Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Balder]

This is of course why none of this belongs in a debate about science!

What do you think about the notion that Jim merely believes with sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant?

And now, consider a second, separate notion: the basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift is in fact his his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

Or is there another basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift?

Yes, it strikes me as quite circular as well, and I've talked to him about that.

Interestingly, he admits that some people have believed they were regenerate, when actually they were mistaken. In his case, however, he is certain that he is not wrong (about being regenerate himself, and thus about the "surety" of his "a priori" belief in the "verity" of the Bible...)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jim,

In your initial post you stated:

I view the standard ID arguments, such as irreducible complexity, as specious and based on an incoherent and indefensible "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" (IDOG) thesis.

If you can find the time could you explain in more detail what you are saying?

I am really enjoying your comments.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Metalking]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.

 

[Jukia]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.

It should be noted that most fossilized animals and plants are not represented by current species.
And the first part of that post, is I think, simply incorrect.
I think most fossils are marine fossils cause they are already in water and more likely to be then covered by sediment. So the relationship you cite does not seem to be cause and effect.
Further, do we find large mammal species with the earliest marine fossils? I think not, and why not?

 

[Metalking]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

 

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

:noway:
Things don't rot in your world?

 

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

Who's "we"?

 

[Johnny]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

Rofl. Thanks for the specifics and calculations you provide. I'm not even going to bother with this one, others may take the time.

 

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

Calculate How?

 

[fool]

We need ThePhy to write a massive refutation on why the universe isn't full of dead bodies.

 

[fool]

NEWS FLASH
by Metalking
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 6000 yrs. ago by a spirit being named Yaweh, more to follow.............................................

 

[Jukia]

We need ThePhy to write a massive refutation on why the universe isn't full of dead bodies.

Well, we can start with fungi, bacteria, flies, maggots, little critters, bigger critters. What an absurd statement. "A universe full of dead bodies"
And, who, Kemo sabe, is "we"?

 

[Metalking]

Population formula = http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

 

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

I found a few moments between finals to answer your questions.

2. What does unaccountable mean to you? Jim defined "account" as rationally explain. Is this an accpetable definition?

That definition is somewhat anemic. And used in this context, that definition seems question begging to my mind. I would say that, used in this context, "account" means "to provide an ontological basis."

1 . Why do you assume that this world is evidence of God's nature? And how do you choose which parts? I'm sure you don't attribute man's evils, nature's careless killing, etc. to God. But why not?

Of course this entails scurrying down the rabbit-hole of the cosmological argument. If you reject the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then there's no need to follow this course.

Looking forward,

SS

 

[Metalking]

Two paleontologists from the Museum of Natural History in Paris reported in Scientific American (September, 1988, p.70) that the evidence 'tells a contradictory story. They say this because some of the fossils are of marine (saltwater) creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers (e.g. amphibious), and some are definitely land creatures (e.g. spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles).

The massive worldwide coal deposits also lend further proof to sudden destruction of immense primordial forests. Coal is formed when trees, plants, roots, bark, or any vegetation (peat) are buried by water and sediment. The burial of this vegetation by sediment causes compaction, which squeezes out the water and over time through the chemical processes of decay coal is formed. Coal is actually fossilized decayed vegetation or peat.

The random order of the fossils. The fossils within the sediments do not exhibit strong evidence of a record of evolution with simple animals at the bottom, progressing type by type up to more and more complex animals. The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution. But this would be expected in a global flood catastrophe. Fossils from the supposed different 'ages' are often found mixed together. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.

Example of random mixing of fossils. In excess of 3,000,000 fossils, representing more than 565 different species have been discovered in the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California.

. Difficult evidence to explain. In addition, in many sedimentary rock layers geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

 

[RobE]

Thanks Metalking.

Thanks Metalking.

NEWS FLASH
by Metalking
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 6000 yrs. ago by a spirit being named Yaweh, more to follow.............................................

NEWS FLASH
by Fool
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 4 billion years ago by an accident at a yogurt plant, more to follow.............................................

Limiting factors and assorted other logical proofs are nonsense to yogurt gurus, like fool.

:LoJo:

 

[sentientsynth]

It seems that being crunched for time has brought out the best in Stratnerd. Some fold, others flair. I hope he keeps this up. And just to let you know, Stratnerd, some of the things that you're saying are sinking in. Apologetics is key in today's age. [not expecting a reply. just a friendly fireside.]

I repeat my prediction of Stratnerd laying on the mat, counting the lights by the end of Round 4.

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

That definition is somewhat anemic. And used in this context, that definition seems question begging to my mind. I would say that, used in this context, "account" means "to provide an ontological basis."
/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if the problem is ontology or epistology. Either way, we can't "account" for God. The standard theist reply is that God does not need to be accounted for, or that it beyond our understanding. Both of which could equally apply to logic.

The TAG argument makes an interesting assertion, that God exists because of the "Impossibility of the Contrary". I've yet to see that backed up.

If the issue is "Is Logic Valid?", then our basis need not be God, but simply an omniscient soda can.

If the issue is "Where did Logic come from?" (begging the question) or "Why does Logic work?", then we are just as justified in asking "Why does God exist?" or "Why is God Logical?". Almost any answer you give can be equally applied to Logic being a part of this universe.

An axiom need not have any basis. The only question is how do we choose our axioms. It is my contention that the Christian axioms are arbitrary, and can easily be replaced.

Of course this entails scurrying down the rabbit-hole of the cosmological argument. If you reject the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then there's no need to follow this course.
/QUOTE]

Being an atheist, you might have guessed that I reject all arguments for God, including the cosmological And being a human, you might have guessed I dislike scurrying down rabbit holes.

Instead of working that way, lets see where a similar argument breaks down, in your opinion. If I were to presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator, and that She can account for everything your God can, then that would be an equally valid solution. The FSM is nothing like the Christian God, Her moral code is mostly concerned with which pasta you can eat on what day. She certainly did not send her son down here to be crucified, and did not approve of the Bible. So how is the case made that FSM = Christian God?

 

[sentientsynth]

I'm not sure if the problem is ontology or epist[emo]logy.

The problem for the atheist is ontological. From what I gather, though, most atheists aren't bothered by not being able to provide an ontological basis for things like morals, personality, love, logic, etc. These things, if I understand correctly, exist as an "emergent property" of matter.

If I were to presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator, and that She can account for everything your God can, then that would be an equally valid solution. The FSM is nothing like the Christian God, Her moral code is mostly concerned with which pasta you can eat on what day.

I would then conclude that your FSM is amoral and foolish. (Morality having absolutely nothing to do with the consumption of penne pasta versus fettuccine.) "She" cannot provide an ontological basis for the existence of wisdom, love, morality, and other immaterial aspects of existence. On this basis, your FSM is falsified. If you want to be taken seriously, then please don't bring up this nonsense anymore.

On another note you brought up earlier [about the universe and God's attributes]. I accept every aspect of the universe, including evil and "nature's amorality," as a testimony to the power, wisdom, and love of God.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

Reflecting, I do recall one atheist admitting that atheism cannot provide the basis for morality. I think it was the editor of Skeptic magazine, perhaps, in a live forum in which Dr. Ravi Zacharias was present. I was astounded, and I could tell from Ravi's later addressal that he was very shocked as well.