exegeting nature

[brett]

This comes from a comment Charlene made a while back claiming that scientific theories are too lofty for her to question. She just has to trust the mainstream (something like that anyway).

When a theologian interprets a passage, everyone seems to put on their Berean cap. But when a scientist interprets a facet of nature many christians seem to be content trusting in his credentials, perhaps thinking the concepts are beyond their intelectual reach. Shouldn't we be Bereans with all interpreters of God's revelation? Shouldn't we be scrutinizing scientists the same way we do theologians, even if it entails studying and learning science?

[CobraA1]

I agree.

What is a "Berean", by the way?

[Cephas]

Any honest scientist would tell you that scientific truth (with a lowercase "t") is open to revision. The scientific method proves nothing, but disproves that which is impalusible. Anything that retains status as scientifically true seems plausible.

Many scientists have a priori discounted the plausibility of a creation (through evolution or otherwise). Such thinking crosses over the realm of science, into dogma. And you thought only Christians worked that way....

[A Beautiful Truth]

This comes from a comment Charlene made a while back claiming that scientific theories are too lofty for her to question. She just has to trust the mainstream (something like that anyway).



Hey, Brett.

I just want to clear up what I said--I said GENERAL RELATIVITY is too lofty for me to grasp in any complete way. Big difference than "scientific theories" in general.

Just wanted to make sure that got cleared up--thanks Brett.

When we had brought this up previously, we were talking of Humphreys who wrote his book "Starlight and Time. Humphreys has been corrected on his "Starlight and Time" by two scientists learned in General Relativity and this was published in "Creation Ex Nihilo magazine. Since Humphreys does not publish his "Starlight and Time" work in any peer reviewed journals, what is a person like me supposed to think? He can't cut it outside his friendly circles. Now, I know from discussing this in the past that Humphreys has published non creation science in peer reviewed journals--but he has not published his Starlight and Time stuff in peer reviewed journals. Honestly, that makes me suspicious. He can make all his scientific claims on un-science trained Christians and they rally behind him. But he cannot publish such things and get away with it by those trained in General Relativity.

[Socratism]

Hey, Brett.

I just want to clear up what I said--I said GENERAL RELATIVITY is too lofty for me to grasp in any complete way. Big difference than "scientific theories" in general.

Just wanted to make sure that got cleared up--thanks Brett.

When we had brought this up previously, we were talking of Humphreys who wrote his book "Starlight and Time. Humphreys has been corrected on his "Starlight and Time" by two scientists learned in General Relativity and this was published in "Creation Ex Nihilo magazine. Since Humphreys does not publish his "Starlight and Time" work in any peer reviewed journals, what is a person like me supposed to think? He can't cut it outside his friendly circles. Now, I know from discussing this in the past that Humphreys has published non creation science in peer reviewed journals--but he has not published his Starlight and Time stuff in peer reviewed journals. Honestly, that makes me suspicious. He can make all his scientific claims on un-science trained Christians and they rally behind him. But he cannot publish such things and get away with it by those trained in General Relativity.

The subject of General Relativity is interesting because it seems that everyone talks about it but almost nobody seems to agree about what it means.

I am of the opinion that the best way to learn about it is to get hold of a book which simply presents the equations themselves. There is no analytical solution to the full blown equations. What people have done is to introduce simplifying assumptions which cause some of the terms to drop out, at which point an analytical solution then becomes possible. Obviously if these assumptions are not satisfied in the universe which we live in then the analytical solution is no good.

Thus, the statements which people make about something being predicted or not predicted by General Relativity should be interpreted as only applying to the case where the assumptions made to get a specific analytical solution are satisfied in the "realworld".

In my opinion the assumptions made to get an analytical solution of the equations of General Relativity are not satisfied in the universe which we humans live in.

[brett]

been out of town for a week. just got back.

Hey, Brett.

I just want to clear up what I said--I said GENERAL RELATIVITY is too lofty for me to grasp in any complete way. Big difference than "scientific theories" in general.

Isn't GR a scientific theory? And what do you mean by "in a complete way"?



When we had brought this up previously, we were talking of Humphreys who wrote his book "Starlight and Time. Humphreys has been corrected on his "Starlight and Time" by two scientists learned in General Relativity and this was published in "Creation Ex Nihilo magazine. Since Humphreys does not publish his "Starlight and Time" work in any peer reviewed journals, what is a person like me supposed to think?

Think like a Berean. Examine it in light of God's revelation (scripture & nature).


He can't cut it outside his friendly circles.

Nor can any born-again theologian. Would expect an atheist philosopher to approve of your favorite theologian?


Now, I know from discussing this in the past that Humphreys has published non creation science in peer reviewed journals--but he has not published his Starlight and Time stuff in peer reviewed journals. Honestly, that makes me suspicious.

Does it make you suspicious that RC Sproul doesn't publish his philosophical speculations in National Geographic?

[QUOTE=Charleen Lohman]
He can make all his scientific claims on un-science trained Christians and they rally behind him. But he cannot publish such things and get away with it by those trained in General Relativity.

This is just a flat out false statement. There are several trained creation scientists that agree with him. It's just that the majority of non-believing exegetes of nature dissagree with him.

You see you're making my point Charleen. You're not a trained theologian with a degree, yet you have no problem examining the claims of trained theologians (which I commend you for). But when it comes to those who interpret God's revelation in nature, you bow to the unbelieving majority and feel only they have the ability to discern was God has revealed. This is inconsistent to say the least. Why wouln't you expect christian scientists to be in the minority just as christian theologians are? After all, they are interpreting God's revealation. How could bias not come into play?

[Socratism]

been out of town for a week. just got back.

Have you read my comment on General Relativity?

Humphrey's uses the equations of General Relativity, but makes different assumptions than the ones that led to the Big Bang analytical solution.

Someone said he used the "Klein" metric rather than the Friedmann, et al metric. Thus he draws different conclusions than the proponents of the Big Bang do. Naturally the two sides disagree on who is right, and realistically they could both be wrong and some other solution might be the correct one.

Anyone who is putting great stock in any naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe (or of life either) is betting on a real long shot. There is simply not enough knowledge at this point in the development of science to be certain about current solutions to such difficult mysteries.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I just want to clear up what I said--I said GENERAL RELATIVITY is too lofty for me to grasp in any complete way. Big difference than "scientific theories" in general.


Isn't GR a scientific theory? And what do you mean by "in a complete way"?

First, I said scientific theories in general which is different than a scientific theory in particular, namely, General Relativity.

Second, understanding GR in any complete way would require mathmatical skills I do not grasp. Brett, to understand GR in any complete way requires college classes on the subject.


Think like a Berean. Examine it in light of God's revelation (scripture & nature).

Brett, while I think the scriptures tell us some things about nature, I do not believe it tells us everything about nature. Granted, it does tell us everything we need to know about nature. The Bible shows us nothing about General Relativity, except that matter, energy, space, and time all had a beginning. Now, the Bible did say it first, granted. We can make predictions about what we will find in nature based on scripture, but we need to test science with science. The Bible does not give the equations, however, and gaining mathmatical knowledge of GR "in light of God's revelation" simply does not apply. I never got past Algebra, do you think that I should expect the Holy Spirit to give me a revelation in the kind of math I would need to know to understand General Relativity?

He can't cut it outside his friendly circles.He can't cut it outside his friendly circles.

Nor can any born-again theologian. Would expect an atheist philosopher to approve of your favorite theologian?

When Russ Humpreys speaks about science, his science should be peer reviewed by scientists. When Russ Humpreys speaks about theology, his theology should be peer reviewed by theolgians. When I said Russ Humphreys should submit his work to peer review, I did not at all mean for him to submit the theological implications he draws from his science to scientific review. His science only should be submitted to scientists for review.

