Rand Paul Won’t Say How Old the Earth Is. (Whiny liberal hates Creationists)

True/Slant ^ | 6-28-2010 | Charles Johnson

[goodusername]

“P is supported by eliminating all alternatives. Otherwise you are simply engaging in logical fallacy. That’s the point.”

—No, P would be PROVEN by eliminating all alternatives (a feat that’s unrealistic). Why do you equate PROVEN with mere SUPPORT?!

“What you are beginning to realize are the limits of science because theories are dependent on logical fallacy.”

—Yes, science is limited – but not because theories can’t be SUPPORTED, but because they can’t be PROVEN.

The fallacy is in equating the two – which is what you are doing – although in a new bizarre way. The fallacy tells us that although theories can be “supported” that they can’t be “proven” – and thus warns against equating the two. You likewise equate the two by saying that since theories can’t be proven that they thus can’t be supported! (This may be the discovery of a new fallacy – I wonder if you get to name it? :-) ) Which would mean all science is a fallacy (which at least you admit “theories are dependent on logical fallacy”).

“It is not a ‘logical certainty’ or ‘absolutely proven’ that P is supported. It may appear that P is supported but alternatives to P may be supported as well.”

—Yes, that’s one of the differences between “supported” and “proven”. Multiple competing theories may be supported by a finding, but of course multiple competing theories can’t be proven true.

[TXnMA]

Working on an illustrated response -- and hoping for a good Christian-to-Christian exchange...

Later...

[TXnMA]

Score a big one for the C_C! LOL!

Nicely done!

[morkfork]

Show me how c, the speed of light, is not constant with time and I’ll concede the whole argument. Experimental verification. Show it. Not possibles. Not could bes. Where’s the data?

Because if c changes w.r.t time (not medium but age of universe), the mu naught and episilon naught change. Fundamental constants of the universe as we know it. The only possible way I’ve seen is the primordial universal soup very, very, close to Big Bang. When the forces were still together. Most anyway. But colliders haven’t shown this as of yet. It’s still a “maybe.”

Back it up, Cowboy. ;) Because if you can show this is observable, then the can of worms you’ve opened includes all you say. Until then,.........

[morkfork]

Missed that. Good catch on proven vs. supported.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Thanks; I did think it a shame that you hadn't previously gotten an answer to your question on the matter, because the fact is that Creationist Scientists really have done some fascinating (I think) work on the subject of Biblical-Creationary Spatial-Time Dilation. "Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4."

So, I was pleased to offer my few musings on the sibject. It's not an area of expertise for me, but it is an area of interest.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Score a big one for the C_C! LOL! Nicely done!

Heh. Don't forget to tip your waitresses, folks; I'll be performing here all week....

[GourmetDan]

P"—No, P would be PROVEN by eliminating all alternatives (a feat that’s unrealistic). Why do you equate PROVEN with mere SUPPORT?!"

Because to claim that P is supported without eliminating all alternatives is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"—Yes, science is limited – but not because theories can’t be SUPPORTED, but because they can’t be PROVEN."

They aren't really supported. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"The fallacy is in equating the two – which is what you are doing – although in a new bizarre way. The fallacy tells us that although theories can be “supported” that they can’t be “proven” – and thus warns against equating the two. You likewise equate the two by saying that since theories can’t be proven that they thus can’t be supported! (This may be the discovery of a new fallacy – I wonder if you get to name it? :-) ) Which would mean all science is a fallacy (which at least you admit “theories are dependent on logical fallacy”)."

All theories are dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. They appear to be supported until they fail. Unless they are based on the philosophy of naturalism, in which case they are unfalsifiable. Evolution fits this scenario.

"—Yes, that’s one of the differences between “supported” and “proven”. Multiple competing theories may be supported by a finding, but of course multiple competing theories can’t be proven true."

Which is why it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to claim that any single theory is supported. It never was supported. You just thought it was because you engaged in logical falllacy.

[GourmetDan]

"Show me how c, the speed of light, is not constant with time and I’ll concede the whole argument. Experimental verification. Show it. Not possibles. Not could bes. Where’s the data?"

