Comments on: The Poverty of a Young Earth Viewpoint http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/ Musings and ramblings about the world, progressive politics, religion, history, family and (occasionally) humour. Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:24:29 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Bud http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-6210 Bud Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:52:05 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-6210 Creation vs. evolution: Creation= Intelligent Designer=all existence is planned. Evolution=random selection=innumerable atomic and sub-atomic accidents. Science is not exclusive to either evolutionists or creationists. Evolution=presently considered by a perceived (since it can not be determined either way) majority as the truth. This change in perception can be attributed, in large part, to the work of Charles Darwin in the mid 19th century, Albert Einstein in the 20th century, and many other scientists past and present. A main tenet of evolutionists is that science and creationism are incompatible. Creation=with the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D.. A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator. Here are some examples: Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.” Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.” And, “Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” Other creation believing scientists include: Louis Pasteur- bacteriology. Lord Kelvin-energetics Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics Charles Babbage-computer science Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery Robert Boyle-chemistry James Simpson-anesthesiology Samuel Morse-telegraphy Belief doctrines for the beginning of all existence: Creationists believe in the formation of all things by The Almighty God, in 6 literal days. Evolutionists currently believe that nothing exploded nothing else, nowhere, thus the big bang created all that exists. This belief should be left open to change based on future scientific discoveries. * From Wikipedia, in the list of commonly misused English words: Won’t is a contraction for “will not”, while wont is a rare, slightly archaic word meaning “accustomed” or “inclined to” (as an adjective) or “habit or custom” (as a noun). Creation vs. evolution:
Creation= Intelligent Designer=all existence is planned.
Evolution=random selection=innumerable atomic and sub-atomic accidents.
Science is not exclusive to either evolutionists or creationists.
Evolution=presently considered by a perceived (since it can not be determined either way) majority as the truth. This change in perception can be attributed, in large part, to the work of Charles Darwin in the mid 19th century, Albert Einstein in the 20th century, and many other scientists past and present. A main tenet of evolutionists is that science and creationism are incompatible.
Creation=with the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D.. A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator. Here are some examples:
Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.”
Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.” And,
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”
Other creation believing scientists include:
Louis Pasteur- bacteriology.
Lord Kelvin-energetics
Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics
Charles Babbage-computer science
Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery
Robert Boyle-chemistry
James Simpson-anesthesiology
Samuel Morse-telegraphy
Belief doctrines for the beginning of all existence:
Creationists believe in the formation of all things by The Almighty God, in 6 literal days.
Evolutionists currently believe that nothing exploded nothing else, nowhere, thus the big bang created all that exists. This belief should be left open to change based on future scientific discoveries.

* From Wikipedia, in the list of commonly misused English words:
Won’t is a contraction for “will not”, while wont is a rare, slightly archaic word meaning “accustomed” or “inclined to” (as an adjective) or “habit or custom” (as a noun).

]]> By: 122nd Carnival of the Godless : CyberLizard’s Collection http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5400 122nd Carnival of the Godless : CyberLizard’s Collection Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:03:26 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5400 [...] the amazing geology of the Grand Canyon and his own background,  (((Billy))) The Atheist shows us the poverty of a Young Earth viewpoint. I’ve never visited the Grand Canyon, but Billy’s piece moved me to make it a priority [...] [...] the amazing geology of the Grand Canyon and his own background,  (((Billy))) The Atheist shows us the poverty of a Young Earth viewpoint. I’ve never visited the Grand Canyon, but Billy’s piece moved me to make it a priority [...]

]]> By: PhillyChief http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5226 PhillyChief Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:28:59 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5226 You've got some slight of hand working there. How many things are you going to assign to "Truth"? First it was god, not it's a stable reality. That breeds confusion, which leads to my objection to there being a god as being illogical because objecting to a stable reality is illogical. You’ve got some slight of hand working there. How many things are you going to assign to “Truth”? First it was god, not it’s a stable reality. That breeds confusion, which leads to my objection to there being a god as being illogical because objecting to a stable reality is illogical.

]]> By: R. Eric Sawyer http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5225 R. Eric Sawyer Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:16:54 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5225 Chief, as I bet you suspect, I substituted "Truth" for "God" to make it easier for you, and to get at the real issue -not just "is there a God" but is there such a thing as a stable reality, "Truth" Your own aproximation says that there is no such thing, any aproximation is as good as another because there is no absolute to which they should conform. If that is true, then you are right that it would be arrogent in the extreme to proclaim my (or anyones) understanding as better than any other. Use the view that works for you, whatever that means, just don't pretend there is any reality behind it. Aside from thinking that you are wrong about that, I think such an idea raises many logical difficulties. But I would like to continue that thought at another time (feel free to cary on in my absence!) Chief, as I bet you suspect, I substituted “Truth” for “God” to make it easier for you, and to get at the real issue -not just “is there a God” but is there such a thing as a stable reality, “Truth”
Your own aproximation says that there is no such thing, any aproximation is as good as another because there is no absolute to which they should conform. If that is true, then you are right that it would be arrogent in the extreme to proclaim my (or anyones) understanding as better than any other. Use the view that works for you, whatever that means, just don’t pretend there is any reality behind it.

Aside from thinking that you are wrong about that, I think such an idea raises many logical difficulties. But I would like to continue that thought at another time (feel free to cary on in my absence!)

]]> By: PhillyChief http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5223 PhillyChief Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:10:11 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5223 Nope, still not getting it. "Truth" can't be altered for it's conceived of as an absolute. What could be derived from a holy book is "truth" about the "Truth". I see no reason to believe there is a "Truth", therefore I don't see a holy book or anything else capable of providing any "truth" about "Truth" other than that it's unreasonable to believe there is a "Truth". That would be a "truth" that a believer would disagree with for they take on faith that there is a "Truth", so that excludes any possibility that such "truth" could be "truth". Oh, and of course I'd probably be labeled close-minded. ;) If it'll make it any easier for you, just substitute "god" for "Truth". Nope, still not getting it. “Truth” can’t be altered for it’s conceived of as an absolute. What could be derived from a holy book is “truth” about the “Truth”.

I see no reason to believe there is a “Truth”, therefore I don’t see a holy book or anything else capable of providing any “truth” about “Truth” other than that it’s unreasonable to believe there is a “Truth”. That would be a “truth” that a believer would disagree with for they take on faith that there is a “Truth”, so that excludes any possibility that such “truth” could be “truth”. Oh, and of course I’d probably be labeled close-minded. ;)

If it’ll make it any easier for you, just substitute “god” for “Truth”.

]]> By: R. Eric Sawyer http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5222 R. Eric Sawyer Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:37:59 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5222 Chief, I think you've got it. Of course, "Truth" could prove me wrong, and what we see is all there is, end of story. In that case, that is the Truth to which I will be subject, along with the folks who understood it right from the git-go. Critiquing anothers approximation of truth requires a base that both sides agree as authoritative. When talking with you folks, natural reason seems the authority. With folks who go a little further with me, we may add something to that. But you're right, the great divide is over pure materialism: Is what science can see the end of the story. Chief, I think you’ve got it. Of course, “Truth” could prove me wrong, and what we see is all there is, end of story. In that case, that is the Truth to which I will be subject, along with the folks who understood it right from the git-go.

Critiquing anothers approximation of truth requires a base that both sides agree as authoritative. When talking with you folks, natural reason seems the authority. With folks who go a little further with me, we may add something to that.
But you’re right, the great divide is over pure materialism: Is what science can see the end of the story.

]]> By: (((Billy))) http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5221 (((Billy))) Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:31:59 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5221 Philly: I would think that each one of us has an internal 'Truth' -- a philosophy which makes us who we are. The trouble starts when someone assumes that his Truth is applicable anywhere other than between his (or her) ears. The trouble gets even worse when someone assumes that, since he derived his Truth from a 'holy book', that his Truth cannot be altered. Those with an authoritarian or religious bent tend to assume that their inner Truth is universal rather than personal. Those with a more open mind assume (or at least I do) that my inner Truth is both mutable and personal. Philly: I would think that each one of us has an internal ‘Truth’ — a philosophy which makes us who we are. The trouble starts when someone assumes that his Truth is applicable anywhere other than between his (or her) ears. The trouble gets even worse when someone assumes that, since he derived his Truth from a ‘holy book’, that his Truth cannot be altered. Those with an authoritarian or religious bent tend to assume that their inner Truth is universal rather than personal. Those with a more open mind assume (or at least I do) that my inner Truth is both mutable and personal.

]]> By: PhillyChief http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5220 PhillyChief Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:50:01 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5220 Not exactly, (((Billy))). The problem lies in the assumption that there is a "<b>T</b>ruth" to begin with. If "truth" is the understanding of "Truth", but "Truth" is not only unknowable but belief in its existence relies solely on faith, then I don't see how it's possible to critique another's "truth" concerning "Truth". Got it? This whole thing prompted me to write a new post on my blog, and that's the truth. Not exactly, (((Billy))). The problem lies in the assumption that there is a “Truth” to begin with. If “truth” is the understanding of “Truth”, but “Truth” is not only unknowable but belief in its existence relies solely on faith, then I don’t see how it’s possible to critique another’s “truth” concerning “Truth”. Got it?

This whole thing prompted me to write a new post on my blog, and that’s the truth.

]]> By: (((Billy))) http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5219 (((Billy))) Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:36:04 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5219 But you still assume, as a starting position, that, because of your faith, because of your personal revalatory history, that you have the only correct Truth and the rest of us have no understanding at all and cannot unless we experience your revelation. Your higher Truth is based totally upon your experience. It is not independently verifiable. So without any evidence, proof, or even logical progression, I am to your Truth, a Truth which, by your faith, trumps all of the research of the last 500 years of scientific discovery. But you still assume, as a starting position, that, because of your faith, because of your personal revalatory history, that you have the only correct Truth and the rest of us have no understanding at all and cannot unless we experience your revelation. Your higher Truth is based totally upon your experience. It is not independently verifiable. So without any evidence, proof, or even logical progression, I am to your Truth, a Truth which, by your faith, trumps all of the research of the last 500 years of scientific discovery.

]]> By: The Grand Canyon and The Flood | Rationality Now http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-poverty-of-a-young-earth-viewpoint/#comment-5217 The Grand Canyon and The Flood | Rationality Now Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:50:24 +0000 http://iambilly.wordpress.com/?p=1355#comment-5217 [...] (((Billy))) nails it. [...] [...] (((Billy))) nails it. [...]

]]>