jump to navigation

Errors in Genesis October 19, 2010

Posted by thegodless in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
trackback

After trudging through various attempts by Answers in Genesis to come up with alternative religious reasons for why all evidence points to existence being much much older than just a few thousand years, I hit upon a common theme in each AiG thesis. This theme, which is actually more of an error to the scientific process than a theme, permeated nearly every Answers in Genesis thesis. The theme is that each proponent began their paper with an extreme bias towards the answer to their thesis. To further prove AiG’s extreme lack of credibility and understanding of science, it’s proponents always seem to begin with a concrete answer in mind. This is the opposite of following were evidence leads. This is the opposite of real science. AiG might as well be trying to prove everything came from a cosmic cockroach turd. I mean they can just have someone write a book about everything coming from a turd, begin defending it with the same tactics, and change nothing about the argument and actual conclusions to the debate or they could actually try looking at things from a real scientific perspective. They could forget their wishes and agendas and explore the actual evidence. Surely they realize how foolish they look. Real scientists don’t reach conclusions by ascertaining that a theory is true before completing a process of extensive research and peer review. Real scientists are more than willing to change their opinions with the addition of new evidence. Real scientists base opinions only upon things that can be measured. AiG “scientists” wrap up their god wishes in a blanket of pseudo science and logical fallacies.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. mcoville - October 19, 2010

If I changed every instance of “AiG” with Darwinist, your article would have the same message. You have narrowed your world view to exclude one theory because of your religious belief in another. Parties on both sides of this debate are guilty of this, as am I to an extent, but I am willing to wager you will not admit your use of blinders. Instead you will attack me, maybe and even call me names, all in the hopes of making yourself feel more superior and thus justify your belief in Darwinian evolution. I hope I am wrong though, and that you are willing to look at all the evidence with an open mind. The best part is that in the end, we will all know the truth.

thegodless - October 20, 2010

I disagree that my derision of Creationism can be interchanged with derision for Darwinism. The simple fact remains that Darwin was not looking to supplant religion with his theory, though he certainly managed to. Many theistic scientists over the years have come to the same conclusions. On the other hand, Creationism was only born out a desire to fight off the reality of the god free world. You see, one theory was found with research, while the other was born from desires.

When you speak of being close minded or having blinders on, you must consider that sometimes it is the logical stance to ignore certain theories. When we know how old the earth is, is it not pointless to entertain theories that are based upon a young earth? For that matter, do you not ignore most data that you already know to be illogical? Or do you continue to consider the possibility of Bigfoot? What about the alignment of stars to guide our lives? Are you close minded to these theories? There is a reason that Creationist papers are rarely peer reviewed or taken seriously. It’s impossible to be open minded to every absurdity.

thegodless - October 20, 2010

You can call Darwinism a religion all you would like, however Darwinism would be the first religion in history to actually have evidence for it’s followers.

2. John Barron Jr. - October 20, 2010

With all due respect, do not atheists bring the presumption of naturalism to their investigation? By rejecting a priori any possible supernatural explanation for anything is just as suspect as AiG. BTW, I am not a young earth creationist, and I find it curious why atheism tends to focus only on the YEC account. Perhaps it would be worth your time to find flaws in http://reasons.org ‘s creation model.

thegodless - October 20, 2010

Actually, a large percentage of atheists started their research as religionists. They would have likely been looking for evidence for God when they realized the joke of it all. As far as focusing on Young Earthers, many atheists simply do this because other Creationist theories invalidate the Bible all on their own by making claims that contradict Biblical accounts. Speaking for myself here, but there is more value gained by combating Biblical literalists. If we show that one Biblical account is untrue, we show that the Bible is nothing more than a fable. The minute you argue that science and the Bible are compatible is the minute that the Bible fails.

thegodless - October 21, 2010

From reading through the Reason’s site for 15 minutes, I found this leap of logic commonly known as the god of the gaps argument.

“So far, astronomers can’t identify any astrophysical source with the necessary phosphorus abundance. The lack of any such known source combined with the presently extreme high phosphorus abundance of Earth’s crust argues for a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator carefully engineering the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, and Earth to make advanced life possible.” -Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons.org

Creationists don’t just get to say that, because science can’t answer everything, there must be a god. They must provide verifiable proof for a creator and they have failed miserably at doing so. If the best they can do is fill in the unknowns with their preference of supernatural force, which by the way is also interchangeable with any other god or made up being, then they have hit that point where it’s time to wave the white flag. As time permits, I’ll read through more of the Reason’s site, but this first bit doesn’t have me very hopeful for getting anything meaningful out of it.

