Critical Thinking with Scott Weckerly
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- We welcome for the first time Scott Weckerly of Mission Apologetics. Scott is an apologist and a drummer. This week, he'll be helping us sharpen our apologetics skills with a lesson on critical thinking!
missionapologe...
creationfellowshipsantee@gmail.com
Like our page on Facebook to see our upcoming events. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
In Genesis chapter 1, we see it stated that God created a dome over the earth, and then God took water from the earth and placed it over the dome, and then God created the sun, the moon, and the stars and placed them in the dome. Thus, the water from the earth is over the dome, and thus over the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Would you care to explain this?
Hello everyone. I'm a drummer and I'll be giving a talk about why the earth is flat and all science is wrong because I lack any education and Humility.
Thank you for conceding the truth of my presentation by using the logically fallacious ad hominem attack and the total falsehood of the subject matter and my education. The lack of humility is all yours.
@@scottweckerly9028 if you understood the science you'd be Steel manning it with good explanation. And given you can't do that you clearly don't understand it. And that's ok if you could just get off your high horse and admit it.
Another example of how you display the opposite of critical thinking while pretending to promote critical thinking:
You wrote, "Biblical creation embraces observational/operational science, not unobservable speculations about the past such as evolution."
That statement right there proves yet again how you literally have not a clue about any of the actual science you're referring to.
As I've already pointed out in a previous comment, first of all, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, physics, and other fields of science that you oppose merely because the results of research in these various fields of science contradict your particular personal religious belief in some religious doctrine are not "evolution" (and the fact that you try to pretend they're all "evolution" proves that you don't know what you're talking about in regard to any actual scientific research).
Second, but what I'm focused on here in this comment is your "unobservable speculations about the past." Which proves that apparently you've never read any scientific research article published in a professional journal of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, physics, and so on. Scientific research is a process - science, the work of science, is a process - of hypothesis, data gathering (observation, experimentation), data analysis, and TESTING.
Here I'm going to focus on SCIENTIFIC TESTING. Testing in science has to do with TESTING THE HYPOTHESES - is the hypothesis right (or at least on the right path), or is it wrong? If the empirical data gathered by observation and experimentation contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong (falsified), and the hypothesis is cast aside - and then perhaps a new hypothesis is developed, taking the new data into account. Thus, when you employ the term "unobservable speculations" you are literally displaying the fact that you don't even know anything about the scientific research articles that are published in the professional science literature of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, physics, and so on, because they are filled with empirical data acquired by observations and experiments for the precise purpose of TESTING THE HYPOTHESES, and tossing away hypotheses that are falsified by the tests, and keeping only those hypotheses that pass the tests. (And even a hypothesis that passes the tests of some particular piece of research can end up being falsified by additional research results later on. This is why science is such a dynamic process.)
Also, I haven't mentioned revision yet. I hinted at this previously when I said "or at least on the right path." It might be that a hypothesis is not totally wrong, even though it's contradicted by SOME of the empirical data - and so a hypothesis can be REVISED to take the research results into account.
Now, here's the point here, in regard to your rhetoric - the very fact of the MOUNTAINS of scientific research results that are published in the professional science literature of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, physics, biology, genetics, paleontology, and so on for OVER A HUNDRED YEARS that show that young earth creationism is a factually false concept proves that the rhetoric of "unobservable speculations" that you use here is BOGUS. You are using a false description of the scientific research.
And thus, again, you're displaying a horrible lack of critical thinking with the very words you're using.
It's even worse than what I've pointed out so far - because now I'm going to focus on astronomy in particular.
With astronomy, we are, literally, WITNESSING THE DISTANT PAST that you young earth creationists desperately try to pretend doesn't exist. This is because of the very nature of astronomical observation. Everything we see out in the universe - even if we're looking at something close to us, such as the Sun, or Mars, or Saturn - we are WITNESSING the past. With the Sun, which is on average around 93 million miles from Earth, we are witnessing the Sun as it was around 8 minutes ago. With other stars, which are very much farther away from us than the Sun, we could be witnessing them from years ago, hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, and even billions of years ago.
In 1987 we observed the explosion of a star (a supernova) in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy. This supernova was designated SN1987A, if you want to look it up. That particular stellar explosion we were witnessing from about 168,000 years ago. That proves that the universe has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years.
It also proves that your words "unobservable speculations" are completely bogus. (Indeed, this brings up another interesting question: Why do young earth creationists routinely use bogus words like this?)
