Apparently the Jolly Nihilist doesn't, though. I reproduce here an excerpt of that combox:
It is not really an “assumption” that, when a star is one million light years from Earth, it takes one million years for the light to reach Earth; that is basic science.
How precisely did you test that assertion scientifically?
Oh, that's right - you ASSUMED the light beams didn't originally stretch all the way to Earth originally. That's called an ASSUMPTION. I'm sorry you need a refresher on what science covers, but it's not science until you apply the scientific method to it and observe repeated results. If you can give me an experiment that's repeatable by which you could test this whole thing, let me know, but don't call it "science", let alone "basic science", until you do.
with respect to radioactive dating, even on the assumption of non-uniformitarianism, the bare fact remains that, now, with current rates of decay, when radioisotopes occur together, enabling the dates to be cross-checked, the ages invariably agree,
For the 4th time or so, all that tells you is that these tests agree. Then come the assumptions to interp what that means and apply to the age of the Earth.
What on your naturalistic framework makes you think that there's a telos to these decay rates, that they're meant and intended to tell you their age? You don't have one and your worldview doesn't support it. But since you're wedded to finding confirmation for your assumption, that's how you present it.
beggaring all belief and all statistical likelihood, the decay rates have all changed in such a way
1) How is belief relevant? Plenty of ppl believe that God created the world. More than believe evolution, BTW.
2) How precisely did you calculate the likelihood? What kind of probability measurement?
They are frantic inasmuch as, even though the bible provides no genuine astronomic knowledge of which to speak,
It tells us God created the world in an instant and approximately how long ago it was. It's not hard to go from there. I have no education in astronomy, and I figured it out.
It's not as if scientific conclusions are against my position, let's be clear. ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS are against it, but so what?
It is true that, with enough tortured harmonization, your position can probably account for every bit of data we have found
"Tortured" is an opinion, and it is quickly becoming clear you're not an unbiased arbiter thereof.
And I'd fully expect a worldview that is true to acct for all data. Wouldn't you?
If the bible can be harmonized to ANYthing, it essentially predicts NOthing.
Or the Bible is true.
Maybe you prefer a worldview that DOESN'T acct for all the data. If that's the case, stay where you are - you're in the right place.
Why, in principle, would it have been impossible for both dating methods never to have given us a date older than 6000 years?
It wouldn't be. But I deal in facts and logic, not dreams.
Showing posts with label assumptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assumptions. Show all posts
Friday, September 03, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
In case you feel like joining in
I promised The Chemist and bossmanham some weeks ago that I'd let y'all know if I happened to chuck a pebble at, say ERV. So consider this your invitation to join in.
Excerpt:
Contaminating science with religion. Creating an abominable vanilla-chocolate twisty ice-cream cone of an actual fun thing, a real thing we do in science, hypothesizing on historic or fictional stories:
It was probably accepted on the terms that it was a fun game: Hey, what illness could this character in the Bible have had? What poison might this Shakespearean character have used? What kind of mental illness could have inspired the 'madness' of Dionysus?
But the authors didnt treat it as 'fun'. They treated it as reality, and its stupid. And the reviewers should have noted that just by reading the first sentence of the goddamn abstract:
I said:
This is not a scientific blogpost. You have no means of going back in time to observe once, let alone multiple repeated times, what was going on.
You can't prove the negative that the woman WASN'T healed by Jesus. Or that she was possessed by demons.
You can't even make a reasonably sure statement that such things don't occur TODAY. You can't observe what happens all over the world.
So...thanks for the op-ed. It's a bit disingenuous to spice it up with big science-y words, so as to give the impression that this is actually science at work.
Peace,
Rhology
Excerpt:
Contaminating science with religion. Creating an abominable vanilla-chocolate twisty ice-cream cone of an actual fun thing, a real thing we do in science, hypothesizing on historic or fictional stories:
The Bible does not describe if any members of the family including Andrew and Simon developed febrile illness, before or subsequent to her febrile illness. The characteristic features of seasonal influenza include abrupt onset of fever, chills, non-productive cough, myalgias, headache, nasal congestion, sore throat, and fatigue. The diagnosis is mainly clinical. Seasonal influenza would be less likely if no members of the family were affected. Avian influenza and other respiratory viruses may cause isolated infection without efficient human-to-human transmission. In any case, influenza-like illness due to a respiratroy virus would explain her symptomatology and clincial course.... with religion.
One final consideration that one might have is whether the illness was inflicted by a demon or devil.Ugh, gross.
It was probably accepted on the terms that it was a fun game: Hey, what illness could this character in the Bible have had? What poison might this Shakespearean character have used? What kind of mental illness could have inspired the 'madness' of Dionysus?
But the authors didnt treat it as 'fun'. They treated it as reality, and its stupid. And the reviewers should have noted that just by reading the first sentence of the goddamn abstract:
The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ.Its been retracted. Cue Christian persecution in science in 3... 2... 1...
I said:
This is not a scientific blogpost. You have no means of going back in time to observe once, let alone multiple repeated times, what was going on.
You can't prove the negative that the woman WASN'T healed by Jesus. Or that she was possessed by demons.
You can't even make a reasonably sure statement that such things don't occur TODAY. You can't observe what happens all over the world.
So...thanks for the op-ed. It's a bit disingenuous to spice it up with big science-y words, so as to give the impression that this is actually science at work.
Peace,
Rhology
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
This is what a pile of naturalistic assumptions looks like
Been discussing things related to the age of the Earth, the flood, and what scientific study can tell us over at bossmanham's blog with a skeptic named David. We pick up at his most recent comments.
"They're not MERELY human-written, though. The Bible was written by God and man, both"
If you’re wrong, how could you tell that you were wrong?
If this fact were incorrect, nothing would matter, so whether I was wrong or right wouldn't matter either.
The errors are there, but you refuse to allow the use of the tools that show that the errors are there.
You mean b/c I demand more than assumptions?
Is this where one gets when one starts questioning the "mountains of evidence" that naturalistic Darwinians like to claim for their position? Complaints about how unfair my standards for certainty are?
You claim that other religions are not “internally consistent”, but I’ll bet we could find plenty of apologists for these other religions that would claim that their religious beliefs ARE internally consistent.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I prefer not to waste time asking myself the question, "Do some disagree?" but rather "On what grounds do they disagree?" and go from there.
There are also plenty who argue that Christianity is NOT internally consistent.
Of course. So I just ask them to substantiate their assertion. And one by one, the failures mount.
If the Star Wars Sagas are internally consistent, should we worship the Force?
I haven't seen a fantasy saga that's consistent yet. But please, if you have a case to make, make it.
I’m pretty certain that Egyptologists rely on the written records like king lists from Egypt and surrounding areas as well as the chronologies of other cultures
1) Those don't say anything about the Exodus accounts. Or did a "king list from Egypt" that was found somewhere include the words "And by the way, any rumor you might hear about some Exodus of Jew pigs from Egypt and then wandering in the Sinai for 40 years is totally false"?
2) You seem to be conflating Egyptian archaeological study with "tree rings and radiocarbon dating", as if you could use Egyptian king lists to substantiate an old earth. I don't get where you're going here.
way beyond the traditional flood date of about 2300 to 2400 BC
Do you realise you're assuming the flood didn't happen before going to the records? How do you know no records were lost? It's a matter of modern arrogance to think that there's nothing more to be done in reconstructing the past. Would any archaeologist, in an honest moment, tell you with a straight face that he knows 1% of what there is to know of ancient history?
“Now, can we be 1% certain about how the natural world worked in the past? No.”
Can we be even 0.00001% certain that the Creator of the Universe stopped by the Earth about 3500 years ago to tell a single ANE nomad how the Creator made the Earth? No. See? I can play this game, too.
1) Yes, we can be certain of it.
2) Notice how you're subtly playing a switcheroo here. Let me try to help.
On your naturalistic worldview - I'm asking you how we can be sure of ANYTHING, to say nothing of the ancient world and the way natural processes worked then. You can't give me anything beyond more assumptions. So apparently we can be sure of pretty much nothing, especially since you haven't even tried to give an answer to the problem of induction.
On Christianity - we're made in the image of an omniscient and timeless God, Who created the universe and told us with a great deal of detail how it went down, and there's no standard of knowledge higher than Him. B/c of Him, we can know things with certainty, and God Himself is the answer to the problem of induction, and His revelation the answer to these questions I've been asking about uniformitarianism.
Ergo, I commend repentance and faith to you.
As you like to say...prove it.
Yes, I like that phrase very much, since saying it enough always reveals the bankruptcy of naturalistic atheism.
Predictions are made in such a way that if the world works in a manner different from the way you assumed, then observations will contradict the predictions.
1) You can't tell me "how the world works" w/o solving the problem of induction.
2) Even if you could, that would tell you nothing about whether uniformitarian assumptions are correct. But you're alleging that these predictions can serve to test the assumptions I identified. But it looks like you have no answer to that.
How can you test your assumption that God talked to Moses?
I don't. I've said now at least twice that one does not subject the word of the very foundation of truth and knowledge to "testing".
so you’re one of those guys who thinks that God magically placed a beam of light all the way from the stars to the Earth when He created the Earth.
Magically? No. Supernaturally, of course. What about "God created the universe" is hard to understand?
Or are you a fan of the variable speed of light theory? As you would say, prove it.
Prove it? Think again. This is about me poking massive holes in your worldview, all the while admitting that I am pitifully small and trust in Someone much greater.
And who are you to cast aspersions on the variable speed of light theory? Do you have some evidence against it? Or just the observations that humans have made, which are a tiny proportion of all the occurrences of light's travels all around the universe, and none of which you personally have studied, which means you're relying on authorities?
Yes, I've read a geology textbook or two. What they told me was that they assume it. You haven't given me any reason to think that's wrong.
this still doesn’t explain why He made the Earth look old. I
Well, at the fundamental, He did it b/c He wanted to. (You asked "Why", after all.)
Why the universe looks old is a different question, and it comes down to the fact that God created the universe whole, mature. Adam wasn't created as a zygote. Plants weren't created as seeds. Etc. Your responsibility is to believe what God told you and not use inferior methods to try to prove God wrong, as if that were possible.
It just makes God look malicious
Do you have some objective moral foundation that could serve to judge objectively whether being "malicious" is right or wrong?
the fact that there is so much evidence for an old earth,
By "evidence" here, you clearly mean "assumptions".
the YECers had to invent the “apparent age” hypothesis.
Totally. It's not as if it's not right there in Genesis.
Hypotheses are constructed in such a way that if they are false, there should be plenty of evidence to show that they are false.
I have a little less naïve faith in humanity than you appear to. And the history of science bears out my cynicism.
"They're not MERELY human-written, though. The Bible was written by God and man, both"
If you’re wrong, how could you tell that you were wrong?
If this fact were incorrect, nothing would matter, so whether I was wrong or right wouldn't matter either.
The errors are there, but you refuse to allow the use of the tools that show that the errors are there.
You mean b/c I demand more than assumptions?
Is this where one gets when one starts questioning the "mountains of evidence" that naturalistic Darwinians like to claim for their position? Complaints about how unfair my standards for certainty are?
You claim that other religions are not “internally consistent”, but I’ll bet we could find plenty of apologists for these other religions that would claim that their religious beliefs ARE internally consistent.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I prefer not to waste time asking myself the question, "Do some disagree?" but rather "On what grounds do they disagree?" and go from there.
There are also plenty who argue that Christianity is NOT internally consistent.
Of course. So I just ask them to substantiate their assertion. And one by one, the failures mount.
If the Star Wars Sagas are internally consistent, should we worship the Force?
I haven't seen a fantasy saga that's consistent yet. But please, if you have a case to make, make it.
I’m pretty certain that Egyptologists rely on the written records like king lists from Egypt and surrounding areas as well as the chronologies of other cultures
1) Those don't say anything about the Exodus accounts. Or did a "king list from Egypt" that was found somewhere include the words "And by the way, any rumor you might hear about some Exodus of Jew pigs from Egypt and then wandering in the Sinai for 40 years is totally false"?
2) You seem to be conflating Egyptian archaeological study with "tree rings and radiocarbon dating", as if you could use Egyptian king lists to substantiate an old earth. I don't get where you're going here.
way beyond the traditional flood date of about 2300 to 2400 BC
Do you realise you're assuming the flood didn't happen before going to the records? How do you know no records were lost? It's a matter of modern arrogance to think that there's nothing more to be done in reconstructing the past. Would any archaeologist, in an honest moment, tell you with a straight face that he knows 1% of what there is to know of ancient history?
“Now, can we be 1% certain about how the natural world worked in the past? No.”
Can we be even 0.00001% certain that the Creator of the Universe stopped by the Earth about 3500 years ago to tell a single ANE nomad how the Creator made the Earth? No. See? I can play this game, too.
1) Yes, we can be certain of it.
2) Notice how you're subtly playing a switcheroo here. Let me try to help.
On your naturalistic worldview - I'm asking you how we can be sure of ANYTHING, to say nothing of the ancient world and the way natural processes worked then. You can't give me anything beyond more assumptions. So apparently we can be sure of pretty much nothing, especially since you haven't even tried to give an answer to the problem of induction.
On Christianity - we're made in the image of an omniscient and timeless God, Who created the universe and told us with a great deal of detail how it went down, and there's no standard of knowledge higher than Him. B/c of Him, we can know things with certainty, and God Himself is the answer to the problem of induction, and His revelation the answer to these questions I've been asking about uniformitarianism.
Ergo, I commend repentance and faith to you.
As you like to say...prove it.
Yes, I like that phrase very much, since saying it enough always reveals the bankruptcy of naturalistic atheism.
Predictions are made in such a way that if the world works in a manner different from the way you assumed, then observations will contradict the predictions.
1) You can't tell me "how the world works" w/o solving the problem of induction.
2) Even if you could, that would tell you nothing about whether uniformitarian assumptions are correct. But you're alleging that these predictions can serve to test the assumptions I identified. But it looks like you have no answer to that.
How can you test your assumption that God talked to Moses?
I don't. I've said now at least twice that one does not subject the word of the very foundation of truth and knowledge to "testing".
so you’re one of those guys who thinks that God magically placed a beam of light all the way from the stars to the Earth when He created the Earth.
Magically? No. Supernaturally, of course. What about "God created the universe" is hard to understand?
Or are you a fan of the variable speed of light theory? As you would say, prove it.
Prove it? Think again. This is about me poking massive holes in your worldview, all the while admitting that I am pitifully small and trust in Someone much greater.
And who are you to cast aspersions on the variable speed of light theory? Do you have some evidence against it? Or just the observations that humans have made, which are a tiny proportion of all the occurrences of light's travels all around the universe, and none of which you personally have studied, which means you're relying on authorities?
Yes, I've read a geology textbook or two. What they told me was that they assume it. You haven't given me any reason to think that's wrong.
this still doesn’t explain why He made the Earth look old. I
Well, at the fundamental, He did it b/c He wanted to. (You asked "Why", after all.)
Why the universe looks old is a different question, and it comes down to the fact that God created the universe whole, mature. Adam wasn't created as a zygote. Plants weren't created as seeds. Etc. Your responsibility is to believe what God told you and not use inferior methods to try to prove God wrong, as if that were possible.
It just makes God look malicious
Do you have some objective moral foundation that could serve to judge objectively whether being "malicious" is right or wrong?
the fact that there is so much evidence for an old earth,
By "evidence" here, you clearly mean "assumptions".
the YECers had to invent the “apparent age” hypothesis.
Totally. It's not as if it's not right there in Genesis.
Hypotheses are constructed in such a way that if they are false, there should be plenty of evidence to show that they are false.
I have a little less naïve faith in humanity than you appear to. And the history of science bears out my cynicism.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Phred Felps
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, in his bi-weekly webradio show at minute 43:40, explained an encounter that he had with "Reverend" Phelps (he of "God hates f---s" and funeral-picketing fame, Westboro "Baptist" "Church" in Kansas) in Salt Lake City several years ago. White's habit had been to visit Salt Lake and pass out tracts and evangelise Mormons outside one of their big annual conventions at the huge temple there. But there are also quite a few of the serious hellfire-and-brimstone-to-everyone-who's-not-them screaming, screeching preachers there, and Felps' group for good measure. White noticed him and talked to him for a moment:
...then when I said to him "Don't you believe, though-shouldn't you believe that we are to speak the truth in love?" Which is of course a quotation from the Bible! And as soon as I said that, he started yelling, "You're a God-hater!" It was very clearly a signal to his group, to his cult there...to get between him and a "bad person". The only thing I did was to quote Scripture, and his reaction to Scripture was to start screaming and people got in between me and started screaming me down and, it was classic cultic mentality. You know, Manson-style cultic mentality, to be honest with you. It's pretty amazing.There are those who would identify the Westboro crowd as Christian b/c they call themselves "Baptist" and live in the Midwest and say "Jesus" sometimes. But they are not - they are a cult and they are heretics. Those who would equate them with evangelicals (here I speak as one who dislikes, doesn't really claim, and yet still would form a partial defense of the term) are willfully blind and deserve no hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)