Who wrote this?

[phank]

As ever, "evidence" is anything supporting the YEC claim-of-the-day. Even if is clearly refuted by all known observation, even if they have to make it up, it's "evidence" because it supports them. And conversely, as Richard Dawkins wrote, for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference." And as we see, that's because if it ain't support, it ain't evidence.

And seriously, how could any YEC actually accept his own claims if evidence mattered?

[Jorge]

Not to derail your thread from its original topic (which I guess was that some atheists deny evolutionary science even though they must accept evolutionary philosophy as the paradigm for their atheism), I'll keep it brief:

"Without Excuse" — All machines require an intelligent non-material source for their creation and construction.

Jorge's Thesis — All MEMS are machines.

Sam's Objection — Natural phenomena, such as river systems, fall under the definition of MEMS.

Jorge's Response — Only discussing biological MEMS.

Sam's Renewed Objection — Then change your definition and the scope of your argument.

You could always post up your old thesis for review; that'd likely give us something to talk about.

"Fool me once ... etc."
You've wasted enough of my time, Sam.
You nit-pick and become overly legalistic so as to avoid the substance of my argument.
I recognize that tactic from years of debating with people in your camp.
It's the proverbial 'choking on a gnat while swallowing the entire camel'.
My thesis is clear and simple enough :
a biological MEMS is a prerequisite to life that could not have evolved nor could
it have emerged naturally (not as per any reasonable science known to mankind).
Hence, biological MEMS (an observable entity) is irrefutable evidence against Materialism.

First show that you can engage people in rational, evidence-centered dialog and worthwhile material will no doubt start to seep in. Goodness, at this point, I've transcribed hours of your conferences, read your book, spent an utterly boring week of free time on the evolution of artiodactyla . . . and all for very little reward, given your responses. Put some effort into "going deep" with data and we'll have a good base to draw from.

—Sam

I'm happy to see that within your words above you are admitting that "rational, evidence-centered dialog"
has so far been lacking from you (that's why you say, "worthwhile material will no doubt START to seep in").
But for me it's been much worse than that. Rather than focusing on the substance, you seemed to be
on a mission to nit-pick with near-infinite skepticism. Such discussions are fruitless. BTW, I'm all in favor
of "going deep" but there's a constructive, cooperative way of doing that and then there's a wasteful way
of doing it - where even the definition of "is" is demanded (a la Clinton). The latter is what I got from you.
That, in a nutshell, was why I "quit".

Jorge

[Jorge]

As ever, "evidence" is anything supporting the YEC claim-of-the-day. Even if is clearly refuted by all known observation, even if they have to make it up, it's "evidence" because it supports them. And conversely, as Richard Dawkins wrote, for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference." And as we see, that's because if it ain't support, it ain't evidence.

And seriously, how could any YEC actually accept his own claims if evidence mattered?

***********************************************************************

Did Dawkins actually write that? " ... no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter
how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

How interesting ... how very interesting ............... hmmm ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

It's seems to be par for the course with so many forum YECs.

You do the hours, days, weeks of reading, understanding, and writing, only to have a YEC dismiss it with a hand wave.

It's as if many YECs think their hand wave is like something from royalty. You should be glad to have received even something as deep and as forthcoming as a hand wave.

Earlier I was having an argument with a YEC on another forum. He absolutely refuses to accept that there could have been and is water on Mars. His modus operandi is outright denial of any evidence. So much so that I had to ask if some YECs believe they will burn in hell for accepting that there is water on Mars.

Good heavens, what if God happened to create it there?

It's like with extra-terrestrial planets. The evidence for them is, like Martian water, non existent. Why is this evidence non existent? Well because I said so, that's why.


Such is the wild world of creation science.

**************************************************************************************

Awwwwwww ... lookee here, Roland is p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-n-g again.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

**************************************************************************************

Awwwwwww ... lookee here, Roland is p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-n-g again.

Jorge

You seem to have some time for tom foolery Jorge.

So why not use a bit of your spare time and see if you can respond to this reply from me:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...77#post3411477

[Ansgar Seraph]

"Fool me once ... etc."
You've wasted enough of my time, Sam.
You nit-pick and become overly legalistic so as to avoid the substance of my argument.
I recognize that tactic from years of debating with people in your camp.
It's the proverbial 'choking on a gnat while swallowing the entire camel'.
My thesis is clear and simple enough :
a biological MEMS is a prerequisite to life that could not have evolved nor could
it have emerged naturally (not as per any reasonable science known to mankind).
Hence, biological MEMS (an observable entity) is irrefutable evidence against Materialism.

Hey, you asked!

And if you can't make MEMS require a designer by definition, as you tried to do, you can't say that MEMS requires a designer unless you showcase evidence to such effect. You tried to define MEMS such that they require an intelligent source but your definition quite clearly doesn't work out to that. So you need a new definition — but that will necessarily be arbitrary, with no reasoned or evidenced demarcation between biological and non-biological.

I'm happy to see that within your words above you are admitting that "rational, evidence-centered dialog"
has so far been lacking from you (that's why you say, "worthwhile material will no doubt START to seep in").
But for me it's been much worse than that. Rather than focusing on the substance, you seemed to be
on a mission to nit-pick with near-infinite skepticism. Such discussions are fruitless. BTW, I'm all in favor
of "going deep" but there's a constructive, cooperative way of doing that and then there's a wasteful way
of doing it - where even the definition of "is" is demanded (a la Clinton). The latter is what I got from you.
That, in a nutshell, was why I "quit".

Oh, I'm sure that you see it that way, Jorge. And I'm equally sure that no one else who has read our posts is suffering under that particular delusion. The devil's in the details and detailed discussions ensure that people know what they're talking about. But, by all means, feel free to dredge up older topics for discussion — just be sure to approach them with facts and data this time.

—Sam

[rogue06]

***********************************************************************

Did Dawkins actually write that? " ... no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter
how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

How interesting ... how very interesting ............... hmmm ...

Jorge

Dawkins was commenting upon the remark made by YEC Kurt Wise that, "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Here is what Dawkins said:

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference

Source

© source where applicable

Given your recent infatuation with Dawkins I'm sure you are in complete agreement

[magellan004]

Dawkins was commenting upon the remark made by YEC Kurt Wise that, "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Here is what Dawkins said:

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference

Source

© source where applicable

Given your recent infatuation with Dawkins I'm sure you are in complete agreement

Thank you for that link : http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...kins_21_4.html
I am not sure why Dawkins or Phank for that matter disregard the Biblical evidence. It seems that no matter how explicit or convincing the evidence is, they have decided to disregard that evidence. And the funny thing about that is - even though Dawkins is presumably intelligent , because of his vitriol his mind seems poisoned to reason. He is a sad case indeed. That's why I found your link a good read.

Magellan

[DuraGizer]

I am not sure why Dawkins or Phank for that matter disregard the Biblical evidence.

Do you always ask questions that you know the answers to?

[phank]

"Biblical evidence" is kind of like "military intelligence" - a phrase that must be parsed in context, and carefully.

Kurt Wise has written, at some length, that he distinguishes between scientific evidence (stuff learned using the scientific method and dependent on the limitations of that method), and biblical evidence (stuff learned using a totally different method, equally dependent on the limitations of that method.) Wise has observed that these two completely different concepts of evidence, where they overlap, produce not just different results, but incompatible results. In choosing either set of results, one must necessarily reject not just the incompatible results, but the entire method used to produce them. And not just the method, but the posture toward objective reality that informs these methods.

And THIS is why Dawkins is so appalled that Wise accepts a salary, every month, to teach science. Even though he necessarily denies that evidence MEANS anything.

[rogue06]

"Biblical evidence" is kind of like "military intelligence" - a phrase that must be parsed in context, and carefully.

Kurt Wise has written, at some length, that he distinguishes between scientific evidence (stuff learned using the scientific method and dependent on the limitations of that method), and biblical evidence (stuff learned using a totally different method, equally dependent on the limitations of that method.) Wise has observed that these two completely different concepts of evidence, where they overlap, produce not just different results, but incompatible results. In choosing either set of results, one must necessarily reject not just the incompatible results, but the entire method used to produce them. And not just the method, but the posture toward objective reality that informs these methods.

And THIS is why Dawkins is so appalled that Wise accepts a salary, every month, to teach science. Even though he necessarily denies that evidence MEANS anything.

I think that like many YECs you are equating an interpretation of the Bible for biblical evidence. What YECs interpret the Bible as saying with what the Bible says. They aren't necessarily the same thing.

To Wise's credit (and indicating that he's able to make this distinction) he says that he's a "creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

[magellan004]

"Biblical evidence" is kind of like "military intelligence" - a phrase that must be parsed in context, and carefully.

Kurt Wise has written, at some length, that he distinguishes between scientific evidence (stuff learned using the scientific method and dependent on the limitations of that method), and biblical evidence (stuff learned using a totally different method, equally dependent on the limitations of that method.) Wise has observed that these two completely different concepts of evidence, where they overlap, produce not just different results, but incompatible results. In choosing either set of results, one must necessarily reject not just the incompatible results, but the entire method used to produce them. And not just the method, but the posture toward objective reality that informs these methods.

And THIS is why Dawkins is so appalled that Wise accepts a salary, every month, to teach science. Even though he necessarily denies that evidence MEANS anything.

Yes; Dawkins makes a living out of that denial. I suppose he is on Government money - but that's just a guess.

Magellan

[Cerebrum123]

I think that like many YECs you are equating an interpretation of the Bible for biblical evidence. What YECs interpret the Bible as saying with what the Bible says. They aren't necessarily the same thing.

To Wise's credit (and indicating that he's able to make this distinction) he says that he's a "creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Just a quick question. Is there ANY evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-11, shouldn't be read as history? Is there any exegetical reasons? Considering that ToE, and uniformitarianism BOTH started out as ways of explaining AWAY God in the natural world, then why should we trust conclusions reached using methods that are INHERENTLY DESIGNED to rule out a "Designer"?

[wattsr1]

Just a quick question. Is there ANY evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-11, shouldn't be read as history? Is there any exegetical reasons? Considering that ToE, and uniformitarianism BOTH started out as ways of explaining AWAY God in the natural world, then why should we trust conclusions reached using methods that are INHERENTLY DESIGNED to rule out a "Designer"?

I'm not aware that ToE and uniformitarianism began as ways of explaining away God.

I think they simply began as ways of explaining things observed in nature.

Your claim is like saying that meteorological science and embryological and developmental sciences began as ways of explaining away God. There are many verses across the OT that inform us that our daily weather (rainfall, snowfall, frost, clouds, drought etc) are all caused directly by God's command or action. Nowhere does the Bible claim that God created natural process to bring about these things. The Bible claims that God causes them directly. Furthermore, verses in the OT tell us that we have absolutely no ideas as to how God knits babies together in the womb.

Meteorological and developmental science would disagree with the Bible's claims regarding both the weather and babies.

Hence, do you argue that meteorology and embryology are sciences meant to explain away God? I would find it hard to accept that you would say "yes" to this. You would accept that these sciences started out as ways to explain how things happen.

So why is it different with respect to ToE?

Uniformitarianism is not so much a theory but is more a set of principles with allow us to make sense of the past. YECs use uniformitarianism an awful lot. It's just that when others use it, they see something wrong with it. An example of YECs being uniformitarians is when they claim to see physical evidence for a big flood some 4500 years ago. They cannot possibly look at geological strata and say "flood", unless they adopt uniformitarian principles.


As for your point about a designer. All modern science is equal opportunity on that point. Consider chemistry as an example. Chemists explain how molecules form from atoms by appealing to chemical bonding theory. Nowhere do they argue that molecules form because a designer makes them form. Rather they argue that molecules form when atoms, for example, share electrons from their "valence" shells, thereby minimising their overall energy (or something like that). Physics is the same, as is astronomy, and zoology etc.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Just a quick question. Is there ANY evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-11, shouldn't be read as history? Is there any exegetical reasons? Considering that ToE, and uniformitarianism BOTH started out as ways of explaining AWAY God in the natural world, then why should we trust conclusions reached using methods that are INHERENTLY DESIGNED to rule out a "Designer"?

Both the documentary hypothesis and the ANE cosmology hypotheses serve as evidence that Genesis 1-11 might not be well suited as historical documentaries. The highly stylized nature of the text, as well as how such texts were regarded prior to our somewhat modern view of empirical history would also serve.

—Sam