Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 275 of 385 (13693)
07-17-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-16-2002 7:01 PM


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.
quote:
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.
I have no problem with this philosophy. It isn't scientific in any way, but neither does it claim to be.
quote:
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.
Agreed.
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?
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."
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.
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?
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. However, it also contains a lot of things about nature which are clearly and demonstrably wrong, many of which were attributed to supernatural powers and are, in reality, due to natural phenomena.
That's why the people at NASA use the scientific method, rather than the Bible, to send people into space.
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.
Just for two examples.
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?
------------------
"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."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 7:01 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-17-2002 7:49 PM nator has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 385 (13694)
07-17-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-16-2002 7:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind.

I think you would have a hard time proving that the Isrealites had a better understanding of medicine than the Egyptians, or of other civilizations of the time. Probably deserve its own thread...
quote:
Or the sphericity of the earth as declared in scriptures compared to the coterminus inferior secular humanistic notions of ancient times.
I have seen this claim made before. I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that scripture declares the earth to be round. It seems pretty much neutral on the subject really-- an account of the heavens as seen from Earth. Except for the early chapters of Genesis, which imply to me an Earth pretty typical of all of the cultures of the area at that time-- that is, kind-of a flat Earth with a half dome above it.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 7:01 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by gene90, posted 07-17-2002 12:45 PM John has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 277 of 385 (13711)
07-17-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by John
07-17-2002 12:50 AM


[QUOTE][b]The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Why don't you define 'secular humanist' for us because I don't think the Egyptian theocracy quite fits under that category.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by John, posted 07-17-2002 12:50 AM John has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 385 (13719)
07-17-2002 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by John
07-16-2002 11:20 PM


[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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by John, posted 07-16-2002 11:20 PM John has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 279 of 385 (13720)
07-17-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-15-2002 5:54 PM


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.
Also, no one here is trying to 'prove' evolution any more. This is a creationist misconception.
quote:
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."
Are you now telling us that geologists cannot tell the difference between pelagic oozes and volcanic vent deposits?
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Actually, it is quite normal not to see a lot of dead animal or vegetable life in the deposits of one of these eruptions in the geological record. I'm not sure why.
quote:
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.
But then you had all of these freshwater flood surges from the highlands that TC and TB espouse. Seems to me that goint to higher ground might be pretty dangerous for those more mobile creatures. Sort of like the flowering plants. Maybe they escaped to higher ground, but then got innundated by the fresh water surges. We'll have to ask one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-15-2002 5:54 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-18-2002 5:05 PM edge has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 385 (13733)
07-17-2002 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by nator
07-17-2002 12:29 AM


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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by nator, posted 07-17-2002 12:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by nator, posted 07-19-2002 9:32 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 385 (13772)
07-18-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by edge
07-17-2002 4:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by edge, posted 07-17-2002 4:37 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 1:08 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 385 (13777)
07-18-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Mister Pamboli
07-13-2002 3:09 PM


[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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-13-2002 3:09 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 283 of 385 (13816)
07-19-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-18-2002 5:05 PM


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?
No. Some processes are rapid, and some are slow. No asssumptions involved. In contrast, it is YOUR assumption that most geological process are rapid.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-18-2002 5:05 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-19-2002 2:45 PM edge has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 385 (13820)
07-19-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by edge
07-19-2002 1:08 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 1:08 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 3:26 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 285 of 385 (13822)
07-19-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-19-2002 2:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
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.
But you are saying that since MSH deposits were laid down rapidly deposited and that the geological column must have been likewise rapidly emplaced. You are saying that since we can form laminations in laboratory settings rapidly, then all laminae must have been deposited rapidly.
quote:
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.
Yes, and with your blinders firmly fixed you think you can ascribe all kinds of agenda and reasoning to naturalists. I don't suppose you would consider that geologists have been observing the processes of deposition and erosion carefully for a couple of centuries and have arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning.
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.
e: 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.
M: 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.
Actually, it has failed in many ways. You need only look at the hundreds of questions asked of creationists on this website that have gone unanswered.
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?
e: 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.
No rush.
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)?
e: If you look at ALL of the data, yes.
M: 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.
You seem to forget that the data was originally collected under the assumption of creationism. At some point the creationist scientists realized that it was an unreasonable scenario and abandoned the whole concept.
And why must a science be 'hard?' Is economics 'hard?' Is history 'hard?' No. None of them are hard sciences. What are you goint to replace them with? Of course we are talking historical, and therefore unobserved, are you saying that this is any less 'science?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-19-2002 2:45 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-19-2002 4:49 PM edge has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 385 (13823)
07-19-2002 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by nator
07-15-2002 1:01 PM


s: You have to be a Christian, and you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, before you believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. So, the perspective doesn't work for everyone. In fact, lots and lots of people don't think that humanity has a universally fallen nature.
m Reply:
So, do you believe in statistical morality, the notion that if enough people believe a certain way, then it must be OK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: Not at all.
My morality is based on a combination of the Golden Rule (Do Unto Others...), Live and Let Live, rational self interest, and recognition of the value of following group rules and engaging in cooperation for the greater good.
m: You know, if (macro)evolution is true (which would require biblical Christianity to be a lie), it sounds like you have a pretty good philosophy going for you (especially in light of the fact that evolutionists believe that we became as evolved as we are by millions of years of killing off the weakees--your alienation from those who would like to continue to "advance," is admirable). But one problem: the ol' one God, one plan = Jesus issue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: I, as a non-christian, do not believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. I think that humanity is neither good nor bad, by nature. Our cultures and societies have constructed rules and morals by which we have constructed value systems (which have changed, and continue to change, over time), and by these value systems we judge the "goodness" or "badness" of human behavior.
Reply:
m: Well, that's certainly the popular humanistic perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: It beats the heck out of living my life feeling like I am worthless or unworthy . . .
m: If I am deluded and Jesus was actually a liar, go for it. You may as well FEEL as best you can before death. My statement, "I know Jesus is not a liar" isn't hard science, so, in the humanistic sense, what anyone thinks is just as valid as my views or the next guys. Heck, was it Democritus: ". . . all that exists are unchangeable particles and atoms and their motions in empty space," so WHATEVER. If Jesus is (or WAS, from the humanist's perspective) a liar, drinks are on me.
s: . . . It also seems to be the most rational way to look at how and why human cultures are the way they are.
If you believe that all is hopeless with regards to human nature, and that we are all "fallen", then a bleak and dreary perspective you must have.
m: All is hopeless, bleak and dreary for those who do not accept the only God's only way of ESCAPE FROM said items.
s: It is much more hopeful and inspiring to me to recognize that we CAN change. Under your philosphy, we are hopelessly doomed.
m: The recurring problem, though, is that the absolute (God's way) is not a philosophical smorgasbord. If what the Bible teaches is true, we are born with a Fallen nature whether people who have that Fallen nature can, under the spectre of that condition, appreciate the fact or not. Yes, then, and tragically, there are those who are doomed, and there are those who choose the escape route that was so mercifully supplied. My feelings and capacity to imagine how the Being who can't be improved upon, could've run things differently, is of secondary importance at best.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, MArty, I was wondering if you are going to reply to
my comment on your claim that secular humanism is promoted in our schools?
Reply:
What was the secular humanism comment again . . . sorry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: You made the comment that the unofficial, yet promoted, religion in our public schools was Secular Humanism.
I replied that our public schools were just as steeped in the Judeo/Christian Tradition as every other part of public life in the US, as evidencd by the recognition of Christmas, Easter, and St. Valentine's day during the school year, with the vacations that go along with these Christian holidays.
Children also recite "under God" in the Pledge to the flag every single day.
m: Boy, my answer to this is probably going to reconfirm all sorts of potentially negative ideas people have about those Christians, but here goes. Yes, the Bible is just as much ingrained in public life as are Secular Humanistic ideas. The problem is that it wasn't always that way--it used to be just (or PRIMARILY) Christianity. I'll pause a moment, here. I don't dislike people who believe or think differently than the biblical way. But, for one, there's such a thing as a country being under the blessing of God. When the actual God is exalted, blessings from God can be experienced in ways that would not otherwise be possible. That's why it's good for everybody (even for those who hold contrary beliefs, those who have not yet converted to Christianity) for God's only way to be promoted. This doesn't mean the Constantine thing. It isn't (and never was) CHRISTIAN to force conversions. What's the difference between forced conversions and assembling a culture founded on Christian principles? One of the important differences is that the people of the country would actually be in agreement to base the country's practices on Christian principles, much like most of the founders of the US were. We have problems today because the agreement is eroding. Ultimately, the erosion cannot be interpreted as anything but a hellish tragedy. I love all sinners (regardless of their inferior ideas about reality). That's not a condescending, prideful, or self-righteous statement. I simply accepted the way out of the mess, the way that causes me (a sinner) to not get what's coming to me because the price has already been paid and I received the work as directed (rendering me, according to God's plan, as one of his saints, not a sinner). Our country has nothing of value to gain and everything of value to lose the more that Secular Humanistic idealogy replaces Christian ideology.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by nator, posted 07-15-2002 1:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 07-19-2002 10:02 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 385 (13824)
07-19-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by edge
07-19-2002 3:26 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: But you are saying that since MSH deposits were laid down rapidly deposited and that the geological column must have been likewise rapidly emplaced. You are saying that since we can form laminations in laboratory settings rapidly, then all laminae must have been deposited rapidly.
m: or COULD'VE been, since we're discussing two philosophies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: Yes, and with your blinders firmly fixed you think you can ascribe all kinds of agenda and reasoning to naturalists. I don't suppose you would consider that geologists have been observing the processes of deposition and erosion carefully for a couple of centuries and have arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning.
m: I don't doubt that they arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning. The shift in thinking from realism to naturalism influenced many to think of ways in which the popularized theory of evolution could be made to work.
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.
e: 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.
M: 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: Actually, it has failed in many ways. You need only look at the hundreds of questions asked of creationists on this website that have gone unanswered.
m: I don't know how many creation SCIENTISTS might be postponing some responses regarding technical aspects of some arguments that are outside their field of expertise, but if most of the supporters of creationism who respond on this website are like me, they go head to head about this philosophy versus philosophy issue. I think we can agree that:
(1) if a creationist who has an in-depth knowledge of scientific creationism, engages an evolutionist who is not very dedicated to the study of the scientific arguments for his position, in all liklihood, the evolutionist would have to put off some responses
and
(2) the reverse of the above.
Of course, debate at the level of scientific expert versus scientific expert would not conform to the statistics of this website.
M: 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e: You seem to forget that the data was originally collected under the assumption of creationism. At some point the creationist scientists realized that it was an unreasonable scenario and abandoned the whole concept.
m: Yes, as I mentioned, there was that shift in philosophy that influenced some to embrace the notion of Darwinian evolution and the details of the argument that would enable it to be thought of as a possibility.
e: And why must a science be 'hard?' Is economics 'hard?' Is history 'hard?' No. None of them are hard sciences. What are you goint to replace them with? Of course we are talking historical, and therefore unobserved, are you saying that this is any less 'science?'
m: I say that the philosophy of evolutionism gains, the more people do not distinguish between empirical data and philosophical sketches that are used by the affected group to create their "GUT."
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by edge, posted 07-19-2002 3:26 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by edge, posted 07-20-2002 4:15 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 385 (13826)
07-19-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Peter
07-08-2002 4:11 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: I think you may have a point there; some atheists do come by their atheistic faith by examining all the evidence . . . especially when such evidence is put forth in textbooks and documentaries (to name two vehicles of common naturalistic propaganda--hey, it is propaganda whether the people are unwitting victims of the sociological vortex that favors the cult of cosmic and biological evolutionism, or whether they are actually mere dogmatists with a corrupt agenda).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: I am an athiest ... I came to my conclusions based upon a
christian upbringing, sunday school attendance, no television
(we didn't have one when I was a kid), reading the Bible for
myself, reading text-books and encyclopoedias.
I feel that my resources and study had a fair amount of balance
of the two opposing views. I came down on the atheist side
after many years of consideration of data from both sides
of the debate, and of debating with different christians, muslims,
agnostics, athiests, and one hindu I even managed to
get a Mormon missionary to say 'Well, thanks, but I've got to
be going now.' which I thought was telling
m: It is telling, in a sense. For one thing, Mormons believe that faithful Mormon men will be exalted into godhood and, with a "wife" or "wives," populate a planet for themselves in the future in order to be a god over the inhabitants. Indeed, Mormons think that the God of the bible went through this sort of exaltation process, which is absolute blasphemy. (Any Mormons out there--is my understanding of the Mormon faith way off?)
But to get back to what we were discussing, certainly, your upbringing is no guarantee that you'd accept the Gospel offer.
I think it's great that, for many people (including yourself), this moment doesn't represent the final chapter.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
I'm sure, then (insofar as I accurately promote what God promotes in his word, the Bible), that the claims of Jesus sounds hollow to all those who do not accept all Biblical doctrine. My a priori must be perceived as an a priori because there is no way to prove empirically, say, that Jesus really did rise from the dead (the linch pin responsible for a decision to take the rest of the Bible seriously). That is bad for me as a debater here and now, but good for my eternal destiny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s: If you cannot proove the bible empirically, then why hold it up
against things that have a weight of empirical evidence in their
favour.
e: I discuss aspects of the Bible that lend themselves to empirical considerations, and I discuss aspects of the Bible that declare spiritual truth (truth that EVERYONE will eventually realize is just as true as the most empirical data that ever existed).
s: Faith can be a wonderful thing ... when it causes one to be blind
to other ideas, no matter how well supported, it is
zealotry (is that a word?)
m: If there is evidence that could be mounted to prove I am zealous for God in the name of Jesus, I would embrace such "guilt."
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 4:11 AM Peter has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 385 (13827)
07-19-2002 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
07-07-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The words, "under God" are repeated during the recitation of the Pledge to the Flag every day in public schools.
Christmas vacation and recognition
Easter vacation and recognition
St. Valentines day recognition
Secular Humanism is promoted in schools? Give me a break. Our schools are just as steeped in the Judeo/Christian traditions as the rest of public life in America. It's hard to get away from it anywhere.
Reply:
I answered this when you re-asked me earlier. Right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 07-07-2002 12:08 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024