Evidence for Special Creation [Archive]

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 02:20 PM

02-24-2003 @ 01:06 PM
Captain Ochre:
Then, you phrased your original question in the form of a false dilemma. Special creation per se does not conflict with evolution as a change over time. The notion of special creation of each and every species and variant would, but that is a straw man, as Blake had noted.

Look at my original post. No mention of "species" or "variant."

Now if "kinds" can change over time, how can you know what a kind is? That is what Darwin realized. If dogs and wolves have a common ancestor, why not dogs and bears? Dogs and cats? Dogs and seals? Dogs and mice? Dogs and lizards? Etc.

Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be unchangeable or fixed anymore. In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs. If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor. The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology.

Here are some questions that I have asked special creationists over the years. . . .

What is a kind and how many are there?
Do mammals constitute a kind? If not how many mammal kinds are there?
How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid.
Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?
Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind?
How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this?
Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty?
Doves, ravens, and olives are all mentioned in the story of Noah's flood? Is each one a kind, and, if so, what did they diversify into?

I'm still waiting for a special creationist to actually provide some positive, empirical evidence that special creation explains the diversity of life.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 02:27 PM

02-24-2003 @ 06:16 PM
Berserker:

In the case of special creation: there is no evidence for or against the possibility that a deity started life on earth there for it is a matter of personal opinion... or is that intelligent design? I don't know, what are the other theories between evolution and pure genesis base creation??? :help:

You've come to the battle unprepared, my friend.
You do not know your opponent(s).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Fredster

February 24th 2003, 02:27 PM

Rufus,
What exactly are you asking about anyway? Are you wanting scientific information about genetics? Your original question was not really clear.
I would start by asking you if you are an evolutionist? Are you trying to make some point against biblical creationism and for evolution?

Fredster

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 02:46 PM

02-24-2003 @ 06:20 PM
RufusAtticus:

Look at my original post. No mention of "species" or "variant."

Agreed, and the fact that you did not so specify leads directly to the fact that your argument is posed as an implicit false dilemma.
Here's what you said:
"What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?"
The only person who is going to be interested in answering that question is going to be somebody who believes that species are static. I doubt that you'll find any in this forum. Consider revising your query.

Now if "kinds" can change over time, how can you know what a kind is? That is what Darwin realized. If dogs and wolves have a common ancestor, why not dogs and bears? Dogs and cats? Dogs and seals? Dogs and mice? Dogs and lizards? Etc.

Excellent, in that case both you and Darwin will realize that it is pointless to suppose that an opponent who does not specify the static nature of species believes that population are static within their categories.
How do we know that all of our present categories didn't arise from either a single ancestor or a set of primitive unicellular orgnaisms? I'll leave that to Socrates, since I think that ID is the more critical issue rather than common descent (and its cousins).

Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be unchangeable or fixed anymore.

Well, fwiw, we've already got a fixed category, according to known evidence. All known life forms are carbon-based. Will carbon-based life-forms evolve into (say) silica-based life-forms? When evolutionists trace a gradualistic pathway of minor changes that leads from reptile to rat (for instance), then it will have at least been established scientifically that the claimed changes are possible. Until then, the evolutionary argument is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence affixed to a presupposed framework of naturalism.

In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs.

Maybe, otoh, "kinds" might be either more or less specific than you suppose.

If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor.

Incorrect. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, and it should be obvious if you think about it (look for a logical fallacy).

The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology.

No, the concept of novelty achieved by unintelligent processes without intelligent guidance is damaging to the typical creationist view of biology (just to make sure, though, what's the "typical" creationist view of biology--is it made of straw? :smile:)

Here are some questions that I have asked special creationists over the years. . . .

Okay, here's a hint: If it is possible, therefore it happened?

Fredster

February 24th 2003, 03:08 PM

Rufus,
After reading Ochre's post, it seems to me that your dilemma is due more to your particular worldview rather than one of evidence. In otherwords, you have a set of presuppositions that are foundational to your understanding of science and the interpretation there of.
The Bible is not meant to be a text book explaining the specific mechanics of science. It is an historical document that reveals to us the origins of the earth, God's creation and his dealing with humanity. It is, however, foundational on how I understand and interpret science, biology, and the origins of life.
So, for you to ask me, the creationist, to give you evidences for special creation and the diversity of life, it is foundational to my response that God exists, he created and he told us about it in his word, and it is a truthful account of what happened. Bare, naked evidence exists, but the understanding of the evidence depends on our particular world view. You will always interpret it to support your belief there is no God and the evolutionary mechanism is true; whereas I, and other creationist, will always interpret the evidence in light of the reality of a creator and the historicity of his revealed word.

Fredster

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 03:47 PM

02-24-2003 @ 01:27 PM
Fredster:

What exactly are you asking about anyway?[/b]

It is very simple: evidence for special creation.

After reading Ochre's post, it seems to me that your dilemma is due more to your particular worldview rather than one of evidence. In otherwords, you have a set of presuppositions that are foundational to your understanding of science and the interpretation there of.

How can you know this if no one has provided any evidence for special creation? IOW, how can you tell how I would evaluate evidence for special creation if no one has provided any.

The Bible is not meant to be a text book explaining the specific mechanics of science. It is an historical document that reveals to us the origins of the earth, God's creation and his dealing with humanity. It is, however, foundational on how I understand and interpret science, biology, and the origins of life.

The Church once used their interpretation of scripture to conclude that Galileo was teaching false science. . . .

So, for you to ask me, the creationist, to give you evidences for special creation and the diversity of life, it is foundational to my response that God exists, he created and he told us about it in his word, and it is a truthful account of what happened. Bare, naked evidence exists, but the understanding of the evidence depends on our particular world view. You will always interpret it to support your belief there is no God and the evolutionary mechanism is true; whereas I, and other creationist, will always interpret the evidence in light of the reality of a creator and the historicity of his revealed word.

That's nice, but you still haven't provided any evidence. Rhetoric might get you far in politics and buisness, but science requires evidence.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 03:59 PM

02-24-2003 @ 07:47 PM
RufusAtticus:

The Church once used their interpretation of scripture to conclude that Galileo was teaching false science. . . .

More accurately the (Roman Catholic) Church, which has traditionally kept accurate interpretation of scripture as one of its direct areas of purview, found heliocentricity heretical and the the individuals of the church hierarchy (along with "secular" scientists of the time) found heliocentricity insufficiently supported by evidence.

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 04:06 PM

02-24-2003 @ 01:46 PM
Captain Ochre:

Agreed, and the fact that you did not so specify leads directly to the fact that your argument is posed as an implicit false dilemma.
Here's what you said:
"What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?"
The only person who is going to be interested in answering that question is going to be somebody who believes that species are static. I doubt that you'll find any in this forum. Consider revising your query.[/b]

Perhaps. My point is that I don't want evidence that is merely consistant with special creation, but evidence that supports it and disproves current biological explainations for the diversity of life.

Well, fwiw, we've already got a fixed category, according to known evidence. All known life forms are carbon-based. Will carbon-based life-forms evolve into (say) silica-based life-forms? When evolutionists trace a gradualistic pathway of minor changes that leads from reptile to rat (for instance), then it will have at least been established scientifically that the claimed changes are possible. Until then, the evolutionary argument is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence affixed to a presupposed framework of naturalism.

What's your problem with methodical naturalism? You don't have any problem when people use it to build your computer or solve crimes? Why then do you complain about it used in biology?

Maybe, otoh, "kinds" might be either more or less specific than you suppose.

Of course, perhaps that is why special creationists can never really define them. The problem is that in any special creationist framework humans must always be their own kind. Yet there is no objective, empirical criteria for "kinds" that can isolate humans yet produce "immutable" kinds.

Incorrect. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, and it should be obvious if you think about it (look for a logical fallacy).

Nice use of rhetoric, too bad its wrong. If the descendents of dogs can change so much that they can no longer look like dogs--say they evolve flippers, flukes, lose their ears, and become aquatic-- then there is no way to say that the descendents of a proto-carnivorid didn't evolve so much that some of them are cats and some of them are dogs. Or more broadly: that whales and cows don't share a common ancestor. Or even more importantly: that humans and the rest of the primates don't share a common ancestor.

Now I'm still waiting for some evidence for special creation.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 04:17 PM

02-24-2003 @ 08:06 PM
RufusAtticus:

Perhaps. My point is that I don't want evidence that is merely consistant with special creation, but evidence that supports it and disproves current biological explainations for the diversity of life.

Bingo, yet you told me that your subject was special creation (evidences for) and not evolution. Notice that you're asking for disproof of evolution, now, in clarifying your question?

What's your problem with methodical naturalism? You don't have any problem when people use it to build your computer or solve crimes? Why then do you complain about it used in biology?

Do I? Or do I question its use for determining historical events?

Of course, perhaps that is why special creationists can never really define them. The problem is that in any special creationist framework humans must always be their own kind. Yet there is no objective, empirical criteria for "kinds" that can isolate humans yet produce "immutable" kinds.

If it comes to that, there's no objective, empirical criteria for "life" and "non-life". As it has been said: "That molecule could be your Great-great(*X) grampaw." Now turn naturalistic science on science itself, and the scientific enterprise is deprived of its purpose.

Nice use of rhetoric, too bad its wrong.

You'll be specifying the alleged wrongness?

If the descendents of dogs can change so much that they can no longer look like dogs--say they evolve flippers, flukes, lose their ears, and become aquatic-- then there is no way to say that a the descendents of a proto-carnivorid didn't evolve so much that they some of them are cats and some of them are dogs.

Congratulations, you repeated your error above.

Now I'm still waiting for some evidence for special creation.

Really? Have you changed your mind again?

Fredster

February 24th 2003, 04:28 PM

How can you know this if no one has provided any evidence for special creation? IOW, how can you tell how I would evaluate evidence for special creation if no one has provided any.

(Fredster) First off, I think you are missing my point. Both the non-creationist and the creationist have the same evidence. The understanding of that evidence will be determined by the person's presuppositions. If you believe there is no creator, you are going to interpret any evidence in light of that paradigm. Now, in light of your insistence of having some concrete example over which to quibble, let us take DNA. DNA, in my opinion, shows the reality of special creation. Now, you being a PhD graduate in biological genetics, how exactly do you respond to my assertion?

The Church once used their interpretation of scripture to conclude that Galileo was teaching false science. . . .

(Fredster) I would disagree. If you actually read what happened, rather than taking what is commonly, yet erroneously, taught in high school, you will Galileo's problem was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. The Roman Catholic tradition had always been (and remains so to some degree now) the Bible filtered through Thomist philosophy, which in turn is filtered through Aristotelian philosophy. Galileo's disagreement was not with the Bible as an historical text, but with the philosophy and hermeneutical method his detractors used to interpret the Bible.

That's nice, but you still haven't provided any evidence. Rhetoric might get you far in politics and buisness, but science requires evidence.

(Fred) Yes, science does. But, evolutionary philosophy that interprets that science is founded on the same rhetorical principles you claim my creationism is. The question can easily be turned back on you. What is your best evidence for evolutionary, microbes-to-man darwinism?

Fred

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 04:31 PM

02-24-2003 @ 03:17 PM
Captain Ochre:

Bingo, yet you told me that your subject was special creation (evidences for) and not evolution. Notice that you're asking for disproof of evolution, now, in clarifying your question?[/b]

No I'm asking for evidence that can distinguish between special creation and evolution, as understood by biology (which includes universal common descent).

Do I? Or do I question it's use for determining historical events?

A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime. Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives. If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed.

If it comes to that, there's no objective, empirical criteria for "life" and "non-life".

And yet creationists will still complain that there is no way for living things to have come from non living materials.

As it has been said: "That molecule could be your Great-great(*X) grampaw." Now turn naturalistic science on science itself, and the scientific enterprise is deprived of its purpose.

What purpose would that be?

You'll be specifying the alleged wrongness?
Congratulations, you repeated your error above.

And that error would be? Sure you can keep insisting that there is an error, but I'd like you to support that assertion.

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 04:42 PM

02-24-2003 @ 03:28 PM
Fredster:

First off, I think you are missing my point. Both the non-creationist and the creationist have the same evidence.[/b]

If that is true then you should be able to provide some evidence for special creation then.

Now, in light of your insistence of having some concrete example over which to quibble, let us take DNA. DNA, in my opinion, shows the reality of special creation. Now, you being a PhD graduate in biological genetics, how exactly do you respond to my assertion?

By asking you to describe "how" that shows the reality of special creation.

(Fredster) I would disagree. If you actually read what happened, rather than taking what is commonly, yet erroneously, taught in high school, you will Galileo's problem was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. The Roman Catholic tradition had always been (and remains so to some degree now) the Bible filtered through Thomist philosophy, which in turn is filtered through Aristotelian philosophy. Galileo's disagreement was not with the Bible as an historical text, but with the philosophy and hermeneutical method his detractors used to interpret the Bible.

It doesn't matter whether modern appologists think that The Church was reading scripture wrong. What matters is that they thought they had the right interpretation and used that to judge the accuracy of empirical studies. Back then it was common practice to consider data wrong if it disagreed with the established notion of how the world operates. Western science didn't take off until after it was realized that evidence that judges the accuracy of ideas not the other way around.

Yes, science does. But, evolutionary philosophy that interprets that science is founded on the same rhetorical principles you claim my creationism is.

What is "evolutionary philosophy?" And what bearing does it have on any of this?

The question can easily be turned back on you. What is your best evidence for evolutionary, microbes-to-man darwinism?

Sure I'll answer that question in another thread, after someone here makes an attempt to provide evidence for special creation.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 04:50 PM

02-24-2003 @ 08:31 PM
RufusAtticus:

No I'm asking for evidence that can distinguish between special creation and evolution, as understood by biology (which includes universal common descent).

You're dancin' Chief.
You're not looking for one model to be "distinguish[d]" factually from the other, you're looking for a differential diagnosis of sorts. You want evidence for model A that contradicts (and apparently falsifies) model B.

A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime.

They don't use methodological naturalism exclusively to determine the cause of a crime, or else finding a defendant guilty would be an impossibility (in terms of consistency).

Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives.

Um, on the contrary, the thoroughgoing naturalist will not be able to find a criminal culpable for his acts in the first place. Naturalistic "justice" would be pragmatic: "I want this person kept away from me, and other members of society agree."
Plus, you've got another straw man on your hands. Creationists pioneered methodological naturalism in science. You are refuted by counterexample.

If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed.

If methodological naturalism isn't flawed, then you can be sure that no crime has ever been committed.

Do some biographical work on Clarence Darrow, specifically his method of criminal defense.

And yet creationists will still complain that there is no way for living things to have come from non living materials.

As if that's worse than saying that there is a way to go from one to the other when there's no empirical distinction?

What purpose would that be?

Case in point? :wink:

And that error would be? Sure you can keep insisting that there is an error, but I'd like you to support that assertion.

I asserted it once, in the course of giving you the opportunity to figure it out. In that same post, I gave you a huge hint, which you apparently missed. When you denied that you had committed an error, you simply re-stated what you said originally in different words.
Do I take it that you give up figuring out where you went wrong despite my helpful give-away-the-store hint?
Okay, then:
Your logic follows the following pattern:

If x is possible, then x is actual.

Do you need for me to explain to you why such reasoning is fallacious?

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 05:07 PM

02-24-2003 @ 12:27 PM
Captain Ochre:

You've come to the battle unprepared, my friend.
You do not know your opponent(s).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Who said I was hear to wag war? I'm just the medic.

That’s the problem, with theology forums everyone is always out to kill each other there is not attempt to teach one another its all about trying to prove your competitor wrong... sciforums are so much nicer mainly because scientist are just helpful little nerds that fall for the wallet inspector every time.

Thanks for the info though very helpful :smile:

Fredster

February 24th 2003, 05:10 PM

By asking you to describe "how" that shows the reality of special creation.

(fred) Because complex proteins that contain vast amounts of stored chemical information that result in diverse and complex organisms with specialized parts just don't ooze out of nowhere. They have to be created.

It doesn't matter whether modern appologists think that The Church was reading scripture wrong. What matters is that they thought they had the right interpretation and used that to judge the accuracy of empirical studies. Back then it was common practice to consider data wrong if it disagreed with the established notion of how the world operates. Western science didn't take off until after it was realized that evidence that judges the accuracy of ideas not the other way around.

(Fredster) Would darwinian evolution fall under this assertion? Why or why not?

What is "evolutionary philosophy?" And what bearing does it have on any of this?

(fredster) Evolutionary philosophy is the interpretative method most mainstream scientists (if they can accurately be called "scientists" and not propagandists) use to make judgments and draw conclusions with scientific evidence. This Philosophy asserts a rigid naturalism, but believes some undetermined "force" or other mechanism (natural selection, puncutated equilibrium, mother nature) moves along life so that it changes over a vast period of time usually tending toward an upward biological scale. Evolutionary philosophy is always asserted as being fact, rather than what it really is, philosophy or theory.
The bearing it has on this discussion is that you blindedly accept it as true with out question, and no matter what evidence I, or any other creationist would offer, you will re-interpret that evidence to fit your presupposed evolutionary construct. Furthermore, those who use to hold to evolutionary theory, but now reject it as false because they believe the biological evidence no longer supports evolutionary philosophy, are looked down upon and shunned

Sure I'll answer that question in another thread, after someone here makes an attempt to provide evidence for special creation.

(fredster) Wood pecker heads. Wood peckers have a unique head /neck structure that allows them to beat it rapidly against a tree with out damaging the brain. I contend that woodpeckers were designed by a supernatural force, namely God as revealed in scripture, because all of the structures to that head had to have been in place at the first, or no woodpeckers would exist today.
In other words, they were specially designed by a creator. Now, how does that not prove special creation?

Fred

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 05:10 PM

02-24-2003 @ 03:50 PM
Captain Ochre:

You're dancin' Chief.[/b]

That's funny coming from someone who still hasn't presented any evidence for special creation.

You're not looking for one model to be "distinguish[d]" factually from the other, you're looking for a differential diagnosis of sorts. You want evidence for model A that contradicts (and apparently falsifies) model B.

Yeap that's how science works.

They don't use methodological naturalism exclusively to determine the cause of a crime, or else finding a defendant guilty would be an impossibility (in terms of consistency).

LOL. Please describe what features of forensics that detectives use that aren't based in methodical naturalism.

Um, on the contrary, the thoroughgoing naturalist will not be able to find a criminal culpable for his acts in the first place. Naturalistic "justice" would be pragmatic: "I want this person kept away from me, and other members of society agree."
Plus, you've got another straw man on your hands. Creationists pioneered methodological naturalism in science. You are refuted by counterexample.

LOL. The funny thing is that those same creationists became evolutionists because their own methodology showed creationism to not be supported by the evidence from the natural world. They couldn't find any. Now do you happen to know something that they didn't?

If methodological naturalism isn't flawed, then you can be sure that no crime has ever been committed.

Right. . . . How does the working assumption that only natual forces affect the natural world make it impossible to determine if a crime hasn't been comitted? So if you find a dead body with a knife in it, it is impossible to determine if a crime has occured unless you allow for a supernatural force to have been at work. Right . . . .

Do some biographical work on Clarence Darrow, specifically his method of criminal defense.

Unless his method of crimal defense involved concincing the jury that demonic gremlins were responsible for murder, not a jealous husband, then I don't see how it would be relavant.

As if that's worse than saying that there is a way to go from one to the other when there's no empirical distinction?

They make such a distinction not me.

Case in point? :wink:

What a non answer!

[b]I asserted it once, in the course of giving you the opportunity to figure it out. In that same post, I gave you a huge hint, which you apparently missed. When you denied that you had committed an error, you simply re-stated what you said originally in different words.
Do I take it that you give up figuring out where you went wrong despite my helpful give-away-the-store hint?
Okay, then:
Your logic follows the following pattern:

If x is possible, then x is actual.

Do you need for me to explain to you why such reasoning is fallacious?

Only if that is my reasoning, which it is not. Hint: If x is possible, then there is no way to claim that it is impossible.

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 05:45 PM

02-24-2003 @ 04:10 PM
Fredster:

Because complex proteins that contain vast amounts of stored chemical information that result in diverse and complex organisms with specialized parts just don't ooze out of nowhere. They have to be created.[/b]

The latter does not follow from the former. Hint: evolution is not about things coming "out of nowhere." You cannot proclaim that a supernatural event is the only explaination until you've established that all possible natural events don't expain it.

Would darwinian evolution fall under this assertion? Why or why not?

Before I can answer I need you to clarify to what assertion you are refering.

Evolutionary philosophy is the interpretative method most mainstream scientists (if they can accurately be called "scientists" and not propagandists) use to make judgments and draw conclusions with scientific evidence.

So methodical naturalism == "evolutionary philosophy" right. . . . That's funny considering the fact that it was use way before Darwin's work.

This Philosophy asserts a rigid naturalism, but believes some undetermined "force" or other mechanism (natural selection, puncutated equilibrium, mother nature) moves along life so that it changes over a vast period of time usually tending toward an upward biological scale.

Really now? Can you find me a single biological text that describes that evolution is a "great chain of progression" or similar feature? In fact evolutionary biologists are the ones who disproved such hogwash.

Evolutionary philosophy is always asserted as being fact, rather than what it really is, philosophy or theory.

That's funny considering that there is no such thing as "evoltionary philosophy" in science. Feel free to provide textbooks or published papers that use it though.

The bearing it has on this discussion is that you blindedly accept it as true with out question, and no matter what evidence I, or any other creationist would offer, you will re-interpret that evidence to fit your presupposed evolutionary construct.

That's a lot of accusations coming from someone who just "meet" me today. Try me. Provide some evidence for special creation.

Furthermore, those who use to hold to evolutionary theory, but now reject it as false because they believe the biological evidence no longer supports evolutionary philosophy, are looked down upon and shunned.

That's funny since I don't know of a single scientist in my department that holds to "evolutionary philosophy" and yet they are still considered some of the best evolutionary biologists in the world.

(fredster) Wood pecker heads. Wood peckers have a unique head /neck structure that allows them to beat it rapidly against a tree with out damaging the brain. I contend that woodpeckers were designed by a supernatural force, namely God as revealed in scripture,

Really? What passage in the Bible tells you how God created woodpeckers? You do realize that selection is natural design process.

because all of the structures to that head had to have been in place at the first, or no woodpeckers would exist today.
In other words, they were specially designed by a creator. Now, how does that not prove special creation?

Because it assumes that the ancestors of woodpeckers always beat against a tree rapidly. There is no reason to suspect that the "pecking" force didn't evolve gradually with the bodies ability to absorb such a force.

The argument you have offered essentially boils do to "wow isn't that neat, I don't know how that could have been done." However, that does not translate to "goddidit."

I appreciate that you are working to answer my question, that is more then most people do.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 05:54 PM

02-24-2003 @ 09:10 PM
RufusAtticus:

That's funny coming from someone who still hasn't presented any evidence for special creation.

Red herring. I've already informed you that I'll be leaving that to Socrates, should he wish to do so. You still haven't framed your question without stuffing it with straw--that's my issue.

Yeap that's how science works.

It's also how you contradict your earlier-stated purpose for your thread.

LOL. Please describe what features of forensics that detectives use that aren't based in methodical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, you mean? Your question is a red herring. The forensic scientist takes intelligence and motive for granted. He does not try to explain events in those terms. Where MN (methodological naturalism) enters forensics is in such things like "bullets fired from a gun like this end up looking like this." Pure methodological naturalism would inevitably be a program to find the defendent not guilty.

LOL. The funny thing is that those same creationists because evoluitonist because of their own methodology show creationism to not be supported by the evidence from the natural world. They couldn't find any. Now do you happen to know something that they don't?

When did Newton, for example, become an evolutionist? I didn't hear about that. Documentation, please?

Right. . . . How does the working assumption that only natual forces affect the natural world make it impossible to determine if a crime hasn't been comitted?

What are "natural forces"?
Here's the definition of naturalism:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naturalism
#3 is the relevant definition. The act of, say, "murder", is the product of natural causes and laws, just as when a meteor hits somebody on the head and kills them. The motive is explained naturalisitically (the so-called "murderer" cannot help himself).
You didn't do any research on Darrow, did you?

So if you find a dead body with a knife in it, it is impossible to determine if a crime has occured unless you allow for a supernatural force to have been at work. Right . . . .

Crime has intent as an inevitable component. Our (US, anyway) courts do not find a person morally culpable unless he did the crime knowingly (according to the reasonable person standard). See again (for the first time?) Darrow's defense technique. Finding a knife in somebody doesn't tell the thoroughgoing naturalist any more than does a meteorite embedded in somebody's cranium. All the naturalist can do is find the instrment of death. He can never determine moral culpability.

Unless his method of crimal defense involved concincing the jury that demonic gremlins were responsible for murder, not a jealous husband, then I don't see how it would be relavant.

I'm quite aware that you don't understand what Darrow understood very well. I'm hoping that, given time, you can read yourself up to speed on these basic issues.

They make such a distinction not me.

You make no distinction between life and non-life? Would you mind if I killed you, then?:rofl:

What a non answer!

You appear to be slow of wit. I'm not going to lead you through every point via baby steps (including explanation of my joke at your expense).

Only if that is my reasoning, which it is not. Hint: If x is possible, then there is no way to claim that it is impossible.

Ah, but you're not claiming that creationists can't show that it's impossible. You're claiming that they cannot show that it wasn't actual in the past if it is possible in the now (you reiterated that same point twice).
Review your own words on the subject.

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 06:35 PM

02-24-2003 @ 04:54 PM
Captain Ochre:

Red herring. I've already informed you that I'll be leaving that to Socrates, should he wish to do so.[/b]

Why do you not offer any evidence yourself?

You still haven't framed your question without stuffing it with straw--that's my issue.

And what straw would that be? You keep harping on this apparent straw in my question, but every time you have read stuff into my question that wasn't there? But fine if it will make you feel better I'll clarify what I am asking:

What empirical evidence exists that distinguishes between special creation and the current understanding of biological evolution, in favor of the former and against the latter? Of course, I'll expect any evidence offered to be supported by published scientific literature.

Maybe the question is a strawman to your position on the issues, but it is not a strawman for many creationists' views.

It's also how you contradict your earlier-stated purpose for your thread.

Really now. What contradicting purpose would that be?

Methodological naturalism, you mean?
Same difference, the both terms are used to refer to the same thing.

The forensic scientist takes intelligence and motive for granted. He does not try to explain events in those terms. Where MN (methodological naturalism) enters forensics is in such things like "bullets fired from a gun like this end up looking like this." Pure methodological naturalism would inevitably be a program to find the defendent not guilty.

Right. . . . So assuming methodical naturalism, which allows us to determine that with accuracy that a woman was raped and that the semen left behind belonged to the defendent, is only a program to find him not guilty. Sorry, but if you don't use the working assumption of methodical naturalism, there is no way to rule out that a demon didn't rape her and planted DNA to frame her.

When did Newton, for example, become an evolutionist? I didn't hear about that. Documentation, please?

Newton's views on the subject are worthless since he died before The Origin was written and Darwin's and Wallace's data and ideas were brought before the scientific community. The point is that it was creationists using methodical naturalism that gathered enough data to conclude that special creation was false and that evolution was an accurate and power explaination for the diversity of life.

Ah, but you're not claiming that creationists can't show that it's impossible. You're claiming that they cannot show that it wasn't actual in the past if it is possible in the now (you reiterated that same point twice).
Review your own words on the subject.

I will work though this meticulously so you can understand.

Let's see: the typical creationism claim is that "dogs always give birth to dogs," "cats give birth to cats," "humans give birth to humans," or some similar claim thereof. Sometimes it is voiced as "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat." You personally might not use it, but it is used. Now the only way for this to be an argument against evolution and common descent is if the minor variations that exist between generations cannot ever accumlate so much that at some point in the future the descendent of a cat is no longer considered to be a cat anymore. Now if such novelties can occur in the future, then they certainly could have occured in the past. Thus one can't claim that dogs and cats couldn't be members of the same kind, because "dogs produce dogs" and "cats produce cats." Yet that is exactly what every "kinds" argument I have ever seen is.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 07:12 PM

02-24-2003 @ 10:35 PM
RufusAtticus:
Why do you not of of any evidence yourself?

No, because I consider ID the more important issue (repeating myself).

And what straw would that be?

if special creation is true, then evolution did not happen

You keep harping on this apparent straw in my question, but every time you have read stuff into my question that wasn't there?

Your clarification below underscores the fact that it's a straw man. Wait and see.

But fine if it will make you feel better I'll clarify what I am asking:

You can write whatever you want, and it doesn't make me feel better or worse. I'm just helping you to get to a point of discussion that will prove fruitful for you.

What empirical evidence exists that distinguishes between special creation and the current understanding of biological evolution, in favor of the former and against the latter? Of course, I'll expect any evidence offered to be supported by published scientific literature.

Since the current paradigm of science presupposes naturalism, and naturalism itself cannot account for intelligence (let alone moral culpability, as described below), don't you think that your question is slightly (detect understatement 30' radius) rigged?

Maybe the question is a strawman to your position on the issues, but it is not a strawman for many creationists' views.

Again, I don't think you'll find any here for whom it isn't a straw man. But keep fishing--I could be wrong.

Really now. What contradicting purpose would that be?

You said that your purpose was to discuss special creation more so than evolution. Yet you expect falsification criteria to be met fo evolution, so much so that any evidence you will accept must (according to your request) falsify evolution.

Same difference, the both terms are used to refer to the same thing.

Perhaps by people who don't know what they're talking about. Here are the Google search results for the specific term "methodical naturalism".
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22methodical+naturalism%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=0
I invite you to do a search for "methodological naturalism" for comparison.

Right. . . . So assuming methodical naturalism, which allows us to determine that with accuracy that a woman was raped and that the semen left behind belonged to the defendent,

Bzzt. MN, in your case above, can only tell you whether or not there is trauma to the woman, whether there is semen present, and whether or not that semen belongs to a particular individual. It doesn't tell you whether or not she was raped, and more importantly, it can never make the alleged perpetrator morally culpable for the act, that last being the main point glossed over by you.

is only a program to find him not guilty. Sorry, but if you don't use the working assumption of methodical naturalism, there is no way to rule out that a demon didn't rape her and planted DNA to frame her.

Straw man, again. I don't advocate abandoning methodological naturalism. I advocate limiting its use to appropriate circumstances. It is appropriate to see whether or not "the way things normally work" agrees with the facts presented at trial, for instance. Exclusive reliance on MN, on the other hand, can only result in universal moral neutrality. IOW, no just convictions for any crimes, since moral wrong is nonsensical within a pure naturalistic framework.

Newton's views on the subject are worthless since he died before The Origin was written and Darwin's and Wallace's data and ideas were brought before the scientific community.

Oh, pardon me; when you said it was the very same scientists, I thought you meant it literally. My counterexample stands, and your red herring is exposed. Maybe Newton wasn't a real scientist?

The point is that it was creationists using methodical naturalism that gathered enough data to conclude that special creation was false and that evolution was an accurate and power explaination for the diversity of life.

Actually the main point was that creationists use methodological naturalism. Shake off those cobwebs, lad!

I will work though this meticulously so you can understand.

Just like you meticulously explained to me that "methodical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism" are the same thing?
:rofl:
Great. I can't wait.

Let's see: the typical creationism claim is that "dogs always give birth to dogs," "cats give birth to cats," "humans give birth to humans," or some similar claim thereof. Sometimes it is voiced as "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat." You personally might not use it, but it is used. Now the only way for this to be an argument against evolution and common descent is if the minor variations that exist between generations cannot ever accumlate so much that at some point in the future the descendent of a cat is no longer considered to be a cat anymore. Now if such novelties can occur in the future, then they certainly could have occured in the past.

Agreed. Of course, I've known every bit of that for at least a decade before you posted it, but thanks for the explanation anyway.

Thus one can't claim that dogs and cats couldn't be members of the same kind, because "dogs produce dogs" and "cats produce cats."

False. If "kinds" for example, meant "mammals", then dogs and cats are of the same kind. Your last statement has been falsified by counterexample.

Yet that is exactly what every "kinds" argument I have ever seen is.

Seems to me that if you don't have a conclusive example of dogs producing non-dogs or something along those lines, the skepticism of the straw creationist is well-placed.

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 08:02 PM

02-24-2003 @ 06:12 PM
Captain Ochre:
Since the current paradigm of science presupposes naturalism, and naturalism itself cannot account for intelligence (let alone moral culpability, as described below), don't you think that your question is slightly (detect understatement 30' radius) rigged?[/b]

So science is flawed since it doesn't address morality? I could say the same thing about cooking, carpentry, and computers. Sorry, but the accuray of science cannot be judged by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. The accuracy of an event does not rely on whether you find it moral or not.

You said that your purpose was to discuss special creation more so than evolution. Yet you expect falsification criteria to be met fo evolution, so much so that any evidence you will accept must (according to your request) falsify evolution.

The point was to get creationists to actually provide some positive evidence for once. Such positive evidence would also have to be able to favor special creation over current biological explainations. Why do you have such a problem with me asking special creationists for evidence?

Bzzt. MN, in your case above, can only tell you whether or not there is trauma to the woman, whether there is semen present, and whether or not that semen belongs to a particular individual. It doesn't tell you whether or not she was raped, and more importantly,

Except that there are physical signs that a woman was agressively raped instead of just rough sex.

it can never make the alleged perpetrator morally culpable for the act, that last being the main point glossed over by you.

Because it is irrelevant. Whether he raped her or not is not influenced by whether he is "morally culpable" for it or not.

Straw man, again. I don't advocate abandoning methodological naturalism. I advocate limiting its use to appropriate circumstances. It is appropriate to see whether or not "the way things normally work" agrees with the facts presented at trial, for instance.

Just like it works to tell if the facts presented on this planet are consistant with scientific explainations.

Exclusive reliance on MN, on the other hand, can only result in universal moral neutrality.

How does excluding supernatural explains for events that we are investigating lead to moral neutrality? I suspect that you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

IOW, no just convictions for any crimes, since moral wrong is nonsensical within a pure naturalistic framework.

Why is moral wrong nonsensical in a metaphysical naturalist view point? (Which I assume you are getting at with the use of the term "pure".)

Oh, pardon me; when you said it was the very same scientists, I thought you meant it literally. My counterexample stands, and your red herring is exposed. Maybe Newton wasn't a real scientist?

Sorry, I was using it to refer to the collection of creationists scientists. But the point still remains, if to prove that special creationism has scientific merit you have to use scientists who lived and died before evolutionary theory was developed, then you are really scrambling. I can support the idea that the Holocaust never happened by doing the same thing.

Actually the main point was that creationists use methodological naturalism. Shake off those cobwebs, lad!

Yet creationists today feel free to complain about it along the way. Sorry, they can't do both. It either works, or it doesn't.

False. If "kinds" for example, meant "mammals", then dogs and cats are of the same kind. Your last statement has been falsified by counterexample.

1. I've never seen a special creationist advocate such a thing, since then they'd have to admit that humans aren't that important anymore. Humans being separate is a very important tenant in special creation, and I don't see any special creationist advocating "mammals" as an immutable kind.

2. The point stands whether you're talking about dogs and cats, birds and mammals, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, etc.

[b]Seems to me that if you don't have a conclusive example of dogs producing non-dogs or something along those lines, the skepticism of the straw creationist is well-placed.

Nope but the genetic and fossil evidence, supports non-dogs producing dogs. But that is for another thread.

I'm still wating for evidence of special creation.

Dee Dee Warren

February 24th 2003, 08:12 PM

Hey you guys are drawing a lot of attention... this thread is one of the most viewed by our visitors... Hey you guests reading this thread!!! Why don't yu register and join the discussion here and elsewhere on TheologyWeb?

RufusAtticus

February 24th 2003, 08:19 PM

Sorry DDW, I link to it on another forum I mod.

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 08:27 PM

Oh i brought those guys here don't invite them they only bring trouble! :brow:

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 09:48 PM

02-25-2003 @ 12:02 AM
RufusAtticus:

So science is flawed since it doesn't address morality?

No it is simply wrong to try to address morality via methodological naturalism.

I could say the same thing about cooking, carpentry, and computers. Sorry, but the accuray of science cannot be judged by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. The accuracy of an event does not rely on whether you find it moral or not.

1) I don't know why you'd want to say the same thing about cooking, carpentry and computers. So far as MN is used to gauge the way cooking, carpentry and computers relate to the way things normally work in the material world, such application is appropriate.
2) Who's judging the accuracy of science by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion (actually science is judged by philosophy, but that point can wait)? Do you have a specific example in mind(?), 'cuz I don't see it.
3) True that the accuracy of an event doesn't depend on whether or not I find it moral. I don't find the attempt to judge morality based on naturalism immoral; I find it futile and nonsensical, and I have described the reasons for this at some length.

The point was to get creationists to actually provide some positive evidence for once. Such positive evidence would also have to be able to favor special creation over current biological explainations. Why do you have such a problem with me asking special creationists for evidence?

I have no problem at all with you asking creationists special or otherwise for evidence, and your query as you phrase it immediately above is appropriate, imo.
An alternative model does not have to contradict its competition--it merely has to compete.

Except that there are physical signs that a woman was agressively raped instead of just rough sex.

And such signs are commonplace when the rape victim offers passive resistance? Why don't you tailor your example to the point you wish to make! :wink:

Because it is irrelevant. Whether he raped her or not is not influenced by whether he is "morally culpable" for it or not.

The court system exists to punish the morally culpable. That's why legitimately insane people go to psychiatric care and institutionalization instead of being executed (ordinarily). If the defense attorney convinces the jury that his client was not morally culpable, then the defendent will walk whether forced sex occurred or not.

Just like it works to tell if the facts presented on this planet are consistant with scientific explainations.

Correct, though vice-versa might be a tad more correct.

How does excluding supernatural explains for events that we are investigating lead to moral neutrality? I suspect that you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

What does "supernatural" mean? Is "intelligence" supernatural? Are "morals" supernatural?
If methodological naturalism is the absolute standard for interpretation of reality (as you appear to suggest) then it is indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism.

Why is moral wrong nonsensical in a metaphysical naturalist view point? (Which I assume you are getting at with the use of the term "pure".)

All phenomena are explained by natural causes and laws.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naturalism
Morality is explained by natural causes and laws.
Human decisions are explained by natural causes and laws.

The foundation of morality is direct responsibility for action. If your actions are impelled by natural causes and laws, then you are not responsible for those actions any more than a rock is directly responsible for breaking a pane of glass when thrown by Goofus.

Sorry, I was using it to refer to the collection of creationists scientists. But the point still remains, if to prove that special creationism has scientific merit you have to use scientists who lived and died before evolutionary theory was developed, then you are really scrambling. I can support the idea that the Holocaust never happened by doing the same thing.

(yawn)
Now that you're done presenting another red herring, will you admit that there is nothing in principle that prohibits a creationist from employing a methodologically naturalistic framework in his practice of science?

Yet creationists today feel free to complain about it along the way. Sorry, they can't do both. It either works, or it doesn't.

Fallacy of the false dilemma. Methodological Naturalism both works and doesn't work; it just doesn't work and not work at the same time and in the same sense (the latter is contradictory, and the former is not).

1. I've never seen a special creationist advocate such a thing, since then they'd have to admit that humans aren't that important anymore.

Humans being separate is a very important tenant in special creation, and I don't see any special creationist advocating "mammals" as an immutable kind.

So what? It's a counterexample. I said it to force you to refine your language for accuracy; that was my point.

2. The point stands whether you're talking about dogs and cats, birds and mammals, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, etc.

A statement falsified by counterexample doesn't stand. You either revise it or abandon the idea completely. That's how argument is supposed to work.

Nope but the genetic and fossil evidence, supports non-dogs producing dogs. But that is for another thread.

Genetic and fossil evidence also supports dogs not descending from non-dogs. It's the naturalistic presumption that provides the magic glue that holds your evidence for descent together. There's nothing especially wrong with that--but more evolution proponents should be aware of it.

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 10:08 PM

Ok Ok guys stop it your just going on and on: you both have been making starwmen continuously and you have made so many red herrings I don't know where to argument is anymore: so here what I propose: First look back at what the original issue of the thread is then state your opinions and give a few quick examples to solidify your argument... BOTH must first state their opinion and then you can begin rearguing on clean and concise topics.

Blake Reas

February 24th 2003, 11:12 PM

02-24-2003 @ 05:19 PM
RufusAtticus:

Blake,

You do know what "special creation" refers to don't you? Hint: It involves kinds. Thus your own post confirms that I am not arguing a strawman.