3. mcoville - October 21, 2010

“They must provide verifiable proof for a creator and they have failed miserably at doing so.” Says the Darwinist. I have seen and experienced enough evidence for a supernatural force, and so have millions of other people including scientist. You will never see evidence for God as long as you do not want to.

thegodless - October 21, 2010

“If the universe is uncreated, eternally self-existent, or accidental then it has no purpose and, consequently, we have no purpose. Determinism rules. Morality and religion are ultimately irrelevant.” -Dr. George Roche from the Reasons Creation Model

This is a false claim based upon the belief that morality comes from god. There are many problems with the argument of morality coming from god, but I will focus on how morality is a naturally occurring behavior. Morality has played a very important role in helping humanity to survive itself. Morality has been shown to provide evolutionary advantages to the groups that practiced it. Take the example of a single person within a community breaking their leg. Wouldn’t it be advantageous for the group to help mend this injured person. By helping others we create a chain of reciprocal events where it is probable that if anyone else, incuding ourselves, became injured, they would also be helped. This doesn’t even speak for the fact that helping others makes it more likely for an injured person to quickly recover and play their part in the community. Would you not want every person avaliable for hunting, gathering, and defending? It’s simplly that helping others in turn helps yourself. Morality is not exclusive to a created universe. Dr. Roche does manage to get right that religion becomes irrelevant in a noncreated universe.

mcoville - October 21, 2010

Yes, you can place morality into your theory based on evolution because that is what you believe. There is no proof that evolution creates morality.

I believe that it takes a moral source to create morality. I come to this belief based on experience and observations. Of course you will say I am wrong because it goes against your belief, but that is your choice.

Why does it bother you so much that there may be a chance you are wrong? I am not asking you to convert to my religion or to send money to some organization, I am asking you to be intellectuality honest and admit that there is a chance you could be wrong.

If someone stands high on the theory of evolution and say there is no chance that a supernatural being exists they are being intellectuality blinded.

thegodless - October 21, 2010

I have no problem with admitting I could be wrong, none at all. I could be wrong. The thing is though, even if I happen to be wrong, it doesn’t automatically make others right. This goes back to the god of the gaps problem. If the evolutionary model is wrong, you don’t just get to plug in whatever nonsense you believe. I mean it is just as likely that we are all in a computer simulation as it is that everything was created by a god. If evolution is wrong, all gods will have an equal claim to being the creator. If evolution is wrong, any crackpot can come up with an entity and make the same claims as Creationists.

mcoville - October 21, 2010

I agree, if evolution is not the answer it does not make God the answer. It is my experience that most Darwinists refuse to consider God as an option, and that limits their options to only what they believe to be an option.

Your hypothesis of the results of saying evolution is wrong is narrow. If you determine that life did not evolve from non-living elements then you have to ask yourself where did it come from. If you choose to investigate that line of inquiry you can find that some theories of gods can be eliminated.

It is possible to know the answer. The truth is out there. Someday we will all know the truth to wither there is a God or not, or if it is many gods or just one.

thegodless - October 21, 2010

I must ask how you were able to prove that what you experienced was a supernatural force? If the same experience happened to a tribal member in a remote region, would he come to the same conclusions as you? Is it not your beliefs that guide how you interpret experiences?

mcoville - October 21, 2010

I was not able to prove anything to anyone besides myself. It is not my area of expertise to prove God, I leave that up to Him. I only claim to have observed and experienced enough evidence to convince me my faith in evolution was wrong and that there is a better answer to my questions.

thegodless - October 22, 2010

And that would be the argument from laziness. Why is it that every time god reveals himself it’s always to one person in private? Why did it happen in the desert or on the mountain? Where have all the grand miracles gone? In modern times god has been reduced to showing up in people’s heads or on toast.

mcoville - October 22, 2010

Jesus appeared to thousands after His resurrection and there where some that still did not believe. It does not take a miracle to see God. I have spoken to thousands of people alive today that have experienced the miracle of God but you would not take their eye witness account as evidence, you will only accept the evidence that supports your belief.

I was once a evolution believing agnostic. I did not believe in the truth of Jesus until later in life. So I understand how easy it is to dismiss evidence when you want to. I do not expect you to change your opinion or take my word for it. I am only answering your questions.

thegodless - October 22, 2010

The thing is that I will accept evidence against my own nonbeliefs, it’s just that it will have to be something a little more substantial than someone having a vision. As far as Jesus being seen after his death, that’s just a story in a book. There is no evidence that Jesus ever came back. A book of fables cannot be used to prove itself. If God/Jesus did all these amazing things in the past, why have they hidden themselves away now? There are several logical answers to this, but I’m sure you wouldn’t consider that man has become too smart to fall for such trickery.

mcoville - October 22, 2010

“As far as Jesus being seen after his death, that’s just a story in a book. There is no evidence that Jesus ever came back.” You place a high level of authenticity on Jesus, do you do the same for all claims?

How do you know that anyone existed that you did not meet personally? What proof do you have that Caesar of Rome ever existed? or do you have an unbelief that Caesar is anything other than a story in a book?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: