RHOBLOGY: YouTube debate about science and evolution

Monday, November 22, 2010

YouTube debate about science and evolution

In the comments of a YT video of Kent Hovind at Cal Berkeley, I recently had a discussion with a Darwinian named maskofsan1ty.
I don't love Hovind and I think he probably plays fast and loose with facts some of the time, but OTOH he's useful b/c it shows how even someone who's a bit of a doofus can make a fool of pretty much any Darwinian he faces. I don't know why so many Darwinians are bad at debating, but it might be a useful skill to learn, you'd think.

Me: Which is funny - a guy w/o an advanced degree makes evolution and evolutionists look like fools.
I'd respect the evolutionary establishment alot more if they could actually win a debate or two with creationists.

Him: Wining a debate is irrelevant! It doesn't make something real or not it only tests the debaters skills at debating! The only reason Kent Hovind is respected by creationist is because he is a good debater and is able to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about and has valid evidence when in reality he has no idea or evidence. He is a fraud who knowingly misrepresents the science of evolution so that people find it hard to believe.

Me: Hovind presents quite a lot of evidence. Just b/c you disagree with it doesn't mean he doesn't show any. Ironically, all the evidence you think you have is easily explainable under a creationist mode or is fallacious, while there are data your position can't explain. You clearly haven't done enough reading into the matter.

Him: It's not me who disagrees with it, it's science! All of his 'evidence' for a God can be, and has been, disproven with ease. Show me some of this evidence that cannot be explained by any other way then by creationism?

Me: Haha "it's science!" You're a 110% acolyte, man. Signed over your brain and everything!
Science can't access the supernatural.
Science can't tell you whether other minds exist.
Can't tell you whether evidence exists.
Can't tell you what constitutes evidence.
Can't tell you what is moral.
Can't tell you whether YOU exist.
Can't explain fossilised trees VERTICALLY passing thru "millions of years" of geological strata.
Can't explain the origin of life. Or of intelligence.

Him: No one ever claimed that science can be used to prove everything. It has a good success rate though! It has never claimed to know how life has formed though the production of amino acids is pretty convincing that at some point we will be able to. Vertical petrified trees have been explained SCIENTIFICALLY!!
Might I add that your comments refute the existence of intelligence!!

Me: Oh, a good success rate when it is constantly getting overturned? But it's nice to see you have blind faith, with your "give us a chance!" comment. You're a disciple, man. I note that you did not respond to the most foundational of my challenges. Thus, I have answered your question - creationism explains these fine, whereas science cannot by your own admission. Thanks for the fail! Also, please explain the vertical fossil trees on an old Earth schema.

Him: That's the beauty of science. It changes according to new evidence. Evolution has been around for 150 years but there has been no evidence to prove it wrong (feel I need to add that it has to be credible scientific evidence). The longer a scientific theory remains uncontested the more likely it is for it to be true. Vertical trees like the petrified trees in Yellowstone were found after the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980. Which challenge did I not respond to?

Me: Read my 2nd response to you where I said "science can't" and gave you a long list. That's what you can't respond to. And fossilised trees a la St Helens would be more like a young Earth substantiation. Remember, these trees I'm referring to straddle 10s of millions of yrs (according to old Earth) of strata. How did that happen slowly?
And unfortunately, science has not changed to accommodate its limitations. Too many new atheists are ignorant of philosophy of science (and logic)

Him: Yeah, you may well be right. But it's irrelevant and I can't see how Christianity can. I never said they were fossilised. I said they were vertical. Ok, I've done some quick research into these tree's crossing millions of years of strata and have only found creationist sites. Can you link me to a peer reviewed article please? Atheism and science have nothing to do with each other so your last sentence is irrelevant.

Me: I reject the necessity of linking to "peer-reviewed" sites. I prefer logical arguments. But to make you happy, know how to use bit ly links? bit dot ly slash a4MCOt. That's your Darwinist Bible site. It says "You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood." LOL, yes, I will be. The 'explanation' seems to be that some creationists disagree with others. Wow!

Him: Unbelievable! Peer reviewed articles are the foundation of science and without them scientific research would be a mess and would achieve nothing. The reason you don't feel the necessity for them is because there are none that support the creationist idea! The worldwide flood is a ludicrous idea with absolutely no proof! I would love to continue debating you but I can't bring myself to argue with someone who 'rejects the necessity of peer-reviewed' papers.

Me: No, proper experimentation, logic, and repeated observation are the foundation of science. Sheesh, you ppl with your obsession over peer review! I fully expect few peer-rvw articles to be YEC b/c of the philosophically ignorant biases of the scientific community at large. You have yourself done a good job of confirming that diagnosis of ignorance. OK, nice talking to you.

122 comments:

ghdgh said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; Mon Nov 22, 09:08:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: The worldwide flood simply has too many problems associated with it:

1. The mixing of salt water and fresh water would have been fatal to both fresh-water and saltwater organisms.

2. One family could not have looked after that many animals, feeding them and cleaning up after them for a whole year.

3. There's a huge problem explaining where the water came from and where it went.

4. Unless the mountains were a LOT lower back then, the floating ark would have been at an elevation with cold, hostile temperatures and very thin air.

5. Animals from radically different climates can't survive together in the same place: e.g., penguins and camels. Not only would they have been forced to live a year in the nonclimate-controlled ark, but then they would have faced the journey through the various environments from Ararat all the way home. I mean, really, do you think a penguin could make it from the landing site back to its indigenous home?

6. The problem of food is insurmountable. A lion must eat meat, so Noah would have to have brought enough animals to provide food -- then enough food to feed those animals.

7. It's unlikely that all the animals in the ark could descend a mountain after the ark's landing. Imagine a rhinoceros trying to negotiate a steep slope.

8. Plant life can't survive for a year underwater. No more trees, grasses, flowers, ferns.

9. Animals from geographically isolated areas (New Zealand, e.g.) would have had no access to the ark, nor could they have returned home after the flood.

10. The chance of survival among animals that go an entire year without any exercise would be slim.

11. After being released on Mount Ararat, the carnivores would have had nothing to eat, except the other animals that were released with them. But killing and eating just one of the other animals would have meant extinction for that species.

Plenty of Christians opt for the regional flood theory, and I can see why. The traditional understanding of the biblical story is preposterous. It requires too many unlikely, ad hoc explanations.; Mon Nov 22, 11:41:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Hey Babble, Its called "faith". Something you obviously dont have.
Its really that simple.; Mon Nov 22, 01:29:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Now why didn't I think of that? So what you're saying is that Mr. Rhinoceros was able to get down the mountain because he had faith. All right then.

BTW, the average Mormon has faith that the angel Moroni buried some gold tablets that Joseph Smith translated. Since it's a faith-based belief, I guess it must be correct.; Mon Nov 22, 02:15:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: These are some good objections, actually.

1. You know, I never thought of that. My first reaction was to think that the fish that survived the Flood and ended up in freshwater lakes/rivers would either die or evolve into freshwater fish.
Answers in Genesis has a reasonable answer here which is along the same lines.

2. There were 8 of them, and that's all they had to do.
It's not as if we posit that the vast variety of species that we see today were all in the Ark. Rather, animals from which the specialised species we see today evolved were there. Not millions.

3. It came from the floodgates of the deep, mostly. Also rain.
It was a supernaturally-triggered event, and I dare you to try to make some argument about how you know those floodgates of the deep didn't exist back then.

4. It's not as if the Ark-dwellers were exerting themselves, and the ark didn't have many windows for cold air to circulate and freeze everyone.

5. The ones TODAY may not be able to. And yet, we have zoos today, don't we? And they're in one place, aren't they?

do you think a penguin could make it from the landing site back to its indigenous home?

Yes. Do you really think that an argumentum ad incredulum is supposed to carry some weight? Or is this another of those logical fallacies you don't mind throwing out there from time to time?

6. What proof do you have that lions MUST eat meat?

7. Not all mountains are steep. It doesn't say how high the mountain was.

8. I presume you've done rigorous studies to prove this assertion.
Aren't river deltas often really good for agriculture?
Don't you believe that areas that used to be underwater are now dry ground? How did plants get back to those areas?

9. This assumes the landmasses looked the same back then as they do now.

10. Been to the zoo lately?

11. And you think this is a problem...why? You think we don't think that species have gone extinct in the past?

Anonymous,
Whatever.; Mon Nov 22, 02:41:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: Also, here are some reasons why the local flood idea is a bad one.; Mon Nov 22, 02:41:00 PM CST
bossmanham said...: Actually, there's a book by MIT Ph. D grad Walt Brown, an engineer, that gives a scientific model of how the flood waters could have burst from under the crust of the earth. The theory is known as the hydroplate theory. The book is here.; Mon Nov 22, 05:12:00 PM CST
David said...: So many errors, so little time.

But here's an easy one.

"What proof do you have that lions MUST eat meat? "

All of the 40 odd species in the Family Felidae are obligate carnivores. They all must have meat in their diets.; Mon Nov 22, 05:45:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: David, the lions on the ark may have been able to live on meat OR bean sprouts. After they left the ark and bred over time, the bean sprout eating line probably died out and we were left with the lions we have today.

Hey, why not?; Mon Nov 22, 06:21:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Rhology, I confess to my shame that the bean sprout thing was indeed an appeal to ridicule, so I'm guilty of another fallacy (already exceeding my quota for this month). However, I don't think the earlier penguin reference was. More of a reductio ad absurdum. A logical conclusion of the worldwide flood view is that an animal with such poor mobility, so tailored to a specific environment, would have been required to make an impossible trek from Turkey (or wherever) all the way to the Antarctic.

It seems an overwhelming problem that the view requires so many unlikely scenarios and assumptions piled on top of one another. The continents must all be connected. We need water bubbling up from below. We need Ararat to accommodate hippos and giraffes that are trying to get down the mountainside. We need the animals to have been much fewer in number, ready to branch off into a profusion of diverse forms after leaving the ark.

In short, we have to assume too many unlikely things.