Now about that empirical evidence. . . .

My Area is Archaeology, but I will make a quick reply anyway since I know enough to know when someone miswords or sets up a strawman. I now think that you misworded your post. You made it sound as if God created all animals static. For instance they could not change or adapt. Whatever the case and whoever is at fault, if I am I am sorry(which I think I was right), if you are just admit it!

In Christ,
Blake :thumb:

Blake Reas

February 24th 2003, 11:17 PM

02-24-2003 @ 09:07 PM
Berserker:

Who said I was hear to wag war? I'm just the medic.

That’s the problem, with theology forums everyone is always out to kill each other there is not attempt to teach one another its all about trying to prove your competitor wrong... sciforums are so much nicer mainly because scientist are just helpful little nerds that fall for the wallet inspector every time.

Thanks for the info though very helpful :smile:

If your the Medic can I be the grave digger! :rofl:

In Christ,
Blake

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 11:44 PM

Why not? Apparently I am assumed the role of referee!

Blake Reas

February 25th 2003, 12:11 AM

02-25-2003 @ 03:44 AM
Berserker:

Why not? Apparently I am assumed the role of referee!

Is their pun intended here? :brow:

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. you have done a good job!

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 12:12 AM

02-25-2003 @ 02:08 AM
Berserker:

Ok Ok guys stop it your just going on and on: you both have been making starwmen continuously

An example, please, of one of my straw men?
When you're done, how about an example of a red herring? To be sure, the thread has meandered, but I'm responding to the other guy's points while my own are topic-related.

and you have made so many red herrings I don't know where to argument is anymore: so here what I propose: First look back at what the original issue of the thread is then state your opinions and give a few quick examples to solidify your argument... BOTH must first state their opinion and then you can begin rearguing on clean and concise topics.

My argument was that his question wasn't concise enough to warrant a serious answer in this forum. IMO, he remedied that flaw in his latest post (above), whether accidentally or on purpose.
What position do you think I need to defend or advance apart from that?

Berserker

February 25th 2003, 12:40 AM

Straw-men fallacy: to claim some one said something they did not and base a argument off that:
1. Person A claims argument X,
2. Person B claims Person A said argument Y
3. Person B claims Person A is wrong about argument Y.

Red Harring: changing to a new argument by pretending that the original and the new argument are the same.
1. Person A claims argument A
2. Person B claims argument B as argument A.
3. argument A is abandoned.
A Red Harring is what your are doing right now by forcing me to explain this topic instead of the main issue of this thread as if this has some kind of relevance to the whole!

My argument was that his question wasn't concise enough to warrant a serious answer in this forum. IMO, he remedied that flaw in his latest post (above), whether accidentally or on purpose.

Ok Good :smile:, what is your argument now... in relation to his statements? Make your premise very concise so we can see who does what fallacy now.

Berserker

February 25th 2003, 12:55 AM

02-24-2003 @ 10:11 PM
Blake Reas:

Is their pun intended here? :brow:

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. you have done a good job!

Oh no that’s a grammatical error... in fact it amazes me that anything I say is even legible!

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 12:59 AM

RufusAtticus

What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?What evidence could possibly convince Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who wrote (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.):

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

As others have pointed out, Todd illustrates, evidence must be interpreted, but guys like Todd and even some compromising churchians who call their materialist bigotry “methodological naturalism”, will never accept anything as evidence for a designer. A Biblical Christian will accept everything as evidence that can be rationally interpreted in a Biblical Creation/Fall model.

But you are basically telling Christians to abandon their own axioms and adopt your own, i.e. empiricist ones.

Of course, perhaps that is why special creationists can never really define them [created kinds].Rubbish—Blake already provided you with a link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp) which presented an operational additive definition, i.e. if two organisms can produce a hybrid at least up to the point of fertilization, or can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are the same kind (baramin).

The problem is that in any special creationist framework humans must always be their own kind. Yet there is no objective, empirical criteria for “ kinds” that can isolate humans yet produce “ immutable” kinds. Rubbish: a written record by the Creator is objective. That is, it exists outside ourselves independent of whether we believe it. And no human–non-human hybrid has ever been formed, so humans have not been shown to share “kind” status with any other creature.

Oh, and one day, these misotheists might surprise us all and learn the true history of the Galileo affair. I.e. that his first and most obstinate opponents were the established Aristotelian scientists at the Universities which would not tolerate his challenge to the (pagan!) Ptolemaic cosmology. See The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf) (PDF).

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 01:08 AM

02-25-2003 @ 04:40 AM
Berserker:

Straw-men fallacy: to claim some one said something they did not and base a argument off that:
1. Person A claims argument X,
2. Person B claims Person A said argument Y
3. Person B claims Person A is wrong about argument Y.

Where's the concrete example, Chief? Aren't you begging the question magnificently by assuming that my presentation of what my opponent said was inaccurate?
Or are you just needlessly informing me of the definition of the straw man fallacy?

Red Harring(sic): changing to a new argument by pretending that the original and the new argument are the same.
1. Person A claims argument A
2. Person B claims argument B as argument A.
3. argument A is abandoned.
A Red Harring(sic) is what your are doing right now by forcing me to explain this topic instead of the main issue of this thread as if this has some kind of relevance to the whole!

Begging your pardon, but you brought it up. I'm just asking you to substantiate your claim. If your claim is unrelated to the thread topic, then it is a red herring in the informal sense (a distraction) and if you did it deliberately to downplay the fact that RA is making errors of logic & the like, then it's the formal fallacy of red herring on your part (distraction intended to move attention away from the issue).

Ok Good :smile:, what is your argument now... in relation to his statements? Make your premise very concise so we can see who does what fallacy now.

I thought I just got done asking what argument you think I should be advancing apart from the one that appears mol resolved--and you answer the question with one of your own? That makes sense.

Snipped that part for the sake of convenience, eh? I'd be done with this thread if folks weren't asking me questions and making what I see as erroneous observations regarding past discussion.

Thanks for all the smilies. Here's some for you.

:yipee: :smile: :brow: :yipee: :smile:

Vorkosigan

February 25th 2003, 04:28 AM

[QUOTE]02-25-2003 @ 04:59 AM
Socrates:

RufusAtticus

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic/color]

Good argument! One guy feels there is a conspiracy, but the vast, vast majority who claim the opposite don't count.

never[/i] accept anything as evidence for a designer

No problem. Bring out the evidence.

But you are basically telling Christians to abandon their own axioms and adopt your own, i.e. empiricist ones.

No, since many Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. So the person who feels threatened is a certain kind of religious thinker found commonly in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, who believes that their scripture is word for word literally true. The vast majority of religious believers on Earth have no trouble with the scientific point of view.

cs/v22n3_liger.asp]link[/url] which presented an operational additive definition, i.e. if two organisms can produce a hybrid at least up to the point of fertilization, or can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are the same kind (baramin)

Hmmm...this is a rather strange definition. Are all bacteria one "kind," since they can exchange genetic information? Also, parthogenetic animals -- are they all one "kind," since they do not hybridize? Are all the monotremes, as well as all animals that have no one to hybridize with, one "kind"? I am sure you are aware that hybridization in plants is common.

Also, you do realize that hybridization as the basis of kinds was discarded in the 18th century, right?

Rubbish: a written record by the Creator is objective.

You're right! I'll go check my copy of the Rig-Veda right away.....

That is, it exists outside ourselves independent of whether we believe it. And no human-non-human hybrid has ever been formed, so humans have not been shown to share status with any other creature.

So the extensive genetic, behavioral and morphological relationships between humans and the Great Apes are useless for classifying them. If humans and the other apes are created kinds, why do they appear to be so closely related?

Additionally, since humans are not related to other mammals, why do you think medical research on animals often proves valuable in learning about reactions in humans?

Oh, and one day, these misotheists

Can we stop it with the silly insults like "misotheist" and "materialist bigot?" They don't add anything to the conversation.

Vorkosigan

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 04:55 AM

I cited a typical example of someone who ruled out a designer a priori, demonstrating that no amount of evidence would be accepted:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Vorkosigan tried to dismiss this but failed:
Good argument! One guy feels there is a conspiracy, but the vast, vast majority who claim the opposite don't count.Well, find leading evolutionists who would ever regard something as evidence for a designer. Most would say that we should keep looking for a naturalistic explanation.

Socrates:
....never accept anything as evidence for a designer.

V:
No problem. Bring out the evidence.And I've just told you that evidence must be interpreted.

Soc:
But you are basically telling Christians to abandon their own axioms and adopt your own, i.e. empiricist ones.

V: No, since many Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. Because they have fallen for the trap of adopting the atheist's rule of materialism, but try to soften it by calling it "methodological naturalism". I refuse to play by atheistic rules.
So the person who feels threatened ...Who's threatened? We're not the ones who resort to compulsion to restrict any challenges to evolution.

... is a certain kind of religious thinker found commonly in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, who believes that their scripture is word for word literally true. No, believes it should be interpreted according to its grammatical and historical context.
S:
link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp) which presented an operational additive definition, i.e. if two organisms can produce a hybrid at least up to the point of fertilization, or can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are the same kind (baramin)

V: Hmmm...this is a rather strange definition. From context, it was meant to apply to organisms capable of sex.

Are all bacteria one "kind," since they can exchange genetic information?They don't have fertilization as such though. There woulld be subtractive criteria for bacterial taxonomy, but it's not something I'm familiar with. But it's a vexing problem for evolutionists too.

Also, parthogenetic animals -- are they all one "kind," since they do not hybridize?But even in parthenogenetic animals, there is still an alternation of generations where there is fertilization.
Are all the monotremes, No, the two living monotremes, the platypus and spiny anteater, are definitely not hybridizable. Don't try to bluff an Australian about monotremes!! :bonk:

... are as well as all animals that have no one to hybridize with, one "kind"?If they can all interbreed, then they are definitely one kind. This should have gone without saying. The hybridisation criterion is an additive criterion that makes kinds broader than "biological species". No one disputes that the same biological species must be the same kind, although not vice versa.
I am sure you are aware that hybridization in plants is common.And if you had bothered to read the article, you would have known it was written by a Ph.D. plant physiologist who has practical experience in plant hybridization. In his experiments, he deduces that the "kind" must be as high as the man-made classification of "family".
Also, you do realize that hybridization as the basis of kinds was discarded in the 18th century, right? And I should just take your word for it??
S:
Rubbish: a written record by the Creator is objective.

V:
You're right! I'll go check my copy of the Rig-Veda right away..... I said an account by the Creator, not pagan mythology.

S:
That is, it exists outside ourselves independent of whether we believe it. And no human-non-human hybrid has ever been formed, so humans have not been shown to share status with any other creature.

V:
So the extensive genetic, behavioral and morphological relationships between humans and the Great Apes are useless for classifying them. If humans and the other apes are created kinds, why do they appear to be so closely related? Like, about 60 million base pairs difference between humans and chimps, even if we grant the exaggerated 98% similarity claim?

Additionally, since humans are not related to other mammals, why do you think medical research on animals often proves valuable in learning about reactions in humans? Because there are similarities due to a common designer.

S:
Oh, and one day, these misotheists

V:
Can we stop it with the silly insults like "misotheist" and "materialist bigot?" They don't add anything to the conversation. No we can't, because they fit people like you so well. :rofl:

Vorkosigan

February 25th 2003, 09:33 AM

Well, find leading evolutionists who would ever regard something as evidence for a designer. Most would say that we should keep looking for a naturalistic explanation.

Quite true, because that approach has been hugely successful across a wide range of scientific and scholarly endeavors. You don't abandon a successful method because some people feel it threatens their worldview. You give up success only when something even better is in the offing.

You do realize that methodological naturalism was invented by men who were almost all theists and Christians of one sort or another, right?

V: No problem. Bring out the evidence.And I've just told you that evidence must be interpreted.

Great. But it can't be "interpreted" until you bring it out. So bring on the evidence for design in nature.

V: No, since many Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. Because they have fallen for the trap of adopting the atheist's rule of materialism, but try to soften it by calling it "methodological naturalism". I refuse to play by atheistic rules.

There's nothing atheistic about evolution. It is accepted by all sorts of religious points of view, including all the mainstream Christian denominations. Apparently some feel threatened by it, though.

Who's threatened? We're not the ones who resort to compulsion to restrict any challenges to evolution.

LOL. Who's restricting? Have you noticed how many Creation/Evolution boards are closed to evolutionists? ICR doesn't let them post, Harun Yahaya shut down rather than face tough questions, ARN closes whenever they take a beating....the shoe is on the other foot.

From context, it was meant to apply to organisms capable of sex.

That's hardly all the organisms on earth....so how do we classify the animals that don't have sex?

Are all bacteria one "kind," since they can exchange genetic information?They don't have fertilization as such though. There woulld be subtractive criteria for bacterial taxonomy, but it's not something I'm familiar with. But it's a vexing problem for evolutionists too.

Well, classification is, but we don't have a theory that artificially cuts up animals into little unconnected islands of creation. Bacterial exchange of genes doesn't threaten our idea of what organisms are; it expands it. Unfortunately, it makes a hash of the whole idea of "kind" since bacteria trade genes quite promiscuously.

[/b] Also, parthogenetic animals -- are they all one "kind," since they do not hybridize?But even in parthenogenetic animals, there is still an alternation of generations where there is fertilization.[/b]

Not in all of them. For example, among parthenogenetic lizard species, with no males, how can fertilization occur? So again I ask: are such creatures "kinds" or not?

Are all the monotremes,[/list] No, the two living monotremes, the platypus and spiny anteater, are definitely not hybridizable. Don't try to bluff an Australian about monotremes!!

Answer the question then. Are the three living species of monotremes "kinds" or not, since, as you agree, they do not hybridize.

Also, you do realize that hybridization as the basis of kinds was discarded in the 18th century, right? And I should just take your word for it??

No need to; see any standard work on the topic, such as Bowler's Evolution: History of an Idea. At first Linnaeus denied that variation indicated common descent, but then he argued that hybridization could account for the observed variation, but he was shot down in debates by men like Kolreuter and Adanson. By the mid 18th century everyone had started to grapple with the fact that animals were related by common descent, but nobody deduced the mechanism until Darwin.

V:
You're right! I'll go check my copy of the Rig-Veda right away.....] I said an account by the Creator, not pagan mythology.

That is an account by the Creator. How can you be sure which account is the right account? Don't you know that there are Hindu fundamentalists with exactly the same view of their scriptures as you have of yours, and with equally strong evidence?

So the extensive genetic, behavioral and morphological relationships between humans and the Great Apes are useless for classifying them. If humans and the other apes are created kinds, why do they appear to be so closely related? [/list] Like, about 60 million base pairs difference between humans and chimps, even if we grant the exaggerated 98% similarity claim?

Yes, why do we share even a single base pair, not to mention many parts of the body -- even the same number of hairs, although theirs are coarser than ours?

Because there are similarities due to a common designer.

Why did the designer choose to make bipedal apes, whales, and snakes on the same basic vertebral body plan?

Vorkosigan

Stratnerd

February 25th 2003, 11:09 AM

Why chose reproduction as a criterion for the determination of "kind"? Is this a Biblical thing or is there any sort of biological justification for it?

But even in parthenogenetic animals, there is still an alternation of generations where there is fertilization.

I thought alternation of generation involved functionally independent adults that are either haploid or diploid not just the formation of gametes. but in the lizards below (and I suspect other parthenogenetic lizards are the same) there isn't fertilization

Otte, R. (1983): Moeder zijn zonder ooit en man gezien te hebben (parthenogenese bij hagedissen). – Lacerta, 41 (6): 100-106. (07-07)

This article deals with lizards who reproduce parthenogenetically. Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction, in which the ovum develops to a new intact individual without being fertilized. This form of reproduction is known to exist for several species of lizards. Though there is no evidence for it, it is possible that some species have a special form of parthenogenesis, known as gynogenesis. In this special case a copulation takes place, but the ovum is not fertilized. A sperm only touches the ovum to initiate the division of the ovum.
The ovum in parthenogenetic lizards is formed by meiosis, as is the case in normally reproducing lizards. To maintain the right number of chromosomes it is most likely that there is a premeiotic doubling of the chromosomes.

RufusAtticus

February 25th 2003, 06:20 PM

02-24-2003 @ 10:12 PM
Blake Reas:

My Area is Archaeology, but I will make a quick reply anyway since I know enough to know when someone miswords or sets up a strawman. I now think that you misworded your post. You made it sound as if God created all animals static. For instance they could not change or adapt.

Nope never said that. Even if you got that impression, I've been explicit in subsequent posts that that is not what I am asking.

02-24-2003 @ 08:48 PM
Captain Ochre:
No it is simply wrong to try to address morality via methodological naturalism.

I never said that one should.

1) I don't know why you'd want to say the same thing about cooking, carpentry and computers. So far as MN is used to gauge the way cooking, carpentry and computers relate to the way things normally work in the material world, such application is appropriate.

But cooking, carpentry, and computers are obviously flawed doctrines because they don't tell us about morality. That is your beef with methodological naturalism, is it not?

What does "supernatural" mean?
From m-w.com:
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Is "intelligence" supernatural?
Depends on whether the thing that has the intelligence is a supernatural or natural entity.

Are "morals" supernatural?
If they exist in the natural world, then they are not.

The foundation of morality is direct responsibility for action. If your actions are impelled by natural causes and laws, then you are not responsible for those actions any more than a rock is directly responsible for breaking a pane of glass when thrown by Goofus.

But of course being compelled by supernatural forces makes you oh so morally responsible. Right. . . .

Now that you're done presenting another red herring, will you admit that there is nothing in principle that prohibits a creationist from employing a methodologically naturalistic framework in his practice of science?

Of course, yet modern creationists don't do it and they don't try to hide that fact. Just look at the statements of faith by places like AiG and CSR.

02-24-2003 @ 11:59 PM
Socrates:
What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?What evidence could possibly convince Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who wrote (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.):

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

I asked for evidence for special creation, not ID. Please stay on topic.

A Biblical Christian will accept everything as evidence that can be rationally interpreted in a Biblical Creation/Fall model.

And they will reject the validity of anything that can't. Places like AiG and CSR are on record of stating that if data conflicts with their interpretation of the bible, then it is the data that is wrong not their interpretation. Faith is no way to distinguish accuracy of an idea, since under faith no idea and all ideas are accurate.

But you are basically telling Christians to abandon their own axioms and adopt your own, i.e. empiricist ones.

So a it is against "christian" axioms to provide evidence for claims. I wonder why that is.

Rubbish&#8212;Blake already provided you with a link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp) which presented an operational additive definition, i.e. if two organisms can produce a hybrid at least up to the point of fertilization, or can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are the same kind (baramin).

If that is how you define kind, then they are no longer immutable, i.e. populations can evolve out of one kind and into a new one. That is because it has been observed many times that populations that could previously successfully interbreed change so much that they can no longer. So if hybridization is what defines a kind and we know that the ability to hybridize breaks down, then clearly one kind can split into multiple kinds. Thus there is no way to identifiy separate modern kinds using this criteria and conclude that they do not share a common ancestor. That kind of defeats the purpose of having kinds in the first place doesn't it?

Rubbish: a written record by the Creator is objective.
If you can identify one, I'd like to hear about it. However, all the written records I am aware of are by man.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 08:35 PM

02-25-2003 @ 10:20 PM
RufusAtticus:

I never said that one should.

(Joel & the 'Bots: "Pee-Wee Herman--No!")
You had asked: "So science is flawed since it doesn't address morality?"
I replied:
"No it is simply wrong to try to address morality via methodological naturalism."

So, I take it you agree with me?

But cooking, carpentry, and computers are obviously flawed doctrines because they don't tell us about morality. That is your beef with methodological naturalism, is it not?

No. Nice categorical goulash, btw.
If you use the discipline of cooking in order to do carpentry, you're making a mistake just as you would be doing if you applied methodologial naturalism to morality. And, ftm, the reasoning process. (Philosphical) Naturalism kills reason, making it an orderly--more or less!--manifestation of unplanned, undirected occurrences at the atomic and subatomic levels (percolating "upward" in a causal chain until we're forced to call it "reason" by the same forces that cause our "reasoning").
That's my point with the questions that follow, but you seem oblivious to the point. You do not perceive the horns of any such dilemma.

("What does 'supernatural' mean?" I had asked, meaning from a naturalistic perspective)

From m-w.com:
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

(I asked whether or not "intelligence" is supernatural)

Depends on whether the thing that has the intelligence is a supernatural or natural entity.

Let's try this another way: Define "supernatural" in terms of either methodological naturalism or philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism.
Now, try the same thing with "intelligence".

(I asked whether or not "morals" are supernatural)

If they exist in the natural world, then they are not.

Be careful not to equivocate, and tell me how to identify morals in the natural world (it's even better if you use methodological naturalism in the attempt).

But of course being compelled by supernatural forces makes you oh so morally responsible. Right. . . .

Well, that's a blatant strawman. There would be nothing in supernaturalism to prevent my own spirit from being either the primary or the whole cause of my willful actions.
A tad off-topic, but hey--you brought it up.

Of course, yet modern creationists don't do it and they don't try to hide that fact. Just look at the statements of faith by places like AiG and CSR.

Is a statement of faith the practice of science?
Thanks for the link to the AiG statement of faith--oh, you didn't give one. I give up; I don't see a statement of faith (nor link to such) on the AiG page (the one connected with Ken Ham--is that the one you mean?).
And, thanks for the link to CSR (Creation Science Resource?).
"The CSR is a Christian-based public service educational archive of information, material, and internet references related to Biblical creation philosophy."
http://www.nwcreation.net/frameset.html
Where is the denial of methodological naturalism?

Addendum:
The universe prior to the Planck time is supernatural, right?:wink:

RufusAtticus

February 26th 2003, 11:55 AM

02-25-2003 @ 07:35 PM
Captain Ochre:

No. Nice categorical goulash, btw.
If you use the discipline of cooking in order to do carpentry, you're making a mistake just as you would be doing if you applied methodologial naturalism to morality. And, ftm, the reasoning process.

Your claim is that science is flawed because it relies on methodological naturalism, which is flawed because it can't address morality. That is no different than saying that cooking is flawed because it involves heating, which is wrong because it doesn't address morality.

(Philosphical) Naturalism kills reason, making it an orderly--more or less!--manifestation of unplanned, undirected occurrences at the atomic and subatomic levels (percolating "upward" in a causal chain until we're forced to call it "reason" by the same forces that cause our "reasoning").

Whether reason is the result of divine fiat or natural processes, it still exists and has the same features.

Let's try this another way: Define "supernatural" in terms of either methodological naturalism or philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism.
Now, try the same thing with "intelligence".

"Supernatural" == "beyond natural" (I'd think that was clear from m-w)

"intelligence" == "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" (again from m-w)

Be careful not to equivocate, and tell me how to identify morals in the natural world (it's even better if you use methodological naturalism in the attempt).

Easy, go to any creature that lives in societies. Observe them. Determine what actions draw punishment from the group or some members there of. Such actions offend the morals of the group.

Well, that's a blatant strawman. There would be nothing in supernaturalism to prevent my own spirit from being either the primary or the whole cause of my willful actions.

Just like in metaphysical naturalism there is nothing to prevent your natural form from being the cause of your willful actions. However, in a framework that allows for supernaturalism, you can never rule out that supernatural demons weren't the cause for such actions.

Is a statement of faith the practice of science?
Thanks for the link to the AiG statement of faith--oh, you didn't give one. I give up; I don't see a statement of faith (nor link to such) on the AiG page (the one connected with Ken Ham--is that the one you mean?).

You obviously didn't look hard enough: AiG's statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp).

"D-6: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words, "we are right. If evidence says otherwise, then it is the data that is wrong." Not good evidence that they are methodological naturalists.

And, thanks for the link to CSR (Creation Science Resource?).

Sorry I transposed the letters, I meant to refer to CRS (Creation Research Society), which makes similar statments in its Statement of Belief (http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm).

The CSR is a Christian-based public service educational archive of information, material, and internet references related to Biblical creation philosophy."
http://www.nwcreation.net/frameset.html
Where is the denial of methodological naturalism?

Well this quote for one: "However, a naturalist cannot correctly interpret the history of a world with a supernatural history."

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 01:56 PM

02-26-2003 @ 03:55 PM
RufusAtticus:

Your claim is that science is flawed because it relies on methodological naturalism, which is flawed because it can't address morality. That is no different than saying that cooking is flawed because it involves heating, which is wrong because it doesn't address morality.

You think that's my claim? Quote me, Junior.

Whether reason is the result of divine fiat or natural processes, it still exists and has the same features.

:rofl:
Bzzt. Naturalism is antithetical to deliberative thought, and supernaturalism is not. Naturalistic thought has the feature of being explicable through natural causes and laws, while "supernaturalistic" thought does not (the latter may be explicable through logic itself, for example).
I don't see how you framed your argument without perceiving that it would be eaisily shown false by counterexample.

"Supernatural" == "beyond natural" (I'd think that was clear from m-w)

Of course. How does that explain it in terms of naturalism (which was my question)?

"intelligence" == "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" (again from m-w)

In what respect have you explained intelligence in terms of naturalism?
Are you dodging the question, or did you just read it carelessly?

Easy, go to any creature that lives in societies. Observe them. Determine what actions draw punishment from the group or some members there of. Such actions offend the morals of the group.

Congratulations on turning ants and bees into moral creatures. Most scientists aren't willing to go that far.

Just like in metaphysical naturalism there is nothing to prevent your natural form from being the cause of your willful actions. However, in a framework that allows for supernaturalism, you can never rule out that supernatural demons weren't the cause for such actions.

:rofl:
Wrong. Your actions, according to the very definition of naturalism, are caused in turn by preceding states of matter and the laws that describe them.
As for demons, I don't need to rule them out. They could be the ultimate cause of their own actions just as I could be the ultimate cause of my own actions. If one of them happens to control my actions occasionally, that doesn't make it impossible for me to be the ultimate cause of the rest of my actions. If the demon causes all of my actions, of course, then the demon might as well be me in the first place.

You obviously didn't look hard enough: AiG's statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp).

I shouldn't have had to look in the first place. You should have provided the link from the first, if the evidence is germane. I see the pathway now, though. From the main page, click on "About Us" then there's a link on that page the gets to the statement of faith. The relevance will eventually be explained, I assume.

"D-6: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words, "we are right. If evidence says otherwise, then it is the data that is wrong." Not good evidence that they are methodological naturalists.

Thanks for the argumentum ad ignorantiam. 'Nuff said?

Well this quote for one: "However, a naturalist cannot correctly interpret the history of a world with a supernatural history."

1) That doesn't mean that a person subscribing to the truth of the above doesn't use methodological naturalism (see #2, below).
2) Do you agree with the quotation or disagree? Can naturalism correctly interpret supernatural history?

Sher

February 26th 2003, 04:05 PM

:bawl: :rant: :argh:

:idea:

Would this (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm) help matters?

Saxonella

February 26th 2003, 09:29 PM

LOL!

One thing is certain: no one appears to have actually answered the original question, no matter how you want to phrase it.

02-26-2003 @ 08:05 PM
SherBear:

Would this (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm) help matters?

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 09:52 PM

RufusAtticus:

You obviously didn't look hard enough: AiG's statement of Faith.

"D-6: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words, "we are right. If evidence says otherwise, then it is the data that is wrong." No, here you are conflating terms. The data cannot be wrong, because truth and falsity apply only to propositions. Further, AiG don't dispute any true observation by evolutionists. Rather, it is the interpretation of the data which is in the form of propositions, and it's these interpretations are wrong if they contradict Scripture.

Further, I've often cited people like Lewontin and Todd who declare that materialism is right and an intelligent designer is wrong regardless of the evidence, and regardless of how counter-intuitive a materialistic just-so story might appear.

Not good evidence that they are methodological naturalists.Once more, they ARE when it comes to operational science, but not origins science—Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism)

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 11:25 PM

02-27-2003 @ 01:29 AM
Saxonella:

LOL!

One thing is certain: no one appears to have actually answered the original question, no matter how you want to phrase it.

True, to this point. RA happened (accidently, I think) to have hit upon a reasonable phrasing of his question awhile back. As I said at the start, defending special creation has no particular interest for me, but now that his question might have been improved, perhaps somebody will feel like cleaning RA's clock on that topic. Socrates would be able to more than keep RA's hands full, imo.
Recall that absence of evidence is not evidence of lack. If nobody deigns to respond to RA, that simply means that nobody has responded to his challenge. There is abslolutely no reason for most varieties of creationist to take more than a passing notice of this topic, as it stands, since RA has displayed such focus on a position that probably nobody here holds to. It would be like going to Talk.origins and asking for the evidence that Man evolved from apes. The initial response, I guarantee, would be reforming the question into one that could be taken seriously by that forum (unless they just made fun of the visitor, which is a possibility).

QED

February 27th 2003, 08:04 AM

LOL. So much sophistry!!

Let's see Ochre... we started with a "very simple question": What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?

Most any English speaker should have had no problem with this question. Biological evolution encompasses not only natural variation, but also common descent, and in the context of this discussion, it is clearly the latter that special creationists must hope to falsify. BUT, this was not made explicit, so there was room for confusion from the OP. Great. As a rational person, do you a) point out that there is ambiguity there and suggest an alternative formulation, or b) play a sophmoric guessing game to try to "force" the OP'er to reformulate his question in a way that leaves less ambiguity? Obviously on the Theology Web, the answer is b). Why?

Moving on, we see that Ochre is willing to further his argument by quibbling over the usage of the term "methodical" in place of "methodological" (yet is unwilling to show the real contrast between the two terms). Fantastic - we're moving along fast!

We see that Ochre summarily dismisses the effectiveness of methodological naturalism to address questions of natural history. Forensics is given as a counterexample, at which point the correct response would be to attack the reliability of forensics and to perhaps begin work on a suitable alternative method, or at least to admit that (at least in forensics) one can effectively address historical questions using MN alone. Was a correct response given? No, instead it was pointed out that MN is not suitable to MORAL inquiries. The claim was that a position that rejects MN for establishing historical facts would "let the prisons out" by destroying the means of establishing the existence, let alone the culprit of a crime. Instead of answering the claim, Ochre seems interested in showing how MN applied to moral culpability (as though that is possible) would also "let the prisons out" because it is inadequate to determine culpability and that is a criterion for a prison sentence. Big red herring.

Then it is mentioned that "creationists" invented MN, and this is presented as a "counterexample" of something... In fact "special creationists" (modern deniers of evolution) had nothing to do with the formulation of MN. Those who formulated MN believed in a creator, and when it became possible to use MN to test the theory of evolution, that same group did so with the result that they came to accept evolution.

It turns out that this was a "counterexample" to the premise that creationists cannot use MN. Well of course they can. But, if they use it consistently applied to questions of history about the world we live in, they will not remain "special creationists" in any scientific sense. They will either become evolutionists, or abandon science and MN for another program of knowledge, as Kurt Wise did. Knowing this, and wanting to preserve the veneer of science, they complain about metaphysical naturalism, pretend that "a naturalistic framework" is unnecessary to science, and obfuscate away.

Getting a "special creationist" (henceforth, I will be dropping the term: those who believe in a creator, but do not deny science will be termed "evolutionist", and those who deny science will be termed "creationists") ... getting a creationist to engage a head on debate is like pulling those teeth in the back of the jaw that rarely emerge and cause problems for people due to the novel skull and jaw shape homo sapiens have evolved to accomodate their big brains.

Saxonella

February 27th 2003, 08:38 AM

02-27-2003 @ 03:25 AM
Captain Ochre:

True, to this point. RA happened (accidently, I think) to have hit upon a reasonable phrasing of his question awhile back. As I said at the start, defending special creation has no particular interest for me, but now that his question might have been improved, perhaps somebody will feel like cleaning RA's clock on that topic. Socrates would be able to more than keep RA's hands full, imo.

Whatever. IMHO the dragging of the thread off into dusty corners of semantical minutiae was not on point. I am certain that the majority of people reading this thread are perfectly capable of grasping the meaning of the question without assistance.

Recall that absence of evidence is not evidence of lack. If nobody deigns to respond to RA, that simply means that nobody has responded to his challenge. There is abslolutely no reason for most varieties of creationist to take more than a passing notice of this topic, as it stands, since RA has displayed such focus on a position that probably nobody here holds to. It would be like going to Talk.origins and asking for the evidence that Man evolved from apes. The initial response, I guarantee, would be reforming the question into one that could be taken seriously by that forum (unless they just made fun of the visitor, which is a possibility).

Whatever. The question, or a close version of it, has been asked by a lot of people to a lot of people over a lot of years. The intention is always the same: to recieve positive, objective, scientific evidence FOR creation (or a young earth, or "kinds", or whatever variant of the question was asked), instead of the usual attempt of trying to demonstrate that common descent (or young earth, or whatever) is false because of "flaws" in methodology or assumptions. Certainly individuals are entitiled to treat the question in whatever manner they wish, but when any sort of real evidence fails to appear after a passage of decades, one begins to wonder whether there actually *is* evidence.

Captain Ochre

February 27th 2003, 10:53 AM

02-27-2003 @ 12:04 PM
QED:

LOL. So much sophistry!!

Let's see Ochre... we started with a "very simple question": What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?

A simple question; agreed.
Much like: What evidence is there that man descended from apes?

Most any English speaker should have had no problem with this question.

Likewise with my counterquestion, yes?

Biological evolution encompasses not only natural variation, but also common descent, and in the context of this discussion, it is clearly the latter that special creationists must hope to falsify.

Yet, to forestall statements such as "evolution has been observed to be a fact" and to keep the conversation in terms that we have discussed elsewhere on the board for clarity, we call "a change in frequency of alleles over time" evolution, and we call common descent "common descent". I'm pretty sure that Talk.origins does the same thing. So sue me?

BUT, this was not made explicit, so there was room for confusion from the OP. Great. As a rational person, do you a) point out that there is ambiguity there and suggest an alternative formulation, or b) play a sophmoric guessing game to try to "force" the OP'er to reformulate his question in a way that leaves less ambiguity? Obviously on the Theology Web, the answer is b). Why?

So that the person asking the question is not spoon-fed the reason for the change, but learns the reason for it prior to proceeding by thinking it through (for example) .

Moving on, we see that Ochre is willing to further his argument by quibbling over the usage of the term "methodical" in place of "methodological" (yet is unwilling to show the real contrast between the two terms). Fantastic - we're moving along fast!

Also sue me for thinking the my opposite number isn't too stupid to use a dictionary. I gave him Google results to show that his belief that the terms were interchangeable was ill-founded.

We see that Ochre summarily dismisses the effectiveness of methodological naturalism to address questions of natural history.

On the contrary, we see that QED is misnomer in your case.

Forensics is given as a counterexample, at which point the correct response would be to attack the reliability of forensics and to perhaps begin work on a suitable alternative method, or at least to admit that (at least in forensics) one can effectively address historical questions using MN alone. Was a correct response given? No, instead it was pointed out that MN is not suitable to MORAL inquiries.

QED jumps the rails of logic again. I brought up the unsuitability of forensics in determining guilt which was yet another erroneous claim of my opponent. My original point in bringing up forensics was supported--you may have glossed over that fact during your sophist hunt.

The claim was that a position that rejects MN for establishing historical facts would "let the prisons out" by destroying the means of establishing the existence, let alone the culprit of a crime.

No, I don't think that you presented the claim accurately. Just a sec.
"Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives."
Wow! You did a terrific editing job to get the above quotation to accord with the supposed rejection of MN for establishing historical facts!

Instead of answering the claim, Ochre seems interested in showing how MN applied to moral culpability (as though that is possible) would also "let the prisons out" because it is inadequate to determine culpability and that is a criterion for a prison sentence. Big red herring.

I can see why you would think so, but reconsider for a moment. If naturalistic investigation (MN) is insufficient for establishing guilt for a crime, as you appear to affirm--then what is left to establish guilt? RA appears to think that if it isn't naturalistic, it's therefore supernaturalistic. While I think that the term "supernatural" is a bit unfortunate, we'll go with it for now. If it is admitted that MN is insufficient to establish guilty (RA seems to resist that idea, while QED appears to accept it), then the only realm left from is the supernatural (or ~natural). Assuming a "supernatural" cause of our own actions (efficient self-causation of moral action) within an otherwise naturalistic (cause and effect) milieu, we admit the possibility of real guilt. RA's claim that supernatural causes for everything would prevent guilt from ever being established is a slippery slope fallacy (and/or a straw man).

Then it is mentioned that "creationists" invented MN, and this is presented as a "counterexample" of something... In fact "special creationists" (modern deniers of evolution) had nothing to do with the formulation of MN. Those who formulated MN believed in a creator, and when it became possible to use MN to test the theory of evolution, that same group did so with the result that they came to accept evolution.

I falsified that claim with the example of Newton. How did you miss it?

It turns out that this was a "counterexample" to the premise that creationists cannot use MN. Well of course they can.

:yipee:

But, if they use it consistently applied to questions of history about the world we live in, they will not remain "special creationists" in any scientific sense. They will either become evolutionists, or abandon science and MN for another program of knowledge, as Kurt Wise did.

Perhaps--but you should be aware that methodological naturalism is not the same as gradualism. Most likely you've got a bifurcation fallacy above, since MN evidence is able to support various special creation arguments.
The problem with MN investigation of history is that it rules out "intelligence" a priori, in effect. Allowing the premise to dictate the conclusion isn't real science, imo, and the historical sciences are the ones vulnerable to this.

Knowing this, and wanting to preserve the veneer of science, they complain about metaphysical naturalism, pretend that "a naturalistic framework" is unnecessary to science, and obfuscate away.

Speaking of obfuscation, that's another straw man ("unnecessary to science").

Getting a "special creationist" (henceforth, I will be dropping the term: those who believe in a creator, but do not deny science will be termed "evolutionist", and those who deny science will be termed "creationists") ...

How does QED define "deny science" I wonder?

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 11:31 AM

Captain Ochre,

Your response above is a red haring! It has no relevant to the original argument of this thread. If instead you had restated you original premise that evolution and special creation do not conflicted, with reason to support it, then none of this would have happened and we would not be in a mystic spiral of red harings. After reaffirming your argument against the threads you could have then viciously violated the people that have attack you so (they have committed ad huminum of sorts against you; in which they are plainly claiming your wrong only because of how you contradicted RA)

Perhaps it is best to spoon feed the op because obviously the alternative did not work.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 11:41 AM

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
What empirical evidence exists that not only supports special creation but disproves evolution?
What evidence could possibly convince Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who wrote (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.):

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
------------------------------------------------------------
RufusAtticus:
I asked for evidence for special creation, not ID. Please stay on topic. :doh: This would obviously apply to special creation, a subset of ID.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
A Biblical Christian will accept everything as evidence that can be rationally interpreted in a Biblical Creation/Fall model.
-----------------------------------------------------------
RufusAtticus:
And they will reject the validity of anything that can't. Places like AiG and CSR are on record of stating that if data conflicts with their interpretation of the bible, then it is the data that is wrong not their interpretation. Faith is no way to distinguish accuracy of an idea, since under faith no idea and all ideas are accurate. A misrepresentation of the Biblical pistis, and I've also pointed out that the data cannot conflict but only their evolutionary interpretation.
[list]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
But you are basically telling Christians to abandon their own axioms and adopt your own, i.e. empiricist ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
So a it is against "christian" axioms to provide evidence for claims. I wonder why that is.No, it's against Christian axioms to abandon them and play by the unsound ones of the atheists. The only time I'll do that is to use the reductio ad absurdum. Meanwhile, you still operate under the delusion that there is such a thing as bias-free interpretation of facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Rubbish—Blake already provided you with a link which presented an operational additive definition, i.e. if two organisms can produce a hybrid at least up to the point of fertilization, or can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are the same kind (baramin).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
If that is how you define kind, then they are no longer immutable, i.e. populations can evolve out of one kind and into a new one. That is because it has been observed many times that populations that could previously successfully interbreed change so much that they can no longer. So if hybridization is what defines a kind and we know that the ability to hybridize breaks down, then clearly one kind can split into multiple kinds. Thus there is no way to identifiy separate modern kinds using this criteria and conclude that they do not share a common ancestor. That kind of defeats the purpose of having kinds in the first place doesn't it?No, you reversed the implication invalidly. I have pointed out that hybridization is an additive definition, i.e. it will enable one to add organisms to a kind upon demonstration of hybridization. E.g. one can show by hybridization studies that the various genera of the Anitidae family of birds are really one created kind, and the same for a number of varieties of bear, the lion and tiger are members of the same kind, etc.

