I have more respect for ICR in general that AIG. Note my interaction above with the article by Ken Ham for an indication why.I am glad we are able to communicate in a sivilized manner Canuckster. Too often I find the manner of my debates pulled into ethicle conflict.
My sources come from a variety of places.
I will list them for you to perhaps perswade you that I am not like other YECs in my info gathering.
AIG and ICR are my two most looked at sources.
I find few YEC proponents who are willing to tone down their rhetoric and address issues without littering the landscape with straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks. Very few YEC proponents that I observe at AIG, and I do monitor it occassionally, seem to have the intellectual detachment and honesty to grant at least a modicum of humility and respect to the OEC position by conceding that they accept inerrancy and the infalliblity of Scripture.
I frankly get personally tired of it and I have to guard against responding in kind.
Of course. If YEC makes a claim from science then it is reasonable to ask them to prove their point scientifically. Reference this article and catalog on the main board with many such responses to claims commonly made by YEC proponents.I fully agree that YEC needs to be collaberated better, but do you say that some information has been disproved because mainstream science says so?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... l#magfield
I have no problem with such YEC claims being offered.
However, tell me Tyler. Assume you and I have a conversation and you present a claim, for instance, that the Magnetic Decay rate of the Earth is evidence for a Young Earth. I believe that is something you have referenced in the past.
I present this information to you from the link above.
The primary point I make is that it is a fallacy to isolate a small portion of a fluctuating rate of decay, make a straight line extrapolation and claim that that rate is constant and then draw a conclusion from it.Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field [DB 1506 (1); OAB 50] Since devices for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were invented a few hundred years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing over those few hundred years. It is claimed that these measurements indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily losing energy ever since it formed. By extrapolating the decay backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is impossible. However, it is easily shown that such a simple extrapolation is not justified. Scientific instruments are not the only mechanisms that have ever existed for measuring the Earth's magnetic field. Ovens used by ancient civilizations and the igneous rocks making up the ocean floor are two of the more obvious examples. Both record the direction and strength of the magnetic field as it was at the time they were last heated, and both prove conclusively that the hypothetical exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field has not occurred (according to the young-Earth theories, the magnetic field was many times greater only a few thousand years ago, a hypothesis that is clearly at odds with the above-mentioned evidence). Instead, the evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e., which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Thompson (1997)).
It has been proposed by Young-Earth scientists that all of the magnetic reversals recorded in the sea floor were created during Noah's Flood. There are several problems with this theory that make it physically implausible, but regardless of whether or not this theory is valid, the fact remains that a coherent Old-Earth theory exists to explain the recent decline in Earth's magnetic field strength. Therefore, that decline should not be used to argue against an ancient Earth.
Hypothetically, you examine the material and in the course of our debate you examine further YEC material with regard to that claim and without changing your support of YEC, you admit, there is no good answer to that rebuttal.
What does that mean? That means to maintain intellectual integrity and honesty (very Biblical Standards by the way) you should remove that argument from your aresenal moving forward and not attempt to present it again for evidence unless and until you have a answer to the rebuttal, correct?
That is one of my biggest pet peeves with the YEC position.
There are very few Scientists who espouse the position. Most of them, however, I would dare say are intellectually honest and would observe these type of standards. Most popular YEC sites however are not maintained by scientists. They simply throw up a laundry list of "claims" many of which may be decades old and have since been discredited.
Look at that link above. There are literally dozens of such claims that have been refuted long ago. There are YEC boards almost BEGGING their people to stop using discredited arguments, such as the Moon Dust claim from the Apollo Moon Landings, the size of the Sun shrinking argument and many more.
These are arguments that credible YEC scientists have discredited. Yet, they keep circulating around and remain of YEC web-sites as part of a catalog of many claims. It is a common tactic of many YEC sites and YEC supporters. They attempt to overwhelm their opponents with so many claims, that the OEC person (or secular evolutionist for that matter) has to take a tremendous amount of time and effort to correct the nonesense. Then when they do, it won't matter. There will be no acceptance that the material is wrong. No interaction with the answers. In fact, you'll go to another thread or another board and the YEC proponent will toss the same material up without any revision.
I ask you, what does that say to any one observing the process who is not a Christian, and yet they observe a YEC proponent claiming that their position is the only Biblical position possible and if you don't accept a YEC position then you cannot accept the Bible?
I'll tell you what happens. They say "OK." If that is what being a Christian means in terms of intellectual integrity and if that is the type of thinking and behavior that Christians engage in while claiming a moral high ground, then I want nothing to do with it, and they walk away.
I realize that not all YEC people are this way. However, it gives rise to the question, why don't YEC proponents take steps to correct each other and avoid this? THose YEC proponents who are intellectually honest should be the first to speak up on discussion sites, bulletin boards, public debates etc to correct where disinformation is being spread.
Some do. They are a drop in the bucket compared however to the popular web-sites that have sprung up claiming scientific "proof" and yet there is little in the way of scientific standards, such as updates based on new information whether it supports or speaks against prior YEC positions.
Too many YEC proponents take an "ends justify the means" type position and just keep throwing out their nonesense with no accountibilty or critical thought and it is a terrible representation of Christ and Christianity and frankly as a Christian first, who is an evanglical, ordained in a conservative denomination, it makes me angry.
OEC proponents are not perfect. We have issues too. Not like this however.
Our greatest temptation is to fall into the trap that anything Sceince claims requires a rethinking or reworking of a position where there are clear scriptural underpinnings. We do need to be reminded of this and to avoid the temptation of juping every time science makes a new claim. Science is a process and understandings change constantly.
Examples please.Many Old earth believers beleive in things that YEC claims to have discredited.
My question to you is, have you studied Jewish church history and underground church history, as well as Hebrew translation.
Church Histiry yes. Hebrew Translation no. As I've stated before, I have the equivilent of a BA in Biblical Literature with a focus in New Testament Greek. I am familiar with many of the basics of Biblical Hebrew and Grammar jst from having written and preached for 20 years in different capacities of Church ministry.
I utilize reference material and I have focused in the Genesis Account in understanding the different views present because of its importance.
There is nothing wrong with relying on the expertise of others in these matters. We cannot be experts in everything.
When the reliance becomes slanted however without considering other sources and with little humility or willingness to admit that there may be issues there which require further thought.
I have strong opinions in this area that have developed over time based on a lot of study and thought. I still attempt to maintain some intellectual detachment that allows me to consider new material or reconsider old material.
When I see gross overstatements from YEC sites, such as Ken Ham from AIG, making broad, sweeping generalizations with regard to unnamed Biblical Scholars claiming that only a literal 6 day creation period is consistent with Scripture and then I look at Bibical Scholars who have given their lives to the study of Scripture who are respected around the world, (People like Walter Kaiser of Gordon - Conwell Seminary) who indicate that there is legitimacy to the position of reading yom as and age rather than a literal day, being summarily written off and slandered, usually by someone like Ham who does not have the credibility that Kaiser has and no humility being evidenced as to the possibility that maybe someone else knows something more than they do, I get angry.
Typical. Why would you immediately seek to tie anti-catholic sentiment to a discussion of Church History? Do you think the Church just lay dormant for 1500 years until the reformation came along? If a Catholic told you it was daytime outside would you check with someone else rather than believe your own eyes?I have not, but if you watch society discuss church history, it is always inolveing large church factions, such as the Catholic Church, which was highly influenced by the Roman governing body.
Like it or not, the OEC position has been around for as long as the YEC position and it has waxed and waned throughout history much like YEC has.
It is a favorite straw-man of the many current YEC positions to claim the OEC just suddenly appeared usually after Darwin and then claim they are compromisers who elevate science over the Bible.
There are some you could say that of. However that characterization is false overall. OEC in terms of scientific basis of thought, formed more from 1700 to 1850 before Darwin's Origin of Species came out in 1859. Prior to that there is a long tradition stretching back to St. Augustine and beyond.
If you want to respond in a manner that seeks to discredit any position prior to the 1500's because it was held by a Catholic, be prepared to give good reasons why that position fails on its own merits or face being considered a bigot.
That's as nice as I can say it.
It says more than you think. If YEC claims scientific proof, then it is reasonable to hold them to scientific standards.Too often, people splash false and true YEC remarks, without knowing anything about them. This does not however disclude these remarks as false just because mainstream science tells us it does.
Good luck. It will be like herding cats. That is a noble goal however and wish you success.YEC does have collaberative efforts, but it is rare. It needs to be expanded, I for one will be developing a website to solve this issue.
[snip]
"YEC doesn't operate by the same rules. They do not hold to the standards of prrof and academic review that others in the field do"
It may be overstated. Show me some peer reviewed YEC publications and prove me wrong. Then weigh them against all the other material out there and tell me if it is significant.This is a false statement. The correct statement is that YEC is to easily debated by uneducated individuals who make remarks but can not back them up.
I'm glad you do. Don't be surprised if many YEC people turn on you for that.When someone says to me, the earth is young. I say " Why do you believe that, What evidence do you have." I even go as far as to support OEC in debate. It encourages people to explore more thoroughly the science behind it.
1. You make some claims regarding the Biblical interpretations in the Hebrew and equating them with the reliability of the Bible itself. Have you been trained in Hebrew or are you relying on the representations of others? (No right or wrong answer here. I'd just like to hear what you have to say.)
I most certainly said no such thing. Show me where I claim that OEC "takes science and attempts to accomodate it to the bible.""I am relying on the reprisentations of others because of the debates I have witnessed and people I really know and trust who are knowledged in the matter. It also is influenced by the large number of scholars and and scientists who are not creationists that claim the bible speaks of a young earth so it is false. You said it yourself, YEC takes the bible and attempts to support it, OEC takes science and attempts to accomidate it to the bible.
I have said some may do that. I have repeatedly and consistently said that OEC historically starts with the Bible and has done so well before the advent of modern Science.
Hear me Tyler. OEC starts with the Bible. I believe without apology that the OEC framework is better supported by the Bible and by Science. I believe that because I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrent Word of God. I believe God created this world and left his fingerprints all over it. I believe it makes sense that the creation itself will testify to the Truth of the Bible by giving evidence of what the Bible says to be true.
There are. Thank you for acknowledging that. I wish I could say the same in terms of scientific proof for a young earth but I can't. There are some unanswered questions that allow for the possibility in some instances, but only if you isolate them from the preponderance of the evidence for an old earth. It just is not there.IF OEC is fact, then at least there are strong arguments in biblicle favor of it.
2. Have you studied the history of YEC and OEC throughout Church History? Why do you think so many held the OEC position prior to the 1700's when geology began to introduce the science which speaks to the measurements we have now which actually quantify the age of the earth?
It's up to you if you want to debate this or not. I will bring it up without apology when it is relevent to do so.I know you have, but let's not get into a debate about this until I have found time to do so as well.
3. Why do you think that there are so few YEC scientists being published in refereed science journals? Why haven't YEC institutes themselves started this and worked together as a group to address this serious issue of credibility?
A peer-reviewed journal is an academic journal where an article is submitted and then reviewed by others in the field to examine the material for its accuracy and the relevency of the material. It can include a dialogue back and forth and edits or revisions as needed. It means that when the article is published it has been established to be a significant contribution to the field worthy of consideration and reading.Well, this is a two part question.
YEC is not recognized by mainstream science because it goes against mainstream scientific belief. Pro-evolution and Pro-oldearth journals naturally, which I respect, are going to provide pro Evolution adn PRo OEC material moreso.
What is a refereed science journal. HOw is this determined.
It does NOT mean that those reviewing the material agree with it. Nor does it mean that it is there tocensor minority views or positions. It means a standard of academic integrity and relevence has been applied.
YEC scientists don't have much of a record in publishing their material.
That doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of their positions. It does speak however, to the validity of their methods.
ICR and CRS maybe. AIG, hardly.TO the second part, they have.
AIG, ICR, CRS ... actual scientific communitiees with clear understanding of their own arguments and of the sciences, all produce science journals and magazines. Trust I ahve tried to find other things than articles on those sites and it is not as easy as one might think.
We'll see how they do.YEC institues have started to adress your issues and have started to collaberate better. You can not mistake YEC Institutes with YEC groups either.
ICR, to my knowledge, is the leading force behind the collaberative means, but it is not nearly strong enough yet.
FUnding funding funding... who will fund us crazy revolutionists
Have you examined much of the material on the main board here?I will be developing a site one day into an institution to serve as this purpose. I will also provide full details of all arguments made and the answers on both sides of the argument.
Rich does a great job and much of the material is there.
