Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Nathon Detroit]

Give me time. You'll see low I'm capable of stooping.

:rotfl:

POTD!!!! :first:

 

[Johnny]

Hilston, what do you presuppose, logic or God?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate.

Carbon dating doesn't work like a video game that you flip over at a million points, dude. There's no way you're going to get dates between 1,500 and 5,000 years from carbon-dating an object over 50,000 years old -- there simply won't be enough carbon-14 left in such an object to give results in this range. Young dates indicate a fair measure of carbon-14 left in the object (compared to something older, anyway).

Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from?

These are artifacts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't man-made artifacts always assumed to have come from recently laid strata (in the geological sense)?

It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

What makes you say that?

 

[Johnny]

Suddenly, the creationists support the validity of carbon dating. I've always loved this paradox.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

As an aside, I find it curious that you would argue that these artifacts are too old for carbon-dating. Is this what you're intending to argue, or am I reading you wrong? It seems to me you'd rather argue that these artifacts were manufactured sometime in the last 50 years or so (in other words, a hoax).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Suddenly, the creationists support the validity of carbon dating. I've always loved this paradox.

Johnny, with all due respect, I don't think you fully understand our arguments and objections concerning radiometric dating methods. Just because I know how carbon-dating is supposed to work doesn't mean I'm supporting its validity.

 

[Johnny]

As an aside, I find it curious that you would argue that these artifacts are too old for carbon-dating. Is this what you're intending to argue, or am I reading you wrong?

I wasn't going to argue that they were too old. I wasn't even going to get involved.

It seems to me you'd rather argue that these artifacts were manufactured sometime in the last 50 years or so (in other words, a hoax).

They were probably a hoax.

Just because I know how carbon-dating is supposed to work doesn't mean I'm supporting its validity.

I was referring to Metalking. "Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted..." and the evidence was confirmed by "Three radiocarbon tests". Nice.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

I will not respond to the unfounded insults you threw my way in the last post. I feel I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone but yourself that the argument is circular. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the problem, and how you solve it, is slightly disappointing.

My main objective here is not to win an argument, but to learn and sharpen my knowledge. I feel like we've hit a dead end in this regard. With that in mind, we can move on.

Rejection of axioms

My background for using logic is in mathematics and computer science. Without axioms, there would be nothing for a logic system as I see it to hang on, which would leave us in infinite regress. Not a very useful model for making decisions.

Is your objection to using the word "axiom",
1. a problem with definitions (like the "self evident" part)? IE you are expecting a low blow like "well, we accepted axioms, and since God is not self evident, I win!". This is not my intention at all.

2. A rejection of foundationalism.

From your heavy use of the word "coherent" all over your posts, I am guessing it is the latter. I have done some reading on Coherentism, and I don't think that a debate on foundationalism VS coherentism will yield any results regarding the EOG. We may have to provide proof using both methods.

Is your proof contingent on rejecting foundationalism? If so, it is really only half a proof, where the other half would be to reject foundationalism. This seems to be somewhat of an open question among philosophers, so it would weaken your overall argument.

 

[ThePhy]

I think Hilston took the right approach in this debate. I know if I were him, and had a religious belief that I absolutely gave unquestioned allegiance to, I too would be cautious of how I defended it. Particularly if I objected to evolution, I would watch how those who supported it came to their conclusions. I would observe that the overwhelming majority of scientists who seriously looked at the evidence supporting evolution found it to be credible and supported it, and consequently conclude that the best thing I could do would to be to assiduously avoid that trap. I would carefully craft an approach that ridiculed evolution from a philosophical viewpoint, I would do anything but do what had proved so fatal to the acceptance of Biblical literalism by those thousands of scientists, I would avoid the evidence itself. Anything but evidence. Evidence is poison. Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So by your definition anyone who is rational is of God, and anyone who is not rational is not of God?

In the personal sence, yes, to put it in another way, anyone who is irrational is not of God and anyone who contradicts God is not of God.

This is a metaphysical conclusion that cannot be ascertained from empiricism. Since I do agree with it as metaphysical philosophy, I do not take issue with it on that level. This however, is a conclusion that is superfluous in regard to the material sciences.

What do the "material sciences" have to do with determining the existence of a non-material, supernatural God?

I think in general we could say that the "material sciences" are superfluous in regard to the debate about Gods existence just as "metaphysics" would be superfluous in regard to the study of neurology. But they also have a relationship as you point out.

Do you realize that our neurology both the hardwiring, softwiring and the chemical messangers (neurotransmitters) have great influence on our behavior and whether behavior can be considered rational or not?

Would you agree with me that "neurotransmitters" are nonrational chemicals? And that they are incapable of determining and planning what we decide to do with our lives? Or, are you saying that they do? That would be saying the cart pulls the horse instead of the other way around. What is at stake here is human freedom not just human rationality. Are you saying these chemicals, alone with other things, merely "influence" our behavior or do they "cause" our behavior as you seem to be saying in your next statement.

So far no one has isolated any "supernatural" force that is responsible for human attitudes or behaviors. Did you know that every attitude and behavior that has been researched has been traced back to a physical part (nerve cell, chemical, and/or electrical impulse) of our neurology?

All that has been demonstrated is that there is a physical, chemecal, and electrical relationship to attitude and behavior. And why would anybody consider a "supernatural force" as being responsible for human attitudes and behavior--a pantheist and a Calvinist I suppose, but not a freewill theist. And how would you "isolate" a supernatural force--call the Ghost Busters?:rotfl:

The important question here is, "are we personally responsible for our behavior or is our behavior determined soley by chemical reactions?" Can we choose between two or more types of behavior or not? If we can make a choice and we are not bound only to the physical or material, then, there exists something other than matter and that would be where our rationality is located, and the origin of human rationality would have to be an eternal rationality.

--Dave

 

[Metalking]

I was referring to Metalking. "Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted..." and the evidence was confirmed by "Three radiocarbon tests". Nice.[/QUOTE]
There is more evidence beyond the radio-carbon tests...it is a very interesting subject to do further research on...enjoy. :mario:

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to aharvey and SUTG ...

Combined reply to aharvey and SUTG ...

Hi aharvey,

Just Tom was complaining about a specific aspect of the debate that was missing. I wanted to make sure he knew why that aspect was missing.

I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

I'm curious that of my recent posts (e.g.,444 and 445), this is the one to which you choose to respond!

It's probably one of two reasons: (1) I've not read your posts 444 or 445, or (2) I was so blown away by the force of your arguments and so absolutely stunned by your questions that I avoided answering the posts, hoping you'd forget all about them.

Hilston wrote: My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

Me: Okay, let’s see if you are willing to provide this chain of logic! But I do need to point out that “God’s existence” is not the presupposition that drives your arguments. You have already, and repeatedly, asserted that presupposing God is not good enough. Normally, though not always, you use the phrase “God of the Bible,” not just “God.” Your presupposition is a literal and inerrant Bible, from which you conclude God exists.

This is false. God is not the conclusion, as I stated earlier. He is the major premise. The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.

Well, here’s an interesting assignment. Try to make your case starting with the presupposition of “God’s existence,” but without presuppositioning that the Bible is literal and inerrant.

Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

Now try to make your case starting with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, but without presupposing that God exists.

This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.

SUTG

Hi SUTG,

As a matter of fact, if I could show the major premise to be true, I wouldn't even have to bother with the rest of the argument.

Of course. Modus ponens is a tautology, right? If you know all men are mortal, then you've already checked Socrates. It's merely a repitition to state that Socrates is mortal.

Quote 1: Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

Quote 2: Hilston wrote: God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise.

In the first quote, you are speaking of the God of the Bible as being proven. Saying that something is proven is the same as saying that it is the conclusion of a sound argument. That is what it means to be proven.

The existence of God is primary. His existence is not subject to syllogistic constructs because those constructs themselves depend on His existence. Everytime you presume to formulate a syllogism, you prove His existence.

In the second quote you refer to the God of the Bible as the major premise. Do you not think that this is a problem?

No. THE major premise is exclusive. Unique. Utterly singular as THE premise. Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

I am assuming you meant that the proposition "God exists" is the major premise. Please provide the minor premise and conclusion.

For what?

If you want to argue that experience is intelligible, and God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion, then go ahead - but focus your efforts on the "God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion" part. Otherwise your proof looks alot like the proof I posted above. Once you assert a wild premise, you can prove anything.

The "proof" you offered above it unintelligible and non sequitur. The existence of God as the foundation of all knowledge and reason is intelligible and makes sense. What is your theory, SUTG? Where do the laws of logic come from?

Of course it is true that nothing is intelligible unless Christian Theism is true, provided that the attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility. Just as of course it is true that the TAG is refuted, provided that the fact that you responded to my post entails the TAG's refutation.

Strange. Your TAG refutation makes no intelligible sense, yet the existence of God as a necessary precondition for intelligibility makes perfect sense, even if one claims to not believe in God. That is amply demonstrated every time a non-Theist tries to invoke the IPU or the FSM as a competing view.

Now, if you roll up your sleeves and get to work on showing that attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility, your argument will fall into place rather nicely.

God is logical. Human beings, God's pinnacle creation, created in His image, are able to comprehend the laws of logic. God is personal. Human beings are personal. God is volitional. Humans beings are volitional. God places value on creation and human beings in particular. Humans have a concept of personal dignity. Human experience is seen to reflect the nature and attributes of God. God uniquely accounts for intelligibility in human experience.

Thanks for your posts.

Transfat: 0 grams,
Jim

 

[Mr Jack]

Hi Hilston,

Saga, Dawkins, Huxley and Dobzhansky all disagree with you.

I haven't read enough of Sagan, Huxley or Dobzhansky to comment on their positions; I have read quite a bit of Dawkins and he most certainly does not disagree with me. In either case, I care not, debating what somewhat else might or might not think is an exercise in pointlessness.

Evolutionary theory does not, and cannot, account for origin of life because before replication there is no natural selection and without natural selection evolutionary theory cannot be applied.

On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all.

I'm not speaking about their success as explanations but simply the domains that they seek to explain. The areas explained by evolutionary theory and creationism simply do not line up.

There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.

Oh please. Even a passing survey of the men who developed evolution and it's sister and predecessor ideas would disabuse anyone of that notion. The problems that evolution solves were found in nature. The simple, brute fact is that the earth doesn't line up with the creationist notions.

No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").

If you must stick with your confusing nomenclature then, yes, I agree with you. The current inability of naturalist explanations of the universe to provide a coherant and convincing explanation of the Origin of Life is a criticism. However, to suggest that this critcism supports creationism is absurd, nothing more than god-of-the-gaps thinking.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I wasn't going to argue that they were too old. I wasn't even going to get involved.

I was speaking to noguru in that post.

 

[Chilli]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading this thread in conjunction with the Battle Royale thread over the last couple of weeks, and it has proven quite instructive, although not for the reasons I initially thought it might.

At first, I was interested because despite what some have claimed, a formal debate where an old-earth evolutionist argues evidence with a young-earth creationist is not all that common, and I thought that this was something that would figure prominently in the discussion. Although I have read books that deal with these issues, they usually are very one-sided, and I usually end up wishing I could get people from opposing camps into the same room together to fight it out.

I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was ironically a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that first caused me to wonder whether I was on the right track in believing in a young earth, a tenet which I had never before questioned. Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt… this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.

I think it was perhaps a mistake to pit a scientist against a non-scientist, because despite Hilston’s assertion that in one sense everybody is a scientist, he clearly is not a scientist in the generally accepted sense of the word. Then again, perhaps this was not a mistake, but an intentional strategy aimed at livening up the debate. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the strategy clearly has not worked.

I say this because although Hilston conveniently claims he is loath to argue particularities when it comes to scientific evidence for evolution because he believes it will end in nothing but parties futilely lobbing facts and figures back and forth, he is apparently quite happy to do the philosophical equivalent, with the result that the debate and accompanying grandstand thread has effectively ground to a halt about half way through.

Hilston’s claim that the two clashing worldviews preclude fruitful discussion about scientific evidence has proven just as damaging to a discussion about philosophical evidence, but I think that the underlying reason for this is not so much because of clashing worldviews, but because of Hilston’s unwillingness to consider evidence that calls his own worldview into question. It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

Hilston, I find it interesting that throughout so many posts, you have pretty much kept your cool, but you seemed to lose it at the very point where you were finally pinned down by Mighty_Duck and SUTG in posts 541 and 542. This is the crux of the issue, and the weakest link in your argument, and you had no recourse but to say things like “what are you talking about?” and resort to belittling M_D and SUTG. I was so relieved when it got to the point where you could no longer possibly pretend to not understand what M_D and others were getting at, and so disappointed by your response, as up until this very post I had held onto the hope that you really were honestly confused.

This has shown me the weakness of your argument, and led me to believe that your puzzlement at your opposition’s claims has been perhaps feigned, and your misunderstandings have possibly been purposeful. Up until this point, you have been doing nothing but running around in circles with your reasoning and muddying the waters with obfuscation, and when you were cornered, you crumpled.

Hoping I am wrong,

Chilli

 

[SUTG]

Originally Posted by Hilston
Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

Except that you haven't made the case. This is the part that is still missing. The case is what we want. If the existence of God is necessary for knowledge, or induction, or whatever, then his existence is shown by the existence of knowledge, or induction, or whatever. However, note that this is a conditional statement and a tautology. Making a claim is not the same as making a case. You've made a claim. The proponenets of the FSM have made a claim. How do we decide between them? Substitute any other noun in place of "God" in the above claim, accept the claim as true, and the existence of a proof entails the existence of that which is signified by the noun. Voila! But why accept the claim as true?

Originally Posted by Hilston
The existence of God is primary. His existence is not subject to syllogistic constructs because those constructs themselves depend on His existence.

The existence of God is primary and not subject to syllogistic constructs. What does this mean? Just that you accept his existence with no reason for doing so? If you claim that you accept his existence because syllogistic constructs depend on his existence, then you have accepted the truth of the proposition "syllogistic constructs depend on god" with no reason for doing so. You certainly haven't shown any reasons for anyone else to do so.

Originally Posted by Hilston
Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

Again, this is the lynchpin. Why would anyone believe this?

Originally Posted by Hilston
The existence of God as the foundation of all knowledge and reason is intelligible and makes sense. What is your theory, SUTG? Where do the laws of logic come from?

What is my theory for what? Where knowledge "comes from"? I don't know. It is hard enough to even figure out what the question means. But what does this matter? I know I can just decide that it must have come from God, or the IPU, or the FSM. Do I just have to choose one and then I am finished? Why is the Christian God the only choice? Why is the contrary impossible?

Also, the phrase "laws of logic" is a bit odd. I can't even be sure of what you mean by saying the laws of logic. Modus tollens, first order logic, propositional calculus , modal logic...this is like asking where Godel's Theorem came from. I'd have to answer Kurt Godel.

-------------------------------------------------------

Here is my generic TAG argument:

It is a given that the universe is intelligible, induction works, knowledge is possible, syllogistic constructs are acceptable, etc.
Only X can provide the necessary preconditions for this.
Therefore X.

If anyone can find X where "Only X can provide the necessary preconditions" is true, they win.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to mighty_duck, ThePhy and Mr Jack ...

Combined reply to mighty_duck, ThePhy and Mr Jack ...

Hi mighty_duck

I will not respond to the unfounded insults you threw my way in the last post.

I regret that you were insulted. It was not my intent. You were saying embarrassing things. I was hoping to urge you to be more careful.

I feel I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone but yourself that the argument is circular. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the problem, and how you solve it, is slightly disappointing.

Why have you flat-out ignored what I've said? This is what makes me think that you're more concerned with "winning" than understanding. Haven't I repeatedly stated that all reasoning is ultimately circular? Haven't I repeatedly explained that there is a difference between circular reasoning, which we all do, and question-begging, which is a logical fallacy? How many times will I have to do this again? Please, please, please consult some literature that will help you with this.

My main objective here is not to win an argument, but to learn and sharpen my knowledge. I feel like we've hit a dead end in this regard.

You've hit a dead end if you refuse to acknowledge the problems inherent in your approach to this discussion. You keep saying "circular, circular," which no one denies. When asked to show how I've committed a question-begging fallacy, you can't do it. If there's a dead-end, m_d, it's not coming from my end.

Rejection of axioms

My background for using logic is in mathematics and computer science. Without axioms, there would be nothing for a logic system as I see it to hang on, which would leave us in infinite regress. Not a very useful model for making decisions.

Interestingly, you've identified the problem with the non-/anti-theist worldview with those last two sentences. Infinite regress is only a problem for the non-/anti-theist, which is why they're left with believing in magic. Even in a discussion about mathematical applications and software design, ultimately you have no foundation for your models.

Is your objection to using the word "axiom",
1. a problem with definitions (like the "self evident" part)?

Yes, exactly.

IE you are expecting a low blow like "well, we accepted axioms, and since God is not self evident, I win!". This is not my intention at all.

No, I didn't think you would go for the low blow. Despite my insults, I (rightly, I think) expected better of you. My rejection of the definition is based on having no correspondence with the real world. Nothing in creation is self-evident, except, perhaps one's own existence (the Cartesian cogito).

2. A rejection of foundationalism.

From your heavy use of the word "coherent" all over your posts, I am guessing it is the latter. I have done some reading on Coherentism, and I don't think that a debate on foundationalism VS coherentism will yield any results regarding the EOG.

Actually, upon close inspection, I think the philosophically astute would probably say that much of this debate has been about this very thing. But I do think it yields results; results that most people are not comfortable with, but true nonetheless. I could tell from our earlier discussions that you leaned toward (or at least were employing) coherence theory in your reasoning. And from my reactions to those claims, you probably have guessed that I reject coherence theory as a adequate approach to truth. Also, you're right that I reject foundationalism, but that wouldn't necessarily be indicated by my frequent use of "coherence," any more than my frequent use of "foundation" would indicate my rejection of coherentism.

We may have to provide proof using both methods.

This is what most Evolutionists resort to: a hybrid approach to "truth" using both methods. Of course, Evolutionists who reject the significance of justifying their tools will not see (nor care) that foundationalism and coherentism are at odds philosophically.

Is your proof contingent on rejecting foundationalism? If so, it is really only half a proof, where the other half would be to reject foundationalism.

I'm surprised you want to talk about this (and encouraged -- I like this post of yours much better than your last). It is important to keep in mind something that I included in my opening post of the BRIX debate: We must not confuse *proof* with *persuasion.* I think you're getting the two confused and it is causing frustration on your end. The proof of God's existence is not contingent on the rejection of foundationalism (or coherentism), whereas, one's being persuaded by the argument for the proof of God's existence can be contigent upon seeing the failure of foundationalism (or coherentism) as an approach to truth. Of course, we know that rejection of one or the other is no sure guarantee of someone accepting the theistic argument. However, one who sees the failures of foundationalism and coherentism may more readily agree to the coherence of the theistic argument, yet still reject it for other irrational objections.

This seems to be somewhat of an open question among philosophers, so it would weaken your overall argument.

Nah. There are plenty of "open questions among philosophers" that are solidly, coherently, irrefragably settled (i.e. not open at all) among Christian sanitation workers, Christian farmers, Christian beauticians, Christian TV repairmen (retired), and (take a breath, are you sitting down?) Christian journalists.

ThePhy

Hi ThePhy,

I would observe that the overwhelming majority of scientists who seriously looked at the evidence supporting evolution found it to be credible and supported it, and consequently conclude that the best thing I could do would to be to assiduously avoid that trap.

It's not that sophisticated, really. I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:

• All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.
• All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.
• There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.
• All evidence that allegedly supports anti-Biblical claims have been misinterpreted or distorted by the anti-Biblical paradigm.

These are basic inferences that I draw from the teachings of the Bible. You can object all you want, and that's fine. But in so doing, you prove the Biblical worldview every time you craft a coherent sentence and attempt to bring down conclusions. You engage in the Christian mode of thinking to even make a logical connection, such as you just did when you read this sentence, just now. Right there. You did it again. You're pretending (unwittingly, most likely) to be a Christian every time you think.

I would carefully craft an approach that ridiculed evolution from a philosophical viewpoint, I would do anything but do what had proved so fatal to the acceptance of Biblical literalism by those thousands of scientists, I would avoid the evidence itself. Anything but evidence. Evidence is poison.

You've missed the point, ThePhy. There are scores and scores of Young Earth Creationist scientists who are showing every day that the Old Earth Evolutionist paradigm is flawed. There are plenty of other people, experts in their respective narrow domains of natural science, that grapple daily with the evidence. Their work can be read and critiqued. Papers and books have been published. Go read them. I'm not one of those people. So isn't it somewhat odd to expect a battle of scientific evidence from someone like me?

By they way, some of the aforementioned scientists have committed career suicide by publishing; and some are still "in the closet." And no wonder. Look at what they're up against: a pervasive collective popular opinion that says scientists (read: Evolutionists) are objective, that they only report the facts, that they can be trusted and that their pursuit of truth is pure and untainted. So when someone who is bold enough to be open about his religious beliefs, how they affect his approach to science and how his research has yielded findings contrary to the popular view of the same evidence, it can be expected that he will be rejected by the "scientific" (Read: Evolutionist) community. When science is defined by who gets published and who wins the grants, we have the inevitable corrupting influence of politics and conflict of interest.

Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence.

If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?

Mr Jack

Hi Mr Jack,

[Hilston wrote:]

On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all. ​

I'm not speaking about their success as explanations but simply the domains that they seek to explain. The areas explained by evolutionary theory and creationism simply do not line up.

Please give some examples. I may be missing your point. (It does happen, despite my efforts to make myself look really really smart).

[Hilston wrote:]

There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.​

Oh please. Even a passing survey of the men who developed evolution and it's sister and predecessor ideas would disabuse anyone of that notion. The problems that evolution solves were found in nature.

This is naive, Mr Jack. Darwin and his contemporaries knew their society had to be wooed. And of course they're all going to claim to be Christians in the most socially acceptable manner. Atheists and deists understand the danger of broadcasting that label in the public arena, even today.

The simple, brute fact is that the earth doesn't line up with the creationist notions.

It's exactly the opposite, Mr Jack. The earth ONLY lines up with creationist notions. Exclusively.

[Hilston wrote]:

No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").​

If you must stick with your confusing nomenclature then, yes, I agree with you.

What is confusing about it? The nomenclature is an attempt to clarify, not confuse.

The current inability of naturalist explanations of the universe to provide a coherant and convincing explanation of the Origin of Life is a criticism. However, to suggest that this critcism supports creationism is absurd, nothing more than god-of-the-gaps thinking.

I reject god-of-the-gaps thinking, whether it comes from theists or non-theists. The non-/anti-theist comes up with a naturalistic explanation. The theist fills the gap with "Goddiddit". I would join you in refuting the god-of-the-gaps (ir)rationale, but we'd be refuting your own god-of-the-gaps in the process. For you, the god isn't Jehovah, but the magic of nature; it isn't "Goddiddit," but "Magicdiddit." The Bible's claim is that both you AND the god-of-the-gaps theist have NO solid ground to stand upon, NO foundation upon which to build coherent knowledge, if you do not begin with the God of the Bible. To treat God as one of several possible explanations, or a even a plausible conclusion, is contrary to the teaching of the Bible and is an irrational formulation of how we know what we know, of how we learn and of how we reason. I know that last sentence doesn't apply to you, Mr Jack, but my point is to show how uncritical theists are in the same sinking epistemological boat as non-theists.

Thank you all for your posts.

Find us in the Asian Aisle,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, I look forward to these responses everyday.

Excellent stuff! :up:

 

[Jukia]

. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:

• There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.

• 
  
  God's Word claims young earth, correct, even young universe, correct?
  
  Science claims otherwise, correct?
  
  With NO evidence?
  
  If I read Hilston right, I can stop right there. He loses. If I am reading his statement quoted above wrong then someone please enlighten me. Thanks

 

[Hilston]

You must've stopped reading ...

You must've stopped reading ...

God's Word claims young earth, correct, even young universe, correct?

Science claims otherwise, correct?

No. Not "Science" -- Scientists (read: Evolutionists) claim "otherwise." Science is not a person, or anything nearing a unified collective of persons.

With NO evidence?

You're missing the point. Of course there is evidence. You shouldn't have stopped "right there." The same evidence that indicts a man for murder later exonerates him when reexamined properly.

If I read Hilston right, I can stop right there. He loses. If I am reading his statement quoted above wrong then someone please enlighten me. Thanks

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Jukia looked at the evidence (Hilston's words), and came to a conclusion based on that evidence. There are others looking at the same evidence who would not have interpreted it in the same way as Jukia. Why is that? Was there missing information? Is English not Jukia's primary language? Or does Jukia have a worldview that is so hostile to coherent thought that he/she immediately leaped to "stop-right-there-Hilston-loses" kneejerk conclusion? For convenience to the reader, I offer a re-post of what Jukia was apparently responding to:

It's not that sophisticated, really. I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:

• All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.
• All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.
• There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.
• All evidence that allegedly supports anti-Biblical claims have been misinterpreted or distorted by the anti-Biblical paradigm.

Minty Fresh Striped,
Jim