The YEC science community generally goes by scientifically unchecked, there is no real scientific accountability in making sure the science is right (they will admit they don't care to have accountability from those who disagree theologically with them), they generally present their interpretation of the evidence to those who are already predisposed to agree with them and there are no consistent checks and balances. Now, granted, AiG has had some checks and balances to its credit by debunking certain YEC claims that were so obviously "out there". Moon dust, dino-human tracks, Kent Hovind, to name a few. (I may be wrong about the moon dust argument, they may still use that one)

Now, if you were to say, well, of course the scientific community is not going to accept Russ, because they do not accept his premise, I would say that his premise has nothing to do with the accuracy of math and physics and his science is therefore subject to scientific review. Think about it, if this were not so, then why does Humphreys and AiG offer scientific "proof" for their claims? IMO, they should say their claims are theological, NOT SCIENTIFIC if their "scientific" claims are not up for scientific investigation. And personally, I think they should do that. If the scientific method does not apply to them because they believe their interpretation of scripture makes them somehow exempt, then they should not continue to call it science. It is fine, IMO, to just call it theology. They have a right to their interpretation.

And, Brett, it was not just the secular community who does not accept Humphrey's work, BUT OTHER CHRISTIANS as well. This CANNOT be pitted as a Christian vs. atheist argument, for it is not just atheistic scientists who decry Humphrey's science, but other Christian believing scientists as well.

This is just a flat out false statement. There are several trained creation scientists that agree with him.

Brett, are those "several" trained in general relativity? Anyone outside their area of expertise is a layman and cannot be considered real peer review.

It's just that the majority of non-believing exegetes of nature dissagree with him.

Again, it is not just atheistic scientists who disagree with Humphreys. This is not a Christian vs. atheist debate at all. This is just good science vs. faulty science, IMO.

You see my point, Charleen. You're not a trained theologian with a degree, yet you have no problem examining the claims of trained theologians (which I commend you for). But when it comes to those who interpret God's revelation in nature, you bow to the unbelieving majority and feel only they have the ability to discern was God has revealed. This is inconsistent to say the least.

Well, if your premises were true, I would agree that I was being inconsistent. When it comes to theology, one does not nessesarily need to be a "trained" theologian because ultimately the Holy Spirit is our teacher. Many of the apostles were untrained--mere fishermen, a tax collector, teenagers. Having a theological degree is not nessesary for investigating the claims of theologians. I do not believe the Lord would have it so.

Science is different, however. If I wanted to really understand cosmology, I need to understand math, physics, astronomy. These things are not nessesarily taught by the Holy Spirit--they are not "spiritual". Russ Humphreys theology was not the objection I raised in my post here, it was his theological bias somehow making his science exempt from investigation by natural means. He was making scientific claims about the natural world, it takes scientific tools to test those kind of physical claims. Russ Humphreys did not include a Biblical "fudge factor"--he presented his claims as objective science. By definition, then, he should subject his science to the scientific method or else call it what it is--theology--which is where I think he should. You see, it leaves his theories in an untouchable realm. Science CAN'T touch it because it is "biased" and Old Earth Creationist theologians CAN'T touch his interpretation of Genesis because Russ does not accept any other interpretation of scripture but his own. There is no testing--period. It is therefore rigged from the start--it CANNOT be proven wrong. That's not good science-- nor is it good theology. He looses in both regards, IMO.

And again, Brett--this cannot be pitted as Christians against atheists. There are plenty of scientist Christians who do not accept Young Earth Creationist cosmology. I think it again worthy to point out that it is not just those atheists who are against YEC, but other Christians as well. And these Christians come from both realms--science AND theology.

It seems to lessen the thinking that they just disagree because they do not have the Holy Spirit--that they do not have the "glasses" nessesary to interpret the natural world. I think where some YEC's make a mistake is to say that if a scientist Christian does not accept YEC, then they do not have the Holy Spirit and that is why they can't see the natural world properly--and thusly the YEC interpretation. Again, it is totally rigged so that they "can't" loose. It is badly done, IMO.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The subject of General Relativity is interesting because it seems that everyone talks about it but almost nobody seems to agree about what it means.

I am of the opinion that the best way to learn about it is to get hold of a book which simply presents the equations themselves. There is no analytical solution to the full blown equations. What people have done is to introduce simplifying assumptions which cause some of the terms to drop out, at which point an analytical solution then becomes possible. Obviously if these assumptions are not satisfied in the universe which we live in then the analytical solution is no good.

