Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mattias

The Epistemology Corner: How Do We Know What We Know?

Recommended Posts

Scott, I wasn't seriously saying I was a qualified logician. A mere knowledge of logical notation would just be a boring qualification, I suppose I refer more to the ability to figure out correct things, logically. If to be a logician is to have the dots, then to have an ability to deduce acutely would be the glue. I would lack knowledge of the pedantic trifles, I confess, but I seriously doubt any logician could defeat me in a debate if it was one on one, with formal rules of proof. It is simply not going to happen, friend.  I seem arrogant as though I am superior? Then I confess I am not superior to anyone, I just excel in a few areas, where other men don't, I am sure they excel in many areas where I am weak.

 

But you must realize I exist to demote the arrogance of atheism, or more precisely anti-theism, and to do this I will stop at nothing, to out-wit them, because they think they truly are superior and that theism is an inferior foolishness, so it pleases me greatly to be more clever than they are. Even look how it is online "atheism and rationalism". If they are rational they would know that naming yourself rational, pretending rationalism belongs to freethinking atheist, is a question-begging-epithet. Largely the wiki-sites contain axiomatic arguments against theism. They use fallacious arguments to basically attack theism, by showing the fallacies, by using theistic examples. This is transparent to those cleverer than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant we should be expected to find pre-turtle ancestors.

And when I said we should be expected to find a geologic layer due to a flood, I was accused of some kind of logic error.

 

Even BD recently pointed out my position that a global flood should leave a clearly identifiable layer was a use of "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this from my navy computer "A" school.  Basically you can change the "or" and "and"  and change the viniculum (IIRC) by either breaking it or joining it as appropriate.  For example:

___   ___         ____

 a    +  b     =    a ∙ b

 

We had to do this all the time when designing logic circuits because the electronics inverts everything at every step.

 

A miracle has occurred! I have found some actual grey matter on the theistic side! Do you remember whose theorem allows us to do this?

 

This isn't just codes. This is manipulations of semantics without losing truth. And really, if you cannot manipulate logical expressions symbolically, you're not an expert. But you did pass the minimum grey matter test. Not to worry... 

 

I must admit, however. I did listen to some Harry Potter on the way to the gym. It was in English.

Honestly, I don't. recall the name of the theorem.  I was doing that stuff over 45 years ago and the name of the theorem has long since vanished into some remote corner of what passes for my mind.  It might have been Venn or Veich (sp?)... we used to use their diagrams all the time.

 

It's a lot like when I teach algebra.... sometimes I don't remember the names of some of the rules like the "distribution" rule.  I use the rule daily, but never think of the name of it because I haven't called it by name since I was in high school.... but that doesn't mean I don't know how to use the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever if ever a wiz there waz then wiz is one because because, because because, because, because, because, because of the wonderful things he does......(like refuting everything the atheists say. Like with Piasan and Svigil, the sophists of atheism. :)

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't. recall the name of the theorem.  I was doing that stuff over 45 years ago and the name of the theorem has long since vanished into some remote corner of what passes for my mind.  It might have been Venn or Veich (sp?)... we used to use their diagrams all the time.

 

It's a lot like when I teach algebra.... sometimes I don't remember the names of some of the rules like the "distribution" rule.  I use the rule daily, but never think of the name of it because I haven't called it by name since I was in high school.... but that doesn't mean I don't know how to use the rule.

 

I feel so silly. In my mind, I was giving Mike W. credit. But it was you, piasan. Ok, so you get the "grey matter" prize for knowing the answer. The answer to my second question is, DeMorgan's theorem. BD assures me I can provide links for references. So, I trust I will not be banished for this.

 

Good job piasan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever if ever a wiz there waz then wiz is one because because, because because, because, because, because, because of the wonderful things he does......(like refuting everything the atheists say. Like with Piasan and Svigil, the sophists of atheism. :)

 

:D

 

I'm sure DeMorgan does seem like sophistry to you  :^)  But I will say I used it to catch errors in requirements for flight code on an airplane that almost everybody flies on. So, "Hurrah for sophistry!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, I wasn't seriously saying I was a qualified logician. A mere knowledge of logical notation would just be a boring qualification, I suppose I refer more to the ability to figure out correct things, logically. If to be a logician is to have the dots, then to have an ability to deduce acutely would be the glue. I would lack knowledge of the pedantic trifles, I confess, but I seriously doubt any logician could defeat me in a debate if it was one on one, with formal rules of proof. It is simply not going to happen, friend.  I seem arrogant as though I am superior? Then I confess I am not superior to anyone, I just excel in a few areas, where other men don't, I am sure they excel in many areas where I am weak.

 

But you must realize I exist to demote the arrogance of atheism, or more precisely anti-theism, and to do this I will stop at nothing, to out-wit them, because they think they truly are superior and that theism is an inferior foolishness, so it pleases me greatly to be more clever than they are. Even look how it is online "atheism and rationalism". If they are rational they would know that naming yourself rational, pretending rationalism belongs to freethinking atheist, is a question-begging-epithet. Largely the wiki-sites contain axiomatic arguments against theism. They use fallacious arguments to basically attack theism, by showing the fallacies, by using theistic examples. This is transparent to those cleverer than them.

 

I quoted you as saying you were an "expert". so, "ixnay" on that one, champ.

 

But we can agree that "pride cometh before the fall". And how about this one?

 

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-22.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svigil, the evolution-definition of transitional is tautologous, because it applies to anything. (A tautology is something which is always true so can't be falsified, as opposed to a contradiction which is something that is always false) Please tell me how I would prove a turtle was NOT a transitional? Impossible under the evolutionary-definition, for they treat everything as transitional. So logically it can be shown that an intermediate between two states, would be a logical definition, if the term is to mean something.

 

They call everything a transitional, logically it can be shown that the term, 'transitional' must mean something, it must mean one organism is transitioning as part of an evolution.

 

And this is the magic-act that is evolution, that nobody can show any transition because they will say, "ahh, but evolution doesn't have to happen there doesn't have to be a direction".

 

Look it is quite simple, if turtles evolved Scott, and they evolved a pectoral girdle on the interior of their rib cage, then since we have rich fossilized rocks from the time they were supposed to evolve, we should see there many transitionals, and how this incredible engineering feat was achieved. As it is we find none.

 

So if you want to prove a turtle evolved, then logically you have to provide evidence. But if you are saying that your claim is that a turtle has evolved into a turtle, then I agree with you, but in such a case 'evolution' can be shaved away by Occam's razor (the principle of parsimony).

 

Thus we can see a conspicuous absence of evidence for turtle-evolution, as we can see a conspicuous absence of evidence for bat-evolution. (what I mean is the evolution of something into a bat, and the evolution of something into a turtle). We see a conspicuous absence of evidence for all of the cambrian crown-forms. Organisms generally appear abruptly in the fossil record, without a trace of an evolutionary history.

 

The difference between a conspicuous absence of evidence and an argumentum ad ignorantiam is that the modus tollens applies where it can be shown that evidence would be directly expected. Thus you would argue from ignorance if you merely argued that absence of evidence is evidence of absence unless it can be shown you would certainly expect the presence of evidence.

 

In the case of macro-evolution, the expected evidence of intermediate forms, does not exist when there is no reason for it to hide itself from us. For more information, I advise reading Enoch's post, those problems are real, they are simply ignored by the mainstream scientists, but I do not care for ipse dixit arguments anyway Scott. 

 

Google, "ipse dixit".   :)

 

I think convincing you guys is more of a psychological problem than it is an evidentiary one. I confess. I don't know how to do it.

 

But I do like the way your posts read. It's like poetry. If we set this one to music, we might be able to have you sing it. I could add in some flugel horn. Calvsis could do something musical, maybe with his science classroom supplies. Enoch, I'll bet he plays the clarinet. piasan probably plays the drums. My sweetheart and I could dance a Tango to it. Maybe we would then make so much money on YouTube royalties we wouldn't care about this anymore!  :orjnfq:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to

 

#467 Calypsis4

Wrong again. I taught science for 26 years and I was an evolutionist until I was 17. How many times must I type this information before you'll get it?

 

The rules say I can’t challenge you on your credentials. Otherwise, I would ask you where you taught. My guess is you have a teaching certificate and you taught seventh graders. Science… I see no evidence of a science background. You go to church. You sit in a pew. You read the bible. You watch fantastic and salacious shows and then present them as evidence. Then you get on line and people present very interesting and credible stuff. And you denigrate it with balderdash. I wonder how many people believe you make good arguments. That’s a scary thought.

 

The idea of creating a story... a narrative or a model that matches evidence and then writing a testable hypothesis seems so reasonable and natural to me. Then, looking for some sort of a test or something one can find in nature to confirm or invalidate the hypothesis... to you, this is simply a foreign language.

 

And then you quote some passage in Romans and threaten people with hell and damnation.

 

I’m going to trust that people will see through all that. As far as I can tell, the more we get you to talk, Calvsis, the more untenable your position will seem. So, I think people on this web site are doing a great job of getting you to come out from under your rock. I would say, continue to blast away.  :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ignore that there is many times the normal concentration of iridium at the KT boundary than normal.

You ignore that the measurement of these concentrations  led to the the estimation of size and location of an impact of an asteroid/comet.

You ignore that using this data the Chicxulub crater was found.

Now that is what makes me laugh!

No, macten. What’s laughable is that you once again demonstrate your uncanny ability to completely ignore and miss the meat and point of a post, while addressing a point that was not made. Nowhere did I ignore or even deny those things. In fact, my jab at Pi about using absence of evidence as evidence of absence hinges on such an event having actually occurred. The absence of evidence for it in the sediments of the San Juan Basin would then be used to demonstrate that they were not deposited at the same time as other “KT Boundary” sediments, thus falsifying the idea that you can use equivalent faunal successions (in this case dinosaurs to Paleocene mammals) to establish global temporal equivalence. Or is that much critical thinking too far outside the box of circular reasoning for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, my jab at Pi about using absence of evidence as evidence of absence hinges on such an event having actually occurred. The absence of evidence for it in the sediments of the San Juan Basin would then be used to demonstrate that they were not deposited at the same time as other “KT Boundary†sediments, thus falsifying the idea that you can use equivalent faunal successions (in this case dinosaurs to Paleocene mammals) to establish global temporal equivalence. Or is that much critical thinking too far outside the box of circular reasoning for you?

Actually, that is not necessarily the case.   As we all know, erosion removes surface material.  It is entirely possible that in some localities a particular strata may have simply eroded away.  This could reasonably be expected to include a fairly thin layer like the iridium at the K-T boundary.

 

However, there are still things that would be expected if there was, in fact, a single global flood event.  For example floods mix things very well.  We should expect much less stratification and much more mixing of fossils than what is observed.

 

"Absence of evidence = evidence of absence" isn't always a bad argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that is not necessarily the case.   As we all know, erosion removes surface material.  It is entirely possible that in some localities a particular strata may have simply eroded away.  This could reasonably be expected to include a fairly thin layer like the iridium at the K-T boundary.

 

That's the argument that Fassett is using...that there is an erosional unconformity at the base of the Ojo Alamo that removed the impact evidence, and the dinosaurs in the Ojo are post-impact Paleocene dinosaurs.

 

However, there are still things that would be expected if there was, in fact, a single global flood event. For example floods mix things very well. We should expect much less stratification and much more mixing of fossils than what is observed.

 

"Absence of evidence = evidence of absence" isn't always a bad argument.

Perhaps I should have clarified. I was actually referring to your argument that because we haven't found human fossils with dinosaurs, that's supposed to be evidence that dinosaurs and humans were never contemporaries. As far as your claim that a global flood would produce a global layer, I've never addressed that because I consider it, at best, a weak straw man. In order for it to produce a global layer, you would have to have simultaneous sedimentation across the globe. Basic Geology 101 tells you that in order for sediment to be deposited in one area, it must be eroded from another. In other words, you need a source for the sediments being transported. If a global flood would produce a global layer, then where would the sediments have come from? The moon?

 

A more reasonable prediction of a global flood is that it would produce regional layers, at least to start with. And that is exactly what we find. For example, in the current ongoing ICR Column project they have found the Tapeats sandstone (and equivalents ) at the base of the early Sauk megasequence to span most of the North American continent (yellow in the map below).

 

grappling_figure3.jpg

 

Or take a look at the extent of the Morrison Formation in the U.S., with its characteristic pastel colored shales and siltstones, as mapped by Macrostrat:

 

Morrison%20Fm%20extent_zpsuw6fzjcw.jpg

 

It spans from the Canadian border in the north to Texas in the south, and Idaho, Utah and Arizona in the west to Nebraska and Kansas in the east. Where do we see such distinctively identifiable sediments being deposited on these scales in the current world?

 

As far as your claim that we would expect less stratification and more fossil mixing in a global flood, what are you basing that on? To mix the fossils they would have to be transported from the same direction. In a global flood, as the waters were rising, you would have frequent shifts in current direction and, therefore, the source material that was being deposited. In fact, you even see that in Fassett's account of the stratigraphy of the San Juan Basin. The current indicators in the underlying Fruitland and Kirtland rocks are from southwest to northeast, whereas the current indicators for the Ojo Alamo are from the north in a south to southeasterly direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to post #309 by Calypsis is in red:

 

#309 Calypsis4

Posted 26 March 2015 - 09:50 AM

Sir, it would really help if you would just use the quote function which is on the tool bar just above this sentence. Just move your cursor over each icon and the one that looks like a square balloon is the one you need to set off my words from yours. It would be much appreciated if you would do so.

 

I would appreciate if you would approach this discussion as an adult with respect. I will format as I see fit.

 

Quote

Please don’t think of my analysis and criticism of the document as synonymous with disrespect for the document. I would no more do that than disrespect the books of Homer or the pyramids or a dinosaur or a Australopithecus or a Model A Ford or phlogiston.

 

 

I am only going to correct you once and if you choose not to accept what is said I won't make another effort. You have made serious errors on almost every point you made in your post. I will try to deal with it matter-of-factly and without insults to your position.

 

I wish you’d hold to that. But I get it. You think I’m Satan’s messenger. So, how else would you think?

 

But we are not here talking about Homer or books on the pyramids, etc.

 

Actually, we are talking about an ancient text. We should evaluate it critically using the methods historians use to evaluate such writings. I completely disagree with you on this point.

 

We are talking about God's Word and to place in question the truthfulness and veracity of the inspired text is to criticize God Himself

 

Says you.

 

because He is the one who put the words of scripture into the minds of the writers.

 

Says you.

 

Therefore your criticisms are indeed an attack upon His written Word.

 

Says you. When a historian evaluates the books of Homer, he’s not attacking. He/she is studying and analyzing… trying to get clues as to facts such as who wrote the text, what the motivations were, when was it written, what facts can be corroborated, what sections are not written literally?

 

Your idea of how to approach an ancient text is unscientific. It is dogmatic.

 

Quote

Christianity.com defines the Gospels as…

 

The first five books in the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (called the Gospels), and Acts

 

Ref

  

There isn't any historical reasons to doubt that the gospels were written by the personal disciples of Jesus. Those gospels were spread throughout the Roman empire by the very men who wrote them and tens of thousands of converts to Christianity met them and knew them. Those closest to them would have been in a perfect position to expose them as frauds had they not actually been written by Christ's followers. Your charge is empty.

 

Well yeah, that’s what I would have thought ten years ago. 

 

In our day, those of us who believe the gospels have seen the power of them to one degree or another. I have seen how the scriptures counter the efforts of Satan and demonic spirits and it is only by the scriptures and in Jesus name that devils are expelled from the lives of possessed people.

 

The thing I learned at church was to value truth.

 

Quote

According to the information I recall from Bart Ehrman, Paul did not write any of the gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. What evidence do you have that Luke wrote the book of Luke?

 

This was one of the many things you did not respond to.

 

 

Ehrman has no evidence for his claims. They are merely an opinion based on ...(guess what?) thin air. There is no evidence to support his claim.

 

Just keep on reading.

 

Fragments of the gospel of Mark were discovered recently and dated at 70 A.D. to A.D. 90. There is direct evidence for this:

http://search.aol.co...s_it=searchtabs

 

 

 

Per Bart Ehrman, it’s written in a very sophisticated form of Greek and there’s nothing “middle†about it.

 

They couldn’t understand Greek at all. They spoke Aramaic!

 

Here’s the Wiki on Bart Ehrman. “American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.â€

 

We don't believe your scholar. The power of the written Word makes the difference. The truth in those wonderful words also makes the difference.

  

Books known as the Gospels don’t include Romans, James, and Jude.

 

Look at you. You didn’t even know what the Gospels were!

 

However, it’s curious. If Paul wrote Romans, why is he referred to in the third person? I don’t write, “Scott Vigil, incredible engineer and promoter of truth…†I’ll write, “Hello so and so, yada yada yada, Best regards, Scott Vigil†or something like that.

 

You didn't quote Paul on the matter. Why? His opening statement he identifies himself as the author of the letter. So what's the problem?

 

“1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—â€

Ref

 

Nonetheless, because Paul was near-sighted and he had to dictate what he wrote through another.

 

Oh brother, I wouldn’t dictate that way!

 

 

And if you compare the gospels, in some places there is out and out plagarism.

 

 

 

It wasn't plagarism: it was merely the same Spirit inspiring two different writers to give the same teaching in the same words to different people. 

 

Keep in mind. You asked me to show you.

 

 

No problem.

 

Actually, I think you feel this whole thing is a big problem.

 

Quote

First, just go to each of the four gospels and look at what Jesus said while he was on the cross. What each gospel writer claims he said differs wildly from the others. That's all you need to know right there. The rest is icing on the cake.

 

 

 

No, they were all correct. They were not 'wildly different' they merely quoted different things He said. Some quoted some things and others quoted other things not mentioned by the other writers.

 

Per Ehrman, to figure out what really happened, you don’t read each book linearly. You read them side by side. Leaving aside plagiarism and after-the-fact harmonization, that which is in all the texts is more likely to have happened than that which shows up in just one. And Ehrman is not talking about four books here. He is talking about all the texts that cover the period. Right now, there are approximately 50,000 known ancient biblical texts. Any one of them might have something to say about any of the biblical events. This is actually fascinating stuff! Prior to Ehrman, I had not been exposed to the systematic approach to ancient texts before.

 

Even if we were to believe it’s all God’s word, (which I do not), we would still have to use these methods to find out what the original writers really wrote. These techniques have been developed over thousands of years. It’s just that garden variety Christians like you are not exposed to them.

 

This is why many people fall away from the church after they get to seminary. They learn these analysis techniques and find out things are not so “cut and dried†as they were taught by their pastors. They become disillusioned. Unfortunately, as I wrote earlier, some of these people do not become disillusioned until they have already become pastors and priests. Then, they have a problem because if they share their disillusionment, they lose their jobs, the prestige and sometimes their families. So many just keep quiet about this. It’s actually a sad predicament.

 

I have. I don't believe any of them. Again, there is the experience of seeing the power of the written word and I've seen it (with witnesses) many times.

 

 

Quote

Again, forgery and added in text is more serious.

 

 

There was no forgery. it is a cheap charge that the skeptics cannot prove.

 

 

Let me make it easy for you to see through this maze of criticism:

 

Reconciling the Differing post resurrection accounts

Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order:

This from Post #327.

In the NIV and other texts, when something wasn’t in the original, it’s italicized. Indeed, in the reference, there is the following footnote.

 

Mark 16:8

Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20)

 

If you look, you can see verses 9-19 are italicized.

 

Mark 16 NIV

 

Per Ehrman, the oldest texts do not contain verses 9 through 19 just as appears in the NIV notes. It would be nice if the NIV clarified that people didn’t like the ending and so they added stuff on. But, it’s clear if you are interested in understanding.

 

Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).

The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (
Matthew 27:62-66). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).

 

An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus appears to about 500 disciples in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus commissions His disciples (Matthew 28:16-20). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus teaches His disciples the Scriptures and promises to send the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Jesus ascends into heaven (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12<<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>>

 

Finally, I would advise you to take Ehrman's work and throw it out. It is worthless junk.

 

This is standard scholarly thought here. Christians like to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. But this is what happens in centers of higher Christian learning, as I understand it. You don’t coalesce multiple stories together to create one super story. You read each story on its own. You let each writer tell their story. Otherwise, their story gets lost in all the other stories that you mix it with. There is not one Gospel story. There are four. They should be evaluated on their own merit.

 

Also I pray that you will, after all, believe the gospels, accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and be saved from hell fire.

 

All these things happened and they weren’t important enough for Mark to write about them? Where was Mark? These events do not appear in the original Mark16:1-8. The story was harmonized after the fact. Again, you can see this in the footnotes in the NIV.

 

Best wishes. 

 

Not only are you a bad scientist. You’re a bad historian and scholar too. But as a Christian, you are great! As a church-going Christian, I had no idea Christians could be as mean as you and others on this web site. It wasn’t until I studied the history of the Christian church at the University of Washington that I learned what the reality can be. And I know, you guys are nowhere as mean as Christians were in the past. You can’t get away with it now as before. One person thought this was because of Newton’s discoveries. Though he himself was very religious, his theories pointed the way toward realizing that you could understand things without God. You don’t need him to push around the planets. You don’t need demons to transmit infections. Physical laws govern movement of heavenly bodies. Bacteria and viruses have evolved to attack us using ingenious mechanisms all by themselves. For that new understanding, I am thankful.

 

God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respose in blue to:

#401

Mike W, Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:21 AM

Quote

CMI scientist:The astronomer receives light into his telescope on earth and he must make the uniformitarian assumption that the light has been travelling at a constant speed (of about 300, 000 km/s) for the past millions or billions of years to reach earth, and with no relativistic time dilation effects. Only after making that assumption can he make the assumption, not know, that what he observes is coming from some past epoch millions or billions of years earlier. But how could you test that assumption? You can’t! And for that reason this aspect of astrophysics/cosmology is not directly provable by any empirical test.

 

http://creation.com/...tter-everywhere

 

I got an 8 day vacation for putting out links to articles. How come Creationists never get points deducted, vacations or banned? In any case, I’m not going to respond to this. The deck is a bit stacked on this web site.

 

Scott, as you can see,

 

No, I don’t see… If I see something, I’ll let you know :^)

 

God is not fooling anyone with millions and billions of light years, you could not make a case that God makes it to look old without first assuming it is old, and WHY would you assume it old unless you believed evolution to begin with, which God clearly does not teach us?

 

Well, no Mike. Light has a speed. There is no reason to believe this speed changes unless it is affected by some thing, substance or medium. So, the farther it’s gone, the more time there has to have been involved. There is a “standard candle†that has been devised. They know how bright a supernova will be and so they can determine the distance based on the light intensity as seen here on earth.

 

It seems that type of argument is a bit analogous to this one; "Lord, you knew that I hated that person, you know I hate their face and I want to punch them in the face, so it is your fault you made that person come within three feet of my personal space, it is your fault I punched him in the face even though you teach us to turn the other cheek.". (Lol)

 

I’m perfectly happy to discover that evolution is or isn’t true. I don’t care either way. The assumption “I care†is false, so your argument is false. 

Scott, evolutionists have invented a ridiculous story that the creation created itself,

 

This is a characterization that is just your opinion.

 

nowhere in the bible does it say this, it explicitly states that God created the universe with an outstretched arm and a mighty hand.

 

Prove to me that part of the bible is true. Prove it was written by God. Just prove it was written by the writer it is traditionally written by. Prove when it was written. Can you prove anything associated with this text?

 

So the whole, "God makes it look like atheism and evolution" tends to be a bit of a sophistry...a weak argument, IMHO

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how humble would that “H†be?  :^)  Nobody’s saying you can’t have your opinion. But I’m not going to be swayed by opinion. I need evidence, Bud.

Here’s one.

 

Nobody responded to my post #452, pp. 23. Maybe you want to tackle this since it has to do with time. How can the earth be 6,000 years old if there are trees in Tasmania that are much older? And we have layers of ice in the perma-frost that are far older than 6,000!

 

Note that I put specific minute markers in that post as to the location of the source of this fact in the video. If you don’t want to respond, that’s fine (although I will think you're a cherry picker  :^) But you should be able to google 43,000 year old trees and find it. In any case, 43 is a whole lot bigger than 6!

 

Using a young earth as the foundation for any argument is pure folly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Post #476 by Calypsis,

StormanNorman, on 02 Apr 2015 - 9:02 PM, said:

Hi Mike,

Let's say I draw a ball 50 times from a barrel that has 100 balls that are either blue or red; and in all 50 draws, I pull out a red ball, what can I say about the number of blue balls in the barrel? Mathematically, it's still possible that the barrel contains blue balls....but, those odds are not very good. A statistically reasonable inference is that the barrel contains NO blue balls.

It works the same way with fossils; dinosaurs and lions (for example) are never found in the same geologic layers. Dinosaurs are always at or below the KT boundary and lions are always above it .....and there have been thousands of these fossils found. I think we have reached the point that a very reasonable inference is that they did not live in the same time and place ......

 

Which means you have dissed all of our documentation no matter how much or how legitimate it is

 

Dismissed? Disempowered? Dismembered? Dispatched? Disemboweled? Possibly. Disrespected? I don’t think so. StormanNorman was contrite. He presented his case in an entirely respectful manner. The trouble is that his argument was crystal clear and the logic was inescapable.

 

If I was on your side, I would try to argue that the KT boundary is fictional or it is localized. I would quibble with the dating methods to match up the boundary in different locations. I might try some sweeping generalization as “You can prove anything with statistics.†If I was administrator, I might just delete the post and quietly ban StormanNorman.

 

However, the KT boundary has similar if not identical miscroscopic and macroscopic characteristic everywhere you go. The dating methods are based on mathematics you can learn in any first quarter calculus class. The chemistry uses amazing isotope analysis techniques. The statistics ruze could be seen through by the more sophisticated. Quiet deletions would work great for the sheep. But, those who are already on the edge would question the integrity of the site owners and might make a stink or just quietly leave. I am not smart enough to imagine a suitable defense.

 

 and there is no use in discussing the matter further with you on this topic. Nonetheless, I will leave that up to the discretion of my brethren.

 

If this was a nice coffee table discussion, it would certainly be time to change conversation to the weather. For me to mount such an attack on my Sweetheart’s mother would be entirely rude, and I would not do it unless she was meddling in our relationship and I was trying to knock her off her high horse. Otherwise, you do not speak like this to people who are old and infirm. There is nowhere for them to go once they lose face.

 

The web site has its rules. StormanNorman clearly did not break any with his argument. However, the site is a bit ambiguous. It calls this section, the “Evolution Fairytale Forumâ€. This already is a bit rude and prejudicial due to the association of one side with “Fairytaleâ€. However, each contributor has the choice to participate or not. The term “forum†means “a meeting at which a subject can be discussed†or “a place or opportunity for discussing a subjectâ€. However, the Forum index page refers to this section as the “Formal Debate Sectionâ€. And, if you look closely at the rules, it becomes clear that they are slanted more toward a debate. If you’re sharing, you can provide links to big resources. But as I saw during my “vacationâ€, that kind of sharing is disallowed in favor of a more short and concise debate type of a format.

 

In any case, this is a debate site. It is not a place to make the old and the infirm feel good about themselves as they creep toward Alzheimer’s and dementia.

 

In debate parlance, “there is no use in discussing the matter further with you on this topic†is a clear loss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to Schera Do’s post #402, pp. 21,

 

Thank-you for the post Steve,

 

I was referring to the omni____ God: If God can/has done any- and everything that God wants, then there is no point in your question--whatever was, is and will be is and always will be the result of God and is not susceptible to our "whys?" and "what fors?"

 

 

If this is the case, we have no free will in the matter. Every moment of our entire life is fully prescribed and predetermined. We have nothing to decide. We are automatons. God will reward us or punish us according to what he predestined us to do.

 

 

Daniel Dennett believes we have free will because it’s impossible to predetermine what we will do, even if we are mere actors in a sea of particles governed by the laws of physics alone. Sam Harris believes we are just a spectacularly good computational machine.

 

 

Dennett seems to explain consciousness as an illusion. But that is hard for me to accept. Sam Harris’ view is also hard to accept because I know I am writing to you at this moment.

 

 

If Daniel Dennett is correct, does that mean there is no god that created us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svigil, perhaps I do need to kurb my pride but don't forget, I am a very cheeky person, I get a great thrill out of mischief, and I get a kick out of winding people up, but it's all in good humour. How you could take, 'expert in logics' totally seriously???? It was clearly some swashbuckling, flushbunking, bravado-codswallop that I was touting. I'll try and real in mad-mike. ;):)

 

Bonedigger/Piasan:

 

 

 

 Bonedigger: I was actually referring to your argument that because we haven't found human fossils with dinosaurs, that's supposed to be evidence that dinosaurs and humans were never contemporaries. As far as your claim that a global flood would produce a global layer, I've never addressed that because I consider it, at best, a weak straw man. In order for it to produce a global layer, you would have to have simultaneous sedimentation across the globe.

 

Piasan/BD, this is the point I have discussed with Piasan before. What separates a strong implication from a weak one? I would love to give an example in the hopes Piasan with appreciate the difference.

 

You see Piasan, when we argue that we would expect evolution to produce transitionals, that is a strong implication because not even one evolutionist would argue that evolution would not produce transitionals. So then when it comes to transitionals, it is unquestionably true that we expect evolution to produce them. In order for the conjecture of evolution to make good science, it's conjecture must be matched by the actual evidence. To make a strong case for turtle-evolution you would show intermediate transitionals leading to turtles, that show a path, that show how a turtle evolved. If the fossiliferous rocks preceding turtles, pre-dating them, are good, rich preservations, then why wouldn't we find the turtle-ancestors?

 

This would be akin to asking the question; "If Bill murdered Jane with his bare hands, by strangling then it would follow as we have shown from experiments, that the fingerprints on Bill's hand would be the same correct matching size"

 

As you can see, if the hand-marks/prints, were made by much larger hands, this clearly refutes the notion it was Bill that done it.

 

My point is, the difference between and argument-from-ignorance, and a falsification via a conspicuous absence of evidence, is that the evidence is conspicuous or differs in the way it should certainly appear. In this example, it would certainly follow that we would find Bill's prints/marks to match his hand, and since we do not we can falsify the specific hypothesis.

 

But it is very complicated because you have to make sure the logic is watertight. For example this implication would be an argument from ignorance:

 

If Bob murdered Paul, then we will find Bob's fingerprints at the house.

 

That is not watertight, because Bob could have worn gloves, it could have been premeditated, or Bob could have visited the house and left fingerprints there, etc.....

 

Piasan, IMHO, in a lot of your flood-arguments, you present implications that seem to not be watertight but are conjectural, you then shoot down a global flood because this evidence is not present but the problem with this method is that it is very hard to falsify a flood unless you can provide evidence that nobody can deny would have to be there, and then show such evidence is not there. As far as I know there are only a few definite falsifications but the very fact BD can dispute your layer, shows that it is debateable, doesn't it? But would you debate that evolution would produce transitionals? No, because they are VITAL to the theory.

 

I appreciate it is hard to falsify the flood, but I think that is just the nature of a catastrophe, unpredictable results.

 

If you were to say, "this evidence flies in the face of a flood in my opinion but doesn't falsify it because our arguments with each other are ultimately conjectural", that might be a position that is more reasonable for us to consider. But you have to think about all of the amazing evidence a flood would explain, and the vast powers of water-pressure that would be needed, we very clearly see massive geologic formations in this world, such as the Grand Canyon, we see a truly massive layering, miles deep, it is reasonable that if it was created by a great force, that a truly catastrophic flood would explain many such evidences. The scientists expound these evidences at places like CMI, and they do so in a very cogent, specific manner, but IMHO, you are dismissive of such explanations in your evolutionary bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have clarified. I was actually referring to your argument that because we haven't found human fossils with dinosaurs, that's supposed to be evidence that dinosaurs and humans were never contemporaries.

If that were the only example you would have a good point.   But when one goes thru a half dozen or so things that, based on our experience, we should see then the argument about absence of evidence becomes much more compelling.

 

In the past, I've seen creationists claim we don't see dinos and humans in the same layers because they lived in different environments.  To some extent, that is a reasonable argument.  On the other hand, creationists present stories of dragons; sculptures of what look to be dinosaurs in ancient temples; and even claims that humans have used dinosaurs as beasts of  burden (in a recent post by Calypsis) as evidence that dinosaurs were not only contemporaneous with humans but lived together.  You can't have it both ways.

 

Humans make food of pretty much every animal we've ever used for a beast of burden and every animal we hunt.  We have bones of such animals complete with tool marks dating back to at least Roman times.  Yet there don't seem to be any dinosaur bones showing evidence of human consumption. 

 

We have at least a few harnesses from Roman, Egyptian, and ancient Chinese eras for horses and oxen .... but none for dinosaurs.

 

I can show you pyroclastic flows made in historical, even modern times, in which domesticated animals and humans are mixed .... but none for dinosaurs.  In fact, dinosaurs seem to be in completely different geological strata than humans.

 

At some point, it is reasonable to conclude that at a minimum humans and dinosaurs did not live in the same environment ..... based on absence of evidence.

 

 

As far as your claim that a global flood would produce a global layer, I've never addressed that because I consider it, at best, a weak straw man. In order for it to produce a global layer, you would have to have simultaneous sedimentation across the globe. Basic Geology 101 tells you that in order for sediment to be deposited in one area, it must be eroded from another. In other words, you need a source for the sediments being transported. If a global flood would produce a global layer, then where would the sediments have come from? The moon?

The point you make about transport is certainly valid.  In some places, we're talking about sediment layers that are many thousands of feet deep.  That requires the movement of pretty significant amounts of particulate.   Some of the formations you are talking about are more than 12,000 feet above others which requires a lot of uplift.  Achieving this in a short (few thousand year) time frame is extremely problematic on a number of fronts.

 

 

As far as your claim that we would expect less stratification and more fossil mixing in a global flood, what are you basing that on? To mix the fossils they would have to be transported from the same direction. In a global flood, as the waters were rising, you would have frequent shifts in current direction and, therefore, the source material that was being deposited. In fact, you even see that in Fassett's account of the stratigraphy of the San Juan Basin. The current indicators in the underlying Fruitland and Kirtland rocks are from southwest to northeast, whereas the current indicators for the Ojo Alamo are from the north in a south to southeasterly direction.

Why won't the currents and shifting of them you mention transport and mix things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piasan/BD, this is the point I have discussed with Piasan before. What separates a strong implication from a weak one? I would love to give an example in the hopes Piasan with appreciate the difference.

 

You see Piasan, when we argue that we would expect evolution to produce transitionals, that is a strong implication because not even one evolutionist would argue that evolution would not produce transitionals. So then when it comes to transitionals, it is unquestionably true that we expect evolution to produce them. In order for the conjecture of evolution to make good science, it's conjecture must be matched by the actual evidence. To make a strong case for turtle-evolution you would show intermediate transitionals leading to turtles, that show a path, that show how a turtle evolved. If the fossiliferous rocks preceding turtles, pre-dating them, are good, rich preservations, then why wouldn't we find the turtle-ancestors?  .....

 

Piasan, IMHO, in a lot of your flood-arguments, you present implications that seem to not be watertight but are conjectural, you then shoot down a global flood because this evidence is not present but the problem with this method is that it is very hard to falsify a flood unless you can provide evidence that nobody can deny would have to be there, and then show such evidence is not there. As far as I know there are only a few definite falsifications but the very fact BD can dispute your layer, shows that it is debateable, doesn't it? But would you debate that evolution would produce transitionals? No, because they are VITAL to the theory.

Has anyone ever been convicted on circumstantial evidence?  Isn't circumstantial evidence conjectural?  The point is that "conjectural evidence" can accumulate to the point at which it becomes convincing.  Now, I will readily grant that the point at which each of us becomes convinced is an individual decision.

 

My arguments against the flood are not based only on fossils.  They include issues from multiple, independent, branches of science.... and are far more fundamental to what is necessary for such an event in the first place.

 

My arguments against YEC aren't even based on anything from this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Piasan: My arguments against the flood are not based only on fossils.  They include issues from multiple, independent, branches of science.... and are far more fundamental to what is necessary for such an event in the first place.

 

And I am sure that between your ears those arguments are unbreakable. But I have read answers to your arguments that explain away your propositions. Your propositions are also very subjective and based on your ignorance of world-flood experiences, as you are an evolutionist and are not aware of your own agenda. Your arguments basically insist a global flood could not have happened. You don't have that knowledge, for you have never produced a global flood.

 

Nobody can 100% know what happened in the past, it is the same for uniformitarians as it is for flood-catastrophists. We can only build a hypothesis, each hypothesis cannot be fully falsified nor fully confirmed, and each is bound to be conjectural, but the best hypothesis of all of the facts, makes more sense with a catastrophism, IMHO.

 

 

 

Piasan: My arguments against YEC aren't even based on anything from this planet.

 

That's going to be a problem then because a young earth isn't dependent upon a young universe. That is to say, it is possible to have a universe that is billions of years old, but that doesn't automatically make the earth billions of years old. Nor does it make the earth any more than 6,000 years old, logically. 

 

The difference between you and me, is that I am objective. I can admit that light doesn't favour a young universe, I can admit there are lines-of-evidence that would indicate older age. I admit I accept a young universe by faith or at the very least I am discombobulated by the facts. But it seems to me, you are incapable of thinking objectively because of your prejudice towards creationism.

 

Creation is what Genesis explains Piasan, and Christians have believed Genesis for hundreds of years, and will continue to believe it against Darwin's inadequate theory. Nobody before Darwin opened the bible and read Genesis and said, "wow, this is clearly an explanation of evolution". No - what they read is animals being created according to their kinds, eating as herbivores, no death, no disease or struggle, and no room for evolutionary time. These are the basic facts of the creation account which we accept as God's word about what truly happened. We have no reason to listen to an atheist-account/version of that story, since it is designed to say that God could be shaved away by Occam's razor!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am sure that between your ears those arguments are unbreakable. But I have read answers to your arguments that explain away your propositions. Your propositions are also very subjective and based on your ignorance of world-flood experiences, as you are an evolutionist and are not aware of your own agenda. Your arguments basically insist a global flood could not have happened. You don't have that knowledge, for you have never produced a global flood.

 

Nobody can 100% know what happened in the past, it is the same for uniformitarians as it is for flood-catastrophists. We can only build a hypothesis, each hypothesis cannot be fully falsified nor fully confirmed, and each is bound to be conjectural, but the best hypothesis of all of the facts, makes more sense with a catastrophism, IMHO.

 

 

That's going to be a problem then because a young earth isn't dependent upon a young universe. That is to say, it is possible to have a universe that is billions of years old, but that doesn't automatically make the earth billions of years old. Nor does it make the earth any more than 6,000 years old, logically. 

 

The difference between you and me, is that I am objective. I can admit that light doesn't favour a young universe, I can admit there are lines-of-evidence that would indicate older age. I admit I accept a young universe by faith or at the very least I am discombobulated by the facts. But it seems to me, you are incapable of thinking objectively because of your prejudice towards creationism.

 

Creation is what Genesis explains Piasan, and Christians have believed Genesis for hundreds of years, and will continue to believe it against Darwin's inadequate theory. Nobody before Darwin opened the bible and read Genesis and said, "wow, this is clearly an explanation of evolution". No - what they read is animals being created according to their kinds, eating as herbivores, no death, no disease or struggle, and no room for evolutionary time. These are the basic facts of the creation account which we accept as God's word about what truly happened. We have no reason to listen to an atheist-account/version of that story, since it is designed to say that God could be shaved away by Occam's razor!

 

+1 for this ^. Well said Mike.

 

And I believe this is the crux of the situation. We, as creationists (YECs, etc.) believe the bible is the inerrant Word of God. This word has not changed. Evolution is, well, constantly 'evolving' (pardon the cheesy pun). As new finds are made, the theory is adjusted to fit those finds. God will NEVER be on the table, because, according to evolution, there simply is 1) no God) and 2) no way to 'prove' or 'validate' the existence of God.

 

It's disheartening to think that something as simple as 'day' (as in the days in Genesis) can't be taken literally by many. Genesis is indeed the beginning of the bible and the crux of Christianity in my opinion. If you have a weak foundation (i.e. no belief in a literal creation) how do you build upon that faith? How do you pick and chose what you want to believe? The 10 commandments? The parting of the sea? Jesus's death? His resurrection?

 

We don't have all the answers. Why did God create the universe? Why did He make so many stars, planets, etc.? Why did He do so many things we don't understand?

 

Maybe it's not for us to understand, but to be in awe of His mighty hand. I don't ask myself these questions. I see the heavens and the earth and think to myself, "My God is an awesome God!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does God create evil people who have damaged brains and cannot help but act evil, with no thought as to the effect on others, without empathy?...

.

If there is an omni____ God, then:

.

One won't get very far asking that kind of question. ...

.

I was referring to the omni____ God: If God can/has done any- and everything that God wants, then there is no point in your question--whatever was, is and will be is and always will be the result of God and is not susceptible to our "whys?" and "what fors?"

.

...If this is the case, we have no free will in the matter. Every moment of our entire life is fully prescribed and predetermined. We have nothing to decide. We are automatons. God will reward us or punish us according to what he predestined us to do....

.

Thanks for your reply, svigil. I meant that the all-powerful God can and will design and implement any scheme of existence that He desires: Humans have as much free-will as is designed. In Roger Waters' litany of what God wants, in What God Wants, Part II, he laments, God wants his secret never to be told. Perhaps true; That is, the secret being the "algorithm" which implements the exact measure of free-will available within the scheme of existence.

 

One day, when I was a pre-adolescent, I was heading home with a friend. I lingered to do something for a few seconds as he proceeded into the road and toward home. A distance of some thirty yards between us developed until I began to return to his position on the road. Before I could eliminate the gap, a large branch fell from a tree onto the road behind him and before me. I would have been killed by that branch had I been at the spot of it's impact on the road.

 

On the other hand, had he decided to turn back and meet me, he may have been killed.

 

What does this story reveal about the validity of our lives "fully prescribed" or "predetermined"? I'd say that all the Earthly Laws that "determined" the course of that branch were fixed prior to the event and operable, though I balk at asserting "God's will"--unless one insists on equating "scheme of existence" with God's will. Those who believe in God can't--apparently--resist equating the "scheme of existence" with Gods' will.

 

I don't pretend to claim certainty: my opinion, after 50+ years of life, is that we are independent agents who operate within a definite, predetermined scheme of existence. Those who want to waste time on the idea of absolutes regarding the subject--for example, absolute free will--will not get any support from me.

 

Will anyone fix the meaning of "predetermined"? If one equates the meaning of this word with what I've employed as "scheme of existence", then YES, all is predetermined under that definition. I define the word to mean that event X will occur AT A FIXED TIME TO ME no matter what I do or do not do prior to the time of that event. I don't believe in this. Does anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My arguments against the flood are not based only on fossils.  They include issues from multiple, independent, branches of science.... and are far more fundamental to what is necessary for such an event in the first place.

And I am sure that between your ears those arguments are unbreakable. But I have read answers to your arguments that explain away your propositions. Your propositions are also very subjective and based on your ignorance of world-flood experiences, as you are an evolutionist and are not aware of your own agenda. Your arguments basically insist a global flood could not have happened. You don't have that knowledge, for you have never produced a global flood.

I am sure that between your ears, arguments for a global flood are unbreakable.  But I have read answers to your arguments that explain away your propositions.  Your propositions are also very subjective and based on your ignorance of world-wide flood experiences, as you are a creationist and are not aware of your own agenda.  Your arguments basically insist a global flood must have happened.  You don't have that knowledge, for you have never produced a global flood.

 

See, just by changing a few words, I can make the exact same claims about your position as you do about mine.... with just as much justification.

 

BTW, why would it be necessary for one to have produced a global flood to have knowledge if a flood may have happened or not?  That's a lot like arguing I must have produced a car to know if a car can exist.   For one who likes to go about the logic failures of those who disagree with your presuppositions you sure make a lot of them yourself.

 

 

Nobody can 100% know what happened in the past, it is the same for uniformitarians as it is for flood-catastrophists. We can only build a hypothesis, each hypothesis cannot be fully falsified nor fully confirmed, and each is bound to be conjectural, but the best hypothesis of all of the facts, makes more sense with a catastrophism, IMHO.

Of course we can't know with 100% certainty what happened in the past.  (With some exceptions I'll mention later.)  We can build hypotheses and we can test them.  If they fail testing, we should reject them.   As for what makes more sense.... lots of local catastrophies of the kind we see on a regular make a lot more sense than a single global event that has huge problems.  

 

 

My arguments against YEC aren't even based on anything from this planet.

That's going to be a problem then because a young earth isn't dependent upon a young universe. That is to say, it is possible to have a universe that is billions of years old, but that doesn't automatically make the earth billions of years old. Nor does it make the earth any more than 6,000 years old, logically. 

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently precise.  When I use the term "YEC," it is in a sense that is interchangeable with "Genesis literalist."   Since the Genesis account is specific that the Earth existed (Day 1) before the stars were created (Day 4) it follows if the stars are billions of years old, then according to the literal reading the Earth must also be billions of years old.....  or the literal reading is false.   Logically.

 

 

The difference between you and me, is that I am objective. I can admit that light doesn't favour a young universe, I can admit there are lines-of-evidence that would indicate older age. I admit I accept a young universe by faith or at the very least I am discombobulated by the facts. But it seems to me, you are incapable of thinking objectively because of your prejudice towards creationism.

Are you being objective?   Do you start with a presupposition that the literal reading of Genesis must be true?  I understand that we all start with presuppositons.... myself included.  All we can do is our best to be objective.   When I approach the evidence, it is with no preconception that Genesis is either true or untrue.  Such a presupposition would make an objective analysis impossible.

 

What you see as my prejudice towards creationism is not a preconceived bias .... it is the end result of years of study, analysis, evaluation, and yes ... prayer.  All of which has been done in (what I see as) a concious effort to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible.  Certainly with no presupposition that the (literal) Biblical account is either true or false.

 

Oh yeah... before you question my objectivity, maybe you should examine the objectivity of the leading creation science ministries what openly declare any evidence contradicting a literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION... and require their employees to sign a statement to that effect as a condition of employment   That's really objective isn't it?

 

Could God have made the flood water appear, stay around for a year or so, then disappear without leaving a trace?   Absolutely.  That is certainly within the power of an omnipotent God. 

 

 

Creation is what Genesis explains Piasan, and Christians have believed Genesis for hundreds of years, and will continue to believe it against Darwin's inadequate theory.

Straw man....  Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the flood, Mr. Logician.

 

Nobody before Darwin opened the bible and read Genesis and said, "wow, this is clearly an explanation of evolution".

1)  Another straw man.

2)  Diversionary tactic.... the flood issues are based on Newtonian physics, not Darwinian evolution.  (BTW. Newton is widely acclaimed as a creationist by YEC.... so attempts to poison the well by arguing that his ideas are coming from an atheist won't work.)

 

 

No - what they read is animals being created according to their kinds, eating as herbivores, no death, no disease or struggle, and no room for evolutionary time. These are the basic facts of the creation account which we accept as God's word about what truly happened. We have no reason to listen to an atheist-account/version of that story, since it is designed to say that God could be shaved away by Occam's razor!

Ah yes... "an atheist-account / version.....there's the well poison.   Yet another logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Calypsis, in post, #478 , pp24,

pp. 24, April 2015 - 05:12 AM.

 

A video was provided on dragon mythology, entitled, “Forbidden History: Dinosaurs and the Bibleâ€. I watched through part 6 a few references to dragons in part 6. There were some interesting pictures and claims that dinos had been on the ark. Interestingly, even the picture shown of the ark contained now dinos. Evidently, this is a new idea in Christian thought. Finally, according to the video, archaeology has never overturned anything in the bible. So, this appears to be a subject Calvsis wishes to discuss further. It reminds me of,

 

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!

 

First, this breaks guideline 3 in the rules. (Evidently, it’s not just a guideline.)

 

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.

and specific normative (required) guidance given by Bonedigger.

 

The onus is on you to present your argument, not just post links where your opponent is supposed to dig through it and try to find what arguments you are appealing to

 

Aside from that, who’s to say that ancient foundation diggers and minors haven’t been scared silly throughout history by old fossils?

 

In addition, the whole business of the search for modern dinos sidesteps one issue. It is accepted that some dinosaurs exist today. I personally provided video evidence of a bird with claws.

 

Even if all dinosaurs still existed today, that would not go against evolution. The thing we do not see is a Poodle in the Cambrian period. That would disembowel the theory. Nor do we see people or tigers or dogs in the Jurassic. But many are seeing Dragons! See this 1.5 minute clip.

 

Real Flying Dragon I Never seen anything like this

 

Seriously though, if God wanted dinos to live, why would he go through the trouble of putting them on the ark only to let them all die off after the flood waters receded (obstensively) in 2000 BC?

 

We don't believe in the 65 million yr old KT event, period.

 

That’s a religious statement of faith. If you want to make such statements, go ahead. But, its groundless and it is unsubstantiated. And, we do see this band all over the earth.

 

Lastly, God doesn't deceive anyone: you have deceived yourselves. Your time frame for earth's history is wrong.

 

Your whole post appears to break #5 in the forum rules that disallows:

 

Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay.

(Emphasis added.)

 

Why is the moderator not stepping in when these rules are broken by the theists on the forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are dogs not special and worthy of special consideration by God? They mourn the dead. See Strays hold vigil at funeral for deceased animal lover for description. From my perspective, if a soul exists at all, it must exist in any individual capable of mourning death over another, K-9 or other.

 

This web site seems all about disavowing science to make room for the supernatural. How do we know anybody has a soul… other than “the bible tells us so� What specific evidence has anyone ever found that can be examined? What repeatable experiment has ever shown this that we can perform at will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms