioration of a system).

I highlighted your use off the word “entropy” specifically because that is a term that in science has a pretty rigid meaning. I have seen many YECs try to prostitute the scientific applicability of that term to say things like “Darwinian evolution is impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (the scientific concept of entropy arises out of the SLoT). As the links I provided show, there are YECs with a technical enough understanding of physics to realize the disservice their fellow less scientifically savvy YECs were making with their frequent scientifically nonsensical use of the term. The technically savvy YECs had to author articles warning their well-intentioned but scientifically ignorant brethren away from using it incorrectly.

But since you clarify that by entropy you basically meant the “deterioration of a system” then I will not contest your use of the term. I am pretty sure you chose that term because it sounds like a highfalutin scientific word that most of the YECs here might be impressed by. Do you feel you understand what “entropy” means in a scientific context, or can we rest assured you will always mean no more than the pedestrian meaning of entropy you offer here?

 

[redfern]

Well, thank you! Let's talk some more.

Dear Derf,

Regarding our friendship while holding opposing views – over the last decade I have had a rather close association with a unique collection of people. They are in basically two groups – mostly elderly Americans who were on naval duty at the end of WW II, and some Japanese who were fighting on the opposing side. To cut to the crux of what is a long and fascinating story, near the end of WW II the USS Indianapolis (a ship – a heavy Cruiser in the US Navy) on the island of Tinian had just delivered the atomic bomb that would soon be dropped on Hiroshima. The Indianapolis (“Indy”, for short) then was sent sailing towards the Philippines when a Japanese sub hit it with two torpedoes. The Indy sank in 12 minutes, and when the sailors that had managed to get off the sinking ship were finally found and rescued 5 days later, only about 25% of the original crew of over 1200 were still alive. That stands to this day as the worst single ship disaster in US Naval history. Sadly, in a travesty of justice, Captain McVay, the Indy’s captain, who had survived, was blamed, and court martialed.

But relative to you being pro and me being anti, yet still friends – a similar thing grew out of the Indy disaster. Captain McVay’s court-martial was held shortly after WW II ended, and one of the witnesses called to testify against McVay was Captain Hashimoto, the commander of the Japanese submarine that had sunk the Indy. That backfired. Though deadly enemies just months before, Hashimotosan (to use the Japanese form of speech) very pointedly declared that the Japanese sub had a perfect firing position, and there was nothing McVay could have done that would have saved his ship. Hashimotosan praised McVay as an excellent captain. Now many decades later I have heard the few still living survivors from the Indy express great respect and admiration for the man who ordered the torpedoes to be fired that sank their ship.

(And, side note - 2 years ago, Captain Hashimoto’s granddaughter (and her daughter) stayed in my home for several days.)

So, my friend, if you see a torpedo coming, it is not for lack of respect, but rather it is necessitated by our commitments to what we each think is right.

 

[Derf]

Dear Derf,

Regarding our friendship while holding opposing views – over the last decade I have had a rather close association with a unique collection of people. They are in basically two groups – mostly elderly Americans who were on naval duty at the end of WW II, and some Japanese who were fighting on the opposing side. To cut to the crux of what is a long and fascinating story, near the end of WW II the USS Indianapolis (a ship – a heavy Cruiser in the US Navy) on the island of Tinian had just delivered the atomic bomb that would soon be dropped on Hiroshima. The Indianapolis (“Indy”, for short) then was sent sailing towards the Philippines when a Japanese sub hit it with two torpedoes. The Indy sank in 12 minutes, and when the sailors that had managed to get off the sinking ship were finally found and rescued 5 days later, only about 25% of the original crew of over 1200 were still alive. That stands to this day as the worst single ship disaster in US Naval history. Sadly, in a travesty of justice, Captain McVay, the Indy’s captain, who had survived, was blamed, and court martialed.

But relative to you being pro and me being anti, yet still friends – a similar thing grew out of the Indy disaster. Captain McVay’s court-martial was held shortly after WW II ended, and one of the witnesses called to testify against McVay was Captain Hashimoto, the commander of the Japanese submarine that had sunk the Indy. That backfired. Though deadly enemies just months before, Hashimotosan (to use the Japanese form of speech) very pointedly declared that the Japanese sub had a perfect firing position, and there was nothing McVay could have done that would have saved his ship. Hashimotosan praised McVay as an excellent captain. Now many decades later I have heard the few still living survivors from the Indy express great respect and admiration for the man who ordered the torpedoes to be fired that sank their ship.

(And, side note - 2 years ago, Captain Hashimoto’s granddaughter (and her daughter) stayed in my home for several days.)

Fascinating story! Did you enjoy the visit with Hashimoto's granddaughter?

So, my friend, if you see a torpedo coming, it is not for lack of respect, but rather it is necessitated by our commitments to what we each think is right.

Of course! I would expect no less. You should also know that I will undoubtedly not have sufficient defenses for all torpedoes, and that even if you sink my ship with them, the victory of the war is not yours to claim, O Redfernsan.

 

[redfern]

Fascinating story! Did you enjoy the visit with Hashimoto's granddaughter?

Very much. We stay in touch.

… the victory of the war is not yours to claim

I don’t often seek victory. I am satisfied when I feel I have honestly, firmly, and respectfully tried to clarify or correct erroneous ideas in science.

O Redfernsan.

Do I detect some familiarity with Nihongo in your prepending the honorific “O” in front of my screen name?

Standing, as you claim, as an outsider to Christianity, let me introduce you to the idea that God both made the world and also told us something about how He created it, something no one else that we know of observed.

Here I think we have a distinct divergence on our beliefs in the Bible. Commonly I hear Christians use the term “God’s Word” as synonymous with the Bible. But I see the earlier parts of the Old Testament as being simply a collection of creation accounts that were probably orally handed down for generations within a rather primitive nomadic society. Extended arguments seen earlier in this thread, and in lots of other ToL threads show that within the Christian community there is a wide range of hotly debated beliefs as to what the creation account really says.

For a book that is purportedly the most important tome in existence, how come it is so poorly written? No teacher that is even minimally competent would tolerate teaching from a text that is the source of so much disagreement.

Turning to your assertion that “God both made the world and also told us something about how He created it”, as I read Genesis I don’t see God telling us anything, but rather I see pretty much what I would expect from a scientifically ignorant society trying to come up with an account of how the world came into existence.

Speaking more broadly, what if I were to come to you with a religious tome that you were unfamiliar with. As you read it, you saw a number of examples of clear violation of scientific principles that you had never questioned before. Adherents to this religious book had protracted disagreements over crucial passages in it. Would you be likely to turn a blind eye to its ambiguity and scientific nonsense and join in praising the book?

… force-fitting ideas from science into our peculiar theological frameworks … kind of depends on how good the current science framework turns out to be.

Science has been spectacularly successful in helping us understand the physical universe we find ourselves in. Science has made missteps, sometimes important ones, but it has been remarkable in eventually self-correcting. In comparison, absolutist claims made by some (such as 6days) about the Bible being absolutely true are ludicrous to most scientists.

I tend to judge the relative values of science and of religion by the fruits I see coming from each. Christianity has a track record reaching back many centuries, yet I see little scientific progress due to religion. Yet just within my lifetime, science has added more knowledge than mankind had in the several thousand years when religion was revered as the paramount source of knowledge.

I hope you had a fine day.

 

[Stuu]

The articles /authors you refer to would agree that thorns, pain, suffering and death entered the world as a consequence of men's sin. They may not agree with the narrow definition I have used for the word entropy...(deterioration of a system).

What sort of system do you mean?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

Are you actually asking a question, here, or, instead, are you using a rhetorical device to state your belief that it is reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

If you are actually asking a question, here, then of whom are you asking it? Are you asking it of Young Earth Creationists---that is, of believers of Young Earth Creationism--that is, of people who do not doubt Young Earth Creationism, and who think it unreasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

What would be the point of asking someone who thinks it is unreasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism: "Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?" Would you expect someone who thinks it unreasonable to doubt YEC to say, "Yes, it is reasonable to doubt YEC", as you'd expect someone to say who thinks it reasonable to doubt YEC?

My position was that YECism is completely debunked

By "completely debunked", do you mean false? as in:

YECism is [false].

Or, do you mean not-believed-in-by-Vulcan-Logician? as in:

YECism is not believed in by [me].

If neither, then what (if anything) do you mean?

 

[Derf]

Sorry for the extended delay in responding.

Do I detect some familiarity with Nihongo in your prepending the honorific “O” in front of my screen name?

Not really. But I've seen the "O..." form before.

Here I think we have a distinct divergence on our beliefs in the Bible. Commonly I hear Christians use the term “God’s Word” as synonymous with the Bible. But I see the earlier parts of the Old Testament as being simply a collection of creation accounts that were probably orally handed down for generations within a rather primitive nomadic society.

that's a convenient opinion for you to hold. Is your opinion the result of your viewpoint, or is your viewpoint the result of your opinion?

Extended arguments seen earlier in this thread, and in lots of other ToL threads show that within the Christian community there is a wide range of hotly debated beliefs as to what the creation account really says.

For a book that is purportedly the most important tome in existence, how come it is so poorly written? No teacher that is even minimally competent would tolerate teaching from a text that is the source of so much disagreement.

hmmm. I guess that's why state and national teaching standards are so stable.

Turning to your assertion that “God both made the world and also told us something about how He created it”, as I read Genesis I don’t see God telling us anything, but rather I see pretty much what I would expect from a scientifically ignorant society trying to come up with an account of how the world came into existence.

...back to that convenient opinion of yours. Have you compared the Genesis account to other cultural accounts? There's a marked difference.

Speaking more broadly, what if I were to come to you with a religious tome that you were unfamiliar with. As you read it, you saw a number of examples of clear violation of scientific principles that you had never questioned before. Adherents to this religious book had protracted disagreements over crucial passages in it. Would you be likely to turn a blind eye to its ambiguity and scientific nonsense and join in praising the book?

please refer to your missteps sentence below. Anything that needs correcting is only as good as the current misstep. That might be pretty good in some ways and horribly deficient in others. You can't know how good it is.

Science has been spectacularly successful in helping us understand the physical universe we find ourselves in. Science has made missteps, sometimes important ones, but it has been remarkable in eventually self-correcting. In comparison, absolutist claims made by some (such as 6days) about the Bible being absolutely true are ludicrous to most scientists.

I tend to judge the relative values of science and of religion by the fruits I see coming from each. Christianity has a track record reaching back many centuries, yet I see little scientific progress due to religion. Yet just within my lifetime, science has added more knowledge than mankind had in the several thousand years when religion was revered as the paramount source of knowledge.

Science has done much less for religion than religion has done for science.

With the current increase in witchcraft and paganism, science has failed in imparting important knowledge to people.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, let me give you a gift then, with this complete reword:

Demonstrate one piece of unambiguous evidence in support of anything you believe to be true.

Stuart

Indeed, you are gifted at rewording your nonsense while yet leaving it fully intact in its nonsensicality.

Now, by "Demonstrate one piece of unambiguous evidence in support of anything you believe to be true," do you mean the following?

[Evidence] one piece of [evidencing] evidence in [evidence] of anything you believe to be true.

Do you not mean that? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?

For the proposition, P, what (if anything) would you say is the difference between demonstrating that P and evidencing that P?

Would you say that evidence (noun) evidences (verb)?
Would you say that whatever evidences (v) is evidence ?
Would you say that whatever does not evidence (v) is not evidence ?

Let's consider two of your phrases: "unambiguous evidence" and "ambiguous evidence".

Would you say that what you call "unambiguous evidence" evidences (v)?
Would you say that what you call "ambiguous evidence" evidences (v)?