Even liberal Christians can use appallingly bad reasoning. Like GDR’s claim that third person references should be taken as evidence of authorship (or his whining when the silliness of it was pointed out). Or the whole “Not the Planet” thread where the ignorance of the ancient Hebrews regarding the Earth was supposed to prove that Noah’s Flood was meant to be a local flood.
And it isn’t only Christians or even religionists, remember Crashfrog’s argument that Jesus didn’t exist because we didn’t have a Roman record of his execution?
quote:In fact I hope readers would not read your quote-mine as evidence of me being in a "world" I have created.
Well, let us see.
quote:The member, "Wibble" was asking us to provide a dog in the triassic as proof of creation. At EFF forum the variations of the "bunny in the Cambrian" canard are repeated ad-nauseam but evolutionists do so without understanding where we are coming from in terms of the hypothetics of a flood model.
That already seems to be a significant misstatement, as can be seen in the quote provided by Tangle.
wibble, an atheist writes:
The evidence from the fossil record is compelling. You never find modern mammals (such as dogs) in the Triassic, you never find flowering plants (such as bananas) in the Carboniferous and you never find ray finned fish (such as salmon, which include 99% of all existing fish species) in the Cambrian. Etc. etc. etc. You have no sensible answers for these facts that fly in the face of your faith.
The order of the fossil record is indeed compelling evidence against Flood geology and there is no sensible answer.
quote:That is all that was about, Wibble REFUSES to acknowledge that a creationist person starts with different starting-assumptions to evolutionists pertaining to the rock-record, so then if we found a certain organism in the triassic such as a particular dinosaur species, that still has a mammal in it's stomach for example, to a creationist that might represent a situation where geographical provincialism, and ecological zonation dictates that animals in the pre-flood world were in a certain area contemporaneously at that time. So then the REQUEST to find a bunny living with them is a complete red-herring because as creationists we are not saying that bunnies or dogs lived with dinosaurs in that geographical location when it was flooded and a small portion were preserved as fossils. ( a small percentage)
The fact that creationists do not consider the geological periods to be eras is implicit in the question. It is the reason why we should expect to see “bunnies in the Cambrian” and the like. So the idea of differing assumptions is right there.
The obvious question arises of how these presumed “ecological zones” become an order. How do we end up with a coherent assemblage of ecological zones labelled Cambrian, succeeded by another such assemblage called Ordovician etc.? Without an answer to this you have not answered the issue at all.
Not to mention the question of how these ecological zones manage to exclude common and greatly diverse groups.
Let us also note that you are rather selective in your use of “silence”
quote:CLUE: In the past the "silence" of certain organisms was argued by evolutionists whereby they assumed that silence meant they did not exist, only later on they were found in earlier layers, such as grass being now found with dinosaurs.
So am I in my own world for suggesting that it is a poor argument to argue that silence in the record means absence of that form when for that period of time when later they have went on to find earlier forms?
But you argue the opposite, in for instance, the case of bats, where you state that the absence of transitional fossils should be taken as evidence of absence.
Obviously there is a balance here. Bat ancestors are a relatively small group, unlikely to fossilise well. Yet bats are a subset of the far more diverse modern mammals. Surely the absence of modern mammals in so much of the geological record - and the fact that they are only found in the later stages - must be considered the more significant of the two. Yet that is only one of the examples given by wibble in the quote and there are many more he could have given.
quote:The ongoing problem with this line of thinking is relativism regarding "gods". There is only One. You all cant understand how its not the same for everybody, but we do in fact have created "gods" in our minds. Some of us have found the right one...the only One.
Plenty of people think that, and they disagree on which the “right one” is. Which should be a warning.
quote:Of course we will never prove it to you skeptics.
Which is another warning sign. Certainly it is within a God’s power to provide objective evidence. People even claim that God has done it - but the evidence always turns out to be lacking - or worse. (I’m thinking of Cedre’s fake prophet here).
quote:If you are honest, you should realize that if One God exists and became human in order to relate to humans, you first have to even want to know this God.
If God wants to relate to us, and if God knows us, then surely he could at least manage to introduce himself. This is another big red flag. Why should I want to know somebody I have no knowledge of at all? Somebody who - as far as I can tell - doesn’t even exist. It’s never going to get past intellectual curiosity (at this stage - when I was young and believed it was different, but God never showed up even then).
quote:If you dont, God Himself cant/wont help you.
Obviously this just means won’t. So much for God’s love.
quote:Keep on keeping on, but some day you will remember your decisions.
There is no decision involved. I can’t decide to want something that I really don’t understand. And you giving a very negative view of God doesn’t help. Although I guess that may be because you don’t know God at all.
quote:Ouch. That hurt, but I will take it as a loving rebuke
Well, you have to remember that I was brought up Christian, and I still find negative depictions of God to be suspect. Perhaps underneath it all I really do want the loving and merciful God I was taught, but Christianity gets in the way of that (Calvinism especially).
quote:One question, though. If you cant decide to want something that you really dont understand, why do you self identify as an atheist rather than an agnostic?
Wanting is not believing. Indeed I don’t trust myself when I want something to be true (the number of black headed gulls I’ve thought might be mediterranean gulls...). So, intellectually I find the idea of a god highly implausible, and piling religion on to that doesn’t make it any more likely. Maybe there’s some religion I haven’t given a fair shake, but Christianity and it’s major offshoots don’t seem to have much truth in them.