Ah, good old argumentum ad consequentiam.

This is why the creationists have already lost, despite a few 'brave' rallying attempts to stem the tide.

Reality will always be there.

In other words, Dan, you are too hopelessly compromised by your faith not to be forced into defending it with false science.

That's OK, but why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Luciferace, where is there a compromise?

I said I'm quite happy to try and address specific questions on the text of that book. You asked me to say whether I agreed with a particular sentence within a given section. So I gave you my understanding of it.

If you see some 'falsity' somewhere, then you're quite welcome to explain what and where that is.

=

Creationists have already lost? You wish, Bugsy.

=

Pericles,
The Creation Answers Book is like a large FAQ sheet in that it tries to answer the most commonly asked questions on the topic of Creation/evolution. If it deals with something rather ‘esoteric’ such as who was Cain's wife, it’s because many people are asking that question. And it’s not necessarily the faithful, it’s moreso the Bible sceptics who are asking how did Cain find a wife if he wasn’t able.

Pericles, last Monday you quoted the Creation Answers Book, page 92, but omitted the bracketed part at the end:

“The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).”

Creationists here are being candid and specific about their philosophical commitments (as Christians, they’re committed to the Scriptures.) Similarly, they point out the materialists’ (evolutionists) commitment to materialism. It’s inescapable that we each look at the world through our own philosophical framework, our own prejudices and biases. For example, a fossil hunter who thinks there ought to be links between groups will go out looking for missing links, believing they are there to be found. Any fossil found will then be appropriated somewhere into that preconceived framework. This is an example of what you described above as assuming the answer before you ask the question.

Especially for non repeatable events, people governed by different biases will look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions on what happened.

We observe the same data, in the case above: light from stars, red shift in the spectrum, measures of time and light speed, etc. (Creationists apply the same maths and physics generally accepted by all cosmologists i.e. general relativity). Our cosmology is then informed by our assumptions. Some are arbitrary (such as including a bounded universe or unbounded) if they can only be decided upon by philosophical considerations. Some may gain commendation for their ability to account for more of the evidence.

Humphries is claiming p.94 that “Galaxies tend to be grouped in concentric spherical shells around our home galaxy. … Such a pattern would not be observable if Earth was not near the centre of the Universe.”

p.97 “Indeed, the observed anomalous acceleration (towards the sun) of distant Pioneer spacecraft is consistent with the essentials of several creationist cosmologies—a cosmic centre of mass, expansion of space, and recent time dilation.”

Luciferace,
All events must have a sufficient cause. Creationists are not concocting God for scientific purposes. They are proposing the only adequate cause that can account for the evidence. The more evidence we upturn (in the spirit of Bacon), the more the materialist explanation wears thinner with holes.

‘Daily, new discoveries add to our knowledge of the breathtaking complexity of life, making the idea of the spontaneous origin of life more and more untenable. Antony Flew, famous hard-nosed English atheistic philosopher, abandoned atheism because of the weight of evidence from these modern discoveries. He said, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” This research, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”.’

As I said to Pericles, we choose our own parameters often on philosophical or historical considerations. Yet you are mistaken if you say that Creationists then are ignoring the evidence or not accepting when the evidence is against them. This is clear from the ‘Answers’ book, p.97, “All theories of fallible people, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. The white hole cosmology discussed above does not provide the correct amount of time dilation, but it is certainly headed in the right direction with encouraging theoretical and observational support.”

We appear once again to be going round in pointless circles, Dan S de Merengue.

You say that you are happy to engage in a discussion on the content of Answers, but when I attempt to do so, you simply fall back on the defence "It’s inescapable that we each look at the world through our own philosophical framework".

This does not take the discussion forward. It does not attempt to analyse the relative strengths of one position against another, for the simple reason that you insist on separate measurements for each.

>>The Creation Answers Book is like a large FAQ sheet in that it tries to answer the most commonly asked questions on the topic of Creation/evolution.<<

Not really. It simply selects a few bits of data here and there, in order to build its alternate view.

In exactly the same manner that the 9/11 fantasist has concocted an entire alternate theory that the destruction of the WTC was a CIA plot, from the supposed existence of "nanothermite", Answers builds an alternate theory of the universe based upon marginally-relevant science.

>>If it deals with something rather ‘esoteric’ such as who was Cain's wife, it’s because many people are asking that question<<

Maybe. But the logic with which it approaches the topic is entirely (biblically) self-referential, hence entirely meaningless to anyone seriously interested in young-earth creationism. It is merely a tacked-on apologia, relevant only to those with a need to believe in Adam and Eve. To anyone else, it substantiates the story in much the same way as the folk around Loch Ness insist that it is quite possible for a monster to exist in its depths.

The fact that it is possible, does not constitute evidence that Nessie exists. The fact that it is also possible to contort the theory of relativity in a particular way so that it fits your picture of the universe, does not constitute "much evidence and reasoned argument".

Disappointing.

I think I'll leave it at that, unless you have something new and illuminating to add.