Onc can go further and point out that the false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin are actually a single species because they produced a fertile hybrid, although they are classified as different genera, and same goes for the Brassica and Raphanus genera which hybridize to Raphanobrassica..

But the link I gave you pointed out that this cannot be a subtractive definition, because there are other factors that prevent hybridization. After all, we know human couples who can't conceive, but no one would deny that they are the same species let alone same kind.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Rubbish: a written record by the Creator is objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
If you can identify one, I'd like to hear about it.So you admit that IF there was such a record, then it would be objective?

However, all the written records I am aware of are by man.In that case, you can't be aware of the Bible which has both human and divine authorship.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 11:58 AM

Stratnerd:
Why chose reproduction as a criterion for the determination of "kind"? Is this a Biblical thing or is there any sort of biological justification for it?The Biblical justification comes from the phrase "after its kind" 10 times in Genesis 1. The scientific justification is just an extension of the "biological species" definition of a group of organisms that interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Therefore any problems you have with the hybridization criterion would apply with equal force to the species definition.

Also, some evolutionists have proposed a term syngameon which has essentially the same criterion as the creationist kind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
But even in parthenogenetic animals, there is still an alternation of generations where there is fertilization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratnerd:
I thought alternation of generation involved functionally independent adults that are either haploid or diploid not just the formation of gametes. but in the lizards below (and I suspect other parthenogenetic lizards are the same) there isn't fertilizationI was thinking of the minnows discussed here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp). Even in your example, you talk about lizards with sperm, so evidently there must be some non-parthenogenetic way of reproduction, because parthenogenesis produces only clones of the mother.

But the main thing again is that the usual biological species definition has a problem here too.

Captain Ochre

February 27th 2003, 12:57 PM

02-27-2003 @ 03:31 PM
Berserker:

Captain Ochre,

Your response above is a red haring! It has no relevant to the original argument of this thread.

By your own definition of "red haring (sic)" your current post is a red herring.

If instead you had restated you original premise that evolution and special creation do not conflicted, with reason to support it, then none of this would have happened and we would not be in a mystic spiral of red harings.

I need to repeat myself??
It is nigh well self-evident that special creation does not conflict with evolution as a change in freqency of alleles over time.
I do not assume that my opposite is stupid.

After reaffirming your argument against the threads you could have then viciously violated the people that have attack you so (they have committed ad huminum of sorts against you; in which they are plainly claiming your wrong only because of how you contradicted RA)

Quote me saying something vicious.
As for ad hominem, I couldn't care less if folks insult me. If it's a fallacy, I point it out. If they misprepresent what I wrote in the course of their attack, I'll refute it. If it's a simple insult, I'll ignore it. If it's a creative insult, I might compliment the attacker.

Perhaps it is best to spoon feed the op because obviously the alternative did not work.

There is more than one alternative (said Captain Ochre, viciously).

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 12:57 PM

Socrates:
Well, find leading evolutionists who would ever regard something as evidence for a designer. Most would say that we should keep looking for a naturalistic explanation.

Vorkosigan
Quite true, because that approach has been hugely successful across a wide range of scientific and scholarly endeavors. Right, so stop whinging when I point out that no evidence would convince materialist bigots like you of a designer.

V:
You do realize that methodological naturalism was invented by men who were almost all theists and Christians of one sort or another, right?But only for operational science, not origins science.

S:
No, the two living monotremes, the platypus and spiny anteater, are definitely not hybridizable. Don't try to bluff an Australian about monotremes!!

V:
Answer the question then. Are the three living species of monotremes "kinds" or not, since, as you agree, they do not hybridize.I was still right, the monotremes comprise only the platypus and spiny anteater, even though there are two species of the latter. The platypus and spiny anteater are definitely not the same kind, but maybe the spiny anteaters are, depending on whether they can hybridize.
S:
Also, you do realize that hybridization as the basis of kinds was discarded in the 18th century, right? And I should just take your word for it??

V:
No need to; see any standard work on the topic, such as Bowler's Evolution: History of an Idea. At first Linnaeus denied that variation indicated common descent, but then he argued that hybridization could account for the observed variation, but he was shot down in debates by men like Kolreuter and Adanson. By the mid 18th century everyone had started to grapple with the fact that animals were related by common descent, but nobody deduced the mechanism until Darwin. Specifics please, rather than generalities and argumentum ad verecundiam. There is nothing at all to refute the idea that if two organisms can hybridize with each other or the same third organism, then they are the same kind.

V:
You're right! I'll go check my copy of the Rig-Veda right away.....] I said an account by the Creator, not pagan mythology.

S:
That is an account by the Creator. How can you be sure which account is the right account? Don't you know that there are Hindu fundamentalists with exactly the same view of their scriptures as you have of yours, and with equally strong evidence?All their founders mouldered in their graves, while Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead and appeared to 500 people at once.

V:
Why did the designer choose to make bipedal apes, whales, and snakes on the same basic vertebral body plan?If there were no similarities, then it would look like evidence for multiple designers instead of one. And one day you might try to argue science rather than theology. Also, as I've pointed out, many of these similarities do not result from homologous embryonic development.

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 01:05 PM

If there were no similarities, then it would look like evidence for multiple designers instead of one. How do you know how these mysterious designers operate. Maybe there's a designer for each kind that works for a boss who requires a certain consistency. Kinda like many architects that must keep building codes (e.g., Victorian).

Also, as I've pointed out, many of these similarities do not result from homologous embryonic development. how do you go from that to knowing there's a designer or a league of designers... speaking scientifically, of course. Or are you saying that once we rule out naturalistic explanations then we discuss theological implications and make appropriate arguements? How do you rule out naturalistic explanations?

QED

February 27th 2003, 03:50 PM

02-27-2003 @ 02:53 PM
Captain Ochre:
A simple question; agreed.
Much like: What evidence is there that man descended from apes?

Too bad we can't treat it as such.

Yet, to forestall statements such as "evolution has been observed to be a fact" and to keep the conversation in terms that we have discussed elsewhere on the board for clarity, we call "a change in frequency of alleles over time" evolution, and we call common descent "common descent". I'm pretty sure that Talk.origins does the same thing. So sue me?

You are certainly free to advocate the usage of any correct terminology that will help move the discussion along, whether or not Talk Origins uses the same scheme.

Me, previously: BUT, this was not made explicit, so there was room for confusion from the OP. Great. As a rational person, do you a) point out that there is ambiguity there and suggest an alternative formulation, or b) play a sophmoric guessing game to try to "force" the OP'er to reformulate his question in a way that leaves less ambiguity? Obviously on the Theology Web, the answer is b). Why?

Ochre: So that the person asking the question is not spoon-fed the reason for the change, but learns the reason for it prior to proceeding by thinking it through (for example) .

So, in other words sophistry, coupled with the unjustified notion that the person asking the question must be a complete moron and needs your help so badly.

Me, previously: Moving on, we see that Ochre is willing to further his argument by quibbling over the usage of the term "methodical" in place of "methodological" (yet is unwilling to show the real contrast between the two terms). Fantastic - we're moving along fast!

Ochre: Also sue me for thinking the my opposite number isn't too stupid to use a dictionary. I gave him Google results to show that his belief that the terms were interchangeable was ill-founded.

Funny, I checked the Google results without finding a distinction in any of them. I did another search on "methodical methodological", in hopes of finding the contrast, but came up empty. I lack a dictionary of philosophy, and I doubt that anything from Websters will be useful or accepted. So, since it is so important that we distinguish the two (yeah - right!), maybe you can condescend to show us the contrast and correct usage, along with some kind of support for your view?

Was this quibble really worth the bandwidth?

Me, previously: We see that Ochre summarily dismisses the effectiveness of methodological naturalism to address questions of natural history.

Ochre: On the contrary, we see that QED is misnomer in your case.

Let's see, Post# 23418, in response to Rufus asking what your problem with MN was, you said: "Do I? Or do I question its use for determining historical events?"

hmmm, unless you want to equivocate your dismissal because it was phrased as a question, then I must say "QED".

QED jumps the rails of logic again. I brought up the unsuitability of forensics in determining guilt which was yet another erroneous claim of my opponent. My original point in bringing up forensics was supported--you may have glossed over that fact during your sophist hunt.

Ummmm... your opponent didn't mention guilt. Here is the relevant portion of his post:

A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime. Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives. If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed.

Me, previously: The claim was that a position that rejects MN for establishing historical facts would "let the prisons out" by destroying the means of establishing the existence, let alone the culprit of a crime.

Ochre: No, I don't think that you presented the claim accurately. Just a sec.
"Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives."
Wow! You did a terrific editing job to get the above quotation to accord with the supposed rejection of MN for establishing historical facts!

Apart from including part of the discussion that came along somewhat later, I didn't change too much of RA's argument. I was working on summarizing that, not on your rejection of MN...

I can see why you would think so, but reconsider for a moment. If naturalistic investigation (MN) is insufficient for establishing guilt for a crime, as you appear to affirm--then what is left to establish guilt?

If, by "guilt" you mean moral culpability, then the methods would be those of ethical inquiry.

RA appears to think that if it isn't naturalistic, it's therefore supernaturalistic.

There are not a lot of alternatives where it concerns causation in nature. Besides naturally caused and supernaturally caused, the only other option is "uncaused".

While I think that the term "supernatural" is a bit unfortunate, we'll go with it for now. If it is admitted that MN is insufficient to establish guilty (RA seems to resist that idea, while QED appears to accept it), then the only realm left from is the supernatural (or ~natural).

MN is insufficient to establish moral culpability, only because it cannot tell us what morally culpable means. The idea is a human convention, not a facet of nature, at least as far as MN can see. RA is using the term "guilty" as it would be understood in a conversation about historical facts - guilty in that sense (the appropriate one for this discussion) means the condition of having committed the crime.

Assuming a "supernatural" cause of our own actions (efficient self-causation of moral action) within an otherwise naturalistic (cause and effect) milieu, we admit the possibility of real guilt.

If by "real" you mean "spiritual", I see your logic. But never mind, that's a discussion for the philosophy board.

RA's claim that supernatural causes for everything would prevent guilt from ever being established is a slippery slope fallacy (and/or a straw man).

To abandon methodological naturalism in the investigation of crime would prevent guilt (in the appropriate sense of the word) from being established. One must allow for supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways without MN.

Me, previously: Then it is mentioned that "creationists" invented MN, and this is presented as a "counterexample" of something... In fact "special creationists" (modern deniers of evolution) had nothing to do with the formulation of MN. Those who formulated MN believed in a creator, and when it became possible to use MN to test the theory of evolution, that same group did so with the result that they came to accept evolution.

Ochre: I falsified that claim with the example of Newton. How did you miss it?

LOL, having trouble with the term "group"? Suprising, since you seem to quibble over the meaning of so many other words. For your equivocation, I mean information, those members of the group still practicing science when it became possible to use MN to test the theory of evolution did so with the result that they, by and large, accepted evolution and rejected special creation based on the evidence.

Perhaps--but you should be aware that methodological naturalism is not the same as gradualism. Most likely you've got a bifurcation fallacy above, since MN evidence is able to support various special creation arguments.
The problem with MN investigation of history is that it rules out "intelligence" a priori, in effect. Allowing the premise to dictate the conclusion isn't real science, imo, and the historical sciences are the ones vulnerable to this.

Care to take up this argument in a separate thread? I think you will lose it, and the answers have nothing to do with ruling out "intelligence" a priori, or with gradualism.

Speaking of obfuscation, that's another straw man ("unnecessary to science").

You're right. Re-reading my Phil Johnson, I should restate: "incompatible with science" (though he maintains the plausible deniability that he is really talking about metaphysical naturalism.)

How does QED define "deny science" I wonder?

By denying the efficacy of the methods of science, by ignoring the evidence used to reach scientific conclusions, or by gainsaying the conclusions of scientific inquiry on very insufficient grounds.. Or some combination thereof.

RufusAtticus

February 27th 2003, 04:31 PM

02-26-2003 @ 08:52 PM
Socrates:
No, here you are conflating terms. The data cannot be wrong, because truth and falsity apply only to propositions. Further, AiG don't dispute any true observation by evolutionists. Rather, it is the interpretation of the data which is in the form of propositions, and it's these interpretations are wrong if they contradict Scripture.

Of course AiG doesn't disput any "true" observation by science. Then again, they get to determine what is "true" or not based on assertion D-6 of their statement of faith, which leaves us back at the original problem. AiG determines the validity of data based on whether it agrees with their pseudoscientific ideas or not. Science on the other had does the exact opposite and determines the vailidity of ideas based on whether it agrees with data.

Once more, they ARE (methodological naturalists) when it comes to operational science, but not origins science

Yeap as soon as the scientific method gives them answers they don't like they feel free to toss it away. If the evidence really support their claims about origins then they would not have to do that now; would they? Perhaps that is why no one has offered much in the way of evidence for special creation in this thread that is some five pages long.

This would obviously apply to special creation, a subset of ID.

Sorry, but special creation is not a subset of ID. Nothing that I have ever read from the major ID proponents even suggests that it is. Sure they're happy for YECs and OECs to think that it is, but when push comes to shove (special) creationists get disowned as "guitar stumming hillbillies." Places like AiG are only too happy to respond in tune.

No, it's against Christian axioms to abandon them and play by the unsound ones of the atheists.

And yet no one has asked you to.

The only time I'll do that is to use the reductio ad absurdum. Meanwhile, you still operate under the delusion that there is such a thing as bias-free interpretation of facts.

And you're still operating under the delusion that you have identified a bias in my interpretation of the facts. It is impossible for you to do so if you haven't presented any facts to interprete.

But the link I gave you pointed out that this cannot be a subtractive definition, because there are other factors that prevent hybridization. After all, we know human couples who can't conceive, but no one would deny that they are the same species let alone same kind.

Then hybridization is no way to define kinds. If it can only be used to add organisms to kinds and not to split them into separate kinds, then you cannot use the lack of hybridization to show, for example, that humans and chimps are separate kinds. Yet that is exatly what you tried to do. Why did you try to do something that you yourself have admitted here can't be done?

In that case, you can't be aware of the Bible which has both human and divine authorship.

Oh, I'm aware of the Bible. I'm also aware that there is no evidence that it has divine authorship. However, if you want to use your belief that it does as evidence that it does, then I have the belief of one billion Hindus to prove that history happened a different way than the one you're proposing here.

RufusAtticus

February 27th 2003, 06:10 PM

02-26-2003 @ 12:56 PM
Captain Ochre:
You think that's my claim? Quote me, Junior.

A recap:

RA: What's your problem with methodical naturalism? You don't have any problem when people use it to build your computer or solve crimes? Why then do you complain about it used in biology?

CO: Do I? Or do I question its use for determining historical events?

RA: A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime. . . . If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed.

CO: They don't use methodological naturalism exclusively to determine the cause of a crime, or else finding a defendant guilty would be an impossibility (in terms of consistency).

RA: LOL. Please describe what features of forensics that detectives use that aren't based in methodical naturalism.

[sniping some middle stuff]

CO: [T]he current paradigm of science presupposes naturalism, and naturalism itself cannot account for intelligence (let alone moral culpability, as described below). . . .

If you're argument is not that forensics science is flawed because it relies on methodological naturalism and not morality, then what is it?

Bzzt. Naturalism is antithetical to deliberative thought, and supernaturalism is not.

Why?

Naturalistic thought has the feature of being explicable through natural causes and laws, while "supernaturalistic" thought does not (the latter may be explicable through logic itself, for example).

Of course not, supernaturalistic thought has the feature of being explicable through supernatural causes and laws. I don't see how that is an improvement. At least with natural causes we are given a shot at determing them using methodological naturalism. Supernatural causes are only "determined" by faith and superstition. But of course using faith and superstition anything can be "true" and anything can be "false."

Of course. How does that explain it in terms of naturalism (which was my question)? In what respect have you explained intelligence in terms of naturalism?
Are you dodging the question, or did you just read it carelessly?

:rofl:
I'm not the one here who reads carelessly. Hint: Read your own question, compare it to what you just wrote. Notice that the word "explain" is curiously absent.

Congratulations on turning ants and bees into moral creatures. Most scientists aren't willing to go that far.

Now who's reading things carelessly. Hint: Read the third sentance of what I wrote in determining natural morals.

Wrong. Your actions, according to the very definition of naturalism, are caused in turn by preceding states of matter and the laws that describe them.
Yes and I myself am a state of matter. Thus I myself as a state of matter can be the cause of my actions.

As for demons, I don't need to rule them out. They could be the ultimate cause of their own actions just as I could be the ultimate cause of my own actions. If one of them happens to control my actions occasionally, that doesn't make it impossible for me to be the ultimate cause of the rest of my actions. If the demon causes all of my actions, of course, then the demon might as well be me in the first place.

However, if you are unable to rule out demons then there is no way to find a person morally culpable for a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. Demons being supernatural creatures can be responsible for your actions no matter what the natural evidence shows.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 11:23 PM

RufusAtticus:

Sorry, but special creation is not a subset of ID.Nonsense—special creationists believe things have been intelligently designed :doh:. Do you really think that Todd would have denied any evidence for intelligent design but accepted it for special creation?

Nothing that I have ever read from the major ID proponents even suggests that it is. Sure they're happy for YECs and OECs to think that it is, but when push comes to shove (special) creationists get disowned as "guitar stumming hillbillies." Places like AiG are only too happy to respond in tune.Nonsense, the IDM contains a number of YECs. Philip Johnson has explicitly stated that the IDM takes no position on the age of the Earth.

Then hybridization is no way to define kinds. If it can only be used to add organisms to kinds and not to split them into separate kinds, then you cannot use the lack of hybridization to show, for example, that humans and chimps are separate kinds. Yet that is exatly what you tried to do. Why did you try to do something that you yourself have admitted here can't be done?
It is reasonable to use additive and subtractive methods. There are Ph.D. biologists working on the latter, but baraminlogy is not something I'm very knowledgeable in. I'm more interested in showing that the "kinds" are broader than "biological species", because it illustrates the capacity for variation, esp. in the animals that emerged from the Ark. The hybridization criterion is certainly positive evidence for membership of a "kind".

------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, you can't be aware of the Bible which has both human and divine authorship.
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I'm aware of the Bible. I'm also aware that there is no evidence that it has divine authorship.And we're supposed to take your word for that? It was validated by Jesus Christ, who proved His credentials by rising from the dead.

However, if you want to use your belief that it does as evidence that it does,No, my belief is not evidence that it is true; rather, I believe it because it is true.
... then I have the belief of one billion Hindus to prove that history happened a different way than the one you're proposing here.And why should this matter a jot? I'm not aware of any Hindu founder rising from the dead.

RufusAtticus

February 28th 2003, 12:01 AM

02-27-2003 @ 10:23 PM
Socrates:

Nonsense&#8212;special creationists believe things have been intelligently designed :doh:.

Then why do special creationists like AiG have such problems with the ID movement, and call it unbiblical? (Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp))

Do you really think that Todd would have denied any evidence for intelligent design but accepted it for special creation?

Have you even read Todd's letter? If you had, you would have realized that Todd is not proposing that scientists reject data. But rather that science isn't suited to study or even address claims involving supernatural causes. His point was that as long as IDism and creationism relies on supernatural causes, it can't possibly be science.

Nonsense, the IDM contains a number of YECs.
Really? Can you name them?

Philip Johnson has explicitly stated that the IDM takes no position on the age of the Earth.
Of course not, he likes the political support that the "guitar strumming hillbillies" (as a Discovery Institute spokesman refered to them) can offer. That doesn't mean that IDists actually support YECism. IDists like Behe are on the record being opposed to such things.

It is reasonable to use additive and subtractive methods.There are Ph.D. biologists working on the latter, but baraminlogy is not something I'm very knowledgeable in. I'm more interested in showing that the "kinds" are broader than "biological species", because it illustrates the capacity for variation, esp. in the animals that emerged from the Ark. The hybridization criterion is certainly positive evidence for membership of a "kind".

Why is hybridization evidence of common descent? Couldn't it simply be evidence of common design?

And we're supposed to take your word for that? It was validated by Jesus Christ, who proved His credentials by rising from the dead.

To quote Ken Ham: "Were you there?" How do you know this is true? Oh yes, it's in the Bible. Nice logical fallacy there.

No, my belief is not evidence that it is true; rather, I believe it because it is true.

Well then this thread is the place for you. How about offering us some of that objective empirical evidence that shows special creation to be true?

And why should this matter a jot? I'm not aware of any Hindu founder rising from the dead.

Ever heard of reincarnation?

Do you not even see the logical fallacy in your argument? Special creation being true does not follow from "Jesus rose from the dead."

RufusAtticus

March 1st 2003, 10:11 PM

Bump, because those Archaeology threads are cloging the joint.

Captain Ochre

March 2nd 2003, 03:59 AM

02-27-2003 @ 07:50 PM
QED:

Too bad we can't treat it as such.

Yes, a straight answer to a question first cousin to "have you stopped beating your wife?" would have been so enlightening.:ahem:

So, in other words sophistry, coupled with the unjustified notion that the person asking the question must be a complete moron and needs your help so badly.

That doesn't follow. If I am engaged in sophistry, you'll be able to legitimately identify fallacies (unless you're just not good at that sort of thing, in which case it's questionable whether or not you should go around calling bboard posts "sophistry"). Allowing RA to figure the revision out for himself gives him credit for intelligence, contrary to your wild assertion, above (X+1).

Funny, I checked the Google results without finding a distinction in any of them. I did another search on "methodical methodological", in hopes of finding the contrast, but came up empty. I lack a dictionary of philosophy, and I doubt that anything from Websters will be useful or accepted. So, since it is so important that we distinguish the two (yeah - right!), maybe you can condescend to show us the contrast and correct usage, along with some kind of support for your view?

A combination of usage, combined with Webster's (for example) works just fine (X+2).

Was this quibble really worth the bandwidth?

You seem to have answered your own question (X+3).

Let's see, Post# 23418, in response to Rufus asking what your problem with MN was, you said: "Do I? Or do I question its use for determining historical events?"

hmmm, unless you want to equivocate your dismissal because it was phrased as a question, then I must say "QED".

You equated "question its use" with "summary dismissal". I rest my case (X+4)

Ummmm... your opponent didn't mention guilt. Here is the relevant portion of his post:

Guilt in the broad sense is implicit in commission of a crime, and solving a crime involves bringing the guilty (both relevant senses: guilty of commission and guilty of moral transgression) to justice. (X+5).

Apart from including part of the discussion that came along somewhat later, I didn't change too much of RA's argument. I was working on summarizing that, not on your rejection of MN...

Now QED thinks that "question"="rejection" (X+6).

If, by "guilt" you mean moral culpability, then the methods would be those of ethical inquiry.

Methods of ethical inquiry based on methodological naturalism, or on something else?

MN is insufficient to establish moral culpability, only because it cannot tell us what morally culpable means.

That was excellent, but too little, too late.

The idea is a human convention, not a facet of nature, at least as far as MN can see. RA is using the term "guilty" as it would be understood in a conversation about historical facts - guilty in that sense (the appropriate one for this discussion) means the condition of having committed the crime.

Rather, the act that is potentially criminal if an individual could be responsible for the act. However, all phenomena are explicable in terms of natural causes and laws for the philosophical naturalist. MN could find out who did it, and could never convict. Absent RA's straw man, the person allowing true personal responsibility (such as varieties of "supernaturalists" could use MN to find who did it and subsequently find him guilty.

My point regarding detection of intelligent design in forensics remains untouched, btw.

To abandon methodological naturalism in the investigation of crime would prevent guilt (in the appropriate sense of the word) from being established. One must allow for supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways without MN.

You must have intended to write something else, because what you wrote above means that one must allow for "supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways" unless we assume that there have been no "supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways" (or that any such tampering is irrelevant) (MN).
It doesn't get any more vacuous than that (X+7).

LOL, having trouble with the term "group"?

No, but you're going to have trouble backpedaling out of this one.

Suprising, since you seem to quibble over the meaning of so many other words. For your equivocation, I mean information, those members of the group still practicing science when it became possible to use MN to test the theory of evolution did so with the result that they, by and large, accepted evolution and rejected special creation based on the evidence.

Those members of what group? Those creationists who pioneered MN (which was the originally specified group)? Being late by 100+ years can still qualify somebody as a pioneer?
Tycho Brahe (d. 1601)
Johannes Kepler (d. 1630)
(Sir) Francis Bacon (d. 1626)
(Sir) Isaac Newton (d. 1727)

Charles Darwin (b. 1809)
X+8

Care to take up this argument in a separate thread? I think you will lose it, and the answers have nothing to do with ruling out "intelligence" a priori, or with gradualism.

The argument is underway in a separate thread.

You're right. Re-reading my Phil Johnson, I should restate: "incompatible with science" (though he maintains the plausible deniability that he is really talking about metaphysical naturalism.)

What is your citation for the Johnson quotation, please? I found this one:
"According to Einstein, the notion of a personal God is not essential to religion, is a mere superstition, is self-contradictory, and, most important, is incompatible with science."
http://www.apologetics.org/articles/founder1.html

Is that your source? (if so—or if no source--, X+9)

By denying the efficacy of the methods of science, by ignoring the evidence used to reach scientific conclusions, or by gainsaying the conclusions of scientific inquiry on very insufficient grounds.. Or some combination thereof.

You denied the efficacy of the methods of science (MN) to address the question of morals, iirc. Were there other methods that you had in mind, and do you judge yourself by a different standard than you judge others?

Application accepted on the basis of 8+ statements seemingly calculated to be a waste of time. Ignore file status will go into effect after I review your reply, if any. Otherwise, with the next post of yours that I encounter.
I fully expect you to dwell in solitude on my ignore list, as you will probably be the only person I ever put on it.

Captain Ochre

March 2nd 2003, 04:30 AM

02-27-2003 @ 12:38 PM
Saxonella:
The question, or a close version of it, has been asked by a lot of people to a lot of people over a lot of years. The intention is always the same: to recieve positive, objective, scientific evidence FOR creation (or a young earth, or "kinds", or whatever variant of the question was asked), instead of the usual attempt of trying to demonstrate that common descent (or young earth, or whatever) is false because of "flaws" in methodology or assumptions. Certainly individuals are entitiled to treat the question in whatever manner they wish, but when any sort of real evidence fails to appear after a passage of decades, one begins to wonder whether there actually *is* evidence.

When the question was initially refined, RA asked for evidence for special creation that specifically refuted evolution.
The atheists and evolutionists that I talk to are usually careful to refer to "common descent" when they mean common descent. They define "evolution" as a change in frequency of alleles over time.
You think that a refinement of terminology is inappropriate?

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 10:28 AM

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Nonsense—special creationists believe things have been intelligently designed .
------------------------------------------------------------
RufusAtticus:
Then why do special creationists like AiG have such problems with the ID movement, and call it unbiblical? (Source)Why don't you actually READ this source?! :doh: It is NOT because YECs deny intelligent design, but because the IDM doesn't go far enough and identify this designer, and also because pure ID fails to take the Fall into account.

------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Do you really think that Todd would have denied any evidence for intelligent design but accepted it for special creation?
------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
Have you even read Todd's letter? If you had, you would have realized that Todd is not proposing that scientists reject data. But rather that science isn't suited to study or even address claims involving supernatural causes. His point was that as long as IDism and creationism relies on supernatural causes, it can't possibly be science.Yes, I did, unlike you with AiG's fair assessment of the IDM. But you just prove my point: that you just rule out ID from consideration as "science" because of your materialistic bigotry.

------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Nonsense, the IDM contains a number of YECs.
------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
Really? Can you name them?Yes, e.g. Royal Truman, John Mark Reynolds, Paul Nelson.

------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Johnson has explicitly stated that the IDM takes no position on the age of the Earth.
------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not, he likes the political support that the "guitar strumming hillbillies" (as a Discovery Institute spokesman refered to them) can offer. That doesn't mean that IDists actually support YECism. IDists like Behe are on the record being opposed to such things.As Johnson is the acknowledged leader, it makes sense to trust him. He makes it very clear that IDM is a broad church that can include YECs and OECs.

Why is hybridization evidence of common descent? Couldn't it simply be evidence of common design?As I said, the hybridisation criterion is in line with the Biblical teaching the things would reproduce "after their kinds". You wanted a criterion for kinds, and I gave you one, so quit whinging.

------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
And we're supposed to take your word for that? It was validated by Jesus Christ, who proved His credentials by rising from the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
To quote Ken Ham: "Were you there?" How do you know this is true? Why not finish the quote. I.e. if someone replies, "No, but neither were you," the response is "No I wasn't, but we have the record of someone who was." Mr Ham uses this to apply to Creation, but it applies equally well to Jesus Christ's resurrection, attested to by reliable eye witnesses. Conversely, you deny it because you have a dogma against it.

Oh yes, it's in the Bible. Nice logical fallacy there. Not at all, since the Bible is reliable historical document. If you had your way, all history would be dismissed.
Well then this thread is the place for you. How about offering us some of that objective empirical evidence that shows special creation to be true?You've just admitted that you would reject any intelligent designer of life as non-science, so why pretend to be open-minded?

----------------------------------------------------------
And why should this matter a jot? I'm not aware of any Hindu founder rising from the dead.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of reincarnation?Yes, why, do you believe that crap?

Do you not even see the logical fallacy in your argument? Special creation being true does not follow from "Jesus rose from the dead."Did you bother to follow the argument through? Only then can you try to find a logical fallacy (but if you're just rearranged pond scum, why even trust that your brain can think logically?).

I.e. Jesus claimed to be God, He affirmed Genesis Creation and Flood accounts, and predicted that He would rise from the dead in validation of His claims. He did indeed rise and appeared to more than 500 people at once. Thus all His claims are validated.

Goochdad

March 2nd 2003, 01:47 PM

500 people at once, you say? And where is the testimony from any one of these eyewitnesses?

I flew around by flapping my arms yesterday. Three thousand people saw me do it. Since I claim there were 3000 eyewitnesses, you must accept my claim as true.

Sheesh, what DO they teach people in schools these days instead of critical thinking skills?

QED

March 2nd 2003, 01:47 PM

03-02-2003 @ 07:59 AM
Captain Ochre:
Yes, a straight answer to a question first cousin to "have you stopped beating your wife?" would have been so enlightening.

Hmmm, I thought I understood you that the question was phrased a little bit too ambiguously, not that it assumed a premise that was not in evidence. If that is your contention, then you should show us that creationists do not dispute evolution (as the term is often used by people from both sides of the debate).

That doesn't follow. If I am engaged in sophistry, you'll be able to legitimately identify fallacies (unless you're just not good at that sort of thing, in which case it's questionable whether or not you should go around calling bboard posts "sophistry").

Maybe I should have used the more appropriate term, "semantic games" (which was my real complaint at the time). Still, you want your fallacies identified and I will oblige. I'll make note of them throughout this post, and summarize here:

A) Shifting burden of proof
B) Equivocation
C) False dichotomy
D) Ad Hominem
E) Appeal to Authority

Will leave off E)"distinction without a difference" until you have defended your quibble over the terms "methodical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism"...

Should I have included "red herring" with the obfuscation over the terms "crime" and "guilt"?

Allowing RA to figure the revision out for himself gives him credit for intelligence, contrary to your wild assertion, above (X+1).

Just not enough intelligence to understand a straightforward statement that there is ambiguity in the term "evolution" that should be resolved for reasons x & y. I think that using the term with its potential ambiguity makes sense until creationists decide to get more specific about what they are refusing to accept. We can always narrow them down to common descent, evolution of novelty, or "increases in information" as the argument proceeds, right?

A combination of usage, combined with Webster's (for example) works just fine (X+2).

So why didn't you? It's your quibble, not mine! (together with "Also sue me for thinking the my opposite number isn't too stupid to use a dictionary", this is shifting burden of proof fallacy A.)

You did provide a link to a google search on the usage of "methodological naturalism", but the usage that google returned seems to be interchangeable with "methodological naturalism".

You equated "question its use" with "summary dismissal". I rest my case (X+4)

Forgive me for not being too blind to read the meaning behind the "question." Or, just translate into English this statement "As it has been said: That molecule could be your Great-great(*X) grampaw.' Now turn naturalistic science on science itself, and the scientific enterprise is deprived of its purpose." If upon rendering this in English, you don't reveal that it was meant as a rejection of MN for any class of scientific questions, then I will gladly drop "rejection of" and replace it with the term "vaguely questions without indicating why."

Guilt in the broad sense is implicit in commission of a crime, and solving a crime involves bringing the guilty (both relevant senses: guilty of commission and guilty of moral transgression) to justice. (X+5).

This is equivocation, or conflating two distinct meanings of "crime" and "guilt". Since the counterexample of forensic science was used to show MN's usefulness in determining historical events, and since the counterexample focused on what police detectives do (not what prosecutors or courts do), then the word "crime" obviously is used in the sense of "action proscribed by law" (regardless of moral culpability), and "guilt" obviously applies to the condition of having carried out that action (regardless of moral culpability). To use them in ways that do not apply to forensic investigation and/or historical events is pure equivocation. (B.)

Methods of ethical inquiry based on methodological naturalism, or on something else?

Ethics can be carried out by a number of methods, most of which are rooted in philosophy, not natural science. Yet it is possible (and in the legal system, necessary) to construct an ethical model which will have conditions for moral culpability that are observable, and whose presence or absence can, at least in principle, be detected by naturalistic investigation. Why do you ask?

Rather, the act that is potentially criminal if an individual could be responsible for the act. However, all phenomena are explicable in terms of natural causes and laws for the philosophical naturalist. MN could find out who did it, and could never convict.

On the contrary, if "responsibility" is defined in such a way as to depend only on factors that can be observed, MN could also determine responsiblity. Together with a system where responsibility requires conviction, MN convicts in such a case. On the other hand, "responsibility" could be left indeterminate, and conviction could be based upon actions alone. For the purposes of answering your "question" about the usefulness of MN to answer historical questions, either of these might as well be the case.

Absent RA's straw man, the person allowing true personal responsibility (such as varieties of "supernaturalists" could use MN to find who did it and subsequently find him guilty.

What straw man would that be? Remember, we are talking about the "questionability" of using MN to solve historical questions. "Who did it" is a historical question. The subsequent findings of moral "guilt" will depend on how we have defined "guilt". If we have done so in such terms that we have hope of establishing it, then chances are MN will be useful in establishing guilt as well, but it need not be for this excercise.

Again, by "true personal responsibility", I assume you mean "spiritual personal responsibility"? You have yet to show how spiritual personal responsibility is potentially more "true" than just plain "personal responsibility." I would also like to hear your ideas on punishment if true responsiblity lies with the spirit. Do we hire yogis to build astral prisons for the punishment of the truly responsible party, while the mere material person walks free? Why punish the matter, if it is the spirit that is at fault? Seems like a sweet deal for the spirit & a bum deal for the matter, to me.

My point regarding detection of intelligent design in forensics remains untouched, btw.

I must have missed reading that part of your post. My guess is that you said that MN is able to distinguish accidental death from death by design - which is correct. Apparently, any contention that design is excluded "a priori" from naturalistic explanations is misconstrued.

You must have intended to write something else, because what you wrote above means that one must allow for "supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways" unless we assume that there have been no "supernatural agents tampering with the evidence in undetectable and unpredictable ways" (or that any such tampering is irrelevant) (MN).
It doesn't get any more vacuous than that (X+7).

It is tautology, but it is correct, and does illuminate the reason why guilt (once again, in the correct sense for this discussion) could not be determined without methodological naturalism as applied to historical events. Shame something so obvious did not occur to you when forensics were first given as a counterexample to your "question" about the validity of MN applied to historical questions.

Those members of what group?

Pre-Darwinian creationists. Having so much in common with their predecessors who "pioneered" MN, a generalization to the larger group is not inappropriate, unless you can give some reason to believe that these pioneers would have abandoned MN in order to avoid accepting evolution (even though their cultural successors, by and large, did not).

What is your citation for the Johnson quotation, please?

How about just reading the name of one of his books?
Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education
If that isn't enough, I present this piece by Johnson, which most clearly reveals his disdain for methodological naturalism and his basis for it.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm

You denied the efficacy of the methods of science (MN) to address the question of morals, iirc. Were there other methods that you had in mind, and do you judge yourself by a different standard than you judge others?

LOL. If I asked what was meant by the denial of architecture, and I replied that I meant that denial of the efficacy of the methods of architecture, would that mean that someone who "denied" the efficacy of the methods of architecture for soil conservation was included? Of course not. Denial of science is the denial of the efficacy of the methods of science to do what science does (i.e. to answer questions about nature). I read further where you had the gall to accuse me of wasting your time.

Application accepted on the basis of 8+ statements seemingly calculated to be a waste of time. Ignore file status will go into effect after I review your reply, if any. Otherwise, with the next post of yours that I encounter.
I fully expect you to dwell in solitude on my ignore list, as you will probably be the only person I ever put on it.

<fingers in ears> "I can't hear you either!!!" ROFLOL.

The rest of this post will be an answer to your request to have your fallacies pointed out.

C. False Dichotomy

When evolutionists trace a gradualistic pathway of minor changes that leads from reptile to rat (for instance), then it will have at least been established scientifically that the claimed changes are possible. Until then, the evolutionary argument is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence affixed to a presupposed framework of naturalism. post#23334

Either a gradualistic pathway must be traced, or the changes that have arisen in common descent cannot be considered possible. To reveal how this is a false dichotomy, consider the case where genetic tests conclude that Julie and Jill share an ancestor within the last twelve generations. A similar false dichotomy would be to say, "once we have traced a pathway by which normal genetic variation could have introduced all of the difference between the girls, then we could claim that the girls could possibly be cousins." If we have strong evidence that the girls are cousins, then we must conclude that it is possible for them to be. There are, then, more than two options.

Also, the statement "evolutionary argument is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence affixed to a presupposed framework of naturalism" sounds awfully bad. "My opponent is an admitted thespian." Maybe if it was rephrased, "evolutionary argument relies on extrapolation of the known laws of nature and routinely observed processes, coupled with multiple independent lines of scientific evidence in support of it," then it wouldn't sound so bad.

So what happened to the word "circumstantial"? It has been omitted, as I have yet to find a good definition of the term that all evidence for evolution could be categorized by. Perhaps you could supply such a definition?

D. Ad Hominem

You appear to be slow of wit. I'm not going to lead you through every point via baby steps (including explanation of my joke at your expense). post#23484

E. Appeal to authority

I'm pretty sure that Talk.origins does the same thing. post# 25150

Captain Ochre

March 2nd 2003, 02:07 PM

RA had been challenged to produce a quotation (by me) in support of his claim that I reject methodological naturalism.

Your claim is that science is flawed because it relies on methodological naturalism, which is flawed because it can't address morality. That is no different than saying that cooking is flawed because it involves heating, which is wrong because it doesn't address morality.
--RufusAtticus

02-27-2003 @ 10:10 PM
RufusAtticus:

A recap:

RA: What's your problem with methodical naturalism? You don't have any problem when people use it to build your computer or solve crimes? Why then do you complain about it used in biology?

CO: Do I? Or do I question its use for determining historical events?

Are you able to agree that questioning an application is not the same as rejecting? It's true enough that I reject MN as a method for exploring morality--but you agreed with me on that one, iirc (or at least did a Pee Wee Herman imitation that made it look that way).
My statement about questioning the application of MN to history is comparable to questioning the application of cooking to camping.

RA: A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime. . . . If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed.

CO: They don't use methodological naturalism exclusively to determine the cause of a crime, or else finding a defendant guilty would be an impossibility (in terms of consistency).

RA: LOL. Please describe what features of forensics that detectives use that aren't based in methodical naturalism.

Already did that. Where were you?
When the forensic specialists suggest that a human agent was responsible for potentially criminal act X, they are limiting their own application of science (finding moral guilt) and assuming intelligence. In effect, they are saying that phenomena A, B, and C are consistent with behavior of dynamic aggregate carbon-based mucilids; then the latter are presumed to be morally culpable in principle (intelligent).

[sniping some middle stuff]

CO: [T]he current paradigm of science presupposes naturalism, and naturalism itself cannot account for intelligence (let alone moral culpability, as described below). . . .

If you're argument is not that forensics science is flawed because it relies on methodological naturalism and not morality, then what is it?