Is this evolution? No, it's astronomy.
So it also proves that the words young earth creationists use all the time trying to pretend that everything in science they hate when the scientific facts don't fit their particular religious belief is "evolution" are completely bogus.
Finally, to get back to my original point above about the scientific process regarding data gathering and testing - young earth creationists IGNORE the scientific process, just like they IGNORE the scientific research results. Why? Precisely because young earth creationism is a RELIGIOUS doctrine that RELIGIOUS believers adhere to on the basis of RELIGIOUS belief, so they refuse to subject their religious doctrine to scientific testing - and when other people point out the scientific research results that are of relevance because they demonstrate how some particular claims made by young earth creationists FAIL THE SCIENTIFIC TESTS because the empirical data contradicts those claims, young earth creationists not only deliberately ignore the scientific research results, but also employ rhetoric designed to falsely pretend that the scientific research results don't even exist and that the research was never even done in the first place.
I'm not making this up. This is not a straw man. How do we know this?
Because I'm quoting your own words that you used, in which this is exactly what you're doing: "Biblical creation embraces observational/operational science, not unobservable speculations about the past such as evolution."
Young earth creationists do NOT embrace science, they ignore it. And the scientific research results in astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, and so on that falsify young earth creationism are not "unobservable speculations." Your statement here is a complete falsehood.
I support the idea of critical thinking, unfortunately, one must also have a sufficient knowledge by which to apply critical thinking. The presenter is correct that most (if not all) have various biases and assumptions. The presenter makes clear his bias and agenda by declaring the Bible to be his base and thus disqualifying himself as a good presenter for anything that would be in opposition to his position due to his biases and agenda.
Thus, IF you are really interested in learning about a particular aspect of science, I recommend that you actually take the time to study the details from the scientists of the relevant areas making whatever claim about reality. Granted, you can simply trust the presenter's bias against evolution, but that really won't help you understand evolution and why it is considered correct by the vast majority of scientists and this includes Christians.
The details of science can be studied IF one cares to do the work. Those of us who aren't doing the work are often reviewing what the possible applications of what has been found will be. IF there is something that is presented that we would like to understand HOW such is known, we can investigate such and IF we are inclined can do the work ourselves so we can know. It can take quite a bit of work to understand some aspect of science.
---
First need to add a concept that was not covered in the video, but is critical to understanding science.
Extrapolations: We observe the world to be consistent such that anything that we observe today is accepted as working the same way in the past as into the future UNTIL there is grounds to think otherwise. This allows the use of observations to make extrapolations forward or backward based on whatever has been observed.
The terms emerge and/or "give rise to" is about new formations from prior formations. The various types of dogs such as bulldog, poodle, and more all *emerged* or *arose from* from some prior form of a dog. It is important to understand what the terms are referencing as well as why particular terms are being used.
The capacity to make extrapolations is a key element of science and our daily life.
When the police investigate a crime scene and declare that an individual was stabbed or shot, generally speaking there were no witnesses to the stabbing or shooting, however, the details of the wound allow a determination as to what caused the wound. The same factors are in play with all fields of science. It simply requires one to spend the time to learn the details.
---
The following is my understanding, however, I would recommend talking to professionals in the field, since I am a layperson.
1. How did life emerge?
We do not know how life emerged. The fact of life being a series pf chemical reactions supports the idea that some currently unknown series of chemical interactions resulted in the formation of life.
2. How is life understood to have emerged roughly 3.7 millions years ago?
It's an estimate based on radiometric dating of oldest layer of earth wherein fossils were found.
3. How do we know life had to emerge and was not always present?
The earth has not always existed based on our current understanding of the universe. (See Big Bang Cosmology and other cosmological models)
4. How do we know that life is a product of evolution?
We understand the process by which genetic material is added, removed, or modified. The incremental modifications is what gives rise to the variety of different lifeforms that we observe today. The endogenous retroviruses allow an understanding of the various branches of the evolutionary tree.
th-cam.com/video/8ZvTmgCk1Lo/w-d-xo.html
Another example of how you display the opposite of critical thinking while pretending to promote critical thinking:
You make the assertion that the Bible is the foundation for "all" knowledge ("all" - LOL!), because you base your RELIGIOUS belief in the factually false religious doctrine of young earth creationism on that assertion, which one fact alone proves that your assertion is false.
That ancient anthology is not a geology text. Forgiveness , loving one and selfless servitude is what that guy...that people name themselves after... set the as a model to carry out. Remember, there was no comprehensive book being worked off of for over 300 years after that !!
Yet this channel worships messy stories written by men ABOUT "god" (certainly not BY "god" with all the plot holes contained within). Such adoration perverts listeners' thinking by claiming, everything in "THE BOOK (tm)" *must* be believed according to their smuggly grandiose *interpretations"!! Perhaps they should also give tax advice from Matt 17:23-27 !!
It would be so truly wonderful if people actually were doing most of what their namesake actually did and taught, instead of this bible Babelling... well, except for the Benny Hinn stuff. The world would likely be a much better place as a result.
The Bible is THE history book of the universe, written by the One who was there. It is not a science text book, which is a good thing b/c if it were it would have to be rewritten almost every year! When it mentions modern 'scientific' subjects, it does so correctly. Yes, the world would be a better place if everyone lived by Biblical principles, especially those who claim to be believers. Take note though, that anyone can claim to be a believer, and many falsely make that claim. The proof is the way they live their lives Gal 5:22-23
As pointed out at the beginning of this video, young earth creationism is based on theology and faith.
Now, THAT statement was honest.
But that's exactly why young earth creationism is neither science nor critical thinking.
Indeed, young earth creationism is a particular religious doctrine based on a particular theological interpretation of some stories in Genesis in the Bible (religion, not science) - and in fact, It's one that the vast majority of Christians around the world disagree with.
The Biblical record is the foundation for all wisdom and knowledge, including science. Biblical creation embraces observational/operational science, not unobservable speculations about the past such as evolution. Virtually every field of modern observational science was founded by Biblical scientists (Newton, Bacon, Faraday, Kepler, etc) and modern day Biblical creationists abound in every field (J. Lisle, J. Sarfati, G. Purdom, D. Faulkner, R. Humphreys, etc) Yes, the majority of Christians have bought into the lie of evolution and some even try to merge it with Biblical teaching, but majority opinion does not determine truth. The things that are true are true and truth is not dependent on nor determined by popular opinion. The dishonesty of the evolutionary community is they seldom point out their bias of naturalism/scientism, and even when they do they present it as if their bias itself is 'science'. "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be" (Carl Sagan) is not a scientific statement, it is a declaration of his bias of naturalism.
All scientific facts are mere data that must be interpreted within a philosophical framework.
Recognizing this fact is the beginning of critical thinking.
@scottweckerly9028 It seems like I've seen you trolling these same blatant falsehoods elsewhere. And not just the falsehoods about science, but also about history. As far as the Bible is concerned, the Babylonians and the Greeks were WAY ahead of you.
Also, you yourself literally disprove your entire assertion that the Bible is the foundation of "all" knowledge ("all" - LOL!), because you base your RELIGIOUS belief in the factually false religious doctrine of young earth creationism on that assertion, which proves that the assertion is false.
@scottweckerly9028 "[young earth creationists] abound in every field"
Which is yet another example of the delusional nature of your assertions. Literally none of the people you mention has ever conducted and published any scientific research backing up any aspect of their religious pseudoscience in any professional science journal of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, physics, biology, genetics, or paleontology IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
Which proves how your word "abound" here just demonstrates how out of touch with reality your thinking really is.
😂🤣🤪😜🙃
Come back after you learn to write. . . 😇
You can't believe in idiotic, nonsensical, self-contradictory fairy tales and then claim to use critical thinking skills.
Ah, another ad hominem attack, which actually sums up evolutionism very well.
@@scottweckerly9028 -- Also, an ad hominem is an attack on a person. You can't commit an ad hominem on an idea. If you knew ANYTHING about logical thought, you'd know that. But, of course, you don't, so you can't.
@@scottweckerly9028 -- Literally 2 seconds on Google would have taught you what an Ad Hominem fallacy is:
_Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by _*_personally attacking_*_ them._
Not the idea, but the person. The superstition that you glom to is not a person. Therefore, one cannot apply an ad hominem fallacy to any criticism of it.
It's like trying to explain something to a 3rd grader.
@@dienekes4364 Claiming that I believe in "idiotic, nonsensical, self-contradictory fairy tales" is a personal (and false) attack on me. So is comparing me to a 3rd grader. Ad Hominem correctly applied.
@@scottweckerly9028 _"Claiming that I believe"_ -- I didn't claim _anything_ about what _you_ believe. So, your post is clearly delusional, right off the bat.