Thus, the statements which people make about something being predicted or not predicted by General Relativity should be interpreted as only applying to the case where the assumptions made to get a specific analytical solution are satisfied in the "realworld".

In my opinion the assumptions made to get an analytical solution of the equations of General Relativity are not satisfied in the universe which we humans live in.

General Relativity assumes a created universe--all matter, energy, space, and time created a finite time ago. Is there something questionable about that to you?

Do you notice a comparison between the things you disagree with scientifically about GR also happen to be the things you disagree with theologically (Old Earth Creation)?

[Socratism]

General Relativity assumes a created universe--all matter, energy, space, and time created a finite time ago. Is there something questionable about that to you?

Do you notice a comparison between the things you disagree with scientifically about GR also happen to be the things you disagree with theologically (Old Earth Creation)?

What makes you think I disagree with GR? I don't recall ever saying that, and it would be strange if I had, because I don't.

[A Beautiful Truth]

What makes you think I disagree with GR? I don't recall ever saying that, and it would be strange if I had, because I don't.

Sorry about that Socratism. I had misunderstood the following quote of yours out of context, apparently.

Anyone who is putting great stock in any naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe (or of life either) is betting on a real long shot. There is simply not enough knowledge at this point in the development of science to be certain about current solutions to such difficult mysteries.

I thought you meant this about GR, my apologies.

Perhaps you know the anwer to a question I have: why is it that so many YEC's want to cast doubt on GR?

[Socratism]

Sorry about that Socratism. I had misunderstood the following quote of yours out of context, apparently.



I thought you meant this about GR, my apologies.

Perhaps you know the anwer to a question I have: why is it that so many YEC's want to cast doubt on GR?

Probably because they erroneously believe that the Big Bang solutions to the GR equations are the same as the GR equations themselves.

The Big Bang equations were derived from the GR equations by making some assumptions that are not true, one of which is that the universe is homogeneous. In addition proponents have taken great liberties with the original basic BB idea, such as assuming an early period of unbelievably rapid expansion, something for which there is not a shred of evidence. They do this in an attempt to make the equations fit reality, but they are fooling themselves that this is science. One can do anything in the world of mathematics, but math is considered highly useful only when the equations naturally lead to predicting what happens in the real world. Forcing it to fit by introducing dubious unsupported gimmicks is a very bad idea and will eventually give science a very bad name when the truth becomes known and fully appreciated.

You do realize I believe that this is exactly what happened in the Galileo affair when scientists were so dogmatic about Aristotle's concept that they introduced mathematical "gimmicks" (epicycles) to make the equations agree with the observations of the positions of the planets. They were so good at this complex math that they could "fit" the planetary motions more accurately than Galileo could with his far simpler heliocentric equations (Galileo knew about the elliptical orbit idea but rejected it in favor of the more "perfect" circular orbits).

[brett]

First, I said scientific theories in general which is different than a scientific theory in particular, namely, General Relativity.

Second, understanding GR in any complete way would require mathmatical skills I do not grasp. Brett, to understand GR in any complete way requires college classes on the subject.

Oh man! I hear the same thing about theology from seminary students. The truth is, you can learn about anything you want as long as you’re determined to do so. Did you know Bill Gates doesn’t have a degree in business?


Brett, while I think the scriptures tell us some things about nature, I do not believe it tells us everything about nature.

Nor does it tell of everything about God.


Granted, it does tell us everything we need to know about nature. The Bible shows us nothing about General Relativity, except that matter, energy, space, and time all had a beginning. Now, the Bible did say it first, granted. We can make predictions about what we will find in nature based on scripture, but we need to test science with science. The Bible does not give the equations, however, and gaining mathmatical knowledge of GR "in light of God's revelation" simply does not apply. I never got past Algebra, do you think that I should expect the Holy Spirit to give me a revelation in the kind of math I would need to know to understand General Relativity?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I hope you’re not depending on a Holy Spirit revelation in other areas of theology.


When Russ Humpreys speaks about science, his science should be peer reviewed by scientists. When Russ Humpreys speaks about theology, his theology should be peer reviewed by theolgians. When I said Russ Humphreys should submit his work to peer review, I did not at all mean for him to submit the theological implications he draws from his science to scientific review. His science only should be submitted to scientists for review.

Are his works not public for anyone to scrutinize?


The YEC science community generally goes by scientifically unchecked, there is no real scientific accountability in making sure the science is right (they will admit they don't care to have accountability from those who disagree theologically with them), they generally present their interpretation of the evidence to those who are already predisposed to agree with them and there are no consistent checks and balances.

These are very general and charges and very suspect. What exactly do you mean by checks and balances? Should conservative theologians rely on the Jesus seminar for balance? After all, this is a very educated bunch.


Now, granted, AiG has had some checks and balances to its credit by debunking certain YEC claims that were so obviously "out there". Moon dust, dino-human tracks, Kent Hovind, to name a few. (I may be wrong about the moon dust argument, they may still use that one)

I thought you said YEC’s don’t care about science?


Now, if you were to say, well, of course the scientific community is not going to accept Russ, because they do not accept his premise, I would say that his premise has nothing to do with the accuracy of math and physics and his science is therefore subject to scientific review.

If his works are not out there, how has anybody been able to criticize him? In fact in his book he very humbly invited critique and claimed his theory was still open to adjustments. You would know this if were willing to read it. Charlene I don’t see any logic in your arguments. It sounds like YECs and OECs are critiquing each other left and right. Sounds like there’s a good healthy debate going on. I think the part you don’t like is that YECs actually believe they’re right.


Think about it, if this were not so, then why does Humphreys and AiG offer scientific "proof" for their claims? IMO, they should say their claims are theological, NOT SCIENTIFIC if their "scientific" claims are not up for scientific investigation. And personally, I think they should do that. If the scientific method does not apply to them because they believe their interpretation of scripture makes them somehow exempt, then they should not continue to call it science. It is fine, IMO, to just call it theology. They have a right to their interpretation.

They offer proof to their claims to show that what is revealed in God’s Word is compatible with what we see in God’s world. Why does that offend you so? It seems the only way they could not offend you is to admit they’re wrong.


And, Brett, it was not just the secular community who does not accept Humphrey's work, BUT OTHER CHRISTIANS as well. This CANNOT be pitted as a Christian vs. atheist argument, for it is not just atheistic scientists who decry Humphrey's science, but other Christian believing scientists as well.

And there are many christians that reject biblical inerrancy. I suppose that’s not a christian/atheist debate either.


Brett, are those "several" trained in general relativity? Anyone outside their area of expertise is a layman and cannot be considered real peer review.

So then all we can do is go with the majority? The majority of biblical scholarship rejects inerrancy. Since I don’t have degrees in biblical languages, archeology, history, etc., I guess the majority must be right.


Again, it is not just atheistic scientists who disagree with Humphreys. This is not a Christian vs. atheist debate at all. This is just good science vs. faulty science, IMO.

Good thing your opinion doesn’t count since you didn’t get past algebra.


Well, if your premises were true, I would agree that I was being inconsistent. When it comes to theology, one does not nessesarily need to be a "trained" theologian because ultimately the Holy Spirit is our teacher. Many of the apostles were untrained--mere fishermen, a tax collector, teenagers. Having a theological degree is not nessesary for investigating the claims of theologians. I do not believe the Lord would have it so.

My goodness all this studying I’ve done and all I had to do was just ask the Holy Spirit which theological system was correct? Doh! What in the world am I messing with these lexicons for?


Science is different, however. If I wanted to really understand cosmology, I need to understand math, physics, astronomy. These things are not nessesarily taught by the Holy Spirit--they are not "spiritual". Russ Humphreys theology was not the objection I raised in my post here, it was his theological bias somehow making his science exempt from investigation by natural means.

How do you know this having never read his works?


He was making scientific claims about the natural world, it takes scientific tools to test those kind of physical claims. Russ Humphreys did not include a Biblical "fudge factor"--he presented his claims as objective science.

Actually, from the book I read, his whole theory was built on bible passages.


By definition, then, he should subject his science to the scientific method or else call it what it is--theology--which is where I think he should. You see, it leaves his theories in an untouchable realm. Science CAN'T touch it because it is "biased" and Old Earth Creationist theologians CAN'T touch his interpretation of Genesis because Russ does not accept any other interpretation of scripture but his own. There is no testing--period. It is therefore rigged from the start--it CANNOT be proven wrong. That's not good science-- nor is it good theology. He looses in both regards, IMO.

More unfair charges. He is very humble about this theory and even admits it may be disproved in the near future. You don’t have half the humility he does.


And again, Brett--this cannot be pitted as Christians against atheists. There are plenty of scientist Christians who do not accept Young Earth Creationist cosmology. I think it again worthy to point out that it is not just those atheists who are against YEC, but other Christians as well. And these Christians come from both realms--science AND theology.

Therefore?


It seems to lessen the thinking that they just disagree because they do not have the Holy Spirit--that they do not have the "glasses" nessesary to interpret the natural world. I think where some YEC's make a mistake is to say that if a scientist Christian does not accept YEC, then they do not have the Holy Spirit and that is why they can't see the natural world properly--and thusly the YEC interpretation. Again, it is totally rigged so that they "can't" loose. It is badly done, IMO.

I see nothing but bitter emotionalism in your opinions. You really are letting this debate change you. All you’ve done is give excuse after excuse why you can’t be a Berean when it comes to interpretations of God’s world. It’s the same excuse I hear many christians use for not scrutinizing their teachers. They just feel they have to trust the “experts.” And it’s the same excuse I hear many non believers use to not read the Bible. They know what the experts on the History Chanel say about it. Experts with degrees in history and archeology and many other disciplines. I have no problem with the OEers who scrutinize the so called experts in all camps and come to their own conclusions (even if I dissagree with them). I have very little respect for those who just follow the majority.

[Socrates]

When we had brought this up previously, we were talking of Humphreys who wrote his book "Starlight and Time. Humphreys has been corrected on his "Starlight and Time" by two scientists learned in General Relativity and this was published in "Creation Ex Nihilo magazine.
It was actually Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now TJ). what was Charleen saying about Humphreys avoiding peer review? :bounce: And in the very same issue, Dr H refuted his critics! Evidently Charleen hasn't actually read this (let alone understood it), but merely accepted Ross's spin-doctoring.

Since Humphreys does not publish his "Starlight and Time" work in any peer reviewed journals, what is a person like me supposed to think?
Yes he does -- TJ is peer-reviewed as Charleen intimated herself!!

He can't cut it outside his friendly circles.
How pathetic--ALL criticism of evolutionary materialism is censored in mainstream scientific journals. That's why creationists have to start their own. You're deluding yourself if you think ANY anti-evolutionary papers, even Ross's, would have a ghost of a chance getting published. Your argument is identical to that of evolutionists to their critics when they haven't a chance of dealing with the actual anti-evolutionary arguments!

Now, I know from discussing this in the past that Humphreys has published non creation science in peer reviewed journals--but he has not published his Starlight and Time stuff in peer reviewed journals. Honestly, that makes me suspicious.
Pity you're not more suspicious of those who use science to override Scripture.

He can make all his scientific claims on un-science trained Christians and they rally behind him. But he cannot publish such things and get away with it by those trained in General Relativity.
He is trained in GR and his papers have support from those trained in GR. They are the ones who can separate the real science from the assumptions. The big bang uses both GR and the assumption that the universe has no centre or edge. Dr H discards only the second one, but his critics are too blind to see that.

[Socrates]

Perhaps you know the anwer to a question I have: why is it that so many YEC's want to cast doubt on GR?
:shoot: Perhaps you know the anwer to a question I have: why is it that so many anti-YEC's continually ask loaded questions? :huh:

[Socrates]

Brett, while I think the scriptures tell us some things about nature, I do not believe it tells us everything about nature. Granted, it does tell us everything we need to know about nature. The Bible shows us nothing about General Relativity, except that matter, energy, space, and time all had a beginning. Now, the Bible did say it first, granted. We can make predictions about what we will find in nature based on scripture, but we need to test science with science.
Brett's Berean reference is

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Compare with

Acts of Charleen 17:11 Now the old-earthers were of more noble character than the young-earthers, for they received Hugh Ross's message with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to test them against uniformitarian science and reinterpreting them accordingly.

However, if such an evidentialist approach is used, then a Christian will be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of "evidence". See my reply to such an anguished person, explaining to him the role of presuppositions in interpreting the evidence www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=589542&postcount=24

When Russ Humpreys speaks about science, his science should be peer reviewed by scientists. When Russ Humpreys speaks about theology, his theology should be peer reviewed by theolgians. When I said Russ Humphreys should submit his work to peer review, I did not at all mean for him to submit the theological implications he draws from his science to scientific review. His science only should be submitted to scientists for review.
And it is! :bonk:

The YEC science community generally goes by scientifically unchecked, there is no real scientific accountability in making sure the science is right (they will admit they don't care to have accountability from those who disagree theologically with them), they generally present their interpretation of the evidence to those who are already predisposed to agree with them and there are no consistent checks and balances.
Charleen "I never got past algebra" Lohman loves to judge YEC scientists. And once again, there is no acknowledgement of the role of axioms. And where are the checks and balances on Ross's RTB publications?

Now, granted, AiG has had some checks and balances to its credit by debunking certain YEC claims that were so obviously "out there". Moon dust, dino-human tracks, Kent Hovind, to name a few. (I may be wrong about the moon dust argument, they may still use that one)
Evidently Charleen never even bothered to check!! Sheesh, it was AiG's major article that killed this in the mainstream creationist community -- Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp), and it's linked prominently from AiG's Don't Use page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)! Charleen's credibility would go up several orders of magnitude if she showed evidence of actually reading that which she attacks. :read:

[brett]

Wow, looks like Soc refuted every strawman you put out there. I'm not going to accuse you of being dishonest, but it appears you didn't do your homework before leveling so many of those accusations against Dr. H. Can't wait to see your response.

It was actually Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now TJ). what was Charleen saying about Humphreys avoiding peer review? :bounce: And in the very same issue, Dr H refuted his critics! Evidently Charleen hasn't actually read this (let alone understood it), but merely accepted Ross's spin-doctoring.


Yes he does -- TJ is peer-reviewed as Charleen intimated herself!!


How pathetic--ALL criticism of evolutionary materialism is censored in mainstream scientific journals. That's why creationists have to start their own. You're deluding yourself if you think ANY anti-evolutionary papers, even Ross's, would have a ghost of a chance getting published. Your argument is identical to that of evolutionists to their critics when they haven't a chance of dealing with the actual anti-evolutionary arguments!


Pity you're not more suspicious of those who use science to override Scripture.


He is trained in GR and his papers have support from those trained in GR. They are the ones who can separate the real science from the assumptions. The big bang uses both GR and the assumption that the universe has no centre or edge. Dr H discards only the second one, but his critics are too blind to see that.

Brett's Berean reference is

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Compare with

Acts of Charleen 17:11 Now the old-earthers were of more noble character than the young-earthers, for they received Hugh Ross's message with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to test them against uniformitarian science and reinterpreting them accordingly.

However, if such an evidentialist approach is used, then a Christian will be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of "evidence". See my reply to such an anguished person, explaining to him the role of presuppositions in interpreting the evidence www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=589542&postcount=24


And it is! :bonk:


* edited by a moderator * And once again, there is no acknowledgement of the role of axioms. And where are the checks and balances on Ross's RTB publications?


Evidently Charleen never even bothered to check!! Sheesh, it was AiG's major article that killed this in the mainstream creationist community -- Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp), and it's linked prominently from AiG's Don't Use page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)! Charleen's credibility would go up several orders of magnitude if she showed evidence of actually reading that which she attacks. :read: