Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Could be presented?

Modify that - could be stated to you. Nobody is going to present the evidence for dinosaur > bird to you - too much too heavy, all anyone can do is show a match between THIS end of Chain 1 and THAT end of Chain 2 and trust you to take the rest on faith.

So, evidence that could be stated to you that does not insist on you choosing aparticlr one of the possible explanations for alleged miracles in the biblical account:

the close point by point match between what was done to me, what others have testified was done to them, and certain proceedings described in the gospel accounts not clearly paralleled elsewhere.

That does not rule out the possibility that my experience was caused by saucer-folk, but then we would need to inquire as to why in my case and others from this time-frame the saucer-folkling(s) did not appear in human form [either their actual form or assumed as a disguise].

See, this is where you sound like a creationist. Given your interest in special creation, your long age discussion, and your comments here and elsewhere about biology, including the ones where you say you don't know enough to comment on biology, you sound like an old earth creationist who just doesn't want to argue about it. Their primary issue is with biology and the soft end of evolution. Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe is an example of this.

It may be that you don't want to discuss it, feel unprepared to discuss it, or just aren't particularly interested in the details of it but given comments like this I don't feel it was a straw man to suggest you are a creationist or are strongly inclined that way.

But I applaud you for abandoning YEC, and hopefully you aren't an OEC. If you are I hope you abandon that as well. Followed by your faith in the bible.

The assumption is you can think in the same manner as an alien. I sincerely doubt you could think in the same manner as a cockroach, a sparrow, a squid or a colony of coral, all of which are no doubt closer relatives to you than an alien from an advanced intergalactic civilization. You are incompetent to convince a grasshopper as to why the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to another state, so don't assume your intellect matches that of someone from an intergalactic civilization.

DID you say I'm a creationist? Sure, I've presented creationist views and do not take issue with being called a creationist. I just never stated that the Bible denied it. The thing about YC and OC is that it's a discussion between factions who DO hold a common belief in God (if we're talking about Christians here). I don't play into either side for doctrinal reasons: It's a divisive issue harmful to the greater brotherhood of believers. YCs accuse OCs and people like me of being heretics bound for a devil's hell. No matter how you interpret Genesis, it has nothing to do with the gospel message but everything to do with why atonement for sin is necessary. As to my views SPECIFICALLY, if you want to know: #1. I don't know because I wasn't there; neither does Genesis on its own really make that clear. #2. YC's views don't seem to be supported by material evidence, but they are correct in the sense macroevolution is only one limiting explanation for fossils, radio-dating, and so forth (though alternatives are likely ad hoc and fail the Occam test; still, why so limiting in the absence of real-time, controlled observation? It's foolish to presume that there is NO such thing AT ALL as evolution; yet somehow we don't like to question fossil evidence, for example on the basis of how fossils form, etc. Agree or not, they DO make a few good points). More importantly, YCs sometimes accuse OCs and others of not really being Christian because disagreement means you don't believe the Bible and you get eternal damnation. The minute I hear that from any professed Christian, I call the discussion OVER. I think they hold to an entirely too inflexible reading of Biblical text. #3. OC views, I think, weaken faith because the implication is God is unable to bring creation into being any way He pleases. Deny the power of God to bring about any result in any way and you deny that any God worth believing in exists. I think they are well-intentioned, and they are good thinking people willing to get at the truth and unwilling to deny evidence. But I just don't really see that as faith in action. I'm not siding with YC here, but I think OCs in terms of theology are trying to be TOO careful.

I think in cases like this, you have Side A and Side B. SOMEWHERE between A and B is the truth. Material evidence suggests the earth and the universe go back a lot longer than 6000 years. Statistically there is disagreement on the geological age of the earth relative to the length of time it would take for abiogenesis to happen and for the results we see right now to happen. It SHOULD be impossible for life to appear on earth so soon after it was formed. So do I think the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? No. Do I think the earth is between 4 and 6 billion? No. I'm not so sure that the earth really is BILLIONS of years old, though it could be. I'm not so sure that the earth is thousands of years old, either. It's probably not as old as the OCs claim, but I have serious doubts that it is as young as the YCs claim.

As to not wanting to argue: Why am I obligated to? If I have something I think valuable enough to contribute or if I'm curious about something and think I have something to gain by arguing it to see what objections there are about it, I'll argue. Winning isn't really the point, though it's nice. I don't have a problem with losing an argument. If I lose an argument, it means: 1) I'm wrong about SOMETHING, and it very well could be the claims I'm trying to support are wrong; 2) My logic or method of argumentation is flawed, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong; 3) I'm right, as is my logic and presentation; but there is information I hadn't taken into account before. If all I need to do is just express an opinion, I'll leave it to everyone else to rip up, but I don't necessarily care to invest the time and energy into defending every little idea that I have. This will probably be my last post for a while since I have an important gig with my band tonight and will be preparing all next week to attend a conference, not to mention my wife's birthday is coming up. So declare victory and get the last word if you want, but when I'm flat out unable to respond there's probably a good reason and it's pointless for me to necro a topic for the sake of "being right." YC vs OC, while they do make some good points on both sides, isn't really very constructive in practice and not worth fighting over.

Well, my only point is that when I included a short list of paraphrased bullet points of your apparent beliefs I said, "evolution is false, thus spake the bible", implying you were a creationist because you sound like one and apparently are one.

You called that a straw man. So your issue is simply that you believe that your triangulated (yec - oec) creationism is science based and not established soley by the bible. Ok. I thought you quacked a like a duck so I called you a duck. It appears you are a duck but you prefer to believe you are a duck whose beliefs are rooted in bible friendly science of some sort.

It strikes me as semantics but you can characterize your own beliefs however you like.

This is called "Shifting the Goalposts", or changing the question to suit the answer.

My question stands as stated. You can either answer it directly, admit that you can not, or ignore it entirely; but once you change the question, it is no longer mine.

Now you seem to just be argumentative for the sake of argumentation. I never said anything like "evolution is false, thus spake the bible." That doesn't represent my position in the least, nor do my words support that position. It would be easy to attack someone who made that claim, and you know that. You may not have been aware that's what you were doing, but there's no use denying it at this point. You still said it; it is still false to reason that I'm the one who said it. You can't change that it is a straw man.

You are a creationist and a biblical literalist. If you choose to imagine that your view of creationism is inspired by science and not required by the bible, that's your view. But it's not my view of where most creationists get their ideas.

If you say that that you don't feel that the bible insists on creationism, that you simply choose to believe it. That's fine with me. I was not aware that you made that distinction. You can lay out your own path to creationism. It wasn't a straw man, I was simply characterizing a standard creationist belief. I'm not a mind reader.

I had no knowledge of the careful parsing you employ to justify your belief in creationism.

Yes, YC's views are not supported by material evidence. No, they are not correct about macroevolution. What do you mean "limiting" explanation? Do you mean it's because the fossil record doesn't support YC but does support evolution? Yeah, that's pretty limiting all right when all the evidence of the physical world (many different types of evidence too from all fields of science) totally falsifies one's world view.

No, YC's do not make any good points. There MIGHT be a Creator; It MIGHT be the God of the Bible. YC's insist that there most certainly absolutely IS a Creator and that it most certainly absolutely IS the God of the Bible, and not only that, they are arrogant enough to presume that their interpretation of the Bible is the way God had to do it. Talk about limiting! They limit God to their understanding.

Remember when I said that trouble with discussing the ontological argument is that you get lots of bad objections. This would be one of them, the Ontological Argument when it is put in its modal logic form by Plantinga is an argument for the consistency of a maximally great being; it focuses more on this than it attempts to act as a proof. Its first premise even introduces the concept. The easiest way to spot a test of logical consistency is to see if the argument begs the question. Most formal arguments that do seek to test logical consistency do beg the question (but not in a fallacious way, circular reasoning is acceptable when testing the internal consistency of an idea), it is a dead giveaway. You have made the mistake of reading the premises but not the supporting argument.



We just spent a fair amount of time discussing the failure of logical positivism. Then you throw up this. Like I said, it is still alive an well on the internet.

Logical positivism or not, it is irrational to claim existence for something with no evidence for validation. We live in a universe that yields useful information through observation. Validated observation is crucial and essential.

It is equally irrational to think that validated observation is the only legitimate epistemology. Modern epistemology focuses on warrant and defeaters for beliefs.



You do know that Occam was a monk right? What makes you think God has left no evidence. Anyone who can understand the argument from first cause can logically get to the inference that the universe requires a God.

Ay la.

A. you will never convince my clan that data unapplied are valueless.

B. the fact an observation cannot be shared does NOT mean it has no practical value.

Hope you some day discover that

Like I said, a good deal of modern epistemology focuses, as I said in my last post, on warrant for belief and defeaters for belief. If you are asking if it is not a good idea to believe something that has no warrant, then I would agree. It is also worth distinguishing between your individual warrant for believing in things and your ability to prove it to others; they are not the same thing.

Last edited by 91 on 18 Jun 2011, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not dealing with epistemology, I'm dealing with pragmatic effectual operations through life. Whatever theoretical acrobatics you perform, the lack of concrete evidence is basic for functional existence. The lack of consideration of the existence of the super normal has absolutely no effect on the utility of standard physical manipulation of useful operations. Deities are fantasies of no practical value and their existence can be discarded with no ill effects.

Well you still mostly are. Your just insisting upon logical positivism and not really giving me any good reason for adhering to it. You are then just poisoning the well.



There is an assumption that someone has no warrant for believing in God. I would hold that belief in God is a properly basic belief, in the tradition of Alvin Plantinga.

Last edited by 91 on 18 Jun 2011, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.