That MN is a dead-end as a be-all end-all gold standard for the practice of science (destroying the purpose of science, and undermining rationality at its very base). I thought that I was clear on that; I'd dig up past quotations of myself if I thought that would help.

("Naturalism is antithetical to deliberative thought, and supernaturalism is not")

Why?

That's been explained, albeit not exhaustively. You're free to continue to question what I wrote on the topic, but I'm not justifying the claim again from scratch until you wrestle cogently with what I've already presented.

Of course not, supernaturalistic thought has the feature of being explicable through supernatural causes and laws.

That's another straw man. "Supernaturalism" does not reject naturalistic causes. It simply adds the possibility of supernatural ones.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernaturalism

I don't see how that is an improvement.

Not being required to make an assumption one way or the other is an improvement (comparing to "(philosophical) naturalism").

At least with natural causes we are given a shot at determing them using methodological naturalism. Supernatural causes are only "determined" by faith and superstition. But of course using faith and superstition anything can be "true" and anything can be "false."

Your observation is borne of misunderstanding. The dictionary link above should be sufficient to alter your view, imo.

( How does that explain it (the supernatural) in terms of naturalism (which was my question)? In what respect have you explained intelligence in terms of naturalism?
Are you dodging the question, or did you just read it carelessly? non-bold italicized bit added for clarity--CO)

:rofl:
I'm not the one here who reads carelessly. Hint: Read your own question, compare it to what you just wrote. Notice that the word "explain" is curiously absent.

"Let's try this another way: Define "supernatural" in terms of either methodological naturalism or philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism.
Now, try the same thing with "intelligence"."
--Cap'n Ochrs, from a previous post

Defining "supernatural" or "intelligence" in terms of either methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism should explain what either is with respect to those categories.
Obviously, I would think.

Now who's reading things carelessly.

Choosing between the two of us, it would be you, if anybody; though you could claim that you just wrote carelessly in the following example.

Hint: Read the third sentance of what I wrote in determining natural morals.

"Determine what actions draw punishment from the group or some members there of." This what you had in mind, RA?

Here's the whole thing, for our viewing pleasure:

"Easy, go to any creature that lives in societies. Observe them. Determine what actions draw punishment from the group or some members there of. Such actions offend the morals of the group."

If killing a rival queen bee isn't punishment, then what is it? If tossing drones out of the hive isn't punishment, then what is it?
If killing an ant who came back to the colony with the wrong colony "smell" isn't punishment, then what is it?

If you offer an explanation of "punishment" that imports the notion of morality into the scenario, then you're just begging the question.

Yes and I myself am a state of matter. Thus I myself as a state of matter can be the cause of my actions.

Nice try, but the "state of matter" you were when you did "moral" action X was, in turn, caused by preceding states of matter, and so on. Quantum indeterminacy does nothing to change that, btw, unless you take certain unpredictable quantum events to be you--and even then you're arguably wrong.

However, if you are unable to rule out demons then there is no way to find a person morally culpable for a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. Demons being supernatural creatures can be responsible for your actions no matter what the natural evidence shows.

The latter is true, and the former is untrue (and qualifies as an unsupported assertion or an if/then fallacy).

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 02:57 PM

02-27-2003 @ 08:31 PM
RufusAtticus:

Of course AiG doesn't disput any "true" observation by science. Then again, they get to determine what is "true" or not based on assertion D-6 of their statement of faith, which leaves us back at the original problem. AiG determines the validity of data based on whether it agrees with their pseudoscientific ideas or not. Science on the other had does the exact opposite and determines the vailidity of ideas based on whether it agrees with data.

Yeap as soon as the scientific method gives them answers they don't like they feel free to toss it away. If the evidence really support their claims about origins then they would not have to do that now; would they? Perhaps that is why no one has offered much in the way of evidence for special creation in this thread that is some five pages long.

Sorry, but special creation is not a subset of ID. Nothing that I have ever read from the major ID proponents even suggests that it is. Sure they're happy for YECs and OECs to think that it is, but when push comes to shove (special) creationists get disowned as "guitar stumming hillbillies." Places like AiG are only too happy to respond in tune.

And yet no one has asked you to.

And you're still operating under the delusion that you have identified a bias in my interpretation of the facts. It is impossible for you to do so if you haven't presented any facts to interprete.

Then hybridization is no way to define kinds. If it can only be used to add organisms to kinds and not to split them into separate kinds, then you cannot use the lack of hybridization to show, for example, that humans and chimps are separate kinds. Yet that is exatly what you tried to do. Why did you try to do something that you yourself have admitted here can't be done?

Oh, I'm aware of the Bible. I'm also aware that there is no evidence that it has divine authorship. However, if you want to use your belief that it does as evidence that it does, then I have the belief of one billion Hindus to prove that history happened a different way than the one you're proposing here.

You need to give evidence that AiG is not doing science, you also need to give us evidence of why you do not think the Bible is of Divive Authorship. I also believe after that last statement that you have no Idea of the docrtrines of Inerrancy or Inspiration. Here is something for you to look up The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, educate yourself before you start spewing:eww: nonsense.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:04 PM

03-02-2003 @ 05:47 PM
Goochdad:

500 people at once, you say? And where is the testimony from any one of these eyewitnesses?

I flew around by flapping my arms yesterday. Three thousand people saw me do it. Since I claim there were 3000 eyewitnesses, you must accept my claim as true.

Sheesh, what DO they teach people in schools these days instead of critical thinking skills?

No we don't have to accept your claim as true. You have no other Historical documents to back it up. Also the NT has what is called Multiple Attestation which is used to find the historical trustworthiness of the documents. Also Paul's letters are known to be early, and are you saying that Paul lied about this event in 1 Corinthians 15? If you think he did I want some evidence, which no skeptic has ever been able to give.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

RufusAtticus

March 2nd 2003, 03:20 PM

03-02-2003 @ 01:57 PM
Blake Reas:
You need to give evidence that AiG is not doing science

All you have to do is look at their statement of faith. Section D-6 makes it pretty clear that they are not doing science.

you also need to give us evidence of why you do not think the Bible is of Divive Authorship.

First, those who claim that it has Divine Authorship need to provide evidence that it does.

I also believe after that last statement that you have no Idea of the docrtrines of Inerrancy or Inspiration. Here is something for you to look up The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, educate yourself before you start spewing:eww: nonsense.

Look at what you wrote: "Doctrines" which are statements of faith not evidence. If Christian Doctrines are enough to prove that the Bible has divine authorship, then Hindu Doctrines are enough to prove that the Vedas have divine authorship. What then are you able to use to determine which one, if either, is accurate?

Goochdad

March 2nd 2003, 03:25 PM

I don't consider the NT events to have multiple attestation, no. The Synoptics are not independent accounts, they are all based on Mark. And few biblical scholars consider gJohn to be an eyewitness account, and the writer even admits that he isn't an eyewitness.

Why is the burden of proof on me to prove that Paul lied? Is the burden of proof on YOU to prove that Appolonius of Tyana lied? Or that other ancient writers who claimed stories of resurrections were lyiing? No, of course not.

So if I had someone else who typed in here that I flapped my arms and flew, you'd suddenly have to accept my claim? Hmm?

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:38 PM

03-02-2003 @ 07:20 PM
RufusAtticus:

All you have to do is look at their statement of faith. Section D-6 makes it pretty clear that they are not doing science.

First, those who claim that it has Divine Authorship need to provide evidence that it does.

What do you want me to discuss? Also for someone on here to give evidence in that manner would take a life time. There are thousands of books that scholars like R.T. France, F.F. Bruce, Meredith Kline etc, etc ,etc have used in defending the truth of Biblical revelation. So to expect someone on a Message board to give that kind of evidence is absurd. I would tell you to check out www.Christian-thinktank.com or www.tektonics.org but to say that those sites have even touched the tip of the Iceberg is a overstatement.

Look at what you wrote: "Doctrines" which are statements of faith not evidence. If Christian Doctrines are enough to prove that the Bible has divine authorship, then Hindu Doctrines are enough to prove that the Vedas have divine authorship. What then are you able to use to determine which one, if either, is accurate?

No I do not think the Christian Docrtrines are not enough to achieve the verdict of Divine Authorhsip. I believe so because every single time someone like you has tried to make the case against it you either cannot read critically (Farrell Till) or you do so on the grounds that there is not enough evidence as of know so the Bible must be wrong (i.e. the Existence of David, or anything else you can name where the Bible supposedley goes against History)

We can look at the Hindu Scriptures and see if it makes the claims of itself that scripture does, also does the Vedas claim to be inerrant, Hinduism believes truth is relative to each person so I have a hard time seeing why it would make the claim of being true.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Goochdad

March 2nd 2003, 03:44 PM

Excuse me? So if a scripture claims that the scripture itself is true, that supposedly makes it more likely to be true?

What bizarre brand of logic is that?

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:45 PM

03-02-2003 @ 07:25 PM
Goochdad:

[quote]I don't consider the NT events to have multiple attestation, no. The Synoptics are not independent accounts, they are all based on Mark. And few biblical scholars consider gJohn to be an eyewitness account, and the writer even admits that he isn't an eyewitness.

Ok, so you go against the mainstream of scholarship, also it can be shown that not only did they use mark they used ,Q, "L","M",and possibly other sources. Your assertion is again ungrounded. Also in various places in the Synoptics it can be shown that there are differences that cannot be explained by literary dependance. Hmmm.... Just because scholar x says that John is not useful we will throw it out the door. You are not familiar with the Accuracies of Geography and place in the Gospel of John nor have you apparently read the Gospel!

He who say it has borne witness- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth- that you may also believe.( John 19:35)

Also refer to the numerous references of the Discple whom Jesus loved also the name John. Also the testimony of early Church tradition is together on saying John the son of Zebedee wrote this gospel. Again you are badly uninformed.

Why is the burden of proof on me to prove that Paul lied? Is the burden of proof on YOU to prove that Appolonius of Tyana lied? Or that other ancient writers who claimed stories of resurrections were lyiing? No, of course not.

Well for one thing you made the assertion that Paul was lying so the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. Second Apollonius of Tyana's miracel stories where written after the time of Jesus. Sorry that is strike two for you.

So if I had someone else who typed in here that I flapped my arms and flew, you'd suddenly have to accept my claim? Hmm? :whip:

My examination of your nonsense stands. You have not proved your point so your comparison breaks down.
By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Captain Ochre

March 2nd 2003, 03:48 PM

03-02-2003 @ 05:47 PM
QED:

Maybe I should have used the more appropriate term, "semantic games" (which was my real complaint at the time). Still, you want your fallacies identified and I will oblige. I'll make note of them throughout this post, and summarize here:

A) Shifting burden of proof
B) Equivocation
C) False dichotomy
D) Ad Hominem
E) Appeal to Authority

More on this, below.

(on the same pioneers of methodological naturalism later accepting evolution on that basis)

Pre-Darwinian creationists.

When they were creationists was not the issue, but rather whether the originally specified group is the same as (or even has as much as one member in common with) the group that you offer above in its place. IOW, you've committed the fallacy of equivocation.

(I wanted a source for a quotation of Phillip Johnson)

How about just reading the name of one of his books?
Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education
If that isn't enough, I present this piece by Johnson, which most clearly reveals his disdain for methodological naturalism and his basis for it.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm

Does your quotation occur in any of the titles you cite? No? Then they are irrelevant unless they mean the same thing. Do they? It's up to you to argue that point. I consider it inarguable, so I'll leave you to yourself and whoever feels like responding to your mad ravings.
Also feel free to quote from the ARN article in support of your claims.

<fingers in ears> "I can't hear you either!!!" ROFLOL.

You'll be on the "ignore" list precisely because I heard you very clearly, and recognize your posts for the waste of time that they are.

The rest of this post will be an answer to your request to have your fallacies pointed out. \

(from earlier):

together with "Also sue me for thinking the my opposite number isn't too stupid to use a dictionary", this is shifting burden of proof fallacy A

You asserted that I think that my opponent is stupid despite my clear statement that such isn't the case. My statements regarding my opinion may be taken as authoritative barring contradiction. You offered none. The burden of proof remains on you, as it was from the moment you claimed to know my opinion.
Charge A bites the dust.

(again, from earlier)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guilt in the broad sense is implicit in commission of a crime, and solving a crime involves bringing the guilty (both relevant senses: guilty of commission and guilty of moral transgression) to justice. (X+5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is equivocation, or conflating two distinct meanings of "crime" and "guilt". Since the counterexample of forensic science was used to show MN's usefulness in determining historical events, and since the counterexample focused on what police detectives do (not what prosecutors or courts do), then the word "crime" obviously is used in the sense of "action proscribed by law" (regardless of moral culpability), and "guilt" obviously applies to the condition of having carried out that action (regardless of moral culpability). To use them in ways that do not apply to forensic investigation and/or historical events is pure equivocation. (B.)

In charging me with fallacy, you are using the premise that the original dispute simply involved facts of history. This is factually inaccurate. It had been alleged that MN was able to affix responsibility for a criminal act. As already noted (and ignored by you), criminal acts require moral awareness. You've already admitted that morality is outsid the purview of MN.
Rather than using "guilt" in one sense and changing to another in the midst of my argument, I have used it consistently for purposes of my argument while pointing out the variant usage introduced by my opponent (RA in that case, iirc). This is the reverse of equivocation.
Charge B bites the dust.

C. False Dichotomy

Either a gradualistic pathway must be traced, or the changes that have arisen in common descent cannot be considered possible.

Straw man fallacy (blatant, at that).
Another one bites the dust.

D. Ad Hominem

There are two meanings for the term "ad hominem".
One is the sense of personal attack. My comment that RA lacked wit in the context of his apparently not understanding a joke at his expense is a mild personal attack at worst.
More to the point, the fallacious form of ad hominem requires that the personal attack be related to the argument presented.
[edit for clarity]
That is, related via the form "Because RA is (insert personal attack here) therefore his argument is specious" or the like.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
[return to original portion]
I did no such thing, therefore I committed no ad hominem fallacy, and QED is again guilty of equivocation:
P1 Ad homimen consists of personal attack
P2 Captain Ochre launched a personal attack
C Therefore, Captain Ochre committed an ad hominem fallacy.

And another one bites the dust.

E. Appeal to authority

I'm pretty sure that Talk.origins does the same thing.
CO, from post# 25150 (that is, if QED got the source right)

Assuming that I'm trying to support the point regarding my definition of terms via Talk.origins (which is reasonable, though I don't consider the point arguable to the point of having to provide support for it), charging me with appeal to authority reqires you to:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm

So, you're oh-for-four, probably oh-for-five. Any questions as to why you made my "ignore" list?
Ask somebody else.

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:55 PM

03-02-2003 @ 07:44 PM
Goochdad:

Excuse me? So if a scripture claims that the scripture itself is true, that supposedly makes it more likely to be true?

What bizarre brand of logic is that?

That gives you the warrant to test it. You lack reading skills, I never said it is true because I believe it is true it is true because from what I have read it is extremely reliable. Again misinformed.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

QED

March 2nd 2003, 04:20 PM

03-02-2003 @ 07:48 PM
Captain Ochre:
When they were creationists was not the issue, but rather whether the originally specified group is the same as (or even has as much as one member in common with) the group that you offer above in its place. IOW, you've committed the fallacy of equivocation.

When the group in question is "creationists" (the contention was that group "creationists" pioneered MN, not that "creationist pioneers of MN" did something), then it matters little for the purposes of our statements whether any individual members of that group did both the pioneering and the application to the theory. What matters in an intellectual school is not the personalities, but the ideas and culture they share. In this case, it is far more important that the creationists pre-Darwin were methodological naturalists (and those post-Darwin do not adhere to MN in their "scientific" investigations), than whether the same personality who developed MN was also the one who applied it with the result that creationist scientists came to accept evolution.

There is, then, no contention - unless you can show a significant difference in intellectual methods between the creationists contemporary with Darwin who came to accept Darwinism and those who preceded Darwin but developed the methods of investigation that Darwin used.

(I wanted a source for a quotation of Phillip Johnson)

There was no Phillip Johnson quotation. That was me, rephrasing my earlier commentary on Johnson's position on naturalism. I would think you could have figured that out by the words "I should rephrase."

Does your quotation occur in any of the titles you cite? No?

No since the words inside quotes are my own words. Is the idea they express found in my citations? Yes.

You'll be on the "ignore" list precisely because I heard you very clearly, and recognize your posts for the waste of time that they are.

LOL. I'm sorry for wasting your time. Next time, I won't play semantic games with words like "methodical", "guilt", "crime", "efficacy of science", etc...

You asserted that I think that my opponent is stupid despite my clear statement that such isn't the case. My statements regarding my opinion may be taken as authoritative barring contradiction. You offered none. The burden of proof remains on you, as it was from the moment you claimed to know my opinion.
Charge A bites the dust.

Whoops: that was in reference to your quibble on methodical vs methodological. You need to read more carefully. Had nothing to do with the fact that you assert one thing and show by your imperious condescension that you think quite another about your opponent, regardless of how he is faring in your debate.

A) shifting burden of proof remains.

In charging me with fallacy, you are using the premise that the original dispute simply involved facts of history. This is factually inaccurate. It had been alleged that MN was able to affix responsibility for a criminal act. As already noted (and ignored by you), criminal acts require moral awareness. You've already admitted that morality is outsid the purview of MN.
Rather than using "guilt" in one sense and changing to another in the midst of my argument, I have used it consistently for purposes of my argument while pointing out the variant usage introduced by my opponent (RA in that case, iirc). This is the reverse of equivocation.

As already noted, criminal acts can be defined in such a way that they require moral awareness. As already noted, moral awareness is irrelevant to natural history, so such a definition would be inappropriate, thus equivocation. Even if such usage was appropriate to the discussion, this would do nothing to invalidate the counterexample, as the part of the question that does have to do with historical questions is appropriately addressed by MN in forensics. Your "question" about MN's use in determining historical questions remains groundless, and charge B: equivocation stands.

Straw man fallacy (blatant, at that).
Another one bites the dust.

Whoops, you forgot to address the substance of the argument. I did deliberately phrase my response differently than you phrased your original, so that both senses of the meaning would be covered... However, whether taken in your original careful language (which adds nothing to the argument but sounds important) or whether taken in words of my reply (which makes a case against evolution but is incorrect), there still remains the false dichotomy, because strong evidence of common descent clearly does make it "scientifically established" that common descent is "possible."

There are two meanings for the term"ad hominem".
One is the sense of personal attack. My comment that RA lacked wit in the context of his apparently not understanding a joke at his expense is a mild personal attack at worst.
More to the point, the fallacious form of ad hominem requires that the personal attack be related to the argument presented.
I did no such thing, therefore I committed no ad hominem fallacy, and QED is again guilty of equivocation:
P1 Ad homimen consists of personal attack
P2 Captain Ochre launched a personal attack
C Therefore, Captain Ochre committed an ad hominem fallacy.

And another one bites the dust.

And what exactly was your ad hominem designed to do, apart from create the illusion of doubt about your opponents positions in the present debate?

I'm pretty sure that Talk.origins does the same thing.
CO, from post# 25150 (that is, if QED got the source right)

[quote]Assuming that I'm trying to support the point regarding my definition of terms via Talk.origins (which is reasonable, though I don't consider the point arguable to the point of having to provide support for it), charging me with appeal to authority reqires you to:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm

OK: I picked "Show that the person cited is not an authority in the field":

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup.

http://talkorigins.org

So, you're oh-for-four, probably oh-for-five. Any questions as to why you made my "ignore"; list?
Ask somebody else.

Whoops... looks like at least 4-for-5, probably 5-for-5. Too bad you are ignoring now & will miss the opportunity to vindicate yourself. LOL. Make it 5 or 6-for-6, because you forgot to defend your quibble on the variant names for MN & I'm just assuming now that you were making the distinction without the difference.

No questions about why the ignore, it's pretty obvious. LOL.

RufusAtticus

March 2nd 2003, 04:24 PM

03-02-2003 @ 01:07 PM
Captain Ochre:

Are you able to agree that questioning an application is not the same as rejecting? It's true enough that I reject MN as a method for exploring morality--but you agreed with me on that one, iirc. . . .My statement about questioning the application of MN to history is comparable to questioning the application of cooking to camping.

Well then, what problems do you see for science using MN to determine historical accuracy?

Already did that. Where were you?
When the forensic specialists suggest that a human agent was responsible for potentially criminal act X, they are limiting their own application of science (finding moral guilt) and assuming intelligence.

Now you're conflating two legal ideas: physically responsible and morally responsible. Forensic scientists focus on the former, medical doctors and juries focus on the latter. Again, why must a forensic scientist stop using MN to determine that a human was physical responsible for a crime?

That MN is a dead-end as a be-all end-all gold standard for the practice of science (destroying the purpose of science, and undermining rationality at its very base). I thought that I was clear on that; I'd dig up past quotations of myself if I thought that would help.

Why does MN undermine rationality and prevent science from finding accurate answers?

That's been explained, albeit not exhaustively. You're free to continue to question what I wrote on the topic, but I'm not justifying the claim again from scratch until you wrestle cogently with what I've already presented.

LOL, when asked to support your assertion, you refuse claiming that I haven't thought about it enough. I suspect that you can't defend your assertion and are trying to obscure that.

That's another straw man. "Supernaturalism" does not reject naturalistic causes. It simply adds the possibility of supernatural ones.

Follow the logic. If naturalism is not enough to explain an event, and supernaturalism is needed, then the explaination that supernaturalism provides must be specific to supernaturalism and not found in naturalism. The only type of explaination, for which that is true, is a supernatural one.

Defining "supernatural" or "intelligence" in terms of either methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism should explain what either is with respect to those categories.
Obviously, I would think.

Well the relationship between "supernatural" and "natural" has already been explained, that should be clear enough from my previous posts. A naturalistic defination of "intellegence" has also been provided. (You don't see any appeals to supernatural; do you?) If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world, then you need to read some neurobiology literature.

If killing a rival queen bee isn't punishment, then what is it?
If tossing drones out of the hive isn't punishment, then what is it?
If killing an ant who came back to the colony with the wrong colony "smell" isn't punishment, then what is it?

If you offer an explanation of "punishment" that imports the notion of morality into the scenario, then you're just begging the question.

You still haven't read it carefully. You have to determine what actions draw punishment from the group.

Nice try, but the "state of matter" you were when you did "moral" action X was, in turn, caused by preceding states of matter, and so on. Quantum indeterminacy does nothing to change that, btw, unless you take certain unpredictable quantum events to be you--and even then you're arguably wrong.

Yeah so what? Remember you allow supernatural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your sprit can still be involved. That is no different then allowing natural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your natural form is still involved. You seem to have a problem with naturalism because you see it as deterministic, which it is not. Yet any deterministic nature of supernaturalism doesn't bother you. You can't form an argument with such logical hypocricy.

The latter is true, and the former is untrue (and qualifies as an unsupported assertion or an if/then fallacy).

How so? Even if you think that my sprit is responsible, demons could still have manipulated your senses and thinking ability, such that you would come to such a false conclusion. Under supernaturalism, there is no way to determine the accuracy of anything since supernatural causes can neither be tested nor falisfied.

Epoetker

March 2nd 2003, 05:13 PM

Why does MN undermine rationality and prevent science from finding accurate answers?

When the cause is not natural, it will not find it. Therefore science concerns itself as much as humanly possible with natural, observable, repeatable phenomena.

Yeah so what? Remember you allow supernatural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your sprit can still be involved. That is no different then allowing natural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your natural form is still involved.

Would 'insanity' fall under 'responsibility' for 'natural causes?' It does seem to change the punishment, which it need not do under a naturalistic model. Under that model, one may as well remove both the insane and the morally responsible; indeed one might remove the insane more readily because his genetics are probably not conducive to the naturalistic fitness of the species.
:nc:

You seem to have a problem with naturalism because you see it as deterministic, which it is not. Yet any deterministic nature of supernaturalism doesn't bother you. You can't form an argument with such logical hypocricy.

Supernaturalism deterministic? Even the Calvinists would readily eviscerate you on that count. Even if it were true, it isn't so much the fact of determinism as the type of determinism. If both philosophies are truly deterministic, which would be better-the determinism of an all-concerned deity, or the determination of complete quantum randomity? At least the determinism of the former repeatedly claims that free will somehow exists, and that punishment for abusing it is sanctioned and approved.

How so? Even if you think that my sprit is responsible, demons could still have manipulated your senses and thinking ability, such that you would come to such a false conclusion. Under supernaturalism, there is no way to determine the accuracy of anything since supernatural causes can neither be tested nor falisfied.

If you're going to be so all-consuming in your allowance of supernatural disqualifiers, you might as well ascribe the same to naturalistic ones. Just because a phenomena has been repeatedly observed doesn't mean that some other yet unobserved natural phenomena hasn't been fudging the available data. After all, science has no particular defense against that type of infinite reduction, other than the cherished assumptions and first principles attributable to either random mutation and natural selection or divine writing. Or a combination of both; a truly wide-ranging yet entirely feasible possibility.

RufusAtticus

March 2nd 2003, 05:26 PM

03-02-2003 @ 09:28 AM
Socrates:

Why don't you actually READ this source?! :doh: It is NOT because YECs deny intelligent design, but because the IDM doesn't go far enough and identify this designer, and also because pure ID fails to take the Fall into account.

Actually because YECs insist on including the Fall, they don't believe in intelligent design. They believe in Fall design.

Yes, I did, unlike you with AiG's fair assessment of the IDM. But you just prove my point: that you just rule out ID from consideration as "science" because of your materialistic bigotry.

So you think that science should entertain supernatural explaination? By what method do you suggest that it investigate such explainations? Faith won't work because under faith everything is true and everthing is false. Science has been so successful by not entertaining supernatural explainations. Yet now that it gives you answers that you don't like, you want to change it. Sounds kind of spoiled to me.

Yes, e.g. Royal Truman, John Mark Reynolds, Paul Nelson.

I've looked on DI's website and couldn't find conformation of this. You wouldn't happen to be able to offer articles that they have written where they make it clear that they are yecs?

As Johnson is the acknowledged leader, it makes sense to trust him. He makes it very clear that IDM is a broad church that can include YECs and OECs.

Sure Johnson tries to say so, but the popular works coming from the IDM say otherwise.

As I said, the hybridisation criterion is in line with the Biblical teaching the things would reproduce "after their kinds". You wanted a criterion for kinds, and I gave you one, so quit whinging.

But your criterion failed. If the ability to hybridization show that creature x and creature y have a common ancestor, but the inability to hybridize does not show that creature x and creature lack a common ancestor, then there is no way for you to claim that because humans don't hybridize with any other creature that they are their own kind. It is only a additive criterion; remember? Furthermore, yec claims are self defeating since you've provided no explaination of why the ability to hybridize is the result of common descent instead of common design.

Why not finish the quote. I.e. if someone replies, "No, but neither were you," the response is "No I wasn't, but we have the record of someone who was.

Again to quote Ham: "Were you there" when the record was written down.

Mr Ham uses this to apply to Creation, but it applies equally well to Jesus Christ's resurrection, attested to by reliable eye witnesses. Conversely, you deny it because you have a dogma against it.

It is rejected as evidence for the same reason that UFO reports, which are more numerous might I add, are rejected as evidence. If eye-witness claims in historical sources are all that are needed to confirm miraculous events, then Romulus is now a god and Vishnu has walked on this earth ten times. Your own argument disproves monotheism, which is not something that you or Ham have realized.

Not at all, since the Bible is reliable historical document.

Assertion sans evidence. If it is so reliable, show me the floodgates in the sky.

If you had your way, all history would be dismissed.

If you had your way, the Trojan war was fought because Paris slighted Hera and Athena.

You've just admitted that you would reject any intelligent designer of life as non-science, so why pretend to be open-minded?

Because I'm asking for evidence for special creation and not for intelligent design. You do know what special creation is don't you? It is concievable that one can present positive evidence for special creation without immediately appealing to supernatural design. Heck, even if you think that I am close-minded you can still offer evidence to convince lurkers. This thread is now some six pages long and still no attempt has been made by you to offer any evidence. If special creation is so supported by the biology on this planet, which creationists like to claim, then there is no reason for you to be stalling like this.

Yes, why, do you believe that crap [reincarnation]?

Well I never said I believe it. But hundreds of millions of Hindus do, for the same reasons you belive in Jesus' resurrection. I suspect that you'd object to them calling your beliefs "crap," so please remember the golden rule. I find it funny that when I provide evidence from Hinduism of what you asked for, your response is to call it "crap." Not a good argument.

Did you bother to follow the argument through? Only then can you try to find a logical fallacy (but if you're just rearranged pond scum, why even trust that your brain can think logically?).

Because I am a human and not pond scum. In fact, pond scum, being algae, is not an ancestor of mine. But then again if you're just rearranged dirt, why even trust that your brain can think logicaly?

I.e. Jesus claimed to be God, He affirmed Genesis Creation and Flood accounts, and predicted that He would rise from the dead in validation of His claims. He did indeed rise and appeared to more than 500 people at once. Thus all His claims are validated.

Your conclusion still does not logically follow. He could have rissen from the dead and still be wrong about things. In fact, He might have intentionally lied about things. Still scripture might not have recorded Him accurately or you might not be interpreting it accurately. Thus your entire argument rests on some unsupported assumptions.

My interpretation of scripture is accurate. Scripture records Jesus accurately. Jesus was resurrected. Jesus is God. God can't be wrong. God can't lie.

You can believe these things because of your faith, but don't expect to be able to use them as a logical arugment.

RufusAtticus

March 2nd 2003, 05:33 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:38 PM
Blake Reas:

What do you want me to discuss? Also for someone on here to give evidence in that manner would take a life time. There are thousands of books that scholars like R.T. France, F.F. Bruce, Meredith Kline etc, etc ,etc have used in defending the truth of Biblical revelation. So to expect someone on a Message board to give that kind of evidence is absurd. I would tell you to check out www.Christian-thinktank.com or www.tektonics.org but to say that those sites have even touched the tip of the Iceberg is a overstatement.

Well it shouldn't be that hard to do. Just find the rare argument for Divine authorship that doesn't rely on faith at anypoint.

No I do not think the Christian Docrtrines are not enough to achieve the verdict of Divine Authorhsip. I believe so because every single time someone like you has tried to make the case against it you either cannot read critically (Farrell Till) or you do so on the grounds that there is not enough evidence as of know so the Bible must be wrong (i.e. the Existence of David, or anything else you can name where the Bible supposedley goes against History)

And I can see a Hindu appologist making the same statements about the Vedas.

We can look at the Hindu Scriptures and see if it makes the claims of itself that scripture does, also does the Vedas claim to be inerrant, Hinduism believes truth is relative to each person so I have a hard time seeing why it would make the claim of being true.

So things are true simply because they say they are? Well then, "this post is true. The Bible lacks any divine authorship." Refute that! :lol:

RufusAtticus

March 2nd 2003, 05:51 PM

03-02-2003 @ 04:13 PM
Epoetker:

When the cause is not natural, it will not find it. Therefore science concerns itself as much as humanly possible with natural, observable, repeatable phenomena.

Correct, and it has been very successful in doing so. Yet creationists and idists want science to cover, supernatural, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomena, simply because they are upset that science can explain things without them.

Would 'insanity' fall under 'responsibility' for 'natural causes?' It does seem to change the punishment, which it need not do under a naturalistic model. Under that model, one may as well remove both the insane and the morally responsible; indeed one might remove the insane more readily because his genetics are probably not conducive to the naturalistic fitness of the species.

Metaphysical naturalism is only a way of view events in our world. Methodological naturalism is a way of investigating events in our world. Neither of these nor their supernatural counterparts dictate the value judgments that we make as a society in desciding punishments.

Supernaturalism deterministic? Even the Calvinists would readily eviscerate you on that count.

Remember I qualified that with "any."

Even if it were true, it isn't so much the fact of determinism as the type of determinism. If both philosophies are truly deterministic, which would be better-the determinism of an all-concerned deity, or the determination of complete quantum randomity? At least the determinism of the former repeatedly claims that free will somehow exists, and that punishment for abusing it is sanctioned and approved.

That of course assume that the all-concerned deity is the one refered to in Christian theology, which is not a requirement of supernaturalism.

If you're going to be so all-consuming in your allowance of supernatural disqualifiers, you might as well ascribe the same to naturalistic ones. Just because a phenomena has been repeatedly observed doesn't mean that some other yet unobserved natural phenomena hasn't been fudging the available data.

But MN would still offer science the tools to determine that such a natural phenomena was present. Remember how Einstein showed that what Newton observed was only a local approximation of a larger natural phenomena. Supernaturalism offers no such ability since it denies that causes of events can be successfully investigated. (There can always be an unknow supernatural force behind the event that we can never discover.)

Captain Ochre

March 3rd 2003, 01:39 AM

03-02-2003 @ 08:24 PM
RufusAtticus:

Well then, what problems do you see for science using MN to determine historical accuracy?

MN assumes that miracles are impossible, has no place for free will or deliberative thought, and assumes that descriptive laws are constant (excepting prior to Planck time--which I guess would be spoken of as supernatural if naturalists could admit that supernatural exists.
Sorry for using the term "supernatural"--it's still an unfortunate term, imo. :smile:

Now you're conflating two legal ideas: physically responsible and morally responsible. Forensic scientists focus on the former, medical doctors and juries focus on the latter. Again, why must a forensic scientist stop using MN to determine that a human was physical responsible for a crime?

1) No, I'm not conflating two ideas. I've been keeping them separate, although my sentence was perhaps ambiguous enough to mislead you. I was referring to the point where "natural" causes are ruled out.
2) Again? When did you first ask why a forensic scientist must stop using MN to determine that a human was physically responsible for a crime?
Through fingerprinting, tissue samples and the like, the physical presence of an organism at the scene of a crime may be established, along with various other details. That's where MN stops because there is no way to establish that a supposed criminal was morally aware or free to act.

Why does MN undermine rationality and prevent science from finding accurate answers?

It doesn't, necessarily (I thought that we had discussed the manner in which theists pioneered MN). Exclusive use of MN for expansion of the human knowledge base leads to absurd conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a "supernatural" beginning). Science itself is a "natural" phenomenon and has unintelligent (via the assumption of naturalism) causes.

LOL, when asked to support your assertion, you refuse claiming that I haven't thought about it enough.

Ah, no. I've already supported the assertion in print, and I refuse to start another explanation from scratch when I've already written stuff to which you could be responding.

I suspect that you can't defend your assertion and are trying to obscure that.

How would refusing to support an assertion obscure the fact that it wasn't supported? Why don't you flatly deny that I've written about it, and we'll see. That would make it worth my while to do the searching for you. :smile:

Follow the logic. If naturalism is not enough to explain an event, and supernaturalism is needed, then the explaination that supernaturalism provides must be specific to supernaturalism and not found in naturalism. The only type of explaination, for which that is true, is a supernatural one.

Exactly, but the point you're glossing over is that the supernaturalist is allowed to go through the steps of MN (much like the theistic pioneers of science) prior to positing any supernatural explanation.
The rub for the philosophical naturalist is that if a supernatural event occurred, it could never be admitted. The doctrine of PN asserts that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. Admitting an exception undercuts the philosophical foundation.

Well the relationship between "supernatural" and "natural" has already been explained, that should be clear enough from my previous posts.

You have avoided being specific about it, afaics. The upshot of naturalism is that the supernatural does not exist; you haven't made that admission, that I've noticed.

A naturalistic defination of "intellegence" has also been provided. (You don't see any appeals to supernatural; do you?)

Ghosts are apparitions of dead people. Sometimes they move things around at night.
Do you like my naturalistic explanation of "ghosts" (I didn't appeal to the supernatural, did I?)?

If you want to make it look like you don't have a clue as to how to answer, be my guest.

If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world, then you need to read some neurobiology literature.

That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it. I stay abreast of what Dennett and Pinker are up to, among others. If you will forgive my tendency to understate for emphasis, they don't exactly make great cases for deliberative thought.
http://world.std.com/~twc/horgan.htm

You still haven't read it carefully. You have to determine what actions draw punishment from the group.

If you think that the distinction is significant, it is up to you to explain why.
Why, for instance, isn't coming home to the anthill after a hard day's work with the wrong smell an action?
You're simply ignoring the counterexamples, afaics.

(on culpability for action reminded RA of the infinite regress of cause & effect that removes efficient causation from humans (among others)

Yeah so what? Remember you allow supernatural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your sprit can still be involved. That is no different then allowing natural causes to drive you to a crime and you are still responsible for the crime because your natural form is still involved.

It's quite a bit different, actually. It's the difference between a free act and an exactingly coerced one. Within supernaturalism, a person may decide (with himself as the mover) to read a book. The naturalist, in contrast, is moved to read the book by previous states of matter. The naturalist is a puppet moved by molecules, and the supernaturalist is the captain of his fate (at least to some extent).

You seem to have a problem with naturalism because you see it as deterministic, which it is not. Yet any deterministic nature of supernaturalism doesn't bother you. You can't form an argument with such logical hypocricy.

Naturalism is deterministic, just not in the clockwork universe sense (owing to quantum indeterminacy).
There is no deterministic nature of supernaturalism, per se. You just made it up to feel better (tu quoque salve).

How so? Even if you think that my sprit is responsible, demons could still have manipulated your senses and thinking ability, such that you would come to such a false conclusion. Under supernaturalism, there is no way to determine the accuracy of anything since supernatural causes can neither be tested nor falisfied.

And again you're glossing over the fact that we have established that (supernaturalist) theists pioneered the methodological naturalism that underpins modern science. The supernaturalist doesn't embrace supernaturalism exclusively, as the naturalist does his naturalism.
You're sliding away on your slippery slope fallacy.

Socrates

March 3rd 2003, 06:03 AM

RufusAtticus

Your conclusion still does not logically follow. He could have rissen from the dead and still be wrong about things. But if He rose from the dead, then how can this be explained apart from divine intervention? So why would God raise a liar? I prefer to trust Jesus rather than fallible claims about the past. And being raised from the dead is a good REASON to trust Him!

In fact, He might have intentionally lied about things.The one who is "the way, the TRUTH and the life"??

Still scripture might not have recorded Him accurately The benefit of the doubt should be given to the documents rather than the critic. Especially when th authors give every impression of both honesty and ability.
or you might not be interpreting it accurately. Then demonstrate this from the grammatical and historical context. I have provided the passages, and also seen how people try to squirm out of believing that they mean what they say.

Thus your entire argument rests on some unsupported assumptions.Not at all unsupported as shown above. But you wouldn't know logical support if it kicked you in the teeth, since you raise nonsensical reincarnational claims as if they have even 1% of the evidential support of Jesus's resurrection.

My interpretation of scripture is accurate.
Scripture records Jesus accurately.
Jesus was resurrected.
Jesus is God.
God can't be wrong.
God can't lie.

You can believe these things because of your faith, but don't expect to be able to use them as a logical arugment.I can use any proposition I like as an axiom from which to draw theorems. Some of the above I have shown are supportable from history, and others can be classed as "properly basic beliefs", e.g. God can't lie or make mistakes. They make far more sense than your blind faith in fallible scientists who were not there!

How about sparing us all from any more village atheist arguments?

ItalianGold

March 3rd 2003, 06:54 AM

Socrates:

Why it is that YEC's in general have little praise for scientific method? You oppose it on the grounds that it has rules for its methodology which exclude anything supernatural. You claim that is their stubborn priori. You are correct. But it's their game so they get to make the rules. Science does NOT take supernatural creation or any religious doctrine into account.

They will NOT consider the Bible a resource when they are defining terms, proposing theories, growing a culture in a petri dish, solving for x, looking at new data from the Hubble telescope or trying to cure cancer. A 6 day creation story will NOT play a part in a scientist's approach to deep sea exploration, geological field-work, genome research or particle physics. That is the nature of science.

Religion is NOT science. It is a world view, a philosophy, many things NOT scientific. It doesn't have to be. That's why there is no such thing as "creation science." It is folly for YEC's to label scientific method as the enemy. It is just another way of trying to make sense of the world. I understand their need to refute some aspects of evolution, anthropology, archeology, palentology, etc. but that cannot be accomplished by calling themselves "creation scientists." It makes as much sense for scientists to start reworking Genesis and calling themselves "evolution theologists."

Vorkosigan

March 3rd 2003, 07:22 AM

[QUOTE][i]03-03-2003 @ 05:39 AM
MN assumes that miracles are impossible, has no place for free will or deliberative thought, and assumes that descriptive laws are constant (excepting prior to Planck time--which I guess would be spoken of as supernatural if naturalists could admit that supernatural exists.

The first is true, the second is of course true ("Free Will" is a theological term), and the third is absurd. Thought of all types is well represented in many studies of human cognition. Of course it assumes that natural laws are constant everywhere and at all times.

Through fingerprinting, tissue samples and the like, the physical presence of an organism at the scene of a crime may be established, along with various other details. That's where MN stops because there is no way to establish that a supposed criminal was morally aware or free to act.

Of course not. Determining whether a person is a moral agent depends on definitions that are largely value-driven. You might be able to design MN-driven tests to determine this or that trait, but whether such-and-such a trait is "moral" is determined by some other value.

conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a "supernatural" beginning).

Not at all.

Exactly, but the point you're glossing over is that the supernaturalist is allowed to go through the steps of MN (much like the theistic pioneers of science) prior to positing any
supernatural explanation.

What's the rule for when we make the supernatural turn?

The rub for the philosophical naturalist is that if a supernatural event occurred, it could never be admitted.

Wrong again. I can think of numerous miracles which might demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. MN could easily be falsified.

The doctrine of PN asserts that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. Admitting an exception undercuts the philosophical foundation.

Yes, but methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two different things.

You have avoided being specific about it, afaics. The upshot of naturalism is that the supernatural does not exist; you haven't made that admission, that I've noticed.

What kind of naturalism, methodological or metaphysical? How do you account for the fact that so much progress in understanding the world has been made since people stopped assuming that supernatural entities ran the show?

That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it. I stay abreast of what Dennett and Pinker are up to, among others. If you will forgive my tendency to understate for emphasis, they don't exactly make great cases for deliberative thought.

What is "deliberative thought?" Can you give us a useful definition and show where Pinker et al fall short?

It's quite a bit different, actually. It's the difference between a free act and an exactingly coerced one. Within supernaturalism, a person may decide (with himself as the mover) to read a book. The naturalist, in contrast, is moved to read the book by previous states of matter. The naturalist is a puppet moved by molecules, and the supernaturalist is the captain of his fate (at least to some extent).

Godbot or chembot, that's some depressing world you live in. Maybe there are other alternatives you should consider.

There is no deterministic nature of supernaturalism, per se.

Ah, so God has no plan.

The supernaturalist doesn't embrace supernaturalism exclusively, as the naturalist does his naturalism.

The problem with that would be...????

Vorkosigan

Socrates

March 3rd 2003, 07:58 AM

Italian Pyrite once more showed his pathetic ignorance, and unwillingness to bother reading what's already been amply discussed on TW :doh::

Why it is that YEC's in general have little praise for scientific method??Why is it that anti-YECs ask LEADING QUESTIONS?! :bonk: You oppose it on the grounds that it has rules for its methodology which exclude anything supernatural. I do no such thing. In fact, I have often cited an which makes it clear that YECs believe excluding the supernatural from real OPERATIONAL science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp).If you'd bothered to understand the points in that article, you wouldn't have wasted all our time. You claim that is their stubborn priori. You are correct. But it's their game so they get to make the rules. I'm a scientist, so quit this ridiculous generalization. And the founders of modern science saw no need to believe in naturalism for ORIGINS. Science does NOT take supernatural creation or any religious doctrine into account. As if you'd know. All you've done is stipulatively defined science as naturalism, then, amazingly, science can't involve the supernatural, even for origins. But it would be a miracle if it could after your self-serving definition.

They will NOT consider the Bible a resource when they are defining terms, proposing theories, growing a culture in a petri dish, solving for x, looking at new data from the Hubble telescope or trying to cure cancer. No, because that is OPERATIONAL science, with which no creationist has a problem. But the Bible is a book of HISTORY, and this SHOULD be taken into account when building models of Earth's PAST. It's sheer folly to ignore eye-witness information just to keep materialistic FAITH.A 6 day creation story will NOT play a part in a scientist's approach to deep sea exploration, geological field-work, genome research or particle physics. That is the nature of science. And neither does evolution from goo to you via the zoo play any part in real operational science.

Religion is NOT science. It is a world view, a philosophy, many things NOT scientific. It doesn't have to be.And that applies to the goo to you theory. That's why there is no such thing as "creation science."And we should just take your word for this? It is folly for YEC's to label scientific method as the enemy.It's folly for anti-YEC bigots to misrepresent what YECs say! It is just another way of trying to make sense of the world. I understand their need to refute some aspects of evolution, anthropology, archeology, palentology, etc. but that cannot be accomplished by calling themselves "creation scientists."I have yet to see you present any scientific proof that goo-to-you is right and creation wrong. It makes as much sense for scientists to start reworking Genesis and calling themselves "evolution theologists."Another boring generalisation about "scientists". :zzz: And there's no need for the evolutionists among us to do so — they have "useful idiots" in the theological cemeteries, oops, I mean seminaries, and on TW, to do that for them.

QED

March 3rd 2003, 08:44 AM

03-03-2003 @ 05:39 AM
Captain Ochre:
MN assumes that miracles are impossible, has no place for free will or deliberative thought, and assumes that descriptive laws are constant (excepting prior to Planck time--which I guess would be spoken of as supernatural if naturalists could admit that supernatural exists.
Sorry for using the term "supernatural"--it's still an unfortunate term, imo. :smile:

You've made the common error of confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Or perhaps not. Perhaps you have made the common mistake of confusing the working assumptions of science with descriptions of the real world. The methodological assumption is that natural events are understandable in terms of natural causes, and that there is not any supernatural interference which prevents us from finding those natural causes. MN assumes that descriptive laws are constant (definition of law), but doesn't rule out the possibility that the descriptions may be a special case of a more general law that is yet undiscovered. Finally, the term "supernatural" would not apply to Planck time any more than it does to Uncertainty in the spacial dimensions, though both lie beyond the grasp of natural science to observe directly, and must (at least in some respects) be considered scientifically unknowable.

Science itself is a "natural" phenomenon and has unintelligent (via the assumption of naturalism) causes.

There is a new thread dealing with the preposterous idea that all natural causes must be unintelligent via methodological naturalism. You have indicated that you accept the idea that forensic science can discern design from accident, so you surely must be aware of this!

Exactly, but the point you're glossing over is that the supernaturalist is allowed to go through the steps of MN (much like the theistic pioneers of science) prior to positing any supernatural explanation.
The rub for the philosophical naturalist is that if a supernatural event occurred, it could never be admitted. The doctrine of PN asserts that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. Admitting an exception undercuts the philosophical foundation.

This is only a problem if a PN is unwilling to admit error in such a case, and if MN or some other, equally reliable method, should be able to demonstrate the occurrence of a supernatural event. MN is incapable of investigating a claim of supernatural occurrence (although it can easily address claims about the natural world tied to a supernaturalistic claim). That leaves us looking for a method besides MN that could reliably detect a supernatural occurrence. Have any ideas?

You have avoided being specific about it, afaics. The upshot of naturalism is that the supernatural does not exist; you haven't made that admission, that I've noticed.

You aren't being clear here: are you talking about methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism. There is a difference, you know!

Ghosts are apparitions of dead people. Sometimes they move things around at night.
Do you like my naturalistic explanation of "ghosts" (I didn't appeal to the supernatural, did I?)?

You also didn't explain them: you merely described them. Worse, you used the ambiguous term "apparition", which could merely mean "appearance of" (from the viewpoint of a single observer) and could merely be a different word for "ghost" - which leaves us wondering what ghosts are. When you explain them, you are likely to offer either a supernaturalistic or a naturalistic cause for the said "appearance", and this causation will likely be either testable or untestable, and scientific or unscientific based on your choice.

And again you're glossing over the fact that we have established that (supernaturalist) theists pioneered the methodological naturalism that underpins modern science. The supernaturalist doesn't embrace supernaturalism exclusively, as the naturalist does his naturalism.

You have pointed out that supernaturalists pioneered methodological naturalism, but haven't seemed to grasp the fact that methodological naturalism and philosophical supernaturalism is completely consistent. I point to Ken Miller (a natural scientist - therefore a methodological naturalist) and say, "see - here is a naturalist that doesn't embrace naturalism exclusively." You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either MN and PS are mutually exclusive or they are not. They are not, so the PS has little complaint that the MN is never PS.

You're sliding away on your slippery slope fallacy.

I don't know about RA, but the reasons for methodological naturalism being a strict rule of science have nothing to do with a slippery slope. They have to do with legitimate methods of inquiry. Reasons:
1) Supernatural causes cannot be tested for
2) (for the worst cases) Attempts to nullify (and throw out)conclusions reached by naturalistic observation using appeals to the supernatural hypothesis (because it "cannot be ruled out") leaves all experiment equally vulnerable, and any scientific result can be thrown out by the same method. If we get to discard the old Earth because the observations that give it to us could also be explained by a supernatural cause that we cannot rule out, then we get to discard gravity because the observations that give it to us could also be explained by a supernatural cause that we cannot rule out.

Pilgrim

March 3rd 2003, 11:06 AM

Remember that this particular forum is not intended to be one for overly strong words and ad hominem attacks. We like lively debate and so let a lot go in the name of passion but if you want to really go at it, please remove the conversation "The Gym" where you can be a little more free to express yourself in strong terms.

Sera Sixwings

March 3rd 2003, 11:15 AM

Thanks, Pilgrim (that sounds funny somehow), but, seriously, I have no desire to be the next person attacked as an ignoramus by this young man! Really, I would be ashamed if my children dealt with things this way.

Pilgrim

March 3rd 2003, 11:25 AM

Let me clarify, that warning was not for a specific poster. I have recieved several complaints from different posters. The warning is a general one as I have noticed that in several of the "evolution vs. creationism posts a spirit that is less than kindly and is less interested in dialogue and conversation than in dogmatic assertion.

Berserker

March 3rd 2003, 11:25 AM

Ohw what did I miss? Oh Socrates got a spanking? http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/fouet.gif
Sweeet about time!

Just playing around :cheers:

Pilgrim

March 3rd 2003, 12:12 PM

Not appropriate Berserker. That comment was not aimed at any poster in particular.

Captain Ochre

March 3rd 2003, 12:35 PM

03-03-2003 @ 11:22 AM
Vorkosigan:

[QUOTE][i]03-03-2003 @ 05:39 AM
MN assumes that miracles are impossible, has no place for free will or deliberative thought, and assumes that descriptive laws are constant (excepting prior to Planck time--which I guess would be spoken of as supernatural if naturalists could admit that supernatural exists.

The first is true, the second is of course true ("Free Will" is a theological term), and the third is absurd. Thought of all types is well represented in many studies of human cognition.

Within naturalism (PN and MN), all "deliberative thought" is caused by something other than the supposed agent (Einstein's internal and external environments conspired to give us what "Einstein" contributed to science). Your claim, Vorko, is understandable but yields an apparent contradiction. We're "intelligent" the way a pinball machine intelligently drains a played ball. The path may be circuitous, but the result is mol inevitable.

conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a &quot;supernatural&quot; beginning).

Not at all.

Because?

Exactly, but the point you're glossing over is that the supernaturalist is allowed to go through the steps of MN (much like the theistic pioneers of science) prior to positing any
supernatural explanation.

What's the rule for when we make the supernatural turn?

There is no hard & fast rule, afaics. "Modern" modern science (to borrow Schaeffer's term) doesn't want any such rule, apparently. "Modern" modern science may be doomed as a paradigm owing to the challenges from postmodernism and ID (quite possibly owing to the former more than the latter). The current dialogue in philosophy of science regarding philosophical underpinnings is a healthy one, imo.
Perhaps the next paradigm will formulate some hard and fast rules.

The rub for the philosophical naturalist is that if a supernatural event occurred, it could never be admitted.

Wrong again. I can think of numerous miracles which might demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. MN could easily be falsified.

Would you like to clarify? I specifically referred to PN, while you're talking about MN, which leaves me a little bit in the dark concerning your intent.

The doctrine of PN asserts that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. Admitting an exception undercuts the philosophical foundation.

Yes, but methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two different things.

Agreed, which is why I typically distinguish between the two when I think it makes a difference.

You have avoided being specific about it, afaics. The upshot of naturalism is that the supernatural does not exist; you haven't made that admission, that I've noticed.

What kind of naturalism, methodological or metaphysical?

Both (metaphysical=philosophical=PN), in this case, though with MN it is solely within the practice of MN where the "supernatural" doesn't exist.

How do you account for the fact that so much progress in understanding the world has been made since people stopped assuming that supernatural entities ran the show?

Improved communication, and proliferation of dedicated study. How do you account for it? :smile:

That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it. I stay abreast of what Dennett and Pinker are up to, among others. If you will forgive my tendency to understate for emphasis, they don't exactly make great cases for deliberative thought.

What is "deliberative thought?" Can you give us a useful definition and show where Pinker et al fall short?

If by "useful definition" means methodologically testable, then no (but that begs our overall question, of course).
"Deliberative thought" is thought moved by the thinker in a significant manner (not to exclude cause & effect input from the environment, which is also a necessity--or close--to real rational thought).

It's quite a bit different, actually. It's the difference between a free act and an exactingly coerced one. Within supernaturalism, a person may decide (with himself as the mover) to read a book. The naturalist, in contrast, is moved to read the book by previous states of matter. The naturalist is a puppet moved by molecules, and the supernaturalist is the captain of his fate (at least to some extent).

Godbot or chembot, that's some depressing world you live in. Maybe there are other alternatives you should consider.

Like what? Aren't you a chembot advocate? Did you also (like RA) gloss over the fact that the ultimate spiritual ("supernatural") cause of my actions could be considered "me" and allow "me" to man the tiller of my thoughts?
If I may insist on the distinction, the chembot option is the only necessarily depressing one.

There is no deterministic nature of supernaturalism, per se.

Ah, so God has no plan.

Red herring, Vorko. Supernaturalism is not necessarily theistic at all, let alone monotheistic. FTM even most Calvinists affirm significance of the will (albeit I couldn't explain it without feeling like there was a contradiction in there somewhere)

The supernaturalist doesn't embrace supernaturalism exclusively, as the naturalist does his naturalism.

The problem with that would be...????

... obvious.
The naturalist assumes his conclusion.
Could he be right? Perhaps, but his worldview is hamstrung in several places, afaics (as with his continual inability to justify non-determined reason).

RufusAtticus

March 3rd 2003, 12:35 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:39 AM
Captain Ochre:

1) No, I'm not conflating two ideas. I've been keeping them separate, although my sentence was perhaps ambiguous enough to mislead you. I was referring to the point where "natural" causes are ruled out.
2) Again? When did you first ask why a forensic scientist must stop using MN to determine that a human was physically responsible for a crime?
Through fingerprinting, tissue samples and the like, the physical presence of an organism at the scene of a crime may be established, along with various other details. That's where MN stops because there is no way to establish that a supposed criminal was morally aware or free to act.

You make the same mistake again, conflating physical and moral responsibility. Hint: forensic scientists don't establish moral responsibility only physical responsibility. So where do forensic scientists abandon MN to determine physical responsibility?

Exclusive use of MN for expansion of the human knowledge base leads to absurd conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a "supernatural" beginning).

Nope.

Science itself is a "natural" phenomenon and has unintelligent (via the assumption of naturalism) causes.

Except of course in fields like biology where scientists have to deal with natural intelligences.

Exactly, but the point you're glossing over is that the supernaturalist is allowed to go through the steps of MN (much like the theistic pioneers of science) prior to positing any supernatural explanation.

And if you look at the modern creationists and idists, they abandon MN not when it can't provide an answer, but when it provides an answer they don't like. That is why it's pseudoscience.

You have avoided being specific about it, afaics.
What can be more specific than "supernatural = above natural?"

Ghosts are apparitions of dead people. Sometimes they move things around at night.
Do you like my naturalistic explanation of "ghosts" (I didn't appeal to the supernatural, did I?)?

Yes you did, then again I could only be imagining the word "apparitions" in your sentance.

That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it. I stay abreast of what Dennett and Pinker are up to, among others. If you will forgive my tendency to understate for emphasis, they don't exactly make great cases for deliberative thought.

Please then point me to the neurobiology literature that explains intelligence using the supernatural. Remember that your statment is in response to "If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world. . . ." Thus, if I am not understanding the literature, then the literature should be saying that intellegence can't be explained by natural causes. I'd really like to see such literature, if it exists.

If you think that the distinction is significant, it is up to you to explain why.
Why, for instance, isn't coming home to the anthill after a hard day's work with the wrong smell an action?

Having the wrong smell signals that the ant is not a member of the group. Thus they respond as if the ant is an invader. If human culture teaches us anything, morals are only applicable to treating individuals within your own group.

It's quite a bit different, actually. It's the difference between a free act and an exactingly coerced one. Within supernaturalism, a person may decide (with himself as the mover) to read a book. The naturalist, in contrast, is moved to read the book by previous states of matter. The naturalist is a puppet moved by molecules, and the supernaturalist is the captain of his fate (at least to some extent).

But nothing in naturalism prevents people from making decisions for themselves. Hint: people are made up of molecules. In your view, what supernatual component is necessary for humans to make decisions? Furthermore how can you determine whether an individual chose to read a book himself or was done so by a divine puppet master?

Naturalism is deterministic, just not in the clockwork universe sense (owing to quantum indeterminacy).

Naturalism is not determinisitc since nature is a stocastic process.

There is no deterministic nature of supernaturalism, per se. You just made it up to feel better (tu quoque salve).

What does supernaturalism add that prevents the world from being deterministic? Omnipotent gods that can control nature at their whim and drive people to do things they wouldn't normally do? Gods that have a plan for the world and can determine the outcome of sporting events?

Captain Ochre

March 3rd 2003, 01:03 PM

03-03-2003 @ 04:35 PM
RufusAtticus:

You make the same mistake again, conflating physical and moral responsibility. Hint: forensic scientists don't establish moral responsibility only physical responsibility. So where do forensic scientists abandon MN to determine physical responsibility?

You should try reading what I write.

Nope.

Devastating counterargument noted.
I concede the point to you. :sarcasm:

Except of course in fields like biology where scientists have to deal with natural intelligences.

Well, you're not at all addressing what I wrote, but I'd like to hear about "natural intelligence" especially if it's an attempt to make it other than determined by preceding (unintelligent) states of matter. Citation?

And if you look at the modern creationists and idists, they abandon MN not when it can't provide an answer, but when it provides an answer they don't like. That is why it's pseudoscience.

It's "pseudoscience" if you take for granted that working outside of methodological naturalism (and therefore philosophical naturalism) isn't science--which begs the question.
And I must have missed, btw, the assuredly correct natural explanation for abiogenesis along with the empirical evidence for infinite bubble-origin universes which make one with life inevitable despite any apparent long odds.

What can be more specific than "supernatural = above natural?"

More later; the text RA seems to be responding to seems contextually denuded, and I don't have time to go back & dig up the context further back at the moment.

Blake Reas

March 3rd 2003, 01:46 PM

03-02-2003 @ 09:33 PM
RufusAtticus:

[quote]Well it shouldn't be that hard to do. Just find the rare argument for Divine authorship that doesn't rely on faith at anypoint.

Hmmm... give me one point with in evolutionary theory where EVERYTHING is not based on some sort of speculation. Every assertion you make is based on some degree of faith, for instance getting in a car you have faith you are not going to die. The Historian has faith that his historical theory is correct et. etc etc Faith is an essential element to life. You have Faith that God does not exist, surely you do have some rational grounds for thinking that (I would disput that) but still at its core you do not know for sure.
So in one aspect I think the only argument that comes close to an argument for divine authority is the Transcendental Argument which I would refer you to TheFiveSolas for that.

And I can see a Hindu appologist making the same statements about the Vedas.

Actually most Hindus that I know of would not worry about such questions. They do not really even have a view of truth. They think all religions are valid. You need to find another religion to use.

So things are true simply because they say they are? Well then, "this post is true. The Bible lacks any divine authorship." Refute that! :lol: :bonk:

No please do not shift the burden of proof. You are the one who says the Bible is not inspired. You prove that it isn't.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

RufusAtticus

March 3rd 2003, 03:03 PM

03-03-2003 @ 05:03 AM
Socrates:

But if He rose from the dead, then how can this be explained apart from divine intervention? So why would God raise a liar?

Now you're getting ahead of yourself by assuming that God was responsible.

I prefer to trust Jesus rather than fallible claims about the past. And being raised from the dead is a good REASON to trust Him!

Don't you see the contradiction? Jesus being resurrected is a fallible claim about past, so you can't say that you pick that over fallible claims about the past.

The one who is "the way, the TRUTH and the life"??

There is nothing to prevent a liar from saying that he is not. You have faith that Jesus is the way and the truth, yet faith is not evidence.

The benefit of the doubt should be given to the documents rather than the critic. Especially when th authors give every impression of both honesty and ability.

The same could be said for the Vedas, the Homeric Epics, the Book of Mormon, the Apocrypha, and many other writtings. Do you think that is enough to support them?

Then demonstrate this from the grammatical and historical context. I have provided the passages, and also seen how people try to squirm out of believing that they mean what they say.

First show me the floodgates in the sky.

But you wouldn't know logical support if it kicked you in the teeth

And I doubt you even know how to make a post without at least one ad hominem.

since you raise nonsensical reincarnational claims as if they have even 1% of the evidential support of Jesus's resurrection.

Why are reincarnation claims nonsensical but Jesus being resurrection is not? What ever arguments you want to levy against Hindu claims, they can levy against yours. For example:
"since you raise the nonsensical Christ resurrection claim as if they have even 1% of the evidential support of reincarnation."

I can use any proposition I like as an axiom from which to draw theorems.

But if the axioms are not born out in the real world then your theorems have no basis.

God can't lie or make mistakes.
Why not, I though he was omnipotent?

RufusAtticus

March 3rd 2003, 03:09 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:46 PM
Blake Reas:

Hmmm... give me one point with in evolutionary theory where EVERYTHING is not based on some sort of speculation. Every assertion you make is based on some degree of faith, for instance getting in a car you have faith you are not going to die.

Are you seriously saying that your faith that Jesus is the way to salvation is as trivial as faith that there is not a bomb in my car? All the Christians I know, including my wife and my advisor would have a problem with that.

You have Faith that God does not exist, surely you do have some rational grounds for thinking that (I would disput that) but still at its core you do not know for sure.

No I simply don't have faith that God exists. Lack of faith and faith in lack are not the same thing. Surely you don't consider my lack of faith to be at all comparative to your faith do you?

Actually most Hindus that I know of would not worry about such questions. They do not really even have a view of truth. They think all religions are valid. You need to find another religion to use.

That might be true in the US, but I think you need to look at Indian politics, specifically the Hindu Nationalist Party.

No please do not shift the burden of proof. You are the one who says the Bible is not inspired. You prove that it isn't.

Read the thread again. I have not shifted the burden of proof. Socrates first made the claim that the Bible had divine authorship. He needs to support that. I don't need to support my contention that I have not seen any evidence that it is. Until evidence is provided otherwise that withstands scrutinity, I'll assume the null hypothesis that the Bible is like anyother book: written by man. You can have faith that it had divine authorship, but having faith and having evidence are two different things.

Blake Reas

March 3rd 2003, 03:51 PM

03-03-2003 @ 07:09 PM
RufusAtticus:

Are you seriously saying that your faith that Jesus is the way to salvation is as trivial as faith that there is not a bomb in my car? All the Christians I know, including my wife and my advisor would have a problem with that.

Are you that hard headed? I was drawing a comparison and making the case that EVERYTHING you do has a CERTAIN degree of faith to it. Do I have to draw it out in Crayon for you like most skeptics?

No I simply don't have faith that God exists. Lack of faith and faith in lack are not the same thing. Surely you don't consider my lack of faith to be at all comparative to your faith do you?

That is nice you just redefined the ATheism like all atheist do when they try to get off the hook.
Atheism- The philosophicalk position that denies the reality of the God of THeism or other divine beings. Handbook of the Philosophy of Religion IVP.

That might be true in the US, but I think you need to look at Indian politics, specifically the Hindu Nationalist Party.

No it is in cases there also they are what you would call Eastern Pantheistic Monist. I do know that there are certain sects that have varying beliefs. I would also test there claims just like I would do the Bible.

Read the thread again. I have not shifted the burden of proof. Socrates first made the claim that the Bible had divine authorship. He needs to support that. I don't need to support my contention that I have not seen any evidence that it is. Until evidence is provided otherwise that withstands scrutinity, I'll assume the null hypothesis that the Bible is like anyother book: written by man. You can have faith that it had divine authorship, but having faith and having evidence are two different things.

Ok I agree here I jumped in the conversation when it had all ready started, but I was viewing it between you and I. ( This is my fault). Still it is ridicoulous to say that I must give you every strand of evidence for it to be true. That is like saying that you must know everything about the Universe to say that God does not exist. I would never ask you that because it is impossible, likewise it would be impossible for me to state every argument against the Bible and then turn around and refute every single one of them! That is absurd, you can only come to conclusions based on limited knowledge when it comes to subjects so vast.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

P.S. Thanks for keeping the conversation!:cheers:

Socratism

March 3rd 2003, 04:34 PM

Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.

Rather trivial and disingenious definitions, particularly since evolutionists can not seem to be able to give a clear definition of a "species". ;)

(nor "evolution" nor "population" either now that I think of it)

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 04:42 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:34 PM
Socratism:

Rather trivial and disingenious definitions, particularly since evolutionists can not seem to be able to give a clear definition of a "species". ;)

(nor "evolution" nor "population" either now that I think of it)

Perhaps that's because you haven't "thought about it". Review the Speciation FAQ at talk.origins for an explanation of why your claims are baseless.

Socratism

March 3rd 2003, 06:37 PM

03-03-2003 @ 03:42 PM
Sauron:

Perhaps that's because you haven't "thought about it". Review the Speciation FAQ at talk.origins for an explanation of why your claims are baseless.

Actually it is possible I have "thought about it" in more depth than you. Here is how talk.origins defines species.

Species
* (n) 1. Highly controversial term given a variety of definitions by biologists. Currently, the Biological Species Concept (BSC) is widely popular: Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr, 1963, Animal Species and Evolution). Unfortunately, a criticism leveled at the BSC is its inapplicability to the normal mode of taxonomic research. 2. The group beyond which microevolution(2) cannot be shown to operate. [conn., SciCre, TAE]

I have been told on another forum by people who claim they teach evolution that the BSC is out of favor with those in the know.

Perhaps this is because so many creatures considered to be separate species have been found to be able to interbreed?

ItalianGold

March 4th 2003, 12:30 AM

Socrates:
Italian Pyrite once more showed his pathetic ignorance, and unwillingness to bother reading what's already been amply discussed on TW :

Me: As you are well aware, there is a great deal of information on this web. And if you follow links, we're talking about volumes. Now, perhaps anti-evolution bigotry is your avocation, but I've only begun to grapple with some of these issues. It is certainly not my intention to waste anyone's time. Mea culpa. How about showing some patience?

Me previously: Why it is that YEC's in general have little praise for scientific method?

Socrates:?Why is it that anti-YECs ask LEADING QUESTIONS?!

Me previously: You oppose it on the grounds that it has rules for its methodology which exclude anything supernatural.

Socrates: I do no such thing. In fact, I have often cited an which makes it clear that YECs believe excluding the supernatural from real OPERATIONAL science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.If you'd bothered to understand the points in that article, you wouldn't have wasted all our time.

Me: I don't know which article you are referencing. Perhaps you'll be good enough to clarify.

Me previously: You claim that is their stubborn priori. You are correct. But it's their game so they get to make the rules.

Socrates: I'm a scientist, so quit this ridiculous generalization. And the founders of modern science saw no need to believe in naturalism for ORIGINS.

Me: I have heard you state flatly that evolutionists' refusal to explore the supernatural was somehow offensive to you. And I know you are overly fond of your little catch phrases like "goo to you via the zoo" :zzz: but in the context of my inquiry, it has no meaning. I do not subscribe to a soul-less universe. I am quite convinced that the supernatural has a place in all aspects of life.
Me previously:Science does NOT take supernatural creation or any religious doctrine into account.

Socrates: As if you'd know. All you've done is stipulatively defined science as naturalism, then, amazingly, science can't involve the supernatural, even for origins. But it would be a miracle if it could after your self-serving definition.

Me: Do you have a definition of scientific method which would allow for the supernatural? Do you honestly believe that religion ought to have a place in chemistry, biology, anthropology, etc.? Perhaps there ought to be a new inquiry branch..."Theory of Origins"

Me previously: They will NOT consider the Bible a resource when they are defining terms, proposing theories, growing a culture in a petri dish, solving for x, looking at new data from the Hubble telescope or trying to cure cancer.

Socrates: No, because that is OPERATIONAL science, with which no creationist has a problem. But the Bible is a book of HISTORY, and this SHOULD be taken into account when building models of Earth's PAST. It's sheer folly to ignore eye-witness information just to keep materialistic FAITH.

Oh! I am delighted to hear that creationists have no problem with...what was it..."operational" science? I am unsure which branches of science this includes, but I would not be surprised if you automatically excluded anything to do with the theory of evolution, despite the fact that most proponents do NOT subscribe to your deliberately misleading reference to GTE which is an OLD definition of evolution...1960 I believe. Now with regard to accepting the Bible as history, there is little historical content in it (of a NON-Dogmatic nature) which cannot be corroborated by outside sources. For example, unless and until there is some independent evidence to support 40 years of wandering in the desert, it will not be included in history texts. Surely even you can understand why.

Me previously: A 6 day creation story will NOT play a part in a scientist's approach to deep sea exploration, geological field-work, genome research or particle physics. That is the nature of science.

Socrates: And neither does evolution from goo to you via the zoo play any part in real operational science.
See above for reason GTE isn't a priori for evolution.

Me previously: Religion is NOT science. It is a world view, a philosophy, many things NOT scientific. It doesn't have to be.

Socrates: And that applies to the goo to you theory.
Do I detect a concession here? Why do you keep harping about your misleading goo2U thingy. No one is even talking about that.

Me previously: That's why there is no such thing as "creation science."

Socrates: And we should just take your word for this?

Of course not, but surely you don't suggest we take YOUR word for it that "creation science" is not an oxymoron?

Me previously: It is folly for YEC's to label scientific method as the enemy.

Socrates: It's folly for anti-YEC bigots to misrepresent what YECs say! (there's that nasty b-word again)

How did I mis-represent a YEC tenent?

Me previously: It is just another way of trying to make sense of the world. I understand their need to refute some aspects of evolution, anthropology, archeology, palentology, etc. but that cannot be accomplished by calling themselves "creation scientists."

I have yet to see you present any scientific proof that goo-to-you is right and creation wrong.

HUH? :huh: :huh: :huh: Why would I want to espouse something I don't believe in? Why indeed are you even talking about me proving anything? My whole point is that I think science will eventually come up with the conclusion that intelligence flows all through the universe. I just don't think that the SCIENTIFIC answers are in Genesis, and I'm at a loss as to why you even want to posit a creation science, which is a contradiction in terms. If any of the self proclaimed CS groups were doing any serious field work it might help. But it appears their time and money is spent refuting mainstream science and tap-dancing to stay ahead of the challenges to Genesis... instead of searching for signs of intelligence in the universe

Me previously: It makes as much sense for scientists to start reworking Genesis and calling themselves "evolution theologists."

Socrates: Another boring generalisation about "scientists".
No, that's a good term..."evolution theologists" and I plan to use it more.:tongue:

Socrates: And there's no need for the evolutionists among us to do so — they have "useful idiots" in the theological cemeteries, oops, I mean seminaries, and on TW, to do that for them.

By "evolutionists among us" I assume you mean creationists. Do you find it helpful to denigrate and belittle EVERYONE who disagrees with you, including your Christian family?

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 12:44 AM

03-03-2003 @ 02:37 PM
Socratism:

Actually it is possible I have "thought about it" in more depth than you. Here is how talk.origins defines species.

No, it isn't. Here is how T.O. defines it, in the reference that I specifically pointed you at:

.0 Species Definitions A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

2.1 The Folk Concept of Species Naturalists around the world have found that the individual plants and animals they see can be mentally grouped into a number of taxa, in which the individuals are basically alike. In societies that are close to nature, each taxon is given a name. These sorts of folk taxonomies have two features in common. One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatability and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988).

2.2 The Biological Species Concept Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as

"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as

"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)
It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.
The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as

"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with :-). (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.
2.2.2 Criticisms of the Biological Species Concept There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC. (Cracraft 1989, Donoghue 1985, Levin 1979, Mishler and Donoghue 1985, Sokal and Crovello 1970).

The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species (McCourt and Hoshaw 1990, Mishler 1985).

There is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to (Budd and Mishler 1990). Examples of taxa which are obligately asexual include bdelloid rotifers, euglenoid flagellates, some members of the Oocystaceae (coccoid green algae), chloromonad flagellates and some araphid pennate diatoms. Asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known. Obligately asexual populations of Daphnia are found in some arctic lakes. The BSD can be of no help in delimiting species in these groups. A similar situation is found in the prokaryotes. Though genes can be exchanged among bacteria by a number of mechanisms, sexuality, as defined in eukaryotes, in unknown in the prokaryotes. One popular microbiology text doesn't even mention the BSC (Brock and Madigan 1988).

The applicability of the BSC is also questionable in those land plants that primarily self-pollinate (Cronquist 1988).

A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical. The following example will illustrate the problem.

Here in Wisconsin we have about 16,000 lakes and ponds. A common (and tasty ;-)) inhabitant of many of these bodies of water is the bluegill sunfish. Let's ask a question -- do all these bluegill populations constitute one species or several morphologically similar species? Assume that only 1,000 of these lakes and ponds contain bluegills. Assuming that each lake constitutes a population, an investigator would have to perform 499,500 separate crosses to determine whether the populations could interbreed. But to do this right we should really do reciprocal crosses (i.e. cross a male from population A with a female from population B and a male from population B with a female from population A). This brings the total crosses we need to make up to 999,000. But don't we also need to make replicates? Having three replicates brings the total to 2,997,000 crosses. In addition, you just can't put a pair of bluegills into a bucket and expect them to mate. In nature, male bluegills excavate and defend nests in large mating colonies. After the nests are excavated the females come in to the colony to spawn. Here the females choose among potential mates. This means that we would need to simulate a colony in our test. Assume that 20 fish would be sufficient for a single test. We find that we would need about 60,000,000 fish to test whether all these populations are members of the same species! (We would also need a large number of large aquaria to run these crosses in). But bluegills are not restricted to Wisconsin...

I could go on, but I think the point is now obvious. The fact of the matter is that the time, effort and money needed to delimit species using the BSC is, to say the least, prohibitive.

Another reason why using the BSC to delimit species is impractical is that breeding experiments can often be inconclusive. Interbreeding in nature can be heavily influenced by variable and unstable environmental factors. (Any angler who has waited for the bluegills to get on to the beds can confirm this one). If we can't duplicate natural conditions of breeding, a failure to breed doesn't mean that the critters can't (or don't) interbreed in the wild. The difficulties that were encountered in breeding pandas in captivity illustrate this. In addition, experimentally showing that A doesn't interbreed with B doesn't preclude both interbreeding with C. This gets even more complicated in groups that don't have nice, straightforward sexes. An example of this occurs in a number of protozoan species. These critters have numerous mating types. There can be very complicated compatability of mating types. Finally, breeding experiments can be inconclusive because actual interbreeding and gene flow among phenetically similar, genetically compatible local populations is often more restricted than the BSC would suggest (Cronquist 1988).

In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated.

Another criticism of the BSC comes from the cladistic school of taxonomy (e.g. Donoghue 1985). The cladists argue that sexual compatibility is a primitive trait. Organisms that are no longer closely related may have retained the ability for genetic recombination with each other through sex. This is not a derived characteristic. Because of this it is invalid for defining monophyletic taxa.

A final problem with the BSC is that groups that do not occur together in time cannot be evaluated. We simply cannot know whether two such groups would interbreed freely if they came together under natural conditions. This makes it impossible to delimit the boundaries of extinct groups using the BSC. One question will illustrate the problem. Do Homo erectus and Homo sapiens represent the same or different species? This question is unresolvable using the biological definition.

Several alternatives to the biological species concept have been suggested. I will discuss two.

2.3 The Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept Cronquist (1988) proposed an alternative to the BSC that he called a "renewed practical species definition". He defines species as

"... the smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct and distinguishable by ordinary means."
Three comments must be made about this definition. First, "ordinary means" includes any techniques that are widely available, cheap and relatively easy to apply. These means will differ among different groups of organisms. For example, to a botanist working with angiosperms ordinary means might mean a hand lens; to an entomologist working with beetles it might mean a dissecting microscope; to a phycologist working with diatoms it might mean a scanning electron microscope. What means are ordinary are determined by what is needed to examine the organisms in question.
Second, the requirement that species be persistently distinct implies a certain degree of reproductive continuity. This is because phenetic discontinuity between groups cannot persist in the absence of a barrier to interbreeding.

Third, this definition places a heavy, though not exclusive, emphasis on morphological characters. It also recognizes phenetic characters such as chromosome number, chromosome morphology, cell ultrastructure, secondary metabolites, habitats and other features.

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 12:45 AM

03-03-2003 @ 02:37 PM
Socratism:

Actually it is possible I have "thought about it" in more depth than you. Here is how talk.origins defines species.

Second part:

2.4 Phylogenetic Species Concepts There are several phylogenetic species definitions. All of them assert that classifications should reflect the best supported hypotheses of the phylogeny of the organisms. Baum (1992) describes two types of phylogenetic species concepts.

(1) A species is the smallest cluster of organisms that possesses at least one diagnostic character. This character may be morphological, biochemical or molecular and must be fixed in reproductively cohesive units. It is important to realize that this reproductive continuity is not used in the same way as in the BSC. Phylogenetic species may be reproductive communities. Reproductively compatible individuals need not have the diagnostic character of a species. In this case, the individuals need not be conspecific.

(2) A species must be monophyletic and share one or more derived character. There are two meanings to monophyletic (de Queiroz and Donoghue 1988, Nelson 1989). The first defines a monophyletic group as all the descendants of a common ancestor and the ancestor. The second defines a monophyletic group as a group of organisms that are more closely related to each other than to any other organisms. These distinctions are discussed in Baum 1992 and de Queiroz and Donoghue 1990.

A recently offered hypothesis suggests that phylogenetic species concepts and the biological species concept may be highly, if not completely, incompatible. "Parallel speciation " has been defined as the repeated independent evolution of the same reproduc- tive isolating mechanism (Schluter and Nagel 1995). An example of this may occur when a species colonizes several new areas which are isolated from, but environmentally similar to, each other. Similar selective pressures in these environments result in parallel evolu- tion among the traits that confer reproductive isolation. There is some experimental evidence that this might occur (Kilias, et al. 1980; Dodd 1989). The implication of this is that biological species (as defined by the BSC) may often be polyphyletic. If this occurs in nature, it could undermine the usefulness of phylogenetic species concepts.

2.5 Why This is Included What is all of this doing in a discussion of observed instances of speciation? What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. The biological species concept has been very successful as a theoretical model for explaining species differences among vertebrates and some groups of arthropods. This can lead us to glibly assert its universal applicability, despite its irrelevance to many groups. When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate.

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 12:49 AM

03-03-2003 @ 02:37 PM
Socratism:

I have been told on another forum by people who claim they teach evolution that the BSC is out of favor with those in the know.

Perhaps this is because so many creatures considered to be separate species have been found to be able to interbreed?

No. You are confusing the folk species concept, with BSC. Here is BSC, and if you'll note, it admits the possibility of interbreeding:

The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as

"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 01:35 AM

Continued . . .

03-03-2003 @ 04:35 PM
RufusAtticus:

What can be more specific than "supernatural = above natural?"

You could tell how it relates to the (philosophical) naturalist worldview. That would be more specific, and it would address the query directed at you.

Yes you did, then again I could only be imagining the word "apparitions" in your sentance.

:rofl:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apparition
Nice try, but the dictionary doesn't support you. You're just being cute.

Please then point me to the neurobiology literature that explains intelligence using the supernatural.

Were I to do so, I would refute (or at least undermine) my own argument regarding the philosphical blinders worn by (MN) science.
Now, why would I wish to attack my own argument?

Remember that your statment is in response to "If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world. . . ." Thus, if I am not understanding the literature, then the literature should be saying that intellegence can't be explained by natural causes. I'd really like to see such literature, if it exists.

MN based science will always explain deliberative thought deterministically; those cited above are no exception. Whatever deterministic definition of "thought" supposedly applies to humans will also apply to mundane things like computers, radios, and pinball machines.

Having the wrong smell signals that the ant is not a member of the group. Thus they respond as if the ant is an invader. If human culture teaches us anything, morals are only applicable to treating individuals within your own group.

Then laws prohibiting cruelty to animals are bunkum, iyo? Such laws are utterly divorced from moral considerations?
Besides the aforementioned counterexample, the ant in the example above *is* part of the group. Like I said, he went off to work and came home with the wrong smell.
You're dodgin' and dancin' (also providing grist for a racist's mill, I might add).

But nothing in naturalism prevents people from making decisions for themselves. Hint: people are made up of molecules. In your view, what supernatual component is necessary for humans to make decisions?

None. We can make decisions just as well as can computers and pinball machines, from the PN standpoint. However, when it comes to reason and logic, you and I will not make our decision between competing viewpoints because one is right (true) and one is wrong (false), but because previous states of matter picked one of the choices out for us.
This same fact applied to morality is what Darrow perceived so well (albeit he somewhat inconsistently felt very proud of himself for figuring it out--allegedly), and applied to his criminal defense strategy.

Furthermore how can you determine whether an individual chose to read a book himself or was done so by a divine puppet master?

By assuming that a person is his own prime mover (Ockham's razor), and applying MN to human behavior on that assumed foundation.

Naturalism is not determinisitc since nature is a stocastic process.

Your retreat in that direction was cut off last round, when I distinguished between clockwork determinism and a determinism of even moment-by-moment tweakings of (unpredictable) quantum events beyond your personal control.
Similarly, it would be deterministic in a real sense if a god controlled all the actions of all the people moment-by-moment rather than unleashing causal chains of events. Appeal to stochasticism is even less formidable than appeal to quantum uncertainty, and the latter helps you not.

What does supernaturalism add that prevents the world from being deterministic?

The possibility of libertarian free will. We've discussed this, btw (not in so many words, but conceptually).

Omnipotent gods that can control nature at their whim and drive people to do things they wouldn't normally do? Gods that have a plan for the world and can determine the outcome of sporting events?

More straw men?
:bonk:
Even if an omnpotent god is able to remove your free will at a whim, at least you could have it some of the time (or all of the time, if the god so wills it). That's the point. It's time for you to let it sink in.

Socrates

March 4th 2003, 04:52 AM

Italian Pyrite continues with more timewasting.

It is certainly not my intention to waste anyone's time. Mea culpa. How about showing some patience?Patience has to be earned.

Socrates: I do no such thing. In fact, I have often cited an which makes it clear that YECs believe excluding the supernatural from real OPERATIONAL science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.If you'd bothered to understand the points in that article, you wouldn't have wasted all our time.
Me: I don't know which article you are referencing. Perhaps you'll be good enough to clarify.:doh: I gave the hyperlink to the very article. Go back and re-read my post! Sheesh, and you complain that I lack patience. Only in the case of time-wasting vexatious critics, not those who genuinely want to learn.

Me previously: You claim that is their stubborn priori. You are correct. But it's their game so they get to make the rules.

Socrates: I'm a scientist, so quit this ridiculous generalization. And the founders of modern science saw no need to believe in naturalism for ORIGINS.

Me: I have heard you state flatly that evolutionists' refusal to explore the supernatural was somehow offensive to you.And I made it clear that this applied to origins, not operations science.
And I know you are overly fond of your little catch phrases like "goo to you via the zoo" I have only your word for it that it is "overly".

Socrates: As if you'd know. All you've done is stipulatively defined science as naturalism, then, amazingly, science can't involve the supernatural, even for origins. But it would be a miracle if it could after your self-serving definition.

Me: Do you have a definition of scientific method which would allow for the supernatural? Do you honestly believe that religion ought to have a place in chemistry, biology, anthropology, etc.? Perhaps there ought to be a new inquiry branch..."Theory of Origins"That's exactly what evolution IS!

Me previously: They will NOT consider the Bible a resource when they are defining terms, proposing theories, growing a culture in a petri dish, solving for x, looking at new data from the Hubble telescope or trying to cure cancer.

Socrates: No, because that is OPERATIONAL science, with which no creationist has a problem. But the Bible is a book of HISTORY, and this SHOULD be taken into account when building models of Earth's PAST. It's sheer folly to ignore eye-witness information just to keep materialistic FAITH.

Oh! I am delighted to hear that creationists have no problem with...what was it..."operational" science? I am unsure which branches of science this includes, Oh, just physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, genetics ...
but I would not be surprised if you automatically excluded anything to do with the theory of evolution, despite the fact that most proponents do NOT subscribe to your deliberately misleading reference to GTE which is an OLD definition of evolution...1960 I believe.
If you want to abuse someone, then abuse the evolutionist Kerkut who provided that definition, and quit making inflammatory accusations about "deliberately misleading" — you're one of the first to squeal at the slightest hint of forcefulness on my part. And then try to REFUTE this definition, because THIS is what is at issue.

Now with regard to accepting the Bible as history, there is little historical content in it (of a NON-Dogmatic nature) which cannot be corroborated by outside sources. Shows that you're as ignorant of history as well as science. The Bible IS history, and MOST ancient events are documented in only one promary sourse.For example, unless and until there is some independent evidence to support 40 years of wandering in the desert, it will not be included in history texts. Surely even you can understand why. No, only a dogmatic refusal to accept the Bible as the history it is. It's absurd: other ancient documents are assumed to be true unless proven false; the bible is assumed to be false unless "proven" true by other corroborating documents.

Socrates: And that applies to the goo to you theory.
Do I detect a concession here? In your dreams.Why do you keep harping about your misleading goo2U thingy. No one is even talking about that.Wrong! EVERYONE is. NO ONE is denying "evolution" if it just means, say, "change in gene frequency over time" or "descent with modification".

Me previously: That's why there is no such thing as "creation science."

Socrates: And we should just take your word for this?

Of course not, but surely you don't suggest we take YOUR word for it that "creation science" is not an oxymoron? You made the accusation, although you have no clues about science, so you prove it.

Me previously: It is folly for YEC's to label scientific method as the enemy.

Socrates: It's folly for anti-YEC bigots to misrepresent what YECs say! (there's that nasty b-word again)
How did I mis-represent a YEC tenent? It's tenet, and I've explained how. Simply, YECs do NOT attack true science.
[list]I just don't think that the SCIENTIFIC answers are in Genesis,No, the historical answers!
and I'm at a loss as to why you even want to posit a creation science, which is a contradiction in terms. IP just repeats an argument in the vain hope that it might become sound.:zzz:If any of the self proclaimed CS groups were doing any serious field work it might help. They do, e.g. in hybridization studies to find indications of how large the "created kinds" are, and radiometric dating research.
But it appears their time and money is spent refuting mainstream science And if you had the slightest knowledge of the history of science, you would realise that refuting false ideas has been an important part.

Also, it is perfectly legitimate for creation scientists to study data previously published, and show how the data makes far better sense in a creationist framework. Far cheaper than getting a lab as well!

Socrates: And there's no need for the evolutionists among us to do so — they have "useful idiots" in the theological cemeteries, oops, I mean seminaries, and on TW, to do that for them.

By "evolutionists among us" I assume you mean creationists. No. I meant the evolutionists among those on TW -- that's the context of "us".Do you find it helpful to denigrate and belittle EVERYONE who disagrees with you, including your Christian family?I can't recall doing that to any known Christian.

QED

March 4th 2003, 07:47 PM

03-03-2003 @ 05:39 AM
Captain Ochre:

2) Again? When did you first ask why a forensic scientist must stop using MN to determine that a human was physically responsible for a crime?

Answer: in his first post that mentioned forensic science. It should have been perfectly clear from the context (answers to questions about historical, not moral, events), and from the fact that he specifically mentioned police detective work (which is limited to answering questions about physical responsibility). Your equivocations have continued unabated since then.

Bubba

March 4th 2003, 08:26 PM

Nice Thread!

Bubba

Bubba

March 4th 2003, 08:29 PM

Seriously, though I have a few questions. First of all Rufus-what would you consider reasonable proof from the natural world that some sort of creation event did occur? Socrates can't demonstrate special creation in a lab, so what would you find as reasonable?

Bubba

Bubba

March 4th 2003, 08:33 PM

To Socrates, Captain Ochre, special creationists et al-

I am a Christian (Nazarene) formerly taught high school sunday school, did youth work, went on mission trips etc. Also, my wife and I home school our five children. We are part of a Christian Home educators group, of which my wife is in a leadership position.

I say this because I believe in common descent and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally. We also teach our children that evolution is the mthod God used to create mankind. I do believe in the reserection, return of Christ to earth (but I am a partial preterist) etc.

My question to you, Socrates and Captain Ochre is this-how is evolution related necessarily to metaphysical naturalism?

With Darwin's science and Christ's love

Bubba:smile:

Bubba

March 4th 2003, 08:35 PM

Also, what real evidence exists (naturalistic or not) that special creation has recently occured? We have a lot of Philosophy here, and several appeals to biblical authority but no real evidence from the natural world.

Bring me some evidence from nature, boys.

Bubba:tongue:

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 09:01 PM

03-05-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Bubba:

My question to you, Socrates and Captain Ochre is this-how is evolution related necessarily to metaphysical naturalism?

With Darwin's science and Christ's love

Bubba:smile:

Howdy, Bubba.

I haven't identified myself as a "Special Creationist", btw.
I don't know if evolution (specifically common descent) is "necessarily" related to metaphysical naturalism. What is apparent is that age estimates for the Earth are based on an assumed expectation of constants (many of which appear consistent) and on the belief that all of the apparent phenotypic changes are explicable in terms of gradualistic "change in freqency of alleles over time" (via a variety of mechanisms).
Neither is a scientific observation. Both are extrapolations on the set of data.

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:07 PM

jees everything is extrapolations on the set of data... including all of science and philosophy.

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 09:08 PM

03-05-2003 @ 01:07 AM
Berserker:

jees everything is extrapolations on the set of data... including all of science and philosophy.

I take it you agree with me, then.

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:12 PM

Of course... as long as you also agree that the only exception is religion which is not based of any data at all.

Bubba

March 4th 2003, 09:13 PM

I guess I'm a little confused then. Suppose the age of the earth were off by 3 billion years and some of our understanding of radiological dating and so forth were flat wrong.

Wouldn't it be still very obvious from the evidence that the following conditions were true?

1. A substantial amount of evolution has occured.

2. The earth is very old.

3. Humans appear to be directly related to the other great apes. Also related to the other animals.

4. Common descent is a reasonable hypopthesis even if it is by a system of directed muitations or if intelligent design is somehow involved.

5. 4.5 Billion years is the best esitimate we have for the age of the earth given the current scientific evidence.

6. A substantial amount of suboptimal and bad design exists (think smallpox, etc.) that mitigates against the idea of direct recent intelligent design.

Bubba

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:17 PM

I can tell you one thing that’s proven with out a reasonable doubt: the world is much older then 6000 years!!!

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:17 PM

[stupid page crash]

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 09:23 PM

03-05-2003 @ 01:17 AM
Berserker:

I can tell you one thing that’s proven with out a reasonable doubt: the world is much older then 6000 years!!!

Yeah? By how much? 500 years? 600 years? :wink:
Again, I haven't identified myself as a special creationist, nor a young-earther ftm. On the contrary, I've affirmed a partiality to the views of Sailhamer, with whom Socrates is probably familiar and with whom you probably are not familiar. That's no knock on you; it's just methodological naturalism at work.

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:30 PM

by millions at lest if you want to magically invalidate all of radioisotopes dating.

Snowball

March 4th 2003, 09:37 PM

03-03-2003 @ 03:42 PM
Sauron:

Perhaps that's because you haven't "thought about it". Review the Speciation FAQ at talk.origins for an explanation of why your claims are baseless.

I was just reading over this thread and saw something interesting. Sauron is claiming that the speciation faq at Talk.origins defines speciation very well. I have an atheist/evolutionist friend that directed me to the same page in order to prove that speciation is very difficult to define and that evolutionists havn't been able to pin it down quite yet.

I just found this ironic.

Carry on.

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 09:38 PM

03-05-2003 @ 01:13 AM
Bubba:

I guess I'm a little confused then. Suppose the age of the earth were off by 3 billion years and some of our understanding of radiological dating and so forth were flat wrong.

Wouldn't it be still very obvious from the evidence that the following conditions were true?

1. A substantial amount of evolution has occured.

A substantial amount of change in frequency of alleles over time? I guess it depends on what you mean by "substantial".

2. The earth is very old.

The Earth is very old if certain naturalistic assumptions are true. They might be true. Then again, they might not be true.

3. Humans appear to be directly related to the other great apes. Also related to the other animals.

Well, you could go further than that. We're "related" to the plants as well, and to inorganic matter when it comes down to it.

4. Common descent is a reasonable hypopthesis even if it is by a system of directed muitations or if intelligent design is somehow involved.

Agreed.

5. 4.5 Billion years is the best esitimate we have for the age of the earth given the current scientific evidence.

I'll take your word for it (even though the estimate seems to shift by nearly a billion every several years). So what?

6. A substantial amount of suboptimal and bad design exists (think smallpox, etc.) that mitigates against the idea of direct recent intelligent design.

Design is inextricably linked to purpose. You have no foundation for judging perfection of design, afaics. I suggest that you start a different thread if it isn't immediately apparent to you why this should be so (since it's a wee bit off topic in this thread).

Still confused? :wink:
If so, any idea what it is you're confused about?

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 09:45 PM

03-05-2003 @ 01:30 AM
Berserker:

by millions at lest if you want to magically invalidate all of radioisotopes dating.

It helps if you give some indication of whom it is you are responding to. You can use the "Post subject" box for that purpose, if you choose. I have an example above to model the method.

Radiometric dating depends for its accuracy on the reliability of naturalistic assumptions, does it not?
Did you miss the emoticon?:hrm:

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 10:11 PM

03-04-2003 @ 05:37 PM
Snowball:

I was just reading over this thread and saw something interesting. Sauron is claiming that the speciation faq at Talk.origins defines speciation very well.

No I didn't.

What I said was that the original poster's claims were baseless, and that he should spend more time thinking about the subject. What were those baseless claims he threw out?

Rather trivial and disingenious definitions, particularly since evolutionists can not seem to be able to give a clear definition of a "species". ;)

He made two mistakes:

1. he claimed that the distinctions (evolution / microevolution / macroevolution) were "trivial and disingenous"; and

2. he said that evolutionists "cannot" give a clear definition of species - implying that scientists are ducking the issue, or failing to think about it hard enough, and simply won't come forth with a working definition.

The reason that I pointed him at the webpage is to demonstrate to him that the variations in definition for species is not the fault of biologists or scientists. It is an accurate reflection of the difficulties of categorizing the various forms of life.

Life is a spectrum. At any point on the spectrum, you'll find some organism occupying a niche. That makes hard and fast delineations such as "species" more difficult. We see similar boundary-stretching conditions all the time: viruses, are they alive? Or not? The euglena - is it a plant? Or is it an animal? An aspen grove - is it 10,000 trees, or a single individual?

So by pointing the original poster to this webpage, and asking him to read the various issues with species definition and delve into the complexities of the issue, I had hoped to show him the folly and naivite of his comment, which implied that science was somehow deficient in not being able to give him a definition that he could fit on a bumper sticker.

I have an atheist/evolutionist friend that directed me to the same page in order to prove that speciation is very difficult to define and that evolutionists havn't been able to pin it down quite yet.

I'd take exception to your friend's characterization. I think Rufus has done some population genetics work; so I should probably yield to him, though.

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 10:38 PM

Captain Ochre,

Ok if your going to point out the fact that nothing can be proven definitively then so be it... but then what’s to say your theory has any advantage then?

Captain Ochre

March 4th 2003, 10:42 PM

03-05-2003 @ 02:38 AM
Berserker:

Captain Ochre,

Ok if your going to point out the fact that nothing can be proven definitively then so be it... but then what’s to say your theory has any advantage then?

I dunno (actually I have an idea, but), but since you don't think evolution is a "fact" is it okay to teach ID in schools?
:wink:

More later, via edit.
[begin addition via edit]
Advantage is determined by self-consistency and parsimony, among other things.

ItalianGold

March 4th 2003, 11:08 PM

I just checked out AiG's reveiw of Sailhamer's book. Socrates would have him for lunch!

Bubba said:
"Wouldn't it be still very obvious from the evidence that...a substantial amount of evolution has occured."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ochre answered:
"A substantial amount of change in frequency of alleles over time? I guess it depends on what you mean by "substantial".

I say:
It seems that creationists in general, perhaps YEC's in particular have fully accepted the basic concept of evolution. (That is, that over time, critters change, a lot.) What's different is that now they just call it "loss and recombination of information" or refer to KINDS. Some have gone so far as to say that these KINDS are so broad, that maybe there was only one pair of Cat Kinds on the ark - and that they are responsible for all the diversity of felines: my calico cat, lions, Bengal tigers, panthers, cougars, cheetahs, cave lions, sabre-toothed tigers, leopards, etc. And all this since the Flood of approximately 4500 years ago. *ahem* That IS evolution.

QED

March 4th 2003, 11:18 PM

03-05-2003 @ 03:08 AM
ItalianGold:
[quote]What's different is that now they just call it "loss and recombination of information" or refer to KINDS. Some have gone so far as to say that these KINDS are so broad, that maybe there was only one pair of Cat Kinds on the ark - and that they are responsible for all the diversity of felines: my calico cat, lions, Bengal tigers, panthers, cougars, cheetahs, cave lions, sabre-toothed tigers, leopards, etc. And all this since the Flood of approximately 4500 years ago. *ahem* That IS evolution.[/b]

LOL... very true! Except, of course, that they have no way of demonstrating that the common ancestry of the family Felidae involved changes limited to "loss of" information and "recombination" of information. (Matter of fact - they would have a difficult time showing that all of the "information" required to build all the different kinds of cats could conceivably have existed in a single genome representing an animal that could actually live).... And of course that evolution has never been documented to proceed so quickly with such large changes as would be required to get a common ancestor of all felines <10000 years ago.

Snowball

March 4th 2003, 11:50 PM

03-04-2003 @ 09:11 PM
Sauron:
The reason that I pointed him at the webpage is to demonstrate to him that the variations in definition for species is not the fault of biologists or scientists. It is an accurate reflection of the difficulties of categorizing the various forms of life.

So by pointing the original poster to this webpage, and asking him to read the various issues with species definition and delve into the complexities of the issue, I had hoped to show him the folly and naivite of his comment, which implied that science was somehow deficient in not being able to give him a definition that he could fit on a bumper sticker.

After reading this I assumed that you would then be in agreement with my friend, who, like I previously said:

directed me to the same page in order to prove that speciation is very difficult to define and that evolutionists havn't been able to pin it down quite yet.

But then you go on to say..

I'd take exception to your friend's characterization. I think Rufus has done some population genetics work; so I should probably yield to him, though.

You'd take exception to his characterization? :huh: I must be really tired because it seems to me that you are actually saying the same thing my friend was saying. I suppose I must not have characterized my friend's argument very well, because I have a feeling the two of you would be quite cozy.

Captain Ochre

March 5th 2003, 12:26 AM

03-05-2003 @ 03:08 AM
ItalianGold:

I just checked out AiG's reveiw of Sailhamer's book. Socrates would have him for lunch!

[edit to add]
I wouldn't put it past Socrates to have reasoned objections to Sailhamer's view. That said, the review that you refer to has several notable flaws.

Bubba said:
"Wouldn't it be still very obvious from the evidence that...a substantial amount of evolution has occured."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ochre answered:
"A substantial amount of change in frequency of alleles over time? I guess it depends on what you mean by "substantial".

I say:
It seems that creationists in general, perhaps YEC's in particular

Sorry to interrupt--you mean OEC's?

have fully accepted the basic concept of evolution. (That is, that over time, critters change, a lot.)

The basic concept of evolution is the critters change. The basic concept of common descent is that critters change "a lot".
The two should not be routinely confused, imo.

What's different is that now they just call it "loss and recombination of information" or refer to KINDS. Some have gone so far as to say that these KINDS are so broad, that maybe there was only one pair of Cat Kinds on the ark - and that they are responsible for all the diversity of felines: my calico cat, lions, Bengal tigers, panthers, cougars, cheetahs, cave lions, sabre-toothed tigers, leopards, etc. And all this since the Flood of approximately 4500 years ago. *ahem* That IS evolution.

Correct; and it isn't common descent. Nor is it abiogenesis.

ItalianGold

March 5th 2003, 12:59 AM

Hiya Captain,

One of us is misunderstanding the other...not sure which. :smile:

Me:
It seems that creationists in general, perhaps YEC's in particular

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You:
Sorry to interrupt--you mean OEC's?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
have fully accepted the basic concept of evolution. (That is, that over time, critters change, a lot.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did mean Young Earth Creationists, but I have a hunch I'm missing something.

Socrates

March 5th 2003, 08:33 AM

Bubba wrote:

To Socrates, Captain Ochre, special creationists et al-

I am a Christian (Nazarene) formerly taught high school sunday school, did youth work, went on mission trips etc. Also, my wife and I home school our five children. We are part of a Christian Home educators group, of which my wife is in a leadership position.So what? Christian has become such debased currency these days. Even rank heretics like Spong still call themselves Christian.

I say this because I believe in common descent and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally.And your evidence against the literal interpretation, e.g. waw consecutives, verb tenses, careful definitions of terms, the absence of parallelisms characteristic of poetry, is what? And where do you get off disagreeing with Ex. 20:11, 1 Tim. 2:14 which take Genesis as straightforward history? What do you know that Luke and the writer of Hebrews don't, since they regarded Genesis 1-11 personages as equally historical as Genesis 12+ ones?

We also teach our children that evolution is the mthod God used to create mankind. I do believe in the reserection, return of Christ to earth (but I am a partial preterist) etc. I.e. you believe God used a process of death, disease and bloodshed to bring about a "very good" creation, although death is the "last enemy"?

My question to you, Socrates and Captain Ochre is this-how is evolution related necessarily to metaphysical naturalism?Because evolution is all about finding an explanation for the complexity of life without God.

With Darwin's science and Christ's love
Oh, you mean the Darwin who couldn't stand the thought of a God who would create by such a wasteful, cruel and inefficient process as evolution?

Which Christ? Evidently not the one who believed that Genesis Creation and Flood were historical (Mt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9, Luke 17:26-27). Nor the Christ who said "the meek shall inherit the Earth", because you believe that He created by "survival of the fittest". Frankly, if that's the sort of "love" you mean, I want no part of it! And definitely not the Christ who said "Scripture cannot be broken", and frequently said "it is written" to settle debates.

You would do well to follow the example of the Noble Bereans of Acts 17:11. They were commended for checking things with Scripture, not with modern "science" which is really materialism masquerading as science.

Socrates

March 5th 2003, 08:45 AM

Italian Pyrite still persists with deceitful equivocation:
It seems that creationists in general, perhaps YEC's in particular have fully accepted the basic concept of evolution. (That is, that over time, critters change, a lot.) Since when have creationists including YECs ever DENIED change?? It’s the direction of change that’s in dispute, not even the amount of change. See The evolution train’s a-comin’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp) — I live in hope that you might finally get the point.

What's different is that now they just call it "loss and recombination of information"What do you mean “now”? And what is your problem?? Are you incapable of seeing that there is a huge difference between a cave fish population losing eyes, and the evolutionary hypothesis that mutations and selection resulted in gaining eyes in the first place? Or do you fondly imagine the observation of the first is automatically evidence for the second?

And are you also incapable of seeing that already-created information can be split into different populations? E.g. if both parents have AB blood, they have both A and B alleles. So their offspring could have AB blood, or just A or just B. Two “new” blood groups, but no new information, because A and B already existed. This sort of process, i.e. sorting existing A and B alleles, is supposed to show that NEW A and B genes could arise?
or refer to KINDS.:dufus: it’s in the Bible! It’s not our fault that some want to equate them with “biological species”. Some have gone so far as to say that these KINDS are so broad, that maybe there was only one pair of Cat Kinds on the ark — and that they are responsible for all the diversity of felines: my calico cat, lions, Bengal tigers, panthers, cougars, cheetahs, cave lions, sabre-toothed tigers, leopards, etc.More likely, two or three pairs. And your disproof is what? Or do you deny that all breeds of dogs and wolves arose from a common ancestor not long ago. And note, the breeds of dogs are a classic example of loss of information. Breeding removes certain information so the animals become purebred. But if you want to save on vet bills, get a mongrel, because they have more information.
And all this since the Flood of approximately 4500 years ago. *ahem*That’s right, just like ony one generation is needed for AB parents to produce A children and B children, by sorting out the already-existing information.That IS evolution. No, just change, and perfectly compatible with the creation model, as opposed to the dishonest straw man of fixity of species.

Socrates

March 5th 2003, 08:55 AM

Bubba, who claims to believe that God used evolution:
A substantial amount of suboptimal and bad design existsSo you believe a god would do something badly, yet called his finished creation "Very Good". You must believe in a different God from me, because I believe in the Biblical one.
(think smallpox, etc.)Think FALL!!!! Read Genesis 3 for homework. And then see where disease germs (as well as carnivory) fit in with the Creation and Fall here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory). YOU are the one with a problem, because your compromise with evolution entails that smallpox is "very good". I'd hate to see what you call "very bad". that mitigates against the idea of direct recent intelligent design."It's MILITATES against. And do you expect us to take your word for it that there's bad design? Go on, try posting something you've dredged up from one of the various gutter atheistic websites like that Talk Origins bilge? Evidently you trust fallible men more than the infallible God.

Captain Ochre

March 5th 2003, 08:11 PM

03-05-2003 @ 04:59 AM
ItalianGold:

Hiya Captain,

One of us is misunderstanding the other...not sure which. :smile:

Me:
It seems that creationists in general, perhaps YEC's in particular

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You:
Sorry to interrupt--you mean OEC's?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
have fully accepted the basic concept of evolution. (That is, that over time, critters change, a lot.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did mean Young Earth Creationists, but I have a hunch I'm missing something.

It would seem to me that OEC's would universally (or close) accept evolution as a change in alleles over time, as well as accepting varying degrees of morphological drift owing to natural selection. Regarding YEC's I can only imagine that you see the short time-frame of that view necessitating rapid evolutionary change--though it still seems to me that the majority of the YEC's would have little reason to favor an evolutionary mechanism for that change within the YEC framework.
As you hinted, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding what you wrote . . .

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 12:30 PM

03-03-2003 @ 02:51 PM
Blake Reas:
Are you that hard headed?

Are you channeling Socrates?

I was drawing a comparison and making the case that EVERYTHING you do has a CERTAIN degree of faith to it. Do I have to draw it out in Crayon for you like most skeptics?

But you have complety obscured the distinction between religious faith and "every-day faith." Religious faith is faith that exist in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence. Every-day "faith" is simply the faith that our senses don't lie to use. All the theology I've read stresses the importance of the former over the latter. Take the following example with respect to the possibility that my wife is not cheating on me.

I have faith that my wife is not cheating on me because we're together 24-7.
I have faith that my wife is not cheating on me despite the fact that she dresses up in lingerie and hangs out with sailors at the docks, because she just wouldn't do that to me.

Clearly there is a difference in the amount of faith involved in those situations. It is silly to try to compare them and try to say #2's faith is justified because #1's is.

That is nice you just redefined the ATheism like all atheist do when they try to get off the hook.
Atheism- The philosophicalk position that denies the reality of the God of THeism or other divine beings. Handbook of the Philosophy of Religion IVP.

If you get to define Atheism, do I get to define Christianity?
Chrisitanity - The belief that cannibalism will bring someone closer to God.
I find it funny how Christians are always trying to refedine it to get off the hook.

Doesn't the fact that atheists are always trying to tell you that your handbook defination of atheism is wrong clue you into something about the validity of the defination?

You can try to debate your defination of "atheism" all you want but you will be flogging a strawman.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 12:39 PM

03-03-2003 @ 03:34 PM
Socratism:

Rather trivial and disingenious definitions, particularly since evolutionists can not seem to be able to give a clear definition of a "species". ;)

As we would expect if evolution is occuring. If you have fuzzy species then what little distinction there is between macroevolution and microevolution is not there. But so what? There is not biological distinction between them anyways. The distinction is purely an artifact of human limitations and historical investigations. The distinction is the scope at which we are looking at things, nothing more nothing less. The same genetic features that underlie variation within a taxon, are the same genetic features that underlie distinctions between taxa.

(nor "evolution" nor "population" either now that I think of it)

For evolution see my sig.

A population is simply a group of individual organisms. For the most part in biology the term "population" is used to refer to "Mendelian populations," which are groups of organisms that reproduce by exchanging, mixing, and matching genetic material.

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 01:00 PM

A population is simply a group of individual organisms. For the most part in biology the term "population" is used to refer to "Mendelian populations," which are groups of organisms that reproduce by exchanging, mixing, and matching genetic material.

That is simple gentics. How exactly does it prove molecules to man evolution? Can you give us your best evidence of new information added to a population that changes it from one organism to an entirely different organism? One of your sig quotes states that macroevolution is apparent between species. Where exactly is this demonstrated? What species can you point us to for you best evidence?

Fred

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 01:34 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:03 PM
Captain Ochre:
You should try reading what I write.
I have that is how I know that you haven't answered the question except by hand-waving about moral responsibility, which is something that forensic scientists are not responsible for determining anyways. So where do forensic scientists abandon MN to determine physical responsibility?

Devastating counterargument noted.
It is what your equally devasting comment deserved.

Well, you're not at all addressing what I wrote, but I'd like to hear about "natural intelligence" especially if it's an attempt to make it other than determined by preceding (unintelligent) states of matter. Citation?

Let me remind you what an intelligence is.
Intelligence: 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations . . . .(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria

Thus a natural intelligence is any natural entity that has these properties. The animal world is full of them: humans, chimps, gorillas, elephants, dolphins, whales, beavers, etc.

03-04-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Captain Ochre:

You could tell how it relates to the (philosophical) naturalist worldview. That would be more specific, and it would address the query directed at you.

Well my philosophical naturalist would view doesn’t involve it. I’d expect that that much would be obvious.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apparition
Nice try, but the dictionary doesn't support you. You're just being cute.
Sure, I could just be imagining the word “specter” in the definition. :doh:
Lets follow the chain: “ghost” -> “apparition” -> “specter” -> “phantom” -> “Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality;”

Yeap, no appeals to the supernatural there. :ahem:

Were I to do so, I would refute (or at least undermine) my own argument regarding the philosphical blinders worn by (MN) science.
Now, why would I wish to attack my own argument?

So you admit that you contradicted yourself.

Then laws prohibiting cruelty to animals are bunkum, iyo? Such laws are utterly divorced from moral considerations?
Neither of those conclusions follow from what I said.

Besides the aforementioned counterexample, the ant in the example above *is* part of the group. Like I said, he went off to work and came home with the wrong smell.

It doesn’t matter whether we consider it as part of the group or not. It matters whether the ants themselves consider it as part of their group. The fact is that because of the wrong smell their senses tell them that he is not part of the group. Thus they’re simply defending their home from an invader.

You're dodgin' and dancin' (also providing grist for a racist's mill, I might add).
Spare me your illogic.

None. We can make decisions just as well as can computers and pinball machines, from the PN standpoint. However, when it comes to reason and logic, you and I will not make our decision between competing viewpoints because one is right (true) and one is wrong (false), but because previous states of matter picked one of the choices out for us.

Of course this ignores the fact that computers distinguish between right (true) and wrong (false) things all the time. That kind of disproves your contention that a supernatural component is necessary to use logic and reason.

By assuming that a person is his own prime mover (Ockham's razor), and applying MN to human behavior on that assumed foundation.
But if you allow supernatural causes, MN will not allow you to reach such a conclusion. I will ask the question again. How then under supernaturalism are you able to determine that our actions are not controlled by divine puppet masters?

Your retreat in that direction was cut off last round, when I distinguished between clockwork determinism and a determinism of even moment-by-moment tweakings of (unpredictable) quantum events beyond your personal control.
You’ve “cut off” nothing by simply claiming that stochastic events are truly deterministic. Your attempts to construct a semantic argument reveals your misconceptions about the subject.

The possibility of libertarian free will. We've discussed this, btw (not in so many words, but conceptually).

How does supernaturalism add this to the world?

Even if an omnpotent god is able to remove your free will at a whim, at least you could have it some of the time (or all of the time, if the god so wills it). That's the point. It's time for you to let it sink in.

That of course assumes that you even have it in the first place. The fact is that under supernaturalism you are not guaranteed free will, neither are you guaranteed to be excising it at any point in time, nor does it provide the tools that allow us to determine any of this.

You have yet to make a good argument for supernaturally determined free will except that, “some god might let us have it some of the time.” I’m surprised that anyone could think that that was a decent argument.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 01:36 PM

03-07-2003 @ 12:00 PM
Fredster:

That is simple gentics. How exactly does it prove molecules to man evolution?

I never said that the defination of "population" did such a thing.

Can you give us your best evidence of new information added to a population that changes it from one organism to an entirely different organism?

Start a new thread.

One of your sig quotes states that macroevolution is apparent between species.

Nope. Read the sig again.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 01:39 PM

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 01:47 PM

I never said that the defination of "population" did such a thing.

You may not have stated that in your post, but you imply it: Again, how does your assertion prove molecules to man evolution?

Can you give us your best evidence of new information added to a population that changes it from one organism to an entirely different organism?

Start a new thread.

Stop avoiding the question. The issue goes both ways with this post. If you are going to be asking for creationism best evidence, it is valid in such a discussion to ask for evolutions best evidence. Will you offer any?

One of your sig quotes states that macroevolution is apparent between species.

Nope. Read the sig again.

I will do better, let me paste it: Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
So tell me, what exactly am I missing here? Are you suggesting that one lesser species can evolve into a greater species?

Fred

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 02:07 PM

03-07-2003 @ 12:47 PM
Fredster:

You may not have stated that in your post, but you imply it: Again, how does your assertion prove molecules to man evolution?

No I didn't imply it. How can you get out of a simple defination that populations are groups of organisms any claim about evolution?

Stop avoiding the question. The issue goes both ways with this post. If you are going to be asking for creationism best evidence, it is valid in such a discussion to ask for evolutions best evidence. Will you offer any?

Start a new thread. Until creationists actually make an effort to provide evidence is this thread, it is pointless to counter them here with evidence for evolution.

I will do better, let me paste it: Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
So tell me, what exactly am I missing here?

You missed the first word in the definintion.

Are you suggesting that one lesser species can evolve into a greater species?

Of course not, since there are no such things as "lesser" and "greater" species.

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 02:07 PM

Wow over ten pages and still no special creationists have offered much in empirical evidence for special creation. If it is so well supported, then I should have been flooded with examples. The silence is telling.

Oh please. My eyes roll heavenward. When will realize that the issue is not evidence, but the interpretation of evidence. You interpret all of your evidence by your evolutionary hermenuetics and blindedly assume that such evidence concludes your presuppositions as being true. Your response to my woodpecker head example is telling how much an underlining philosophy supports your thinking.
You responded by stating:
There is no reason to suspect that the "pecking" force didn't evolve gradually with the bodies ability to absorb such a force.
How do you even go about proving that? You accept it by faith, not be established evidence. It is more reasonable and logical to conclude that a bird with unique and complex bone and skull structures, that had to be in place before the bird began beating its head against a tree or it would be killed, was designed, rather than it mutated over time from some common ancestor.
Your further response was even more telling:
The argument you have offered essentially boils do to "wow isn't that neat, I don't know how that could have been done." However, that does not translate to "goddidit."
First, it tells me you would never abandon your evolutionary/ no God worldview. Basically, any evidence supplied to you would be waved off and explained away, so as to maintain the integrity of your basic evolutionar premises. Secondly, my question back to you is why doesn't it translate into "goddidit?" Like I state above, it is more reasonable to conclude, as a rational human being, that specialized neck and bone structures that need to be in place before the pecker can begin his pecking ways of life, were designed, rather than came from some common source.

Fred

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 02:12 PM

No I didn't imply it. How can you get out of a simple defination that populations are groups of organisms any claim about evolution?

You missed the first word in the definintion.

Then why don't you enlighten me and tell me how I am wrong? How are you defining the words "population" and "macroevolution?" Perhaps you have done this in previous posts over the past week, but I do not have the luxury of being able to sit a computer endlessly and haggle over evolutionary theory.

Fred

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 02:45 PM

03-05-2003 @ 12:55 PM
Socrates:

Bubba, who claims to believe that God used evolution:
A substantial amount of suboptimal and bad design existsSo you believe a god would do something badly, yet called his finished creation "Very Good". You must believe in a different God from me, because I believe in the Biblical one.
(think smallpox, etc.)Think FALL!!!! Read Genesis 3 for homework. And then see where disease germs (as well as carnivory) fit in with the Creation and Fall here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory). YOU are the one with a problem, because your compromise with evolution entails that smallpox is "very good". I'd hate to see what you call "very bad". that mitigates against the idea of direct recent intelligent design."It's MILITATES against. And do you expect us to take your word for it that there's bad design? Go on, try posting something you've dredged up from one of the various gutter atheistic websites like that Talk Origins bilge? Evidently you trust fallible men more than the infallible God.

This is a bit off topic, but...

In what way is a God who punishes billions of people with things like smallpox, AIDS, arthritus, starvation, Malaria, and every other disease imagineable for the sin of two people worthy of our worship in any way?

Sounds like a pretty sadistic God to me.

Honest answer appreciated. Until then, I find Evolution the best scientific answer AND the best theological answer as to why we have problems in the universe.

BTW, Spong rocks, dude. You might try to read some of his work-he is a very enlightened man. I prefer Borg as a liberal theologian, however.

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 02:48 PM

Also, what evidence from nature shows the world to be in any way younger than several billion years?

Rufus never answered the question of what he would consider reasonable evidence. Also, YEC's and special creationists have not put forth even an attempt at evidence from the natural world that Genesis (literal) is correct and science is somehow wrong.

Why would God (or Gods) create a world that looks just like it evolved and then punish people in hell for believing what they see around them? Again, I don't think the YEC version of God is worthy of our worship.

Just my two cents...

Bubba:smile:

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 02:55 PM

Also, a flawed creation could be "very good." It is very good if it allows us to come into a relationship with God and his son. It is very good if it allows us to love and laugh and enjoy our children. It is very good if we can write poetry and compose classical music and build rockets that go to the moon. It is very good if we can have a reasoned thoughtful debate.

Bubba

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 03:02 PM

Also, YEC's and special creationists have not put forth even an attempt at evidence from the natural world that Genesis (literal) is correct and science is somehow wrong.

What creationist has ever said that a literal Genesis somehow proves science wrong? Genesis is an historical book that tells us of God's creative work. It is not meant to be a text book on science. It is a false assumption that science and evolution and creation are one and the same.

Why would God (or Gods) create a world that looks just like it evolved and then punish people in hell for believing what they see around them?

This seems to be the rub for the anti-theist. What exactly compels you to think the world evolved as present evolutionary theory claims? I look around the world and see a world that experienced a cataclysmic event, say like a global flood. There is way more evidence for that than ever there is for an old earth.
Also, God punish people in hell for sin and unbelief. Their sin has blinded their minds to look around the world an conclude anything other than God created it. The sinner would much rather believe aliens put us here than believe an ulitmate creator created.

Fred

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 03:04 PM

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 03:11 PM

Fredster

Besides, your shofting the discussion away from the OP, which again is evidence for special creation.

Since you bring up the flood, what is the best evidence (outside of a literal Genesis) that a worldwide flood occured 2200 B. C.?

Please 1. be specific and 2 use an exaple from the natural world.

Bubba:smile:

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 03:12 PM

We probably need to start a seperate thread, but what exactly in modern Geology has convinced you that there was ever a global flood? The evidence AGAINST a global flood was what forced me to abandon a literal Genesis.

Massive trenches, geological displacement that forms massive canyons and mountains, two large polar ice caps, large fossil grave yards of animals buried rapidly and washed together, the hundreds of "flood" legends that exist in practically every culture in the world. Those are just a handful.

Fred

Snowball

March 7th 2003, 03:23 PM

03-07-2003 @ 01:07 PM
Fredster:

When will realize that the issue is not evidence, but the interpretation of evidence. You interpret all of your evidence by your evolutionary hermenuetics and blindedly assume that such evidence concludes your presuppositions as being true.

Don't you just love circular reasoning? :yipee:

Sorry to troll in here, but that quote was good! And the answer, Fred, is NEVER! They will never realize it. :shrug:

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 03:31 PM

Why would large polar ice caps be evidence for a world wide flood?

Bubba

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 03:33 PM

...and exactly how much heat would have been generated by an uplift that would cause something like Everest? All of the things that you state are in my honest opinion best explained by an ancient world and uniformitarianism.

Bubba

Bubba

March 7th 2003, 03:34 PM

Also, why don't we see marsupials everywhere? Was there a sign outside of the ark that told them to migrate back to Australia?

Bubba:tongue:

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 04:00 PM

03-07-2003 @ 01:07 PM
Fredster:

Oh please. My eyes roll heavenward. When will realize that the issue is not evidence, but the interpretation of evidence. You interpret all of your evidence by your evolutionary hermenuetics and blindedly assume that such evidence concludes your presuppositions as being true.

Of course until you offer evidence for special creation you can't know how I'm going to respond to it. All you and other posters have done is try to weasle out of my question by lobing accusations at me.

Your response to my woodpecker head example is telling how much an underlining philosophy supports your thinking.

Your woodpecker was not experessed as evidence for special creation, but of evidence of divine design. (You do know the difference don't you?)

How do you even go about proving that? You accept it by faith, not be established evidence. It is more reasonable and logical to conclude that a bird with unique and complex bone and skull structures, that had to be in place before the bird began beating its head against a tree or it would be killed, was designed, rather than it mutated over time from some common ancestor.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that such a complex bone structure is necessary for pecking into wood. You assume that the structures are the same in all woodpeckers. You assume that the ancestors of woodpeckers always beat into the wood as hard as modern woodpeckers do now. That is all I was pointing out. How familiar are you with woodpecker morphology? Have you studied it in detail? Have you surveyed the diversity of morphology that exists? What about evidence from the fossil record? Or are you simply making statements about the amazingness of woodpeckers base off of armchair knowledge?

First, it tells me you would never abandon your evolutionary/ no God worldview.

Pointing out that the god of the gaps argument is flawed is not the same as stating that I will always be an atheist.

Basically, any evidence supplied to you would be waved off and explained away, so as to maintain the integrity of your basic evolutionar premises. Secondly, my question back to you is why doesn't it translate into "goddidit?"

It didn't work for lightening or the motion of planets, it won't work for biology.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 04:04 PM

03-07-2003 @ 01:12 PM
Fredster:

Then why don't you enlighten me and tell me how I am wrong?

I never stated that macroevolution is apparent between species. But rather that macroevolution is evolution apparent between species.

How are you defining the words "population" and "macroevolution?" Perhaps you have done this in previous posts over the past week, but I do not have the luxury of being able to sit a computer endlessly and haggle over evolutionary theory.

I've defined "population" in at least two posts that you responded to. "Macroevolution" is defined in my sig, which you have quoted might I add.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 04:09 PM

03-07-2003 @ 01:48 PM
Bubba:

Also, what evidence from nature shows the world to be in any way younger than several billion years?

Rufus never answered the question of what he would consider reasonable evidence.

I suspect that the best evidence for special creation would be pattern, or lack there of, in morphology, genetics, and the fossil record. Taxa being the product of evolution and common descent and taxa being the product of divine fiat make different predictions about the historical pattern we should be able to pick up from the fossil record, genetic data, and morphological data. If special creation is true, it should be easy for special creationists to make an argument that the pattern we pick up supports their views and not the views of modern biology.

Fredster

March 7th 2003, 04:17 PM

Of course until you offer evidence for special creation you can't know how I'm going to respond to it. All you and other posters have done is try to weasle out of my question by lobing accusations at me.

No one has weasled anywhere. All I am doing is pointing out that you are using a set of presuppositionally hermenuetics to explain the physical world we live in and you assume, without question, that you hermeneutics are true with out a doubt. The only accusation that I am lobbing at you is that you don't realize this.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that such a complex bone structure is necessary for pecking into wood. You assume that the structures are the same in all woodpeckers. You assume that the ancestors of woodpeckers always beat into the wood as hard as modern woodpeckers do now. That is all I was pointing out. How familiar are you with woodpecker morphology? Have you studied it in detail? Have you surveyed the diversity of morphology that exists? What about evidence from the fossil record? Or are you simply making statements about the amazingness of woodpeckers base off of armchair knowledge?

Well, as a matter of fact, I have studied the issue at hand, so I am not talking out of the air as you are want to think. I would ask you the same questions you asked me. Have you actually studied woodpeckers or are you making your assertions based upon any real informed knowledge?

Your woodpecker was not experessed as evidence for special creation, but of evidence of divine design. (You do know the difference don't you?)

Smuggness aside, how exactly do you think they are different? We are talking about a divine God designing with special creation are we not? Or do you have something else in mind?

Fred

Captain Ochre

March 7th 2003, 04:26 PM

03-07-2003 @ 05:34 PM
RufusAtticus:

I have that is how I know that you haven't answered the question except by hand-waving about moral responsibility, which is something that forensic scientists are not responsible for determining anyways. So where do forensic scientists abandon MN to determine physical responsibility?

Cast you mind back . . .
"A criminal act is a historical event, yet detectives use methodical naturalism to solve the crime. Creationists complaints about "naturalism" would let the prisons out because if some supernatural force could create evidence to fool scientists, then a similar supernatural force could create evidence to fool detectives. If methodical naturalism is so flawed that we can't be sure about historical events, then there is no way that we can be sure that a crime has even been committed." post #23425

I zeroed in on the fact that the concept of "crime" itself involves morality--thus you, RA conflated physical and moral responsibility. When you supposed that injecting supernaturalism into criminal investigation would "let the prisons out" I was obliged to point out that a pure reliance on methodological naturalism could never establish moral guilt, which is the only thing that prisons were designed to address.
As I have maintained from the first, forensic scientists limit their application of their craft at the point were intelligence is assumed and moral guilt might be determined by means apart from MN. MN may be used to probabilistically determine physical responsibility. Video evidence results in high probabillity, and hair samples and the like provide somewhat lower probabilities (on average).
My point all along has been that forensics assumes intelligence and therefore limits the scope of its practice, and also refrains from establishing guilt. You have seemingly pretended that these were not my points all along.

It is what your equally devasting comment deserved.

Here's my comment:
Exclusive use of MN for expansion of the human knowledge base leads to absurd conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a "supernatural" beginning).
Here's your reply:
Nope.

One of us referenced evidence (still unrefuted), while the other one didn't.

Let me remind you what an intelligence is.

Be careful of leaving wide-open opportunities for insult.
:smile:

Intelligence: 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations . . . .(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria

What does it mean to "understand" in terms of naturalism? Does a pinball machine understand how to get the ball to drain?
Further, is the pinball machine applying its knowledge of how to get the ball to drain when the ball actually drains?

Thus a natural intelligence is any natural entity that has these properties. The animal world is full of them: humans, chimps, gorillas, elephants, dolphins, whales, beavers, etc.

Don't forget bees (http://www.planetsave.com/ViewStory.asp?ID=523), moss, and rocks. They are intelligent and capable of abstract thought--we just haven't figured out how to confirm it scientifically yet. :wink:
Seriously, you've never addressed the fact that all such supposed examples are merely the end result of previous states of matter and nothing more. Nobody, in the naturalist view, makes use of his "intelligence". All acts, all "thoughts" are simply manifestations of unintelligent interactions of matter--it so happens that the interactions of matter dictated that certain types of interactions of matter would be termed "intelligence" by certain carbon units. Naturalism will always reduce you to that point, no matter how you try to gussy it up.

Well my philosophical naturalist would view doesn’t involve it. I’d expect that that much would be obvious.

That's obvious to me, but I was considerably less sure that it was obvious to you (in part owing to your tardiness in answering).

Sure, I could just be imagining the word “specter” in the definition. :doh:
Lets follow the chain: “ghost” -> “apparition” -> “specter” -> “phantom” -> “Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality;”

Yeap, no appeals to the supernatural there. :ahem:

:rofl:
How nice of you to trace your own trail of equivocation!
And even then, you're still vulnerable to trivial refutation by counterexample: Are your dreams supernatural?

So you admit that you contradicted yourself.

No, you're asking me to contradict myself and I'm declining. If you think that I contradicted myself, quote the contradictory sentences in your reply without disregarding the context of either.

Neither of those conclusions follow from what I said.

Here's what you said:
If human culture teaches us anything, morals are only applicable to treating individuals within your own group.

You could be saying that human culture teaches us nothing, I guess, but it appears to follow that if dogs (for example) are not part of our group, then morals are not applicable, thus beating a dog cannot be immoral per se.
How do we tell who is part of our group, and who is not? Dispel your impressive ambiguity?

It doesn’t matter whether we consider it as part of the group or not. It matters whether the ants themselves consider it as part of their group. The fact is that because of the wrong smell their senses tell them that he is not part of the group. Thus they’re simply defending their home from an invader.

Okay, I think I follow you now. If the KKK figures that blacks are not part of their group, then it is not immoral for KKK members to kill blacks; they're simply defending their home from an invader.
Have I got that right, now?

Spare me your illogic.

Spare me your fallacious argument-by-assertion claims of illogic on my part.
http://www.kdkragen.com/philosophy/philosophy2.pdf
(#8 under "fallacies of irrelevance")

Of course this ignores the fact that computers distinguish between right (true) and wrong (false) things all the time. That kind of disproves your contention that a supernatural component is necessary to use logic and reason.

Do computers do what they are programmed to do? (hint: Yes)
Who programs computers? (hint: You just begged the question blatantly)

But if you allow supernatural causes, MN will not allow you to reach such a conclusion.

Why not, assuming you're not stuck with fallacious argument-by-assertion?
[snipped already-answered question, repeated]

You’ve “cut off” nothing by simply claiming that stochastic events are truly deterministic. Your attempts to construct a semantic argument reveals your misconceptions about the subject.

Balderdash.
"Determinism" is usually taken to mean clockwork determinism, where every subsequent event is causally established by the initial state.
Merriam-Webster is much clearer in making the distinction than is Dictionary.com, btw.
The second definition offered by M-W encompasses the idea that causal chains do not even exist, but that a god causes every event bar none according to a plan. This is also determinism (predestination). Thus, if a person is not the uncoerced cause of his own actions, then his actions are (in turn) caused (or determined) by something else (such as preceding states of matter). This is determinism in a sense closely analogous to moment-by-moment divine control. Both are forms of determinism.

http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/fwd.html
http://www.pc-intouch.com/~neepot/essay/philo/101formal2.html

How does supernaturalism add this to the world?

That's obvious, imo, and I've already explained it to you. Supernaturalism does not demand that all events are described in turn by supernatural laws or the like; even then a supernatural law would not be "lawful"; we'd just have a "supernatural" version of "naturalism". Supernaturalism allows for events which are not absolutely caused by preceding events. Naturalism demands that all events are absolutely caused by preceding events, according to lawful processes (by definition). Thus Naturalism does not allow for uncoerced human decisions (see definition of free will).

That of course assumes that you even have it in the first place. The fact is that under supernaturalism you are not guaranteed free will, neither are you guaranteed to be excising it at any point in time, nor does it provide the tools that allow us to determine any of this.

1) It was assumed for the sake of argument. Got a problem with that?
2) I don't need to be "guaranteed" free will. That's a red herring. I've argued for the possibility of free will, and I think I've done so quite successfully (the fact that you're arguing that it isn't guaranteed could be taken as evidence of this).
3) As with #2, I don't need to be guaranteed to be using it at any given moment in time. I can't freely decide to spend the day at my summer home on Neptune on Sunday--I can deal (red herring).
4) Free will doesn't give us the tools to determine free will? Assuming that your argument-by-assertion is correct, so what?

You have yet to make a good argument for supernaturally determined free will except that, “some god might let us have it some of the time.” I’m surprised that anyone could think that that was a decent argument.

That wasn't the argument for, it was an example of (nice straw man). Assuming supernaturalism, can you give me one single solitary reason why a god couldn't create a being with free will (save the fallacies; I know what to look for)?

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 04:32 PM

03-07-2003 @ 03:17 PM
Fredster:

No one has weasled anywhere. All I am doing is pointing out that you are using a set of presuppositionally hermenuetics to explain the physical world we live in and you assume, without question, that you hermeneutics are true with out a doubt. The only accusation that I am lobbing at you is that you don't realize this.

I can construct a similar statment: "All I am doing is pointing out that you desire to have sex with men. The only accusation that I am lobbing at you is that you don't realize this."

Well, as a matter of fact, I have studied the issue at hand, so I am not talking out of the air as you are want to think. I would ask you the same questions you asked me.

Well then please summarize the biogeography of woodpeckers for me (start a new thread if you need to). Please include the variation in feeding style, morphology, behavior, etc. both within and among taxa. Don't forget to include both extinct and extant forms. Also provide a phylogeny that most of the researchers agree on. How does cranial structure map on this phylogeny? If you've studied woodpeckers in depth, you should be able to answer these questions.

Have you actually studied woodpeckers or are you making your assertions based upon any real informed knowledge?

No I haven't studied woodpeckers, but I am also not making assertions about their biology.

Smuggness aside, how exactly do you think they are different? We are talking about a divine God designing with special creation are we not? Or do you have something else in mind?

Special creation makes certain predictions about the historical pattern we should see in nature. Arguing that one taxa has a divinely designed feature is not the same as arguing that all "major" taxa (whatever the delimitations might be) were created at the same time at some point in the past by divine fiat.

RufusAtticus

March 7th 2003, 05:55 PM

03-07-2003 @ 03:26 PM
Captain Ochre:

I zeroed in on the fact that the concept of "crime" itself involves morality--thus you, RA conflated physical and moral responsibility.

No, the concept of 'crime' involves law. Forensics doesn't establish what a crime is. It only seeks to determine if an event is consistent with a crime and who perpetrated it.

When you supposed that injecting supernaturalism into criminal investigation would "let the prisons out" I was obliged to point out that a pure reliance on methodological naturalism could never establish moral guilt, which is the only thing that prisons were designed to address.

Of course this doesn't expain all the prisons built in the US before Darrow or in jurisdictions that don't recognize moral guilt. If moral guilt is the only thing prisons are designed to address, then why are the people in prison who are physically responsible but not morally reponsible. (Hint: not all US jurisdictions consistently reconginize it.)

Here's my comment:
Exclusive use of MN for expansion of the human knowledge base leads to absurd conclusions; see again the infinite regress of causes (leading to a "supernatural" beginning).
Here's your reply:
Nope.

One of us referenced evidence (still unrefuted), while the other one didn't.

You didn't reference evidence, only made an false assetion.

What does it mean to "understand" in terms of naturalism? Does a pinball machine understand how to get the ball to drain?
Further, is the pinball machine applying its knowledge of how to get the ball to drain when the ball actually drains?

Considering that I didn't mention pinballs, what does this have to do with anything?

Seriously, you've never addressed the fact that all such supposed examples are merely the end result of previous states of matter and nothing more.

So what? Why does there have to be something more?

Nobody, in the naturalist view, makes use of his "intelligence". All acts, all "thoughts" are simply manifestations of unintelligent interactions of matter--it so happens that the interactions of matter dictated that certain types of interactions of matter would be termed "intelligence" by certain carbon units. Naturalism will always reduce you to that point, no matter how you try to gussy it up.

If an intelligence is natural, there is nothing in a naturalist view preventing it from being used. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

How nice of you to trace your own trail of equivocation!

LOL. Not my trail of equivocation, but the one in the dictionary that you used.

And even then, you're still vulnerable to trivial refutation by counterexample: Are your dreams supernatural?

Only if they can manipulate objects. (Remember that was your claim about ghosts.)

No, you're asking me to contradict myself and I'm declining. If you think that I contradicted myself, quote the contradictory sentences in your reply without disregarding the context of either.

Me: If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world, then you need to read some neurobiology literature

You: That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it.

Me: Please then point me to the neurobiology literature that explains intelligence using the supernatural.

You: Were I to do so, I would refute (or at least undermine) my own argument regarding the philosphical blinders worn by (MN) science.

There is an obvious contradiction between your two statements.

You could be saying that human culture teaches us nothing, I guess, but it appears to follow that if dogs (for example) are not part of our group, then morals are not applicable, thus beating a dog cannot be immoral per se.
How do we tell who is part of our group, and who is not? Dispel your impressive ambiguity?

You can't tell who is part of your group. You have to choose it. Some people chose to put pets into their group, other do not.

Okay, I think I follow you now. If the KKK figures that blacks are not part of their group, then it is not immoral for KKK members to kill blacks;

Ask klansmen, they'll probably tell you that it is not immoral to kill blacks. Remember we're discussing how to determine a group's or individual's morality, not how to use our own standards and those of the law to judge others.

they're simply defending their home from an invader.

Well if a person does invade anothers home--no matter what the color is of the various people involved--most Americans don't have a problem with the invader ending up dead.

Spare me your fallacious argument-by-assertion claims of illogic on my part.

LOL To show how I am being fallacious, you need to first show how it is logical to conclude that what I have said fuels racism.

Do computers do what they are programmed to do? (hint: Yes)
Who programs computers? (hint: You just begged the question blatantly)

Yeah, so what? You claim that a supernatural element is required to choose between right and wrong is falsified by completely natural computers.

Why not, assuming you're not stuck with fallacious argument-by-assertion?
Because there is no way for MN to address the supernatural (an argument that you have stated many times but now fell free to contadict). Therefore, there is no way to use MN to disprove that we are not the puppets of divine powers. Thus responding to my question with an answer involving MN doesn't work. Once again: How under supernaturalism are you able to determine that our actions are not controlled by divine puppet masters?

Balderdash.
"Determinism" is usually taken to mean clockwork determinism, where every subsequent event is causally established by the initial state.
Merriam-Webster is much clearer in making the distinction than is Dictionary.com, btw.
The second definition offered by M-W encompasses the idea that causal chains do not even exist, but that a god causes every event bar none according to a plan. This is also determinism (predestination). Thus, if a person is not the uncoerced cause of his own actions, then his actions are (in turn) caused (or determined) by something else (such as preceding states of matter). This is determinism in a sense closely analogous to moment-by-moment divine control. Both are forms of determinism.

And yet none of that has anything to do stochastic processes. Thus my original objection to your mischaracterism of naturalism still stands: nature is not deterministic, it is stochastic.

Supernaturalism allows for events which are not absolutely caused by preceding events.

No. Supernaturalism allows for events that are not absolutely caused by preceding natural events. That's becuase it allwos for events to also be caused by preceding supernatural events.

Naturalism demands that all events are absolutely caused by preceding events, according to lawful processes (by definition).
No. Naturalism just demands that supernatural events aren't the cause of it.

Thus Naturalism does not allow for uncoerced human decisions (see definition of free will).

This still does not follow no matter how many times you state it.

1) It was assumed for the sake of argument. Got a problem with that?

Yes. Because as long as that is only an assumption of your argument for supernaturalism you haven't shown anything.

2) I don't need to be "guaranteed" free will. That's a red herring. I've argued for the possibility of free will, and I think I've done so quite successfully (the fact that you're arguing that it isn't guaranteed could be taken as evidence of this).
3) As with #2, I don't need to be guaranteed to be using it at any given moment in time. I can't freely decide to spend the day at my summer home on Neptune on Sunday--I can deal (red herring).
4) Free will doesn't give us the tools to determine free will? Assuming that your argument-by-assertion is correct, so what?

Nope, I said that supernaturalism doesn't give us the tools.

That wasn't the argument for, it was an example of (nice straw man). Assuming supernaturalism, can you give me one single solitary reason why a god couldn't create a being with free will (save the fallacies; I know what to look for)?

Under supernaturalism anything is possible. The trick is for you to show, using supernaturalism, that the natural world was given free will because natural process can't result produce it. Only then will your argument against naturalism have some validity.

Captain Ochre

March 8th 2003, 05:25 AM

03-07-2003 @ 09:55 PM
RufusAtticus:

No, the concept of 'crime' involves law. Forensics doesn't establish what a crime is. It only seeks to determine if an event is consistent with a crime and who perpetrated it.

Laws are based on morality; every one of them. They are "oughts".

Of course this doesn't expain all the prisons built in the US before Darrow or in jurisdictions that don't recognize moral guilt. If moral guilt is the only thing prisons are designed to address, then why are the people in prison who are physically responsible but not morally reponsible. (Hint: not all US jurisdictions consistently reconginize it.)

Sure it explains prisons built before Darrow--why wouldn't it?
Feel free to support your assertion that some jurisdictions consider moral guilt irrelevant. You can handwave it away, but the other readers (if any) know better.

You didn't reference evidence, only made an false assetion.

The definition of naturalism specifies that all phenomena are explainable through natural causes and laws. That includes thought, and it includes morality--all of it. Now look up the definition of free will. How will "you" do otherwise when you're not really at the wheel? Molecules are steering you, not vice-versa.

I pointed you to the infinite regress of natural causes (and it doesn't even need to be infinite--it just has to precede you). You can try to handwave it away, but your tactic is transparently futile.

Considering that I didn't mention pinballs, what does this have to do with anything?

What should the fact that you didn't mention pinballs have to do with anything?
The pinball machine is an absurd counterexample to the naturalistic definition of thought.

So what? Why does there have to be something more?

Without something more, you cannot justify free will. Secondary to that, you cannot justify moral guilt. Stemming from that, you cannot find somebody guilty in court. Leading from that, naturalism can't imprison people justly.

If an intelligence is natural, there is nothing in a naturalist view preventing it from being used. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's easy to understand, but begging the question doesn't get you anywhere.

LOL. Not my trail of equivocation, but the one in the dictionary that you used.

Are you under the illusion/delusion that using a dictionary means that you didn't eqivocate?

Only if they can manipulate objects. (Remember that was your claim about ghosts.)

Wow, you're equivocating again already.
Magnetism is immaterial and moves objects around. Is magnetism supernatural?
Pretend that Uri Geller can bend spoons using invisible mental powers. Is Uri Geller supernatural, or is the spoon bending supernatural (both? neither?).
You're shifting from the topic of the naturalness of ghosts to the supposed supernaturality of moving objects. You've been foiled by counterexample (again).

Me: If you want an explaination of how intellegence can exist in a natural world, then you need to read some neurobiology literature

You: That could pass for an admission that you don't understand it.

Me: Please then point me to the neurobiology literature that explains intelligence using the supernatural.

You: Were I to do so, I would refute (or at least undermine) my own argument regarding the philosphical blinders worn by (MN) science.

There is an obvious contradiction between your two statements.

Really? I don't believe you (about either the alleged contradiction or the supposed obviousness. I'll help you out by placing the statements adjacent to one another, then you explain the "obvious" contradiction.

"That (referring CO to neurobiology lit for an explanation) for could pass for an admission that you don't understand it."

"Were I to do so (find an explanation in neurobiology literature), I would refute (or at least undermine) my own argument regarding the philosphical blinders worn by (MN) science."

The first statement notes that you are pawning off the explanation expected of you on neurobiology lit--almost as if you don't know what the explanation is, yourself.
The second statement notes that as an advocate of the view that such literature does not rescue naturalistic thought from the pitfall of determinism. I've made the case for that (albeit you're making like you don't get it); thus it is time for you to provide evidence (or logic) that counters my argument. If I do so, then I am bearing your burden of proof.
Failure to comprehend is not an argument, btw.

You can't tell who is part of your group. You have to choose it. Some people chose to put pets into their group, other do not.

Are the pets still part of the group if the pets don't choose to be part of the group?
If I choose who is part of my group, then why can't I tell who is part of my group? Or do you mean that I have to choose the group entire? How can I choose an entire group without being able to tell who they are?
Your explanation is absurd.

Ask klansmen, they'll probably tell you that it is not immoral to kill blacks. Remember we're discussing how to determine a group's or individual's morality, not how to use our own standards and those of the law to judge others.

It doesn't matter what they would actually do--it's a hypothetical.

LOL To show how I am being fallacious, you need to first show how it is logical to conclude that what I have said fuels racism.

I already did that; you didn't get it.
You claimed that ants aren't exhibiting a moral pattern by punishing the ant from outside their group (the one they merely perceive to be out of their group--she's actually a member of the group who happened to fall in with the wrong smells).
You set the criteria, then you proceed to ignore them, afaics.
"If human culture teaches us anything, morals are only applicable to treating individuals within your own group."
That's what you said. The ants are not exhibiting morality because the ant is out of their group. The KKK is exhibiting its morality despite the fact that blacks are not part of the group.
Seems to me that you're on the horns of dilemma: Admit that the ants are manifesting their morality, or allow that the killing of blacks by the KKK isn't a moral issue and shouldn't be considered a moral issue anytime one decides to harm somebody outside his own group.

Yeah, so what? You claim that a supernatural element is required to choose between right and wrong is falsified by completely natural computers.

So what? Begging the question is a logical fallacy. So what?
What "natural computers" falsify the necessity of free will to moral judgment? Begging the question again so soon?

Because there is no way for MN to address the supernatural (an argument that you have stated many times but now fell free to contadict).

Bzzt. I argue that there is no way for MN alone to address such questions. Straw man fallacy.

Therefore, there is no way to use MN to disprove that we are not the puppets of divine powers. Thus responding to my question with an answer involving MN doesn't work. Once again: How under supernaturalism are you able to determine that our actions are not controlled by divine puppet masters?

Non sequitur (argument based on your straw man identified above).
You've already been answered. Address the answer without committing another fallacy, if you can.

And yet none of that has anything to do stochastic processes.

It applies equally well to stochastic processes, as I mentioned earlier. I had assumed that you hadn't forgotten. Maybe you'll believe it if you've got a link to go on.
http://www.tufts.edu/~rvogel/Editorial.pdf

Thus my original objection to your mischaracterism of naturalism still stands: nature is not deterministic, it is stochastic.

As the link above illustates, the appeal to stochastic process does not make the system non-deterministic. It simply means that the end state cannot be predicted with certainty.

No. Supernaturalism allows for events that are not absolutely caused by preceding natural events. That's becuase it allwos for events to also be caused by preceding supernatural events.

You have given no rationale for objecting to my statement. Proffering your own statement in its stead does not suffice for that purpose. Your statement after "no" is true, but it is not the whole story. My statement is also true despite your asserted denial.

No. Naturalism just demands that supernatural events aren't the cause of it.

Are you telling me that you've never read the dictionary entry for naturalism (philosophical)?

This still does not follow no matter how many times you state it.

Why not?:hrm:
Have you read the respective definitions? How does a decision caused by events preceding and apart from the individual count as an unforced decision?

Yes. Because as long as that is only an assumption of your argument for supernaturalism you haven't shown anything.

Assuming that free will is possible, I have shown that a supernaturalist view is compatible with free will. I'd call that something. In fact, I'd call it exactly what I set out to show.

Nope, I said that supernaturalism doesn't give us the tools.

Same question: So what? It gives us a framework that accomodates free will. Why should more be demanded, for the moment?

Under supernaturalism anything is possible.

Concession noted, though I would stipulate that the impossible is not possible even with supernaturalism.

The trick is for you to show, using supernaturalism, that the natural world was given free will because natural process can't result produce it. Only then will your argument against naturalism have some validity.

:rofl:

When you can walk across the rice paper and not leave a trace, then you will have learned.
IOW, your if/then fallacy is noted.

QED

March 8th 2003, 09:45 AM

If I caught a herring as large as the red one thrashing about on this thread, I could feed the world.

Ochre insists on pushing the counterexample of MN in forensic science far beyond its applicability.

Ochre has admitted that he considers physical responsibility to be appropriately addressed by the methods of MN. Forensic science establishes physical responsibility for events in the past. Ochre should, before changing the subject entirely and moving his argument to the philosophy forum, tell us whether he still has a "question" about MN's ability to answer historical questions, such as the determination of physical responsibility for a crime that happened in the past.

It is obvious that the law exists, whatever assumptions lawmakers may have used in creating it. It is obvious that the law requires methodologically naturalistic evidence even of the legally established criteria for moral responsibility.

Are the legally established criteria correct, or properly derived? Lets just say that they are not. Let's just say, for arguments sake, that lawmakers made them up to suit their own purposes and that by and large the populace is content with them. The fact is that they exist, and MN evidence is used exclusively to establish (for instance) the age of the perpetrator. Psychologists, not theologians, are called upon to comment on the evidence that the perpetrator is sane. Forensic evidence, collected using the methods of MN, is used to establish that the perpetrator was not acting in self-defense.

A crime, as defined by the law which exists objectively, and can be understood naturalistically, has been perpetrated in the past, and the methodology of science can be used exclusively to answer the question of who bears responsibility for it. MN can even tell us, using the naturalistic evidence whether there was personal responsibility as defined by the law, and therefore whether the event was truly criminal. Does MN give us results that can carry as much confidence when addressing these criteria of moral responsibility as set out in the law? No. On the other hand, no suitable alternative has been discovered. In other words, MN is the best tool we have, even though some questions cannot be answered with the greatest of confidence using its methods because not enough natural evidence can be gathered to give us complete certainty.

So, really, the only question left for Ochre's philosophical debate, is whether moral responsibility, as defined by legal criteria, is a philosophically sound notion, or what might constitute true moral responsibility. He posits that effective (meaning undetermined) personal causation might allow us to formulate the best concept of moral responsibility. That may well be the case, but I expect he can discover no method of determining whether undetermined personal causation actually exists, and if so, what conditions we can expect to characterize such an event. I expect that, under pragmatic considerations, we are no better off imagining an undetermined universe than a determined one. But I'm shy of such insubstantial philosophical questions, that leave us with no more knowledge upon imagining answers to them than we had before we asked them.

QED

March 8th 2003, 09:54 AM

Seems to me that you're on the horns of dilemma: Admit that the ants are manifesting their morality, or allow that the killing of blacks by the KKK isn't a moral issue and shouldn't be considered a moral issue anytime one decides to harm somebody outside his own group.

I suspect that we may have just witnessed the fallacy of composition.

We perceive that both blacks and KKK members are members of our group, and therefore the actions of the KKK are issues to be addressed by our groups' mores (which, in fact condemn those actions).

KKK members consider blacks to be an outsider group, and do not consider their own morality as applying to actions WRT to them. This is why they are often found to be mistreating them.

This is good evidence for RA's theory of the nature of morality. If KKK members considered blacks to be a part of their group, but applied the same moral thinking to their relationship with blacks as they do with each other, this would be a falsification of RA's theory.

If we considered either KKK members or blacks (or both) to be outside our own group, yet condemned the KKK for its violations of our morality WRT their treatment of blacks, then this would also be a falsification of RA's theory.

Sher

March 9th 2003, 02:01 AM

03-07-2003 @ 01:45 PM
Bubba:

In what way is a God who punishes billions of people with things like smallpox, AIDS, arthritus, starvation, Malaria, and every other disease imagineable for the sin of two people worthy of our worship in any way?

Sounds like a pretty sadistic God to me.Why would a person who feels this way profess to be a Christian? Sounds like pretty big amount of malarky to me.

You are assuming that God is punishing. Humans exercise freewill, then commit the third sin mentioned in the Bible when things go wrong ... the shift of blame.

Sher

March 9th 2003, 02:04 AM

03-07-2003 @ 02:34 PM
Bubba:

Also, why don't we see marsupials everywhere? Was there a sign outside of the ark that told them to migrate back to Australia?Um, you may want to check the definition of marsupial :deal:

"any of an order (Marsupialia) of mammals comprising kangaroos, wombats, bandicoots, opossums, and related animals that do not develop a true placenta and that usually have a pouch on the abdomen of the female which covers the teats and serves to carry the young" (www.m-w.com)

I do not live in Oz, but I have seen many marsupials in the US, live ... and roadkill. :hrm:

... not to mention the obvious understanding of how weather, climate, prediators, human population, etc. affect animal populations.

Tycho

March 9th 2003, 04:28 AM

03-08-2003 @ 11:01 PM
SherBear:

Why would a person who feels this way profess to be a Christian? Sounds like pretty big amount of malarky to me.
True scotsman fallacy?

You are assuming that God is punishing. Humans exercise freewill, then commit the third sin mentioned in the Bible when things go wrong ... the shift of blame.
Somehow, I don't think that you can pin AIDS and smallpox on freewill. Freewill's a philosophical concept, not an entity that can create viruses from nothing.

Sher

March 9th 2003, 06:03 AM

03-09-2003 @ 03:28 AM
Tycho:

True scotsman fallacy?Hello Tycho.

No, I don't believe so.

A "No true Scotsman fallacy" is an argument that is bascially based on the erroneous assertion that the actions/statements of a person shows that the person is not "true" to belief, nation, etc. (Not a true Scotsman because they do or said such-and-such)

However, when Bubba claimed Christianity in a earlier post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=27667#post27667), he labeled himself, by definition, as someone who worships/follows Christ (God). Therefore, the inference in his statement that "God {is not} worthy of our worship in any way" is non sequitur. (His actual statement of "In what way is a God who punishes billions of people with things like smallpox, AIDS, arthritus, starvation, Malaria, and every other disease imagineable for the sin of two people worthy of our worship in any way", gives that inference, that He is not worthy because He punishes with those things.) I answered to both his mixed messages, and his erroneous assertion of God's punishment by those methods.

An analogy to this, that would go along in theme with the name of the fallacy, would be for someone who was not born in Scotland, never lived there, and who had no ancestory from there, to claim to be a Scot. It does not follow.

It isn't simply a name we adopt. When we believe in and follow Christ, we are born again (Christians), and in the family of Christ, we know that He is worthy of worship (Phil 2:10-11).
Somehow, I don't think that you can pin AIDS and smallpox on freewill. Freewill's a philosophical concept, not an entity that can create viruses from nothing. I'm sorry you disagree, but while we don't know the origin of AIDS, we do know that in the beginning of the spread of the disease, it was primarily commuted by exercise of free will opposed to God's will (homosexuality, drug use, multiple partners). Likewise with smallpox, but it has nearly been erradicated. It's reintroduction would be through the free will of those who would use it for germ warfare, not the will of God.

QED

March 9th 2003, 12:35 PM

Sherber,

I'm "butting in" a little bit. I don't defend the charge that your comments were of the "no true scotsman" variety, and I don't want to argue Bubba's case for him. I do think that it is possible you have misunderstood Bubba's position. Whether or not that is actually the case, I do want to point out an argument that it essentially the same or somewhat similar to Bubba's for which your criticism is inappropriate.

However, when Bubba claimed Christianity in a earlier post, he labeled himself, by definition, as someone who worships/follows Christ (God). Therefore, the inference in his statement that "God {is not} worthy of our worship in any way" is non sequitur.

Let us assume that Bubba is a Christian, and let his inference of a God that is not worthy of our worship be an inference from a particular doctrinal view espoused by some Christians, together with elements from science or everyday experience.

More specifically, let us assume that it is the view of Special Creation/Fall theology that is the starting point for Bubba's inference.

Now, the argument might be that from the view of Special Creation/Fall Theology, together with elements of science or everyday experience, one might legitimately infer a characterization of God that is unworthy of worship. If the inference is legitimate, then what has been shown is that this doctrinal view (SC/FT) is incompatible with Christianity, because Christians, by definition, hold the view that God is worthy of worship. Ergo, Christians who hold to SC/FT are themselves guilty of inconsistency, according to this argument.

If all of my assumptions were the case (and I do not argue that they are - merely that they might have been), then Bubba has not demonstrated his own disdain for Christian beliefs, but rather has shown his reasons for rejecting Special Creation/Fall Theology.

Personally, I think that there are much more persuasive theological reasons for abandoning special creationism, articulated best by Augustine (the potential damage scientific non-sense carries for the Christian witness), and Aubrey Moore (that the theory of God's occasional intervention in nature carries the correlative theory that He is ordinarily absent from its workings).

However, if Bubba's case does represent a theological argument, then perhaps you could review it and address it as such, just to see where that leads....

Tycho

March 9th 2003, 08:10 PM

Thanks for making your position more clear. Also, I think that QED makes an interesting point regarding rejection of YECism vs. rejection of other concepts.

03-09-2003 @ 03:03 AM
SherBear:I'm sorry you disagree, but while we don't know the origin of AIDS, we do know that in the beginning of the spread of the disease, it was primarily commuted by exercise of free will opposed to God's will (homosexuality, drug use, multiple partners). Likewise with smallpox, but it has nearly been erradicated. It's reintroduction would be through the free will of those who would use it for germ warfare, not the will of God.
I agree that the origin and the spread of a disease are two different things. However, it can hardly be shifting the blame to blame the (supposed) creator of the diseases for the resulting deaths. Furthermore, the spread of smallpox was not due to freewill, although the actions of Mankind are what lead to its eradication.

In any case, just who do you think you are, to tell us God's will? Do you believe yourself God, or does God have a personal line to your house? If God were the creator of AIDS and smallpox, as God must be if YECism were correct, then what makes you think that their spread is not God's will?

Sher

March 10th 2003, 01:14 AM

03-09-2003 @ 07:10 PM
Tycho:

Thanks for making your position more clear. Also, I think that QED makes an interesting point regarding rejection of YECism vs. rejection of other concepts.Until Bubba rings in, we cannot be sure that QED is even close to guessing that is what Bubba meant. Of course it is possible that I misunderstood Bubba, but he didn't "attack" a doctrine of a church or believer, but rather labeled God unworthy of worship ... something that takes no interpretation or doctrine to figure out is against being a follower of Christ.
I agree that the origin and the spread of a disease are two different things. However, it can hardly be shifting the blame to blame the (supposed) creator of the diseases for the resulting deaths. Furthermore, the spread of smallpox was not due to freewill, although the actions of Mankind are what lead to its eradication.Being that we do not KNOW who or what created the diseases, aren't you taking a big leap toward blaming God for the origin? God created many things that man has abused. Do you really know for certain, contrary to what science has claimed, that God created the diseases/viruses? One interesting scientific theory is that AIDS was spread to humans via the polio vaccine and took off from there. This is based on the wide spread theory that AIDS came from monkeys. Monkey kidneys were used in culturing the polio vaccine, and if infected with SV-40, could easily have spread to humans in this manner. If this is true, this is a case of something that is not harmful to an animal, that humans transfered to other humans, and continue to do so. Secondly, do you know for certain that they are/were used as punishment? That is the heart of the two claims that Bubba has made ... that God did it and it was done for punishment.
In any case, just who do you think you are, to tell us God's will? Do you believe yourself God, or does God have a personal line to your house? If God were the creator of AIDS and smallpox, as God must be if YECism were correct, then what makes you think that their spread is not God's will? This ad hominem attack and slippery slope fallacy isn't worthy of an answer. :hrm:

Tycho

March 10th 2003, 05:40 AM

03-09-2003 @ 10:14 PM
SherBear:
Being that we do not KNOW who or what created the diseases, aren't you taking a big leap toward blaming God for the origin?
However, if YECism is correct, is there any way in which God is not the creator of these diseases? This is not to say that I believe that God is the creator of these diseases, but rather that it's a consequence of YECism being true.

This ad hominem attack and slippery slope fallacy isn't worthy of an answer. :hrm:
I would greatly appreciate it if you learned what "ad hominem" and "slippery slope" are. You will see that neither occur in the quotation in question. All I'm saying is that I'm annoyed regarding people re-labelling their own opinions as those of God's. IOW, if you have an opinion on something, please feel free to share and defend it. However, please do not present your own opinions as God's without substantial evidence.

Socratism

March 10th 2003, 09:47 AM

03-10-2003 @ 04:40 AM
Tycho:
However, if YECism is correct, is there any way in which God is not the creator of these diseases? This is not to say that I believe that God is the creator of these diseases, but rather that it's a consequence of YECism being true.

I don't wish to butt in here, but there are articles, written by medical doctors I believe, available on websites that discuss this very subject.

Sometimes people assume wrongly that creationists think that living creatures today are unchanged from the way they were created by God. If that is not true, and I happen to think it is not logical to assume they would be, then organisms that were originally created to be "very good" might have become altered over the years (due to mutation or other mechanisms) to be less than good or even very bad. Some of the articles I have read even suggest that a single mutation can in some cases turn a lower organism from being "very good" to "very bad" as far as human beings are concerned.

Fredster

March 10th 2003, 01:01 PM

Why would large polar ice caps be evidence for a world wide flood?

The polar ice caps are one of the reasonable explanations for where the floodwaters went as they receded off the earth. The long ages of evolutionary theory cannot account for large sheets of ice that happened during the ice age. Oceans need to be warm to create evaporation, and the land must be cold to produce snow sufficient to cover the ground. But, if there was long periods of the earth cooling that supposedly caused the ice age, as evolutionary theory tends to purport, oceans would cool as well, and evaporation from the oceans would be insufficient to cause massive ice sheets that covered most of upper North America continent, and the lower southern continents. However, a global flood provides a simple mechanism for an “ice age’ and the remaining polar ice caps.

and exactly how much heat would have been generated by an uplift that would cause something like Everest?

Why would you believe heat to be a problem? According to the Biblical record, the breaking up of “the fountains of the deep” caused the floodwaters. If these floodwaters that covered the earth escaped from the mid-oceanic ridge that runs the course of the earth, the sliding of the major continental plates would cause the weaker portions of the plates to buckle and warp. In fact, this is exactly what we observe with the major mountain ranges. Mountains give the appearance of being crumpled like a rug pushed against a wall. Moreover, mountain ranges are parallel to the oceanic ridge from where it slid, hence the reason the Rockies and Appalachians of North America and the Andes of South America have a north-south orientation. Geothermic heat and molten rock are a result of the continental plates sliding and the mountains forming, not the cause of them.

why don't we see marsupials everywhere?

As another poster pointed out above, there are marsupials in other places in the world. I constantly had to shoo them away from the dog food when I was a kid. They were called possums. Australia eventually became an isolated continent with an environment that allowed certain animal types to thrive, whereas else where they died out; at least in larger quantities.

Fred

Sher

March 10th 2003, 07:05 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:40 AM
Tycho:

However, if YECism is correct, is there any way in which God is not the creator of these diseases? This is not to say that I believe that God is the creator of these diseases, but rather that it's a consequence of YECism being true.Proof, please?
I would greatly appreciate it if you learned what "ad hominem" and "slippery slope" are. You will see that neither occur in the quotation in question. :doh:
... ad hominem (http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm): "There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion."

This was shown by you saying "Do you believe yourself God, or does God have a personal line to your house?"

... slippery slope (http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm): "In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator."

This was shown when you said "If God were the creator of AIDS and smallpox, as God must be if YECism were correct, then what makes you think that their spread is not God's will?"
All I'm saying is that I'm annoyed regarding people re-labelling their own opinions as those of God's.::searches for the words "God said" in my post:: :huh:
IOW, if you have an opinion on something, please feel free to share and defend it. However, please do not present your own opinions as God's without substantial evidence. Proof that I did this, please?

Since this is the second time you have had a problem with fallacy definitions, perhaps you would like the URLs for some websites that define logical fallacies :ponder:

http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

:em7: ...

Bubba

March 10th 2003, 08:27 PM

Actually, I believe in God and I would really like to be a Christian. I am struggling with my personal faith right now because if God really is punishing billions of people for the sin of two people then I find THAT version of God unworthy of worship.

I have a very serious problem reconciling the pain in the world to a loving God. I've spent years trying. For me it's not a small thing. I worked in Chicago as part of a ministry to the homeless, volunteered in a ministry to troubled teenage boys, volunteered in another outreach ministry to teens, taught H.S. Sunday school, etc. So please don;t say that I ahven't thought through or felt through this issue.

As far as evolution goes, I've tried to defend every doctrine/idea/concept of recent special creation in my mind and none of the defenses seem to work very well. I've got several friends who are liberal Christians or Catholics who accept evolution and are also involved in the sciences. Every time I find a seemingly solid creationist arguement it gets blown to bits by...evidence.

I'm not so sure the Liberal Christian version of God is any better. I'm looking for a pastor to talk about some deep and serious issues with here in Columbus, OH. A good friend of mine goes to first congregational and I plan on talking to Tim A., the pastor there about some of these issues. My wife and I are also going to try a Lutheran Church Saturday night and talk to the pastor there.

Part of my real hostility towards YEC's isn't so much YEC as the YEC's I've known-when I talked to the pastor of the church I attended for the last 5 1/2 years about evolution his response was "Don't worry about it-dinosaurs never existed anyways...". That's not the only answer like that I've gotten from YEC's.

Part of my asking questions like the Egypt-Flood question I asked in another thread revolve around wanting to know if there really is ANY Good YEC/OEC answer.

But as far as the first 11 Chapters of Genesis go, I think you'll find other problems-such as the tower of Babel occurs about 1700-1800 B.C., and by that time we have written records of Chinese history. So I really think that the best interpretation I can find of the first 11 vs. is somehow symbolic.

This does not answer the question of why the first 11 chapters of Genesis are written as though it is a literal six days and a literal six thousand years. I do not find the OEC/Thiestic evolution answer the best from a strictly biblical viewpoint.

Sorry for ranting, but these issues are really on my mind.

Bubba

Bubba

March 10th 2003, 08:30 PM

Sher Bear-I don't think the free will defense works-my daughter (2 years old) suffers from juvenile arthritus.

How exactly did her sin or free will bring her this condition?

Bubba

wehappyfew

March 10th 2003, 09:50 PM

03-10-2003 @ 12:01 PM
Fredster:

The polar ice caps are one of the reasonable explanations for where the floodwaters went as they receded off the earth. The long ages of evolutionary theory cannot account for large sheets of ice that happened during the ice age. Oceans need to be warm to create evaporation, and the land must be cold to produce snow sufficient to cover the ground.
The equatorial regions are warm today, and the polar regions are cold as we speak. We are currently in a slightly milder lull in the middle of a glacial period. One of many in Earth's history.

But, if there was long periods of the earth cooling that supposedly caused the ice age, as evolutionary theory tends to purport, oceans would cool as well, and evaporation from the oceans would be insufficient...
Cooling during Ice Ages is most pronounced at the poles. The equator still receives the same amount of solar radiation. That radiation causes evaporation. The greater contrast between warm tropics and very cold poles would probably cause an increase in the amount of moisture reaching the ice sheets.

Besides, water vapor can evaporate from cold water, too, just not as fast. The important factor for ice sheet accumulation is the difference between winter snow and summer melting/sublimation. Even if less snow fell in a cold period, lack of melting in the summer means it stays around until the next winter. Look up the Little Ice Age in Europe a few centuries ago. The tropics were nearly unaffected, but there was essentially no summer in northern Europe. Snow fell in June, July and August. Crops yields were near zero.

...to cause massive ice sheets that covered most of upper North America continent, and the lower southern continents. However, a global flood provides a simple mechanism for an “ice age’ and the remaining polar ice caps.
A global Flood is not supported by any evidence. Repeated requests for such evidence have yielded no results in several threads here.

Why would you believe heat to be a problem?
Consider the amount of igneous material supposedly erupted during the one year Flood. The heat from cooling that material is enough to boil the oceans several times over. Heat is definitely a problem for Flood geology.

As another poster pointed out above, there are marsupials in other places in the world. I constantly had to shoo them away from the dog food when I was a kid. They were called possums. Australia eventually became an isolated continent with an environment that allowed certain animal types to thrive, whereas else where they died out; at least in larger quantities.

Fred

The biogeographic distribution of marsupials is clearly explained by plate tectonics. Creation "Science" fails miserably at this task.

Dee Dee Warren

March 10th 2003, 10:24 PM

Hey all you guests reading this thread, what are you waiting for??? Register already and join in with us!! We would love to have you.

Tycho

March 10th 2003, 11:26 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:05 PM
SherBear:
... ad hominem (http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm): "There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion."

This was shown by you saying "Do you believe yourself God, or does God have a personal line to your house?"
Wrong again. That's not an attack, that's a question. Furthermore, it's simply questioning the implicit assertion that you know God's will. If I were to say something like, "you live in Canada, therefore your argument is wrong," that would be ad hominem.

... slippery slope (http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm): "In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator."

This was shown when you said "If God were the creator of AIDS and smallpox, as God must be if YECism were correct, then what makes you think that their spread is not God's will?"::
Two if-then propositions is hardly a sequence. In any case, it's merely questioning your knowledge of God's will.

searches for the words "God said" in my post:: :huh: Proof that I did this, please?
It's fairly obvious in a recent post:

"I'm sorry you disagree, but while we don't know the origin of AIDS, we do know that in the beginning of the spread of the disease, it was primarily commuted by exercise of free will opposed to God's will (homosexuality, drug use, multiple partners). Likewise with smallpox, but it has nearly been erradicated. It's reintroduction would be through the free will of those who would use it for germ warfare, not the will of God."

Since this is the second time you have had a problem with fallacy definitions, perhaps you would like the URLs for some websites that define logical fallacies :ponder:

http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

I appreciate the websites, but I am certain that it is not I who is having problems with definitions.

Tycho

March 10th 2003, 11:29 PM

03-10-2003 @ 06:47 AM
Socratism:
Sometimes people assume wrongly that creationists think that living creatures today are unchanged from the way they were created by God. If that is not true, and I happen to think it is not logical to assume they would be, then organisms that were originally created to be "very good" might have become altered over the years (due to mutation or other mechanisms) to be less than good or even very bad.
How does natural selection play into this?

Sher

March 10th 2003, 11:37 PM

03-10-2003 @ 10:26 PM
Tycho:

Wrong again. That's not an attack, that's a question. Yeah, akin to asking the question "what kind of idiot are you?" or "did your mother drop you on your head when you were a kid?"... it was hardly as benign as you now want to pretend. You attacked the person, not the argument. :bonk:
Two if-then propositions is hardly a sequence. In any case, it's merely questioning your knowledge of God's will.sequence n. 1. A following of one thing after another; succession. It still boils down to a lack of discussing the point raised and/or answering questions, but rather an attack on the person.
It's fairly obvious in a recent postNope; it still doesn't say "God said" and there is no forgery of God's name anywhere, but rather a post next to my name ... ergo, my words with my "signature."

Anyway, thanks for your, uh, input. :hi: ... back to the original point to Bubba.

{edited to remove unnecessarily rude comment}

Tycho

March 11th 2003, 07:01 AM

03-10-2003 @ 08:37 PM
SherBear:
Yeah, akin to asking the question "what kind of idiot are you?" or "did your mother drop you on your head when you were a kid?"... it was hardly as benign as you now want to pretend. You attacked the person, not the argument. :bonk:
All I can tell you is that you need to actually learn what ad homimen means. Asking someone a question regarding what they perceive as "God's will" is hardly an insult.

sequence n. 1. A following of one thing after another; succession. It still boils down to a lack of discussing the point raised and/or answering questions, but rather an attack on the person.
I'm sorry if your perceive this to be some kind of attack on your person, but I'm not so credulous as you'd like. If you want to assert something outrageous, you're going to have to back it up.

Nope; it still doesn't say "God said" and there is no forgery of God's name anywhere, but rather a post next to my name ... ergo, my words with my "signature."
You should re-read your own posts. You're clearly making assertions about "God's will" when it seems more like you're simply asserting your own opinions.

Fredster

March 11th 2003, 09:34 AM

A global Flood is not supported by any evidence. Repeated requests for such evidence have yielded no results in several threads here.[b]

Lots and lots of evidence for a flood, open your eyes.
Fossil grave yards (you must have rapid burial and mineralized water to get fossils)
Oceanic trenches
massive limestone deposits
buckled mountains
200 plus unrelated cultures with flood stories with the facts nearly the same.
and that is just a handful.

[b]Consider the amount of igneous material supposedly erupted during the one year Flood. The heat from cooling that material is enough to boil the oceans several times over. Heat is definitely a problem for Flood geology.

You are assuming that the earth has always had a molten core. The Bible does not. geothermic heat and lava would be a result that happened after the flood because of the shifting of continental plates. Besides, in 1980, Mt St. Helens erupted into spirit lake, pouring hot mud in to it. Guess what? The fish survived; and would you believe it, there is a petrified forest forming in the bottom from all the trees that were swept into the lake.

Fred

Sher

March 11th 2003, 05:38 PM

03-10-2003 @ 07:30 PM
Bubba:

Sher Bear-I don't think the free will defense works-my daughter (2 years old) suffers from juvenile arthritus.

How exactly did her sin or free will bring her this condition?

Bubba Sorry Bubba, I missed your reply in all the blathering. Actually your answer here supports what I was saying earlier. Although all have sinned and fall short of God's glory, do you really perceive God punishing your daughter at 2yo for her sins? I think God is just and at that age, even her most willful acts would be... uh... ignored (for lack of a better word) because she isn't old enough to be accountable ... to understand that she is responsible for her actions. She may understand "no" at that age, but can she really understand how, why, when to repent?

The free will I referred to is that there is sin in the world because of free will. Man knows the difference between right and wrong, and more times than not, sins anyway. These sins in free will are responsible for the problems we face, genetic disposition to disease being one of them. We "play God" with some sciences, then when it causes diseases, we shake our fists at God in blame instead of praying for comfort and healing.

I am sorry if I insulted you in the previous posting. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but didn't mean insult. It's just that my tone tends to be strong sometimes in my directness.

I hope that you will come to see how Christ died for our sins and how this grace and mercy is a comfort to us in all trials and tribulations. God never promised that our lives would be easy, but Christ did promise to be our friend.

John 15:13-14 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you."

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

God bless you and your family, Bubba. May His comforting hand lie on your daughter's head.

Sher

March 11th 2003, 05:45 PM

03-11-2003 @ 06:01 AM
Tycho: "Lighten up, Francis." :whip:

Have a cuppa and relax. :jade:

:::throws the red herring back from whence it came:::

Berserker

March 11th 2003, 06:56 PM

You call that a red herring! thats nothing! this is a red harring:
http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/heads_or_tails.gif

wehappyfew

March 11th 2003, 08:30 PM

03-11-2003 @ 08:34 AM
Fredster:

A global Flood is not supported by any evidence. Repeated requests for such evidence have yielded no results in several threads here.

Lots and lots of evidence for a flood, open your eyes.
Fossil grave yards (you must have rapid burial and mineralized water to get fossils)
Oceanic trenches
massive limestone deposits
buckled mountains
200 plus unrelated cultures with flood stories with the facts nearly the same.
and that is just a handful.
That is more than enough. Why not pick your best one and we can discuss it at length, examine it carefully and learn about it in detail? Then we can move on to the next one.

Consider the amount of igneous material supposedly erupted during the one year Flood. The heat from cooling that material is enough to boil the oceans several times over. Heat is definitely a problem for Flood geology.

You are assuming that the earth has always had a molten core. The Bible does not. geothermic heat and lava would be a result that happened after the flood because of the shifting of continental plates. Besides, in 1980, Mt St. Helens erupted into spirit lake, pouring hot mud in to it. Guess what? The fish survived; and would you believe it, there is a petrified forest forming in the bottom from all the trees that were swept into the lake.

Fred

I assume nothing about molten interiors. I am merely pointing out the known volume of igneous rocks, their heat capacity and the amount of heat neccessary to boil the oceans. The calculations are quite simple, and clearly discredit the possibility of a global Flood that does not rely on ad hoc, arbitrary changes to physical laws. If you are willing, I can lead you through the math.

"Just so" stories about Mt St Helens are not very useful for quantitative analysis of the Earth's geology. If you multiply the heat released at Mt St Helens by all the known volcanoes and igneous rocks, you find, as I mentioned before, there was enough heat released to boil the oceans many times over. If all that heat was released in a one year Flood, Noah woulda been parbroiled.

RufusAtticus

March 13th 2003, 07:25 PM

03-08-2003 @ 04:25 AM
Captain Ochre:
Laws are based on morality; every one of them. They are "oughts".

So what morality was involved when Georgia passed the law establishing the Vidalia Onion as its state vegetable?

Sure it explains prisons built before Darrow--why wouldn't it?
Because moral responsibility didn't exist as a legal concept before then, unless you want to consider the tradition of rich WASP men being inherently less culpable for the crimes they commit.

Feel free to support your assertion that some jurisdictions consider moral guilt irrelevant. You can handwave it away, but the other readers (if any) know better.
Children being charged as adults Children and mentally-ill patients on death row States that release murders so they can lock up drug users . . .

The definition of naturalism specifies that all phenomena are explainable through natural causes and laws. That includes thought, and it includes morality--all of it. Now look up the definition of free will. How will "you" do otherwise when you're not really at the wheel? Molecules are steering you, not vice-versa.

This of course assumes that humans are not made up of molecules. I’ll leave you to figure out the fallacy in your logic.

I pointed you to the infinite regress of natural causes (and it doesn't even need to be infinite--it just has to precede you). You can try to handwave it away, but your tactic is transparently futile.

No, you asserted that there was an infinite regress problem for natural causes. I’ll leave you to figure out the fallacy of your logic.

What should the fact that you didn't mention pinballs have to do with anything?
The pinball machine is an absurd counterexample to the naturalistic definition of thought.

Except for the fact that a pinball machine doesn’t fit the definition.

Without something more, you cannot justify free will. Secondary to that, you cannot justify moral guilt. Stemming from that, you cannot find somebody guilty in court. Leading from that, naturalism can't imprison people justly.

Why can’t you justify free will without “something” more?

Magnetism is immaterial and moves objects around. Is magnetism supernatural? Pretend that Uri Geller can bend spoons using invisible mental powers. Is Uri Geller supernatural, or is the spoon bending supernatural (both? neither?).
You're shifting from the topic of the naturalness of ghosts to the supposed supernaturality of moving objects. You've been foiled by counterexample (again).

What counterexample? Magnetism is a natural force not an immaterial object that is supposed to move things around. Care to offer a natural mechanism by which immaterial ghosts interact with material objects?

Are the pets still part of the group if the pets don't choose to be part of the group?
If I choose who is part of my group, then why can't I tell who is part of my group? Or do you mean that I have to choose the group entire? How can I choose an entire group without being able to tell who they are?

Because it’s a choice, not a determination.

Seems to me that you're on the horns of dilemma: Admit that the ants are manifesting their morality, or allow that the killing of blacks by the KKK isn't a moral issue and shouldn't be considered a moral issue anytime one decides to harm somebody outside his own group.
QED has already addressed this well. No need to repeat it.

So what? Begging the question is a logical fallacy. So what?
What "natural computers" falsify the necessity of free will to moral judgment? Begging the question again so soon?
Go look at your argument. You’ve claimed that it takes supernatural ability to decide between “right” (true) and “wrong” (false). Computers, which are obviously entirely natural, disprove this.

Bzzt. I argue that there is no way for MN alone to address such questions. Straw man fallacy. Non sequitur (argument based on your straw man identified above).
You've already been answered. Address the answer without committing another fallacy, if you can.

Give me an answer that doesn’t contradict your own argument. (Hint: your answer relies on MN only.)

It applies equally well to stochastic processes, as I mentioned earlier. I had assumed that you hadn't forgotten. Maybe you'll believe it if you've got a link to go on.
http://www.tufts.edu/~rvogel/Editorial.pdf
As the link above illustates, the appeal to stochastic process does not make the system non-deterministic. It simply means that the end state cannot be predicted with certainty.

So stochastic process being deterministic simply means that it is non-deterministic. Right. . . . Let me refresh you on the properties of deterministic and stochastic systems.

Deterministic systems are systems in which the final state and the intermediate states depend only on the initial parameters of the system. If you run the system with the same initial parameters multiple times the same final and intermediate states will result. The input parameters explicitly determine the system. F(X+1) = F(X)+1 is deterministic system.

Stochastic systems are systems in which the final state and the intermediate states are randomly drawn from a distribution established by the initial parameters of the system. If you run the system with the same initial parameters multiple times different final and intermediate states will result. The input parameters only determine the distribution of they system. F(X+1) ~ Normal(F(X), 1) is a stochastic system.

The fact is that you have been arguing all along that nature is a deterministic system as defined above. Now when I point out that nature is actually stochastic, you simply want to redefine “deterministic” to include stochasticity. Of course if you do that, your entire argument about molecular states falls apart. In your zeal to play loose with definitions, you forget your actual position.

Your link does not even support your position because the author is not claiming that models with deterministic and stochastic parts are deterministic, but are simply classified as deterministic models because the deterministic parts dominate. Why is it that even “deterministic” models of nature include an error term? Well, because nature is not deterministic.

Concession noted, though I would stipulate that the impossible is not possible even with supernaturalism.

What concession? Anything is possible under supernaturalism, but nothing is probable. For every valid supernatural argument that you can make to support X, I can make an equally valid supernatural argument to disprove X. All possibilities, even mutually exclusive ones, are equally likely and equally unlikely to be true, under supernaturalism. That is the problem with supernatural explanations; they cannot be falsified. Thus it is impossible to distinguish the accurate ones from inaccurate ones.

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 09:50 PM

So Bubba thinks that a God who cursed the creation because of the sin of Adam (Federal Head of humanity with dominion over creation). But surely that applies far more to a God who would create (by evolution) such horrors as AIDS and smallpox and call it "very good". SherBear is certainly right to argue against Bubba here.

Bubba also claims:
As far as evolution goes, I've tried to defend every doctrine/idea/concept of recent special creation in my mind and none of the defenses seem to work very well. Any examples? What sources? If Bubba's sources are the "dinosaurs-never-existed" types, then it's no wonder they never worked. Neither Answers in Genesis nor Institute for Creation Research would resort to such nonsense. So I would suggest that that either bubba didn't look very hard, or, sad to say, never really WANTED answers.

I also remind him that facts do NOT speak for themselves, but are always INTERPRETED. I would rather interpret that facts in a framework endorsed by Christ, who validated His credentials by rising from the dead. The latter is extremely well attested by history, unlike the belief system of evolution.

As for Babel, it was more like 2300 BC, and this predates any SOLIDLY dated Chinese writings.

As for "bad things" like disease and carnivory, check out the articles under Genesis: Curse http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#curse

And there are loads of scientists who believe in Creation, and indeed most of the founders of modern science were creationists. See a sample http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp I'm not trying to use Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority), since we should believe in creation NOT because a scientists says so but because the Word of God teaches it, and it was endorsed by Christ. Rather, this page is a good answer to the Argumentum ad Verecundiam that Bubba seems so taken with, i.e. his evolutionary scientists acquaintances.

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 10:06 PM

QED:
Personally, I think that there are much more persuasive theological reasons for abandoning special creationism, articulated best by Augustine (the potential damage scientific non-sense carries for the Christian witness), An IMMENSE amount of question-begging here, since QED glibly assumes that creationist arguments are nonsense, although in reality the goo-to-you theory is the veriest nonsense out. Augustine explicitly stated that the Earth was <6000 years old at the time he wrote.
Aubrey Moore (that the theory of God's occasional intervention in nature carries the correlative theory that He is ordinarily absent from its workings).What garbage. One what basis does Moore argue that this is a problem? From Scripture? Then what gall, since there are clear indications in Scripture that God acted miraculously during the Creation, Fall, Flood and Babel. If that offends this poor little man's delicate sensibilities, then tough. It's hardly my fault that he cuts off the branch he's sitting on!

And the pseudo-pious Moore needs lessons in elementary logic. There is not correlation at all. Special creationists believe that God normally UPHOLDS His creation in regular, repeatable ways (Col. 1:17) that we describe as "natural laws". But this is based on the same Bible that teaches that God has miraculously intervened at certain points in Earth history. AiG has explained this well at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

Berserker

March 13th 2003, 10:07 PM

This surprises me: there is a level at which AiG considers a creationist argument none-sense... Unfortunately that level is several notches to low. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 10:16 PM

Bubba says: BTW, Spong rocks, dude. If Bubba follows Spong, then Bubba has simply lied about being a Christian. Spong denies just about EVERY doctrine of Christianity,including:
God as distinct from His creation the deity of Christ
the Virginal Conception of Christ
the Bodily Resurrection of Christ
the Substutionary Atonement.These are fundamental doctrines of the faith, and anyone who denies these is not a Christian, pure and simple.

Spong also despises Christian morality on marriage and the family, and instread supports fornication, homosexual activity and abortion.

Spong's arguments against the Bible are just village atheist fulminations, lacking logic or understanding of the historical context. Instead, they major on Argument from Outrage and Spong's on-high decree that miracles can't happen.
You might try to read some of his work-he is a very enlightened man. You might like to read the detailed refutation of Spong at AiG, What's Wrong With Bishop Spong? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1119.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/spong

Berserker

March 13th 2003, 10:37 PM

Wow Socrates that was an excellent Ad Hominem. :bonk:

As for this thread's issue: What evidence is there?

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 11:08 PM

Stop your pathetic whinging, Beserk One. As a christian, I have a perfect right to point out that someone who opposes Christ's teaching in the most fundamental areas is not a Christian. Or don't Christians have the right to decide who their fellow Christians are any more, and have to simply accept everyone who claims to be one but denies all Christian doctrines?

RufusAtticus

March 13th 2003, 11:09 PM

I find it funny that Bubba here has expressed that he is undergoing a crisis of faith. (Right, Bubba?) And Christians lash out at him because of it.

Keep it up and you'll give the world another atheist. :bonk:

RufusAtticus

March 13th 2003, 11:13 PM

03-13-2003 @ 10:08 PM
Socrates:

Stop your pathetic whinging, Beserk One. As a christian, I have a perfect right to point out that someone who opposes Christ's teaching in the most fundamental areas is not a Christian. Or don't Christians have the right to decide who their fellow Christians are any more, and have to simply accept everyone who claims to be one but denies all Christian doctrines?

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (NASB)

QED

March 13th 2003, 11:18 PM

03-14-2003 @ 02:06 AM
Socrates:

Me, Previously: Personally, I think that there are much more persuasive theological reasons for abandoning special creationism, articulated best by Augustine (the potential damage scientific non-sense carries for the Christian witness),...

Socrates: An IMMENSE amount of question-begging here, since QED glibly assumes that creationist arguments are nonsense, although in reality the goo-to-you theory is the veriest nonsense out. Augustine explicitly stated that the Earth was <6000 years old at the time he wrote.

We were discussing theological merit, not scientific merit, so there was no question-begging. The scientific merit of YEC cannot be understated. "Non-sense" is too kind a word, looking from a strictly scientific point of view. Consider:
1) No positive evidence.
2) Insulated from falsification by a chain of ad hoc rationalizations that only end when the question is safely removed beyond the testable.
3) Directly contradicts multiple independent lines of evidence that point to an old earth.

Aquinas, obviously, was unaware of the physical and geological evidence for an old earth, and postulated a date of <6000 years from his interpretation of the Bible. His statements, on the other hand, make clear that he would not be unwilling to back off such an estimate in the face of even a fraction of the evidence we have for an old earth. In addition, it should be noted that he was not so dogmatic about the length of the Genesis days as, for instance, you are.

Me, previously: ...Aubrey Moore (that the theory of God's occasional intervention in nature carries the correlative theory that He is ordinarily absent from its workings).

Socrates: What garbage. One what basis does Moore argue that this is a problem? From Scripture? Then what gall, since there are clear indications in Scripture that God acted miraculously during the Creation, Fall, Flood and Babel. If that offends this poor little man's delicate sensibilities, then tough. It's hardly my fault that he cuts off the branch he's sitting on!

And the pseudo-pious Moore needs lessons in elementary logic. There is not correlation at all. Special creationists believe that God normally UPHOLDS His creation in regular, repeatable ways (Col. 1:17) that we describe as "natural laws". But this is based on the same Bible that teaches that God has miraculously intervened at certain points in Earth history. AiG has explained this well at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

So the YEC view is that everything is miraculous ("UPHELD", as you say by God), but that some things are extra-miraculous? What does that mean? Up-Up-held? Down-held? Held to the side? Unfortunate for your train of logic is the subtle fact that occasional intervention is correlative of ordinary absense.

The YEC might shift almost imperceptibly to the position that "miraculous" events are a change in the mode of God's influence (as opposed to the degree, or importance). Let him. Let him go on to explain that the reason must remain mysterious why God's normal mode of influence was insufficient to this or that task that He planned. Let him suggest the mystery must be ineffable because he can think of no reasonable explanation. But let him not pretend to a position of reason and logic in doing so.

If he wishes to sit in judgement on the piety of his Christian Brothers based on this new mystery he has created, let him do that too. When he has done this enough to be no longer taken seriously by any but the most simple-minded, he becomes ineffective. I will consider that to be his own problem.

QED

March 13th 2003, 11:24 PM

Or don't Christians have the right to decide who their fellow Christians are any more,

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And lest we be unclear, the individuals themselves have no say in whether they are Christian. Oh, and of course God's opinion doesn't count for beans either.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Ouch!

Oh, that's a killer!

Berserker

March 13th 2003, 11:47 PM

03-13-2003 @ 09:08 PM
Socrates:

Stop your pathetic whinging, Beserk One. As a christian, I have a perfect right to point out that someone who opposes Christ's teaching in the most fundamental areas is not a Christian. Or don't Christians have the right to decide who their fellow Christians are any more, and have to simply accept everyone who claims to be one but denies all Christian doctrines?

Yes but the moral quality of a person has no effect on the truthfulness of their claims. So what you are saying does not help the thread's issue… its off topic and only placed to look like your saying a valid argument against the people here when in fact what your saying is a fallacy. :bonk:

Ooh "whinging" you learnd a new word did you? Good for you :thumb:

Socrates

March 14th 2003, 05:00 AM

The Beserk One spruiked:
So what you are saying does not help the thread's issue… its off topic Blame Bubba then, because HE was the one who brought up that arch heretic and prize buffoon Spong.
Ooh "whinging" you learnd a new word did you? Good for you Typical parochial Yank who is oblivious to terms used in other parts of the English-speaking world.

And QED, who argues about the Bible and Christianity despite not believing in it, and shows even less understanding of that than science, splutted:And lest we be unclear, the individuals themselves have no say in whether they are Christian. Oh, and of course God's opinion doesn't count for beans either.God's opinion is ALL that counts, and that's determined by what He has written in His Word, the Bible. And the correct understanding of this is the meaning that would have been understood by its original audience, as we can determine from a grammatical-historical approach.

QED

March 14th 2003, 07:30 AM

God's opinion is ALL that counts,

Then the answer to your question is no - Christians don't have the right to pick who else they want to be Christians.

and that's determined by what He has written in His Word, the Bible.

That's a very common understanding among Christians, and one that is related to virtually every Christian's position.

And the correct understanding of this is the meaning that would have been understood by its original audience, as we can determine from a grammatical-historical approach.

This is a somewhat less common opinion among Christians. I won't comment on whether it is theologically sound, but being a human opinion, I must point out that by your criteria quoted at the top of this post, it is not an opinion that "counts."

Berserker

March 14th 2003, 09:55 AM

Socrates,

Oh I'm not oblivious to other dialects... I was just making fun of you http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Socratism

March 14th 2003, 11:21 AM

Me, Previously: Personally, I think that there are much more persuasive theological reasons for abandoning special creationism, articulated best by Augustine (the potential damage scientific non-sense carries for the Christian witness),...

Augustine is often quoted as teaching that Genesis should be interpreted symbolically. This is true, but what is not mentioned is that he believed the universe, the Earth and all life were created instantaneously instead of over a period of 6 days.

One of my problems with Augustine is that he spent much of his life as a non-believer who had been thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy.

And it shows in his writings, which seem to be a mixture of what the Bible says and what his Greek-oriented "mentors" had taught him.

RufusAtticus

March 14th 2003, 11:26 AM

03-14-2003 @ 10:21 AM
Socratism:

One of my problems with Augustine is that he spent most of his life as a non-believer who had been thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy.

As opposed to Paul? :huh:

Socratism

March 14th 2003, 12:26 PM

03-14-2003 @ 10:26 AM
RufusAtticus:
As opposed to Paul? :huh:

I thought Saul was brought up as a Hebrew, not a pagan Greek, but if you have evidence to the contrary I am listening.

RufusAtticus

March 14th 2003, 12:34 PM

03-14-2003 @ 11:26 AM
Socratism:

I thought Saul was brought up as a Hebrew, not a pagan Greek, but if you have evidence to the contrary I am listening.

I said Paul.

Socrates

March 14th 2003, 01:07 PM

Bubba:Also, what evidence from nature shows the world to be in any way younger than several billion years?Have you bothered to look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ? Or are you content to dismiss all creationists because of your alleged encounters with some who claimed that dinosaurs never existed?
Also, a flawed creation could be "very good." But in Genesis 1, tov me'od (very good) in v. 31 is the culmination of a number od times in Creation Week where the partially complete creation is called tov (good). And death is called "the last enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26. There's no way the "last enemy" would be part of the "very good" creation, unless words lose all meaning.

The sin of Adam is still the best explanation. Far better than yours that God originally made it that way.

Are you going to deign to produce some examples of "bad design"?

Sher

March 14th 2003, 01:09 PM

03-14-2003 @ 11:34 AM
RufusAtticus:

I said Paul. Paul was formerly known as Saul :argh:

Acts 13:9 "Then Saul, who also is called Paul ..."

He was brought up a Hebrew (Phil 3:3-5 "a Hebrew of the Hebrews") and his name was later changed to Paul from Saul (Acts 9:3-6 "Saul, Saul... ")

Socrates

March 14th 2003, 01:22 PM

Bubba: ...and exactly how much heat would have been generated by an uplift that would cause something like Everest?You tell us, Mr Electrician who claims to be an expert on geology and biology? After all, Everest WAS uplifted, because it has marine limestone on its summit, as well as fossils of bottom-dwelling crinoids! But creationists would posit that uplift happened mainly during the Flood year before the sediments had fully consolidated so were more flexible.Also, why don't we see marsupials everywhere? Was there a sign outside of the ark that told them to migrate back to Australia?Who says it was BACK? The Flood totally rearranged Earth's topography, and there was probably only one land mass before the Flood (Gen. 1:9). But creationists explain their migration by the same mechanisms evolutionists do, e.g. land bridges exposed during the Ice Age, and I would also add being selectively brought by people due to their nocturnal lifestyle and the way their offspring are reared in a pouch. See more at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

Berserker

March 14th 2003, 01:40 PM

Socrates,

I will now write my replay of your links in your style of writing:

"I have read those carp links and have crushing rebuttals for all of it... in conclusion those site are bull @#$%, nice try AS”

(AS is a pet name for you, stand for “Anti-Socrates” because if the real Socrates meet you he would slap you cross the face!)

RufusAtticus

March 14th 2003, 02:05 PM

03-14-2003 @ 12:09 PM
SherBear:

Paul was formerly known as Saul :argh:

Sorry, I though he was refering to King Saul.

Paul, being a Roman citizen and educated in Greek would have been exposed to Greek writings just as Augustine was.

Socratism

March 14th 2003, 02:17 PM

Rufus,

Everyone I know has been "exposed" to Greek ideas, but to suggest that a Jew like Saul would react to such exposure in the same way as the gentile Augustine obviously did is rather strained, to say the least.

RufusAtticus

March 14th 2003, 02:54 PM

03-14-2003 @ 01:17 PM
Socratism:

Rufus,

Everyone I know has been "exposed" to Greek ideas, but to suggest that a Jew like Saul would react to such exposure in the same way as the gentile Augustine obviously did is rather strained, to say the least.

I'm not suggesting that they would react the same way. If you suspect Augustine's views simply because he was educated in Greek ideas, then you should also suspect the views of Paul who was also educated in Greek ideas.

Bubba

March 14th 2003, 03:16 PM

Thanks for the links, Socrates. I'm reading.

Bubba

Socratism

March 14th 2003, 03:30 PM

03-14-2003 @ 01:54 PM
RufusAtticus:

I'm not suggesting that they would react the same way. If you suspect Augustine's views simply because he was educated in Greek ideas, then you should also suspect the views of Paul who was also educated in Greek ideas.

I do not suspect Augustine's views because he was educated in Greek ideas, but because he goes against scripture in favor of Greek ideas. The comment about his education was merely meant as an attempt to explain why he might have done this.

Paul on the other hand consistently rejects Greek ideas in favor of those of scripture. Paul was a Pharisee, which implies that he was thoroughly educated in the scriptures. He was also very proud of being a Jew.

The differing situations regarding Augustine and Paul are in no way comparable and your attempt to make such a connection was ill advised.

RufusAtticus

March 14th 2003, 03:51 PM

03-14-2003 @ 02:30 PM
Socratism:

I do not suspect Augustine's views because he was educated in Greek ideas, but because he goes against scripture in favor of Greek ideas. The comment about his education was merely meant as an attempt to explain why he might have done this.

His interpretation of scripture differs from yours. That does not mean that he goes against scripture.

Paul on the other hand consistently rejects Greek ideas in favor of those of scripture. Paul was a Pharisee, which implies that he was thoroughly educated in the scriptures. He was also very proud of being a Jew.

What evidence do you have that Augustine wasn't throughly educated in scripture? Am I correct to assume that one doesn't have to be a Pharisee or a proud Jew to be throughly educated in scripture?

The differing situations regarding Augustine and Paul are in no way comparable and your attempt to make such a connection was ill advised.

Perhaps Paul's rabbinical education does distinguish him from Augustine. But what about Luke?

wehappyfew

March 15th 2003, 12:08 PM

Yesterday @ 12:07 PM
Socrates:

Bubba:Also, what evidence from nature shows the world to be in any way younger than several billion years?Have you bothered to look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ?
Well, Socrates, I have looked at the AIG list, and so far I have found 4 articles that were either fatally flawed or admit up front that the evidence does not support a young Earth. I examined each argument in detail in this thread:
Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1211&perpage=15&pagenumber=6)

Moon Dust - strong evidence for an old age, evidence against young age.

Solar Neutrinos - neutral, but in line with conventional astro-physics.

Brittle-rock features in Kaibab Monocline - AIG says they are absent. Evidence shows that are present.

Sodium in the ocean - admittedly false assumption ruins mathematical validity of the 62 million year maximum age calculation.

So far, you, and all the other YECs on this board, have not responded. Are you now willing to discuss the problems in the AIG evidence for a young Earth?

Currently, I am looking at the articles about ocean sediment accumulation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp), and helium found in granites (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm) and the atmosphere (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_helium.asp). I will make a post for each of these in the next few days to report what I have found. I am somewhat perplexed that the YECreationists here are far less willing the examine the scientific evidence for Creation Science than a skeptic like me. One would think that these arguments and evidence for a young Earth would be very familiar territory for YECs. But it seems the list from AIG is accepted unquestioningly, almost on faith alone, as being gospel truth. The obvious errors already pointed out seem to not matter. Why is that?

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 11:35 PM

Wehappyfew spruiks:
Well, Socrates, I have looked at the AIG list, and so far I have found 4 articles that were either fatally flawed or admit up front that the evidence does not support a young Earth.The "fatal flaws" are nothing of the kind, and you should be happy that AiG advises people not to use the unsound ones. I examined each argument in detail in this thread:
Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth?

Moon Dust - strong evidence for an old age, evidence against young age.No, it shows no evidence either way, but can't be used as PROOF of a young moon.

Solar Neutrinos - neutral, but in line with conventional astro-physics.Indeed so. And it wasn't until recently that neutrino oscillation was observed. Previously, standard theories of particle physics posited zero rest-mass for neutrinos, which makes oscillation verboten.
Brittle-rock features in Kaibab Monocline - AIG says they are absent. Evidence shows that are present.In some places they are present, in others they are absent. AiG has shown that lithifaction can happen very quickly, so this should not be surprising.
Sodium in the ocean - admittedly false assumption ruins mathematical validity of the 62 million year maximum age calculation.As if you'd know.

So far, you, and all the other YECs on this board, have not responded. Are you now willing to discuss the problems in the AIG evidence for a young Earth? Sure.

Currently, I am looking at the articles about ocean sediment accumulation, and helium found in granites and the atmosphere. I will make a post for each of these in the next few days to report what I have found. I am somewhat perplexed that the YECreationists here are far less willing the examine the scientific evidence for Creation Science than a skeptic like me. You're no true skeptic, since you gullibly accept billions of years and goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution.
One would think that these arguments and evidence for a young Earth would be very familiar territory for YECs. But it seems the list from AIG is accepted unquestioningly, almost on faith alone, as being gospel truth. Not at all. YECs accept the Word of God as gospel truth, especially as Christ Himself validated a recent creation and Flood, and His teachings were validated by His Resurrection. The "science" should be held loosely, especially with the huge role the paradigm plays in interpreting present data by theories about the past. Most of the evolutionary "proofs" paraded at the time of the Scopes Trial, e.g. Piltdown Man and Embryonic Recapitulation, have been totally discounted, but the evolutionists never abandoned their faith. Nor do they abandon it in the face of problems they haven't solved.The obvious errors already pointed out seem to not matter. Why is that?More likely, because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.[/list]