Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Highline]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.

I think it is fair to say that the documented observed cases are micro-evolution. The general idea is micro-evolution + tons of time = macro evolution. The difficulty is that the amount of time is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, but that does not mean it did not happen.

As for your earlier "the flood would anticipate this claim" the fossils have been discovered in different layers and even different types of bedrock (in the case of pre multi cellular life), a flood would not do this. Plus, new inter step or link fossils are constantly found.

Now remember, I don't have to prove evolution to win here (I am not a scientist), I am just saying it is legitimate science. It anticipates things that are found, and it has been observed.

I

 

[Highline]

On that previous post, I meant to quote One Eyed Jack. He said he did not make the claim that micro-evolution had been observed, but that I did. He is right, but he did concede it, I think. Anyway it does not matter.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution.

Geez, dude. Look it up in the dictionary. Here.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I think it is fair to say that the documented observed cases are micro-evolution. The general idea is micro-evolution + tons of time = macro evolution.

There is no justification for making this claim. Sharks have supposedly had tons of time, but they haven't really changed very much in millions of years (if indeed, they've existed that long, which I doubt). Look at megalodon, and then look at its descendants (white sharks) -- as far as we can tell, all it did was shrink.

The difficulty is that the amount of time is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, but that does not mean it did not happen.

It doesn't mean that it did, either.

As for your earlier "the flood would anticipate this claim" the fossils have been discovered in different layers and even different types of bedrock (in the case of pre multi cellular life), a flood would not do this.

Why wouldn't it? How do you think those fossils got stuck in the rock to begin with, if they weren't buried there by flooding? And how do you propose they fossilized in the absence of moving water?

Plus, new inter step or link fossils are constantly found.

Constantly? I don't think so. And whether or not such things are even found at all is debatable.

Now remember, I don't have to prove evolution to win here (I am not a scientist), I am just saying it is legitimate science. It anticipates things that are found,

If evolution is a legitimate science on that basis, then so is creation.

and it has been observed.

Macro-evolution (look it up, mighty_duck) has never been observed.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

On that previous post, I meant to quote One Eyed Jack. He said he did not make the claim that micro-evolution had been observed, but that I did. He is right, but he did concede it, I think.

Yeah -- I conceded it. Mighty_duck seems to be the one who has a problem with it, although I have to admit, I'm not sure if he's going to try to argue that micro-evolution hasn't been observed, or that macro-evolution has. Either claim sounds equally preposterous to me. Maybe he has something else in mind.

 

[Metalking]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

 

[Metalking]

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Job 40:15-24

 

[One Eyed Jack]

A tail like a cedar? Sounds like a sauropod dinosaur to me.

 

[Johnny]

sentientsynth,

Read this several times before responding.

Don't insult me. I always do my best to understand what I'm arguing against. The same cannot be said of you. Having had one or two run-ins with you before, it has become entirely obvious that you don't always understand the argument you're presenting. Remember the plasmid (or "plastid", according to you) argument you got into with me? Your sources contradicted themselves and you didn't even pick up on it (here). Further, you confused "plastid" with "plasmid" and even linked me to a definition of "plastid" (here). Had you read your own link you would have realized that the two are very different things. You clearly have devoted much time to developing the creationist trait of flaunting your words and parading victory, both admirable traits amongst creationist circles. You even flaunted victory in the same sentence that you admitted you didn't understand the argument you just posted (here). You've already demonstrated that you pick your conclusion then look for an argument to support it. You're shaping up to be a real good creationist. Hopefully you don't lose that blind support edge you have.

Hilston isn't arguing evolutionary biology. Keep up. This was never what this debate was about, though some desperately wanted it thus. I expected it, but didn't get it. (So no shenanigans, right?)

I have been keeping up.

If the quantum physicist philosophically undermines his own competence to verify truth, then nothing and absolutely nothing that ever comes out of his mouth can be said to be a justifiable representation of reality within that quantum physicist's schemata of understanding reality. He must borrow from another worldview in order to lay claim to any truth, whether it be evidenced a thousand times over or not. (The Japanese solved x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where x, y, and z are the legs of a right triangle up to the tens of thousands, yet never proved the theorem mathematically. The man who did, Pythagoras, is who we credit with the theorem, and justified the use of this theorem universally within mathematics.)

Is what the physicist does called "science"?

Johnny, you said that I had to say such and such and what not. You were talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. Where's your spidey-senses, Peter Parker?

I said that you had to answer that way to continue presenting your argument. I was assuming competence. I will recap below for you.

Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two.

The debate is titled "EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction?". That's what stratnerd is aruging. If Hilston is not arguing this then he has lost the debate with respect to the title. However, it appears Hilston was arguing this. The last sentence of Hilton's opening post was, "Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."

Blithering nonsense. Of course, you're using a rhetorical device to aggravate a dichotomy. I must presuppose this, or else you statement should be viewed as completely non-sensical. Kind of like saying "The color of this ice creams sounds hot on Tuesdays." Science isn't science? Are you presupposing a presupposition on the part of a man you say isn't justified in any presupposition?

Don't call what I said blithering nonsense and then follow up with the most blatant obfuscation and misdirection I've seen in awhile.

You managed to go a whole post without addressing what I was saying. Once again you completely mischaracterize my argument. Again, both admirable traits for a creationist.

Here's what I'm arguing:

Me: "1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?"
You: "YES"
Me: "2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not?"
You: "No!"

So you've admitted that the quantum physicist and evolutionist have the same paradigm. You've also admitted that neither is justified in his application of the axioms. Does the quantum physicist do science?

--If yes, why does the evolutionist NOT do science?
--If no, then you have thrown out all of science.

 

[Hilston]

Only One Logically Valid Worldview ...

Only One Logically Valid Worldview ...

Hi mighty_duck,

Of course. I'm asking how you can prove it.

Your original question went:

You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.
I ask:
MD1: How do you know these presuppositions are true?​

Based on m_d's preceding clarification, let's change MD1 to:

MD1: How can you prove these presuppositions are true?​

Didn't we cover this, m_d? The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything. The inerrancy of the God's testimony in the Bible is already affirmed in the preceding proof.

I asked m_d if he questions the validity of logic. He replied:

No. I question how you can justify using [logic]. Using logic to prove your presuppositions is circular, since your presuppositions are used to justify your use of loigc.

All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.

This would all be cleared up if you could make your argument plain, preferably in the form of a syllogism.

The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.

How can you say that faith is rational? By definiton, it is belief without proof, so is by nature irrational. This makes your whole argument irrational by your own definition.

And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.

Unless I misunderstood you. If faith is a valid foundation, then your presuppositions are in fact axioms.

Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.

If that is so, then we can finally discuss which axioms are "better", since both our worldviews are logically valid.

Your worldview cannot use the phrase "logically valid" without presumptuously hijacking it from God, which means your worldview is not logically valid.

How is faith in "magic" axioms logically different than your faith in your presuppositions?

Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Johnny]

The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

MD1 to:

MD1: How can you prove these presuppositions are true?​

Didn't we cover this, m_d? The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

How would you know that without using logic? You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!

All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.

What's the difference between circular reasoning, and question begging? Both are invalid as a form of proof.

The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.

All I'm asking for is a simple way to understand your argument. It seems like a circular toy so far. But after 7 lengthy debate posts, and 500 posts in this thread, we are no closer to understanding what you are actually arguing,
To borrow some terms from the IDiots: You are obviously a bright guy, and you have an excellent way with words. The fact that you still haven't been able to convey your argument in a clear way can't be the result of random chance! It is clearly the result of an inteligent designer, writing in such a way as his argument can't be pinned down and disasembled. Your posts are irreducably obscure.

Here's an example (my best guess so far)

"God is a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning."
How do you prove that?
"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?
"All other worldviews crumble into irrationality when closely examined."
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?
God is logical, and He created the world to be logical.
How do you prove God exists?
<circular answer> Because "Without God, you can't prove anything"
<faith based answer> Because I have faith in Him.

Is this close?

And two others:
Can you account for God?
That is a non-sensical question. God always was and therefore needs no account.
Can you account for how God created a logical world?
"by means not revealed" or in other words "I don't know".

And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.

Exactly! You happily apply radical skepticism to other worldviews, but applying it to your own is off limits. You are the one who equated non-rational axioms as being irrational.

Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.

In the context of a logic system, an axiom is a presupposition that is accepted without valid proof. Like your two presuppositions, or any of my presuppositions. They function as the starting point of our logic systems. We both accept them with a certain amount of faith. But you discount my presuppositions for reasons that discount your own presuppositions just as easily.

Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.

How does logic tell us that? Things change all the time. You posit a false assertion of things becoming their "contradictions". Food that is hot becomes cold. Water that is sweet becomes salty. creatures that are alive become dead.
If you want to talk about unbridgable gaps, then look no further than the spiritual - physical gap in your God fantasy. If you can't tell me how a spiritual creature affects the physical world (not in broad terms, but in mechanics), then you shouldn't dare to ask me about any mechanics of my worldview.
"I don't know" or "Nature did it" has just as much explanatory power as goddidit.

Faith in "magic axioms" is non-rational, just like faith in God. If one is illogical, than so is the other. You can't have it both ways.

Your worldview is guilty of the same "failures" that you accuse mine of. It is based on non-rational faith, and an inability to account for our basic existance.

Should we throw our arms up in the air then? Of course not! Just throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.

 

[Johnny]

How would you know that without using logic? You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!

Bingo. That was the purpose behind my question "Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?" Hilston has argued that his belief in God justifies logic and proof. But then he turned around and said "The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

presuppose God -> justify proof, logic -> prove presupposition with logic that was justified by your presupposition.

 

[noguru]

Bingo. That was the purpose behind my question "Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?" Hilston has argued that his belief in God justifies logic and proof. But then he turned around and said "The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

presuppose God -> justify proof, logic -> prove presupposition with logic that was justified by your presupposition.

Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."

Clete has a similar argument.

But at least Hilston is well-read, polite, and has a clear communication style. Which unfortunately works to his disadvantage, because you quickly get a grasp of the bankruptcy of his argument. I prefer Biblical literalists who are vague and cryptic. Because it is much more of a challenge figuring out their argument.

 

[Jukia]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

Got a cite for this? I need a comedy for this evening

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now that BR IX is over let us know who you think won the battle by voting here.

 

[Hilston]

After 7 lengthy debate posts and 500+ posts in this thread -- where's the refutation?

After 7 lengthy debate posts and 500+ posts in this thread -- where's the refutation?

Hi Mighty_Duck,

Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

How would you know that without using logic?

What does it matter how I know this, m_d? What matters is how you know anything. What I know is irrelevant to what you know, m_d. I can account for the things I know, be they known logically or non-rationally. No other worldview can give such an accounting without self-contradiction, question-begging and/or internal incoherence. That's what the Bible teaches, and I've yet to be presented with anything that shows this claim to be in error.

You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!

Why not? It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another. Besides, what else are you going to use, if not logic? I'm interested in what you might suggest as an alternative.

Hilston wrote: All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.

What's the difference between circular reasoning, and question begging? Both are invalid as a form of proof.

The circular reasoning to which I refer is not offered as proof of anything. It is an inherent and inevitable characteristic of all reasoning. Question-begging is a logical fallacy described as assuming that which one is trying to prove as part of one's proof. Such as using one's eyes to prove one's ability to see. Or using induction to prove the inductive principle.

Hilston wrote: The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.

All I'm asking for is a simple way to understand your argument. It seems like a circular toy so far. But after 7 lengthy debate posts, and 500 posts in this thread, we are no closer to understanding what you are actually arguing, ...

No one is forcing you to stick around, m_d. Despite all your protests, you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get. I understand it fine, as do many others. I've found that those who have the most difficulty are those who are hostile to seeing it. You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.

Here's an example (my best guess so far)

"God is a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning."
How do you prove that?
"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?

It is proven by asking this question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible? Or, what is the necessary set of conditions that must exist in order for logic and mathematics to function in the universe? By your own questions, you should be seeing the necessity of transcendental argumentation. The whole point of transcendental reasoning is to be aware of, and careful about, the fallacy of question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, one must frame the proof in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental reasoning. This form of argument approaches the issue from a meta-level, and asks the question: what are the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?

"All other worldviews crumble into irrationality when closely examined."
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?

My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God. We've covered this, m_d.

"God is logical, and He created the world to be logical."
How do you prove God exists?

We've also covered this, m_d. The proof of the existence of God is that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

<circular answer> Because "Without God, you can't prove anything"

It's not circular. These are separate arguments. Why are you not getting this? Justifying logic is not the same as proving the existence of God. Proving the existence of God is a separate argument from justifying logic. Try to get this, m_d. I don't know how much longer I can sustain repeating myself.

And two others:
Can you account for God?
That is a non-sensical question. God always was and therefore needs no account.

That's not my answer. Where did you get that?

Can you account for how God created a logical world?
"by means not revealed" or in other words "I don't know".

I can account for it; that doesn't mean I have to understand the mechanics of it. Have I ever argued that "not knowing the means" is the same as "not knowing at all"?

Hilston wrote: And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.

Exactly! You happily apply radical skepticism to other worldviews, but applying it to your own is off limits.

It can't be applied to mine without proving mine to be true. You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

You are the one who equated non-rational axioms as being irrational.

I don't believe in axioms, m_d. Are you really that dense, or just pretending to be?

Hilston wrote: Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.

In the context of a logic system, an axiom is a presupposition that is accepted without valid proof.

No it's not. I reject your neologism.

Hilston wrote: Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.

How does logic tell us that? Things change all the time. You posit a false assertion of things becoming their "contradictions". Food that is hot becomes cold. Water that is sweet becomes salty. creatures that are alive become dead.

Good grief. I'm talking about existence itself (life, laws, order, regularity, diversity) and you want to talk about physical properties? Could you have possibly picked anything more off-topic?

If you want to talk about unbridgable gaps, then look no further than the spiritual - physical gap in your God fantasy. If you can't tell me how a spiritual creature affects the physical world (not in broad terms, but in mechanics), then you shouldn't dare to ask me about any mechanics of my worldview.

Where did that come from? Perhaps I had a momentary lapse in reason and I've forgotten, but maybe can you remind me: When did I ever ask you to describe the mechanics of your worldview?

Faith in "magic axioms" is non-rational, just like faith in God. If one is illogical, than so is the other. You can't have it both ways.

Do you acknowledge the difference between non-rational and irrational?

Your worldview is guilty of the same "failures" that you accuse mine of. It is based on non-rational faith, and an inability to account for our basic existance.

On my view, these are not failures, but features. Faith in the Creator makes sense, given our existence as humans and our experience with the world. Faith in magic axioms do NOT makes sense, no matter how you slice it.

Should we throw our arms up in the air then? Of course not! Just throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.

On what grounds? My criteria, Biblical assessment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview, m_d. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of justified knowledge. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." These are not my words. This is what the Bible said thousands of years ago, by allegedly primitive people who didn't know Shinola™ from a Hole-in-the-Ground®; by people who knew nothing of the bacterial flagellum or Cartesian dualism. And I've yet to find a single rational critique, after more than 7 lengthy debate posts and 500+ posts in this thread, that would compel me to disbelieve those ancient claims.

If the biblical view is so implausible, so rationally unacceptable, why haven't you been able to expose the flaw in its logic? Where is your nail-in-the-coffin argument against the biblical worldview?

Dostoevsky picked his nose in the dark.
Jim

 

[noguru]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

 

[noguru]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

Is your handle me talking or metal king?

 

[Hilston]

Hi noguru,

You write:

Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."

Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. I've typed a massive number of words over the past 30 days, and nowhere do I recall making the claims you've assigned to me.

I notice you identify yourself as a Christian. Do you agree with the Bible when it says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"?

Sartre was a Cap'n Crunch addict.
Jim