Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

QUOTE:
You seem to be saying that science must leave space in its models for modalities which are by definition unverifiable by science. But how is science to identify when it is appropriate to do so?Reply:
Hear me out for a moment so I can make my point that seems very difficult for naturalists to relate to. I think that science is purely an objective undertaking. But, by that, I'm not saying that assumptions and their related extrapolations are innappropriate to science. So, take this next position of mine in the spirit in which it is intended (which I think you will understand by the end of the explanation): totally objective work (science) must be nonassumptive regarding the grand design (although in innumerable hypothesizing and testing situations, assumptions play an obvious role). But naturalists have defined science, in effect, to make it impossible to factor in God, even if he exists. I don't think naturalists say: there is no God. They do not say that because it's obvious that they would be proceeding from ignorance to do so. Partially for that reason, I think science must leave that end of the discussion OPEN, not IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., nonassumptivists enter the investigation of reality without a prior assumption about what the nature of reality IS or IS NOT (for starters in the sense of considering ultimate cause). Yes, nature itself is the basis for our investigations. That's a nuetral, ground zero starting point that must be used to expand our knowledge of the universal environment. But naturalism is't neutral. Naturalism is not some irrefutable sort of empirical tenet such as: "the belief that the physical existence of the universe can be verified," nor is naturalism even "the belief that nature is all there is (now) with the Cause that existed before nature existed, that was responsible for nature's coming into being." Naturalism is all about the assumption of a self-contained, "self-caused" phenomenon. Given that grandiose assumption, naturalists are entirely willing to examine all of the physical data in a fair and objective manner.Quote:
The only way I can see is leaving space for that which cannot be verified, but is to be done in all cases or only whenever a verified or verifiable solution is not known?If the latter, this is simply the traditional God of the Gaps problem where a supernatural explanation stands in for current lack of knowledge.If the former, it leads to an unbridgeable inferential gap, because if one must always leave room for that which cannot be verified, one can never make an inference, even from observation, without also leaving room for an unverifiable cause for the effect.As an example of the latter, take a game of pool. When one ball strikes another I can infer that energy is transferred from one to another, and that consequently the struck ball moves. But this is an inference - there remains the possibility that no such thing happened and that the second ball was moved supernaturally and arbitrarily. How am I ever to secure the inference that is a not a supernatural event?Reply:
All of that goes back to assumptions about "the grand design." Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.
But regarding ultimate origins, do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator. If the answer is "No; but we must, at the onset, by definition, rule out that possibility because we can only perceive (sense) nature," then there's a potential problem with circularity there. Assumptivist positions like that open the door to heading in the wrong direction, sometimes in spite of what the unperceived reality is. That's why it's more objective to keep the door open for things like this, rather than ruling it out all-together at the onset. Naturalists may be wrong. Naturalist and creationist studies need not be hindered at all by this: the study of nature without a belief in the inerrant doctrine of a self-existing universe.QUOTE:
Given the data regarding the person and ministry of Jesus (some of which you might be inclined to dismiss as readily as some of the apologetical information I mentioned), I have very good grounds for believing, among other things, that Jesus rose again from the dead. "If" he did, it sort of takes care of all other man-made religious traditions that have become popularized as alternatives in a largely Christ-rejecting world. [QUOTE]This argument can be paraphrased as "the evidence for Jesus is so overwhelming that I don't need to know anything about any other religion." Actually, this may well play in Peoria as a piece of polemics, but your original assertion was that no other deity compares with the facts for Jesus. You are in fact not making a comparison, which again is ok by me if you present it as what it is - a piece of sectarian rhetoric, but do not present it as comparative when you are not willing to make the comparison.You give no reason as to why one should accept your grounds for beleiving in Jesus over and above others equally deep conviction that Mohammad is the prophet of God, or in the efficacy of prayers to Ganesha.Reply:
The reason could be understood as provided by the apologetical data. True, I didn't specify anything here, but I gather that you are knowledgeable of such data. If I was to be true to your suggestions about "the comparison" issue, I'd have to spend more than a lifetime studying all of the religions of the world before I responded to the message of Christ. If I began to engage in such a strategy, some might think that I was being very rational, all-the- while, though, I'd be missing out on serving the Master. Now, because I realize that that gives you fodder for waxing purely logical with me (resulting in you winning some points here, in this debate forum), I may as well go on a roll and open up into a full "wallowing in irrationality" mode as I make a final point.
First, I'll set it up a bit. Given the "uncompared" (because I am not knowledgeable of all the religious alternatives) belief in Christ, I'll allude to the training of bankers to detect counterfeit currency. They are not shown vast amounts of fake bills so that they can better identify fake bills. It is my understanding that they simply study the real thing, and that alone enables them to identify fakes. This is a parallel to one who accepts Christian doctrine in a world of religious counterfeits. There's only one God. He has only one plan. It's Jesus. Sectarian? Well, truth is sectarian in the sense that there's no other way to be saved. If one wants a rational basis for the Christian faith, seek the apologetics. But for those who accept Christ by faith (the way we're supposed to), apologetics are not necessary, although the apologetic data is still there as a somewhat silent testimony to wise decision.
On what is perhaps a more somber, related note (as to what actually causes people to convert into the percived-as-irrational Christian faith, whether the conversion is by geniuses or "simple folk"), and a point that is not emphasized much even in Christiandom today, is the fact that the only ones who will convert are those who are "drawn of the Father," i.e., not those who are of any particular IQ level, whether high or low. The Father's drawing is literally irresistable. Once a person in the group of "hopelessly lost" humanity is "struck" with the seed of God's grace, it grows, and nothing stops it--not one of these can be plucked from his hand. It might happen to you. Irrational, hugh.Quote:
More significantly, I notice you did not reply in any way to my later point - that a supernatural explanation alone does not imply that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.Would you care to address this point?Reply:
Given the "blank check" perspective (favoring infinite imaginative possibilities) that is implicit to naturalistic dogma, I can't refute you. But that could mean we're even, and not that your assumption about the nature of the universe is more accurate than mine. And when apologetics are factored in, I think I have the edge.Quote:
Finally, let me put it as simply as this: you appear to have a position securely anchored on a personal faith, and on certain a priori assumptions about the need for a "first cause." This is fine, but doesn't provide a basis for argument with others because you can only go so far without falling on arguments from your faith. In other words, and to be blunt, your personal faith provides no basis for discussion. Your replies are simply statements of faith, dressed up as reasoned argument.Reply:
My replies above point out how naturalism is an inherently assumptive statement of faith. And too, naturalists use all of the scientific data that they can muster in order to rationalize their fundamentally metaphysical perspective, much like how you portray my creationistic perspective as being tantamount to tricks of rhetoric.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

My request to "reply quote" was not fully honored, so I'll respond in the following manner to the initial elements of your reply.You were astounded that I questioned the perceived necessity for the fossil record to reflect the order of created forms that came from the six days indicated in Genesis. If all animals were created within six literal days, if they co-existed for over 1000 years before they were trapped in various levels of strata caused by the Flood, why should the creatures necessarily be isolated for burial according to the order in which they were created hundreds of years before? Your idea for the strata order is based on the far-from-confirmed philosophy of naturalism. If I was to put forth an idea for the strata order based on creationism, it would't be that the creatures wanted (or were made) to go out according to the same order in which they were created, although if that order also reflected various capacities to escape from the flood, then I see that that order in Genesis could be appealed to, but for another reason than the fact that they're listed in Genesis according to that order.You say that a "well ordered sequence of fossils" are not answered by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. You did not mention anything against my point that the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon sports the sort of evidence (minus only the fossil sequence) that evolutionists point to in order to "prove" evolutionary speculation, yet the time frames needed to produce the St. Helens phenomenon directly contadict the evolutionary framework. Perhaps that implies a concession of sorts. No? And since the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon is a relatively recent occurence, it wouldn't be likely to yield a fossil study at this time. I'm sure that there were animals trapped in those St. Helens strata's. It would be interesting to see if the order of "fossils" supports the idea of escape ability, even though some of our favorite forms of fossil "life" (like dinasaurs, for example) went extinct, and so would not be present in this new, potential strata record.You indicated that if there were a lot of exceptions to the strata aspect of evolution, there would be no ToE and you would be on my side of the debate. This intrigued me until I realized that you, like most evolutionists, would very likely continue to increase your requirements for the meaning of "a lot" until your theory was no longer threatened by your statement.What are the relevant differences between assumptions of Atomic theory and macroevolutionary extrapolationism? The difference is that naturalists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature. It is by legitimate extrapolative rationale, for instance, that has allowed naturalistic and creationistic astrophysicists to agree about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun. The phenomenon is not an outgrowth of the fundamental metaphysical assumption of naturalistic faith which requires, for example, that all life is linked back to a "simpler" life form.QUOTE:
And undergirds your belief system as well. What is the point? Philosophy undergirds pretty much everything if you think about it just right.Reply:
"The point" is that my philosophy (creationism) is, according to the naturalistic perspective, labeled irrational, whereas your philosophy (evolutionism--NOT SCIENCE) is labeled as rational. There's a problem with a double standard for equally metaphysical positions.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.comA)--Marty

My "reply quote" not honored, so:You say that because the Casimir effect is noticable only at extremely short distances, and since our universe began very small, it must be that our universe popped into existence by the same phenomenon of nature that we call the Casimir effect.
That doesn't sound very convincing to me. Indeed, I find it every bit as mythical speculation as any story of creation I've ever read. What rational basis is there for believing that just because (once nature existed) nature was able to produce the Casimir effect, that (possibly before nature existed), the Casimir effect was a possibility?QUOTE:
This isn't really a Grand Unified Theory type of problem. This is quantum fluctiation. It can be observed and studied, at least a little bit.Reply:
It's GUT-type in the sense that the GUT notion requires a beginning (or a rationalization about how a beginning isn't necessary).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

QUOTE
Your first reaction is correct. Comparing MSH to the geological column is utter silliness. If the entire geological record consisted of a proximal stratovolcanic environment, Martin would have a point. However, to compare pyroclastic flows to coral reefs makes no sense whatever.Reply:
You say that I don't have a point because the MSH strata's were formed differently than other strata's that evolutionists point to in order to prove evolution. I don't doubt that strata's were formed by some different processes. What I claim is that if the MSH phenomenon was to be evaluated in the future by naturalists who had no idea that the MSH region was formed by the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, they would look at the vast variety of its strata's according to the millions-of-years evolutionary philosophical bias, i.e., the way they have looked at the ones already "evaluated." The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution, have been laid down in a very brief span of time--suddenly, in comparison to the evolutionary framework.
If it's silly for a person to seriously consider what we have as a product of the MSH eruption (as a potential disproof of the naturalistic take on the ToE), then I guess I'm "silly" . . . and further informed about the psychology of dyed-in-the-wool naturalists.Quote:
He seems to understand that the MSH deposits do not have many fossils, but does not seem to understand why. This is a very important difference that he shrugs off as insignificant.Reply:
Actually, I realize that the MSH deposits would reflect the number of animals who were overcome by the phenomenon, which could very well be a substantial amount. I think that time itself is the only thing that is "hindering" discovery of potential "fossils" there. Of course, it would take money to launch a serious investigation of the stata's there, in order to find fossils. It is significant that such aventure has not taken place. But is it necessarily unreasonable to believe that many, many animals were overcome by the aftermath of the MSH eruption?
I must say, though, that the MSH situation was different than the Flood of Noah scenario that wouldn't have killed everything in its path almost instantly. In the Flood narrative of the Bible, water covered the earth in a variety of ways, including water welling up from the great deep, which would cause creatures near those places to seek higher ground. Therefore, Noah's Flood would seem to present a better opportunity for a distinction in the strata levels to reflect a "better ability to escape from the disaster" scenario.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

My "reply quote" was not fully honored, thus:You pointed out that the strata order is derived from the fact that certain critters appear in certain strata pretty consistently. OK, except I'd say "somewhat" instead of "pretty." It is idependent of evolution, naturalism, or creationism. Yes. The ToE explains why these critters fall into the strata the way they do (according to the dictates of evolutionary metaphysics). You haven't seen any creation/flood theory that explains the sequence. In order to offer a competing theory, it wouldn't necessarily require an indepth treatise to contend that the established sequence of fossils simply represents an increasing ability to escape from the Flood. It is a viable possibility regardless of whether or not it has been formalized.Edge responded to my Mt. St. Helens point; you might have already read it and my response to it.QUOTE:
Science assumes certain metaphysical underpinnings; creationism assumes different underpinnings. As someone who has spent way too much time reading philosophy, I can understand your frustration here. But in accepting some science you open yourself up to all of the implications of science. Otherwise, you begin to commit a string of fallacies one of which is that of the double standard.Reply:
I assume you mean that naturalism and creationism each assume certain different metaphysical underpinnings, and with those underpinnings, each uses science in an attempt to harmonize the favored model with empirical data. By "accepting some science I open myself up to all of the implications of science," do you mean that since I operate from the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, that I must, rather (in order to be "scientific"), evaluate evidences through an acceptance of the metaphysical underpinnings of naturalism"?You asked how naturalists should learn to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature. The first step--a bigee--would necessitate the current gatekeepers of the definition of "science" (full blown naturalists, not objectively so), to acknowledge the validity of the basic point I intimate in the latter paragraph, that it is philosophy versus philosophy, and not philosophy (creationism) versus science (naturalism). But this will never happen. Naturalists will not give up their power structure that has developed in the culture. It's reduced to a theoretical question. If the impossible did occur, though, another step toward objectivity would require some establishment of a hierarchy of knowledge-quality categories based upon the perspective of nonassumptivism, from which, relevant knowledge philosophies ascend from the most trustworthy to the least trustworthy categories:METAPHYSICAL
class III knowledgeRATIONAL
class II knowledge
--two types:
(1) uncontroversially established:
non-empirical knowledge that has gained universal
acceptance (by creationists and evolutionists)
(2) controversial/neutral:
unconfirmed theories (to explain causes of earth-
quakes, global warming, etc.) that have no
necessary connection to a particular philosophical
view
EMPIRICAL
class I knowledge--always tangibly verifiableThis might provide an idea of how I think "science" could be improved.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

My "reply quote" not fully honored, thus:I'll get back with you about the pyroclastic flow aspect of your argument.Peace. I don't want you to read too much into my claim about naturalistically-governed mindsets availing further perspectives on their psychology. I only meant that if we are to accept the premise that all of us wear blinders to some degree about at least some things, I might be onto the naturalistic mindset today a bit more than I was yesterday.The fact that there may not have been a serious exploration of the MSH strata's yet, is not a conspiracty, at least according to all of my understanding of the issue. I pointed out the problems so far (of time and money).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Not unreasonable at all, but it won't look like non-pyroclastic strata.

​

---

My "reply quote" was not fully honored, thus:I'll get back with you about MSH doing NOTHING to the understanding of geological processes, time and evolution.You pointed out that Steve Austin thinks MSH does yield a fossil study at this time--the trees. Yes, that's right. I was referring to the animals. If memory serves, he taught that some of the trees that retained bulky root systems sank (in upright positions) at intervals to the bottom of Spirit Lake and were then gradually buried at different levels from sinking sediment caused in part by the bark rubbing off of the floating logs on the surface. He offered that this phenomenon could relate to the upright logs that run through multiple strata's of rock that evolutionists claim represent millions of years. I recall him making the point that trees in the geological column, if they grew at the strata level where they now exist, during the epoch represented at the base of the tree--its root area--then the root systems of those trees should not end so abruptly. Of course, he is persuaded from his investigation of the MSH phenomenon that the upright logs intersecting multiple levels of the geological column were deposited in this way (uprooted, transported, redeposited), thus making a case for the idea that these strata's do not represent time frames embraced by evolutionists wherein so-called multi-million-year-old forests existed. The various fossilized tree strata's may simply represent one event that had upright trees redeposited at various levels, covered up by distinct layers of debris or earth.I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about the dinosaurs not being represented in the proposed fossil record for MSH. But, yes, dinosaurs escaped the pyroclastic flows of MSH if "escaped" means that the dinosaurs weren't around for the MSH eruption.QUOTE:
Heck, I'm still looking for one credible instance.Reply:
That is incredible. Well, we're tied then, because I haven't ever seen one credible instance of a fossil failing to harmonize with the creationist model.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

QUOTE:
So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.Reply:
First of all, there's a difference between appealing to God regarding natural processes that followed the original works of creation, and appealing to God as the Creator who made the laws of physics that can be used to address "naturalistic solution(s)" for unexplained phenomena (in the sense of "naturalistic" meaning that we can investigate nature to see how things happen). So, as a creationist, I wouldn't consider the quantum jump phenomenon as God zapping particles in and out of existence. I believe that there are physical reasons for this phenomenon. I would say, though, that God created this universe with the laws of physics that allow for the quantum jump to occur. It's just as metaphysical to say God doesn't exist as it is to say that he does. It's just as metaphysical to operate with a definition of science that assumes the legitimacy of the latter being true, as it is to assume the former is true. At least theoretically, both views are equally possible, and so to rule out one unproven philosophical possibility for another is irrational. Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.Quote:
You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.Reply:
Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).Quote:
Also, history is littered with examples of people claiming "Godidit" until science figures out the natural process or system that was previously thought to be only possible by God's hand.The example of Apollo driving the sun across the sky in his firey chariot comes to mind. Or Thor sending down ligtning bolts.Reply:
And history is littered with examples of people claiming inferior things, things that the Bible anachronously refuted all along the way, things that science too has eventually figured out, i.e., caught up with an area of Biblical revelation.The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind. Or the sphericity of the earth as declared in scriptures compared to the coterminus inferior secular humanistic notions of ancient times.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Something that seems to help with the 'reply quote' function is to select the post and copy it, then hit reply quote.Hey, thanks for the tip. But I'm afraid I have an embarassing confession. I don't know how to do what you recommend . . . h-e-l-p m-e . . . (The Fly).

Martin writes:
Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.Reply:
But the Lord works in mysterious ways. How can you pretend to know in what way God will reveal his presence? By what set of rules do you conclude that he would burn a bush but not consume it, wrestle the night long with Jacob, answer the prayers of children, place tears on paintings of the virgin Mary, but not alter the paths of billiard balls.Reply:
If I had sufficient reason, either scriptural or "natural," I could be inclined to believe a number of things. The burning bush, for example, is a detail of a work that is supported by a substantial body of apologetics, information that has provided me with a reason to believe that the incidences referred to actually occured. But I don't suspect that the burning bush incident is anything but a one-time occurence that only Moses saw. "If God exists," he could intervene into things as he sees fit, but this whole line of reasoning seems to skirt an important issue. Are you, as a naturalist, denying the possibility that God exists? If indeed you cannot assert that God does not exist, don't you see the problem with a definition of science that doesn't allow at least for the possibility of his existence? In principle, the belief in naturalism is subject to the same set of philosophical complaints
that your making about creationism. You responded along these lines with me before:But regarding ultimate origins, do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator. If the answer is "No; but we must, at the onset, by definition, rule out that possibility..."That for which we have no evidence can by no means be ruled out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All it means is that we have no evidence. But theories are formed around evidence, not around absence of evidence.Science is about studying and understanding the universe though our five natural senses, while religion is about exploring the nature and meaning of life itself. It trivializes this noble endeavor to turn it aside from spiritual realities to instead focus on the mere materialism of rocks and fossils.Reply:
Nobody has a right to Christian faith unless that faith is based upon reality. Part of reality that Christian faith addresses is origins. The notion you convey in your latter sentence is simply erroneous.Given the "uncompared" (because I am not knowledgeable of all the religious alternatives) belief in Christ, I'll allude to the training of bankers to detect counterfeit currency. They are not shown vast amounts of fake bills so that they can better identify fake bills. It is my understanding that they simply study the real thing, and that alone enables them to identify fakes. This is a parallel to one who accepts Christian doctrine in a world of religious counterfeits.Your banker logic is just as valid for the Moslem and the Hindu and the Buddhist and so on. So far you haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion.Reply:
Their beliefs aren't substantiated with apologetical-class data.My replies above point out how naturalism is an inherently assumptive statement of faith. And too, naturalists use all of the scientific data that they can muster in order to rationalize their fundamentally metaphysical perspective...I guess if you wax sufficiently philosophical you can make anything seem ethereal and insubstantive, but the facts show that Creationism is a product of just one of many religions and is itself split among many viewpoints that place us on both a billions-year-old earth and a thousands-year-old earth, flooded from above and flooded from below.Reply:
Consider also the dissent that exists within naturalistic ranks.That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.Reply:
Ditto (a la naturalism).In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]
Well, I have now found a case where this trick didn't work but here goes . . .Reply:
Thanks a lot, John. I shall try it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.Reply:
First of all, there's a difference between appealing to God regarding natural processes that followed the original works of creation, and appealing to God as the Creator who made the laws of physics that can be used to address "naturalistic solution(s)" for unexplained phenomena (in the sense of "naturalistic" meaning that we can investigate nature to see how things happen).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you mean there is a difference between saying "God did X", and "God set up the rules of the Universe and let them roll along", then I agree.Reply:
I say (that the Bible says, and that there's no legitimate scientific reason for not believing) that God set up the rules of the Universe and engaged in the acts of Genesis (and beyond).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Agreed, but you do understand that naturalism is also a philosophy, not science, don't you?Reply:
I certainly see this. The problem is that naturalism and science are synonymous in the minds of most people. Evolution itself is evidence of this.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.Reply:
Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The problem with your objection is that science doesn't ever "say", "God didn't do it." Some philosophies might, but the scientific method makes no comment upon the supernatural at all.Science never says "God didn't do it", or "Godidit". Science says, "The evidence found in nature suggests the following naturalistic explanation", or, "There is insufficient evidence to suggest anything."Reply:
There it is: "Science says ... the following naturalistic explanation." Science, today, doesn't keep it objective; it's corroded with naturalistic philosophy (i.e., with metaphysical assumptivism).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------OK, the Egyptian empire was simply not Secular Humanist! They were polytheists, and very clearly believed in all sorts of resurrection myths and an afterlife as evidenced by their burial practices....and Secular Humanism is a 20th century philosophy. I defy you to provide evidence of ancient Egyptian writing which mentions Secular Humanism.Are you sure you know what Secular Humanism is?Reply:
OK. I do equate the Egyptian Empire as a parallel to today's culture of Secular Humanism. I bundled all non-God ideas together in order to do this. The non-God ideas of ancient Egyptian practice (including false gods) and the non-God ideas of today (including false philosophies).
Secular Humanism teaches, basically, knowledge without God.My point in mentioning the long history of science knocking down mystical explanations of natural phenomena is simply that science, as a method of inquiry, has certainly stood the test of time and has been extremely productive and dependable. I do not deny that the Bible contains examples of the ancient science of a tribal desert people.Reply:
SCIENCE has stood the test of time; naturalism, however, has certainly not.However, it also contains a lot of things about nature which are clearly and demonstrably wrong,Reply:
Please demonstrate.That's why the people at NASA use the scientific method, rather than the Bible, to send people into space.Reply:
Yep. They must use science (not naturalism)--some of them are creationists.That's why the folks at the NIH use the scientific method, rather than the ritual sacrifice suggested in the Bible, to discover cures and prevention methods for disease.Reply:
Although the Biblical sanitation "rituals" were far in advance of the contemporary culture--"rituals" that "modern" science has finally caught up with in recent years.P.S. Since you like to talk about Secular Humanism, perhaps you would like to address my reply to your claim that secular humanism is taught in our schools?Reply:
Was this from something I haven't responded to that is still in my "red light" list? I'll check. I haven't been answering my replies according to the order in which they were made. Sorry.
"I'll be back."
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."Reply:
Now let me get this straight--"You're a creationist now?"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Reply:
You say that I don't have a point because the MSH strata's were formed differently than other strata's that evolutionists point to in order to prove evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not just 'other strata,' but 'most other strata.' And furthermore any catastrophic deposition such as MSH does not account for the time between catastsrophic events.Reply:
But don't evolutionists just assume the time frames that the strata levels indicate according to the assumption of the validity of their naturalistic framework?Also, no one here is trying to 'prove' evolution any more. This is a creationist misconception.Reply:
By that I assume you mean that macro-evolution is an empirical fact, every bit (in terms of its legitimacy) like the proof available regarding the Earth's orbit around the Sun? If you believe that, you're using something far removed from objectivity to form your beliefs.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you now telling us that geologists cannot tell the difference between pelagic oozes and volcanic vent deposits?Reply:
I'll get back with you on this.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution, have been laid down in a very brief span of time--suddenly, in comparison to the evolutionary framework.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not at all. This has nothing to do with the 'evolutionary framework.' Some deposits are rapid, others are slow. Fail to see how agreeing that there are some rapidly deposited sediments can indicate that ALL deposits occurred rapidly. It simply isn't logical.Reply:
Is it logical to dismiss the idea that at least most of, lets say, the Grand Canyon strata's could've been deposited rapidly? If so, why?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's silly for a person to seriously consider what we have as a product of the MSH eruption (as a potential disproof of the naturalistic take on the ToE), then I guess I'm "silly" ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So then. Does the sediment that forms in the gutter along my street after a rainstorm likewise disprove evolution? By your logic, it does.Reply:
I guess it could depend on the scale of sediment there. Some things there might provide some degree of parallel principle. Of course, you are aware of the lab settings that study this sort of thing on a small scale. Is it logical to rule out the idea of rapidly laid strata's (in reference to strata's that evolutionists may have historically regarded as "millions of years" structures)?In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]Martin, thanks for taking the time to reply at length.Reply:
My pleasure. We share some common ground, but there's still some things I'd like to put forth, perhaps a rephrased reiteration or two.Let's be clear about the disctinction we are making about Science and the supernatural. Science proceeds on what can be observed or, more accurately, on what it is conceibale to observe: if the universe was created then that creation could concievably have been observed as soon as any matter, space or time or whatever it was that was "created" was created and therefore is the subject of science.Reply:
If science textbooks acknowledged that the universe may have been created, (AND) or that it could be self-existing, and that if we are to ever know for sure which option is true, we must use empirical science to help lead us to the truth (things that I think I hear you saying), then I don't think there would be such a big problem as exists right now. The real problem is driven by the sheer fact that textbooks and public media forms are incorporated with the strict metaphysical bias that, indeed, "the universe is self-existing."It is not that science or naturalism is based on an assumption of a self-caused system, it is the rather the position that causality is also the business of science.[b]Reply:
Yes, causality related to things other than the very first "thing(s)." For me, Hawking epitomizes this mindset. It's the pursuit to find a way for God to have "nothing to do." [QUOTE] All of that goes back to assumptions about "the grand design." Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.[/b][/QUOTE]Why? How does a creationist scientist identify which phenomena are to be attributed to supernatural agency?[b]Reply:
The naturalistic scientist is guided by his naturalism, a metaphysical mindset that doesn't interfere in an overwhelming number of areas where naturalists and creationists agree. The creationist scientist is guided by his creationism, a metaphysical mindset that doesn't interfere there either. The creation scientist believes in the existence of the same natural universe (and in the operation of its physical laws) as the naturalist scientist believes in. Because the creationist believes that "in the beginning God created," doesn't mean that the creationist is in doubt about the range of things that you intimate that are governed by the natural laws God created.quote:
your suggestion that Christ excels "in comparison" is simply wrong if you cannot make a true comparison.Reply:
I have compared him. Granted, it has not been an exhaustive comparison. But I think my comparisons have reached the point that it's fair to make the assertions I make. Sure, people can rationalize a host of contrary positions about the overwhelming reasons there are to believe in the resurrection of Christ (for example), but let them show me a better collection of reasons why I would be better off believing in some other person or thing.Quote:
you cannot extrapolate from your love of Christ to an objective logical constructed interpretation that others can or should orient theories, beliefs or actions around. Apologetics, indeed, try to bridge this chasm between our personal experience of God and the observed reality of the world in an objective way: but ultimately it is love.Reply:
In the Calvinistic sense (a proposition I am somewhat sympathetic towards), I CANNOT do anything except what I do, but some others will not be ABLE to accept it.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
M: But don't evolutionists just assume the time frames that the strata levels indicate according to the assumption of the validity of their naturalistic framework?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------e: No. Some processes are rapid, and some are slow. No asssumptions involved. In contrast, it is YOUR assumption that most geological process are rapid.m: I don't believe that all geological processes are rapid. I believe that some erosion has been taking place for thousands of years, for example. I do "assume," though, that the primary reason for the naturalistic notion about the age of most strata's, is that it is the only interpretation that would allow for their philosophy to be true. With those blinders firmly fixed, naturalistic scientists use objective means to catalogue support for their contention.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: Also, no one here is trying to 'prove' evolution any more. This is a creationist misconception.
M: Reply: By that I assume you mean that macro-evolution is an empirical fact, every bit (in terms of its legitimacy) like the proof available regarding the Earth's orbit around the Sun? If you believe that, you're using something far removed from objectivity to form your beliefs.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Again, no. It is a theory that works to the extent that we may as well move on and use it as a premise for future work. When if fails we will know. However, that has not happened yet.Reply:
Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: The fact is that we have irrefutable documentation that multiple layers of very different and very distinct strata levels, virtually identical to other strata level sites that evolutionists cite to prove evolution, have been laid down in a very brief span of time--suddenly, in comparison to the evolutionary framework.
e: Not at all. This has nothing to do with the 'evolutionary framework.' Some deposits are rapid, others are slow. Fail to see how agreeing that there are some rapidly deposited sediments can indicate that ALL deposits occurred rapidly. It simply isn't logical.M: Reply: Is it logical to dismiss the idea that at least most of, lets say, the Grand Canyon strata's could've been deposited rapidly? If so, why?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because we undersand the processes of deposition of regional shale basins, metamorphism, marine transgressions, eolian deposits, fluviatile systems, and all of them imply much longer time frames. In addition to this, we see no evidence of global flood-type deposition. You need to have some mechanism to create a footprint of a land dwelling creature in 300 feet of water, for one. This is one of the things you are buying into.Reply:
I'll have to get back with you on this one.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: So then. Does the sediment that forms in the gutter along my street after a rainstorm likewise disprove evolution? By your logic, it does.
M: Reply: I guess it could depend on the scale of sediment there. Some things there might provide some degree of parallel principle. Of course, you are aware of the lab settings that study this sort of thing on a small scale. Is it logical to rule out the idea of rapidly laid strata's (in reference to strata's that evolutionists may have historically regarded as "millions of years" structures)?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you look at ALL of the data, yes.Reply:
"ALL of the data" (compiled under the assumption of the validity of the philosophy of naturalism) would certainly "rule it out." All of the work on one side of the issue or another feeds back to the philosophy one starts with. That's why evolutionists and creationists debate about this and not about whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. So, naturalism isn't anywhere close to the level of hard science that seems to be intimated by its supporters.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty