I was in the middle of responding to Stephen (Franklin here) and that thread was locked again.
I want to place my response to this post here and since Franklin is a member here also he can freely respond:http://www.freeratio...362#post6057362
"There is this shallow perspective that sort of heralds this idea that facts = reality but this isn't true. Facts are facts and reality has meaning. ...the truth can be uncovered by help from the facts but the facts alone will not guarantee discovery of the truth." (Adam_777).
Brute facts do equal reality.
If my last bottle of whisky is dropped onto a tiled floor and smashes into pieces, that is a brute fact; the fact I can no longer drink anything from it is another brute fact. A bottle smashed into manyÃ‚Â pieces and my no longer being able to drink whisky - or anything else - from it are realities.
Jesus has nothing to do with them.
As to the question why the bottle was dropped, that is both a matter for forensic inquiry in terms of the mechanics of the event (which, if proficient enough, may establish more brute facts, ie that itÃ‚Â was wet and slippery) and and inquiry into my wife's state of mind at the moment she dropped it.
The truth of that may never be known.
Her "truth" - that the bottle was wet and slippery and it slipped through her fingers, doesn't coincide with my "truth" that I hadÃ‚Â had two whiskies already, that she dislkes me drinking just before I'm going to take her out for a meal and that she therefore "accidentally-on-purpose" let it slip through her fingers onto the tiled floor.
Jesus can't help with that, either.
Now you just hit on a very important matter and I appreciate it, more than you know (except for the silly little pokes about "Jesus can't help", but whatever...). Now my statement had an implication that I left out unwittingly that allowed you to come back with this well thought out post. I should have been more contextually precise with what I said but I wasn't. However, I'm glad I wasn't because you just nailed it, right at the heart of this thread.
Let's review Occam's gracious offer again
I'll again make my offer to any YEC interested.
I am willing to engage in civil, ad hom free discussions on any topic concerning evolutionary theory of your choosing.
The only caveat is, we must both support our position with evidence taken from the primary scientific literature. Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR. The primary scientific literature.
I make this caveat so there can be no question about additional "spin" put on the data, or baseless propaganda, or quote-mining.Ã‚Â Just the raw scientific evidence.
Let's see who wants to discuss the actual science.
Now, Stephen, what you just said above is interesting and I don't completely agree with what you said because I truly believe there is a contextual oversight in stating facts = reality.
The part I do agree with is this. If reality is properly derived from a body of facts then that reality derived by all rights is now a fact, if and only if the reality that is derived from a body of facts is indeed true.
So now what?
Well, Occam's wonderful caveat to decide what journals are accepted, which we haven't gone over nor do I care to, since any peer reviewed outfit that supports creationism will be scoffed at and rejected by Occam's blinding bias. This is painfully obvious by this statement:
Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR.
You see even though it is true that all Young Earth Creationist sites are apologetic sites, they are also a peer review outlet, where scholars share and wrestle with relevant issues.
However, for the sake of argument let's say I agree to only use secular peer review science journals (which isn't going to happen for the reasons I'll explain) this is the way things will fall out:
There will be facts: Grand Canyon is a big scar on the earth, DNA has the code for life, animals can adapt to their environment, etc, etc, etc...
Now we will look at those facts and derive certain realities. Then what? We will accept those realities as facts and take the next step to discovery to infer additional realities and so on and so forth. How long will it take before I an defending an alternate possible view that is rejected by secular journals based on the evolutionary paradigms acceptance which I am seeking to argue against?
At what point will I find the reality that I am arguing for in journals that reject such propositions out of hand?
His premise governs his victory based solely on how he believes scientific inquiry is conducted on a lay level. We can only defend positions based on the thinking of those he has already deemed intellectually acceptable. Don't be surprised that his offer only works on someone who doesn't see his bias and his effort to tie the hands of anybody he talks with because it's obvious he can't actually carry on a dialogue with another human being without simply asserting himself as some supremely evolved intellectual hockey player. If you dare get out of line, he'll check you with a heaping helping of empty insults.