You show me how c has been constant over the past 10 billion years. Experimental verfication. Show it. Not possibles. Not could bes. Where are the experiments?

You claim to be a published scientist and a reviewer and you ask others to produce data that you yourself can't? Why am I not surprised by such 'scientific' behavior?

"Because if c changes w.r.t time (not medium but age of universe), the mu naught and episilon naught change. Fundamental constants of the universe as we know it. The only possible way I’ve seen is the primordial universal soup very, very, close to Big Bang. When the forces were still together. Most anyway. But colliders haven’t shown this as of yet. It’s still a “maybe.”

You could have looked at Setterfield's work like I had suggested and you would know the answer. But you didn't. Here's one example (Ctrl F for "permittivity") and there are plenty of other articles where Setterfield deals with this (Ctrl F for "permittivity" on his site).

"Back it up, Cowboy. ;) Because if you can show this is observable, then the can of worms you’ve opened includes all you say. Until then,........."

OK Cowboy. ;-) If you can show that a constant c is experimentially observable over the past 10 billion years, then the can of worms you've opened includes all you say.

Until then, all you've shown is the typical 'scientific' tactic of requiring your opponent to produce data that you yourself can't.

[aruanan]

Best post I’ve seen on the age of the earth debate.

That’s a keeper.

Thank you.

You're welcome!

[TXnMA]

First of all, Thank you for answering! I hope for us to make and keep this a sharing between two Christian brothers. Others may (and probably will) chime in -- but this is intended as a friendly dialogue and sharing in fellowship between you, (Christian_Capitalist) and me (TXnMA) -- a born-again Christian and Creationist (who also happens to be a retired physical chemist.)

My question was, simply, "How many galaxies could Moses see?" (I mentioned nothing about the question of "distant starlight", per se -- so, you did a thorough job of chasing a rabbit that wasn't even running! <smile> However, if you'll bear with me while I "chase my 'galaxies rabbit", I 'll join you in a discussion of "distant starlight" later. -- OK?) ;-)

Your initial answer, "I assume that Moses could see roughly as many galaxies as we can see today. " is generally correct -- and spectacularly wrong!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since you are on the "US" message board, I assume that you and I share Moses' general observation location: the northern hemisphere. Moses, (if he had at least 20/20 eyesight) was, like us, able to see with his unaided eyes (all Moses had available) exactly two galaxies:

~~~~~~~~~~~

1) M31 in Andromeda -- our own galaxy's nearest neighbor:

That image, of course, was made with a modern astronomical telescope and camera. To the unaided eye, M31 is a much smaller, fuzzier, and fainter "smudge" than even as shown in this extended-exposure photo.

In fact, M31 is so difficult to see with the unaided eye that, when I can see it, I know that the "seeing" conditions are good enough for me to go to the trouble of dragging out the big telescope...

But, with far less light pollution and clear desert skies, Moses almost certainly was able to see M31.

(That's one...)

~~~~~~~~~~~

2) And, certainly, Moses could see part of the "Milky Way":

which is, of course, our own galaxy -- "from the inside"...

(That's two -- and that's all...)

~~~~~~~~~~~

So, Your initial answer, "I assume that Moses could see roughly as many galaxies as we can see today (two -- with our unaided eyes). " is basically correct.

~~~~~~~~~~~

However, praise the Lord, He equipped man with the brain and the hands to invent and make tools to augment his (unaided) eyes -- so we now have tools like the Hubble telescope to expand and extend our view and understanding of His created universe. Amazingly, whenever we point Hubble at an "empty" spot "between" nearby stars, we see something like this:

And, if we have Hubble "stare" at an "empty" space between those distant galaxies, we see something like this "Hubble Ultra deep field" image:

With the exception of less than a handul of nearby stars, every object in those last two Hubble images is a galaxy! That is more galaxies -- each composed of billions of "suns" -- in a space on the night sky you can cover with the head of a pin, held at arms length -- than we can count!!

And, everywhere we point Hubble, the density of galaxies is essentially the same.

I don't know about you, but the incomprehensible scope, complexity, magnitude -- and sheer majesty of even that mere glimpse of the extent of God's creation is almost more than my mind can comprehend.

~~~~~~~~~~~

It is my viewpoint that, since our Creator has provided us with the wherewithal to "see" a much more grand and comprehensive view of His Creation than was available to Moses (or to Bishop Ussher, for that matter) we bear the burden and responsibility of having a much more grand -- and far less limited and limiting --conception of Him than it was possible for Moses (or Ussher) to achieve.

For, our Lord Himself, said:

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48b

(Scripture context and comentary at the link...)

~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so far?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent essay-post, dear brother in Christ! Beautiful!

[TXnMA]

FReepMail for you...

[Christian_Capitalist]

Yes. God created a very big universe for Mankind to appreciate and explore. I’m with you so far.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Great! I’ll FReepMail back later today or (more likely) tomorrow; at the moment I was just checking in to read your presentation. Thanks!

[Christian_Capitalist]

World History is not the same as engineering and physics with respect to GPA or scholarship.

FWIW, I will acknowledge that you are right about this. History is definitely a "soft science" and winning the State Championship in World History just involved a lot of rote memorization, no actual thinking. The smartest friend I have (who was on the same team which my high school sent to the State Championships) didn't win first place in anything -- but he took both 2nd in State in Music (Music Theory, I think they were testing?) and also 3rd in State in Mathematics; so given the breadth and depth of his intellect, I've always suspected that he's a bit smarter than li'l ole me.

Ergo, I'll concede the italicized comment as correct. Sorry, hadn't thought about responding to that part of your post until just now.

[whattajoke]

While science is used to provide support for the ToE, GD is correct about it being a philosophical construct.

Is GourmetDan also correct about the sun orbiting the earth?

[whattajoke]

What is it with you creationists? Always feeling the need to puff out your chest? It’s so weird. You did well on you SAT’s. You went to a Jr. College and did well there. You apparently won some world history trivia contest while there for your state.

All these things are wonderful. But so what, man? You’re falling prey one of the creationist cliches - the one where if you go to AiG of DI you’ll notice very similar puffery. PhD’s here and MS’s there. Of course, for 80% of them, when one digs deeper, one finds that many of these “degrees” are from diploma mills and Christian colleges with no accreditation.

I also happen to think you miss the true nature of Rand Paul’s sidestep. I think he does accept an old-earth and didn’t want to a) lie to the young-earthers in the crowd and/or b) didn’t want to tell them the truth and upset their myopia.

I WISH all creationists just kept to your idea of the free-market and “breeding” overcoming the evil scourge of science. That’s a nice, quiet and quaint (albeit ridiculous) “solution” that would allow science to progress without impediment. So please, carry on in your fight.

[Christian_Capitalist]

You did well on you SAT’s. You went to a Jr. College and did well there. You apparently won some world history trivia contest while there for your state.

Um, no. Actually, the junior college in question hosted the High School State Championships in 1991.
I won the State Championship for World History. My buddy Isaac took 2nd in State for Music and 3rd in Mathematics. It was a good haul for our high school.

I never went to junior college, I always had full scholarhips (from the State Board of Regents) for any university in the State I wished to attend.

What is it with you creationists? Always feeling the need to puff out your chest? It’s so weird. You did well on you SAT’s. You went to a Jr. College and did well there. You apparently won some world history trivia contest while there for your state.

Look, when somebody jumps onto the thread for the sole purpose of claiming that Creationists are the "lowest-IQ fools on the planet", I'm going to respond by pointing out that, by any objective measure, the Creationists he's insulting have MUCH higher IQs than he does.

If it's not your fight, why are you jumping into it? I didn't look up your posts for the purpose of insulting you.

I WISH all creationists just kept to your idea of the free-market and “breeding” overcoming the evil scourge of science. That’s a nice, quiet and quaint (albeit ridiculous) “solution” that would allow science to progress without impediment. So please, carry on in your fight.

Well, thank you for that. I do agree that the abolition of Government Schooling, and with it the subsidy provided for the teaching of Evolutionism, is the only fair and just resolution for the problem.