Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
352 online now:
dwise1, Faith, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 347 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,749 Year: 21,785/19,786 Month: 348/1,834 Week: 348/315 Day: 26/78 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 31 of 100 (464438)
04-25-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
04-25-2008 2:20 PM


Percy writes:

His central point is that they're just hiding the God connection behind a number of intermediate steps.

This doesn't mean they're not doing the research, though: they've written "scientific" papers that conclude that the Bible was right about the Flood, and don't leap to the conclusion of God. They still believe it's all God, but they're not trying to prove that through the research.

This was CS's original argument, and the part that I agreed with:

Catholic Scientist writes:

The Bible says there was a flood.
Look, there really was a flood.
Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood.

That's all the research papers I provided are "showing": there really was a Flood, like the Bible said. They have their personal beliefs about what it means. And so do I; and so do you. The problem is, they think they get to teach their beliefs alongside the "science": they're not going to restrict themselves to what they can prove, even though they very well do know that anything beyond the stuff in CS's quote above is not science.

That's all I'm arguing.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 2:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:41 PM Blue Jay has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19055
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 32 of 100 (464444)
04-25-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 3:00 PM


Creationist "scientific" papers are some of the intermediate steps hiding the God connection. That's why "scientific" is in quotes. The papers provide a scientific smokescreen to obscure what are inherently religious ideas.

So when you say:

They still believe it's all God, but they're not trying to prove that through the research.

There are two ways to respond to this.

One is that that's exactly what they're trying to prove through their "research", that God exists. Their "research" is just one of the intermediate steps on the way to proving God.

The other less appealing response is that creationist researchers know their research cannot prove God exists, but they do it anyway because it helps hide the God connection. I don't adhere to this view. I think creationists are very sincere about their "research".

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 3:00 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Percy has responded
 Message 34 by Zucadragon, posted 04-25-2008 5:12 PM Percy has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 33 of 100 (464448)
04-25-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
04-25-2008 3:41 PM


This is probably an issue of Bluejay not explaining himself very well (it's been known to happen).

I'm trying to say that I think ID involves more than just a "scientific" way to God: I think they want to take the Flood -> Bible step via "science," and the "Bible -> God" step via religion.

Here's what I mean in relation to your two possible responses:

Percy writes:

There are two ways to respond to this.

One is that that's exactly what they're trying to prove through their "research", that God exists. Their "research" is just one of the intermediate steps on the way to proving God.

I think they know what they can theoretically prove, and that that's all they're trying to prove scientifically. Then, they're just hoping peoples' faith will take them the rest of the way to God. I don't think they're trying to take the "science" all the way through to God.

If they can prove things in the Bible that are testable, then it would help people have faith in the things in the Bible that aren't testable: i.e. God. The papers I provided didn't go all the way to the "God" step, and I think this is why.

Percy writes:

The other less appealing response is that creationist researchers know their research cannot prove God exists, but they do it anyway because it helps hide the God connection. I don't adhere to this view. I think creationists are very sincere about their "research".

I agree that they're definitely sincere: they really believe it, after all. I think they do "research," despite knowing that it can't prove God, because there is stuff that it can (theoretically) prove, and that that stuff could lead people, through faith, to God. But, I think they blur the line a little when they think they should get to teach their belief in God in science classes.

---

I hope I'm making sense now: I don't really disagree with Rrhain's point (in relation to most IDists), but I think it's a little too simplified, and leaves out an important detail or two. Admittedly, this argument is a little different from what I've been saying, but this is what I was trying (and failing) to say from the beginning.

Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 04-26-2008 12:25 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 04-26-2008 6:59 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 1892 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 34 of 100 (464457)
04-25-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
04-25-2008 3:41 PM


I think this is partially a reverse argument from assumed authority.

Basically it is not accepted in science to let someones opinion, (no matter how high or low in popularity ranking that person is) be the evidence used for some kind of theory.

Thats an argument of authority as you well know of course :)

But it works the other way around as well, and thats saying that creationists attempts (though falsified through science) are already falsified because their personal belief links their results to a god.
This despite the articles not linking to god at all but only to the topic of a flood in correlation with the bible.

