William Lane Craig commits classic anti-creation mistake

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Young-Earth creationism is in massive conflict with modern science.



He uses this to justify a "myth though historical interpretation" belief in his Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 27) podcast.

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."
 

chair

Well-known member

Young-Earth creationism is in massive conflict with modern science.



He uses this to justify a "myth though historical interpretation" belief in his Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 27) podcast.

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

So you finally agree that YEC is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Good to hear.
 

chair

Well-known member
...

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

Just a logical parallel between the above statement and YEC vs. modern science. Though you did not explicitly say that.

I
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A logical parallel between the above statement and YEC vs. modern science.

:chuckle:

It's at best an implication that only a bad-faith reading would come up with.

You did not explicitly say that.

There's the key. We have to say it for it to apply. For instance, you have denied being a leftist, so we have to respect that.

In this thread, the challenge of logical failure is against WLC, who rejects the plain-reading Biblical account because he thinks science has disproven it. However, he accepts Jesus Christ as his risen saviour despite the scientific impossibility of a man coming back from the dead.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
:chuckle:

It's at best an implication that only a bad-faith reading would come up with.



There's the key. We have to say it for it to apply. For instance, you have denied being a leftist, so we have to respect that.

In this thread, the challenge of logical failure is against WLC, who rejects the plain-reading Biblical account because he thinks science has disproven it. However, he accepts Jesus Christ as his risen saviour despite the scientific impossibility of a man coming back from the dead.

I always found it bizarre that anyone would believe one but not the other.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I always found it bizarre that anyone would believe one but not the other.
For being super into logic-based arguments, WLC's responses to the YEC position are insane.

He's been through this series of podcasts three times now that I've listened to and each time, his tactics have shifted wildly. First time, there was this great big sign up on his Web site that he didn't discuss YEC because it was "divisive" (right after a show he did calling homosexuality a sin). Next time around, he had all these defenses against YEC challenges as if that made the case against it. This time he's dropped all those tactics for science-based ridicule.

For how good he is in a debate, he'd get torn to shreds on this topic pretty much no matter who he faced.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."
Any miracle is clearly outside the realm of science. But not only that it can't *technically* be disproven by scientific methods because it is a one off event. Unless someone can 'find the body', there's no real way to disprove it. (See a really horrid Christian novel called: A Skeleton in God's Closet)

But the silly thing about this argument is ancient people were well aware that humans didn't spring back to life spontaneously, that's what made it a miracle. People realized this was not a normal event which is what science is about studying, the normal natural processes of the universe.

The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence. Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Any miracle is clearly outside the realm of science. But not only that it can't *technically* be disproven by scientific methods because it is a one off event. Unless someone can 'find the body', there's no real way to disprove it. (See a really horrid Christian novel called: A Skeleton in God's Closet)

But the silly thing about this argument is ancient people were well aware that humans didn't spring back to life spontaneously, that's what made it a miracle. People realized this was not a normal event which is what science is about studying, the normal natural processes of the universe.

The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence. Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young
This is irrelevant to the challenge WLC faces. He dismisses the plain reading of the Bible because it is "disproven by science" in the case of YEC, but would not apply the same standard to the resurrection.
 

Lon

Well-known member
The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence.
By 'evidence' or by 'speculation.' Perhaps 'science evidence' (as if evidence is science's) or 'science-speculation?'

Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young
Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).

How committed are you to evolution if data cannot dissuade you?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
By 'evidence' or by 'speculation.' Perhaps 'science evidence' (as if evidence is science's) or 'science-speculation?'
I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.

Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).

How committed are you to evolution if data cannot dissuade you?
I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.


I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.

If I could give you one book that explains ALL of the evidence almost perfectly, would you read it?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
If I could give you one book that explains ALL of the evidence almost perfectly, would you read it?
Possibly but most likely I would pick it apart. I have been all over the web and seen most of the newer arguments as well. They are slightly better, but still very wrong. Behe tries very hard but still fails.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.
Not coordinated then??? Sorry, I'm lost in simile because it doesn't add up. I've done the no-hands on a bike a lot and it is anything but painful. Did this backfire on you? There literally isn't much touched in science by science/theology friction. For some reason, you've a lot of eggs in this basket and it seems less empathy for reading anyone reading scripture any way but as you (how are your devotions going these days? Still reading your bible regularly? rhetorical)


I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data.
Not true. Many of the writers/presenters of these two sites have PhD's upon PhD's. I've taught science on an elementary level AND gone through science classes as you have. I read with a discerning eye and try to actually compare what is possible vs what is someone else's theory. The science community all pretty much buy into interpretation of data. If you missed that, you missed something big. I'm not saying you have to be YEC, but I do think you've swallowed the camel and at present, are no longer at all critical in your filtering process.

Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis.
Well, in a sense I agree with you, because it is often aimed at church members and trying to keep it understandable like 'Science for Dummies' but do you have a science PhD like many of these do? Be careful how far you want to challenge. I remember certainly, that WLC has a doctorate.

It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.
With a 4.5 star rating and an endorsement from Colorodo State University professor?
Go on to the negative comments on Amazon:

NeanderthalGirl said it was horrible. -1 star Interesting that. Can even a caveman er girl, do it?

Or the next one: "... relies on selective quotations from researchers whose opinions are not widely accepted." -1 star

So science IS a popularity contest????

Or the next: "The only conclusion that follows from pointing out these historical scientific blunders is that some scientists simply screwed up. They lied. It's too bad, but does it follow that Modern Evolutionary Theory is a giant hoax? No." -1 star

Are you throwing in with these??? Why is it most of these are girls (not many girls in biology sciences)? :think:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.

Even if you were on topic, this would be spam.

I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.

:yawn:
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).

I tend to stay away from arguments over who believes what or how popular an idea is.

When you lot are interested in OP or even a tangent that is evidence-based, let me know. :up:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Not coordinated then??? Sorry, I'm lost in simile because it doesn't add up. I've done the no-hands on a bike a lot and it is anything but painful. Did this backfire on you? There literally isn't much touched in science by science/theology friction. For some reason, you've a lot of eggs in this basket and it seems less empathy for reading anyone reading scripture any way but as you (how are your devotions going these days? Still reading your bible regularly? rhetorical)
In the Christian life it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. The problem I have is people saying you CAN'T believe like me and be a Christian. I believe that's wrong and is far too common a position in Christian circles but especially this site. ;)

Not true. Many of the writers/presenters of these two sites have PhD's upon PhD's. I've taught science on an elementary level AND gone through science classes as you have. I read with a discerning eye and try to actually compare what is possible vs what is someone else's theory. The science community all pretty much buy into interpretation of data. If you missed that, you missed something big. I'm not saying you have to be YEC, but I do think you've swallowed the camel and at present, are no longer at all critical in your filtering process.
Eh no. Filtering is what I have gotten better at with time. Reading science daily and watching for the "huh?!" papers that show up once in a while.

Well, in a sense I agree with you, because it is often aimed at church members and trying to keep it understandable like 'Science for Dummies' but do you have a science PhD like many of these do? Be careful how far you want to challenge. I remember certainly, that WLC has a doctorate.
I think you may have misinterpreted my last post. I also have a doctorate. It was graduate school that truly destroyed my YEC position. Classes on molecular biology that included discussions of plant genomics and synteny. Looking at DNA sequences myself, running the comparisons, seeing exactly what mutations look like. It was close to a crisis of faith for me (also couldn't find a decent church). Fortunately I found people that believe as I do now, so I got through it. I now have a church that doesn't 100% agree with me but isn't telling me I must believe the earth is 4000 years old either. And I get to tell students about evolution but also tell them it doesn't have to destroy their faith. So, pretty happy about all of that. :)

With a 4.5 star rating and an endorsement from Colorodo State University professor?
Go on to the negative comments on Amazon:

NeanderthalGirl said it was horrible. -1 star Interesting that. Can even a caveman er girl, do it?

Or the next one: "... relies on selective quotations from researchers whose opinions are not widely accepted." -1 star

So science IS a popularity contest????

Or the next: "The only conclusion that follows from pointing out these historical scientific blunders is that some scientists simply screwed up. They lied. It's too bad, but does it follow that Modern Evolutionary Theory is a giant hoax? No." -1 star

Are you throwing in with these??? Why is it most of these are girls (not many girls in biology sciences)? :think:
There's plenty of women in biology, really more these days than men at least at the undergraduate level. ;) But for a creationist book, that one was almost decent. It however doesn't explain the genetic evidence, human chromosome fusion, endogenous retroviruses, dozens of pseudogenes or even the fossils it claims to deal with very well.

That book and several others try to classify each hominin fossil as human or ape, and the funny thing is, the books don't agree on them. Which should tell you something about those fossils.
 
Top