Also, do you believe (as some creationists do) that Noah brought dinosaurs on the ark?; Mon Nov 22, 06:48:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: BTW, thanks for rebuffing Anonymous.; Mon Nov 22, 06:53:00 PM CST
Cory said...: David:

I read a story once about an Italian family that had a female lion as a pet -- they fed it pasta, not meat.

The lion now lives in a zoo is South Africa -- the family had to move to a city where regulations prohibited them from keeping her.

The point is that animals, under such extraordinary curcumstances, as a flood would be, can adapt to survive.; Mon Nov 22, 06:54:00 PM CST
David said...: "I read a story once about an Italian family that had a female lion as a pet -- they fed it pasta, not meat."

Then the lion would have died. Lions cannot produce Vitamin A from non-meat sources.; Mon Nov 22, 08:57:00 PM CST
David said...: "A logical conclusion of the worldwide flood view is that an animal with such poor mobility, so tailored to a specific environment, would have been required to make an impossible trek from Turkey (or wherever) all the way to the Antarctic."

Exactly. And the list of animals species about which this can be said is very, very long. It ain't just penguins. I've noticed over the years that YECers rarely talk about the evidence for evolution that is derived from biogeography, because not only does the distribution of organism support evolution, but it's a killer for YEC/Global Flood.; Mon Nov 22, 09:01:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: David, your point brings up another problem with the universal flood. For most animals, it would have taken many, many generations to get back to their original homes -- presumably over the land bridges between the still-connected continents. During that time, there would have been a lot of breeding going on, with populations spreading out all over the place. So why are the animals on the different continents so distinct from one another? Animals in the rain forests of Africa and South America differ widely, even though the climate is similar in both places. Australia's animals are very different from those in any other locale. Same with New Zealand, with all its flightless birds. Why? How does this fit with a global flood model?; Mon Nov 22, 09:43:00 PM CST
Darren said...: Wait? So the flood is not a leap of Faith? It gets a response from a professor as "whatever"? The account of the flood in the Bible is not a story where the average man says "hey, that makes sense!". It is a matter of faith. When I was an evolutionist, I used to think that the story of the flood was rediculous. Once I got saved, I never doubted it. So it is a matter of Faith. Getting into the logistics & proofs comes after the faith.; Tue Nov 23, 07:04:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: After they left the ark and bred over time, the bean sprout eating line probably died out and we were left with the lions we have today.

Hey, why not?

Great question - why not?
You guys are the ones who are telling us there are MOUNTAINS of evidence that evolution from common ancestor happen**ED**. Yet when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, all you have are assumptions and argumenta ad incredulum.

A logical conclusion of the worldwide flood view is that an animal with such poor mobility, so tailored to a specific environment, would have been required to make an impossible trek from Turkey (or wherever) all the way to the Antarctic.

Prove it's impossible. Good luck.
Prove there were no waterways by which the penguins could've swam part or even most of the way. Again, good luck.
If you can't prove it, why are you talking?

The continents must all be connected.

Um, ever heard of Pangaea? Your side thinks they were all connected.

We need water bubbling up from below.

Ever heard of Yellowstone? Lake Baikal? The great Rift Valley in Africa?

. We need Ararat to accommodate hippos and giraffes that are trying to get down the mountainside.

No one's claiming that the mtn that is today called Ararat was the mountain where the Ark landed.

We need the animals to have been much fewer in number, ready to branch off into a profusion of diverse forms after leaving the ark.

Which is precisely what evolution tells us happened. That's a problem...why?

do you believe (as some creationists do) that Noah brought dinosaurs on the ark?

Probably, but there's no way to be 100% sure.

BTW, thanks for rebuffing Anonymous.

I thought it was pretty clear he was being sarcastic, actually.

For most animals, it would have taken many, many generations to get back to their original homes

Assumes they went back to their "original" homes.

So why are the animals on the different continents so distinct from one another?

Evolution and ecological pressures. There weren't necessarily JUST ONE proto-penguin (or whatever animal) on the Ark, too.

David said:
Then the lion would have died. Lions cannot produce Vitamin A from non-meat sources.

1) The lion DIDN'T die. You just won't let evidence get in the way of your hypotheses, will you?
2) How do you know the metabolistic requirements and characteristics of lions 6000 years ago? Who did the study, and how?; Tue Nov 23, 07:09:00 AM CST
David said...: Keep saying that we need to prove that something is impossible? This is your main argument? Wow. Most of the rest of your answers failed to answer or adequately address the questions. For example, I don't think that you really grasp the biogeography problems, and ironically, you "solve" some of your problems by proposing rates of evolution that greatly, greatly exceed the wildest dreams of any scientist.

"Um, ever heard of Pangaea? Your side thinks they were all connected."

So, how fast did the continents move as they split into today's continents?

"The lion DIDN'T die. You just won't let evidence get in the way of your hypotheses, will you?"

What we have here is a story from Italy. That's it. We have an unscientific anecdote. This was not a controlled study of felid nutrition. I think that we need a little more than this before we reject decades of scientific research into felid nutrition.

Now, if you are of a very cruel bent, you can run this experiment yourself. Get a cat and feed it a meatless diet. You won't have to wait two years (time of Noah's journey) to get your results. Better not tell anyone what you're doing, because you will be arrested.

"How do you know the metabolistic requirements and characteristics of lions 6000 years ago? Who did the study, and how?"

First, I believe that we are talking about 4500 years ago, not 6000 years ago.

Second, we understand why felids are obligate carnivores.
We understand the genetics. Felids share mutations in genes for enzymes involved in metabolism and they share mutations in genes involved in sensing sweetness. So, if felids could eat plants 4500 years ago, we then have the mystery of how all these different species got the same mutations in the same places over the last 4500 years.; Tue Nov 23, 07:33:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Rhology: "Prove it's impossible. Good luck."

Is the burden of proof really upon me to prove the impossibility of something before I can justly dispute it? I can't prove that it's impossible. But I can set forth the highly implausible nature of the events happening as you claim they did, and that should be enough.

By the same token, I can't prove the theoretical impossibility that aliens seeded the earth with the first human life, or that the moon landing was fake, or that the U.S. government was responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers. And neither can you. But we don't really have to.; Tue Nov 23, 08:25:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: we need to prove that something is impossible? This is your main argument?

BrFr is the one who was trying to cast doubt b/c of his "challenges". I'm merely asking him to substantiate them. Why take them seriously?
If you're not happy about that arrangement, how about
1) changing your worldview, or at minimum
2) thinking of some arguments that WILL work?

I don't think that you really grasp the biogeography problems, and ironically, you "solve" some of your problems by proposing rates of evolution that greatly, greatly exceed the wildest dreams of any scientist.

Except I didn't b/c I have not stated dogmatically (nor would or could I) how many of what kinds of animals were on the Ark.

how fast did the continents move as they split into today's continents?

Might've moved fast. Quickly-moving water can carve out canyons in weeks.

I think that we need a little more than this before we reject decades of scientific research into felid nutrition...we understand why felids are obligate carnivores. We understand the genetics

You'd need to do the research on lions of the Noachian epoch. Might be difficult.; Tue Nov 23, 08:33:00 AM CST
Cory said...: "Then the lion would have died. Lions cannot produce Vitamin A from non-meat sources."

But the lion didn't die.

Here's two links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169637/Meet-Dante-Britains-vegetarian-cat-refuses-eat-meat-fish.html

and

http://www.greatcatssa.org/lea.htm

Sure, these cats may be anomalies, but clearly they have lived without meat; Lea now eats meat, but for 7 years she did not.

There's nothing to disprove the idea that Noah could have utilized dried meats or other meat forms to feed the carnivores.

Keep in mind, too, that the animals on the Ark were sedentary; they probably wouldn't need to eat as much as an animal in the wild.; Tue Nov 23, 08:48:00 AM CST
David said...: Cory,

Here's the key sentence about the cat. 'I have to smuggle bits of meat in among the veggies because I want him to get all the nutrients he needs.' So, there you go. This cat is eating meat.

And again, this is not a controlled scientific study. In fact, we do NOT know exactly what this cat is eating.

With respect to the lion, again, we do not know what, exactly, this animal was or was not eating. And did you see the "before" picture in the cage? Did that look like a healthy lion to you? Also note that the lion did NOT live solely on pasta. There's a hint at your link as to where the Vitamin A was coming from. It wasn't coming from the pasta.

All I'm asking is for are controlled, scientific studies in which the diet of the felid is precisely controlled so that we know exactly what the animal is and is not eating. Is that being unreasonable or an example of not letting the evidence get in the way of my hypothesis? I'm more than willing to test my hypothesis under controlled conditions, no problem.

"Sure, these cats may be anomalies..."

So you're assuming that of all of the felids in the pre-Flood world, Noah just happened to get the "anomalies" for his ark. Is this likely?

"There's nothing to disprove the idea that Noah could have utilized dried meats or other meat forms to feed the carnivores."

In a high humidity environment? For two years? With no loss of nutritional content? Let's test this out. Seriously, YECers could do these experiment tomorrow if they'd like. Why not give it a try?

By the way, long before the felids die of Vitamin A deficiency, all of the primates would have died of scurvy.; Tue Nov 23, 09:21:00 AM CST
David said...: “Except I didn't b/c I have not stated dogmatically (nor would or could I) how many of what kinds of animals were on the Ark.”

Well, first, this doesn’t address the biogeography problem.

Second, in order to reduce the number of animals on the ark, YECer routine reduce the total by lumping many species into one “kind”, followed by the claim that Noah only took two of a given kind onto the ark. Most estimates that I’ve read say that there were fewer than 10,000 kinds on the ark. Whether you state this “dogmatically” or not, it’s essential to the “hypothesis”, because you have to reduce the numbers to a manageable level.

So, we have fewer than 10,000 kinds. Then the ark lands, and we very quickly lose a large number of these kinds to extinction; no more dinosaurs, very little vegetation for the herbivores to eat, rapid loss of prey “kinds” to hungry predators, etc. Just think of how many prey animals would be required just to feed a lion for a week or two, and each time the lion eats, we lose another kind.

Now what are we down to? A few thousand surviving kinds? If we’re lucky. From here, we have to get back to the many tens of thousands of vertebrate species today. You can’t do this without very rapid evolution after the ark lands. I’m not the only one who’s come to this conclusion. Many YECers make the same argument.

“Might've moved fast. Quickly-moving water can carve out canyons in weeks. “

Quickly-moving water? How is this even remotely relevant?

Here’s the key. Find a geophysicist. Ask them to calculate the amount of heat released when you move continents thousands of miles in a few months. Ask about the amount of volcanic activity. Ask about how much ash and toxic gas would be released into the atmosphere.

“You'd need to do the research on lions of the Noachian epoch. Might be difficult.”

Again, I explained that we understand why felids are obligate carnivores. There is zero evidence to suggest that the mutations in question occurred just 4500 years ago, and much evidence to support the conclusion that the mutations occurred long, long before this time.

Care to explain why 40 felid species are obligate carnivores for the exact same reason in all species?

In closing, I just have to address this one, too…

“Aren't river deltas often really good for agriculture? Don't you believe that areas that used to be underwater are now dry ground? How did plants get back to those areas?”

New deltas are colonized from the LAND side of the delta. When areas that were once underwater become dry land, they will be covered in vegetation that originated from nearby LAND. During the Flood, there is NO land to act as a source of colonizing plant species.; Tue Nov 23, 09:46:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: Now what are we down to? A few thousand surviving kinds? If we’re lucky... You can’t do this without very rapid evolution after the ark lands.

An evolutionist complaining that things might have evolved! So weird. Will wonders never cease?

Quickly-moving water? How is this even remotely relevant?

You know, carving out spaces between continents?

Ask them to calculate the amount of heat released when you move continents thousands of miles in a few months.

And where did I suggest such a thing?
And if there's a lot of water still around...what effect might that have on said heat/gas/ash release?

There is zero evidence to suggest that the mutations in question occurred just 4500 years ago

How in the world could you find that out with any certainty?

Care to explain why 40 felid species are obligate carnivores for the exact same reason in all species?

Um, they all evolved?

During the Flood, there is NO land to act as a source of colonizing plant species.

Here's the key, see. The water receded, remember?; Tue Nov 23, 10:02:00 AM CST
Cory said...: "All I'm asking is for are controlled, scientific studies in which the diet of the felid is precisely controlled so that we know exactly what the animal is and is not eating."

But like I said, what's to say that Noah did not use other forms of meat to satisfy the carnivorous animals' needs?

Dried or salted meats, for instance, could have been a real possibility.

These were also sedentary animals -- they would not require the amount of food an animal in the wild would require.; Tue Nov 23, 10:17:00 AM CST
Cory said...: "all of the primates would have died of scurvy."

That's the problem -- you're smuggling in a term that the Bible doesn't employ: if you take the biblical term "kind," the objection evaporates.

"Kind" denotes an animal with a built-in capacity for variation.; Tue Nov 23, 10:23:00 AM CST
David said...: “An evolutionist complaining that things might have evolved! So weird. Will wonders never cease?”

I’m not complaining at all. What I’m saying is that what YEC requires is something that YEC also says cannot happen. You can’t deny evolution and then turn around and require it for your hypothesis.

“You know, carving out spaces between continents?”

Are you serious? Flowing water carved out the space between Africa and South America?

“And where did I suggest such a thing?”

Sorry, I didn’t realize at the time that you were going to suggest that river carved the South Atlantic.

“And if there's a lot of water still around...what effect might that have on said heat/gas/ash release?”

Given the amounts of heat released, much of the water would have boiled, a very unpleasant thing for life on Earth.

In any event, this still leaves the heat, ash and toxic gases escaping on dry land, and this more than enough to nearly sterilize the planet.

“How in the world could you find that out with any certainty?”

First, how do you define the word “certainty”? Then I’ll get to the “how”.

“Um, they all evolved?”

Yes, they did. Over tens of millions of years. If this happens in the space of 4500 years, then we are talking about rates of evolution that are beyond the biologist’s wildest dreams. Again, YEC requires what YEC denies.

So, forty felid species evolved from one felid species in 4500 years. Care to explain the mechanism that made this possible?

“Here's the key, see. The water receded, remember?”

Yes, but to return to Brabble’s original point, plant life can't survive for a year underwater. The water does not recede until the END of the Flood. Where is the land mass that acts as a source of colonizing plants DURING the Flood?

Biogeography. anyone?; Tue Nov 23, 10:23:00 AM CST
Cory said...: "There's a hint at your link as to where the Vitamin A was coming from. It wasn't coming from the pasta."

You concede, then, that animals can get their vitamin A from another source?

I think too many people underestimate Noah's intelligence.

Btw, I'm not a YEC'er.; Tue Nov 23, 10:26:00 AM CST
David said...: “Dried or salted meats, for instance, could have been a real possibility. “

I explained the problems with these other forms of meat. But hey, I’m open to the possibilities. Let’s do some experiments. I’m not joking, this is something that could be tested. Why hasn’t this been done?

“These were also sedentary animals -- they would not require the amount of food an animal in the wild would require.”

You are confusing vitamins with nutrients that provide the vast majority of calories. Vitamins are needed in much smaller quantities and provide very little in the way of calories, so whether or not the animals are burning a lot of calories is not that significant when it comes to vitamins.

“That's the problem -- you're smuggling in a term that the Bible doesn't employ: if you take the biblical term "kind," the objection evaporates.”

I don’t understand the relevance. All primates must have Vitamin C in the diet. It doesn’t matter if there are ten of them in the boat or a thousand in the boat. Whatever the count, they all need Vitamin C.

But to your point about kind, are you’re saying that there was just a single primate “kind”? Was this a lemur, monkey, ape or human?

"Kind" denotes an animal with a built-in capacity for variation.

This isn’t very helpful. All individual species have a built-in capacity for variation. So by this definition, all species are also individual kinds.; Tue Nov 23, 10:31:00 AM CST
David said...: You concede, then, that animals can get their vitamin A from another source?

Yes, in this case, the Vitamin A may have been coming from the cheese.

"I think too many people underestimate Noah's intelligence."

It's not so much a question of "intelligence" as it is a question of accumulated knowledge. The diets provided to zoo animals are the product of decades of nutritional research carried out by thousands of scientists.; Tue Nov 23, 10:36:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: The diets provided to zoo animals are the product of decades of nutritional research carried out by thousands of scientists.

No chance that God gave him some advice. Or that he stored meat in advance.; Tue Nov 23, 11:05:00 AM CST
David said...: "No chance that God gave him some advice."

Heh, heh, even as I typed my previous comment, I knew that this would be your response. When stuck, the answer is always the same. Magic man did it.

"Or that he stored meat in advance."

Again, run the experiment. That all I ask. See how this works out for you in the real world.

I've never understood why YECer don't just build an ark to try these things out. It would be such an easy way to silence much of the criticism. I don't know for certain that it wouldn't work, so let's actually try to do this. I suspect that YECer don't do the experiment because they're afraid of the results.; Tue Nov 23, 11:59:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: why YECer don't just build an ark to try these things out. It would be such an easy way to silence much of the criticism.

You're profoundly naive. It would simply be an occasion for more mockery from the evidence-free Darwinians.
I'm glad to see you have nothing more than argumenta ad incredulum. As I was typing up this post, I knew THAT would be YOUR response.; Tue Nov 23, 12:11:00 PM CST
David said...: You're profoundly naive. It would simply be an occasion for more mockery from the evidence-free Darwinians.

This makes no sense. Do the experiment and you would have the evidence to counter the evidence free Darwinians. Why not do this and prove that it's possible?; Tue Nov 23, 12:53:00 PM CST
David said...: ...I am NOT arguing from incredulity.

I'm offering the means by which you could show that we should be credulous and not incredulous. Why not accept the offer?; Tue Nov 23, 12:55:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: Just waiting for a good reason to think that my explanations don't stand as they are, w/o building an ark or some such weirdness.

100% guarantee - if someone did that, the "scientific community" would denounce them as an ignorant fundy and would ream him for spending money that "should've been given to poor people" or "that could've been better spent funding our favorite research project this month". You're ridiculous.; Tue Nov 23, 01:00:00 PM CST
David said...: "Just waiting for a good reason to think that my explanations don't stand as they are, w/o building an ark or some such weirdness."

Gave you plenty of reasons. Lotsa and lots of reasons that you have largely failed to repond to. Now, to settle the issue, we need to run the experiments.

"100% guarantee - if someone did that, the "scientific community" would denounce them as an ignorant fundy and would ream him for spending money that "should've been given to poor people" or "that could've been better spent funding our favorite research project this month".

Since when do you care what the scientific community thinks. Wow, what a lame excuse. I offer you a way to prove you claims, and you run and hide.

"You're ridiculous."

Unsupported ad hom.; Tue Nov 23, 01:06:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: . What I’m saying is that what YEC requires is something that YEC also says cannot happen.

YEC doesn't deny microevol.

Flowing water carved out the space between Africa and South America?

And the evidence against such...?
Yeah, you don't have any. Nobody was there.

that river carved the South Atlantic

"River", eh? Strawman much?

much of the water would have boiled, a very unpleasant thing for life on Earth.

1) how do you have any idea how much heat would have been released?
2) You seem to be underestimating how much water there was. There was a lot of water.

First, how do you define the word “certainty”? Then I’ll get to the “how”.

You made the claim. You show us the evidence and then we can talk about certainty.
I take it you don't have any evidence. What a surprise.

Yes, they did. Over tens of millions of years.

1) You don't have any proof of that.
2) You also don't have any proof that evolution can't work faster than your religion says it can. You just have guesses.

forty felid species evolved from one felid species in 4500 years. Care to explain the mechanism that made this possible?

That's not my claim. I don't know how many felid animals were on the ark.

plant life can't survive for a year underwater.

MODERN plant life can't.
And I think river deltas can cover land for more than a year before diverting/drying. Then plants grow there.

Where is the land mass that acts as a source of colonizing plants DURING the Flood?

Seeds float.; Tue Nov 23, 02:01:00 PM CST
David said...: "YEC doesn't deny microevol."

Define “microevolution”. Can microevolution produce 40 felid species from 1 felid species? Why or why not?

"And the evidence against such...? Yeah, you don't have any. Nobody was there."

Check out the depth of South Atlantic. Check out the absence of canyons on the respective coasts. Check out the fact that the South American and African coasts are mirror images of each other. You think that flowing water can create mirror image banks when those banks are thousands of miles apart?

C’mon Alan, you don’t have to be there to know that “flowing water” didn’t create the separation between Africa and South America. Even the YEC geologists don’t make arguments like this.

"River", eh? Strawman much?

Ok, tell me all about the flowing water. How does this work?

“How do you have any idea how much heat would have been released?”

Geophysics.

“You seem to be underestimating how much water there was. There was a lot of water.”

There is also a lot of energy released when continents move.

“I take it you don't have any evidence. What a surprise.”

There’s plenty of genetic evidence that allows us to estimate time back to common ancestors, but you’ll reject it. We also have felid fossil evidence. You’ll reject that, too.

That’s why I asked you to define “certainty”. The evidence in question will not give us “absolute certainty”, just a high degree of confidence that the mutations in question did not occur 4500 years ago.

>Yes, they did. Over tens of millions of years.

“You don't have any proof of that.”

Sigh. It’s not a question of “proof”. It’s a question of well-tested hypotheses.

“You also don't have any proof that evolution can't work faster than your religion says it can. You just have guesses.

Well, we have a lot and lots of observations and experimentation to back this up, but if you want to argue that evolution can happen much faster than we thought, go ahead. It only helps the scientist’s side of the equation.

“That's not my claim. I don't know how many felid animals were on the ark.”

The mutational evidence tells us that there was only one pair of felids on the ark. Remember, YOUR claim is that the felids on the ark didn’t need meat. That means that the mutations in question had not occurred yet.

“MODERN plant life can't. “

Whatever. Make up whatever answer you need.

“And I think river deltas can cover land for more than a year before diverting/drying. Then plants grow there.”

Right. After re-colonization from outside sources.

“Seeds float.”

For a little while. But rarely for two years. Plus, the salts in the water can kill the embryos inside. There may be a few exceptions, but hardly enough to explain the 100,000-plus species of vascular plants seen today.; Tue Nov 23, 02:40:00 PM CST
Cory said...: David:

I appreciate your questions, I do. But let me say that the standard of evidence you desire isn't possible -- some studies will be hard to perform because of the uniqueness of the event.

Were animals different back then? Could they endure more harsh environments? Animals today are able to overcome innumerable obstacles to survive. I certainly would never underestimate an animal's capacity to adapt.

I don’t understand the relevance. All primates must have Vitamin C in the diet. It doesn’t matter if there are ten of them in the boat or a thousand in the boat. Whatever the count, they all need Vitamin C.

My point had to do with the idea that every single primate had to be on the boat and thus the food provisions more challenging.; Tue Nov 23, 03:12:00 PM CST
Matt said...: All of the naturalistic objections to the Flood aside, it should be noted that a successful internal critique of Biblical Christianity (which includes a worldwide flood) must show a contradiction within the Christian worldview. In this context, such a contradiction would be of the form (A & B), where:

A = "God preserved the animals in the Ark by purely natural means, with no miraculous or supernatural intervention"
B = "It is impossible for the animals in the Ark to have survived by purely natural means"

It should be noted that no statements of the form of A exist in Scripture. Thus, there is no reason for the Christian to accept A. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for the Christian to accept that God might have sustained life by supernatural means during the Flood period. Such is consistent with the revealed nature of God, as well as with what is recorded about the Flood in Scripture. On the other hand, preservation of life through natural means is also consistent with the Scriptural account. The Bible doesn't commit us a priori to believing one way or the other. Even if, for the sake of argument, A is entailed by Scripture, the critic has not proven a contradiction short of proving B, and saying that "We know of no physical means by which the animals could have survived" is different than having proved that animals could not have survived, perhaps by some as yet undiscovered natural property or process.; Tue Nov 23, 04:24:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Matt, you make a good point. No one can disprove the miracle hypothesis. But when we get to a point where miracle is piled upon miracle upon miracle, it becomes hard to swallow. The animals got to the ark via countless miracles and returned via countless miracles. The plants were preserved for a year via an ongoing miracle. The animals didn't have to eat because of a miracle. The temperature and air quality were all adjusted by a miracle. The fish were kept from perishing in the salt/freshwater mix by a miracle, etc, etc.

Of course, an omnipotent God could do all this. But why create a situation in the natural world that requires SO many continuous miracles all over the place? Why not just strike all the world's people dead except Noah and his family?

Obviously, if another religion's adherents made such unlikely claims as the story of Noah, then covered their backsides by appealing to multitudinous miracles ... you'd never deem it plausible even for a fleeting second.; Tue Nov 23, 04:47:00 PM CST
David said...: "My point had to do with the idea that every single primate had to be on the boat and thus the food provisions more challenging."

Understood, but I don't think it matters how many primates were on board. If you could solve the Vitamin C problem for one primate, then you could solve it for all primates. And if you can't solve it for one, then you can't solve for one plus any number of primates that you chose.

"No one can disprove the miracle hypothesis."

Quite right, and so one can always try to get out of a jam by calling on miracles. But even miracles should leave behind physical evidence that they occurred. And unfortunately, the geologic record isn't remotely what we'd expect to see if the events described in Genesis occurred, whether by miracle or not.; Tue Nov 23, 05:03:00 PM CST
Matt said...: No one can disprove the miracle hypothesis. But when we get to a point where miracle is piled upon miracle upon miracle, it becomes hard to swallow.

This makes no sense. If one does not find the idea of a miracle to be implausible by itself, then there is nothing in a sequence of miracles that makes them any more implausible. If a being has no trouble doing X, why is it harder to believe that such a being did X 100 times in a row, instead of just once?

The creation week is a sequence of "miracle piled upon miracle upon miracle" - yet, this gives Biblical Christians no pause for concern. If God can do one miracle, there is no problem with multiple miracles. Why should the Flood be any different? At this point, I should also make clear that I am not conceding your objections concerning the Flood. Rather, I am saying that, ad arguendo, such objections carry no force against consistent Biblical Christianity.

Of course, an omnipotent God could do all this. But why create a situation in the natural world that requires SO many continuous miracles all over the place? Why not just strike all the world's people dead except Noah and his family?

If you wish to critique God's methods of dealing with humanity, that is between you and Him. I would suggest you read Job 38-42 and see how God responds to those who critique His ways of doing things. On the other hand, if you actually want to offer an internal critique of Biblical Christianity, feel free.

Obviously, if another religion's adherents made such unlikely claims as the story of Noah, then covered their backsides by appealing to multitudinous miracles ... you'd never deem it plausible even for a fleeting second.

Unless one observes a miracle directly, they are generally only known through testimony, historical or otherwise. In such a hypothetical situation, if I were to reject such a claim, my rejection would be based on the untrustworthiness of the religious traditions/documents, as well as what could be deduced from Scripture concerning the matter. I would not reject a claim simply because it is a claim concerning something supernatural. If you take issue with this, then you should show why, on the Christian worldview, such a stance is unjustified.; Tue Nov 23, 05:07:00 PM CST
Matt said...: Quite right, and so one can always try to get out of a jam by calling on miracles.

Who says that Biblical Christianity is "in a jam"? Christianity is not in trouble simply because Biblical accounts do not accord with unbelieving systems of thought.

But even miracles should leave behind physical evidence that they occurred. And unfortunately, the geologic record isn't remotely what we'd expect to see if the events described in Genesis occurred, whether by miracle or not.

How do you justify this claim? On the contrary, Flood geologists have developed accounts that, on Biblical principles, explain the geologic record.; Tue Nov 23, 05:15:00 PM CST
David said...: if I were to reject such a claim, my rejection would be based on the untrustworthiness of the religious traditions/documents, as well as what could be deduced from Scripture concerning the matter. "

And how are we to determine if the traditions/documents are reliable and trustworthy when every time the traditions/documents fail the testing process, the problem is solved by appeal to miracles? If you're wrong about the reliability of the traditions, how can you ever know?; Tue Nov 23, 05:16:00 PM CST
Matt said...: And how are we to determine if the traditions/documents are reliable and trustworthy when every time the traditions/documents fail the testing process, the problem is solved by appeal to miracles?

When has the Bible "failed the testing process"? And what exactly is "the testing process" anyhow?; Tue Nov 23, 05:19:00 PM CST
David said...: "Christianity is not in trouble simply because Biblical accounts do not accord with unbelieving systems of thought."

Yes, young earth Christianity IS in trouble, but as we've seen, you just solve the problem by shouting "miracle!". As has been demonstrated repeatedly here. Everytime the evidence is overwhelmingly against YEC/GF, the solution is to get out of the jam by appeal to miracles.

And what does "unbelieving systems of thought" mean anyway? Are you saying that one can only see fairies if one believes in fairies to begin with?

"On the contrary, Flood geologists have developed accounts that, on Biblical principles, explain the geologic record."

Uh, no they don't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#r5Brown

"When has the Bible "failed the testing process"? And what exactly is "the testing process" anyhow?"

Just to narrow the list a bit, you can start by explaining taxonomic sorting. Then move on to the rest of the list in the link.; Tue Nov 23, 05:22:00 PM CST
Matt said...: Yes, young earth Christianity IS in trouble

Then make an argument in this regard, that a Christian is rationally required to accept.

but as we've seen, you just solve the problem by shouting "miracle!"

If you honestly, believe this, then you haven't been paying very much attention to what I've said. If you don't believe this, then you're intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Everytime the evidence is overwhelmingly against YEC/GF, the solution is to get out of the jam by appeal to miracles.

Even if it is granted, ad arguendo, that no known physical processes can account for what has been observed, you have yet to demonstrate how this puts YEC/GF "in a jam". Instead, you simply affirm that it does without argument. Are you going to make an argument for why Biblical Christianity is in trouble, or are you simply going to keep asserting it over and over again?

On the other hand, Biblical Christians are not committed to explaining the Flood and its effects solely in terms of miracles. While this is a valid option, there are many explanations in terms of known natural processes. In addition, the appeal to other unknown or poorly-understood natural processes is also avaliable to explain any remaining data. Scientists make appeals to unknown or poorly-understood natural processes whenever they cannot explain a given phenomenon. Yet, if a Christian were to make such an appeal in explaining a Biblical account, it would be taken as an admission of defeat by naturalists. A true double standard indeed.

And what does "unbelieving systems of thought" mean anyway?

Just what it says - a system of thought built up around unbelief in God.

Are you saying that one can only see fairies if one believes in fairies to begin with?

What do faries have to do with anything? Do you enjoy throwing red herrings into the middle of arguments?

"When has the Bible "failed the testing process"? And what exactly is "the testing process" anyhow?"

Just to narrow the list a bit, you can start by explaining taxonomic sorting. Then move on to the rest of the list in the link.

I'll repeat my question: which test has the Bible failed, and how? If you wish to convince us that the Bible has failed some "testing process", you need to explicitly say what this process is, and make an argument for how it has failed.; Tue Nov 23, 05:55:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: If you wish to critique God's methods of dealing with humanity, that is between you and Him.

I'm not. I'm denying that God has ever dealt with humanity by sending a flood to cover all the mountains in the world. I take it as a myth. And I see you guys twisting yourselves into pretzels, embarrassing yourselves trying to make the story fit into the observable world.

It would be one thing if you said, quite honestly, "Yeah, I know there are great difficulties surrounding the whole thing, but we think there are answers ... not perfect answers, but enough to hang our faith on." That would actually be refreshing candor. But no, you act as if it's all difficulty-free, plain as the sun at noon. Why, it's so clear, only a rebel steeled against heaven would doubt such a manifestly true account.

Dream on, guys.; Tue Nov 23, 07:00:00 PM CST
David said...: "Are you going to make an argument for why Biblical Christianity is in trouble, or are you simply going to keep asserting it over and over again?"

"If you wish to convince us that the Bible has failed some "testing process", you need to explicitly say what this process is, and make an argument for how it has failed."

I gave you a long list of tests and arguments in the link. How many arguments do you need? If you want specifics, the taxonomic sorting in the fossil record disproves the global flood.; Tue Nov 23, 07:06:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: David, if there's one thing I've learned about staunch Bible zealots, it's that their convictions about Scripture are *unfalsifiable.* Even from a purely theoretical standpoint, there is no conceivable objection that ever COULD prove an error in the Bible for them. They will always find a way. They are dedicated to the proposition that any *possible* answer (no matter how improbable) is just as good as a plausible answer.; Tue Nov 23, 07:25:00 PM CST
David said...: "David, if there's one thing I've learned about staunch Bible zealots, it's that their convictions about Scripture are *unfalsifiable.* Even from a purely theoretical standpoint, there is no conceivable objection that ever COULD prove an error in the Bible for them."

Yeah, I know, but somehow, I can't resist the temptation to try to show them the errors anyway. I think I have OCD. Or maybe I'm just a real slow learner.; Tue Nov 23, 07:35:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Me, too. I'm just a glutton for futility.; Tue Nov 23, 07:45:00 PM CST
Matt said...: I gave you a long list of tests and arguments in the link. How many arguments do you need? If you want specifics, the taxonomic sorting in the fossil record disproves the global flood.

So, apparently your general argument is "Combining various physical observations with naturalistic assumptions leads us to conclude that the Flood did not occur." This is a far cry from showing how the Bible has "failed" any supposed "test." It only demonstrates that the naturalistic worldview is at odds with Christianity.

For every problem you cite that naturalistic science has with the Bible, I can likely also cite a Christian account of how such phenomena are explained by or are consistent with the Christian worldview. For example, concerning the fossil record.

However, this ignores the issue that even if, ad arguendo, Christians cannot currently account for various phenomena in terms of natural processes, this does not mean that Christanity is "in trouble" or has "failed a test." You still haven't demonstrated why this is the case, though you've asserted it on a number of occasions.; Tue Nov 23, 08:53:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: If there's one thing I've learned about staunch Darwin zealots, it's that their convictions about evolution are *unfalsifiable.* Even from a purely theoretical standpoint, there is no conceivable objection that ever COULD prove that evolution didn't occur for them. They will always find a way. They are dedicated to the proposition that any *possible* answer (no matter how improbable) is just as good as a plausible answer.; Tue Nov 23, 08:55:00 PM CST
Matt said...: It would be one thing if you said, quite honestly, "Yeah, I know there are great difficulties surrounding the whole thing, but we think there are answers ... not perfect answers, but enough to hang our faith on." That would actually be refreshing candor. But no, you act as if it's all difficulty-free, plain as the sun at noon. Why, it's so clear, only a rebel steeled against heaven would doubt such a manifestly true account.

No one here has denied that explaining phenomena in terms of natural processes is not an easy task. What we do deny is that the difficulty of such a task militates against the Christian worldview. If you disagree, do you have an argument as to why?

if there's one thing I've learned about staunch Bible zealots, it's that their convictions about Scripture are *unfalsifiable.* Even from a purely theoretical standpoint, there is no conceivable objection that ever COULD prove an error in the Bible for them.

Of course, if you've never demonstrated an error in Scripture to such "zealots", why should they believe that Scripture contains any errors? Where are your arguments?

They are dedicated to the proposition that any *possible* answer (no matter how improbable) is just as good as a plausible answer.

Such epistemic probabilities are defined in terms of one's presuppositions and biases. What you have to demonstrate in this regard, if you want your arguments to be heeded by Christians, is that Christian propositions are improbable, given Christian presuppositions. Otherwise, you've simply shown that two different worldviews are at odds with one another, which is something that we've all known for a long time.; Tue Nov 23, 08:57:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: If there's one thing I've learned about staunch Darwin zealots, it's that their convictions about evolution are *unfalsifiable.* Even from a purely theoretical standpoint, there is no conceivable objection that ever COULD prove that evolution didn't occur for them. They will always find a way. They are dedicated to the proposition that any *possible* answer (no matter how improbable) is just as good as a plausible answer.

If a voice came from the sky heard by people around the world in their own language saying, "Evolution is false, I created life fully formed," that would falsify evolution for me. Hands down.

Your turn. Hypothetically, what would falsify any part of Scripture for you?; Tue Nov 23, 09:11:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Such epistemic probabilities are defined in terms of one's presuppositions and biases.

Very true, Matt. Much of it is subjective, too. When I read the flood story, it screams "myth." When you read it, it strikes you as historical. There's probably not much either of us can do about the effect a text has on us.; Tue Nov 23, 09:17:00 PM CST
David said...: "If there's one thing I've learned about staunch Darwin zealots, it's that their convictions about evolution are *unfalsifiable.*"

Oh, nonsense. It's remarkably easy to come up with a long, long list of things that could falsify evolution. Like any scientific theory, evolutionary theory is vulnerable to disproof.

What about your flood theory? Anything that you'd accept as disproof of this?; Tue Nov 23, 09:28:00 PM CST
David said...: Matt,

I looked at your link. I'm afraid that it really does not even begin to address the problems of taxonomic sorting in the fossil record. The proposed explanations of "sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world" are absurd, and I'd be glad to explain in detail why this is so. But I doubt if it would do any good.

I'm not sure why you can't see the test here. YEC-type Christianity makes numerous predictions about what we should find in the natural world if its claims are true. Problem is, we find almost nothing but contradictory evidence when we look at the natural world. Again, the link I provided will give you a long list of examples. The world simply does not look as we'd expect it to look if the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago. It just doesn't. Not that this matters to you.

So, how would you propose that we test the accuracy and validity of "biblical Christianity"? What evidence would you accept as disproof of the claims of the Bible (given the young earth interpretation of the Bible)? If the Earth is not 6000 years old and was not covered by a global flood, how could we tell? In short, if the Bible is wrong, how could we tell that it's wrong?; Tue Nov 23, 09:39:00 PM CST
David said...: As an aside, I have a question about the phrase "Christian worldview". Does the "Christian worldview" always include the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago? If not, what exactly is meant by the phrase "Christian worldview"?; Tue Nov 23, 09:42:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Does the "Christian worldview" always include the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago?

Plenty of Christians think that position is absolute rubbish. (But then, they're probably not TRUE Christians.); Tue Nov 23, 10:26:00 PM CST
David said...: "Plenty of Christians think that position is absolute rubbish."

Exactly.; Tue Nov 23, 10:34:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: BF,
If a voice came from the sky heard by people around the world in their own language saying, "Evolution is false, I created life fully formed," that would falsify evolution for me

Already happened, and you don't believe it.
Shoot, a guy rose from the dead and you don't believe it. You're lying.

what would falsify any part of Scripture for you?

Start by:
1) not using logical fallacies every time you engage a topic, and
2) providing a reason to trust my own cognitive faculties, given the precepts of your worldview.
The body of Jesus would help, too.

David,
What about your flood theory? Anything that you'd accept as disproof of this?

An exegetical argument, showing where my understanding of the biblical case is flawed.

I'm afraid that it really does not even begin to address the problems of taxonomic sorting in the fossil record.

I'm afraid that you're appealing, again, to assumptions. You don't know whether ANY of those fossils are related to each other, b/c you don't know if any of them had children. Thus you don't know if any of them descended from any of the others. As Gee said, you're creating a whole narrative out of whole cloth, sthg the fossil "record", which is extremely sparse compared to the rich and deep storylines you make up out of it, does not support.

YEC-type Christianity makes numerous predictions about what we should find in the natural world if its claims are true.

"Predictions" are overrated IMHO. I'm interested in what happenED. In the truth, not in what seems to work a lot of the time.

we find almost nothing but contradictory evidence when we look at the natural world

Reckless hyperbole. There are numerous things your model can't explain.
Vertical petrified trees. The origin of information, intelligence, consciousness, matter, space. The resurrection of Jesus.

The world simply does not look as we'd expect it to look if the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago. It just doesn't.

Thanks for your opinion. W/o an argument, all I have to do is say "nuh uh" and the "force" of your "argument" is totally blunted.

how would you propose that we test the accuracy and validity of "biblical Christianity"?

We don't. We recognise that presupposing its truth is the only consistent explanation of reality, and that all competitors are self-defeating and contradictory.

Does the "Christian worldview" always include the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago? If not, what exactly is meant by the phrase "Christian worldview"?

This is a poorly-phrased question. "Always include" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Hows about you engage OUR worldview, Matt's and mine? Let others who think they can defend a non-Flood or an old Earth take their swings when you talk to them; I'm as interested in defending that worldview as I am of defending Buddhism.; Wed Nov 24, 07:16:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Already happened, and you don't believe it. Shoot, a guy rose from the dead and you don't believe it. You're lying.

No, in my falsifying scenario, I would have to hear the voice myself and know lots of other people firsthand who did, too. That's not the same thing as reading an ancient book containing a lot of secondhand testimony about things happening.

Why so quick to accuse me of lying? Why would I not believe if something that irrefutably supernatural occurred? You accept the premise that Saul of Tarsus believed after he saw the risen Jesus. Why didn't he just grit his teeth and say, "Never, never. I'll never believe this, because I hate God" -- the way you think I would?

I kept my end of the deal by giving you a concrete scenario that would falsify evolution. And you, as I expected, did not reciprocate. Instead, you used it as an opportunity to belittle. Par.; Wed Nov 24, 07:54:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: Why so quick to accuse me of lying?

B/c God, Who is truthful, has informed me in a deductive judgment, that you are suppressing the truth b/c you love wickedness. Yes, even that truth I just mentioned.
Anyway, I'm (along with Matt, the Chemist, bmh, and CD) trying to help you, but b/c you prefer darkness, you're tantruming against it.

And you, as I expected, did not reciprocate

Um, did you miss where I said:
Start by:
1) not using logical fallacies every time you engage a topic, and
2) providing a reason to trust my own cognitive faculties, given the precepts of your worldview.
The body of Jesus would help, too.

?; Wed Nov 24, 07:57:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: There’s plenty of genetic evidence that allows us to estimate time back to common ancestors, but you’ll reject it.

No, what we see is similar or even identical parts of genetic code between diff organisms. You then ASSUME it's b/c they share a common ancestor, but you don't have a good argument to make the connection. Assumption != argument.

We also have felid fossil evidence. You’ll reject that, too.

For reasons I've explained, and which you've simply scoffed at, even though a much more qualified man than you thought of it. You haven't given a reason to think it's a bad argument. Scoffing != argument.

if you want to argue that evolution can happen much faster than we thought, go ahead. It only helps the scientist’s side of the equation.

No, actually it helps BOTH sides, for reasons I've explained. Sheesh.

The mutational evidence tells us that there was only one pair of felids on the ark.

So you assume common ancestry and then use it to critique sthg (ie, the Flood) that you think is disproved by CA. Wow, brilliant!
Goes back to the first thing in this comment - prove the assumption has merit.

Remember, YOUR claim is that the felids on the ark didn’t need meat. That means that the mutations in question had not occurred yet.

1) "Need"...for how long? is the appropriate question.
2) Jerky.
3) God. The Flood is a miracle. So, as Matt said, I see no reason to think other miracles might not have occurred as well. You'll scoff at this, but scoffing != argument. You need to give us a good reason to think that naturalism is preferable.

Make up whatever answer you need.

I learned from the best - Darwinians.

For a little while. But rarely for two years.

Right, b/c you were there to observe it.
You keep making assumptions. It's clear you have no arguments, else you'd stop throwing out assumptions and start throwing out arguments.; Wed Nov 24, 08:02:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Um, did you miss where I said:

"Um," yourself. (That's an irritating, condescending little tic of yours, BTW.)

This is not a *concrete* example of something that might disprove your position, like the one I gave you. It's a veiled swipe at me, in effect, saying, "You do all of these things."

BTW, I suspect that your claim of wanting to "help" me is bogus. You don't insult people you're trying to help. That's a tactic that rarely produces the result you claim to be seeking. Without knowing you, I'd say you and others are contending so stridently because you are *intolerant of contradiction* (as dogmatists typically are), not because compassion is driving you to help me.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense of this discussion and many others I've had.; Wed Nov 24, 08:10:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: I'd say you and others are contending so stridently because you are *intolerant of contradiction* (as dogmatists typically are), not because compassion is driving you to help me.

I've seen enough of you to know that if you brush off logical fallacies you've committed as no big deal, protestations of my innocence will do even less good.; Wed Nov 24, 08:12:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: I admit that I sometimes fail in my reasoning. I admit that I sometimes resort to ridicule and other invalid tactics because it's fun or I want to blow off steam. However, YOU do these things, too, and never admit it.

Strange that the one showing all the candor, admission of wrong and honesty around here is the one who's "dead in sins." Conversely the ones who are so cocksure, never admitting the other side has the slightest point whatsoever, hypocritically condemning fallacies they commit themselves, bashing someone over and over because of an openly confessed offense ... those would be the sanctified, Bible-believing folk. Ironic, isn't it?; Wed Nov 24, 09:29:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: I am not particularly interested in making this personal, but I'd like to ask you this.
You said:
hypocritically condemning fallacies they commit themselves

Like which? Got some examples?; Wed Nov 24, 09:35:00 AM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Wed Nov 24, 09:38:00 AM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Wed Nov 24, 09:40:00 AM CST
David said...: “You don't know whether ANY of those fossils are related to each other, b/c you don't know if any of them had children. “

I’m afraid that you’ve totally missed the point about taxonomic sorting. This is nothing to with fossils having children. This is about the predictions of YEC/GF. It is independent of whether or not evolution occurred.

"Predictions" are overrated IMHO. I'm interested in what happenED. In the truth, not in what seems to work a lot of the time.”

Yeah, I’m sure that you would think that predictions are overrated; this is essentially an acknowledge that I am correct when I say that we find almost nothing but contradictory evidence when we look at the natural world. You know that this is accurate, and so you must denigrate predictions. But it’s precisely predictions that allow us to test hypotheses about what happenED. It’s how we figure out if your truth is really, truly true.

“Reckless hyperbole. There are numerous things your model can't explain. Vertical petrified trees. The origin of information, intelligence, consciousness, matter, space. The resurrection of Jesus.”

Polystrata trees? Really? How weak. Answered a thousand times.

Origin of (insert list) may raise questions related to deism, but aren’t really relevant to whether the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood around 4500 years ago. But I give you credit for a nice attempt to deflect the reality of the contradictory evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus? Based on assumptions, not arguments.; Wed Nov 24, 09:43:00 AM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Wed Nov 24, 09:44:00 AM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Wed Nov 24, 09:49:00 AM CST
David said...: “Thanks for your opinion. W/o an argument, all I have to do is say "nuh uh" and the "force" of your "argument" is totally blunted.”

Not an “opinion”. Try learning a little geology for a change.

“This is a poorly-phrased question. "Always include" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Hows about you engage OUR worldview, Matt's and mine? Let others who think they can defend a non-Flood or an old Earth take their swings when you talk to them; I'm as interested in defending that worldview as I am of defending Buddhism.”

My point was that you and Matt might talk of a “Christian worldview”, but really, you’re just talking about your particular version of Christianity. Other Christians are not so blinded as you.

“No, what we see is similar or even identical parts of genetic code between diff organisms. You then ASSUME it's b/c they share a common ancestor, but you don't have a good argument to make the connection. Assumption != argument.”

Ah, I see. You are assuming that God made all felids with the exact same mutation in the exact same enzyme gene that is FUNCTIONAL in non-felids. God gave felids the gene for the essential enzyme involved in Vitamin A synthesis, but he deliberate gave them a broken version of the gene. Now, why an intelligent designer would do this, but if you want to pretend that this is what the magic man did, I guess that’s what you’re going to do. Obviously, there is no evidence that you will accept as disproof of your beliefs. As I predicted, you simply reject the evidence.; Wed Nov 24, 09:50:00 AM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Wed Nov 24, 09:52:00 AM CST
David said...: Meat questions.

“1) "Need"...for how long? is the appropriate question.”

Vitamin A deficiency is going to show it’s effects long before a two year voyage ends. And scurvy will kill primates even sooner.

“2) Jerky.”

Massive assumption here that this would work, and you’re terrified of the prospect of actually putting it to the test.

“3) God. The Flood is a miracle. “

So, there you have it. Data are irrelevant, observations are irrelevant, and there is no evidence that you would ever accept as disproof.; Wed Nov 24, 09:59:00 AM CST
David said...: “You keep making assumptions. It's clear you have no arguments, else you'd stop throwing out assumptions and start throwing out arguments.”

Ah, the old “assumptions, not arguments” gambit. As far as I can tell, all you have are assumptions, too. All of your responses involve making whatever assumptions you need to make to keep your faith, up to and including, throwing in the odd miracle if necessary. But then again, these are words (assumptions, arguments) that can mean whatever you need them to mean when you don’t want to consider the evidence.

>How would you propose that we test the accuracy and validity of "biblical Christianity"?

“We don't. We recognise that presupposing its truth is the only consistent explanation of reality, and that all competitors are self-defeating and contradictory.”

And…

>What about your flood theory? Anything that you'd accept as disproof of this?

“An exegetical argument, showing where my understanding of the biblical case is flawed.”

So, there we have it. This is pointless. My ancient legend says that the Earth was covered by a global, I believe this as an absolute truth, and that settles it. My legend says that it happened, so it happened. Nothing involving data, real world observations or hypothesis testing can disprove it.

Pointless.; Wed Nov 24, 10:00:00 AM CST
David said...: “Like which? Got some examples?”

Argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Example.

Alan to David: “You're ridiculous.”; Wed Nov 24, 10:06:00 AM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Like which? Got some examples?

Sure. Poisoning the well. The title of your new post is "Starlight and Stupid Arguments," which prejudices the reader right off the bat by painting opposing arguments as stupid before you present them.; Wed Nov 24, 11:16:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: (Sorry about the spam filter. I just published the comments caught there.); Wed Nov 24, 11:56:00 AM CST
David said...: Just checked out the nutritional facts for jerky. Very informative. Very little (if any) Vitamin A in jerky.; Wed Nov 24, 12:04:00 PM CST
Brabble Frabbitz said...: Yes, David, but beef jerky back in those days may have been different. Prove that it's impossible!!!; Wed Nov 24, 12:15:00 PM CST
David said...: Well, of course, Brabble, that must be the answer. I should have thought of this myself!; Wed Nov 24, 01:02:00 PM CST
Cory said...: The resurrection of Jesus? Based on assumptions, not arguments.

An absurd statement given N.T. Wright's seminal tome and Michael Licona's recent book.

The problem, Dave, is not evidence, but worldview.; Wed Nov 24, 02:02:00 PM CST
David said...: An absurd statement given N.T. Wright's seminal tome and Michael Licona's recent book.

Nope, it's all based on assumptions. You weren't there. Copies of ancient texts are just another type of data. It's all about how you interpret the evidence. Things might have been different then. Blah, blah, blah.; Wed Nov 24, 02:25:00 PM CST
Cory said...: Nope, it's all based on assumptions. You weren't there. Copies of ancient texts are just another type of data. It's all about how you interpret the evidence. Things might have been different then. Blah, blah, blah.

What an anemic retort -- honestly, is this supposed to be convincing?

I wasn't there -- but there's plenty of testimonial evidence which I can assess. NT Wright goes into much more evidentiary matters, and the book cannot be dismissed with the wave of the hand as you have here.; Wed Nov 24, 03:49:00 PM CST
David said...: "I wasn't there -- but lethere's plenty of testimonial evidence which I can assess."

Yes, but this is just data that must be interpreted using subjective "worldviews". Current copies of ancient documents are just data, much like fossils or genes or the biogeographical distribution of species are all data. It's all stuff that we use to draw conclusions about past events that we did not witness.

In fact, it's not even as good as fossils, because human testimony is notoriously unreliable while fossils are just fossils. Unlike human writers, fossils do not have an agenda.

I repeat, you weren't there. You didn't witness the alleged events. You have to make numerous assumptions about the physical objects that you are using as a basis for your conclusions, whether you realize it or not. The culture of that time is different from the culture of today, so back then, things were different. So, you can't apply what we know about how the world works now when you interpret the data.

See how easy it is to play Alan's game?; Wed Nov 24, 05:25:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: David,

I totally agree with Cory. The problem isn't evidence, it is worldview. Evidence results when raw data is run through a worldview. That is, evidence is interpreted data.

You claim that YEC, and Christians in general, ignore evidence. In this combox, special attention is focused on scientific evidence. But this isn't right. We dispute the idea that naturalistic interpretations of data, which is a necessary component of modern science, will lead to a correct understanding of the data. We are theists! Is it really that surprising that we might occassionally object to the pure naturalism used to generate scientific evidence?

What you are advocating is that a naturalistic interpretation of data (summarized by the collective term "scientific evidence") is an appropriate test for the truthfulness of a different account of the same data. This is simply illogical. The evidence garnered from one method of interpretation cannot be used to invalidate a separate method of interpration. Rather, you have to look at each individually, on its own grounds.

If you want to successfully use this approach, then you first have to establish evidentialism as a valid test for the truthfulness of a worldview. Good luck!; Thu Nov 25, 08:17:00 PM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Fri Nov 26, 12:47:00 PM CST
David said...: I've never quite understood the evangelical love affair with the word "worldview" as a the word itself suggests that there is no objective truth but just subjective opinion and interpretation.; Fri Nov 26, 12:48:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Just because there are multiple worldviews does not mean they are all valid or true. I contend that only a Christian worldview is true, and that is objective.

Now, any chance you can back up your evidentialist test for truth? It is the basic core of your scientific criticisms here.; Fri Nov 26, 10:03:00 PM CST
David said...: "I contend that only a Christian worldview is true, and that is objective."

I never doubted for a minute that this is what you would contend. Most would say the same about their particular worldviews. So it goes.; Fri Nov 26, 10:19:00 PM CST
David said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Fri Nov 26, 10:20:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Fine. We can argue about that later. Right now, you threw out evidentialism as a test against Rhology's YEC. I am asking you to support it. Do you intend to support your truth test with an argument or do you withdraw the claim?; Sat Nov 27, 10:11:00 AM CST
David said...: "Right now, you threw out evidentialism as a test against Rhology's YEC."

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking for. What I understand is that Alan has his worldview and I guess I have mine. So, Alan thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and I don't. There's no way to know whose worldview is the right worldview or even if any of the worldviews are the right worldviews. If we're going to talk about worldviews, then it seems to me that all we have are our respective subjective opinions. Finally, there are no data, observations or arguments that will change Alan's mind, so what's the point?; Sat Nov 27, 12:42:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: David,

You are claiming that scientific evidence opposes Rhology's YEC. This is evidentialism. I am asking you to provide a rational argument for the validity of your evidentialism.; Sat Nov 27, 06:20:00 PM CST
David said...: "You are claiming that scientific evidence opposes Rhology's YEC."

Actually, I think that I'm claiming that YEC makes predictions about what we should see when we look at the world around us, and when we look, we don't see what we expect to see. I don't know what you'd call that. Evidentialism? I don't know what this is.

"I am asking you to provide a rational argument for the validity of your evidentialism."

Well, then I'd ask you to provide a rational argument for believing the claim that the creator of the universe killed all but a handful of terrestrial vertebrates on this planet around 4500 years ago in a global flood.; Sat Nov 27, 08:25:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: Sorry for the long delay, all.

I’m afraid that you’ve totally missed the point about taxonomic sorting. This is nothing to with fossils having children. This is about the predictions of YEC/GF.

What evidence could you adduce that these organisms you're taxonomically sorting were related to each other?
They look similar? So what?

I’m sure that you would think that predictions are overrated; this is essentially an acknowledge that I am correct when I say that we find almost nothing but contradictory evidence when we look at the natural world.

So you're interested in what YOU THINK WORKS. I'm interested in what HAPPENED.
One of these is the truth, one of them is not.

But it’s precisely predictions that allow us to test hypotheses about what happenED.

Then why can't you answer my questions about how you know what happened?

Polystrata trees? Really? How weak. Answered a thousand times.

Yeah? Like where?
This article for example doesn't address the key point - of decay. That's common at TalkOrigins aka your Bible - they answer questions I'm not asking.

Also, you went after the weakest of the questions I raised to maskofsan1ty. Hows about the others? You go on:

Origin of (insert list) may raise questions related to deism, but aren’t really relevant to whether the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood around 4500 years ago

Then you've totally missed the point. Our primary source of information about the Flood is the Bible. maskofsan1ty seemed to cast doubt on it in favor of a naturalistic account. I thus asked him to account for these huge questions on naturalism. He couldn't, and I bet you can't either, since you're running away screaming from them.

The resurrection of Jesus? Based on assumptions, not arguments.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

You'd said: The world simply does not look as we'd expect it to look if the Earth is 6000 years old and was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago. It just doesn't.
I responded: Thanks for your opinion. W/o an argument, all I have to do is say "nuh uh" and the "force" of your "argument" is totally blunted.
You replied: Not an “opinion”. Try learning a little geology for a change.

Hahahahaha, thank you for the confirmation. Wow, that was substantive!

My point was that you and Matt might talk of a “Christian worldview”, but really, you’re just talking about your particular version of Christianity. Other Christians are not so blinded as you.

And my point was that you and Brabble Frabbitz might talk of a “Darwinian worldview”, but really, you’re just talking about your particular version of Darwinism. Other Darwinists are not so blinded as you.; Fri Dec 03, 08:33:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: You are assuming that God made all felids with the exact same mutation in the exact same enzyme gene that is FUNCTIONAL in non-felids.

1) Uh oh, not another argumentum ad incredulum!
2) How do you know it's a mutation? Were you there to observe the original, to know that the more modern one is "broken", as you put it?

but if you want to pretend that this is what the magic man did

When skeptics like you start saying stuff like "magic man", it's obvious you've lost the debate.
Most of the comments to which I've responded here have been substance-free from you. Tell you what, I'll respond in kind: I can show you where your reasoning has gone astray, but if you want to pretend that this is what Mammy Nature did, I guess that’s what you’re going to do. Obviously, there is no evidence that you will accept as disproof of your beliefs. As I predicted, you simply reject the evidence.

As far as I can tell, all you have are assumptions, too

Stop the press!
Oh wait, I've never made that a secret.
Tell you what, how about you tell me your presuppositions? And then justify them. How do you know they're correct? How have you decided they're true?

But then again, these are words (assumptions, arguments) that can mean whatever you need them to mean when you don’t want to consider the evidence.

But then again, these are words (assumptions, arguments) that can mean whatever you need them to mean when you don’t want to consider the evidence.
Especially when I ask for evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth.

Nothing involving data, real world observations or hypothesis testing can disprove it.

??? That's what I keep asking you for! Then you go off talking about fossils, and mutations like you know they're mutations that are "broken", and other things you can't observe in the real world repeatedly. Pitiful, your blindness.

So, there we have it. This is pointless

You apparently decided that several comments ago. That's the most reasonable explanation for why these last comments from you have been so empty.

Peace,
Rhology; Fri Dec 03, 08:33:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Actually, I think that I'm claiming that YEC makes predictions about what we should see when we look at the world around us, and when we look, we don't see what we expect to see. I don't know what you'd call that. Evidentialism? I don't know what this is.

Evidentialism is the idea that evidence is the best way to arrive at truth. The problem is that evidence is the interpretation of bare (content-free) facts through an appropriate context. The context for scientific evidence is methodological naturalism. Thus, scientific evidence is tainted by the naturalism used to generate it from the raw data. It is begging the question to assert that this evidence conflicts with separate interpretation of the SAME raw data through another methodology. This is essentially what you are attempting to do when you say that creationism doesn't match the evidence available.

If you plan to use scientific evidence, then please provide an argument that supports the idea that evidentialism the best approach to arriving at truth. Here are a few of the fatal flaws that I see,

1. Evidentialism cannot ground itself as a reliable epistemology. What evidence do you have that says evidentialism is a reliable guide to truth?

2. If evidence is viewed as raw data interpreted through a context, then it is begging to question use the evidence to support the underlying context. For example, if scientific data is interpreted naturalistically, then it is no surprise that scientific evidence will support philosophical naturalism. Likewise, it is invalid to use the evidence to disprove a theistic worldview since the theist may just as well interpret the same raw data differently in their own worldview. In this regard, an appeal to evidence is very limited.

3. Claiming that evidentialism is true because science works fails as well. This is essentially a pragmatic test for truth, which suffers its own problems.

Well, then I'd ask you to provide a rational argument for believing the claim that the creator of the universe killed all but a handful of terrestrial vertebrates on this planet around 4500 years ago in a global flood.

1. I am not YEC, go ask one of them for an argument.

2. You are missing the point. The YEC position is ONE way of explaining the available data in a non-naturalistic way. You may disagree that the YEC account is substantive, but that says more about your view of the interpretation methodology than the actual interpretion itself. More to the point, you cannot assert that YEC is false because it does not comport to a naturalistic account of the same data, which is essentially what you are demanding.

Saying that YEC does not match the raw facts is not viable either. Raw facts carry no explanatory power. Interpretation in a context is a necessary step to converting raw data into "evidence".

You disagree with the interpration offered by YEC. However, to undermine it you have to disprove it on other grounds rather than appeals to question-begging evidence.; Sun Dec 05, 08:29:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: David,

I had a really nice response all typed up this morning, but blogger dumped it and I have to get ready for church. Here's the short version.

Evidentialism is the idea that evidence is the best way to test for truth. This is essentially whay you claim that YEC does not match predictions; it fails to measure up to the evidence.

There are a number of problems with evidentialism that, in my opinion, are insurrmountable.

1. Evidentialism fails to ground itself. What evidence may be provided that supports evidentialism as true?

2. Evidentialism is impotent towards adjudicating rival worldviews. In its most basic sense, evidence is produced by interpreting raw (content-free) facts through an appropriate context. Scientific evidence is generated by applying methodological naturalism to scientific data. However, it should be no surprise that naturalistically-derived evidence supports philosophical naturalism and at times conflict with theism. In contrast, the theist may offer an alternative non-naturalistic interpretation of the SAME facts. This results in two sets of "evidence" each produced by interpreting the same facts differently. One cannot use one set of evidence to verify the truthfulness of one interpretive grid and falsity of the other without begging the question.

3. A appeal to the pragmatic nature of science as support is invalid. The pragmatic truth test has its own problems and cannot ground methodological naturalism, and by extension philosophical naturalism, as true.

If you want an argument for YEC, go ask a YEC. I am not one. However, an appeal to naturalistic evidence is not a valid way of undermining YEC.

Sorry if this is unclear. I am pretty frustrated with having to type it out again.; Sun Dec 05, 08:48:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Actually, now I am even more frustrated that it told me it didn't go through but it actually did.

ARRGGGHHH!; Sun Dec 05, 08:49:00 AM CST
David said...: Chemist,

You say "I am not YEC." Excellent. Perhaps you could explain to Alan that the Earth is not a few thousand years old and was not covered by a global flood. Explain how evidence, data and hypothesis testing are used to arrive at this conclusions. He obviously won't listen to me, and my head to too sore from wall-banging to continue.; Mon Dec 06, 08:05:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: David,

The Chemist can speak for himself and no doubt will once he gets some free time, but as for me, I'd be interested in a public discussion with him about it just as soon as you jump all over the Jolly Nihilist's case about his nihilistic atheism and relativistic morality, since you apparently disagree with it.
IOW, could we just stick to the topic? Would you mind justifying your begged questions?; Tue Dec 07, 08:11:00 AM CST
David said...: "Would you mind justifying your begged questions?"

I'm done wasting time with this. Brick wall, etc. Maybe the Chemist can explain geology, etc., to you.; Tue Dec 07, 01:42:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: David,

Out of all that I posted you gravitated to this?

You say "I am not YEC." Excellent. Perhaps you could explain to Alan that the Earth is not a few thousand years old and was not covered by a global flood.

The whole point is that scientific data is incapable of doing what you are trying to make it do.; Wed Dec 08, 11:51:00 AM CST
David said...: "The whole point is that scientific data is incapable of doing what you are trying to make it do."

And yet, you are not YEC.

Why not?

You must make some use of scientific evidence in drawing your conclusions about the age of the Earth. What is that evidence? It seems to me that you are asking me to defend something that you accept.; Wed Dec 08, 03:37:00 PM CST
zilch said...: Give it up, guys, there's no point. Any rational (i.e. based on contemporary scientific evidence) argument will be countered, as we've seen here, with the unanswerable "God just snapped His fingers and made it so" argument. With an unlimited supply of miracles to fall back upon, rationality has no chance- it's a mug's game.

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch; Mon Dec 20, 03:29:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: Yes, the "Mammy Nature just snapped Her fingers and made it so" argument is so much better! Just close your ears and ignore the failure of the Darwinian side to provide the evidence it claims it has!; Mon Dec 20, 07:35:00 AM CST
zilch said...: Rho: yes, "Mammy Nature snapped her fingers" is a better argument, because we know that Mammy Nature exists, and we know a great deal (not all, to be sure) about just how She snaps Her fingers. We don't know that God exists, and we don't know, if He exists, how He snaps His fingers.

And what we know about how Mammy Nature snaps Her fingers enables us to make predictions that pan out: for instance, the recent prediction that an animal transitional between fish and amphibians would likely be found in Greenland. And lo and behold, Tiktaalik was found. There are more such examples, many thousands of them.

Can you give me even one example of how "knowledge" of how God snaps His fingers has enabled us to make a prediction that has come true? Given the choice, I'll take Mammy Nature: she delivers.

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch; Mon Dec 20, 01:13:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: Prove Mammy Nature exists and can act.

And speak for yourself - I *do* know that God exists. Just b/c you don't means nothing to me.

the recent prediction that an animal transitional between fish and amphibians would likely be found in Greenland

Until it's disavowed by scientists in a year or two. Try that routine with someone who hasn't been around the block.

Can you give me even one example of how "knowledge" of how God snaps His fingers has enabled us to make a prediction that has come true?

1) Can you give me an argument as to why that should matter to me.
2) Matthew chapter 2 - the magi from Medea read the prophecies in the OT, specifically Daniel, and showed up to worship the baby Jesus.; Mon Dec 20, 03:02:00 PM CST
zilch said...: Does anything at all exist, Rho? Prove it. If we get to that point, we can all just give up and go fishing.

Sure, science is changing all the time, because we are getting more and more information and refining our picture of the world. That's a strength, not a weakness. And while it's of course possible that individual cases of discoveries such as that of Tiktaalik are later "disavowed" (although you didn't say what would constitute "disavowal" in this case), the big picture is not really in doubt: evolution happened, the Earth is old. And it's not flat, and galaxies are not holes in the vault of Heaven or mirages. Or is God snapping His fingers for those too?

About the Magi: yes, there are predictions in the OT that come true in the New. I was hoping for an example of a prediction that is observable in the real world, however, not just a literary one. There's no evidence that the NT fulfillments of OT prophecies really happened outside the Bible and derivative secondary literature.

Why should I believe them any more than I believe in talking donkeys? Don't you put any value on what you've learned about how things work in the real world? People just make stuff up: the Bible is, to some extent anyway, just made up.

cheers from non-fictional Vienna, zilch; Mon Dec 20, 03:26:00 PM CST
Rhology said...: Does anything at all exist, Rho? Prove it.

Haha, not so fast.
I can't prove it. I presuppose it b/c it is a necessary consequence of my fundamental presupp - that tGotB exists.
YOU prove it. You can't. As we've seen over and over again, you're just here expressing your blind faith religious views. You have no evidence for what you believe but you have the audacity to rip Christians for "no evidence for your God". It's just silly.

science is changing all the time, because we are getting more and more information and refining our picture of the world. That's a strength, not a weakness

Constantly getting things wrong is not what I'd call a strength.

And while it's of course possible that individual cases of discoveries such as that of Tiktaalik are later "disavowed" (although you didn't say what would constitute "disavowal"

There are plenty of historical examples of disavowal of previously-certain "transitional forms" and "missing links". I commend you to the study of those for reference.

About the Magi: yes, there are predictions in the OT that come true in the New. I was hoping for an example of a prediction that is observable in the real world, however, not just a literary one.

More evidence of your presuppositions at work. You rule it out, out of hand. Pardon me for not respecting your faith-driven "reasoning".

Why should I believe them any more than I believe in talking donkeys?

How many donkeys have you personally observed for more than a few minutes at a time? Your answer will demonstrate how funny I find this kind of assertion.; Tue Dec 21, 03:44:00 PM CST
zilch said...: Rho- as I believe I've said before here, I don't feel any pressing need to "prove" that the real world exists. Just living works for me. Why do I need a "proof", supposing one exists?

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch; Wed Dec 22, 01:50:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: zilch,

As I believe I've said before here, I don't feel any pressing need to "prove" that tGotB exists. Just living works for me. Why do I need a "proof", supposing one exists?; Wed Dec 22, 07:02:00 AM CST
zilch said...: Rho- that's fine with me if you believe in God, but don't expect me to share your belief without evidence. And I haven't seen any yet.

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch; Wed Dec 22, 09:34:00 AM CST
Rhology said...: zilch- that's fine with me if you believe in the existence of other minds and Nature, but don't expect me to share your belief without evidence. And I haven't seen any yet.; Wed Dec 22, 10:00:00 AM CST
zilch said...: I guess there's no problem here then, right? Merry Christmas.

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch; Wed Dec 22, 10:54:00 AM CST