So I'm thinking that might be called a reverse argument from assumed authority, where god is assumed to be the authority behind the research and thus the research is wrong because its unscientific :P


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:41 PM Percy has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 100 (464493)
04-26-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 1:17 PM


Bluejay responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Name me a single person who isn't arguing exactly that.

I can't actually name specific people who don't argue that


Which leaves me wondering just who it is you're talking about, then. If there isn't anybody who doesn't claim an actual flood who doesn't also then use it to insist that the god of the Bible is the one, true god, then how is this argument not an example of affirming the consequent?

quote:
but I can cite a few ICR research papers in which they don't.

And those same people claim they're not talking about god when they bring up "intelligent design." We don't believe them when they do the latter, why should we believe them when they do the former? They're the very same people.

quote:
in their research, they often don't say "Flood = God."

Because they know they will be letting the cat out of the bag if they do. Since invoking god is clearly not science, they simply restate everything to specifically avoid mentioning god and then pretend that they're being sweet and innocent, praying that everybody will be as gullible as they are disingenuous.

quote:
But, those two papers do not make the leap from Flood geology to God: they do exactly what CS is saying--the leap from Flood to "true Bible."

Because they're playing you. "See? We're not talking about god! We never used the g-word!" As if simply not saying "god" doesn't mean you're not talking about god. But look at the keywords in your first reference:

Fountains of the Great Deep
Windows of Heaven

Where did those terms come from? That's right...the Bible. No other mythological source is mentioned. Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to prove god out of this.

The very first sentence of the abstract:

In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah's Flood.

Wait a second..."Noah's" flood? Why not "Deucalion and Pyrrha's" flood? Why not "Ut-Napishtim's" flood? Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to justify the existence of the biblical god.

And later on:

Because of the enormous explanatory and predictive success of the plate tectonics model (reviewed in [122,124]), we feel that at least some portion of plate tectonics theory should be incorporated into the creation model.

"Creation model"? Gee, I wonder what they're up to.

We feel that this model is not only capable of the explanatory and predictive success of conventional plate tectonics, but is also capable of clarifying a number of Scriptural claims and explaining some physical data unexplained by conventional plate tectonics theory.

"Scriptural claims"? What's up with that?

As creationists we could also use the services of a geochemist to develop a model for the origin of carbonates and precipitites during the Flood.

Well, there you have it. Creationism is a religious claim. They're doing this research in the service of creationism. It is being done solely to prove the existence of god.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:17 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 100 (464494)
04-26-2008 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 4:13 PM


Bluejay writes:

quote:
I'm trying to say that I think ID involves more than just a "scientific" way to God: I think they want to take the Flood -> Bible step via "science," and the "Bible -> God" step via religion.

And I'm contradicting you.

They're trying to make belief in god "scientific." Since society has turned to science for answers to questions, they are trying to use the tools of science to justify their theology.

Now, none of them need this. Not one of them believe in god because of any experiment. In fact, there isn't a single experiment you could possibly carry out that would make them change their mind about god. But seeing as how they're facing a world that wants evidence, they're trying to come up with something that would be convincing.

quote:
I don't think they're trying to take the "science" all the way through to God.

And yet, when you look at their overall action, that is clearly what they are doing. After all, if "they're just hoping peoples' faith will take them the rest of the way," then they wouldn't be so specific about which god you're supposed to wind up with.

Remember, science hinges on the ability for you to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong. That there was a global flood is no more evidence of the Bible than it is evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet these people never point to Babylonian mythology.

quote:
The papers I provided didn't go all the way to the "God" step

...except that they did.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Rrhain has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19055
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 37 of 100 (464508)
04-26-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 4:13 PM


Bluejay writes:

I'm trying to say that I think ID involves more than just a "scientific" way to God: I think they want to take the Flood -> Bible step via "science," and the "Bible -> God" step via religion.

Sure, ideally they'd love that, but it's still Flood=>Bible=>God, with the Bible just an intermediate step. As Rrhain's reply to your Message 29 makes clear, they don't even hide their true intent at all well, although some do it better than others. But are you really going to let the fact that some creationists do an absolutely excellent job of hiding their intent convince you that proving their religion isn't their intent? Few people are so perverse as to carry on for decades in the service of a science that has no scientific evidence whatsoever and that never rewards them with results or progress, all the while causing them to have to engage in significant numbers of dissemblings and and misrepresentations (including to themselves), except in the service of their religion.

There is no way to avoid the fact that creationists are completely caught up in their own chimerical goal of proving that where science contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, science is wrong. Such sincerity cannot be faked. I am very fond of quoting what Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winning scientist) is purported to have said: "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

But I also imagine that it is not uncommon for sincere creationist researchers to turn their eyes occasionally upward and ask, "If you are not a jester God, why are you making the evidence so damn difficult to deal with?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 38 of 100 (464528)
04-26-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rrhain
04-26-2008 12:25 AM


Rrhain writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they're trying to take the "science" all the way through to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet, when you look at their overall action, that is clearly what they are doing. After all, if "they're just hoping peoples' faith will take them the rest of the way," then they wouldn't be so specific about which god you're supposed to wind up with.

This isn't evidence of anything: don't you prescribe how your results should be interpreted in the Discussion section of your papers? Their discussion-section equivalent is written for believers in Christianity: they have to explain how the results fit into the Christian paradigm. So, they're saying, "under these results, it's still okay to believe in God, biblical literalism, etc." That's different from saying "these results prove God."

They didn't say "these results prove God," they didn't mean to say "these results prove God," and I don't think they believe they could ever prove God. They're only trying to prove what they know they could theoretically prove, and using that to rationalize their irrational faith in God.

Rrhain writes:

Remember, science hinges on the ability for you to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong. That there was a global flood is no more evidence of the Bible than it is evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet these people never point to Babylonian mythology.

They don't point to Bablyonian mythology because it isn't relevant to the argument: the argument is that the Bible got it right when it said there was a global Flood. The only evidence you would need is conformity of the geological facts to the story in the Bible. This is consistent with my argument.

Of course, this makes it apologetics and not science. But, to them, it's still "science."

Rrhain writes:

"See? We're not talking about god! We never used the g-word!" As if simply not saying "god" doesn't mean you're not talking about god. But look at the keywords in your first reference:

Fountains of the Great Deep
Windows of Heaven

Where did those terms come from? That's right...the Bible. No other mythological source is mentioned. Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to prove god out of this.

That's right... the Bible. Isn't that what I've been arguing: they're trying to prove the Bible is right about the Flood? How does quoting the Bible show that they're trying to prove God, and show that they're not trying to just prove the Bible?

Nothing in what you've said or quoted refutes my argument.

Rrhain writes:

Wait a second..."Noah's" flood? Why not "Deucalion and Pyrrha's" flood? Why not "Ut-Napishtim's" flood? Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to justify the existence of the biblical god.

Rrhain writes:

"Scriptural claims"? What's up with that?

These are all in response to citations of or appeals to the Bible. They are not appeals to God.

Rrhain writes:

If there isn't anybody who doesn't claim an actual flood who doesn't also then use it to insist that the god of the Bible is the one, true god, then how is this argument not an example of affirming the consequent?

Because they never even try to make that step scientifically! Their science only goes so far as to say "the Bible was right" (in Flood-related arguments).

Look, I agree with your point that their motivation is entirely religious. But, they're not just a "scientific" movement: the "science" is only part of it. The "science" deals with stuff that can be proven "scientifically": and I don't know of any Christians who believe that God can be proven scientifically or "scientifically."


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 04-26-2008 12:25 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 04-27-2008 7:29 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2008 6:52 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19055
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 39 of 100 (464563)
04-27-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
04-26-2008 5:29 PM


Bluejay writes:

They didn't say "these results prove God," they didn't mean to say "these results prove God," and I don't think they believe they could ever prove God.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're just making a semantic argument. I think most sincere Christians would say you can't prove God, and they would probably quote passages from the Bible in support, like "Thou shall not test the Lord thy God." When we say "prove God" in this thread, we just mean prove that their religion is correct.

For the most part, creationists are not actually seeking scientific evidence of God, God under a microscope or in front of a telescope as it were (although some are obviously seeking scientific evidence of God, but we don't need to consider them in this discussion). They're more than happy to just prove the Bible correct, meaning that all the Bible's statements relating to God are also correct.

That's right... the Bible. Isn't that what I've been arguing: they're trying to prove the Bible is right about the Flood? How does quoting the Bible show that they're trying to prove God, and show that they're not trying to just prove the Bible?

The Bible says, "In the beginning God..." If you prove the Bible, you've done as much as most creationists feel necessary in proving God. Proving the Bible is just an intermediate step.

If I were one of a couple hundred scientists working to prove string theory (where by prove I of course mean find a successful test), and the steps to that proof are of the form A=>B=>...=>Y=>Z, and I'm working on the P=>Q portion, how am I not trying to prove string theory?

Nothing in what you've said or quoted refutes my argument.

I know you're addressing Rrhain here, but he and I are making very similar arguments, so I can't help noting that Ray Martinez has said this many times.

Creationists are believers trying to prove their beliefs. The strength and sincerity of their belief causes them to turn science on its head and make research an exercise in finding excuses instead of following evidence. They're no different from all the various ESP, UFOs, etc., believer-researchers. They're only engaging in decades of fruitless research because they already believe the phenomenon is a reality and are only seeking reality's confirmation. But though reality is an uncooperative partner, its reluctance to provide that confirmation will never be a discouragement.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 04-28-2008 1:08 PM Percy has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 100 (464650)
04-27-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
04-26-2008 5:29 PM


Bluejay responds to me:

quote:
This isn't evidence of anything: don't you prescribe how your results should be interpreted in the Discussion section of your papers?

It is evidence of everything. Yes, you discuss the interpretation of your results, but you have to do it within the context of all the other evidence available. The fact that these "investigators" never mention any other source of a flood story except the Bible shows that they aren't actually trying to interpret the evidence as proof of the Bible. That's already been assumed. Which means they are assuming that which they are trying to prove. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.

quote:
Their discussion-section equivalent is written for believers in Christianity: they have to explain how the results fit into the Christian paradigm.

That's precisely my point! They're using their "research" to prove that god exists! They're not talking about a flood for a flood's sake. They're not actually trying to show the physical possibility of a flood. They're trying to prove that god exists. But they only reason they're looking for a flood is because god told them that there was a flood. God -> flood. Flood, therefore god. That's affirming the consequent. It doesn't matter that there's an intermediary step of the Bible in between.

The fact that they never talk about all the other flood myths being just as justified by their so-called "evidence for a global flood" shows that they aren't interested in simple geology. They're trying to prove the existence of god.

quote:
So, they're saying, "under these results, it's still okay to believe in God, biblical literalism, etc." That's different from saying "these results prove God."

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

That's exactly what they're saying. When you say that it is "still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc." you are directly saying, "These results prove god." That's the entire point.

quote:
They didn't say "these results prove God,"

They don't need to. They know that they cannot use the g-word lest the game be revealed for what it is. That doesn't mean they're not talking about god.

quote:
they didn't mean to say "these results prove God,"

They most certainly did. That's the entire point behind saying, "It's still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc."

quote:
and I don't think they believe they could ever prove God.

Oh, they most certainly do. We know that evolution can be proven to act right in front of your eyes and they know that god acts right in front of theirs. Thus, they intend to show even more evidence of the bibilcal god acting so that it can be proof that god exists and they can then use that to further their political agendas.

quote:
They're only trying to prove what they know they could theoretically prove, and using that to rationalize their irrational faith in God.

Um, you do realize you just proved my point, right? If they are using the results to "rationalize their irrational faith in god," then they are trying to prove the existence of god. That's the entire point behind a rationalization: To prove something.

quote:
They don't point to Bablyonian mythology because it isn't relevant to the argument

It most certainly is! If there was a global flood, then all sorts of flood myths become reality, the vast majority of which are not the Bible's...especially since the Bible's story isn't even original to the Bible but is a plagiarism of the Babylonian story. For them to conclude that the BIBLE is true because of a flood is to assume what they were trying to prove.

quote:
The only evidence you would need is conformity of the geological facts to the story in the Bible.

But the only thing they've managed to say is, "There was a flood." That doesn't fit the facts to the story except in the most superficial sense. That's why we don't accept the finding of Troy to be affirmation of the Iliad. It's too general. Because the story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim, to show that there is any validity to the Bible's telling of events will require much more evidence.

quote:
These are all in response to citations of or appeals to the Bible. They are not appeals to God.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? When a creationist talks about "Scripture," they aren't referring to a literary analysis. They are talking about the "word of god."

quote:
Because they never even try to make that step scientifically!

But that's precisely what they're doing! God made a flood. Look! We have a flood! Therefore, god exists! We proved it "scientifically"!

quote:
Their science only goes so far as to say "the Bible was right" (in Flood-related arguments).

But the entire point behind saying, "The Bible was right," is to then immediately say, "And thus, the god described therein exists."

It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you put in. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are affirming the consequent.

The way you show that they aren't doing so is to show me a single person who searches for evidence of a flood who then admits that this is justification for every single flood myth out there.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 100 (464702)
04-28-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
04-27-2008 7:29 AM


Percy writes:

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're just making a semantic argument.

I had my suspicions that we (mostly Rrhain and I) have been talking past each other for a while. You know I'm Christian--and there's still a lot of Christian left in me--and I spend a lot of time around Christians. When I hear my Christian friends talking in Sunday School or even in daily conversation about religious topics, I hear very few appeals to logic. In fact, I hear a lot of things that make absolutely no sense, and it bothers me enough that I make excuses to step out of meetings so I don't have to listen to it (Don't tell my wife).

But, to them, it's not supposed to make sense. In fact, I think sometimes it's supposed to not make sense. Even though our LDS church tries to teach us all to be logical, most Mormons don't want God to be logical, so they don't even attempt to put logic toward Him. Under their mindset, I don't think "logical fallacy" is an appropriate accusation, because you can't mess up the logic you're not using. And, if they're not using logic, they're not trying to get at it through the "science." And, this way of (not) thinking is the impetus behind the "missionary" section of creationist papers: it isn't the logic part.

Maybe this is no different from Rrhain's point: I guess not using logic is, in fact, bad logic.

The very fact that they made "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creationism" is proof that they know what their scientific and logical limits are. But, they won't distance it from their belief system, which is why they still put their "missionary" section in, even though they know it isn't science or "science."

{AbE:

Percy writes:

When we say "prove God" in this thread, we just mean prove that their religion is correct.

This would also include my argument of proving the Bible under the heading "proving God": I guess, in effect, they're similar enough to be considered the same thing.}

Percy writes:

If you prove the Bible, you've done as much as most creationists feel necessary in proving God. Proving the Bible is just an intermediate step.

If I were one of a couple hundred scientists working to prove string theory (where by prove I of course mean find a successful test), and the steps to that proof are of the form A=>B=>...=>Y=>Z, and I'm working on the P=>Q portion, how am I not trying to prove string theory?

Does this logic still hold when you know you can't get to Z? To me, IDists see the process as A->Z, but with the Z part untestable and unprovable. In other words, they know it's an impossible step to make. If they know that from the start, isn't the goal of the process then just to go A->Y, and leave Z unproven (but believed in)?

Percy writes:

Bluejay writes:

Nothing in what you've said or quoted refutes my argument.

I know you're addressing Rrhain here, but he and I are making very similar arguments, so I can't help noting that Ray Martinez has said this many times.

Now, that's a little unfair: I argued for "proving the Bible" and he argued for "proving God." His support was a series of appeals to the Bible about the Flood: logically, it doesn't rule out my argument, so it doesn't refute anything.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 04-27-2008 7:29 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Blue Jay, posted 04-29-2008 12:34 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 42 of 100 (464748)
04-29-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blue Jay
04-28-2008 1:08 PM


Nevermind. I'm officially dropping my argument: it isn't based on anything logical anyway. I think my Christian background was still seeing religion as something different... one of those things where formalizing it makes it sound so wrong, when in fact the formalization is quite accurate. At any rate, it doesn't do anything to derail Dr. Adequate's original point, with which I fully agree.

i still don't think the IDists are trying to take the science all the way, but I also see how that doesn't make a difference, so I'll back down.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 04-28-2008 1:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 43 of 100 (560873)
05-18-2010 12:02 AM


I thought I'd bump this thread.

Here we have dear old dotty old Buzsaw attributing Noah's Flood to the meteor strike which in reality we associate with the KT boundary.

Now apart from everything else that's wrong with that, here we have another case of what this thread is about. He's looking for a naturalistic explanation for something that the Bible just attributes to the will of God.

When it comes to explaining some real thing, such as the diversity of species, then creationists are quite happy to attribute it to God doing magic. But when it comes to an imaginary thing that didn't happen, such as the Flood, they go looking for materialistic explanations to shore it up.

Why?


Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2010 11:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 44 of 100 (560874)
05-18-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2008 1:20 PM


I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.

But what I'm discussing here is not their attempts to show that the Flood occurred, but their attempts to show that the Flood could have occurred, as a natural phenomenon, without the need for divine intervention.

Why are they doing this? When it comes to things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, they insist that the naturalistic explanation is bogus and that God did it by magic. But when it comes to this miraculous flood that the Bible attributes to the will of God, they try to write God out of the picture and seek a purely naturalistic explanation.

I am puzzled as to what can be going through their heads when they do this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2010 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 67 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-19-2010 1:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 100 (560885)
05-18-2010 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2010 12:09 AM


My Opinion
Dr A writes:

Why are they doing this? When it comes to things that really exist and have a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, they insist that the naturalistic explanation is bogus and that God did it by magic. But when it comes to this miraculous flood that the Bible attributes to the will of God, they try to write God out of the picture and seek a purely naturalistic explanation.

I am puzzled as to what can be going through their heads when they do this.

Well put.

I have no rational explanation as to why a supposedly rational person would invoke miracles to cover some occurrences in the Bible and then, clumsily at best, attempt to attack science by using falsehoods about science.

My best guess is that all too often knowledge of religion, be it singular or plural, along with politics, history and sociology, is limited by the filter of the authoritarian personality. Instead of reading from the source, or understanding and comparing several sources in forming a philosophy, there is only the unquestioned replacement parent.

Therefore as humans learn how to cure disease and interact with their environment to alleviate the effects of natural disasters and famine, the role of the authoritarian godlet is significantly diminished.

To me, here lies the problem.

Despite the fact science has improved our understanding of nature, improved our collective standard of living, indeed even increased our lifespans, it is a curse upon the false prophet who promises deliverance exclusively through their person or their bullshit 'interpretations.'

The self-proclaimed authority needs their victims, and they need their human sacrifice, in fact this is one of the best ways to spot a charlatan. Be it as overt in other cultures as the Aztecs, or Carthaginians, or as overt in our culture as the Catholic Church hierarchy demanding the death of Cathars and the excuses for the rape of altar boys, or subvert as in the bilking of the duped by false prophet preachers in order to build monuments to themselves instead of feed the poor, it is morally and ethically all pretty much the same.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the core teachings of the larger religions, and everything to do with authoritarianism, be they masters or slaves.

I can only envision a partial cure, namely to teach critical thinking (and by that I mean real critical thinking, not a faint imitation) from kindergarten on to the doctorate, and to actually teach history, solely from fact confirmed by evidence and not from some racist fantasy.

But I digress. Remember, I'm just a library manager from West Texas, the belly of the beast when it comes to questioning authority figures.

Edited by anglagard, : replace the term idea with rational explanation, since in contradiction, I then go over a hypothesis.

Edited by anglagard, : clarity, after all the Catholic hierarchy does not demand the rape of altar boys but rather that such pedophile criminals be protected from any consequences.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Woodsy, posted 05-18-2010 7:43 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019