Topic: Creationists - Your Turn! (Read 19621 times)

Bdean · « **Reply #40 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:56:31 AM »

Quote

Bdean: If science's bias toward methodological naturalism has led to error in the formulation of the modern synthesis then how has that same bias not led to error in the formulation of other major scientific theories? In other words, what evidence has science approached that has NOT been biased by the "taint of methodological naturalism"?

This is interesting. It prompts me to ask/wonder: Is there any scientific knowledge still accepted today that was discovered prior to the current dominance of methodological naturalism? Were any modern theories and scientific facts established by building upon this prior knowledge?

I accept the idea that scientific knowledge (acquired amid a methodological naturalism presupposition) can be accurate. I do not accept that it must be accurate.

Much of my field entails knowledge ascertained amid an evolutionary biology frame of reference. I tentatively accept and use many of these theories. I even work within the evolutionary script/story of humanity as I study and think about these theories. I equate it to wearing an old, dirty, torn coat when I go out in the winter. Why do I wear such a coat? Because it keeps me relatively warm and is the only coat that I have available. In areas where divine revelation does not help me out, I am not beneath trying on the naturalism or historical inquiry, autobiographical inquiry, fiction as research, etc. Then again, there are times when my faith requires me to step outside without a coat.

Quote

It appears to be the case that some of you pick and choose which scientific theories you choose to believe are affected by science's naturalistic bias and which you choose to believe are not, strictly on the basis of which theories collide with your faith and which do not.

Yes, I do pick and choose. I openly state that (in my life) divine revelation as recorded in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures is considered a more reliable way of knowing than methodological naturalism. I do, however, accept the possibility that I may be interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly at times. I accept the possibility that the creation account was intended to be read as poetry and not to be taken as a historical account of a six day creation. At this point, my study of the Scriptures leads me to believe that Genesis is, however seemingly unlikely to the naturalist, intended to be read as a work of history.

Quote

Again I ask, if there is a method of knowing that results in more reliable knowledge about the world than does the scientific method then what is that method? If there is no such method, then only the irrational will reject the conclusions reached by science when those conclusions conflict with their faith.

There is an obvious challenge with this question...situation. Can we agree upon criteria for determining if one way of knowing is "more reliable" than another? I suspect not.

Stathei · « **Reply #41 on:** May 02, 2006, 10:34:51 AM »

Maj, I don't have time for a point by point, but the age of the Earth is not contradicted by anything except contrived, pseudoscientific wishful thinking on the part of Creationists - again, the Holocaust is only contradicted by the deniers, which doesn't make the evidence for it "contradictory".

The fossil record is incomplete, as I stated on a thread that you ignored in order to flog the dead horse of macroevolution. Fossil formation is ludicrously rare, and we have only discovered a negligable portion of the negligable portion of animals which have become fossilized.

Quote

*The historical evidence of a worldwide flood is overwhelming
*The historical evidence of large dinosaurs co-existing with man is overwhelming

These two statements are simply not true, and the remainder of your evidence is fundamentally flawed and I will try to address them as time permits.

I'll leave you with a question to ponder - if the Bible were not the word of God, would I believe Genesis or Darwin?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** May 02, 2006, 10:47:57 AM »

"The fossil record is incomplete, as I stated on a thread that you ignored in order to flog the dead horse of macroevolution."

Stephen Jay Gould believes otherwise, and he should know. Who should we believe? Stathei or Mr. Gould?

"Fossil formation is ludicrously rare,"

That's why we have so many hundreds of millions of fossils.

These are nothing more than mere articles of faith to you. You cannot support them. I bet it has never occurred to you to support them.

"and we have only discovered a negligable portion of the negligable portion of animals which have become fossilized."

In otherwords, you admit that the fossil record does not on its face support macroevolution, but you are willing to make excuses for that.

I guess the remaining question is how we can claim to know so much about how everything evolved through time if we have only a "a negligable portion of the negligable portion of animals which have become fossilized." If that is the case, you certainly have no right to dogmatically tell us HOW, specifically, ANYTHING evolved. You can only maintain, against the available evidence, which you excuse, that it DID evolve.

Powerful argument there. Wow. Overwhelming.

Sorry for the potshot. I had in my head this was a listening thread, but since you haven't been listening, I am only following suit with you. After all, you started the thread, promising... oh well, never mind.

Stathei · « **Reply #43 on:** May 02, 2006, 12:41:30 PM »

SJ, I started this thread to hear the reasons why people believe in Creationism, not why they don't believe in evolution. All I am hearing is the latter, and if we disregard that all that is left is "because the Bible tells me so". That is not ridicule, and you may state my position as "because science tells me so" if you wish.

I would like to hear your answer to my question, SJ. If the Bible was just a book, would your believe it, or Darwin?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #44 on:** May 02, 2006, 12:52:51 PM »

"SJ, I started this thread to hear the reasons why people believe in Creationism, not why they don't believe in evolution."

