Science always changes so my views have nothing to do with which science makes the most sense.
So I find here on the forum that if people don’t like someone’s YEC explanation they’ll assume it’s a lie rather assume than that their understanding is flawed, as if YEC exists to deliberately mislead people.
Actually I think evolution as an origins theory is misleading too. And I’d rather give Christians the benefit of the doubt rather than a scientific consensus that’s dominated by atheists. However, that doesn’t mean Christians can’t sin or make mistakes, which again is why I don’t rely on their science to inform my views of what the Bible means. If there is a clear consensus of Christian scientists, then that would inform my view of biblical non-essentials. No death before sin is an essential.
No, I actually found the guy to be lying in his book. I read the paper he cited, I read what he said the paper was saying. It was not saying that at all. In fact, it was very clearly saying the opposite. I read his back and forth with another scientist, and I still think he’s lying. He misrepresented Kimura’s work, and as a trained scientist, he should know better.
I don’t think every YEC lies. I do find their explanations to be quite ridiculous at times. They go way out of their way to shove science into the text when the original author was not trying to convey scientific information. That’s not lying though. Imaginative thinking maybe, but not lying.
Misrepresenting another scientist though… that’s lying.
My approach has always been to try to make the most charitable interpretation. If the choice is between ignorance and dishonesty, I will assume ignorance.
That lasts only until the ignorance has been dispelled, though. If the error has been corrected but the person continues to make that claim or use that ‘evidence’, then they have moved into dishonesty.
Further, if someone seeks to make a claim in a field, it behooves them to inform themselves so as to avoid making ignorant claims in the first place.
And you are right. Evolution is not an origins story. OoL hypotheses posit how life may have got going on Earth. Evolutionary theory does not explain origin of life on Earth; it explains how life diversified from a single (successful) origin. This is basic stuff that you should be aware of.
That’s a big claim. You need to provide precise quotes please and links to the other conversation about it so @thoughtful and the rest of us can verify what you are saying is true. It is not fair play to make accusations of dishonesty without presenting evidence.
I suppose it is not always easy to determine whether someone is making an honestly ignorant and stupid error, as opposed to mendaciously lying, when saying something that is obviously incorrect. That’s fair enough.
However, if one is appraising the evidence from an honest and informed position, there should be no confusion over the fact that the false claim is being rejected because it is false and not just because “people don’t like” it.
Uh huh. I guess we should at least be thankful that you openly admit to practicing religious discrimination, rather than being cagey about it.
I’m assuming that you would not base your views of science on the consensus of Christian scientists? At least you wouldn’t in the 20th and 21st centuries? (as before then Western science was based on the consensus of Christians). This isn’t religious discrimination; it’s a personal view of evaluating evidence.
I will provide that information tonight or tomorrow morning. Thankfully, I do have it saved on my computer, as I do not own the book. I had only borrowed it from my preacher during a discussion we had after he talked about the “Primary Axiom of evolution” in a sermon, and I told him that I had never heard scientists use that term but Google had found that book. He said that was where he got it and asked if I wanted to read the book. I did.
If you have the book, it’s in chapter 2. If you don’t have the book, this topic comes up often enough that I think it would be worth you reading it to know what’s being presented. But I’ll post quotes and a link to Kimura’s paper later.
If you want to use scripture to criticize me specifically, please cite a specific passage and explain exactly how I am at fault. Then we can have a discussion. Otherwise it feels like trolling because you’ve repeated this before.
I would and do base my views of science on the views (consensus is a bit of a complex one) of scientists who are Christians, since a majority are.
I don’t base my views of science on the views of creationist scientists , but that is not a religious discrimination, it’s the evidence-based science discrimination without which doing science is impossible.
 There are questions about whether there even are creationist scientists. There are creationists who are scientists, but typically when they are doing science they are not doing creationism and vice versa. This is an evidence-based perspective.