So, why have you avoided my two posts which seek to explain this?

"I would like to hear your answer to my question, SJ. If the Bible was just a book, would your believe it, or Darwin?"

Darwin who? Darwin has never talked to me. The only thing I know about Darwin's views I learned in a book.

Just a book.

Stathei · « **Reply #45 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:21:44 PM »

Why are you evading the question, SJ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:26:05 PM »

How can you say that when I have repeatedly pointed out to you TWO posts of mine that go to the answer?

There is no excuse on one of the posts. I believe it says something like "The reasons why I am a YECcer are..."

Wow. Dude. Total evasion.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:28:15 PM »

Ah, exact quote:

"This is an extremely brief overview of why I am a YECer:"

Stathei · « **Reply #48 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:30:40 PM »

Quote

I would like to hear your answer to my question, SJ. If the Bible was just a book, would your believe it, or Darwin?

I meant that question, SJ.

Stathei · « **Reply #49 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:33:34 PM »

Your answer to the creationism question was "I don't believe in evolution or science, and I think the Bible is history". In summary, "because the Bible tells me so". Not very inspiring, is it?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:45:15 PM »

"meant that question, SJ."

Oh. I see. Well, I thought I did answer it. Darwin didn't tell me anything. What I know of him comes from 'just a book.' Apparently, that means it can't be true. So, I don't know if I can answer it any better than that while it remains in those terms.

"Your answer to the creationism question was "I don't believe in evolution"

False.

"or science,"

False.

"and I think the Bible is history"

Very incomplete.

3 out of 3 wrong. Hint: Instead of trying to paint me and other creationists into a corner before they open a word, why don't you ask probing questions. Seek out clarifications. Request definitions. Refrain from even negative comments. Understand that a YECcer takes some of the same evidence, but intrerprets it differently. Be Socratic, not dogmatic. Because you know, you don't want to be the dog in dogma.

I made that up myself.

SML · « **Reply #51 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Stathei

Quote
*The historical evidence of a worldwide flood is overwhelming
*The historical evidence of large dinosaurs co-existing with man is overwhelming

These two statements are simply not true, and the remainder of your evidence is fundamentally flawed and I will try to address them as time permits.

I'll leave you with a question to ponder - if the Bible were not the word of God, would I believe Genesis or Darwin?

Since you already believe Darwin, obviously you would continue to believe Darwin. What's your point?

I find it disheartening to discover that you really aren't much interested in the evidence and that you really did mean it as a slam. I wrongly expected a higher level of discourse from you.

Nevertheless, for the sake of lurkers I will go on to explain things more fully. Perhaps between now and when I'm through you'll choose to have an inquisitive attitude.

First of all, almost every culture on earth has a flood story (world-wide flood, occurring because of man's evil, a remnant is saved). That's a huge amount of historical evidence that something of the sort occurred. Likewise, you find legends of dragons - remarkably similar - all over the earth - in this world previously lacking the smallness created by safe travel and technology this is persuasive evidence for their existence being witnessed by humans at some point in our past.

Laugh it off and scorn it if you like. It is, nonetheless, true.

Stathei · « **Reply #52 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:07:13 PM »

Describing fairy tales of dragons as "overwhelming historical evidence" that man and large dinosaurs existed together is pretty pathetic, Maj. The flood thing ain't too overwhelming either, but I'll let the lurker decide if this is positive evidence of a young Earth.

Quote

I'll leave you with a question to ponder - if the Bible were not the word of God, would I believe Genesis or Darwin?

That was a question for you to ask yourself. Can you answer, Maj? SJ refuses to, presumably because he is honest enough to recognize that the only reason he believes in creationism is because he believes the Bible is the word of God.

SML · « **Reply #53 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:18:08 PM »

Actually, I recall reading SJ saying plainly that he rejects evolution apart from scripture. I suppose that would make him a theist if the Bible was not truly of God.

Also, when I study the evidence, I see that scientists make claims regarding the evidence that goes beyond the actual evidence. I'm skeptical by nature. I think it highly likely that I would reject evolution based on the actual evidence. That would force me to be a theist, because there is no other option.

Let me explain something .... you think because I have a rational belief (faith) in the scriptures that I check my brain at the door? Not so: I question most everything I see in life and take almost nothing for granted (at least on first encounter). I do not blindly trust the leaders in my church - I will actively challenge them if something they say does not match up with the Word. The Word itself is something I have tested out, and it stands firm. Particularly, evolutionary science is very weak. You claim otherwise, but nothing you have presented shows it to be trustworthy.

Must go - child needs wiping

.

Stathei · « **Reply #54 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:18:43 PM »

Quote

1. I dispute the main alternative on its own terms. That is, I think evolution incredibly tortured on scientific grounds, based on my perspective of scince. I think that evolution, and really, any strictly materialistic view of the world that is said to account for my brain, CANNOT be true- and at the same time have it so that I can trust my brain.

2. I do not think that 'science' is the sole arbiter of truth. I believe other forms of epistemological inquiry are valid and hold while within their domain. I think 'science' should be employed within its domain.

3. Therefore, I believe things that are historically demonstrated are as real and true as any other demonstration.

4a. Given that the main alternatives fail, I feel open to considering other options. NEGATIVE proposition.
4b. I believe that a YEC is historically demonstrable. POSITIVE proposition.

I think my summary is fair, SJ. I said you didn't believe in evolution, you said:

Quote

I think that evolution....CANNOT be true

I said you didn't believe in science, you said:

Quote

I think 'science' should be employed within its domain.

I said you thought the bible was history, you said:

Quote

I believe that a YEC is historically demonstrable. POSITIVE proposition

I think that is actually 3/3 dead right, SJ.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #55 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:33:44 PM »

"I think my summary is fair, SJ."

That's the problem. You're thinking. You should be listening.

"I said you didn't believe in evolution, you said:
Quote:
I think that evolution....CANNOT be true"

But I specifically pointed out that when I say 'evolution' I mean in particular 'macroevolution.' I believe it was this thread, and I believe other YECcers have agreed with that. However, if by evolution we mean 'microevolution,' its different. That's a real distinction for me, even if you can't grant me the courtesy of allowing me to make my own distinctions.

"I said you didn't believe in science, you said:
Quote:
I think 'science' should be employed within its domain."

Which means that I do believe in science. I just think it ought to know its place.

"I said you thought the bible was history, you said:

Quote:
I believe that a YEC is historically demonstrable. POSITIVE proposition"

But I didn't use the word 'bible,' did I? You still don't know what exactly I mean. You're too busy drawing conclusions before you've allowed anyone to explain to you what they mean.

"I think that is actually 3/3 dead right, SJ."

Well, you got the 'dead' part right.

This is why I'm hesitating about expanding on things. You can't even understand the brief statements that I've already given without playing the 'gotcha' game.

Stathei · « **Reply #56 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:48:36 PM »

I'll let the lurker decide whether you are full of it, SJ. You are squirming rather desperately to deny your own words and accuse me of misunderstanding them - are you saying, for example, that the "historical" part does not refer to the Bible?

Once you deny science simply because you believe in the Bible, we are still left with "because the Bible tells me so". Admitting that this is why you believe in YEC would show some integrity. Pretending that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, that there is real evidence of a worldwide flood, that C-14 levels in the atmosphere are evidence of young Earth and that modern isotopic dating methods are somehow flawed are just lies concocted to support your belief in "The Word" (you may choose to believe them, but they are what they are). The reason why you hesitate to expand things has more to do with the weakness of the ridiculous position you have created for yourself in defense of the indefensible.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #57 on:** May 02, 2006, 03:01:03 PM »

"I'll let the lurker decide whether you are full of it, SJ."

Or if its YOU.

I've always been content to leave things to the lurker. If any said lurker wishes to start another thread under the same terms but actually mean what they say, I'd be glad to participate.

"are you saying, for example, that the "historical" part does not refer to the Bible?"

Why do you care to know? Even if I said 'no' you wouldn't believe me. Let's remember, you atheists know what we REALLY mean bwhooohahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha *cough* *gasp* er.. haha

"Once you deny science simply"

But I don't deny science. However, I have a much more restricted view about what someone means by 'science' then you do. That much is clear. However, as you may have noticed I was more than happy to coin a new term to make my point clear. I wonder how you missed that? Ah, no I don't.

"The reason why you hesitate to expand things has more to do with the weakness of the ridiculous position you have created for yourself in defense of the indefensible."

Yes, that's it. Boy, I have a long tradition of running away from a fight, don't I?

I actually like the way this thread has turned out. When I tell people how obstinate and arrogant atheists are (well, or 'can be'), they never believe me. This thread will provide suitable evidence of that. We'll let the lurker decide.

Wait, no we won't. Lurkers are not elite scientists and are not qualified t think for themselves. Ah well. I guess we'll never know.

Stathei · « **Reply #58 on:** May 02, 2006, 03:15:51 PM »

Quote

Boy, I have a long tradition of running away from a fight, don't I?

Maybe not, but you do have a tradition of not fighting until there is such a huge smokescreen that no one knows (or cares) what's going on and most of the audience have left.

I'm glad you like the way this thread has turned out, SJ - so do I. I particularly like the part where Maj said that stories of dragons were "overwhelming historical evidence" of man and dino living together, and the part where you said "I think evolution CANNOT be true" and then said you believe in evolution. I also like the entire thrust of the Creationists' arguments which can be summarized as, all together, everyone:

"BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #59 on:** May 02, 2006, 03:20:45 PM »

Author Topic: Creationists - Your Turn! (Read 19621 times)

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei