Biblical inerrancy vs. physical evidence: continued

Well, it's interesting, but to point out the fallacy of the Bible, one needs to educate the unwilling audience that Christianity is a great-granddaughter religion of many religions. Not the "successor" of Judasim. And, frankly, there isn't enough space to put years of learning and studying down.

So, instead, I'll ask a question. From this question, one can research possible permutations of the query and start the process of enlightment. The question is: Why do Jews plant trees? (Hint: It is a religious question, not agricultural.)

As to Mark Hausam's request on books that deal with evolution:

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould

Evolution by Futuyma, Douglas J.

That's a pretty good start. Gould stuff is heavy, so keep him till last. As a man who was brought up to blindly believe in the Bible, I do not think they will change your mind on your position. Rather, I'd advice you to read other religious texts of this world (there are millions, but start with the major ones). You'll realize just how ridiculous the religous texts of other cultures are; then, sooner or later, you'll realize that the same ridiculous arguments are made splendidly in the Bible over and over again. With that first seed of doubt (the beginning of all good human beings), you'll be able to actually approach these texts without the baggage of hell, heaven, Jesus, Mary, the Pope, or the childish and barbarous believes of people that feared a solar eclipse.

On rabbits being ruminents and bats being birds: Here are a couple of good websites that provide a good, more full response to these objections: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/... and http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html. As I said before, these objections make the mistake of confusing real error with more laid-back biological descriptions. The Bible's definition of "chew the cud" is broader than ours and can include rabbits. "Birds" in the Bible is a broader category than our modern one as well---it lumps pretty much all flying creatures together. So there are no errors here. A lot of times, accusations of biblical error or contradiction stem from a superficial and shallow reading of the text. It is actually, in some ways, similar to the "quote mining" practice many Darwinists think creationists constantly engage in.

— Mark Hausam in #180588

qetzal: As I've said before, the Bible does not contain "errors" so much as it contains imprecise language about subjects that are not the authors' primary concern. The Bible is sloppy about "flying animals" and "cud" because the authors were busy trying to tell us about something else entirely: God's will toward Man. The "errors" are committed by people like Mark, who insist that the Bible is an inerrant and infallible source on subjects its authors didn't care about at all.

Here's another example: If I were to say "Terrorists must be hunted to the far corners of the Earth," this would not be a geographical error, because I'm not talking about geography, and anyone who knows English would understand that my reference to a flat Earth with "corners" was merely a rhetorical device. If you were to call me a flat-Earther, I would point out that you were making the "error" of missing the point of what I was trying to say. People like Mark and the AIG crowd are making this mistake with the entire Bible.

When you say "Terrorists must be hunted to the far corners of the Earth" you are speaking entirely in the metaphorical sense (the metaphor being a vestigial part of a more ignorant stage in Western civilization).

However, the mistake that moderates make lies exactly with your example. On what authority/evidence/reason do you assign Biblical verses to be factual or metaphorical. For example, most Christian moderates make it quite clear that Genesis is simply a metaphor/analogy/etc etc; but then they go on and say that the resurrection of Jesus is factual. On what basis is this distinction made, except the fact that if Jesus's resurrection proved to be simply a metaphor, Christian faith could not survive in its present form.

If Young Earth Creationists willfully ignore the findings of geology, than moderate Christians willfully ignore the finding of genetics of conception. Why keep firm on the laws of geology in arguing against the Young Earthers, but loosen the laws of genetics when it comes to Jesus's birth.

It is this double of standards of moderates that irks me so.

Mark wrote:

"If you come to the scientific evidence without an acceptance of the six day interpretation of Genesis, and instead assume a naturalistic uniformity throughout past time, you will probably take the rings as good indicators of age. This is not a matter of the Genesis-believer ignoring or distorting the evidence; it is a matter of the evidence being interpreted, quite legitimately, differently due to differing beliefs coming from other sources."

So, let's summarize shall we? I challenged Mark to set aside his belief in the Bible in evaluating the evidence. He even agreed that if the Bible were true the evidence should bring one to the same conclusion. Then he admits that the evidence actually gives you an answer that is different from that given in the Bible, but he simply can't accept it due to his prior assumption of biblical inerrancy, which he still refuses to question.

Hate to say I told you so, but there it is. Mark is emotionally incapable of questioning his prior assumptions, whatever the evidence. Of course, in so doing, he is forced to adopt a belief in a deceitful diety who renders all evidence irrelevant. Wow, talk about being impervious to evidence! And of course he still claims not to be authoritarian!

Well, it was fun for a while. But really, what can ever be accomplished by arguing with this guy? Maybe Nick is right and he has finally reached a state of cognitive dissonance that will enable a breakthrough. I sure hope so because this is geeting really painful to watch. Thanks to all those who tried so hard to get through to him. I don't think anyone can reasonably object to the way that he was treated here. I would suggest that this discussion be archieved and examined by a profesional psychologist. There must be at least one paper in here somewhere.

"On what authority/evidence/reason do you assign Biblical verses to be factual or metaphorical. "

Answer: The same kind of hermeneutics that Raging Bee used to claim that the Biblical use of the word "birds" includes all flying animals (I assume he means bats, insects, flying squirrels, etc.)

There is very little difference in the hermeneutics that "inerrantists" use than mainstream Christian's use. One forms a theology and views the Bible through the lens of that theology. The difference is that mainstream Christians are more honest about it and actually consider those hermeneutics to be important, where inerrantists deny that they use them.

Hey, speaking of Dr. Kurt Wise, I have a copy of his 2002 book Faith, Form, and Time.
I've found it to be quite impressive, quite clear, quite Biblical, and quite rational.

I've quoted from it repeatedly in another forum or two, and I've noticed that evolutionists in those forums honestly can't seem to refute his actual statements and examples. Can't even come close.

(And no, I'm not "six months" or any other foreseeable time estimate "away from complete deconversion from creationism." If anything, the evolutionist inability to deal with Wise's book that I've witnessed elsewhere, has made clear to me that biblical creationism is far stronger, far more reasonable, than some folks want to admit.)

So for now, I have only one question to ask. Does any evolutionist here already have a copy of that particular book?

FL

I am a Christian and would love to engage in some honest and thoughtful dialog with with those of different persuasions or convictions. The only reason I am particularly drawn to this thread is that the goal was to be courteous with one another. I am used to people thinking differently or working with different presuppositions and am not intimidated or angry about it. I would like to use free conference call services to dialog on the phone with a few people about the issues. I find most of the internet chat highly polarizing. I think if both sides were more honest about the issues involved in the creation/evolution debate, there would be a lot more charity in the discussions. I do believe that the the preponderance of the evidence; including the scientific, historical, theological and philosophical aspects of it point clearly to God as the Creator of this universe who gives purpose and meaning to our lives. Anyways, a little about me since I like to know a little about those with whom I am talking with as well.

Graduate of UCLA (Non Science, but did take human evolution)
10 Years in the Tech Industry
Entrepreneur/Real Estate Investor (Semi Retired - Decided to go back to school)
Married, Father of 4 (10, 8, 6, and 4 years old)
Masters of Biblical Studies Talbot School of Theology
In Process Masters in Philosophy of Science and Religion
Very familiar with Creationism (AIG Conf attendee) and Intelligent Design (And there are some significant differences.. as well as similar motivations)
Read Dawkins, Creationism Trojan Horse, On the Origin of the Species, Plenty of modern literature from both sides....

Email me if you are interested in some dialog via telephone. I will email back and set up a conference call. Please only email if you are willing to engage a courteous dialog. This should only help us in the process of persuading each other.

Thanks,

Daniel Adelseck
adelseck@gmail.com

PS: Any of you folks in the Orange County area??. My treat for lunch in Irvine.

Dan

"A lot of Christians read the Bible differently." I know. But that doesn't prove they are right.

Hi
I will admit that I have not been to this website before; I found it while I was researching evolution for my biology class. I'm not any sort of expert or intellectual person, I'm just me (a community college student.) I will probably not visit this site again for a while, but I did want to comment, to express my thoughts.

The following is not immediately relevant, but I will use it as a metaphor.
In my psychology class, I recently learned the difference between sensation and perception. Sensation is defined (basically) as essentially meaningless input that goes into our brains through one of our sensory organs. Perception is how our brain makes sense out of it. My teacher used the example of foreign language: when we hear a foreign language spoken, we experience an auditory sensation, but do not perceive any meaning (we cannot make sense of what is being said.) By contrast, a person who speaks that language will receive the auditory sensation, be able to perceive meaning out of it, and be able to produce a response.

Here's how it's relevant: in the example that David cited, discussing with Mark about geology, I see one "sensation" (the rings) and two "perceptions" (from perspectives based on creation and evolution.) Like the foreign language example, each person perceives the evidence differently, because they come from different perspectives. Perception can't easily be separated from personal identity; we have to see things as we see them, from what we know. I will also admit that I do believe in absolute truth; both perceptions can't be entirely true.

Not to do Mark any disservice by presuming to know his thoughts (or yours, for that matter), but I think what he is saying is that since we do come from different belief backgrounds, we will interpret differently.

For me personally, I know that I am incapable of questioning God. You are correct there. At least, I would really hope to be so. Don't misunderstand; I have had questions, but I can honestly not tell you one instance where He has not been faithful to me. You are right, it is not logical to have such a belief. The Bible even says it is not logical: if you are interested, check out 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 1:19-25. What the verses say (from my interpretation) is that Christ's message is foolishness in the world's eyes. What you see as foolish is the very core of my existence, and I know it's true. I know that's not very convincing for you, but I'm not trying to convince you. I am merely explaining why I cannot be convinced to agree with you, although I recognize that to you, my explanation will not be logical either.

So, I completely understand that you think what I believe is basically foolishness, and although I wish you didn't't, I accept that you do.

It looks like I have gone on long enough, and on a topic not directly related to Biblical inerrancy, but I would like to leave you with one final thought: if you don't know God, how can you judge Him as deceiving? Essentially, I think the reason that you think Christianity (because it professes belief in creation according to the Bible) is foolishness is that you do not know God. I don't mean this as a deridement against you, but you can't really believe creation unless you trust God. Up to this point, I have been assuming that you classify me as outside of logic. One of us is; you can state logical facts to show that it is not you, but how can you know it is your logic that is correct? Science is a living process, which has experienced much change throughout its history.

I'm done now; I want to let you know that from my part, we're not enemies, we just don't agree. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
So, there was your glimpse inside the mind of a Christian, one who tries hard to follow Jesus but still stumbles, and who is self-acknowledgedly foolish. I cannot be convinced because my hope is lasting.

if you don't know God, how can you judge Him as deceiving?

I think it's quite amusing when people quote their absolute faith in the Bible to explain why geology, physics, biology, cosmology, etc, are wrong - including, as has been pointed out, the sort of science that merely involves counting. Dendrochronology is almost spookily accurate - and no, you can't look at it in any way whatsoever, whatever your belief, and see creation in 4004BC (or any number congruent with YECism). The best you can do is spin some ideas about why dendro doesn't work past a certain point, but there's no evidence for that... outside one particular reading of the Bible.

Since the Bible was written by men and (I presume they believe) the earth and everything in, on and around it was created by God, isn't this putting the works of men above the works of God?

Seems perilously close to blasphemy to me. Perhaps they've been misled by self-pride and the Devil.

R

k- I really don't want to get into your personal faith, but your example of a foreign language is a good metaphor for the evolution-creation debate. As it happens, I speak French. Unless you do, too, spoken French is just sounds to you, whereas to me, it carries information. Would you honestly claim that your perception is just as valid as mine, that it's perfectly all right to define the French language as a series of meaningless sounds? Doesn't it seem to you that if you simply studied French, it would make as much sense to you as it does to me?
The same issue is at the heart of the evolution-creation debate. Scientists spend years making observations and doing experiments. They work hard at defining their variables so that they know they are really observing what they think they're observing. They correct their misconceptions. And what they have come up with is overwhelming evidence, over thousands and thousands of observations, that the earth is very old, and that humans evolved over a long period of time from simpler organisms. Then along comes a creationist, who has done no research, never looked at the subject closely at all, but who annouces, "well, I just don't see it myself, and my opinion is just as valid as yours is." How do you expect the scientists to react? They react about the same way I do when somebody pretends they're speaking French when they make nonsense sounds.
The issue, in my mind, is not whether you believe in God. It's whether you believe in respecting other peoples' abilities and accomplishments-- and I find it hard to believe you'll find any verse in the Bible that tells you not to do that!

Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism.

— Nick Matzke

As to Mark Hausam's request on books that deal with evolution:

— Roland Deschain

hoary puccon:

It's even worse than that. To use the analogy of a french speaker de nouveau, we have the scientist/french speaker, confronted with the creationist/non-french speaker that nevertheless believes he knows how to speak French (understands science).

A french speaker comes along and utters a sentence(an event happens):
Veux-tu déjeuner avec moi?
The scientist correctly interprets the sentence to be an invitation to lunch. The Creationist thinks that he has just heard "Virtue as soon as to fast with me" (virtu dès jeuner avec moi. quoi!), and comes to the conclusion that the universe is a mysterious place that only God can possibly understand.

The thing is, only one of the two perceptions is correct, that of our French speaker/scientist. Based on what we believe he has said, the French-speaker/scientist can predict that the person speaking is going to accompany them to go and eat some lunch. The Creationist is completely incapable of making any prediction whatsoever based on their perception... This ability to make a prediction is what separates the correct interpretation from the false interpretation, so that we can comfortably say that the scientist has got it right...

Has anyone thought to tell Mark that the conversation continues here?

Anyway, to respond to Mark's last point, concerning the FSM, blessed by its name, the FSM is indetectible, so firstly we have no scientific proof of its material composition. Secondly, if a physical manifestation poses a problem, the same problem exists for Christianity by the presence of Jesus on Earth. So no Mark, that doesn't help prove that the Bible is more correct than the FSM, it just reinforces the fact that your book's myth is no better than many other myths out there.

So, care to try again to find a substantive difference between the Bible and the Gospel of the FSM, which should make us more inclined to trust the Bible?

I guess I have to remind everyone again not to fall in to the trap of "YEC vs. evolution." FL, Mark and possibly "k" want you to think that "Godless Darwinists" are the problem, while the OEC, FEC, etc., can just get swept under rug. Sorry, if one claims that the evidence supports "Biblical inerrancy," one needs to confront all the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations before peddling the tired old false dichotomy. Otherwise one can reasonably be suspected of deliberately trying to mislead.

Posted by Frank J on June 1, 2007 5:36 AM (e) Or complete deconversion to "don't ask, don't tell" ID.

K,

Thanks for stopping by. Glad to have you join the conversation.

First, you should really read the previous thread to know what we were discussing and with whom. I know it got over 300 posts long, but if you want to follow this conversation I would definately advise it.

Second, no one here is your enemy (I hope). No one here cares if you believe in God or the Bible or not (I hope). This is about science (I hope).

Third, you are correct that there is a difference between sensation and perception. In fact, that is what science is all about. That is why we try to identify our assumptions and test them as rigorously as possible. That is why personal experience does not count as evidence in science. That is why we perform controlled experiments. That is why the intuitive answer is not always correct.

No one is asking you not to believe in God. The question is what do you do with evidence? We have already had at least one example of someone who will not accept any evidence that conflicts with their prior assumptions. Needless to say, that is somewhat of a conversation stopper when it comes to science. If there is an unbroken record of tree ring data that goes back more than 50,000 years and if this record is correlated with other indicators of past climatic conditions and if this result is consistent with the results from ice core data, pollen stratigraphy, magnetic field reversals and all other data sets, what do you do? Do you say the earth is 6,000 years old and the evidence is worthless? Do you say God lied to fool us? Do you say that counting rings is just perception and therefore can be ignored? If so, science cannot help you. If not, there is much to learn.

As Troff pointed out, faith is not strong if it is never tested. Those who refuse to look at the evidence without a prior assumption of Biblical inerrancy simply lack the faith to do so. If your interpretation of the Bible is correct the evidence must bear this out, if it is not, then assuming that it is will lead nowhere.

Roland Deschain wrote:

On what authority/evidence/reason do you assign Biblical verses to be factual or metaphorical[?]

Such judgements are based on personal experience and the usefulness/relevance of the bible text in question. IMHO, the history is unreliable (because these were primitive people and the historians had an agenda); the science is obsolete and beside the authors' point; and the value of the Bible -- or any other "holy book" -- comes from the moral/ethical guidance and "life lessons" it offers, not from the niggling details about bats, cud and ancient tribal wars.

For example, most Christian moderates make it quite clear that Genesis is simply a metaphor/analogy/etc etc; but then they go on and say that the resurrection of Jesus is factual.

For starters, the Genesis stuff has been more conclusively disproven than the Resurrection. Second, the Resurrection story is central to Christian doctrine partly because it resonates as a story/analogy of spiritual suffering, death and rebirth; and partly because the whole point of Jesus' teachings is to lead people to the rebirth he thought we should all strive for. Drop the Genesis stuff and you'd still have the uplifting Resurrection story, and the teachings that go with it; drop the Resurrection story, and (at least for some people) the teachings would be a bit less potent.

On what basis is this distinction made, except the fact that if Jesus's resurrection proved to be simply a metaphor, Christian faith could not survive in its present form.

Even as a metaphor, the Resurrection has more of a kick than Genesis. Yes, that's a purely subjective answer, but it's one a lot of people share, and I'm stickin' to it.

It is this double of standards of moderates that irks me so.

It's called the complexity of real life. Get used to it. Religious extremists hate moderates for the same reason -- are you sure you want to be seen in such company?

k wrote:

What the verses say (from my interpretation) is that Christ's message is foolishness in the world's eyes. What you see as foolish is the very core of my existence, and I know it's true. I know that's not very convincing for you, but I'm not trying to convince you. I am merely explaining why I cannot be convinced to agree with you, although I recognize that to you, my explanation will not be logical either.

I, for one, am not asking you to drop your belief in Christ. I am only asking you to recognize that belief in Christ -- or any other God(ess) who speaks to your heart -- need not force you to reject honest science as a tool for explaining physical events here on Earth. (I'm sure you already understand that belief in Christ does not require you to use the Bible as a tool in crime-scene investigation. Right?) I would also remind you that Christ himself says that belief in him -- not in a literal interpretation of Genesis -- is what will bring you to God.

...if you don't know God, how can you judge Him as deceiving?

Ask Mark; he's the one saying that God created things "in a mature state" so we'd think they were older than they are. We're the ones disputing that dodge.

How can the bible be inerrant if it has two different lists for the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23 and Matthew 1:1)?

Ciao!

Nick: Thanks for renewing this thread. Since I didn't get to reply to Mark on the old thread, and since I find ATBC to be a bit cumbersome (if only because I'm not used to it), I figure I'll repost my reply here. If that's too repetitive, or if you find my post too uncivil in tone (I was getting a bit sick of a lot of repeated groundless assertions on Mark's part), then please delete it and accept my apologies...

Mark: If you're still willing to continue the discussion, and managed to find your way here, here's my response to your latest post, which I could not post at PT because that thread had been closed to comments...

...probably the biggest difference between my thinking and many of yours is that I take seriously the claim of the Bible to be a reliable revelation from God.

Wrong again: the difference is that some of us take the Bible as a reliable revelation about a specific, and limited, range of subject-matter, which includes Man's relationship to God but not natural science; while you seem to take it as an "infallible" source on ALL subject-matter. And as I said before (in a post you continue to ignore), we have good reason to believe that you are misusing the Bible and thus missing the point your God and his prophets are trying to make. And some of us who see this are themselves Christians.

I think my arguments for the existence of God are empirical.

What you "think" is incorrect, however many times you say it. You might as well say "I think the Earth is flat" over and over. Calling your arguments "empirical" does not make them so.

We have, therefore, a deeper philosophical disagreement that undoubtedly affects the way we evaluate things.

Exactly. And our philosophy is BETTER than yours, because ours allows us to observe God's creation honestly, increase our understanding of it, and get a lot of useful things done; while yours just sticks you into a bubble-verse where you simply discount facts that don't "fit," and therefore learn nothing, go nowhere, and refuse to recognize or respect the education and progress of others.

Jesus himself partied with politicians and other sinners, and never made any lame excuses about how he could never get anyone else to see things his way. He also answered people's questions, even when he knew they were trying to trap him. Can't you at least try to follow that example? It's not like we're about to nail you to anything.

Richard Dawkins seems to agree with this analysis. In The God Delusion, he rejects Gould's NOMA and argues that the existence of God is a scientific question.

So now you use an atheist's opinion to validate your own, but you won't follow the example of your own Savior? That's just beyond ridiculous.

The Bible's definition of "chew the cud" is broader than ours and can include rabbits. "Birds" in the Bible is a broader category than our modern one as well---it lumps pretty much all flying creatures together.

In other words, the Bible is vague on scientific and technical matters, because that's not what its authors wanted to talk about; therefore it cannot be considered reliable, let alone "infallible," on those subjects. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.

A lot of times, accusations of biblical error or contradiction stem from a superficial and shallow reading of the text.

And reading the Bible only for its literal meaning, without admitting it might have a more important metaphorical or allegorical message, is about as "superficial and shallow" as it gets. (Notice how you're going on and on about bats, birds, cud and Genesis, and saying NOTHING AT ALL about the Ten Commandments or the actual words of Jesus? You're missing the whole point of the Bible!)

"All your arguments are simply ungrounded assertions." No, they are not. They are based in good logical thinking. They are substantive arguments that need to be dealt with on a deeper level than being merely dismissed without serious consideration...

If you make unfounded assertions without serious consideration on your part, then you should expect those assertions to be dismissed without serious consideration on our part.

Sometimes we get confused dealing with these things because we fail to distinguish what really exists, what must exist, etc., with mathematical ideas or concepts that may be useful mathematically but which cannot exist in the real world.

If such "ideas or concepts" are useful and have real effects in the real world, then, for all practical purposes, they "exist in the real world."

"Who created God?" No one. God is a self-existent being.

If the Universe can't be "self-existent," then how can you be at all sure God can be? This is yet another unfounded assertion that you make to support your own belief. Has anyone made any attempt to prove what can and cannot be "self-existent?"

"You keep saying you don't understand things and then you say you do." Like most people, I understand some things and not others. This is not exactly contradictory.

In your case, it is: first you admit you don't understand the technical issues that underpin our arguments, then you imply that you understand them enough to know we're wrong.

I am very familiar with biblical exegesis.

Most of my Christian acquaintances, at least one of whom went to a Jesuit high school, would disagree with that assertion.

"The Bible is not a science book." That is true. It speaks in common-sense and phenomenological terms, rather than in strictly accurate 21st century biological or other scientific language. However, it does make understandable claims that mean something, and my assertion is that it is always right when it does so.

You have repeatedly admitted that the Bible's language is "imprecise;" therefore it cannot be "always right" on subjects where precision is required. You have just effectively admitted that your "assertion" is wrong.

"A lot of Christians read the Bible differently." I know. But that doesn't prove they are right.

And none of this proves you're right, either. But the fact that those other Christians are more knowledgeable and honest than you, proves that they're a lot more LIKELY to be right than you are.

Roland Deschains -

I would like to make a different set of reading recommendations for Mark Hausam, or any other creationist.

Popularizing books, even very good ones, will never provide in depth enough understanding to root out intensely held biases. Popular books implicitly require some acceptance of the expertise of the author, as by necessity they leave out details.

I recommend a basic textbook in each of the following subjects (see below). I have not provided links, because I don't wish to seem to endorse any particular bookseller, and these subject terms should easily allow a search for the standard books in the area.

1) Mathematics to the level of someone who has completed a standard freshman university year in science, that is, algebra, trigonometry, and basic calculus.
2) Basic statistics
3) General Chemistry
4) General Phyics
5) General Biology
6) Introductory Genetics
7) Introductory Molecular Biology
8) Introductory Cell Biology
9) Introductory Biochemistry
10)It is not really necessary to read a specific book on "Evolutionary Biology", since the topic will come up in diverse ways in all the other books, but it obviously an excellent idea.

These would represent a MINIMUM for someone who wishes to think seriously and critically about the theory of evolution.

The bar is much higher for those who "disagree". I don't need a PhD in physics to have some general knowledge of the theory of relativity, but if I wished to "deny" it, or seriously consider that it may be "wrong", I would need to complete a high level of study of it.

Wow! Our conversation has led to a whole new thread. I was quite surprised when I saw that. Thanks to Nick Matzke for taking the conversation seriously enough to want to help it continue.

I noticed a couple of other creationists have shown up. Hopefully some will join this conversation who have a better idea of the technical scientific points than I do. That has definitely been a weak point in the discussion thus far. I want to learn more, but this sort of a thread is not the place to learn as much as I need to (although it has been helpful as far as it goes). By the way, Nick, I have requested the two books you mentioned through interlibrary loan, so hopefully I will receive them shortly. Thank you again for that recommendation.

OK, my time is limited this morning, so I want to focus on one particular point. I am very interested by the way the whole "appearance of age" idea has been interpreted by evolutionists on this thread (meaning this and the previous thread as a single unit). I find a particular sentence of Nick Matzke's, from his intro to the new thread, quite intriguing: "Mark has pretty much acknowledged that his belief is based on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible, and that he is willing to invoke miraculous 'appearance of age' arguments to explain away physical evidence that conflicts with his interpretation of the Bible." Now, that is not how I see what I have been doing at all. An important question is, Why do I see what I've done so differently than Nick does? I'm betting that this is due to a difference of underlying assumptions.

Here's what I see happening: I am confronted with the issue of tree rings containing a record going beyond the biblical chronology. I point out that on a six-day creationist model, one would predict an appearance of age or maturity to exist in newly and quickly created things. This is not an ad-hoc argument against evolution, but a natural implication or prediction of the six-day creation model. If God creates a whole world in six days, full of geological phenomena and living creatures, it is quite natural to suppose that these were created in an adult, or mature, form. If I knew nothing about the existence of evolutionary theory, and was concerned to argue with no view at all, I would still expect trees to be created with many tree rings, Adam and Eve to have belly buttons, etc. So I pointed out that this implication of the six-day model would make it impossible to reliably date trees or anything else using tree rings from trees that could have come from before the flood. The mature-creation implication would also raise questions about other dating methods that use rocks, etc. It would raise a lot of questions in general. Therefore, I pointed out that any conclusions based on methods that would have been naturally skewed due to the natural implications of the six-day model cannot be used as evidence against that model. That seems to me a very reasonable statement to make. When you are trying to decide between two theories, which one is true and which is false, you can't use evidence that would be explained equally on both models. To use an analogy, let's say you have two people (Dan and Sarah) trying to decide whether their friend Floyd is planning on starting to write his novel today (OK, it's a weird analogy, but bear with me : )). They both observe Floyd entering an office supply store and leaving with reams of paper. Dan turns to Sarah and says, "There, that proves I'm right! He's starting his novel today!" Sarah replies, "That doesn't prove anything. It is equally possible that he has bought the paper today planning to start tomorrow." My point is that in order to decide between two conflicting theories, you have to find evidence that would be true in one model but wouldn't be true in the other. To prove an old earth, you have to have evidence that is not equally well-explained on a six-day creation model. That means that anything that would naturally be skewed to show older age due to a mature-creation implication of the six-day model cannot be used as evidence against it, because it would equally be expected on the six-day model. We need evidence that would not be definitely or plausibly true if the world were created as described in Genesis.

Now, that seems like obvious, solid reasoning to me. Why, then, is it dismissed as using "appearance of age" to explain AWAY the physical evidence? I am not interested in explaining anything AWAY, I am just interested in exploring all the valid interpretations of the physical evidence and pointing out what you can and what you can't legitimately prove from that evidence. However, if, when you begin to compare the two models--naturalistic uniformitarianism and six-day creationism--you start with the a priori assumption that nothing supernatural did or could have occurred, then you would naturaly see what I am doing as explaining away the physical evidence by means of a non-rational or non-objective (i.e. supernatural) personal belief. If, on the other hand, you start with the assumption that the biblical story, supernatural elements and all, at least might be objectively true and a reasonable objective position, you will see why the tree rings cannot be used (at least on their own) as evidence against six-day creationism and why I am not explaining anything away but raising a valid point. So I think Nick's statement is a good example of arguing in a circle. I am only explaining away physical evidence IF you start with the assumption that my biblical views are wrong or unreasonable as objective truth claims, but this is precisely what is supposed to be proved. It is not logically valid to base one's argument on one's conclusion.

My educated guess as to the reason many of you do this is not that you are trying to argue in a circle, but that it is so ingrained in you to think in naturalistic or uniformitarian terms that you have trouble conceiving another way of looking at things. You are not fully aware of your own assumptions and how your philosophical beliefs about whether supernatural revelation can possibly constitute a part of the objective evidence influences your way of looking at the physical evidence. So you automatically assume I am explaining things away when I am actually providing an alternative possible reading of the physical evidence. Whether or not my reading is valid or plausible cannot be determined by the physical evidence itself but depends on the validity of my (and your) deeper philosophical (metaphysical, epistemological) beliefs. This is why our conversation began to get into the issue of the plausibility of the idea of biblical inerrancy, the existence of God, etc.

Now, I want to clear up a misrepresentation of my position that keeps being repeated. I have no intention whatsoever of ignoring any evidence against my position. It is entirely possible, in my opinion, that there should be physical evidence that can only be interpreted in terms of an old-earth model and that cannot be reasonably understood on a biblical model. If such evidence exists, it would create a real problem for my position. It would falsify my belief in biblical inerrancy. I have no intention of ignoring any such evidence. But you have to be self-aware and understand the difference between presenting evidence that truly contradicts my position and evidence that is only contradictory when you start by assuming I am wrong to begin with. The latter is not going to be persuasive to me, for reasons I explained above--and why should it be? The former would be persuasive and I would have no choice but to alter my views in response to it. Does that make sense?

OK, enough for now. Thanks!

Mark

By the way, just to cut off some of the inevitable accusations to the contrary, I have no intention of avoiding anyone's claims or questions, although I am only one person with limited time and cannot answer everything everyone says. I intend to focus pretty much on major themes that seem particularly relevant rather than every little point (but if you point out a particualr comment as something you definitely want to me address, I will probably do so--but be explicit). I especially want to deal with Raging Bee's comments about the Bible not being a science book, other interpretations of the Bible, etc., the next time I get a chance.

Thanks,
Mark

Whether or not my reading is valid or plausible cannot be determined by the physical evidence itself but depends on the validity of my (and your) deeper philosophical (metaphysical, epistemological) beliefs.

This is just a fancy way of saying that facts don't matter and everyone's opinions are equally valid because that's all they are. This is how grade-school kids duck out of a losing argument after their factual assertions have been shown to be wrong. It's called "crybaby subjectivism."

It also proves that you're lying -- or at least clueless -- when you insist that your reasoning is "empirical." Did you even look up the meaning of that word before you started using it here?

Since you've just said you're arguing based on "deeper philosophical (metaphysical, epistemological) beliefs," perhaps you'd like to respond to the points that I and others have made about the foundation for your beliefs: the assumption of Biblical "infallibility." We've raised serious questions about that assumption, based on what the Bible itself says, and you have consistently failed to address them despite having been repeatedly reminded of them.

For starters, the Genesis stuff has been more conclusively disproven than the Resurrection.

— Raging Bee

drop the Resurrection story, and (at least for some people) the teachings would be a bit less potent

— Raging Bee

It is not logically valid to base one's argument on one's conclusion.

If God creates a whole world in six days, full of geological phenomena and living creatures, it is quite natural to suppose that these were created in an adult, or mature, form.

.FL, Mark and possibly "k" want you to think that "Godless Darwinists" are the problem, while the OEC, FEC, etc., can just get swept under rug.

When you are trying to decide between two theories, which one is true and which is false, you can't use evidence that would be explained equally on both models.

— Mark Hausam

On "appearance of age":

I think that it would be reasonable to assume that a creating entity (God) would create a world with the appearance of age. It would make sense.

Where I get stuck, however, is that it was created with the appearance of "history". I think there is a difference.

Assume that God created Adam & Eve at, say, 21 years old. They would have the physiology of typical 21 year olds: mature bone structure, etc. That would be the "appearance of age".

The question is, would they be created with any tell tale signs that they had been alive and well for 21 years - take for instance scars. There is probably not a 21 year old on the planet that does not have a physical scar somewhere on their body from something that has happened in their past. It is a record of their "history". It is from something specific that happened to them sometime in the past. If Adam had been created with, say, excesss bone growth on his humerus representative of a healed broken arm, would that be a deception on the part of the creator in that he created evidence of an event that never occurred?

The same can be asked about all the other evidence pointing to the long history of the earth/universe (dendochronology, geology, etc.). It is not just that it would have been created with the appearance of *age*, but that it would have been created with the appearance of a single specific *history*. Than single specific history includes 4.5 billion years of earth history - land masses forming and moving, forests growing and dying, whole ecosystems changing, the gamut. So did God create a world/universe with an entire history of things that never really happened?

Of course it can be assumed that God could do whatever he wants, but I think it stretches the limits of credibility.

Hi Mark,

I've arrived late to this discussion and haven't (yet) gone back through the previous thread. Apologies if my questions have already been addressed.

I'm a little confused by your final paragraph in comment # 180906:

Now, I want to clear up a misrepresentation of my position that keeps being repeated. I have no intention whatsoever of ignoring any evidence against my position. It is entirely possible, in my opinion, that there should be physical evidence that can only be interpreted in terms of an old-earth model and that cannot be reasonably understood on a biblical model. If such evidence exists, it would create a real problem for my position. It would falsify my belief in biblical inerrancy. I have no intention of ignoring any such evidence. But you have to be self-aware and understand the difference between presenting evidence that truly contradicts my position and evidence that is only contradictory when you start by assuming I am wrong to begin with. The latter is not going to be persuasive to me, for reasons I explained above---and why should it be? The former would be persuasive and I would have no choice but to alter my views in response to it. Does that make sense?

Earlier in the same post, you seem to be arguing that any evidence of an old Earth can also be explained by a young Earth created with the appearance of age. If I'm right about your argument, I don't see what sort of evidence could possibly contradict your position - you're assuming an omnipotent deity, then asking us to present something which the deity is incapable of doing.

What sort of evidence would, in your opinion, "truly contradict" the young-Earth hypothesis?

I point out that on a six-day creationist model, one would predict an appearance of age or maturity to exist in newly and quickly created things.

The physical evidence goes well beyond the "appearance of age of maturity". As the previous poster said, the evidence gives us a complete history. Forgive me if any of these have been addressed in the other thread, but just off the top of my head (and I'm not even a scientist), here are some of the things you're rejecting:
- Light from distant stars not having time to reach earth.
- A geological record of sedimentation, vulcanism, etc spanning billions of years.
- A huge fossil record of evolving species over hundreds of millions of years.
- DNA studies also showing evolving species over hundreds of millions of years based on known rates of mutation.
- All radiometric dating techniques.
- Ice cores showing seasonal variations over tens of thousands of years.
- The aforementioned tree ring, pollen, etc data.

You have to explain now only why all these lines of evidence are wrong, but why they're all wrong in the exact same way. Where they overlap, each independent line of evidence correlates with the others. This goes well beyond god creating mature trees and animals in the garden of eden. This is god making damn well sure the earth looks 4 billion year old.

So I, like the previous poster, have to wonder: exactly what physical evidence could possibly convince you that the earth is not just several thousand years old? You're already willing to reject pretty much everything we know about physics, geology, and biology.

I think two recent comments, by djcox12, and JohnW, get right at what you need to deal with, Mark.

First, if you're claiming that YEC is a "model" that "accounts for the evidence" as well as models that don't assume a recent creation ex nihilo, you need to tell us what kind of evidence, what angle of inquiry, if the answer came out a certain way, would disprove your model. The current geological model, which has concluded that the earth is a shade over 4.5 billion years old, has passed this test thousands of times by making risky predictions, doing the spadework to test them, and allowing other researchers to see the results for themselves. If there is not a single line of evidence that would falsify the YE "model," then it simply isn't an empirical explanation at all, and all this really is just "explaining away" facts that contradict your narrow and selective reading of scripture.

jgcox's point is also a good one, and one that I've tried to articulate to FL in the past, but not as well. The "appearance of age" is one thing, but the clear appearance of events having occurred on the earth that never could have according to your cosmology is clear evidence that either: you are dead wrong, or you worship a deceptive god. And the clear appearance of events occuring prior to 7,000 ya abounds. There are human-made structures much older than that. There are cave paintings that are 32,000 years old. If nobody painted them, what are they doing there?

In response to my statement:

...drop the Resurrection story, and (at least for some people) the teachings would be a bit less potent

orrg1 replied:

But here you are making exactly the same error made by creationists. In their minds, if biblical inerrancy is false, then the Bible as a whole is invalidated, and the whole structure of morality crumbles.

Sorry, but you're wrong there -- I'm not making that mistake. I did not say that losing the Resurrection story would "invalidate" anyone's morality; I merely said it would make the message "less potent" for "some people." Is my English not clear enough?

...but how much better it would be if the Bible could simply be taken as another compilation of human ruminations on morality, to be critically examined just like any other.

Religious moderates -- whom people like Roland diss with little if any "critical examination" -- have been doing exactly that, every day, since the Reformation, if not earlier. Where have you been? This is what has allowed us to embrace the good bits of various holy texts and reject the more extreme and idiotic human interpretations thereof. Just because we don't all agree with you, or haven't yet built the utopia you dream of, doesn't mean we haven't done anything.

A problem with "appearance of age" arguments is how you would go about testing it.

How do you go about independently corroborating the date the counterfeit age was made?

Last-Thursday-ism produces the exact same results as 6000 year "appearance-of-age" YECism, including the notion that all the evidence that indicates anything prior is all counterfeit.

So I, like the previous poster, have to wonder: exactly what physical evidence could possibly convince you that the earth is not just several thousand years old? You're already willing to reject pretty much everything we know about physics, geology, and biology.

— Abe White

djcox12 wrote:

"I think that it would be reasonable to assume that a creating entity (God) would create a world with the appearance of age. It would make sense. Where I get stuck, however, is that it was created with the appearance of "history". I think there is a difference."

I completely agree. Not only does the earth have the "appearance of age" but it has exactly the appearance that one would expect if descent with modification occured over billions of years. Not only are all of the data sets correlated, but there are other types of data that can only be interpreted as God lying if the earth is only 6,000 years old.

For example, I previously directed Mark to the Talkorigins archive which contains an article on whale retroviral transposons. These genetic elements insert randomly into virtually millions of possible sites in genomes and then persist through millions of years. They cause insertional mutagenesis which is a mistake that can inactivate a gene. This leads to decreased fitness and an increased probability of death and disease. The exact same mistakes are found in cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors. So, did God copy the mistakes? Why? To fool us? Either descent with modification is true or God is lying on purpose in order to try to fool us into thinking that descent with modification is true.

When confronted with such evidence regarding the vitamin C gene, Mark made some hand-waving argument and falied to respond to any of those who criticized it. Abe White and others make a very good point. If you can just dismiss such evidence, what possible evidence would be acceptable? Why claim to be interested in evidence and then set up a scenario where evidence cannnot possibly matter? The only reason I can see is that you know you are dead wrong and don't want to admit it. That is where the evidence leads in this case.

Since anyone with common sense can see that the world was created at the beginning of this thread, everything in the fossil record called the "previous thread" is just an illusion of age.

Mark cannot use any of the arguments posted there by a fossil named "Mark" because it was all created so quickly it had to have the appearance of age.

So if Mark wants to use any of those fossil arguments, he has to demonstrate to us that this thread evolved from that one.

There seems to be a problem posting. Sorry if this appears more than once.

Since anyone with common sense can see that the world was created at the beginning of this thread, everything in the fossil record called the "previous thread" is just an illusion of age.

Mark cannot use any of the arguments posted there by a fossil named "Mark" because it was all created so quickly it had to have the appearance of age.

So if Mark wants to use any of those fossil arguments, he has to demonstrate to us that this thread evolved from that one.

Apparently the universe keeps reinitializing with each attempt to post.

Haven't said a word about any "Godless Darwinists", Frank J. Maybe we can discuss that topic sometime, if you really want to, but I've not ever mentioned any such thing. Nick Matzke mentioned Dr. Kurt Wise and the "appearance of age" argument. I have a copy of Dr. Wise's 2002 book, Faith Form and Time. Like I said earlier, in a couple other forums, the evolutionists seem to be having seriously huge trouble refuting, (or even engaging for that matter), Dr. Wise's actual statements and examples from his book.

— FL

I think creationism, in its most virulent form, is a symptom of mental illness.

It is, at the very least, a symptom of unwillingness to face reality or take responsibility. Preaching about Genesis, rather than Jesus, and calling scientists "atheists" and "anti-God" is, for a lot of people, a means of pretending to be wise without learning anything or questioning one's own thoughts; blaming an evil "other" for one's own problems or failings; and pretending to be righteous without making any of the sacrifices necessary to follow the path of righteous priorities and conduct. Many of these self-proclaimed Christian creationists are the least Christian people I've ever encountered.

I think creationism, in its most virulent form, is a symptom of mental illness.

Mark's hopeful attachment to a miraculous creation story sounds like the awe a little child feels on seeing the fully decorated Christmas tree on Christmas morning where there was none the night before, taking this a proof of Santa's existence. Didn't Mommy and Daddy tell him Santa would come and decorate the tree?
If this trivializes Mark's religious beliefs, it is no more a trivialization than his take on the body of science he so desperately finds it necessary to challenge. If he has no qualms about compacting a few tens of thousands of dendridological years into a day's worth of creation, then I'm sure it's only slightly more difficult to stuff 13 billion years of cosmological time into one day. Background radiation? H/He/D/Li ratios? Red shifts? Metallicities of evolved stars? Galactic positions and clustering? All cast in one day by a supernatural Trickster on a stage designed to fool silly scientists into believing that there was some underlying logic to it and entertaining the conceit that they could figure it all out by slicing away with Occam's razor.
Guys, give up on Mark. You're wasting your time and a lot of bandwidth. He'll go to his grave believing this clap-trap, because if he doesn't he's afraid of where he may be spending eternity.

...but there are other types of data that can only be interpreted as God lying if the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I am confronted with the issue of tree rings containing a record going beyond the biblical chronology. I point out that on a six-day creationist model, one would predict an appearance of age or maturity to exist in newly and quickly created things. This is not an ad-hoc argument against evolution, but a natural implication or prediction of the six-day creation model. If God creates a whole world in six days, full of geological phenomena and living creatures, it is quite natural to suppose that these were created in an adult, or mature, form. If I knew nothing about the existence of evolutionary theory, and was concerned to argue with no view at all, I would still expect trees to be created with many tree rings, Adam and Eve to have belly buttons, etc.

— Mark Hausam

I noticed a couple of other creationists have shown up. Hopefully some will join this conversation who have a better idea of the technical scientific points than I do.

To prove an old earth, you have to have evidence that is not equally well-explained on a six-day creation model. . . We need evidence that would not be definitely or plausibly true if the world were created as described in Genesis.

Gotta love these online armchair psychological assessments, if only for the comic relief....

— FL

However, your argument is faulty because tree rings are not a function of a tree's maturity or it's "adulthood" (if such a word can be applicable to a tree), but is a function of its specific history. They are caused solely by the differences in light, nutrients and water resources available for growth throughout the year. Stop the progression of the seasons and provide steady nutrition and water, and you would have uniformity in the wood, without ringing. Thus, the presence of rings is not an indicator of biogical maturation, but of the tree's actual history.

Gotta love these online armchair psychological assessments, if only for the comic relief....

The loss of short-term memory or, alternatively, the onset of Alzheimer's disease has some relevance to the Thursdayism problem.

Keeping a notebook and trying to remember to look at it regularly raises some interesting issues that I am sure Mark hasn't thought about.

How does one in such a state know the writings pertain to him/her? How would one "prove" it? What detailed evidence would one want to have? If the intervals between writing and consulting the writings become more extended, where is the cut-off point where certainty evaporates? Who is one to believe about these writings?

In fact, one doesn't even have to use the loss of short-term memory to do this exercise. If the brain and memory are being updated from moment to moment, how is one to know that one's existence and memories haven't just been created and that nothing existed before a given instant?

What if everything in one's world is a figment of one's imagination (extreme solipsism)? How does one decide whether or not that is true? What test could one do? What test would one be willing to do?

Mark is on a soapbox, so don't expect any direct answers to any substantial questions posed to him by anyone.

Gotta love these online armchair psychological assessments...

When the loonies go out of their way to inflict their mindsets on our schools, our churches, our politics, our military, our media, our laws, and our news, we really don't have to leave our armchairs to see how sick they are.

Just noting that it has been asserted that no one had ever refuted Dr. Kurt Wise. Since the gentleman's book embraces such ideas as "floating" forests, "catastrophic plate tectonics" and "baraminology", does it really even warrant any serious discussion?

For Mark's benefit, here's some quotes from another Christian, St. Augustine of Hippo, on the subject of alleged literal Biblical inerrancy:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

--- The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19---20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

--- ibid, 2:9

Gotta love these online armchair psychological assessments, if only for the comic relief....

Gotta love these online armchair psychological assessments, if only for the comic relief....

GuyeFaux,

I wrote:

" . . .there are other types of data that can only be interpreted as God lying if the earth is only 6,000 years old."

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps that was stated too harshly. However, the challenge here is to find some type of evidence that cannot be explained by "God just did it that way". If there is to be any such evidence, then it seems that one must attribute some characteristics to the creator. It seemed to me that honesty was the place to start. If you want to believe in a deceitful God, I suppose that is your perogative. However, that would nullify the infallability of the Bible argument.

Perhaps a less harsh way of putting it might be: well if God really wants us to believe that the earth is billions of years old and evolution really occured, we should just go along with it. Why argue with God? After all, it was her idea in the first place. If she didn't want us to believe it, she wouldn't have created the appearance of age and history, complete with genetic mistakes due to historical contingency, all completely consistent with descent with modification.

There is more going on here than you know.

If such evidence exists, it would create a real problem for my position. It would falsify my belief in biblical inerrancy. I have no intention of ignoring any such evidence. But you have to be self-aware and understand the difference between presenting evidence that truly contradicts my position and evidence that is only contradictory when you start by assuming I am wrong to begin with. The latter is not going to be persuasive to me, for reasons I explained above---and why should it be? The former would be persuasive and I would have no choice but to alter my views in response to it. Does that make sense?

If she didn't want us to believe it, she wouldn't have created the appearance of age and history, complete with genetic mistakes due to historical contingency, all completely consistent with descent with modification.

However, your argument is faulty because tree rings are not a function of a tree's maturity or it's "adulthood" (if such a word can be applicable to a tree), but is a function of its specific history. They are caused solely by the differences in light, nutrients and water resources available for growth throughout the year. Stop the progression of the seasons and provide steady nutrition and water, and you would have uniformity in the wood, without ringing. Thus, the presence of rings is not an indicator of biogical maturation, but of the tree's actual history.

— Morris Hattrick

Another way to think of this: were Adam and Eve created with memories of childhood romps through the garden of Eden? If, as you say, tree creation follows the same model as Adam's and Eve's creation ("creation with appearance of age"), on what grounds would you expect trees to be created with tree ring patterns reflecting droughts, forest fires, and other events which never occured?

Mark writes:
"OK, my time is limited this morning, so I want to focus on one particular point. I am very interested by the way the whole "appearance of age" idea has been interpreted by evolutionists on this thread (meaning this and the previous thread as a single unit). I find a particular sentence of Nick Matzke's, from his intro to the new thread, quite intriguing: "Mark has pretty much acknowledged that his belief is based on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible, and that he is willing to invoke miraculous 'appearance of age' arguments to explain away physical evidence that conflicts with his interpretation of the Bible." Now, that is not how I see what I have been doing at all. An important question is, Why do I see what I've done so differently than Nick does? I'm betting that this is due to a difference of underlying assumptions."

The "appearance of age" is not a testable proposition. What evidence could
lead you to conclude that the Earth was not created with the appearance of age?

qetzal: As I've said before, the Bible does not contain "errors" so much as it contains imprecise language about subjects that are not the authors' primary concern. The Bible is sloppy about "flying animals" and "cud" because the authors were busy trying to tell us about something else entirely: God's will toward Man. The "errors" are committed by people like Mark, who insist that the Bible is an inerrant and infallible source on subjects its authors didn't care about at all. Here's another example: If I were to say "Terrorists must be hunted to the far corners of the Earth," this would not be a geographical error, because I'm not talking about geography, and anyone who knows English would understand that my reference to a flat Earth with "corners" was merely a rhetorical device. If you were to call me a flat-Earther, I would point out that you were making the "error" of missing the point of what I was trying to say. People like Mark and the AIG crowd are making this mistake with the entire Bible.

— Raging Bee

Although this is not my kind of thread, I will make one comment in light of Ken Ham's museum opening this week because I think it has some bearing. Ken Ham has said that one must read the Bible literally. One must not interpret the Bible, rather one must view the world through Bible glasses.

However, Ken Ham and all creationists have fallen into their own trap. They have reinterpreted the Bible leading to all this confusion.

When the Bible was written, what did the authors know about the real world? It was mostly flat. It didn't move. The sun rose and set. Floods happened. There were no kangaroos or plate tectonics. No Mount Everest. There were a limited number of animals to their knowledge: ass, goat, cow, crocodile, etc. A large ark would certainly hold them. There were giants and things that went bump in the night.

Thus, the mythology they constructed, the authors of the Bible, fit their known world and it all hung together somewhat nicely.

Now, here comes Science and suddenly the Earth moves and the Sun doesn't, there are a hell of a lot more animals, and dinosaurs and all sorts of stuff, and lots and lots of knowledge from all fields of study that fly in the face of the mythology.

What to do?

Well, one could say that "it makes sense" that God created the world to look old but, no, it doesn't make sense at all! It makes no sense. What is God, a distressed furniture manufacturer?

Ken Ham, representing creationists, couldn't ignore the dinosaurs. As he said, they're here. So, he reinterpreted the Bible and stuck them into the Garden of Eden. And so it goes. Wheels upon wheels upon wheels to "justify" the mythology in light of new knowledge.

The authors of the Bible wrote the mythology as they saw it, but, alas, reality was quite different.

Therefore, creationist, you have a choice. You can try to twist the torrent of modern knowledge to fit a 2000-year old mythology as best you can, curse the darkness, and wait for the next scientific shoe to drop...

...or you can accept that the Universe is what it is and that men created the Bible and the mythology and build your new house from that foundation. God didn't create man. Man created God. And when you look at the world through those glasses everything falls into place. In fact, if you listen you'll hear a little "click."

Regards,
Doc Bill

What is God, a distressed furniture manufacturer?

But you have to be self-aware and understand the difference between presenting evidence that truly contradicts my position and evidence that is only contradictory when you start by assuming I am wrong to begin with.

qetzal: you're right -- I said the Bible didn't contain errors, when I should have said its errors didn't pertain to the Bible's primary subject and objective. In either case, people like Mark are compounding old human errors by refusing to admit them.

Mark,

Let's take your argument as it stands - that God created everything in 6 days and in such a way that it would appear to have not only age but history. So a mature tree would have lots of rings, etc. I'll not even focus on the arguments presented above about why these rings would have variations.

You ask for a way to discrminate between this idea and what I'll call, for simpicity, the scientific theory of origins.

There is a simple way; the 6-day argument predicts that modern mammals co-existed with dinosaurs, trilobites, etc. Finding evidence that dinsoaurs and humans co-existed would discriminate between the two "theories." There i sno such evidence and, actually, evidence against it.

Isotope dating methods would give essentially the same age for large mammals and dinosaurs - whatever that age might be. If you postulate that God made dinosaurs look like they existed long before humans then that is last thursdayism. Your argument that God simply gave them a history is only reasonable provided that God did it honestly in the sense that all critters and vegetation got basically the same history. It seems unreasonable for God to make it look like dinosaurs existed ~ 65 million years before humans.

Mark,

Let's accept that bible is the inerrant word of god. While the bible may be inerrant, its readers are not. It's clear through history that many factions have disagreed about the meaning of the bible to the point of extreme violence - there are many obvious examples, so I'll spare you that. In fact, I submit that any intelligent, rational person reading the bible cover to cover would disagree on the meaning of many passages with another intelligent, rational person reading the bible cover to cover. Ignoring the possibility of the intelligent designer stepping in to create two people with the same brain, it's a fair guess that no two people have ever read the bible the same way during its entire history.

The bible may be inerrant, but people are not. Now, it's possible that you've personally stumbled upon THE correct interpretation, but any humble person (and the bible expects us to be humble) must entertain the idea that he's a wee bit off base. So then, does it not make sense to fall back on secondary, more tangible sources (that is, science) to patch over a few of the potentially rough spots in your interpretation?

I find it hard to believe that god prefers there to be billions of mini-interpretations of his word rather than expect his people to use the powers of observation and reason that they've been blessed with.

Comment #180957 Posted by Raging Bee on June 1, 2007 12:43 PM (e) I think creationism, in its most virulent form, is a symptom of mental illness. It is, at the very least, a symptom of unwillingness to face reality or take responsibility. Preaching about Genesis, rather than Jesus, and calling scientists "atheists" and "anti-God" is, for a lot of people, a means of pretending to be wise without learning anything or questioning one's own thoughts; blaming an evil "other" for one's own problems or failings; and pretending to be righteous without making any of the sacrifices necessary to follow the path of righteous priorities and conduct. Many of these self-proclaimed Christian creationists are the least Christian people I've ever encountered.

Matthew 2:13: The author describes the family fleeing to Egypt. No record of this is seen in Luke. It was apparently added to the gospel in order to match the prophecy in Hosea 11:1 that the Messiah must come out of Egypt. Luke 2:39: Luke describes them as going directly from Bethlehem to Nazareth. This conflicts with Matthew's account which has them fleeing to Egypt and only returning after Herod died. At least one of these accounts must be wrong.

Matthew 2:23: Joseph and Mary bypassed Judea and settled in Nazareth. The prophecy that "He will be called a Nazarene" does not exist in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Matthew 1:1: The author traces Jesus' genealogy from Abraham. He lists Jacob as being Jesus' grandfather. This conflicts with Luke, who lists Eli. Jesus' line is traced through Solomon, son of David. Luke traces the Messianic line through Nathan, son of David. The author lists 28 generations between David and Jesus; Luke says it was 41. Luke 3:38: As noted above, Luke's genealogy cannot be reconciled with Matthew's.

Matthew 1:22: The author cites a passage in an ancient Greek translation of Isaiah. The translation was an error: it substituted "virgin" for "young woman." Matthew and Luke probably felt compelled to go along with the expectation that Jesus' mother was a virgin.

Matthew 2:1: The story of the Magi coming to Palestine to give homage to the King of the Jews appears to have been freely adapted from the story of Mithra's birth. He was mythical Persian savior, also allegedly born of a virgin on DEC-25, who was worshiped many centuries before Jesus' birth.

I think creationism, in its most virulent form, is a symptom of mental illness.

I want to learn more, but this sort of a thread is not the place to learn as much as I need to (although it has been helpful as far as it goes). By the way, Nick, I have requested the two books you mentioned through interlibrary loan, so hopefully I will receive them shortly. Thank you again for that recommendation.

Those of you who have distinguished between an appearance of age and an appearance of history have made a very good point. It does not seem reasonable to me that God would have planted deceptive evidence of a history that didn't exist. Some things would clearly fall into an appearance of age category, some into an appearance of history, and some things would probably be a bit borderline and hard to tell what category to put them in. Giving Adam and Eve childhood memories without any indication they weren't real, I would think, is clearly an example of an appearance of history and something God wouldn't do. It would be lying to Adam and Eve, which God will not do. Belly buttons, on the other hand, would seem to clearly fall into the acceptable appearance of age category, even though they could be construed as part of the history of womb-development and birth. There are many things like that which can reasonably be interpreted to have more than one purpose--an aesthetic purpose (or something like that), and a historical developmental purpose. But the childhood memories thing would seem to be deceptive, and it is here that I would probably draw the line. If Adam and Eve were to conclude that they had once been children because of the existence of their belly buttons, this would be a somewhat understandable mistake, but they would have no evidential warrant just from that to conclude decisively that they had been infants. But if they had childhood memories, with no indication that they weren't true, they would seem to have reasonable warrant from that to conclude that they had been children--and therein lies the deceptive nature of it. So it does seem that the distinction between these two types of appearances is valid and could conceivably be of evidential value in determining an old or a young earth.

It is difficult to judge a priori what sorts of things should be categorized as an appearance of age and what should be categorized as an appearance of history. As we saw above, just because something usually exists as a function of development does not necessarily mean it must fit in the appearance of history category as we are using that phrase. What about tree rings? Well, it seems that the general idea of tree rings could be reasonably classed in the acceptable appearance of age category, but, as some people suggested, there might be particular characteristis of tree rings that would demand they be put in the other category.

So this distinction between appearanc of age and appearance of history might be able to help us in determining the age of the earth. Many of you have suggested particular things that you take to be clearly in the deceptive appearance of history category. Some of them I have clear opinions about, but most of them I don't have enough knowledge of to be able to evaluate at this time. The distant starlight problem does not seem to be an appearance of history issue to me. If God wanted to create distant stars and galaxies within six days, he could have sped up in various ways what is normally a longer process without any necessary deception. But most of your particular examples I simply cannot confirm or disconfirm given my current state of knowledge of the subject. I am not trying to dodge the issues, but I am simply acknowledging that I need further study before I can evaluate those issues. I am particularly interested in the idea of converging lines of dating evidence. A convergence of dating methods and a convergence on the dates of various, perhaps unrelated, things could potentially be a strong indicator of an appearance of history, which would cause problems for my position. On the other hand, there might be an explanation when one looks deeper into it that will put it reasonably in the appearance of age category. I cannot tell with my current state of knowledge of the science in these areas. That is sort of a conversation stopper, but it can't be helped at this time I am looking forward to reading Nick's books, as well as more creationist literature on these subjects, to be able to evaluate these issues for myself.

So, as I have stated before, my position is six-day creationism based on what I do think I have reliable evidence to take as an infallible revelation from God, and I have not seen anything yet in the scientific evidence (as far as I can evaluate at this point, anyway) that has given me sufficient reason to call the Bible's eyewitness testimony, and my interpretation of that testimony, into question. My belief in the Bible, and my belief in my interpretation of the Bible on the six-day issue, I hold due to much research into other forms of evidence besides the physical (forms of evidence which in themselves are quite conclusive, although conceivably falsifiable), so it is an informed opinion (but won't seem that way to you if you don't agree that the Bible is a reliable source of information or if you interpret it differently on these points). Therefore I will stick to that opinion, and hold it with a good degree of confidence, until I have good reason to do otherwise. Good reason could potentially come from disconfirming scientific evidence that cannot reasonably be explained in a six-day context (such as, probably, an appearance of history that would be inherently deceptive, as I discussed above). We will see what I discover when I examine that evidence more closely.

Raging Bee and others have argued that there are many different, conflicting interpretations of the Bible. That is true. But does the existence of conflicting interpretations necessarily mean that the Bible is itself unclear? There are many different and conflicting interpretations of the scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that evidence is unclear. We do not withhold assent from a position simply because of the existence of people who disagree with us. Raging Bee may think she can legitimately accept the Bible while asserting it errs in matters of science and history. I do not. The Bible does not itself make that distinction, and whenever it interprets itself, it always assumes its own accuracy in all matters upon which it speaks. For example, Jesus and others in the New Testament treat the Old Testament history, including Genesis, as infallibly true. (See, for example, Matt. 12:3-8, 19:1-12, 23:34-36, 1 Cor. 11:8-12, 11:23-26 [example of taking NT history seriously], Romans 4:1-13, Hebrews 11:1-40, 1 Tim. 2:8-15, 2 Peter 2:4-10, 3:1-9, etc.) How do Raging Bee and other "moderates" deal with these sorts of things? One thing "fundamentalists" and atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins agree on is that the "moderate" position is simply inconsistent. It wants to pick and choose what parts of the Bible it likes and which it doesn't without any good reason besides wanting things to be that way. It does not seem to be an honest and/or informed way of reading the Bible. It used to be my way of reading it as well, so I am familiar with the reasoning. I no longer think that reasoning holds up. (You guys might be surprised to learn that only recently--within the last three years or so--have I come to accept the infallibility of the Bible in history and science. I used to be somewhat closer to Raging Bee's position, but I found it intellectually untenable and contrary to the evidence. I used to reject a young-earth interpretation as well, and only recently have embraced the six-day view.)

I do agree with Bee, though, that the Bible's purpose is not to be a science or history textbook. It has another primary purpose, and only touches on history and science when these overlap that purpose, which they often do in one way or another. The Bible does not speak with the precision of modern science, but it speaks truly. Actually one of the things that amazes me about the Bible is how it manages to avoid two extremes--being a science textbook, and deceptively affirming the false cosmological beliefs of ancient people. For example, it is pretty likely that ancient Israelites didn't know that the sun is a gigantic burning ball of gasses. I don't know what they would have thought it was, but probably something rather odd if they were like most ancient peoples (which they usually were). Genesis 1 takes a remarkably narrow, careful route in describing the creation of the sun. It does not attempt to inform the Israelites about the scientific nature of the sun, which would have been way off-topic and bewildering to them, but it doesn't confirm any mythological view of the sun either. It just sticks to safe, phenomenological facts. Basically, "God made the sun and put it in the sky." It doesn't elaborate on all that that means or how this was done; it just states a basic fact that everyone would agree with. All people, ancient and modern, agree that the sun exists and that it is in the sky (in a phenomenological sense). The Bible does this sort of thing throughout. Atheists and others like to chatter on and on about how the Bible is just an ancient book of myths like any other, but they ignore how amazingly different it really is. The myths of the ancient world are full of all sorts of absurdities and imaginary creatures, like giants dying and become the earth, the sun being pulled across the sky by horses, and yet the Bible avoids doing this sort of thing. That is definitely noteworthy. Of course, it does contain supernatural elements and miraculous things from time to time, but nothing inherently out of accord with the evidence of reality or logic. (Some may cite its six-day view as an example to the contrary, but I'm betting that will turn out to be in accord with the scientific evidence. Some may reject the supernatural as absurd, but this is based on ungrounded naturalistic philosophy.) All the Bible would have to do to give us probably unsolvable problems would be to affirm something inherently and unavoidably absurd, like pretty much all mythical cycles of the ancient world do. If it said that the sun is 10 meters (or cubits) across and rides in a chariot pulled by horses across the sky, the jig would be up. But it avoids these things. I wish more atheists would note how remarkable that is. But most of them are probably not that familiar with the Bible and don't look at it with an objective eye. They simply mine it for things they want to trump as absurd without good reason.

Talk to you all later!

Mark

Okay. Given the following claim by Jim Wynne:

I think creationism, in its most virulent form, is a symptom of mental illness.

— FL

This is just plain online armchair psychology, unsupported and unprofessional.

Or, in the alternative, just go ahead and admit that Wynne's insult is nothing more than unsupported two-bit armchair psychology.

Thanks for the recommendations, FL. You are right, of course. I definitely want to look at all sides in the controversy. While I will listen to the Darwinists and take what they say seriously, I certainly do not implicitly trust them. For example, many of them seem to actually take seriously their absurd, ungrounded psychological speculations about creationists and others, and this certainly doesn't give one much confidence in their objectivity and ability/willingness to ground their conclusions in good, clear evidence. Some of them seem so bitter and closed-minded against creationists (Elzinga, for example) that one doubts whether they have ever or could ever, without a change of attitude, listen to people they disagree with on this issue with enough seriousness to have a really self-aware opinion in this area.

By the way, I saw the posts on Bible contradictions after I posted, so I will probably deal with some of these in my next post if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

Thanks,
Mark

I definitely want to look at all sides in the controversy.

— Mark Hausam

Well I see Mark has seen fit to grace us with yet another installment of the continuing saga of infallability. It really is getting rather old.

It might be too harsh to characterize this type of thinking as mental illness. Even the term dilusional might be too strong. What the Science article was really trying to get at was the observation that some individuals just can't seem to give up their childish approach to reality.

So, for example, if a forty year old still believed in Santa Claus, most people would think that that was a little strange. If it was pointed out to him that the evidence indicated that Santa could not possibly exist, his only defense would be: "Mom never lied about anything to me in my whole life, why would she lie about that?" Of course the mother would be horrified to learn that the son thought she had lied about anything. Still, if the child never admits to the possibility that maybe Mom wasn't trying to demand eternal belief in Santa, then he may never be able to look at the evidence objectively. He might never be able to admit to the possibility that there is no Santa, because to him, that would mean that Mom had lied. Of course then he would completely miss the true meaning of Christmas as well.

Don't take offense. I'm not trying to say that belief in the Bible amounts to the same thing as belief in Santa Claus. That would be wrong. I'm just saying that this is an example of the authoritarian mindset that must interpret all evidence in relation to decrees from infallible authorities. It's may not be mental illness, it may not not even dilusional, it's just childish by it's very nature and definately not evidence based.

If anyone is interested in the evidence, NCSE has posted a file by Krauss entitled: Top 10 Reasons why the Universe, the Sun, Earth and Life are NOT 6000 Years Old: A Primer. Enjoy.

This is just plain online armchair psychology, unsupported and unprofessional. But a couple of you are claiming that there's an article in Science magazine that also makes this same claim.

— FL

I didn't see much of the first thread, but I don't think these books have been mentioned. Mr. Hausam might find them revealing:

John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. Bishop Spong is (or was) the Episcopal bishop of Newark and the author of a number of other, similar books. The title is self-explanatory.

Stephen J. Godfrey and Christopher Smith, Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation. Professor Godfrey is a paleontologist, and Reverend Smith is a minister. They are brothers-in-law and probably influenced each other, but in the end neither found his Biblical literalism to be consistent with paleontological facts or modern understanding of the Bible. There is too much Christian particularism for my taste, but the chapter, "Genesis Cosmology and Its Implications," ought to be required reading for anyone who thinks that the Bible can substitute for a science text.

Raging Bee and others have argued that there are many different, conflicting interpretations of the Bible. That is true. But does the existence of conflicting interpretations necessarily mean that the Bible is itself unclear? There are many different and conflicting interpretations of the scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that evidence is unclear. We do not withhold assent from a position simply because of the existence of people who disagree with us.

— Mark Hausam

FL,

From Mark's admission of not knowing much about the science, ID books and "cogent" replies to Miller might be too technical. And despite their occasional quick disclaimers that ID is "not creationism," IDers do virtually nothing to refute YEC or other creationist "what happened and when" accounts. That alone puts any pretense of ID objectivity into question, even in comparison to YEC and OEC, which occasionally see fit to refute each other.

Lest anyone thinks that I only recommend books by "evolutionists," note that I did encourage Mark to visit ID and OEC sites. In contrast, the the other day, noted ID follower (& Bigfoot believer) Michael Medved recommended "Darwin's Black Box" and "Icons of Evolution" to his radio audience, but neglected to give "equal time" to such excellent mainstream counterpoints as "Finding Darwin's God" or "Why Intelligent Design Fails."

Mark hasn't even started his journey out of the Middle Ages if he hasn't understood any of the scientific, philosophical, historical and comparative religion knowledge that has accumulated since those times. In fact he just indicated that he has recently gone backwards by reaffirming the more primitive views of that area.

He doesn't appear to know the history of his own religion let alone that of any others. That doesn't bother just scientists; it bothers people of faith, especially when he attempts to impose his lack of knowledge on others.

Marks attitudes toward modern science and other religions do in fact suggest fear and loathing. With all the interesting stuff out there to learn, what else could be so effective at holding him back?

Galileo had to struggle against the Medieval mindset it trying to get people to look at the scientific evidence. So here are some arguments that are closer to what a person in his time would understand. It is the letter Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess Christina.

http://www.galilean-library.org/christina.html

WRT appearance of history vs. appearance of age in tree rings:

The reason we can construct a tree ring sequence beyond the age of the oldest trees is that tree rings have an appearance of history and not merely age. Tree rings vary in thickness through inconsistent cycles of drought and plenty. Without this recognizable pattern, it would not be possible to match up the outside rings in an old tree stump with the inside rings of a freshly cut tree stump and thus count backward in years beyond the age of the fresh stump. We would not know when the old stump was cut. If there were appearance of age without appearance of history, all the rings would be equally spaced and featureless. Anything else would imply a history, and thus be a deception on the part of the creator.

Mark,

Please could you respond possibly to my earlier post where I try to answer directly your challenge to find a test that would distinguishbetween 6"-day creationism and evolution." YEC makes specific predictions, e.g., the prediction that various species should have co-existed.

Thnaks,

Robert

This sounds a bit harsher than it needs to be, like a child accusing his parents after finding out that, in fact, there is no Easter Bunny.

A bit of mirth that illustrates the problem with "inerrancy"

You cannot prove it either way. To prove there is no God, you have to simultaneously be in every point of the universe through all time - ie - to prove there is no God, you have to become a God. We are given Free agency - the ability to choose for our self what to believe - so you might as well choose something that gives you Purpose and Meaning in your life right? Evidence is given to those who first choose to have Meaning and Purpose in their life.

PS - 6 days? Before the sun was created, how long exactly is a "day" I take it as "in my day in age".. a "day" is a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours. Either way, truth is stranger than fiction, I was not there, I cannot say, and it does not really matter to me. Scriptures are not meant to be a science textbook, but a discussion of morals. To me the point is not how He created it, but why... The point of Genesis is to say He loved us enough to create xyz for us, and respected us enough to give us free agency.

I believe the bible is purposefully written in parables to force the reader to ask questions. "Ask and ye shall recieve", He is forcing people to ask and experiment because there is some knowlege you cannot gain by reading about it in books example - can you give a person the knowlege of what salt tastes like by using words? To know how anything tastes, you have to actually put it in your mouth and chew... We are supposed to ask questions learn by experience...

PS - 6 days? Before the sun was created, how long exactly is a "day" I take it as "in my day in age".. a "day" is a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours. Either way, truth is stranger than fiction, I was not there, I cannot say, and it does not really matter to me. Scriptures are not meant to be a science textbook, but a discussion of morals. To me the point is not how He created it, but why... The point of Genesis is to say He loved us enough to create xyz for us, and respected us enough to give us free agency.

I believe the bible is purposefully written in parables to force the reader to ask questions. "Ask and ye shall receive", He is forcing people to ask and experiment because there is some knowledge you cannot gain by reading about it in books example - can you give a person the knowledge of what salt tastes like by using words? To know how anything tastes, you have to actually put it in your mouth and chew... We are supposed to ask questions learn by experience...

Mark wrote:

"I am particularly interested in the idea of converging lines of dating evidence. A convergence of dating methods and a convergence on the dates of various, perhaps unrelated, things could potentially be a strong indicator of an appearance of history, which would cause problems for my position."

As has already been pointed out, all the different types of evidence are correlated with paleoclimatology. That is how the past history of climate on earth is reconstructed. This is not just the appearance of age, this is a specific history that is represented in every data set examined.

Of course the same can be said for all of the independent data sets in biology as well. You get the same answer whether you look at fossils, anatomy, genetics or development. There is a tree of life with a branching order caused by the unique history of life on this planet. The history of life on earth can be reconstructed from data sets that all converge on the same answer.

And let's not forget that the data sets from paleoclimatology as also correlated with the biological data sets as well. You basically have to throw out every major discovery in every major field of science in order to claim that the earth has only the appearance of age and not a specific history that can be reconstructed from the evidence.

Mark says:

"Atheists and others like to chatter on and on about how the Bible is just an ancient book of myths like any other, but they ignore how amazingly different it really is. The myths of the ancient world are full of all sorts of absurdities and imaginary creatures, like giants dying and become the earth, the sun being pulled across the sky by horses, and yet the Bible avoids doing this sort of thing. That is definitely noteworthy."

I googled for "bible absurdities", the first hit was this page:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html

Most of these are indeed absurd. Of course, they are all easily explained by invoking the omnipotent god's miracle shooting nerf gun. But no religion is absurd if you start with an omnipotent deity with a never-ending miracle gobstopper.. "I know it doesn't seem rational to us mere mortals, but that's just what the god/gods did... trust me!"

p.s. This list doesn't even include one of my favorites.. Jonah living in a fish for 3 days. Nothing absurd about that. Nope. Happens all the time. Why, just last Thursday...

Mark --

1. I encourage you to follow the advice some others on this thread have given and read up on the parallels between Jesus and previous savior god myths. Not as proof of anything, but for your own edification. It's fascinating stuff.

2. Tree rings, ice cores, geological strata, the fossil record, DNA studies, cladistics, etc all show an ancient earth history and do indeed all correlate. Again, I encourage you to study the available science. I'm not sure what you think the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe have been doing for the past few centuries, but all these fields are well established. You actually take advantage of the fruits of many of these scientists' labor every day in your use of modern technology. For example, the gasoline in your car: here is a brief story of the realizations working in the petroleum industry brought on a man who used to write for YEC publications:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

3. You should also pay particular attention to the earlier post noting that not only do physics, geology, and biology all generally agree on a general earth history, but that this history has certain features that make it easily falsifiable. The poster's example was the coexistence of dinosaurs and man. That can be expanded to any modern animal appearing together with ancient ones, or any modern animal appearing in strata dated as ancient (I believe there is a famous quote about disproving evolution by finding a rabbit in the cretaceous). But that is just one example of many: unlike the "god did it any way he wanted" story, current scientific theory in these areas make very specific predictions, and any scientist would make quite a name for himself by finding credible evidence to the contrary.

4. Just as an aside, I find it ironic that you would draw the line at implanting false memories in Adam and Eve because god wouldn't lie to them. Uh... Genesis 2:17 anyone?

Mike Elzinga --- Galileo didn't have to struggle at all. He was a master of the demonstration lecture and managed, without difficulty, to get various dukes, etc., to keep appointing him to ever wealthier positions.

He did, finally of course, have political or theological problems with a new pope...

The myths of the ancient world are full of all sorts of absurdities and imaginary creatures, like giants dying and become the earth, the sun being pulled across the sky by horses, and yet the Bible avoids doing this sort of thing. That is definitely noteworthy

Mark -

I'm going to let you in on a secret. You'll find out sooner or later.

God created the Universe for me. Just me. And he made it look old to give me the illusion. My parents, all the libraries, books, other people, everything. Created just for my benefit. Nothing in the Universe existed before my birth and God created everything just for me.

Why? Because I'm special.

Now, Mark, two tasks for you.

First, prove me wrong. Prove it. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Second, look at your own position earlier in this thread and explain how it's different than what I just presented.

Actually, there's a third task but I don't think you're up to it just yet.

Galileo didn't have to struggle at all. He was a master of the demonstration lecture and managed, without difficulty, to get various dukes, etc., to keep appointing him to ever wealthier positions.

Those who Believe communicating with those who don't... Both trying to understand their existence. Can you gain more personal security and control over your surroundings through relying on Others, or yourself? One applies equations, another applies God. Each are left with unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge, what is to be done?

Consider the lily of the field... The scientist finds the composition and life cycle, the artist finds it's color in the afternoon sun, the child presents it to his mother. The beauty of the flower increases without it ever having to toil. Life from life --- on so many levels...

MArk blithers on:

It is difficult to judge a priori what sorts of things should be categorized as an appearance of age and what should be categorized as an appearance of history.

We who have disputed you on this have explicitly described the difference, and have described specific examples of "appearance of history" that disprove your young-Earth "theory." And we've even told you HOW and WHY we classify one observed characteristic as "appearance of age" and another as "appearance of history." And, in "response" to that, you simply assert that it is "difficult" to do what we have already just done.

If God wanted to create distant stars and galaxies within six days, he could have sped up in various ways what is normally a longer process without any necessary deception.

We tend to measure a given period of time by the events that can happen within that period (i.e., the workings of a clock or the rate of radioactive decay). If eighteen billion years worth of events happened in a period you label "six days," then -- by definition -- the period was really eighteen billion years, and your assertion that it was really only six days is simply meaningless, if not dishonest. At the very least, you're fudging the meaning of words like "day" and backing away from a literal interpretation of the "six-day" creation story found in your "infallible" Bible. Sort of like Carol Clouser, actually.

On the other hand, there might be an explanation when one looks deeper into it that will put it reasonably in the appearance of age category. I cannot tell with my current state of knowledge of the science in these areas.

In other words, you're refusing to accept the facts we've just stated for you, offering no plausible alternative explanation fo your own, and clinging to your ignorance. And you wonder why we're not impressed by your beliefs?

So, as I have stated before, my position is six-day creationism based on what I do think I have reliable evidence to take as an infallible revelation from God, and I have not seen anything yet in the scientific evidence (as far as I can evaluate at this point, anyway) that has given me sufficient reason to call the Bible's eyewitness testimony, and my interpretation of that testimony, into question.

In other words, you pretended to listen to everything we said, let it all pass out your other ear, and keep on repeating the same old disproven assertions, without even trying to explain why so many of your fellow Christians no longer stand by them. We've even quoted from your Bible, and you ignore that too.

You have eyes with which to see, and deliberately chose not to use them or accept what they told you. Didn't Jesus himself complain more than once about such behavior?

My belief in the Bible, and my belief in my interpretation of the Bible on the six-day issue, I hold due to much research into other forms of evidence besides the physical...

First you admit the lameness of your "current state of knowledge of the science in these areas;" then you claim you've done "much research," whose fruits are strangely absent from your discourse here. Forgive me if I'm not impressed.

But does the existence of conflicting interpretations necessarily mean that the Bible is itself unclear?

Yes.

There are many different and conflicting interpretations of the scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that evidence is unclear.

Yes, actually, it does: the evidence is either unclear, or incomplete; and further observation and research is necessary. In such cases, disputes are resolved by looking at MORE sources, not just one, as you do with your Bible.

Raging Bee may think she can legitimately accept the Bible while asserting it errs in matters of science and history.

MoFoPulLease! You guess my gender wrong, and you expect us to trust your take on the Bible?

One thing "fundamentalists" and atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins agree on is that the "moderate" position is simply inconsistent.

You can't find any validation for your beliefs among your fellow Christians, so you join with your worst enemies -- people who have no respect or tolerance for your kind and blame you for nearly all of Mankind's problems -- in calling US inconsistent? You, Mark, are a hypocrite and a false witness. (That "inconsistency" you're whining about is also known as "facing a complex world." You should try it sometime -- it's tough, but rewarding.)

It wants to pick and choose what parts of the Bible it likes and which it doesn't without any good reason besides wanting things to be that way.

You pick and choose Genesis as THE definitive word on all matters scientific, and ignore the teachings of Christ, the Ten Commandments, and a raft of Bible quotes which we've offered you right here; then you accuse us of picking and choosing. More blatant hypocricy on your part.

It's late, and I've wasted enough time arguing with someone who has proven himself both unresponsive and dishonest.

Those who Believe communicating with those who don't... Both trying to understand their existence. Can you gain more personal security and control over your surroundings through relying on Others, or yourself? One applies equations, another applies God. Each are left with unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge, what is to be done? Consider the lily of the field... The scientist finds the composition and life cycle, the artist finds it's color in the afternoon sun, the child presents it to his mother. The beauty of the flower increases without it ever having to toil. Life from life --- on so many levels...

my two cents on the general structure of this argument, and talking to creationists and idolaters (who worship the bible rather than god) in general:

venues like this tend to be quite bad because people introduce too many topics. This tends to benefit creationists and is a favored tactic ("gish gallop", etc. etc. etc.) because creationism is the side of shallow understanding. With a conversation that has become too broad, people tend to throw up their hands and think "well, their guy made about 20 reasonable sounding points, whereas my man Kent made about 350, so I guess we won, or at least I'm going away unconvinced by the other guy". I've always found that focusing on a single myth that somebody has been proudly telling everyone for years, and removing it from his repertoire, has far more impact than a meandering discussion. Generally a live chat works best for this because you tend to pin someone down on one point. In the absence of this I strongly recommend limiting the number of topics.

Don't try to prove more than you need to. This is a big problem with excitable nerds. In particular you don't need to "prove" the bible is inerrant. The bible is a very vague thing, and christians have been evolving their responses for a long time in a harsh environment. I see a lot of people smugly raising objections blithely unaware of very common counter-arguments. It's the equivalent of grandly asking "why are there still monkeys". I do think there are some very fruitful contradictions (particularly, two different people killing Goliath, and the ten year discrepancy between the nativity dates in Luke and Matthew) but it's not necessary. The problem comes down to christians insisting that inerrancy is proved (thereby forcing us to accept jesus etc.), and all you need to do is counter these woeful proofs as they come up - it's not like they're any good. Most of them come from hugely popular but poorly researched books (esp McDowell & Strobel) that have been demolished at infidels.org. Proving bible contradiction is an end run around the inerrancy discussion much like "mathematical disproof" is an end run around the mountains of evidence for evolution. But not only will you become lost in a quagmire, it's unnecessary because the only problem you have ("I don't need to consider evolution evidence because the bible is proved", which is best tackled with "really - how so"?)is where the burden of proof is on the creationist.

Creationists usually arrive at these discussions with "proof of bible inerrancy", "proof of evolution impossibility", and "there is zero evidence for evolution". I suggest a very brief counter-example to the latter (eg shared sequences, including errors and non-code, arranged in a hierarchy "so you see, there is SOME evidence, so we just went crazy and ran with the assumption") and then just working in a firm but friendly manner through the areas in which they have assumed the burden of proof. You need to let them work from their perspective - you need to get in their head, not butt heads. I try to get YECs to look at Glen Morton's story, Why I left Young-Earth Creationism

Another poster pointed out that there is no evidence at all for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, even though there is ample evidence for the coexistence of humans and mammoths. That got me to thinking that maybe concilience of evidence isn't the only thing that is important here. What about lack of evidence? Removing evidence from a crime scene is something only a guilty and deceitful person would do.

So, if the Bible is infallable, there must have been a world-wide flood. What does the evidence show? Once again, all of the evidence converges on the exact same answer. There never was a world-wide flood. All of the evidence from palentology, archaeology, tree rings, ice cores and genetics converge on the same answer. For example, if we look at human genetics, there are at least four independent data sets, (allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome markers and DNA fingerprints), that all give exactly the same answer. Modern humans came out of Africa in waves, starting more than 100,000 thousand years ago. Since then, they have spread throughout the world along migration routes that are fairly well understood. There is a vast scientific literature that documents a very specific human history that does not include a world-wide flood. Did God erase the evidence?

For those who want to believe in a world-wide flood anyway, I suggest you go to the talkorigins archive for a detailed discussion of the problems with the flood hypothesis: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark

For those who are interested in the origin and comparison of flood myths, I suggest you try the same site under faqs/flood-myths

Of course, as Raging Bee has so patiently pointed out, none of this really invalidates the Bible as a religious text. It simply means that it is not a science text, or (at least in some ways), an accurate history text. That does not mean that it is worthless. That does not mean that it does not contain valuable moral lessons. All it means is that we should learn to examine evidence for ourselves. Unless of course God just wiped out all the evidence to fool us.

Anyone interested on a new viewpoint concerning creationism and the self-existent universe etc. etc... might enjoy reading The King Follett Sermon on LDS.org
http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8b9a945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
,

Anyone interested on a new viewpoint concerning Biblical creationism in conjunction with a self-existent universe etc. etc... might enjoy reading The King Follett Sermon on LDS.org

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8b9a945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Anyone interested on a new viewpoint concerning Biblical creationism in conjunction with a self-existent universe etc. etc... might enjoy reading The King Follett Sermon on LDS.org

It is difficult to judge a priori what sorts of things should be categorized as an appearance of age and what should be categorized as an appearance of history.

— Mark Hausam

One of the things that really bugs me about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is that it makes the bible look like a joke book. A world-wide flood? Well really! Dinosaurs on the ark? Ridiculous! But what if the story of Noah (which also appears in other ancient texts) records a real flood that stretched from horizon to horizon? That would be a distance of less than 20 miles-- not unusual for a catastrophic flood in a flat valley. People who thought the earth was flat could easily make the incorrect but logical assumption that the flood was world wide. And what if the main point of the story, in the minds of those who first told it, was that Noah's family prospered after the flood because they had the presence of mind to save the breeding stock of their domestic animals? That is precisely the kind of information people in an agrarian society would remember and pass on. So I personally think there's a very good chance the story of Noah is based on an actual historical event. But look what happens when you try to add 'literal truth.' A story which starts out as a perfectly plausible recounting of a flood become a ludicrous tall tale, soon supported by threats from the pulpit of eternal hellfire and damnation for those who don't swallow it whole-- sort of like Jonah in reverse. Mark's twists and turns over the age of the earth show just what knots it ties people into. Why is this supposed to help anyone be a better person? And if it doesn't, what's the point?

Mark:

You ask about the evidence for an ancient earth. No-one seems to have recommended you read G. Brent Dalrymple's "The Age of the Earth", from 1991. This is surprising, because there is no finer summary of all the converging lines of evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Some of the evidence clearly explained by Dalrymple includes:

There are no radioactive nuclides on earth (that are not continuously produced here) with half-lives less than ~80 million years. (This suggests that those with shorter half-lives have already decayed away to negligible amounts.)

The oldest rocks on earth are all dated at about 2.5 to 3.5 billion years, by varying techniques. (Geologic recycling has erased evidence from earlier times.)

All meteorites (remnants of the early solar system, unmodified by geological recycling processes) are about 4.5 billion years old.

Moon rocks are 3.8 to 4.5 billion years old.

Different astrophysical techniques produce similar ranges for the age of the universe: by recession of galaxies, 8-20 billion years; by analysis of globular clusters, 14-17 billion years; by the age of the elements, 8-16 billion years.

If you are truly concerned with examining the evidence that leads scientists to conclude that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe, 12-20 billion years old, you can do no better than Dalrymple.

You can also read Dalrymple on TalkOrigins.

Manduca --- A slight correction, from the USGS web site Age of the Earth: the oldest known rocks are dated as 4.03 billion years old.

David:

Thanks for the correction. I got the figure by scanning the tables in the chapter "Earth's Oldest Rocks" in my copy of Dalrymple. Didn't bother to check anywhere else for more recent figures.

The basic point is the same, though. The earth is at least five hundred thousand times older than the age calculated by biblical chronology.

David and Manduca-- Reading a geologist's book on the age of the earth works fine-- IF you happen to believe the author. So why should we believe them?
I, personally, believe in scientific dating techniques because I've been a volunteer on archaeological expeditions. I know how careful we had to be with carbon 14 samples.I know what lengths the principal investigators went to, to avoid contamination.
Mark, find out how scientists operate. Talk to some of them. Learn how science is really done. You'll soon discover that the YE creationists who are so adamant about the literal truth of the bible play fast and loose with the truth when they describe scientific techniques. At the very least, you should come away feeling that scientists are sincere people, whose confidence in their results doesn't stem from arrogance, but from the knowledge that they have checked and cross-checked their facts.

Given the age and size of the universe, itn't it more probable that something does rather than does not exist?

First let me deal with the supposed biblical contradictions posed by Moses (the Moses on Panda's Thumb, that is):

1. "Matthew 2:13: The author describes the family fleeing to Egypt. No record of this is seen in Luke. It was apparently added to the gospel in order to match the prophecy in Hosea 11:1 that the Messiah must come out of Egypt."
The gospels are selective in their recording of events. Lack of mention in a gospel of something mentioned in another gospel is not a contradiction. The comment about the motive is simply speculation.

2. "Luke 2:39: Luke describes them as going directly from Bethlehem to Nazareth. This conflicts with Matthew's account which has them fleeing to Egypt and only returning after Herod died. At least one of these accounts must be wrong.
This is classic error which is usually explained away, though the explanation is an obvious gloss-over."
This does indeed have the appearance of an obvious contradiction on the surface. It could be plausibly read that way. However, it is also plausible that Luke is simply condensing his account and skipping over the trip to Egypt entirely because he does not want to talk about it. He might be intentionally condensing events in his account. It may have been that when Mary and Joseph finished in Jerusalem, they went back to Bethlehem for a very short time. Then they went to Egypt, after which they returned to Nazareth. Since Luke did not want to relate the Egypt events, he simply jumped from the time in Jerusalem to the next settled stage in their life, their return to Nazareth. "When they had finished in Jerusalem, they returned to Nazareth to live (after an interlude in Egypt that I have chosen not to include in my account)." Ancient reporting of historical events was often done more loosely than is acceptable in our day, so this kind of condensing in order to selectively pick events to tell the story as he wished would not have been particularly surprising. It would not imply deception, especially when Matthew's gospel or the events that are a part of it would probably have been readily evailable in the memories of the churches. Another possibility is that Mary and Joseph went back to Nazareth immediately after being in Jerusalem, and some time later returned to Bethlehem before going into Egypt. Perhaps they did not want to live in Nazareth because of a stigma surrounding the odd circumstances of Jesus's birth. This is possible, but I think less likely than the previous explanation. At any rzte, since this need not be read in a way that implies a contradiction, it does not prove the contradictory nature of the Bible.

3. "Matthew 2:23: Joseph and Mary bypassed Judea and settled in Nazareth. The prophecy that "He will be called a Nazarene" does not exist in the Hebrew Scriptures."
It doesn't exist in exactly that form, but quotes were often (acceptably) made somewhat loosely in those days. This may be a summary of a few different OT passages. It may refer to the Judges 13:5, where Samson's parents are told he will be a Nazerite. (Matthew in other places points out Jesus fulfilling by recaptituation themes in Israel's history, like, for example, "Out of Egypt I called my son," so this very well may be another example of that.) It may also be a reference to Isaiah 11:1, where the coming Messiah is called a "branch" (Heb. Netzer). It may be a summary of both of these passages, given a form here that links them with Jesus being raised in Nazareth, pointing out the connection between the OT passages and the current events.

4. "Matthew 1:1: The author traces Jesus' genealogy from Abraham. He lists Jacob as being Jesus' grandfather. This conflicts with Luke, who lists Eli. Jesus' line is traced through Solomon, son of David. Luke traces the Messianic line through Nathan, son of David. The author lists 28 generations between David and Jesus; Luke says it was 41.
Luke 3:38: As noted above, Luke's genealogy cannot be reconciled with Matthew's."
It may be that Luke is tracing Jesus's geneology through Mary, while Matthew is tracing it through Joseph. Another possibility is that Matthew is tracing a royal, official line that Jesus, as king, would be a part of, and Luke is tracing the natural line of Joseph (or Mary). In both lines, Jesus is in the line of David. While the geneologies raise interesting questions, and we don't know everything about them, there are plausible non-contradictory interpretations, so the geneologies do not prove a biblical contradiction.

5. "Matthew 1:22: The author cites a passage in an ancient Greek translation of Isaiah. The translation was an error: it substituted "virgin" for "young woman." Matthew and Luke probably felt compelled to go along with the expectation that Jesus' mother was a virgin."
The Hebrew word in Isaiah means young woman, or perhaps maiden would be a good translation. As I understand it, it can include the idea of virgin. In its messianic context, it was understood by the translators of the Septuagint to indicate a virgin, not the sort of mistake in translation one would make incidentally. The translation would seem to have been a theological interpretation. The gospels affirm that interpretation in recounting its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus. More could be said here, but this is a good start for more hitorically contextualized and thorough thinking about the word.

6. "One of my favorites, the Messiah had many tests, none of them being born of a virgin. However, he was supposed to be the child of a young woman. Ironically the translation error elevates Mary to the role of Asheroth (God's wife) who is being suppressed (with God's children) during the religious reconciliation of the Israel and Judea that starts at about 1200 BCE. In fact, the combination of Israel and Judea is a wonderful read and is becoming more and more detailed as field archaeologists unearth more and more of the historical underpinnings of the "holy land." How two vastly different religions were merged over a process of centuries and the vast changes in the religious structures as the polytheistic Jews (El) from the lands of Israel and the monotheistic Jews (Yahweh) from Judea. Anyway, back to inerrancy:
Matthew 2:1: The story of the Magi coming to Palestine to give homage to the King of the Jews appears to have been freely adapted from the story of Mithra's birth. He was mythical Persian savior, also allegedly born of a virgin on DEC-25, who was worshiped many centuries before Jesus' birth.
I would also point people to the birth, life and death of Krishna and of Mithras to see the origins of the various myths that surround Jesus. I would also remind people that, in fact, peoples and ideas were not static in those days. That they, and their beliefs, tended to migrate and be adopted to fit local cultural conditions."
All of this is pretty much simply wild speculation. There is no real historical proof of hardly any of it. There is no evidence that some early pagan versions of Judah or Israel melded together with a conflict of religions. There were a lot of different kinds of worship going on in the "holy land" at different times in its history, but nothing in historical documents or archaeological discovery gives any substantial evidence for this speculative story of Israel's early history. Similary, there is no evidence that Matthew borrowed from Mithraism (or Hinduism). The gospels exhibit nothing but the Jewishness of the time throughout. It is true that stories of gods being born on earth have always been popular in many cultures, but that doesn't prove no incarnation of the true God has occurred. Humans seem psychologically wired to believe in higher powers and to look for interactions between heaven and earth. Perhaps that is an evolutionary by-product of abstract thought. Perhaps it is because we really are created by God and are built to be in relationship with God and be united with him in some way, and the incarnation is part of God's plan to fulfill this. This all makes perfect sense in a biblical context. It is easy to speculate and make up stories about history, but we need hard facts if we are to take them with significant seriousness. If Moses would give us hard facts proving the stories he likes, I would take them more seriously.

Now on to some supposed Bible absurdities. The Bible defnitely contains accounts of supernatural things. But supernatural things are not illogical or inherently absurd or irrational (although those who accept naturalistic metaphysics think so). There is a difference between a story being unusual or supernatural, and a story being absurd or contradictory to known facts. Let's look at some of the examples Stevaroni provided.

"There are giants in the Bible, Mark (right up front in Genesis 6.4). Disturbingly, they seem to be semi-divine prodigy of "the sons of God and the daughters of men" pretty much the same as the numerous contemporary Egyptian (Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Hindu, Hopi etc, etc) half-god/half-man characters."
The passage in Genesis 6:4 is notoriously difficult. It may possibly refer to some kind of mix of angels and men, resulting in humans with odd characteristics (including being larger than normal). If this is the case, there is nothing inherently impossible about it, and it may explain why myths of this sort are so common around the world--a common historical memory. Or, the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" in the passage might refer to two different types of ordinary people, the friends of God and his enemies. Referring to their children as "giants" and "men of renown" would then simply suggest that they were a special, set-apart class of people known for physical strength, etc.

"In the Biblical creation story God makes man and woman out of mud and spare ribs."
While this is supernatural, it is not impossible or absurd. Why would you think, by the way, that it was a spare rib Eve was made out of, and not a regular rib (or piece of the side--the Hebrew is, I believe, a little vaguer than our word "rib"). By the way, this does not imply that the descendants of Adam and Eve would be lacking a rib.

"The Bible speaks clearly of an earth (a flat disk - Psalms 33.14) populated by unicorns, satyrs, and dragons (Isaiah 34.14, 37.7)."
Psalm 33:14 is poetic, not intended as a literal description. It is simply a poetic, picturesque way of saying that God knows what is going on all over the earth. It is no more literal than poetic descriptions of God riding on clouds when the Bible makes clear that, as Solomon said, "the heavens and highest heavens cannot contain you." (By the way, this gets at a misconception of "biblical literalists." We do not take the Bible literally throughout--we try to read it as it was intended to be read, history as history, poetry as poetry, etc. Genesis 1 is clearly history, the Psalms and prophets contain much poetry, but also history. You have to look at the form and context of each particular section.)

"At least two of it's inhabitants are talking animals, a snake (Genesis) and a talking donkey (Numbers 22.28)
Yes, but these are the only two examples, and they are very particularly supernatural and not understood as normal events. The first is a special manifestation of the devil, the second was a special work of God. This is not absurd or impossible (except on naturalistic metaphysics).

"It's a world where dead men (Lazarus, and of course, Jesus) re-animate and walk again."
Again, yes, but not normally. Resurrections are very rare in the Bible and are always particular supernatural events for particular reasons. This is supernatural, but not absurd or impossible.

"A world where God intervenes to create turn rivers into blood (Exodus), manifest himself as a burning bush (ditto), makes bar bets with the Devil over the behavior of his chosen people (Job) and inseminates a virgin (another half-man, half-god progeny, BTW)."
The first two are simply supernatural events, not absurd ones. The third is so crudely put it is hardly recognizable from the original. (Go read the early chapters of Job, if any of you are interested in more details.) the third is totally inaccurate. God caused a virgin to be pregnant with a person who was both 100% human and 100% God. He was one person with a human nature and a divine nature. He was, indeed, a visiting of earth from God. What is absurd about that (unless you are a naturalist or something like that)?

"You seem like a rational man, Mark, exactly how is the story of God creating rainbows as a goodwill gesture after the flood any more rational than Ra and Apollo pushing the sun across the sky?"
That is a very naturalistic question to ask. There is nothing absurd about rainbows existing to be a reminder that God will not flood the whole world again. God created the laws of physics and the environmental conditions with this in mind. The sun being pushed across the sky, however, is not only supernatural, but contradicts known facts about the sun. It is a fact of observation that the sun is not being pulled by a chariot, unless that chariot is invisible or is vastly disproportionate in size to the sun. Also, it suggests a geocentric view of the solar system.

Evolutionists often get irriated with creationists for allegedly pointing out odd things are unsolved problems in evolution while ignoring the vast amount of support for it, successful predictions, etc. That is how I feel about the way naturlists and others sometimes deal with the Bible. There are supernatural events, but nothing like the array of odd things in the myths of the world. The Bible is similar to Greek and Babylonian myths in some ways, especially if you lump the supernatural in with the absurd due to naturalistic metaphysics, but it is far more different than it is similar. Compare the creation accounts of other myths to the Bible's creation account. Surely you cannot fail to see the signficant differences. The Bible is calm, historical, and subdued compared to the wild, often irrational, mythological stories in myths all around the world.

I have a question, especially for those of you who are actively involved in keeping creationism out of the schools (such as Nick Natzke). How would you feel about someone teaching the resurrection of Jesus in a public school, or college, history class as something that actually happened. What ab0ut teaching it as something that might have really happened, a possible real historical event. What about teaching both possibilities--it might have happened and it might not have--and saying that his/her personal interpretation is that it did happen as a real historical event?

I have run out of time. I will talk to you later!

Mark

Robert, I do intend to respond to your specific point, but I have run out of time this morning.

Mark

Evolutionists often get irriated with creationists for allegedly pointing out odd things are unsolved problems in evolution while ignoring the vast amount of support for it, successful predictions, etc. That is how I feel about the way naturlists and others sometimes deal with the Bible.

— Mark H.

I go about it more along the historical inaccuracies & contradictions:...

— Moses

The gospels are selective in their recording of events.

Ancient reporting of historical events was often done more loosely than is acceptable in our day, so this kind of condensing in order to selectively pick events to tell the story as he wished would not have been particularly surprising.

It doesn't exist in exactly that form, but quotes were often (acceptably) made somewhat loosely in those days.

...there are plausible non-contradictory interpretations, so the geneologies do not prove a biblical contradiction.

The translation [of "virgin"] would seem to have been a theological interpretation.

It is true that stories of gods being born on earth have always been popular in many cultures, but that doesn't prove no incarnation of the true God has occurred. Humans seem psychologically wired to believe in higher powers and to look for interactions between heaven and earth.

Referring to their children as "giants" and "men of renown" would then simply suggest that they were a special, set-apart class of people known for physical strength, etc.

We do not take the Bible literally throughout ----- we try to read it as it was intended to be read, history as history, poetry as poetry, etc. Genesis 1 is clearly history, the Psalms and prophets contain much poetry, but also history. You have to look at the form and context of each particular section.

The first two [rivers into blood, burning bush] are simply supernatural events, not absurd ones.

The sun being pushed across the sky, however, is not only supernatural, but contradicts known facts about the sun.

Evolutionists often get irriated with creationists for allegedly pointing out odd things are unsolved problems in evolution while ignoring the vast amount of support for it, successful predictions, etc.

I have a question, especially for those of you who are actively involved in keeping creationism out of the schools (such as Nick Natzke). How would you feel about someone teaching the resurrection of Jesus in a public school, or college, history class as something that actually happened. What ab0ut teaching it as something that might have really happened, a possible real historical event. What about teaching both possibilities---it might have happened and it might not have---and saying that his/her personal interpretation is that it did happen as a real historical event?

Moses:

I am in awe of your brilliance. Galileo described just what you anticipated.

Mark: first you make a lot of speculations as to how apparently-contradictory assertions in the Bible can be reconciled, with no evidence to back any of it up; then, when someone else speculates -- quite plausibly -- that people, ideas, and stories tend to change over time, and perhaps get bits and pieces from each other, you brush it off as "wild speculation" with "no real historical proof." Are you even aware of how blatantly you're talking out of both ends of your mouth here?

Similary, there is no evidence that Matthew borrowed from Mithraism (or Hinduism). The gospels exhibit nothing but the Jewishness of the time throughout.

If there are obvious similarities between the stories of different religions (and the spirit behind those stories), and if the peoples believing in those various religions had occasion to mingle with each other regularly in the same geographical area over a long period of time, then there's your evidence of -- at the very least -- the undeniable possibility, and very high probability, of one people borrowing ideas from others.

The idea that one people in the Middle East -- i.e., the Jews -- could live and interact with their neighbors for so long, with absolutely no mingling of religious folklore or beliefs, is not only improbable; it is simply preposterous and contradictory to well-known human behavior.

(By the way, this gets at a misconception of "biblical literalists." We do not take the Bible literally throughout---we try to read it as it was intended to be read, history as history, poetry as poetry, etc. Genesis 1 is clearly history, the Psalms and prophets contain much poetry, but also history. You have to look at the form and context of each particular section.)

Funny how you only point this out AFTER telling us the Bible is "infallible" -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and then being proven wrong by quotations from the Bible itself, to the point where even you have to admit that the authors of the Bible didn't get everything right, for a variety of perfectly plausible reasons.

Also, the bits of Genesis you quote to "disprove" evolution are clearly not "history" -- they're an account of the creation of the Universe, an account whose literal interpretation has been clearly proven wrong by scientists, not just historians. If it's history or science, then it's bad history or science; otherwise it's just theatrics.

That is a very naturalistic question to ask. There is nothing absurd about rainbows existing to be a reminder that God will not flood the whole world again. God created the laws of physics and the environmental conditions with this in mind. The sun being pushed across the sky, however, is not only supernatural, but contradicts known facts about the sun.

Right -- everyone else's religion contradicts "known facts," but your God faked all the facts that contradict your religion, so your religion doesn't contradict "known facts." (Because you have chosen not to "know" them?)

Evolutionists often get irriated with creationists for allegedly pointing out odd things are unsolved problems in evolution...

No, we get "irritated" with creationists for LYING: about evolution, science in general, scientists, history, and eugenics, just to name a few things. We also get "irritated" at them for lying about WHY we're irritated with them, as you have just done.

The Bible is similar to Greek and Babylonian myths in some ways, especially if you lump the supernatural in with the absurd due to naturalistic metaphysics, but it is far more different than it is similar.

Everyone says that about their respective beliefs, and everyone is right.

The Bible is calm, historical, and subdued compared to the wild, often irrational, mythological stories in myths all around the world.

So how come there are so many clearly unhinged liars, idiots, hatemongers and lunatics attracted to its doctrines? Was it the "calm, historical, and subdued" way that God destroyed the entire Earth with a flood, incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah, and commanded his people to repeatedly commit what we today call "genocide?" Or is it the "calm, historical, and subdued" way in which "Christians" like you make up whatever assumptions you need to in order to discount and ignore a planetful of evidence that disproves your "infallible" creation story? Oh, and let's not forget the "calm, historical, and subdued" Book of Revelation...

Hey, at least we Pagans aren't predicting dire vindictive punishment of millions of people at a time; so stop pretending you're the calm and rational ones, okay?

I have a question, especially for those of you who are actively involved in keeping creationism out of the schools (such as Nick Natzke). How would you feel about someone teaching the resurrection of Jesus in a public school, or college, history class as something that actually happened. What ab0ut teaching it as something that might have really happened, a possible real historical event. What about teaching both possibilities---it might have happened and it might not have---and saying that his/her personal interpretation is that it did happen as a real historical event?

What about sticking to the verifiable truth -- that many people believe these things happened? And what about keeping it in a comparative religion class, rather than a history class? (The history that needs to be taught was not made by the Resurrection, but by the people who believed in it, whether or not it actually happened.)

And now a question for you (not that we expect you to answer it, since you've been dodging questions consistently here): how would YOU feel if we treated ALL peoples' religious beliefs the same way in the same classes?

Mark,

Regarding your point about the appearance of age being acceptable, but the appearance of history being a falsification of the 6000-year-old-Earth hypothesis ("It does not seem reasonable to me that God would have planted deceptive evidence of a history that didn't exist", comment #181234):

Here's a simple example which (I hope) will show that what we see is indeed the appearance of history, not just the appearance of age. In the case of Adam, it seems you're willing to accept a navel, but not, say, a scar on his chin from the time he fell off his bike at the age of nine. Let's apply this to tree rings. Assuming Eden had seasons, we would expect to see trees created fully mature, with trunks full of rings reflecting their annual growth cycles (the appearance of age). In modern trees, however, we see something more subtle than this. Because weather varies and trees grow faster in some years than others, the tree rings are not the same size - if we look at a section of tree tunk, we might see two wide rings, a medium one, three narrow rings and another wide ring - a seven year period with two good growing years followed by a OK year, three rough years and another good years. We see not just the tree's age, but its history. In fact, lining up these patterns is how we do dendrochronology - if we take a long enough sequence of years, the pattern is not going to repeat, so we can use the pattern to date the wood.

Now this gives us a way to test your hypothesis. If the appearance of age is OK but the appearance of history is not, then we should only see a varying pattern in tree-ring width for the last 6000 years or so. At that that date, the trees would have been created in a mature form, with the appearance of age but not history. In other words, the trees should have rings which are uniform in width - no variation indicating good and bad years.

So to test your hypothesis, all we need to do is look at dendrochronological sequences. They should only be reliable for the past 6000 years or so. Beyond that point, all tree rings should be completely uniform.

Does this sound reasonable? Do you agree that this would be a good test of your position?

I have a question, especially for those of you who are actively involved in keeping creationism out of the schools (such as Nick Natzke). How would you feel about someone teaching the resurrection of Jesus in a public school, or college, history class as something that actually happened. What ab0ut teaching it as something that might have really happened, a possible real historical event. What about teaching both possibilities---it might have happened and it might not have---and saying that his/her personal interpretation is that it did happen as a real historical event?

What about teaching both possibilities---it might have happened and it might not have---and saying that his/her personal interpretation is that it did happen as a real historical event?

" There is nothing absurd about rainbows existing to be a reminder that God will not flood the whole world again."

Yes, there is. It implies that before the flood prisms did not refract light, but that afterward God changed one of the most fundamental laws of physics so that they did. Isn't it odd that the Bible doesn't mention how everything looked reallydifferent after the rainbow? Have you even considered the physical implications of non-refractory light? This is a common problem with your arguments about God "speeding up" the processes that make it look like the earth is old. Do you realise how hot the world would be if you compressed 4.5bn years of radioactive decay into a few days?

Yet another 50,000 word installment in the continuing saga of biblical inerrancy. I warned you that he would never budge on that one a week ago.

Now about the evidence. Still no mention of tree rings, ice cores, magnetic reversals, genetic evidence, etc. Remember that some of this evidence was provided nearly two weeks ago. The argument of commitment to naturalism was demolished. Now the argument over apparent age vs apparent history is being ignored. It's not surprising really. There are only three possible responses: (1) everything is only apparent age after all (just because I said so); (2) the Bible still wins no matter what the evidence (just because I said so); (3) anything too complicated for me to understand can't possibly be true (so you lose again). Take your pick. If this guy is really willing to ignore all of astronomy, paleontology, archeology, climatology and genetics, what makes anyone think he will ever change his mind about anything? And who cares?

Mark,

One last time, just to be fair. Answer one question and one question only. Was there or was there not a world-wide flood as described in the Bible, yes or no? No 50,000 word discourse on biblical innerancy. No I'll look at the evidence and get back to you later. No commitment to naturalism side stepping. Yes or no? I really mean it. I want to hear your answer. Please let everyone know as soon as possible. We will all be waiting.

Here is a hint, flood geology was discredited long ago. If you answer yes, you will have to explain why there in absolutely no evidence for such a monumental event anywhere. You will have demonstrated conclusively that the appearance of history in multiple independent data sets still does not convince you. If that is the case then further discussion is futile. If you answer no, your assumption of biblical inerrancy is gone and we can forget about it and start looking at the evidence.

Anyone want to guess what answer Mark will give?

Let me guess!

Mark will say: Hey, I'd like to answer that question but it's complicated and I don't have much time right now.

I call this the Paul Nelson Escape maneuver.

This is not going to be a thorough post (tomorrow morning will probably be the next one), but I did want to briefly respond to David Stanton's latest question and make some comments on it.

Yes, I do accept the biblical global flood. I have already explained many times why I accept it. I accept it on the basis of biblical authority, which I have good evidence to take seriously (from philosophical and other lines of evidence and reasoning). I believe that the physical evidence will line up with it, but I have not yet completed an investigation of that evidence to my satisfaction. I am in the process of trying to do so, in the midst of a schedule that, shock of shocks, has other things in it that need to be done besides conversing with rude and impatient Darwinists. I am not trying to dodge questions. I have answered many questions in many areas already, and plan to continue to answer them, in a time frame that I can handle. I'm sorry I haven't yet been able to look up all the myriad references that are continually being given to me. I appreciate the references, I asked for them, but it will take time for me to go through the enormous amount of material I need to go through. I am a thorough person, as you can tell from my posts--maybe I am too obsessively thorough sometimes, but if I am, this is a fault you will just have to live with if you want to talk to me.

Why is it so hard for some of you to accept these things? Why must you continually be accusing me of dodging or ignoring questions? Why must David insist that I must be set in my ways and impervious to evidence just because I have an opinion, based on what I take to be good evidence, but haven't yet had an opportunity to thoroughly look through evidence in one particular area (but am doing so a little at a time as we speak)? I could play the same game with you, but I am more interested in having an intelligent conversation than finding new clever ways to irrationally attack people over and over again. So would some of you mind having a bit of patience? I know it is hard to be tolerant of someone you strongly disagree with, but why don't you at least try a little harder? It would be nice.

Is there anyone else on this thread, besides me, who is tired of these endless groundless attacks upon me and who can see that I exhibit evidence of trying to have a rational, productive conversation (rather than lying, dodging questions, ignoring everybody, etc.) and is willing to put yourself out on the line to say so? I ask, because it would be encouraging to me to hear it. I don't need to hear it, and will go on just the same without it (I've learned I cannot really hope to expect better from a lot of people here), but I would like to hear it. As you are aware, though, if you do step out and say it, you will be insulted, psychoanalyzed, etc., as well. It is really a shame we cannot have a conversation without the yelps from people who seem to derive such entertainment from insulting and demeaning people--but, such is life with human beings.

Talk to you later,
Mark

Let me add this: I know there are those who have put themselves on the line to say so, such as B. Spitzer, Nick Matzke, and a few others. I do appreciate it. It is easy to forget in the midst of such a constant barrage of the other behavior, but I would be ungrateful not to mention it. Thank you!

This is all good for me, anyway. I needed to get used to what it is like to talk to people on blogs like this. I'll probably be doing a lot more of it in the future.

We do not take the Bible literally throughout---we try to read it as it was intended to be read, history as history, poetry as poetry, etc...

I notice you mention "history" and "poetry," but not "morality," "wisdom," or "life lessons." Given the HUGE number of Christians who look to the Bible for those things, and not for history, poetry or science, I find that omission on your part telling.

This is all good for me, anyway. I needed to get used to what it is like to talk to people on blogs like this. I'll probably be doing a lot more of it in the future.

Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism.

I believe that the physical evidence will line up with it,

Mark,

Thanks for responding to my question so promptly. I do appreciate it. Of course, your answer is no suprise to anyone.

As many here have shown, the evidence is indeed conclusive on this point. There is one history of the earth and life on it as recorded in many independent data sets. They all give exactly the same answer, there was no world-wide flood, not one, never was. That is what the evidence shows unambiguously. But, by your own admission, you have already reached a conclusion without examining this evidence. Apparently you do not find the argument of appearance of history to be convincing after all.

However, we certainly don't expect you to take our word for it. By all means, examine the evidence for yourself. You can safely ignore the opinions of all the experts, even if they do believe in the Bible. Why believe anyone who has spent a lifetime actually examining the evidence? Feel free to replicate all of the work in every major field of science for yourself.

Oh, by the way, whatever you do, don't just go to some creationist web site, cut and past all their arguments and then claim to have examined the evidence. That would not be productive. You could start with the Talkorigins archive I recommended, but I wouldn't stop there either.

When you are ready to admit that there was no world-wide flood, you will be ready to set the Bible aside as a science text and really examine the evidence objectively, as you wanted us to do. You are making your God out to be a liar and a fool. I do not choose to believe in such a God, but you are certainly welcome to.

Why is it so hard for some of you to accept these things?

Why is it so hard for some of you to accept these things? Why must you continually be accusing me of dodging or ignoring questions? Why must David insist that I must be set in my ways and impervious to evidence just because I have an opinion, based on what I take to be good evidence, but haven't yet had an opportunity to thoroughly look through evidence in one particular area (but am doing so a little at a time as we speak)? I could play the same game with you, but I am more interested in having an intelligent conversation than finding new clever ways to irrationally attack people over and over again. So would some of you mind having a bit of patience? I know it is hard to be tolerant of someone you strongly disagree with, but why don't you at least try a little harder? It would be nice.

Hey guys; we've been at this a while and it's getting a little sweaty inside my Satan suit. I'm ready to take it off and move on to something else.

Mark wrote:

"Why is it so hard for some of you to accept these things? Why must you continually be accusing me of dodging or ignoring questions? Why must David insist that I must be set in my ways and impervious to evidence just because I have an opinion, based on what I take to be good evidence, but haven't yet had an opportunity to thoroughly look through evidence in one particular area (but am doing so a little at a time as we speak)? I could play the same game with you, but I am more interested in having an intelligent conversation than finding new clever ways to irrationally attack people over and over again. So would some of you mind having a bit of patience? I know it is hard to be tolerant of someone you strongly disagree with, but why don't you at least try a little harder? It would be nice."

Oh dear, it seems I have offended Mark once again. Perhaps I have been less than civil, if so I'm sorry. However, in my own defense, I could point out some things that some on this thread may not be aware of.

First, Mark asked for evidence. He came here claiming to want to look at evidence. Two weeks ago I gave him a reference to a two page article in the most widely read scientific journal in the country. We started off with tree rings - not gravitational lensing, not retroviral transposons, not even radiometric dating - tree rings! Then, nearly two weeks later, he claims that if the evidence shows "apparent history" rather than just "apparent age" that that would be a "problem for my position". Huh? The article was about reconstruction of paleoclimatology with various correlated data sets! Guess he missed that point, so I pointed it out again, still no response. Guess he never even read the article. Go figure.

Second, he claims he doesn't have time to look at all the evidence. Still, he seems to have time to post dozens of 20,000 word plus posts on biblical inerrancy. No wonder he doesn't have time to read one article. Maybe talking about the Bible is all he really wants to do. That would sure explain why those were the only issues he responded to.

Third, Nick pointed out over a week ago on the first thread that the flood was a problem for Mark. He never responded to that either. I finally got him to at least admit that the issue was out there. And what did he do? He choose door number two (the Bible wins anyway just because I said so). He even admits he hasn't looked at the evidence yet. Well, I don't know about you, but to me, until he admits that the evidence shows that the flood never happened, it's pretty clear that he hasn't looked at any evidence and the obvious conclusion from all of this is that he never intends to.

Of course he could easily prove me wrong. He could easily stop spouting off about the Bible and start debating some actual evidence. Well until he does he won't be able to complain about my attitude any more. This is supposed to be a science blog. Why do we need to provide a forum for someone to preach about the Bible? Nick has been more than generous here. I would suggest at least moving all Bible discussion to another venue, or better yet, refuse to discuss that issue. Just seems reasonable since this appears headed for another 300 post plus fiasco.

why don't you at least try a little harder? It would be nice.

...some people's religion around here...the religion of evolution.

Having watched the discussion for a while, I feel the need to emphasize an important fact in a way I hope Mark will understand.

A creationist starts with two premises:
1. The natural world exists (this is obviously a premise since there would be no creation without it
2. The supernatural exists

Those who stand behind evolution only accept the first premise. It is necessary to recognise that this does not, ipso facto, reject the second. If the conclusion that the supernatural exists can be drawn from the first premise, then it will be accepted as true. Since creationists belive in natural world and matter, it is absurd to call "Darwinists" biased for accepting the same premise. Rejecting the second is not a bias, it is simply a request for a logical reason why it should be accpeted. Until the supernatural is demonstrated, any statement invoking it is logically invalid. Since everyone accepts the natural world, however, any statement invoking natural phenomena is perfectly valid. Until the supernatural is established as a reasonable premise, it is altogether pointless to proceed further, drawing conclusions from truths that have yet to be demonstrated.

I accept it on the basis of biblical authority, which I have good evidence to take seriously (from philosophical and other lines of evidence and reasoning).

— Mark Hausam

I'm bored with this thread by now. While I do hope that Nick Matzke is right and I admire the effort so many have shown here, at this point I have my doubts Mark Hausam will ever understand the role of evidence.

Sad, really...

This forum is the place you go, to understand the way evolutionists REALLY feel about things, and to toughen yourself up accordingly.

By the way, I was trying to be discretely polite in referring to the sweaty inside of my Satan suit. It's really the smell of sulphur that is getting a bit nauseating. We've been at this too long.

In reference to that last post, I am addressing Mark even though it was FL's post I was quoting, although I would be interested to see FL respond to my specific questions as well.

Sincerely,
Paul Flocken

In reference to that last post,

FL: You seem very eager to discourage Mark from continuing this debate. Why is that? Are you getting uncomfortable with the direction it's been taking recently?

"In the Biblical creation story God makes man and woman out of mud and spare ribs." While this is supernatural, it is not impossible or absurd.

" There is nothing absurd about rainbows existing to be a reminder that God will not flood the whole world again." Yes, there is. It implies that before the flood prisms did not refract light, but that afterward God changed one of the most fundamental laws of physics so that they did. Isn't it odd that the Bible doesn't mention how everything looked really different after the rainbow? Have you even considered the physical implications of non-refractory light?

The difficulty with adding patches to the Genesis creation myth to try to reconcile it with science if you are not very familiar with science is that each 'fix' tends to get you into deeper trouble.

— Richard Simons

Mark,

Have you even read the talkorigins.org age of the earth stuff yet? This discussion is all pointless until you engage with the science. Until you do, you have no leg to stand on except to say that you believe the Bible over science on faith, which has been pretty much your only argument. It's fine to have this view but then (1) don't pretend that there is scientific support for your view, (2) don't pretend that no evidence contradicts your Bible interpretation.

To whomever has been pointing us to Kurt Wise's (2002) book Faith, Form, and Time,

1. I have it.

2. I have read it.

3. It contains virtually nothing in terms of scientific argument, instead it starts and ends with the the assertion -- he admits it is on faith -- that the Bible is true and that all physical evidence must be twisted and beaten into submission so that it matches his particular Bible interpretation.

4. What little there is in terms of scientific argument is just citation of the same old bogus Flood Geologists, most of whom were already destroyed by Brent Dalrymple, e.g. in his book and free online in this TalkOrigins article.

5. Worst of all, Kurt Wise invokes the YEC "model" of "runaway plate tectonics" to explain the massive geological evidence of continental drift... and he basically uses this to explain all puzzles in Flood Geology. The only problem is, moving all of the Earth's plates around thousands of miles in a matter of weeks would release so much energy that the crust would liquify, the oceans would flash to steam, the lower atmosphere would be rock vapor, the Ark and poor old Noah would be burnt to a crisp and the planet would be sterilized even of bacteria. Oops, model falsified.

FL: You seem very eager to discourage Mark from continuing this debate. Why is that? Are you getting uncomfortable with the direction it's been taking recently?

...(It is) so ingrained in you to think in naturalistic or uniformitarian terms that you have trouble conceiving another way of looking at things. You are not fully aware of your own assumptions and how your philosophical beliefs about whether supernatural revelation can possibly constitute a part of the objective evidence influences your way of looking at the physical evidence.

But I think I've been around here a bit longer than he has,

Yet another example is Christ's first public miracle: the turning of water into wine (John 2:1-11). Once created, the wine had the appearance of having been derived from grapes that had grown in a previous season and were harvested, pressed, and sealed to make wine. Since the immediate purpose of making the wine was to provide drink to replace the wine that had run out, Jesus created an apparent but non-existent history of wine-making. The fact that the wine did look as if it were older than it really was, is evident in the response of the one person who tasted the wine. He deduced (verse 10) that the wine must have been there from at least the beginning of the feast, concluding erroneously that the wine was much older than it actually was. Since God is directly responsible for each of these events, we must conclude that God can and does create things that appear much older than they really are. (p. 59)

It does not seem reasonable to me that God would have planted deceptive evidence of a history that didn't exist

After 152 posts, after all this time, we finally have ONE---just one---evolutionist who can claim to even have read a copy of Dr. Wise's excellent book Faith, Form, and Time (2002). Wow.

After 152 posts, after all this time,...

FL, insightful as always, notes.... But since science has never refuted the existence of God, you have NO rational support for even believing that God doesn't exist. So in the end, you've got no way of even showing that apparent-age-miracles cannot happen in this universe.

FL says:

"So, let's explore things a little. Dr. Wise points out something that deserves some really serious thought: there exist clear examples of God and of Jesus Christ performing "appearance-of-age" miracles in the Bible."

So you're saying that in order to validate the creation story in the bible, Dr. Wise refers to ... the bible ... as his source of data?

Does this make logical sense to you? I am genuinely curious.

people (who clearly like reading very large cut-and-pastes) are still persisting with disproofs of the bible. fine, but you MUST at least recognize how all fundamentalists deal with this. YOU have assumed the burden of proof, and said fundy will take any outside possibility that you may be incorrect, and he does pretty much the same thing you do when someone does a lab experiment proving [insert ludicrous example here]: you KNOW it contains an error, so you're prepared to accept a pretty unlikely cause of that error. In his mind, he has seen FABULOUS verification of the bible, and this is the point you need to directly address if you want to get anywhere. Otherwise, prepare yourselves for a lot of argument along the lines of "well I know how this verse looks, but the word translated here as cat probably had an ancient idiomatic meaning of state run educational facility. I can't prove it did, but you can't prove it didn't". And things can get surprisingly weird before that admission of defeat you're expecting any second. I once had a guy whose argument was foundering because the necessary element, the words "brother of" that appeared in the King James version, were demonstrably absent in the Hebrew. His explanation? "brother of" is written in the Hebrew invisibly.

Mark seems like a nice enough guy, and when I see people dismissing him as a waste of time because he's "just not prepared to grasp my brilliant argument and therefore refusing to engage in reasonable discussion", it reminds me disturbingly like the last time I was visited by Mormons, when I so incalcitrantly refused to concede that their brilliant counter-arguments made plato and socrates look like morons. My view is that you should always be trying to bring these people into the loop, because it is religions that are generally trying to put insulating barriers around their cultures (and hopefully move everyone else within those barriers) while scientists are happy to dissolve the barriers between groups, let their ideas compete in a free marketplace (more pro-science than you might think: people generally might not apply scientific method to their own ideas, but they sure as hell apply them to others) and god forbid let protestants marry catholics and gasp risk the possibility of having godless children.

stevaroni has really disturbed me with his unicorn talk. if anybody else wants to start a fund to placate his unicorn, I'm prepared to put in a few bucks

I expect as Mark gets his "sea legs", he will in fact start to sound more and more like you. and still make no sense.

Nick Matzke,

I submitted a post between 7:57pm and 8:08pm yesterday and it was placed into the spam que(whatever you call that thing). Would you please release it.

Josh, I don't think that's the central issue at all, in this case.

What Mark needs to understand is that he's engaging in apologetics, not science. Starting from the capital-T Truth of the Bible and then trying to interpret the evidence and the text to make them fit is not in any way analagous to the scientific method, despite his claims that it all depends on one's philosophical premises. It doesn't. Science depends on intersubjectively available evidence and testable hypotheses. The hypotheses flow logically from the model produced by a given theory. If the hypothesis is falsified through solid observations, your model is wrong and needs to be revised or abandoned. Science is a systematic model building process. What you are doing, Mark, is taking individual bits of evidence and concocting ways to reconcile them with an ancient text - either by reinterpreting the language or by inventing some story which does not follow necessarily from the truth of the text, but is simply a way to make it fit with the evidence. This is the essence of apologetics and the opposite of science.

There is no conversation to be had between apologetics and science. They are fundamentally different discourses aimed at different purposes. Unless we're on the same page, this whole thread is a bit pointless.

But since science has never refuted the existence of God, you have NO rational support for even believing that God doesn't exist.

Ginger Yellow,

Thank you for so eloquently stating what I have been trying to point out all along. We should be discussiing science here, at least I think so.

Mark has systematically tried to steer the conversation in the direction of only discussing the Bible and many of us have let him get away with it. FL is doing exactly the same thing, that is why he sees nothing wrong with this. He proposes a scientifically testable hypothesis concerning the history of the earth. Nick points out that the hypothesis has been conclusively falsified by the evidence. What does FL do? He says, well let's look at the Bible again. Huh? No refuation of the evidence, no discussion of Nick's points, no science at all. Well so what if I'm closed minded? So what if I don't care about religious claims? I'm not going to play, period.

Maybe people think that I am being unreasonable in asking someone to consider evidence objectively. But think for a minute. What if I said I accept everything in a Biology textbook on faith regradless of the evidence. What if I said that I wouldn't even read the Bible because of that? Would that be acceptable to anyone?

The FSM does exist. You can see the work of his noodly appendage everywhere.

He [a chemistry professor at Cairo University] tells me that if I were writing an article saying that Adam and Eve is a big lie, it will not be accepted until I can prove it. "Nobody can just write what he thinks without proof. But we have the proof that the story of Adam as the first man is true." "What proof?" He looks at me with disbelief: "It's written in the Koran."

...so ingrained in you to think in naturalistic or uniformitarian terms that you have trouble conceiving another way of looking at things. You are not fully aware of your own assumptions and how your philosophical beliefs about whether supernatural revelation can possibly constitute a part of the objective evidence influences your way of looking at the physical evidence.

We've had a number of related conversations going on on this thread. We've had a discussion of the specific scientific issues; a discussion of biblical infallibility; and a discussion of the validity of philosophical argumentation. These are all important in dealing with the topic at hand, which is evidence in relation to an old earth and Darwinism.

I think any of these discussions are fruitful, but maybe, since this is the Panda's Thumb, we should focus more attention directly on the scientific issues. I've been spending most of my available time responding to questions about and attacks on biblical infallibility, so I haven't gotten to much else lately. But I think I am going to focus my attention now back more on the scientific issues. We've discussed the other issues enough to give some background, and those things will come up again naturally in the course of the scientific conversation.

A couple of people have asked me about whether the peculiar characteristics of tree rings would fit, in my opinion, in the appearance of age or appearance of history category. It has been mentioned tht tree rings do not simply exist, but vary in ways related to their history. My take on this is that they would fit in the appearance of age rather than appearance of history categories. (Let's start abbreviating these--appearance of age will now be aoa and appearance of history will now be aoh.) Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history. Why can the not exist also as part of the internal beauty of the tree, even with their variations? In that case, they may very well have been created with such an appearance. Therefore I don't think trees before the flood will be able to used as evidence against a young earth. I see absolutely no reason to posit a later aoa creation, however, so tree rings after the flood could probably reliably function as part of a method of dating (provided the methodology is at least sound from a naturalistic perspective). I suppose it might be possible that tree growth could have been spurred on miraculously after the flood, but I doubt it. We have no evidence of this in the text.

Robert asked about species appearing together in the fossil record. A young earth view definitely would imply that these species lived at the same time, so why don't we find evidence of this in the fossil record? Definitely a legitimate question. First of all, I would want to know if that is in fact an accurate portrayal of the situation. Is it in fact the case that NO animals from different times have EVER been found together, or are they sometimes found together but not very often? Secondly, it is a fact that many animals that have been thought to have gone extinct at a certain time because of their absence from the later fossil record have been found alive still today. Have Coelecanth (sp?) fossils ever been found with human fossils, or from the fossil record alone would you conclude they must never have lived together? And yet we know they are alive today. It seems like "living fossils" of this sort are being found all the time. So, in light of that, is separateness in the fossil record necessarily a reliable indicator that certain species didn't live together?

I have begun to read articles on Talkorigins.org. I know I keep saying this over and over, but there is a lot to digest. What always seems to happen to me is that I will read an article by an old-earth proponent and think, "that makes a lot of sense. How could anyone possibly answer that?" Then I read a creationist article and think, "Oh, that response makes a lot of sense. How could anyone answer these arguments?" Then I read another old earth proponent and think, "Oh, that'a good response. Will anyone be able to answer it?" You get the picture. This sort of experience is what has made me feel that I've got a lot of studying to do to really understand the arguments and the bases of those arguments enough to really be able to evaluate them.

Here's some thoughts/questions I've had so far: I am interested to figure out what sorts of expectations would be reasonable to have if the Genesis account were correct. There would definitely be some appearance of age. In what ways would we reasonably expect a mature creation to throw off dating methods? What sorts of evidence would not be adequately explained by a mature creation scenario?

One things that seems like a potentially bit problem for the dating methods is that they are based partly on the assumption that we know how much of various elements would have started out already in the rocks. In other words,they depend on knowing what the parent-daughter ratio would be. But with a mature creation, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that this ratio would start differntly than expected. So if one were to date the rocks in Eden at the end of the first week, for example, they would not unlikely yield large ages, although they were created only a few days ago. I take this to be a plausible scenario. So one question is, If this scenario were true, how much would it affect the reliability of the dating methods? Would it be counterbalanced by other factors, such as rocks that are clearly formed more recently, etc.?

As I've mentioned before, one of the most compelling arguments that I am currently aware of for an old earth is the idea of the concordance or consistency of the dating methods. If the dating methods simply gave completely random dates, we would not have a consistency of results, such as different dating methods all yielding roughly the same ages in the dating of many samples of different comets, meteors, etc. If I am undetstanding these results right, that would argue for non-randomness in the dating methods. Could that be plausibly explained by a mature age creation? Perhaps simiar sorts of rocks were created in similar ways, including similar parent-daughter ratios of various elements. That would naturally produce a consistency of ages in similar sorts of samples, and different consistent results in different sets of similar samples, etc. is this a plausible young-earth explanation for the consistency of the dating methods?

Are the dating methods truly consistent, and how consistent are they? I read Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow, a few years ago, and he described the actual methods used in dating various hominid fossils. He argued, and gave examples that seemed to support his argument, that usually acientists get very discordant dates, and they pick the ones that best fit with their assumptions. (This is oversimplified, but perhaps you know what I am referrring to.) So when various things are dated, do we usually get discordant dates or concordant ones? How discordant are they? How are the correct dates picked out of the various possibilities?

It was argued in one of the articles on talkorigins that thre is no physical evidence of some of the decay rates having been different in the past. One article pointed out the drastic implications on the laws of physics if such decay rates are different. But would a worldwide flood have a potential for speeding up the decay rates in some processes?

I read an article about ice cores. I recall that creationists ususally, if I am getting their view right, explain ice cores as results of a rapid ice age brought on by the results of the flood. Could the conditions they describe influence the rate of the deposition of the ice cores/layers? Could many of the layers havd been laid down quickly?

Creationists often point out false ages given for rocks of independently known ages. The "Hawaiian basalts" (or something like that) seem to be mentioned frequently in this connection, and I believe there are oter exmples. Creationists argue that these examples show that the methods are subject to severely inaccurate results. Old-earth proponets point out that this is in a minority of cases only. But it is true that we cannot independently check the accuracy of the dating of something that is supposed to be millions or billions of years old (except perhaps by the consistency of resuts I talked about above). How do we know that possible past events and conditions (mature creation, global flood, early earth conditions, etc.) could not have affected our samples so that our dating methods are unreliable? Can we prove them to be reliable? If they are subject to error in some cases, how do we know they are not subject to error in light of unique events/circumstances in the history of the earth?

I have one other question for this post that is a bit off of the above track, but I would like to hear the answer: How many of you think that science disproves the literal resurrection of Christ?

Also, I am assuming from the responses I got about teaching the literal resurrection of Christ as one possibility in public history classes that Nick and others would be against that practice. Is that correct? My own position would be that whatever is supported by the best evidence should be taught, and whatever is not should not be, since the purpose of education, in addition to teaching critical thinking skills, is to convey truth.

Oh, by the way, the Genesis rainbow story doesn't imply the laws of physics were changed. It might be that it never rained before the flood. Different conditions = no earlier rainbows. Or perhaps there were earlier rainbows but only after the flood did God use them to convey a different message.

Some have said that philosophy does not constitute evidence. I disagree. I think it can. But I won't go into it more now, since I want to focus right now mainly on the direct physical evidence. But I wanted to give my position in response to that unproven claim.

Talk to you later,

Mark

"It might be that it never rained before the flood. "

I see. And how exactly did people grow crops?

I'll let other people deal with the nonsense apologetics, because like I say it's a pointless debate. But I can't let this stand:

"Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history. Why can the not exist also as part of the internal beauty of the tree, even with their variations? In that case, they may very well have been created with such an appearance. Therefore I don't think trees before the flood will be able to used as evidence against a young earth."

Who said anything about being their only "function"? The point is that the rings detail a specific history, a history that accords with other physical evidence of past climate, each of which has its own specific history. In other words, according to your "functional" approach, one of the functions of tree rings must be to accord with specific patterns of ice deposition in a sudden ice-age so as to give the same apprearance of ancient history. This is not only absurd on its face, it quite clearly belongs in the category of appearance of history rather than appearance of age.

I'm out of here. This isn't a debate about the evidence. It's one person constructing stories around individual bits of evidence to protect his metaphysical position. Mark, if you want to join the conversation properly, take one of your hypothesised explanations (no rain, fast ice-age etc). Think what effects such an event would have had on other things. Consider what evidence might prove such effects were indeed present. Ask yourself if such evidence is to be found, or if the evidence points in the other direction. Rinse, wash, repeat. Develop an empirically testable model of ancient history.

Ladies and Germs, what you have just read is a wonderful example of the kind of logic that would be presented in a creation "science" classroom.

Can you imagine sitting through a semester of this mish-mash?

However, that said, creation "science" offers a nice alternative to those who find science hard. Don't know the answer? No problem! Just make one up.

Tree rings before the flood? No problem! They were beautiful, that's why they were there...in the center of the tree...where nobody could see them. I'll try that on my wife on our next anniversary. (I got you rings for a present. Oh, diamond? No, tree. Tree rings, oh, they're so beautiful!)

And as for Marks query on whether a global flood could change decay rates, here's the answer:

No.

Don't even try to quesion me, Mark. I have a PhD and I'm not afraid to use it.

As I've mentioned before, one of the most compelling arguments that I am currently aware of for an old earth is the idea of the concordance or consistency of the dating methods. If the dating methods simply gave completely random dates, we would not have a consistency of results, such as different dating methods all yielding roughly the same ages in the dating of many samples of different comets, meteors, etc. If I am undetstanding these results right, that would argue for non-randomness in the dating methods. Could that be plausibly explained by a mature age creation? Perhaps simiar sorts of rocks were created in similar ways, including similar parent-daughter ratios of various elements. That would naturally produce a consistency of ages in similar sorts of samples, and different consistent results in different sets of similar samples, etc. is this a plausible young-earth explanation for the consistency of the dating methods?

Are the dating methods truly consistent, and how consistent are they? I read Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow, a few years ago, and he described the actual methods used in dating various hominid fossils. He argued, and gave examples that seemed to support his argument, that usually acientists get very discordant dates, and they pick the ones that best fit with their assumptions. (This is oversimplified, but perhaps you know what I am referrring to.) So when various things are dated, do we usually get discordant dates or concordant ones? How discordant are they? How are the correct dates picked out of the various possibilities?

It was argued in one of the articles on talkorigins that thre is no physical evidence of some of the decay rates having been different in the past. One article pointed out the drastic implications on the laws of physics if such decay rates are different. But would a worldwide flood have a potential for speeding up the decay rates in some processes? I read an article about ice cores. I recall that creationists ususally, if I am getting their view right, explain ice cores as results of a rapid ice age brought on by the results of the flood. Could the conditions they describe influence the rate of the deposition of the ice cores/layers? Could many of the layers havd been laid down quickly?

Creationists often point out false ages given for rocks of independently known ages. The "Hawaiian basalts" (or something like that) seem to be mentioned frequently in this connection, and I believe there are oter exmples. Creationists argue that these examples show that the methods are subject to severely inaccurate results. Old-earth proponets point out that this is in a minority of cases only. But it is true that we cannot independently check the accuracy of the dating of something that is supposed to be millions or billions of years old (except perhaps by the consistency of resuts I talked about above). How do we know that possible past events and conditions (mature creation, global flood, early earth conditions, etc.) could not have affected our samples so that our dating methods are unreliable? Can we prove them to be reliable? If they are subject to error in some cases, how do we know they are not subject to error in light of unique events/circumstances in the history of the earth?

FL: judging by the bits you pasted here, Dr. Wise bases his entire argument (the water-to-wine bit at least) on making up "possible" "explanations" to support the Biblical account, which he makes no attempt to corroborate. In other words, just another small-minded Bible-thumper who can't face reality.

And when Nick finally gave you the answer you repeatedly claimed was so important, you completely ignored its substance.

In fact, your recent posts have been nothing but evasions. For example...

And, in regards to yourself, Mark was correct to point out to you that there's a bit of a rational problem with claiming to accept the Bible while believing it to be in error scientifically and historically.

Many of us have explained our osition on that, and you and Mark completely ignored all of it. Short answer: those who "accept the Bible while believing it to be in error scientifically and historically" have proven themselves stronger, smarter, more honest, more compassionate, an more enlightened than those, like Carol, FL and Mark, who lie as easily as they fart and blither on and on about Genesis and completely miss the central spiritual message of Jesus.

And he's already shown willingness to let you guys recommend books to him for further science learning...

But has he shown any willingness to read any of it? Nick seems to have read the book you recommended, so where's the reciprocity?

...despite the caustic and condescending tones coming from some posters, so he gets style points for humility too.

So when your side loses every argument, you're back to the "sweet innocent little lamb of God persecuted by the nasty unbelievers" cop-out. Color me unsurprised. How can so many so-called Christians pretend to be so strong and so weak at the same time? You creos are dong an incredibly good job of making Christianity look like the stoopidest religion on Earth. Yahweh only knows how you'll be rewarded for that in the next life.

Mark wrote:

Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history.

In other words, it's been painstakingly explained to you HOW and WHY tree rings are taken as indicators of history (specifically, growth rates changing with the seasons); but you still reserve the right to ignore everything we've said, while offering no substantive refutation of your own.

How many of you think that science disproves the literal resurrection of Christ?

Science has proven exactly how injuries like those Christ is said to have suffered would, if untreated, kill a person. (Has anyone ever been observed to survive such treatment?) Science has also proven exactly how it is impossible for a living thing that has been dead for a certain period of time to come back to life. (How many times has anyone observed such re-animation?) Therefore, if Christ really died, and really was resurrected, it could only have been done either by a supernatural agency, temporarily suspending or violating physical laws; or by medical technology and/or skills currently unknown to us.

There are, of course, alternative explanations that don't contradict science or require supernatural agency: Christ may have had an unusually strong constitution, and was able to heal from wounds that would have killed almost anyone else; or someone may have snuck into his grave and treated his wounds; or Christ's injuries were exaggerated, intentionally or not, by storytellers (such exaggerations happen all the time, especially of stories with huge emotional import), in a multi-generational game of "Russian telephone."

Also, I am assuming from the responses I got about teaching the literal resurrection of Christ as one possibility in public history classes that Nick and others would be against that practice. Is that correct? My own position would be that whatever is supported by the best evidence should be taught, and whatever is not should not be, since the purpose of education, in addition to teaching critical thinking skills, is to convey truth.

And there is absolutely NO evidence that any literal Resurrection took place -- outside of one book, which has neither a bibliography nor independent corroboration.

Mark,

Thank you for finally trying to address the evidence. This is what you state:

"Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history. Why can the not exist also as part of the internal beauty of the tree, even with their variations? In that case, they may very well have been created with such an appearance. Therefore I don't think trees before the flood will be able to used as evidence against a young earth."

However, as Ginger Yellow has already pointed out, this is complete nonsense. If you had in fact looked at the evidence it would be clear to you that the reconstruction of past climate is based on correlated data sets. The tree rings, ice cores, pollen stratigraphy, etc. all give exactly the same answer. The earth has gone through at least three major cooling periods, the last of which ended with several rounds of glaciation about 10,000 years ago. As has been pointed out to you several times by several people, this is a specific history NOT the appearance of age. And it's even worse than you realize. It's not just the width of the rings and the thickness of the lines in the ice cores. Isotopic analysis of these samples reveals the exact same picture of climatic history as found in all of the other data sets as well. This cannot reasonably be explained as function, beauty or anythng else. If God wanted to make beautiful tree rings, why not make them in a more pleasing pattern? Why make them in exactly the pattern one must find if ice cores and pollen samples give an accurate picture of paleoclimatology?

As for the fossil evidence, once again, it's worse than you realize. Not only is there absolutely no evidence for coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, but the entire geologic and palentological record is completely consistent with the predictions of descent with modification. The order of appearance of major groups in the fossil is exactly what is predicted if there was a single origin of life and divergence over time. And once again, this pattern is entirely consistent with the genetic evidence as well. Was the fossil record falsified in order to appear more beautiful?

By the way, I see you have still failed to address any of the genetic issues that have been raised over the past two weeks. Now that we have dispensed with the biblical discussion, perhaps you can get around to looking at that evidence as well. Just answer one simple question, did God copy the mistakes? Yes or no? Note that function or beauty arguments most definately will not work here either. Once again, all of the genetic data sets converge on one answer and it does not include a world-wide flood.

I understand that you are not an expert in these fields. Now that you have shown that you might be willing to actually examine some evidence, I will try to be more patient. I am sorry if I have lost patience in the past.

I think any of these discussions are fruitful, but maybe, since this is the Panda's Thumb, we should focus more attention directly on the scientific issues. I've been spending most of my available time responding to questions about and attacks on biblical infallibility, so I haven't gotten to much else lately. But I think I am going to focus my attention now back more on the scientific issues. We've discussed the other issues enough to give some background, and those things will come up again naturally in the course of the scientific conversation.

— Mark

A couple of people have asked me about whether the peculiar characteristics of tree rings would fit, in my opinion, in the appearance of age or appearance of history category. It has been mentioned that tree rings do not simply exist, but vary in ways related to their history. My take on this is that they would fit in the appearance of age rather than appearance of history categories. (Let's start abbreviating these---appearance of age will now be aoa and appearance of history will now be aoh.) Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history. Why can the not exist also as part of the internal beauty of the tree, even with their variations? In that case, they may very well have been created with such an appearance. Therefore I don't think trees before the flood will be able to used as evidence against a young earth. I see absolutely no reason to posit a later aoa creation, however, so tree rings after the flood could probably reliably function as part of a method of dating (provided the methodology is at least sound from a naturalistic perspective). I suppose it might be possible that tree growth could have been spurred on miraculously after the flood, but I doubt it. We have no evidence of this in the text.

— Mark

Robert asked about species appearing together in the fossil record. A young earth view definitely would imply that these species lived at the same time, so why don't we find evidence of this in the fossil record? Definitely a legitimate question. First of all, I would want to know if that is in fact an accurate portrayal of the situation. Is it in fact the case that NO animals from different times have EVER been found together, or are they sometimes found together but not very often? Secondly, it is a fact that many animals that have been thought to have gone extinct at a certain time because of their absence from the later fossil record have been found alive still today. Have Coelecanth (sp?) fossils ever been found with human fossils, or from the fossil record alone would you conclude they must never have lived together? And yet we know they are alive today. It seems like "living fossils" of this sort are being found all the time. So, in light of that, is separateness in the fossil record necessarily a reliable indicator that certain species didn't live together?

— Mark

I have begun to read articles on Talkorigins.org. I know I keep saying this over and over, but there is a lot to digest. What always seems to happen to me is that I will read an article by an old-earth proponent and think, "that makes a lot of sense. How could anyone possibly answer that?" Then I read a creationist article and think, "Oh, that response makes a lot of sense. How could anyone answer these arguments?" Then I read another old earth proponent and think, "Oh, that'a good response. Will anyone be able to answer it?" You get the picture. This sort of experience is what has made me feel that I've got a lot of studying to do to really understand the arguments and the bases of those arguments enough to really be able to evaluate them.

— Mark

Here's some thoughts/questions I've had so far: I am interested to figure out what sorts of expectations would be reasonable to have if the Genesis account were correct. There would definitely be some appearance of age. In what ways would we reasonably expect a mature creation to throw off dating methods? What sorts of evidence would not be adequately explained by a mature creation scenario?

— Mark

One things that seems like a potentially bit problem for the dating methods is that they are based partly on the assumption that we know how much of various elements would have started out already in the rocks. In other words,they depend on knowing what the parent-daughter ratio would be. But with a mature creation, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that this ratio would start differntly than expected. So if one were to date the rocks in Eden at the end of the first week, for example, they would not unlikely yield large ages, although they were created only a few days ago. I take this to be a plausible scenario. So one question is, If this scenario were true, how much would it affect the reliability of the dating methods? Would it be counterbalanced by other factors, such as rocks that are clearly formed more recently, etc.?

— Mark

As I've mentioned before, one of the most compelling arguments that I am currently aware of for an old earth is the idea of the concordance or consistency of the dating methods. If the dating methods simply gave completely random dates, we would not have a consistency of results, such as different dating methods all yielding roughly the same ages in the dating of many samples of different comets, meteors, etc. If I am undetstanding these results right, that would argue for non-randomness in the dating methods. Could that be plausibly explained by a mature age creation? Perhaps simiar sorts of rocks were created in similar ways, including similar parent-daughter ratios of various elements. That would naturally produce a consistency of ages in similar sorts of samples, and different consistent results in different sets of similar samples, etc. is this a plausible young-earth explanation for the consistency of the dating methods?

— Mark

Are the dating methods truly consistent, and how consistent are they? I read Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow, a few years ago, and he described the actual methods used in dating various hominid fossils. He argued, and gave examples that seemed to support his argument, that usually acientists get very discordant dates, and they pick the ones that best fit with their assumptions. (This is oversimplified, but perhaps you know what I am referrring to.) So when various things are dated, do we usually get discordant dates or concordant ones? How discordant are they? How are the correct dates picked out of the various possibilities?

— Mark

It was argued in one of the articles on talkorigins that thre is no physical evidence of some of the decay rates having been different in the past. One article pointed out the drastic implications on the laws of physics if such decay rates are different. But would a worldwide flood have a potential for speeding up the decay rates in some processes?

— Mark

I read an article about ice cores. I recall that creationists ususally, if I am getting their view right, explain ice cores as results of a rapid ice age brought on by the results of the flood. Could the conditions they describe influence the rate of the deposition of the ice cores/layers? Could many of the layers havd been laid down quickly?

— Mark

Creationists often point out false ages given for rocks of independently known ages. The "Hawaiian basalts" (or something like that) seem to be mentioned frequently in this connection, and I believe there are oter exmples. Creationists argue that these examples show that the methods are subject to severely inaccurate results. Old-earth proponets point out that this is in a minority of cases only. But it is true that we cannot independently check the accuracy of the dating of something that is supposed to be millions or billions of years old (except perhaps by the consistency of resuts I talked about above). How do we know that possible past events and conditions (mature creation, global flood, early earth conditions, etc.) could not have affected our samples so that our dating methods are unreliable? Can we prove them to be reliable? If they are subject to error in some cases, how do we know they are not subject to error in light of unique events/circumstances in the history of the earth?

— Mark

I have one other question for this post that is a bit off of the above track, but I would like to hear the answer: How many of you think that science disproves the literal resurrection of Christ?

— Mark

Also, I am assuming from the responses I got about teaching the literal resurrection of Christ as one possibility in public history classes that Nick and others would be against that practice. Is that correct? My own position would be that whatever is supported by the best evidence should be taught, and whatever is not should not be, since the purpose of education, in addition to teaching critical thinking skills, is to convey truth.

— Mark

Some have said that philosophy does not constitute evidence. I disagree. I think it can. But I won't go into it more now, since I want to focus right now mainly on the direct physical evidence. But I wanted to give my position in response to that unproven claim.

— Mark

Although the tree ring patterns do usually reflect history, I see no reason a priori to limit their entire function necessarily to an indicator of history. In other words, it's been painstakingly explained to you HOW and WHY tree rings are taken as indicators of history (specifically, growth rates changing with the seasons); but you still reserve the right to ignore everything we've said, while offering no substantive refutation of your own.

— Raging Bee

minimalist: I think the argument with Hausam is pretty much over. Over the weeks, he's pretty much admitted that the Bible -- which he said was "infallible" -- is, in fact, filled with lots of "imprecise" and non-literal language that could easily be misleading if interpreted too literally. He's also admitted that "literalists" are more selective in their literalism than they want the rest of us to be. Given all those admissions, in which he backhandedly acknowledged the validity of our objections, the word "infallible," when applied to the Bible, loses all meaning and becomes nothing but empty puffery. He's admitted he's wrong, even though he won't admit he's admitted it; and FL has had to offer a lot of diversionary noise and smoke ("You can't argue with them! Religion of evolutionism! Eugenics! Eugenics! Eject! Eject!") to cover a retreat.

This leads into another thing Hausam has completely failed to support, which is why "religious revelation" should be regarded as reliable evidence at all...

Speaking of which, I notice Mark talked a lot about revelations, but never described any revelations he's had himself. This apparent lack of personal connection to the Divine could explain his attempts to distort reality to validate his beliefs.

...This should tell Hausam something about how such reasoning --- well-regarded though it may be by people who share a religion --- is regarded by those outside of that religious tradition.

Outside, Hell -- even people inside his religion reject such reasoning, because they know it can be -- and has been -- used to mislead good Christians into all sorts of counterproductive mischief. That's why some of the older Christian churches have bureaucracies in place to give "objective" rulings about claims of revelations, miracles, Mary sightings, posession, faith-healing, exorcisms, and the like. That's also why a lot of Protestant denominations started the Reformation by rejecting Catholic superstitions wholesale and pushing reason, science and honest work instead.

I am interested to figure out what sorts of expectations would be reasonable to have if the Genesis account were correct.

Well it looks like we're about to go over 200 posts on this thread soon and things are already starting to get slow. It could take quite a while for Mark to learn enough genetics to answer questions in that area.

I don't know if Nick is planning on opening another thread for this discussion or not, but I have a suggestion. I suggest that Mark open his own web site and blog. He can drop by here and let us know the address before this thread closes and anyone who wants to could visit him on his own site.

If Mark had his own blog, he would be free to discuss any topic he wanted, including biblical inerrancy, special revelation, appearance of age, etc. He would also be able to ban anyone who was too harsh or impolite, or anyone who offended his delicate sensibilities. He would still be able to get references and suggestions from scientists if any were interested in continuing this dialog. What he wouldn't be able to do would be to preach to people on a science web site and give personal testimony in the hopes of making converts. So, what's the downside?

Seriously, if he really is determined to examine the evidence, it will take years. This really isn't the place. If Nick wants to keep this going, for whatever reason, he is certainly free to do so. But Mark will always be free to come back to ask questions anyway.

There is a pattern in Mark's reading and reasoning process that is becoming apparent. I had a suspicion earlier but Mark had not responded to any scientific evidence, so I wasn't sure.

The two most recent posts containing details are #181790 and #182349. Earlier posts on this and the previous thread are #177611, #179851, and #180588.

It is easiest to compare the most recent two, but you can get some additional evidence from the others as well.

Mark is not aware of the distortions and misrepresentations by the leaders of the ID/Creationist movement because he doesn't have an extensive knowledge of what is actually in the scientific literature. So he has no basis for comparison and no sense of the vastness of the scientific literature. So it is understandable that, until he can assimilate what is really out there, he can't distinguish between legitimate evidence and fraud.

More interestingly, however, is the way Mark goes about trying to assimilate conflicting evidence. This is where a careful comparison of his last two posts is useful.

Mark has had a fairly intense exposure to biblical exegesis, attempting to extract meaning and consistency from ancient teachings whose roots are shrouded in the mists of time. Preachers can build an entire sequence of sermons on a single verse of scripture. One frequently hears people referring to religious texts as being filled with many meanings and, each time they read it, they find something new, or some new insight. And, indeed, many such texts, as well as literature, poetry, art and music, are written in just this way. There is nothing unusual or wrong with this; it is, in fact, what makes these media an important part of human communication and history. Unfortunately, it is also possible to exploit this for less noble reasons.

Mark has not had much experience with the methods of communication in science. So he uses the methods of exegesis to attempt to extract what is intended, giving equal weight to his intuitions as he does to the fraud for which he has no tools detect. Because of his intense and extended exposure to biblical texts, he is in the habit of doing this, not knowing that scientists try their best to make sentences mean only one thing, not a range of meanings and emotional experiences that literary writers and poets try to capture.

Many of us have had similar experiences with literature and artsy type students who are clearly articulate and talented in their areas. They can read complicated sentences and can extract meaning from poetry, literature and art. But given a science article or text, they completely shut down even though they can read the sentences perfectly.

One of the accomplishments of the Physics Education Research I am familiar with, and with which I have had some experience, is that it attempts to get at the roots of the difficulties students have with science (physics and math in particular).

One of the major techniques in physics education research is to get at what meanings the students are attributing to the descriptions of scientific concepts. The technique recognizes that words come with many meanings and emotions attached to them in the minds of the average student. The task is to first discover what these are. After that, other techniques are developed to deal with those misconceptions (I can't go into them here; there are many.).

So the technique starts with extensive interviews with students. The idea is to get them to express what they think in their own words. They are asked to explain some demonstrated physical phenomena in their own words. There is no prompting from the interviewer. Most of these interviews are recorded to be further analyzed by a team. Once the sources of the misconceptions are understood (much of it has to do with words and prior intuitive and emotional experiences), then techniques are developed to deal with these.

This kind of research has been going on for close to 40 years, and a lot has been learned and developed.

I have also been paying close attention to Mark's responses to blunt criticism and taunting in order to try to access his emotional level and what emotions he attaches to certain words when he is frustrated with us (I'm not as mean as I appear). These kinds of emotional attachments to certain words can give an individual an affective understanding of a sentence or paragraph that is entirely different from its intellectual content. For people whose primary experience is with art, literature, poetry, scripture, and the like, it is the affective understanding that overrules the purely intellectual content.

This is by no means a complete or definitive assessment (it is only a sample), but from my own research and from the research of others, I would suggest that some considerable focus be given to the findings in Physics Education Research.

Hope this helps.

People like Mark generally reveal their discontinuous view of reality in both how they defend biblical inerrancy and when they doubt evolution. They don't have the overlapping continuous view of knowledge that those with a scientific view tend to have. With them one step is all they look at.

Thus, when defending biblical difficulties, they are more than happy to supply hypothetical resolutions of the problem (no rain before the flood is my personal favorite) with no regard for whether these explanations conflict with each other or some incontrovertable (even by them) fact. All truths stand as their own island, unaffected by anything else. Possibility is all that is needed, no reason to go the next step and see if, gosh any of them actually happened.

Likewise, their #1 problem with evolution is grasping that it is a multi-step process. They want a one-step transformation. Thus we get the terminally boring analogies to auto assembly lines, and Kirk Cameron's crocoduck.

Mike and Science Avenger,

You might be on to something here. I have tried to point out the consilience of different data sets many times, especially in regards to phylogeny. I mean this of course in the sense that Whewell and Gould used the term, in that multiple independent data sets converge on the same topology, or for other types of data, on the same answer. As far as I can remember, Mark has been completely unresponsive to this concept.

Man, and here I thought I was making devestating arguments. You may be right, he just may not think like that. I never even considered the possibility. He did mention that he did think that scientists use a different kind of language. Maybe this is what he was talking about.

Now let's be careful here. We don't want to seem too arrogant or condescending. You know that he can be easily offended, when he wants to be and you know how he hates to be psychoanalyzed. We just have to find some way to let him know that scientists do indeed have a particular way of thinking that is much different than what he is used to. It doesn't mean that we are any better than anyone else. It does mean that we should take this into account when trying to communicate with non-scientists. I tried to use the CSI analogy, but that apparently failed as well.

In any event, this concept is described in great detail on the Talkorigins archieve, especially in the Evidences for Macroevolution section. Maybe he will get the idea eventually. If not, it sure will be a tough job going through each data set one by one. Oh well, I guess that is his problem. Maybe getting his own blog going will help.

(First, a warning - I had waaaay too much time today sitting in front of a computer with nothing to do except wait for stuff to be finished. With that said...)

Mark;

You seem to make some sort of distinction that the Biblical stories are probably factually accurate since they're only a "little" fantastical.

That there are "only two" talking animals in the Bible, for example, or that it makes sense that Eve could be created from Adams rib because Adam's rib would be more magical than an ordinary run of the mill rib. Or that the some of the stories that defy the known laws of physics only defy some of them a little bit, and only for a limited time.

I wonder if you grant the same deference to the equally fantastic stories of the world's other holy books?

Is the story of Mohammed's ride though the night to Jerusalem a fantasy? After all, his flying beast is no more implausible than the flying creatures in Apocalypse.

Is the story of how the Hindu god Ganesh was reanimated with the head of an elephant after his accidental death simply a myth? A Hindu goddess patching together a demi-god after an untimely accident with an available animal part seems at least as plausible as God making Eve from one bone.

Could the Buddha really transcend space and time? After all, Jesus could do it no problem.

C'mon mark, (evil smile) fess up, it's just you and me talking here. Do you really believe the Mormons when they say that the Prophet Smith used magic glasses to read the holy books. You know, those holy books, the single most precious artifact of the Mormon faith that seem to have been inexplicably misplaced for about a hundred years. After all, you believe that somewhere out there lost in the desert sands lies the equally precious Ark of the Covenant with with the original holy directions inside, don't you? How is that less logical?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Mark - feel free to correct me. But based on your previous postings, I presume you will respond that the two sets of stories are qualitatively different. You seem to feel the Biblical one makes sense and has proof backing it up, and the other doesn't.

There are parallels in the stories of Atlantis, and Egypt.

Both are reputed to be sophisticated, ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean. Both were rumored to have advanced (for the time) technology, but both are said to have peaked before 500BC, and collapsed enough that the finer points of their science and culture are now lost. Both are, however, described as being real places in the literature of the time.

Yet Ancient Egypt is considered historical fact, and Atlantis is acknowledged to be myth.

If I were to argue the opposite, based solely on a firm inner belief cultivated by years of childhood stories, you'd tell me I was nuts, and rightly so.

You'd point out to me that there is no trace at all for Atlantis outside one ancient Greek book, while Egypt, on the other hand, left copious piles of evidence behind, some of in mounds 400 feet high and made out of limestone.

You'd tell me about the mysteries of the pyramids, and the splendor of Thebes. You'd describe an unfamiliar culture where life followed the seasons of the river, and death was considered a temporary problem. You tell me about the mummies, short of the Taj Mahal the most sincere form of self-monument to ever scream to the future, "Yo world! I was here!".

If I asked, "Why should I believe you? Were you there?" you'd tell me that I don't have to take your word on any of this. You'd point out that all I had to do was take myself down to my local natural history museum and I could see the evidence for myself. I could see the stones and inscriptions and draw my own conclusions. I could gaze upon the actual mortal remains of the Pharaohs with my very own eyes, seeing as they had the foresight to preserve themselves for just such a contingency.

You'd tell me that you might not have all the details right, but the evidence is irrefutable that the basic details are correct, there was clearly some civilization living in the Nile delta that was large enough and advanced enough to do what the tangible evidence says it did, and to cling to the exact opposite interpretation is nothing more than self-delusion.

You'd tell me that my own inner beliefs, no matter how heartfelt, make any logical sense when placed up against the actual observable facts about the world.

And you'd be right.

The problem, of course is that in this venue, the parallels to Egypt and Atlantis are Evolution and Creationism.

One is supported by hundred of years of evidence and boxes of hominid fossils which simply have no other explanation, short of an actively deceitful God. (This is not a comforting option, by the way.)

One is a conclusion independently arrived at by following at least five different, independent lines of investigation (comparative biology, Darwin's field of research in the 1880's, geology, also from the 1880's, paleontology from the 1910's, primate anthropology, form the 1950's and the blockbuster of them all, genetics, from the 1980's).

You literally carry the evidence of your primitive ancestors around inside your body, and you can see the proof yourself if you ever hurt your lower back. Ask your doctor "hey Doc; ya see this X-ray we're looking at? Why does my coccyx have the exact structure I'd expect to find if it were nothing more than a vestigial mammalian tail?"

The other theory of man's origin ( and I'm not trying to be insulting ) is based entirely on the mystic writings of a small group of semi-nomadic shepherds from the late bronze age. There has been absolutely nothing of any substance discovered outside the Bible that backs up the story.

In a world where people have found things as tiny and elusive as million year old hominid bones, that's not just inconvenient, that's inconceivable.

In fact everything known about biology, paleontology or geography disputes it directly.

Even the scientific publications of the Vatican science office, presumably the most partisan investigators of them all, dispute it.

Sorry. I know it's a cherished story, and it makes a lot of people feel good, but there's absolutely no basis, and lets be perfectly frank for a moment. Assume you hadn't grown up in a Christian environment having people tell you since early childhood that this was the Truth.

Would any of it make a lick of sense to you?

Is the Hebrew God sculpting a full-grown pair of humans out of mud somehow more rational than the story of the Egyptian Gods who at least used sperm and eggs?

In the Bible, God magically makes a living man out of mud.

In Pinocchio, Gipetto makes a living boy out of wood.

Both stories have exactly the same amount of independently verifiable data backing them up.

None.

How could this possibly be?

How is it possible that a God who knows all, sees all, controls all, judges all and has his very being effused into every corner of the universe not leave some trace in his creation?

Please don't tell me that God doesn't leave evidence because certainty destroys faith.

Read the Bible. God has absolutely no aversion to presenting solid evidence of his existence. Ask the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ask Ramses the great what his calamine lotion bill was like after the plague of fleas. Ask the tens of millions smitten by his wrath during the flood.

Ask the Israelites that handled the stone tablets or ate the manna.

Ask Job. I bet he's not short on tangible proof.

So it's obvious that God can leave evidence and doesn't care who knows. He is, after all, God. It's not like he has anything to hide.

But still, there is absolutely no evidence of all these great historical miracles that can be verified in the 21st century.

It's not like it would be difficult to leave an unambiguous miracle, you know.

I'm not the first person to point out that the last paragraph in Armageddon could the first thousand digits of pi.

In binary.

Now, ironically, some people claim that the absence of all evidence of God only serves to demonstrate how immensely powerful he is. Only a truly powerful and mighty God could be so mighty as to erase all evidence of how mighty he is.

(I've actually heard this argument, by the way, it kinda doesn't impress me much, for obvious reasons)

No, Mark, the evidence is incontrovertible. There are only two ways that God fits into the picture.

The first one is, he doesn't. There is no evidence of him because he doesn't exist.

The second one is that he is a duplicitous god who actively manipulates the environment for purposes unknown.

The two positions are equally devoid of any comfort. The latter brings up the logical problem of Last Thursdayism, and the former is just plain empty.

All in all, though, I'd rather not be lied to by my deity, even if that means he's not out there at all.

A crucial issue, though, and this perhaps speaks to the need for patience and tolerance in discussions, is the reality that to change one's mind set, to admit to oneself, friends, family, colleagues, church that actually, you were wrong all those years, is a huge, huge undertaking. In many ways, it's worse than divorce.

Radioactive decay takes place in the atomic nucleus, and takes place at the same rate whether the atom is baked, boiled, fried, frozen, shaken, stirred, stomped on, shot from a cannon or subjected to the complete works of Britney Spears

No species would have more than 4 alleles

I have one other question for this post that is a bit off of the above track, but I would like to hear the answer: How many of you think that science disproves the literal resurrection of Christ?

— Mark

maybe, since this is the Panda's Thumb, we should focus more attention directly on the scientific issues

I am interested to figure out what sorts of expectations would be reasonable to have if the Genesis account were correct

I have begun to read articles on Talkorigins.org

And I don't know which poster he was responding to, but Mark was equally correct to point out that Matthew didn't borrow anything from Mithraism. "The timing is all wrong!", as Dr. Ronald Nash explained. (Mithra flourished just a little too late---like after the NT was written---to provide any evidence of any "borrowing" by the NT writers.)

— FL

After all, you believe that somewhere out there lost in the desert sands lies the equally precious Ark of the Covenant with with the original holy directions inside

Radioactive decay takes place in the atomic nucleus, and takes place at the same rate whether the atom is baked, boiled, fried, frozen, shaken, stirred, stomped on, shot from a cannon or subjected to the complete works of Britney Spears

Radioactive decay takes place in the atomic nucleus, and takes place at the same rate whether the atom is baked, boiled, fried, frozen, shaken, stirred, stomped on, shot from a cannon or subjected to the complete works of Britney Spears...

Are you trying to imply that Britney isn't really a godess? I'm disappointed...

The sun being pushed across the sky, however, is not only supernatural, but contradicts known facts about the sun. It is a fact of observation that the sun is not being pulled by a chariot, unless that chariot is invisible or is vastly disproportionate in size to the sun. Also, it suggests a geocentric view of the solar system.

One exception is the decay mode than involves absorption of an electron by one of the nuclear particles. Extreme pressure can increase the rate of that mode in large nuclei, because it increases the amount of time electrons spend within the nucleus.

this is not completely true. britney exposure can very slightly increase the skankification coefficient of a nucleus. although tiny, this is thought to be responsible for some of the inconsistent results in cold fusion research.

Mark,

Thanks for the response. You can read some good articles at talkorigins about the evidence for co-existence or non-coexsistence of

species. But my original point went a bit further - if God created a mature creation, even one with a history (belly-buttons for Adam

and Eve: tree rings with histories of cold snaps, etc), then surely, no matter what that history was it would be common to all life. So

the prediction of literal 6-day creation is that any dating technique applied to say, dinosaurs, would give about the same age when

applied to, say, elephants. Even if the absolute dates obtained are wildly in error (as YECs sometimes maintain) they should be in

error in the same way.

Direct evidence (fossils etc) for co-existence of large mammals (including humans) and dinosaurs does not exist. But, perhaps more

seriously, no evidence from dating does either. Surely, if these types of critters co-existed then at least some dinosaur remains would

get dated to 6000 years or (possibly) some elephant remains to 65 million years.

The problem is that all methods consistently lead to the same picture. There seem to be only two alternatives:

(i) the data is being faked

(ii) God made it appear that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Why?

Delurks,

Thanks for the personal account. It is very hard to claim that belief in evolution stems from a committment to naturalism after reading about people like yourself. Congratulations on having the courage to be intellectually honest enough to face the truth, despite strong social pressure to deny it. Coming from a similar background, I can sympathize. Hopefully Mark will follow your excellent example, but we shall see. He might have to learn a whole new way of thinking, but at least he knows it is not an impossible task.

Hello.

Welcome back after the break of the last couple of days!

Some have suggested that as soon as you have an omnipotent God, he could do anything, so nothing could falsify YEC. My inclination is that that is not correct. That is why we have been distinguishing between the appearance of history and the appearance of age. There are certain things the biblical God will not do and certain things he is unlikely to do.

We never did explicitly define appearance of age (aoa) and appearance of history (aoh), and not defining them can lead to confusion, so let me define how I am using these phrases. Aoa, as I am using it, refers to some observed characteristic(s) in the record of the past that would, under normal everyday conditions, indicate a certain age or history, but which we do not have conclusive reason to believe must always indicate age and history, but it might have been created directly for some other purpose (such as aesthetics, etc.). Thus, it does not constitute proof of age and history, and so its appearance is not deceptive or inherently misleading (although people might of course be misled by it sometimes anyway, as by many other things). Aoh, as I am using it, refers to some observed characteristic(s) in the record of the past that could not rationally or plausibly be interpreted in any other way than as an indication of actual age and history. Such an appearance, if it did not indicate an actual history, would have to be interpreted as deception by God. Aoh would thus falsify YEC. I'm not sure I could delineate in advance exactly what sorts of characteristics must be placed in what category. It is the sort of thing that has to be decided on an individual case-by-case basis. If God gave Adam and Eve childhood memories of the garden and didn't tell them they weren't real, Adam and Eve would be justified in concluding that they were--this would thus be an example of aoh and would seem to have to be classified as deception on the part of God. On the other hand, Adam and Eve did not have conclusive reasons to conclude a past history based on the existence of their navels, so this is aoa and does not indicate deception.

As I mentioned before, the consistency of dating methods in something I especially want to continue to look into. A number of people have asserted that tree rings not only have patterns which could indicate a certain history, but those patterns line up with the same patterns in ice cores, etc. I assume that means that certain ice cores and certain parts of a tree have been dated to the same date using different methods on each sample, and the patterns on that part of the tree and on those particular ice cores match in extraordinary, not-possibly-random ways. If this is so, it is worth looking into.

Robert, you mentioned that elephants and dinosaurs are consistently dated differently. How are they dated? By position in the fossil record, by radiometric dating of partcular fossils, etc.? Are Coelecanth fossils and human fossils consistently dated differently?

JohnW, I believe, said that nothing can affect decay rates. Henry says extreme pressure can affect decay rates in some cases. Do you disagree amongst yourselves on this?

Some have said that I am simply looking for possible ways evidence could be interpreted in a young earth way but not providing positive evidence for why I think it MUST be interpreted that way. In other words, some have asserted that I have no positive evidence for my position. This isn't true. The evidence, I believe, supports the Bible as a trustworthy source of information on all issues upon which it speaks. This evidence is not physical evidence, primarily, but some of it is more philosophical, etc., in form. Many of you take this to be the same as "no evidence at all," but that is because you simply do not take seriously good, historic, philosophical reasoning. That is an ungrounded bias on your part that prevents you from taking all the facts into consideration. You have convinced yourselves into a way of thinking that automatically exludes certain forms of evidence, and so you do not recognize the evidence for my position.

The whole conversation about my inability to think "across the board" was interesting. Another humorous example of how ridiculous these methods of psychological analysis are. The fact is that I am very concerned with how all things fit together. I would say that this is one of the primary emphases of my thought. That is why I like people like Dawkins and Harris better than the NOMA sorts of approaches. NOMA tries to separate things that cannot be separated. What you believe in philosophy affects your take on the physical evidence and vice versa. Everything is connected and affects everything else. Reality is one, and so our knowledge must be unified. I am currently reading Edward O. Wilson's book, Consilience. Although I disagree with his naturalism, I wholeheartedly agree with his emphasis on the unity of knowledge. Actually, I am tempted to think it is many of you who have problems with understanding the unity of knowledge. I have repeatedly asserted that one can't separate philosophy, one's views on the Bible, etc., from one's take on the physical evidence. That is why the Bible question cannot "just be set aside," as David suggested. David's and others' attempts to argue that I should set aside deeper philosophical/religious questions when looking at the physical evidence tempts me to think that they don't understand the unity of knowledge. I would recommend Wilson or Dawkins. However, I suspect it is not so much a lack of understanding the unity of knowledge as more of a certain naive epistemology that thinks metaphysics is impossible and that we can actually learn something about the world without it. In fact, without metaphysical, philosophical reasoning, you can't even refute Last Thursdayism. This naive epistemology tends to default on a naturalistic view of things, although not consistently (it being so absurd that it is impossible to hold it with complete consistency). I suspect that, historically, the rejection of metaphysics has come in as a part of the apologetics of naturalism. If you get rid of metaphysics, you don't have to listen to the arguments that prove the existence of God, it is easier to pretend nothing matters but what you can directly see, etc., all of which makes naturalism seem more reasonable.

By the way, have you all seen the new CFI report, written by Barbara Forrest, on ID and creationism? I haven't had time to read much of it yet, but in skimming through it for a couple of minutes I noticed that it explicitly reaffirms the commitment of science to methodological naturalism. Not that that is unique--it is the norm, in my experience. But I mention it in response to some odd claims here that the modern scientific community is not committed a priori to a method that assumes naturalism. Forrest (like many others) justifies this a priori assumption by arguing that it's not arbitrary--we've just discovered that naturalism works and supernatural explanations don't. Well, of course a naturalist would think so. Many theists disagree. But since methodological naturalism runs mainstream science, the theistic view is not allowed to be seriously considered anymore.

I have been focusing a lot of attention on interacting on this blog, but I think I am going to redirect some of that energy to do some other things I need to do, including deeper research of the physical evidence. I will stick around the blog and answer some questions, ask some questions, etc., but I am no longer going to continue the major discussion as we've been doing it. I think that would be more productive for me. I'm not sure if Nick will want to continue the thread or not, but if it stays up I'll keep hanging around.

I am going to try to get a blog/website of some sort. Do any of you have any advice on getting a blog site or a website? I'm not really sure where to start. It is something I've been thinking about doing for a long time but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Talk to you later,
Mark

JohnW, I believe, said that nothing can affect decay rates. Henry says extreme pressure can affect decay rates in some cases. Do you disagree amongst yourselves on this?

— Mark

Mark,

Wow! What's the opposite of "succinct"?

WRT "aoh" vs "aoa," a cynic might summarize your distinction as "if it contradicts the Bible, you're deceiving yourself by looking too closely."

WRT science "embracing" or "requiring" naturalism to the exclusion of alternatives, in your first paragraph, you are claiming, through metaphysical philosophizing, to know enough about the mind of God to be able to tell a "supernatural explanation" from a natural yet-to-be-discovered. Different people with different metaphysical or spiritual philosophies will come to different conclusions, and science cannot allow for such discrepancies. Scientific findings must be repeatable and unambiguous, not dependent upon metaphysics or philosophy. That is why the very phrase "supernatural explanation" is a scientific oxymoron.

Robert, you mentioned that elephants and dinosaurs are consistently dated differently. How are they dated?

Many theists disagree.

But since methodological naturalism runs mainstream science, the theistic view is not allowed to be seriously considered anymore.

JohnW,

Creationists assert that the flood would involve more than simply "dunking things in water," but would involve massive pressure from volcanic activity, the force of such a large amount of water, and other factors. If you had a very catastrophic world-wide flood of this sort (I know this is not very specific), would it be possible that sufficient pressure would be produced to affect decay rates? Of course, if only irrelevant decay rates (not used in dating) would be affected anyway, it doesn't really matter. Do you think extreme pressure might affect relevant decay rates as well? (Henry, your input, and of course anyone else's, is welcome here too.) By the way, JohnW, I really appreciated the tone of your longer post a few days ago (and your others as well). It was very respectful and careful and hence very productive and helpful to me. I appreciate your ability to have a reasonable conversation with those you disagree with.

Bill Gascoyne: You illustrate my point well. I know you and many others in the scientific community think that philosophical/religious arguments are untestable, uninformative and useless. I think you are wrong. I think it is possible to rationally choose between conflicting philosophical and religious viewpoints. I think these areas of research give us essential information and that that information needs to be taken into account in all fields of research, or at least all fields in which the information can significantly affect conclusions.

Mark

Robert, you mentioned that elephants and dinosaurs are consistently dated differently. How are they dated? By position in the fossil record, by radiometric dating of particular fossils, etc.? Are Coelacanth fossils and human fossils consistently dated differently?

Stupid typo - and I did preview:
'Yes - fossils and elephants . . '
Should be
'Yes - fossils of dinosaurs and elephants . . .'

Creationists assert that the flood would involve more than simply "dunking things in water," but would involve massive pressure from volcanic activity, the force of such a large amount of water, and other factors. If you had a very catastrophic world-wide flood of this sort (I know this is not very specific), would it be possible that sufficient pressure would be produced to affect decay rates?

— Mark

Of course, if only irrelevant decay rates (not used in dating) would be affected anyway, it doesn't really matter. Do you think extreme pressure might affect relevant decay rates as well?

— Mark

By the way, JohnW, I really appreciated the tone of your longer post a few days ago (and your others as well). It was very respectful and careful and hence very productive and helpful to me. I appreciate your ability to have a reasonable conversation with those you disagree with.

— Mark

Mark,

Coelecanth is a bit of a red herring. It's unlikely thet sea creatures and humans will have co-mingled remains. The analogy would only hold if some version of a land dinosaur were to be found today. Even then that would not explain why evidence for large mammals and dinosaurs co-existing has not been found.

My point is not how elephants and dinosaurs are dated but that however they are dated you should get more or less the same age. And that should be true for all life forms. There's a lot at talkorigins about how it's done but the point is that the same methods should have similar errors. That is, if you weigh two things with the same set of faulty scales you can still figure out which is heavier.

You asked for a testable way of distinguishing your original idea from the predictions of evolution. This is one way - now, my job is not to convince you one way or the other - but I have tried to point you in a direction which you seemed unaware of before but which you requested. Whether you pursue that line of evidence is now up to you - and I hope you do.

I'd add that since all lines of evidence point to a ~60-million year gap between dinosaurs and humans then the problem for YEC is huge.

Bill Gascoyne: You illustrate my point well. I know you and many others in the scientific community think that philosophical/religious arguments are untestable, uninformative and useless. I think you are wrong.

I think it is possible to rationally choose between conflicting philosophical and religious viewpoints.

I think these areas of research give us essential information and that that information needs to be taken into account in all fields of research, or at least all fields in which the information can significantly affect conclusions.

Miked,

Re "Some powerful exegesis will be needed to sort this out."

Or at least somebody'll have to explain how one measures the skankification coefficient of a nucleus. Um.

------

Mark,

Re "JohnW, I believe, said that nothing can affect decay rates. Henry says extreme pressure can affect decay rates in some cases. Do you disagree amongst yourselves on this?"

That's only for one specific type of decay, which AFAIK isn't relevant to radiodating methods. Also as somebody pointed out already, that's only when the pressure is extreme enough to significantly compress the orbitals of the atoms, and that can happen only if the atoms have already been smushed together so that the orbitals are the only left with any give.

Henry

Among the more difficult issues for students unfamiliar with the sciences are the issues surrounding quantitative data analysis and statistical reasoning. Issues involving orders of magnitude, the statistical distributions of measurements, why these distributions arise and how the characteristics of these distributions are used in decision-making, the concepts of precision and accuracy, significance, correlation, confounding variables, irrelevant parameters, how scientists can analyze data to reduce or completely eliminate the confounding effect of a parameter, controlled experiments; the list goes on and on.

Many of the terms involved in working with data have colloquial meanings that get in the way of understanding. Using these words without adhering to their technical meaning gives the appearance of precision in one's arguments when in fact one is simply expressing opinions or just plain nonsense. Not only does naive use of such words mislead the user, such use is often employed to deliberately deceive. Without a fairly robust fraud detector, individuals have no way of knowing what quantitative evidence is good and what is useless.

Hermeneutics and exegesis are only small parts of qualitative reasoning, and they address none of the issues of quantitative reasoning. Both qualitative and quantitative reasoning can be, and frequently are, systematically abused. Knowing how to use these reasoning processes without abusing them is a fairly mature state in a person's development, and Mark appears to be nowhere near this level of development. This level of development is also linked to a detailed knowledge of representative examples of how these process sort the good stuff from junk, and to successful experiences in actually doing such analyses. Mark apparently has had neither, and he doesn't appear to know it.

Mark's continued use of the word "naturalism" is perhaps the strongest evidence he has no idea what is involved in the process of science. He is using the emotionally loaded, pejorative term introduced by a fraud, Phillip E. Johnson, and as a result, approaches every piece of scientific evidence and reasoning as missing some fundamental element that he is willing to allow and which he claims scientists don't understand.

Phillip E. Johnson is no Thomas Aquinas, and Johnson has added nothing but confusion to the minds of people like Mark. Mark is unwilling or emotionally unable to question Johnson's philosophical pretensions.

Mark appears to know nothing about the history of his own religion, the history of the development of science, the history of Western civilization, and consequently has no credibility in any of his arguments. Even as he hints that he has some advanced understanding of "epistemology" and "metaphysics", his total lack of scientific understanding is strong evidence that he doesn't even understand the meanings of those words.

And asking to be treated with respect even as he displays his philosophical pretensions is as insulting as his claim that the universe is only 6000 years old. If he wants to be treated with "respect", he should demonstrate that he has made a more serious effort to understand the science than he has. If he doesn't understand why people get impatient with him, that is why.

Coelecanth is a bit of a red herring. It's unlikely thet sea creatures and humans will have co-mingled remains. The analogy would only hold if some version of a land dinosaur were to be found today. Even then that would not explain why evidence for large mammals and dinosaurs co-existing has not been found.

Even finding a land dinosaur alive today wouldn't mean what Marks wants it to mean -- that the discovery of Coelecanths in modern times somehow implies that the gap in time between dinosaurs and large mammals is just due to a lack of information.

Mark, the fossil record clearly shows huge numbers of species appearing and disappearing throughout history. Yes, new discoveries often move the dates that a certain branch of the tree of life appeared of disappeared, but read what people are saying: no large mammal has ever been found in the strata coexistent with, or older than, dinosaurs. And that's just a simple example. The evidence shows so much more than that. Using fossil and genetic data (which, again, agree), scientists have constructed a tree of life. Any find that showed a highly derived descendent species appearing before its supposed ancestor in the fossil record could invalidate this tree of life. Many other types of discoveries could also invalidate it -- I recommend reading the Evidences for Macroevolution article on talkorigins. In fact, there is an almost infinite number of fossil and DNA finds that could invalidate evolution, yet no one has ever done it.

Also, you once again have failed to address the convergence of so many lines of evidence. You're trying to make up just-so stories to explain away once piece of evidence or another. Not only have you failed to cast the slightest doubt on any one piece of evidence yet (c'mon, a flood causing a change in atomic decay rates?), but even if you did find a way to dodge a bit of evidence, you wouldn't have even begun to address why all the evidence agrees. That's why YEC is a completely indefensible position. It's not because of blind faith in radiometric dating or ice cores or tree rings or evolution or anything else. It's because all the scientific evidence agrees.

p.s. A prerequisite for any philosophy is that it doesn't conflict with reality. Whatever your philosophical reasons for believing in the literal truth of the bible, they don't meet this basic prerequisite. Last-Thursdayism is actually more valid than whatever you believe, because it at least allows for a deceitful god and a deceptive reality. Similarly, a philosophy that rejects our ability to observe reality, while useless, would at least be logically consistent. You can't, however, accept the reality we observe and at the same time say that where your philosophy conflicts with reality, reality loses.

Mark ...

As far it's possible to say that one has stood in another person's shoes, I can say that I've stood in yours. I know all the arguments, I believed them all at one point. I've heard the preaching, been to the rallies and read all the books.

My suspicion is that you probably know in your heart that a young earth creationist model is intellectually unsustainable, but that you're not sure what to do with that concept.

20 years ago, I decided I'd stop trying to maintain the cognitive dissonance that was required to synthesise science and creationism into a coherent story. It was a liberating experience.

Look back at the postings you made over these two threads. Count how many times you use the terms 'Could it have been this way', 'Perhaps it was this way', 'Maybe this happened'.

Here's the scoop. It may well be that [a] God could have created the world in such a strange manner in a short space of time, with the appearance of history, and such bizarre apparent evidences in genetics/biology that we, in fact, evolved.

But is it *likely*? Or is the simpler explanation - that the universe is indeed really, really, really old - a better one?

If you don't want to answer that question, answer me this. If we found a fossilized leather shoe (or a single humanoid bone) in the middle of a rock stratum also containing dinosaur fossils, that would be sufficient to falsify our current model of evolutionary history.

Can you think of a single scientific observation which, if found, would be sufficient falsify your hypothesis that the world is actually only 10Ky old?

Delurks

Mark ...

As far it's possible to say that one has stood in another person's shoes, I can say that I've stood in yours. I know all the arguments, I believed them all at one point. I've heard the preaching, been to the rallies and read all the books.

My suspicion is that you probably know in your heart that a young earth creationist model is intellectually unsustainable, but that you're not sure what to do with that concept.

20 years ago, I decided I'd stop trying to maintain the cognitive dissonance that was required to synthesise science and creationism into a coherent story. It was a liberating experience.

Look back at the postings you made over these two threads. Count how many times you use the terms 'Could it have been this way', 'Perhaps it was this way', 'Maybe this happened'.

Here's the scoop. It may well be that [a] God could have created the world in such a strange manner in a short space of time, with the appearance of history, and such bizarre apparent evidences in genetics/biology that we, in fact, evolved.

But is it *likely*? Or is the simpler explanation - that the universe is indeed really, really, really old - a better one?

If you don't want to answer that question, answer me this. If we found a fossilized leather shoe (or a single humanoid bone) in the middle of a rock stratum also containing dinosaur fossils, that would be sufficient to falsify our current model of evolutionary history.

Can you think of a single scientific observation which, if found, would be sufficient falsify your hypothesis that the world is actually only 10Ky old?

Delurks

"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Re "If we found a fossilized leather shoe (or a single humanoid bone) in the middle of a rock stratum also containing dinosaur fossils, that would be sufficient to falsify our current model of evolutionary history."

Imnsho, no one single contrary datum would completely undo a strongly supported theory. It might put limits on it, by establishing some area in which it doesn't apply, but I'd expect that it would still get used in the areas not directly impacted by the anomaly. (I.e., one contrary datum isn't going to erase a million data points that agree with each other.)

Henry

If you had a very catastrophic world-wide flood of this sort (I know this is not very specific), would it be possible that sufficient pressure would be produced to affect decay rates?

Henry,

I'm not suggesting that such a find would completely invalidate the TOE as we know it. But it would be sufficient to prove the existing model, in some way, false. Obviously, for the purposes of this argument, I'm assuming that this was a real fossil human bone, coexisting in time with a dinosaur fossil.

Delurks

Hello.

There have been some very good questions that have been brought up lately. I wrote to ICR and asked a couple of them to get a creationist take on them. Below is the copy of my email:

Hello!

I have been studying the old-earth vs. young-earth controversy. I have a couple of questions I'd like to get your take on if you have some time:

1. If the fossil record is a record not of long geologic ages but was mostly laid down during the great flood, why do we not see more mixing of various forms of animals throughout the various strata? For example, why do we not find large or modern mammals mixed in with dinosaurs at least occasionally? Wouldn't we expect, every once in a while, to see something like a horse in the same location in the strata as a velociraptor? The Darwinists say that one rabbit found among the dinosaurs would falsify evolution, and yet they assert nothing like this has ever been found. Wouldn't we expect to find a least a few examples of this sort of thing?

2. If all species once lived at the same time, and most of them in the fossil record died at the same time, why do variious dating methods give consistent results dating different strata of the fossil record at different ages? I can understand how the dating methods in general might be skewed by things like a mature creation, etc., but wouldn't we expect the various strata to date to the same age even if that age is in error? Since they in fact come from roughly the same time period, wouldn't we expect that our dating results would be the same, or perhaps random, rather than consistently dating lower strata as older than higher strata? Why do the varying dates of various strata appear in the sort of pattern one would expect if the layers actually come from different ages, the lower generally being significantly older than the higher?

Thank you for your time!

Mark Hausam

It would be like using a measuring tape calibrated in millimeters when you though it was in feet. The absolute measurement would be wrong. But the relative measurements would still stay the same. An bowling ball is still ten times bigger than a golf ball, no matter what the units.

Another problem with the 6000 year claim is simply the amount of fossils. As I understand it there's way too many of them for them, and too many different types, to have all lived within a period of time anywhere near as short as human history.

Henry

I wrote to ICR and asked a couple of them to get a creationist take on them.

Stevaroni said: ...the tar pits were a notorious "predator trap", where predator remains outnumber prey species 10 to 1

Mark:

If you get a reply, they will tell you that hydrodynamic sorting was important. Also that things that lived on top of hills or could fly or swim well were buried last and therefore will be found higher in the stratigraphy. Although there are pairs of organisms for which either of these would work, they do not explain why, for example, pterodactyls are found lower than moles.

Interesting. Far be it for me to derail this most scintillating of threads, but why would that be? Was it a domino effect? Predator spots trapped prey, tries to eat trapped prey, becomes trapped itself, second predator arrives, sees trapped prey, etc.?

Mark,

Kudos to you. Focus on question number 2 and see what happens if you push it with them.

Robrt

And being the rudest of the bunch since Sir Toe and Flank aren't here let me say that it's the inconsistancy of religion that leads to a loss of faith rather than the consistancy of science.

If you get a reply, they will tell you that hydrodynamic sorting was important. Also that things that lived on top of hills or could fly or swim well were buried last and therefore will be found higher in the stratigraphy. Although there are pairs of organisms for which either of these would work, they do not explain why, for example, pterodactyls are found lower than moles.

Yup. I'm consistently amazed that anyone can accept something as ridiculous as hydrodynamic sorting. Mark, if you for one second are tempted to accept hydrodynamic sorting, please just take a moment and think of all the counter-examples that falsify it, like the one above. If you have trouble coming up with any on your own (you shouldn't), here's a little wiki page listing some:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting

Mark,

Those are excellent questions, particularly 2. And yes, hydrodynamic sorting is bullshit. For number 1, re the "rabbit in the cambrian", my prediction is that you might get some answers like:
"Darwinism says X. However, the data show ~X."
To see if such a statement is bullshit, you need to ascertain:
1) Does the evidence really show ~X? But more importantly:
2) Does Darwinism really say X?
To ascertain the first, you have to do some research. To answer the second, ask some Darwinists...

(Also, please don't refer to us as "Darwinists".)

Anyhow, please let us know what the replies are.

A question related to different creatures being in different strata: If the strata represent different geological ages, it seems to me we would expect to see life forms that came into being later appearing later in the fossil record, life forms that died out a long time ago appearing only earlier in the fossil record and not later, and creatures that came into existence a long time ago but which have persisted through time into the present day appearing throughout the fossil record. So, assuming the typical evolutionary picture, I would expect to see dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era but not earlier or later, humans appearing only late in the Cenozoic era, and bacteria appearing fairly equally throughout the vast majority of the strata. Since insects came into existence very early but apparently have maintained a strong presence since, I would expect them to show up at some early point in the record and then appear fairly equally throughout the later ages of strata. Do you agree with these expectations? If so, is this what we actually find in the fossil record? Particularly, do life forms like bacteria appear early in the record and then appear with roughly equal constancy throughout all the rest of the record into modern times? I would not expect, on the evolutionary picture, bacteria, or other early creatures that have remained through time, to appear only or with significantly more frequency in the earlier part of the record but not at all or not as much in later strata.

Thanks for the feedback on my questions to ICR. I'm really enjoying getting the opportunity to think through these things in greater depth. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. It is fun!

Thanks,
Mark

I'm really enjoying getting the opportunity to think through these things in greater depth. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. It is fun!

I'm consistently amazed that anyone can accept something as ridiculous as hydrodynamic sorting.

A question related to different creatures being in different strata: If the strata represent different geological ages, it seems to me we would expect to see life forms that came into being later appearing later in the fossil record, life forms that died out a long time ago appearing only earlier in the fossil record and not later, and creatures that came into existence a long time ago but which have persisted through time into the present day appearing throughout the fossil record.

That's good reasoning on your part, and yes, that's exactly what we see.

Note that given how rare it is for remains to fossilize, how rare it is for us to then find those fossils, and how different environments are more or less amenable to fossilization, the fossil record doesn't always give a perfect representation of the actual biome through time. The basic pattern we see, however, is exactly what you describe. There are some holes due to lack of information, but there are never explicit contradictions (like a rabbit in the Cambrian).

Indeed. As dreadful as it is with the animal remains, it's a complete disaster when it comes to plants, which can't run or fly at all. Were the creationists right, palm trees should be at the bottom, and pteradactyls near the top. We find the opposite in the fossil record.

Mark,

Glad to see that you are finally starting to address issues in a scientific manner. This is exactly how you should proceed. If you have two competing hypotheses, first, determine what predictions each would make. Concentrate on predictions that are in direct opposition so that a certain result will only be consistent with one hypothesis and completely inconsistent with the other. Then look at the evidence. Which hypothesis is consistent with the evidence and which is falsified? Then see if you get the same result from different data sets.

In the case of the fossil record the answer is quite clear. There is no sudden appearance corresponding to a creation event and there is no sudden disappearance corresponding to a world-wide flood. Major groups appear in the order predicted by evolutionary theory. There is evidence of ancient groups that are no longer extant. There is evidence of major groups that arose recently and persist to the present time. For example, the dinosaurs arose over 200 million years ago and persisted until 64 million years ago. Trilobites dominated the ancient seas about 500 million years ago and then all disappeared. No evidence of any vertebrate is found until well after the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Now here is the clincher. The relative ages of these groups are precisely correlated with the their absolute ages as determined by radiometric dating. And both of these data sets agree perfectly with the genetic data for living organisms as well. So, one hypoothesis is conclusively falsified and one hypothesis is entirely consistent with all the evidence. There can be no doubt whatsoever as to the proper conclusion.

Don't let the ICR or anyone else try to confuse the issue by making up nonsense. Look at the evidence for yourself. Draw your own conclusion. This data is the result of the last 200 years of research, it cannot be waved away or ignored. This is the truth about the history of life on earth. Look at it and see for yourself.

I wonder if the ICR has responded to Mark yet?

GuyeFaux wrote:

"Please let us know what the replies are."

If any replies are forthcoming, they are probably already covered in the Talkorigins archieves, perhaps under Creationist Claims. All of these arguments have been debunked long ago. I don't even know why anyone would want to ask for an opinion from the ICR since everyone already knows what they spew and why it is completely wrong.

In any event, biased web sites are not the place to look for answer to these questions. College textbooks would be a good place to start and of course it is necessary to read the primary literature in order to get aa unbiased view of any field.

Mark,

I know you have a lot to go through, but I still want to know, did God copy the mistakes?

Mark: I appreciate your desire to keep the discussion polite and civil; but please bear this in mind: this is a discussion of facts, not feelings; and a fact stated bluntly, by someone who may not have time to put it in more tactful terms, is still a fact. And if you say something that sounds either very ignorant or very dishonest, in the presence of people who know better, then the response will be blunt, not tactful or considerate; and crying about incivility won't help your case.

I've noticed that many creationists use a thin pretense of tact and civility as a means of proving themselves superior to those who bluntly point out their ignorance and dishonesty. Ever hear of another YECer named Salvador Cordova? He's made a career of lying through his teeth, then pretending he wants an honest debate on the issues, but only in a forum like UD, where nobody is allowed to do anything so impolite as to point out his rank dishonesty.

With that in mind, I'd like to point out (again) that we've given you very clear and specific guidelines for distinguishing between "appearance fo age" and "appearance of history," and you are simply redefining these terms to avoid the "appearance of refutation" of YEC assertions.

On the other hand, Adam and Eve did not have conclusive reasons to conclude a past history based on the existence of their navels, so this is aoa and does not indicate deception.

Sorry, the navel, like a scar, is created by a specific event: in this case, birth from a woman's womb, followed by the cutting and tying off of the umbilical cord. No other event has ever been observed to create a navel. Therefore, a navel is evidence of birth from a womb. Asserting -- with absolutely no evidence of any sort -- that God may have created it for some purpose other than outright deception, would not change the fact that such creation would be, in effect, a deceptive act.

The same goes for just about all of the other examples we've cited here, especially the remains of humans and human artifacts that predate your creation-date.

JohnW, I believe, said that nothing can affect decay rates. Henry says extreme pressure can affect decay rates in some cases. Do you disagree amongst yourselves on this?

Another creationist dodge: "evolutionists don't quite agree on some particulars, therefore they're all wrong on all counts." And it doesn't even come close to being plausible here: we're all agreed that decay rates cannot be affected by any conditions found anywhere on Earth; therefore your argument about decay rates being changed completely fails to support the YEC scenario.

In other words, some have asserted that I have no positive evidence for my position. This isn't true. The evidence, I believe, supports the Bible as a trustworthy source of information on all issues upon which it speaks. This evidence is not physical evidence, primarily, but some of it is more philosophical, etc., in form. Many of you take this to be the same as "no evidence at all," but that is because you simply do not take seriously good, historic, philosophical reasoning. That is an ungrounded bias on your part that prevents you from taking all the facts into consideration. You have convinced yourselves into a way of thinking that automatically exludes certain forms of evidence, and so you do not recognize the evidence for my position.

This is utter nonsense, which I suspect was fed to you by a minister or other propagandist, and which you must be seen repeating lest you lose your church-cred. First, there's no such thing as "philosophical evidence." Second, what you call "evidence" is clearly nothing but an assumption or belief, repeated as a mantra, that the Bible is a legitimate and reliable source of evidence or information; which of course leads to the "conclusion" that the Bible is always right and that pesky planetful of physical evidence to the contrary is wrong. Then, when we refuse to accept your assumption, you simply assert that our arguments are invalid because we're "assuming you're wrong from the start."

That is why I like people like Dawkins and Harris better than the NOMA sorts of approaches.

So you reject the wisdom of countless other Christians who don't think exactly like you, but you're quite cozy with the most extreme atheists, who have nothing but contempt for your kind, and blame people like you for just about every evil known to Mankind. And you agree with a position of theirs, from which they attempt to disprove your religion and everyone else's. That's not just dishonest; it's insane. (It also flatly disproves Dawkins' and Harris' assertions that religious moderates "validate" or "enable" extremists, but that's another subject.)

Reality is one, and so our knowledge must be unified.

Like wow, man, that sounds so deep, I'll have to remember that for my next bio exam. What was the question again?

There's a right way and a wrong way to connect all the various parts; connect them the wrong way, like PC components plugged into each other at random by a drunk clown, and none of it serves any useful purpose at all. People of all faiths have been dealing with these connections for centuries; and you have completely rejected all of that accumualted wisdom.

Forrest (like many others) justifies this a priori assumption by arguing that it's not arbitrary---we've just discovered that naturalism works and supernatural explanations don't. Well, of course a naturalist would think so. Many theists disagree. But since methodological naturalism runs mainstream science, the theistic view is not allowed to be seriously considered anymore.

And what better results have those "many theists" got to show for their efforts? The Burning Times? Hatred of Jews? Witch-hunting? Blaming hurricanes on gay people?

Why does "methodological naturalism run mainstream science?" Because it works, and it's given us a safer, saner, more just and advanced society than the theocratic nincompoops who have tried to overthrow it. That's why so many theists -- the ones you diss and ignore -- support it. (I notice you still haven't commented on those quotes by your fellow Christian, St. Augustine.)

Here are some interesting parallels to the junk one finds on the ID/Creationist websites.

The website of Joe Newman

Joe Newman is like the Energizer Bunny when it comes to huckstering. He uses many of the same snake oil techniques.

I should have said Joe Newman uses the same snake oil techniques as the ID/Creationists, not the Energizer Bunny as it appears to say in my last post (I like the bunny).

By the way, Joe Newman is also discussed at some length in Bob Park's book, Voodoo Science. Apparently Joe has managed to con a lot of money out of EPRI (the Electric Power Research Institute).

He uses many of the same distortions of scientific concepts as do the ID/Creationists, and he plays on the same fears and paranoia.

I may be remembering incorrectly which con artist got money from EPRI. It may have been James Patterson and his "Patterson Cell". There are a lot of these characters.

Sharon Weinberger's book Imaginary Weapons is another good read about how con artists work in environments shrouded in secrecy. One of the heroes she interviewed, Peter Zimmerman, has a recent article on the "Back Page" section of APS News, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2007.

In fact, as long as I am on this topic, (and it is not off topic for what we are discussing; creationism and intelligent design are part of a spectrum of con activity), a very useful antidote to being taken in by con men is to get some insight on how they do their tricks. There are many good books out there, beginning with the work of Martin Gardner.

Con artists have always had good instincts for people's weaknesses, fears, greed, confusions, and other exploitable characteristics. Many of the irresponsible preachers in the fundamentalist sects in effect prepare the soil for this kind of exploitation. So it is not surprising that con artists often gravitate toward people in these congregations.

Re "But since methodological naturalism runs mainstream science,"

Yep, science is based on verifiable evidence. Fancy that.

And being the rudest of the bunch since Sir Toe and Flank aren't here let me say that it's the inconsistancy of religion that leads to a loss of faith rather than the consistancy of science.

Interesting. Far be it for me to derail this most scintillating of threads, but why would that be? Was it a domino effect? Predator spots trapped prey, tries to eat trapped prey, becomes trapped itself, second predator arrives, sees trapped prey, etc.?

Apparently Steveroni has been there also.

Mark writes... So, assuming the typical evolutionary picture, I would expect to see dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era but not earlier or later, humans appearing only late in the Cenozoic era... I would expect (insects) to show up at some early point in the record and then appear fairly equally throughout the later ages of strata. Do you agree with these expectations? If so, is this what we actually find in the fossil record?

Mark, I give you Tiktalik roseae

ICR has responded to my questions. They referred me to a number of articles and a few books. Other than these, my responder gave a bit of an answer to question 1 but referred me to articles for the rest of the answer and for the answer to question 2. There are some advantages to blogs over emailing busy organizations--you can get more immediate answers to specific questions sometimes. I don't know of any creationist blogs, but perhaps Talkorigins functions as an ongoing dialogue? If so, maybe I should try to get in over there to better get the answers of both sides to my specific questions. I've pasted ICR's response below my email if you are interested in seeing it yourselves.

I have looked at the RATE project a bit, but I haven't really understood it yet, mainly due to its very technical nature. It sounds like I need to look back at it. If I understand it correctly, they are claiming to have found evidence of changes in decay rates, or at least of situations that would cause a change of decay rates. This claim is obviously diametrically opposed to your claims that decay rates cannot (except in certain irrelevant circumstances) be changed. Have any of you looked at the RATE stuff in the past? If so, what is your take on it? Of course I know you don't like it, but specifically what problems do you see in it?

As for my question number 1, as you can see below, they did mention hydraulic sorting. In the email itself, and perhaps in some of the articles they referenced (I've looked at some of them briefly) and other articles I have seen, the water-sorting scenario was worked out in more detail. As far as I understand their position at this point, they argue that entire ecosystems would have been buried one on top of the other in the flood. They argue that many animals and plants would tend to be grouped together when they were taken by the flood. They also argue that certain burial patterns would arise from the different abilities of various animals to escape being buried. Interestingly, one or two of the John Morris articles they referenced make the claim that not many land animals would have been buried by the flood but that many of them were probably buried after the flood during the time of the ice age. I had never heard that idea before.

One of Nick Matzke's recommended books has come in--Arthur Strahler's Science and Earth History. I've just begun it. It makes some interesting points about naturalism right at the beginning:

"In its broadest aspect the dispute is over the relative merits of two very different ways of viewing the universe and its contents . . . As to science, its view of the universe can be described as naturalistic, using an adjective that has its historical roots far back in philosophy as explaining all phenomena by strictly natural categories--as opposed to explanations invoking supernatural forces. . . . Taking the creationistic view first, it is simply that the universe was created from nothing--ex nihilo, that is--by a divine creator in ways and for reasons unknowable to humans except, perhaps, through revelation. The second, or naturalistic view, is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption." Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, in a letter to Stahler, wrote this (in the book's second preface): "As described in your book, scientists explain the natural world through natural causes; no miracles or supernatural causes are used. Some of the Intelligent Design proponents, however, want us to alter that by allowing the occasional miracle--the actions of an 'intelligent designer'--to intervene. They don't argue this miracle mongering for all aspects of science, however, just those that have religious implications, like evolution. This assualt on how we do science has grave implications for both the future of education, and even the future of science. We must continually remind the public that restricting ourselves to natural causes works, and that is why we use it. Resorting to direct supernatural cause ('God did it') means that a natural explanation is no longer sought. If not sought, it surely will not be found."

So Stahler, and apparently Scott as well, believe that science is based on the view that God did not create the universe and has never done anything supernatural (beyond regular, predictable, natural laws) in it, and nothing supernatural is a part of the real universe (since if it was, its existence would have to be reckoned with eventually by science--but a naturalistic science assumes it will never be found). In other words, science is based on atheism. It assumes atheism as the foundation of its methodology. Do you all like these definitions?

David, you asked if God copied the mistakes. If I recall correctly from earlier in the conversation, you mean genetic mistakes that have been supposedly passed down through many species from a common ancestor. In a creationist view, then, God would have made various kinds with the same mistakes. I don't know enough to answer your question as of yet. I need to learn more about the nature of these genetic "mistakes."

Talk to you all later,
Mark

Dear Mr. Hausam,

Thank you for contacting ICR regarding the fossil record. The layers of the geologic column represent ecological systems for the most part and in the column we see a trend in that the land animals are usually found towards the top of the surface. People could have escaped burial by floating on debris or boats constructed prior to the Flood. Most of the fossils are those of invertebrates and this is probably due to the fact that land dwellers would have tried to "run-for-the-hills" and escape quick burial (cf. Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood?).

Furthermore, animals would have probably stayed within their own groups, so that the flood swept away and buried group kinds, but very few of various kinds exist. This should not be surprising considering the following information given to us by ICR President Dr. John Morris in his impact article, Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? (BTG No. 37b January 1992):

First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites---mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs) --- amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.

Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.

Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age--- a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)

In addition to the above information, we read in Where do the Fossils of Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Animals Fit Into the Bible Record?,

It is significant that fossils, especially of large animals such as the dinosaur, must be buried quickly or they will not be preserved at all. Furthermore, the sediments entrapping them must harden into stone fairly quickly, inhibiting the action of air, bacteria, etc., or else they will soon be decomposed and disappear. The very nature of fossilization thus seems to require catastrophism. Most certainly must this be true of the great dinosaur beds, the massive fish-bearing shales, the tremendous deposits of elephants and other animals in the arctic regions, and the great numbers of other "fossil graveyards" with which the geologic column abounds.

***

This must have included the dinosaurs and all other terrestrial animals, except those preserved in Noah's ark. Evidence is available (in the form of human and dinosaur footprints in the same formation, of dinosaur pictographs left by primitive tribes in Africa and North America, and of the universally prevalent traditions of dragons among ancient peoples) that dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with early man. The geologic column, rightly interpreted, therefore, does not tell of a long, gradual evolution of life over the geologic ages, but rather its polar opposite---the rapid extinction of life as a result of God's judgment on the antediluvians when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:6).

Therefore, the Genesis flood (which evolutionists outright reject) and flood-caused ice age best explain the fossilization process. Hydrodynamic (weight and shape) sorting, a small percentage of land-dwelling animals, along with animal groupings, would result in what we see in the fossil record.

ICR scientists have found that major dating methods have revealed a consistent age of only thousands of years for the Earth. An excellent example of ICR research about age indicators is the RATE Project. This project has involved experts in geology and physics, using their combined efforts to evaluate conventional dating methods that have been used by evolutionists to declare billions of years for the age of the earth. This eight-year project has used hundreds of thousands of dollars in its ongoing research, and saw its completion in November, 2005 when ICR hosted the RATE conference on November 5th, 2005. The RATE scientists presented their findings to over 2300 attendees.

The RATE scientists have revealed the discordance, or difference between the different conventional dating methods. For example, the uranium-helium dating method has revealed that this process shows approx. 6000 (+ or ---) 2000 years. This is unconventional, but more accurate because the others were subject to accelerated decay, whereas the helium diffusion, or 'leaking', is much more consistent. The fact that there is still a huge amount of helium in the Earth at all means that the rocks are much younger than the millions to billions of years touted by the evolutionists. There would be little or no helium in the Earth if the evolutionary time line was accurate.

ICR scientists presented RATE findings before the scientific community in Pittsburg, PA. More recently, Dr. Baumgardner and other ICR staff members, attended the 2003 AGU convention and presented the results of their RATE research before about 10,000 scientists in the San Francisco, CA (as discussed in the PDA version of the Feb, 2004 Acts and Facts, page 2), using three examples of RATE research, following the AGU convention poster guidelines.

Dr. Baumgardner has been attending the American Geophysical Union (AGU) convention for several years --- wearing an ICR name badge. Any rebuttal to Dr. Baumgardner regarding RATE results was not given. In fact, he tells of how he was commended for his work in RATE and in his studies in his computer modeling about plate tectonics in a New Scientist interview, which he gave in the December 9, 2006 issue. In a question regarding his interactions with other colleagues, he said,

At Los Alamos [where he worked for twenty years] I found that my colleagues gave me a lot of respect. Not that they agreed with me, but they respected me for explaining and defending my position. A story about my work in US News & World Report in 1997 made more people aware of where I stood. About two weeks after that article appeared, I attended a workshop with about a hundred geophysics colleagues. There were two senior faculty from Harvard. One of them commended me for making clear what I believe and why.

Many scientists were astonished to hear of diamonds containing carbon-14 (not measurable beyond 100,000 years) within them! Diamonds are supposedly millions of years old, according to ICR scientist John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics. The ICR scientists were commended by many secular scientists who encouraged them to continue their research.

In addition, RATE scientists have heard that evolution scientific organizations are taking an interest in various dating techniques that would confirm ICR's results (specifics not available). However, because this research comes at a high cost, results may be slow in coming. And, as you might guess, research results that confirm a young earth may not be on the top of evolutionist research projects --- or the priority list of those who would provide such research monies.

(From the main ICR RATE online information page)

There's exciting new scientific evidence which supports the Biblical teaching of a young earth. Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project. For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, a team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth. This scientific research project is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

ICR ARTICLES

Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386)
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376)
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366)
by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364)
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353)
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352)
by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309)
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Evidence for a Young World (#384)
by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Thousands . . . Not Millions Products

The RATE Project concluded on November 5, 2005. Three products resulted from this project:

1. Thousands . . . Not Millions --- A layman's book about dating methods research.

2. Thousands . . . Not Millions --- A layman's video about dating methods research.

3. The RATE book, 2nd Edition --- A technical book about dating methods research.

NOTE: Free download of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 1 can be obtained at

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf.

These products are available as of the November 5, 2005 Conference. You can order them online or by phone at 1 (800) 628 - 7640.

Best regards,

Bruce Wood

Public Information Office

Institute for Creation Research

So Stahler, and apparently Scott as well, believe that science is based on the view that God did not create the universe and has never done anything supernatural (beyond regular, predictable, natural laws) in it, and nothing supernatural is a part of the real universe (since if it was, its existence would have to be reckoned with eventually by science---but a naturalistic science assumes it will never be found). In other words, science is based on atheism. It assumes atheism as the foundation of its methodology. Do you all like these definitions?

I should probably add a qualifier, and correct a typo while I'm at it.
Make that "...without calling on untested, in principle unverifiable forces or agents"

The RATE project is utter crap. There's a reason they never published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can find plenty of rebuttals on the web.

Let's assume for a second, however, that we don't already know RATE is crap. Why would non-constant decay rates correspond perfectly to ice core data? To tree ring data? To DNA mutation rate studies? How do non-constant decay rates explain the order of the fossil record? The many geological structures and processes that would take millions of years to form?

These are the questions you should be asking yourself. As many people on this thread have pointed out numerous times, the evidence all correlates.

Finally, the ICR's hydraulic/hydrodynamic sorting response should tell you about the quality of their evidence and of their reasoning. Anyone who actually takes two minutes to critically think through the predictions of hydraulic sorting can poke gaping holes in it. The ICR relies on an audience that isn't willing to question or to independently investigate the evidence.

Thank you for contacting ICR regarding the fossil record. The layers of the geologic column represent ecological systems for the most part and in the column we see a trend in that the land animals are usually found towards the top of the surface. People could have escaped burial by floating on debris or boats constructed prior to the Flood. Most of the fossils are those of invertebrates and this is probably due to the fact that land dwellers would have tried to "run-for-the-hills" and escape quick burial (cf. Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood?). Furthermore, animals would have probably stayed within their own groups, so that the flood swept away and buried group kinds, but very few of various kinds exist. This should not be surprising considering the following information given to us by ICR President Dr. John Morris in his impact article, Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? (BTG No. 37b January 1992): First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites---mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs) --- amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans. Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.

— Mark, quoting ICR

What I would like to see is a set of diagrams containing individual "maps" or diagrams of particular examples of the fossil record. When we talk about "the fossil record," we are of course abstracting general patterns from a lot of specific examples. I know that all the specific examples of strata are not exactly the same--some are missing various ages, some are inverted in various ways, etc. It would help me to see for myself some actual examples (a good number) of strata so that I can do a bit of my own generalizing as to patterns, etc. Do any of you know of any place where I can find something like this?

How often do we find strata or fossils that are "out of order" in the fossil record, such as an older strata on top of a younger one, fossils out of place in various ways, a single object looking as if it was naturally buried through various layers of strata (like that tree I've often seen pictures of--you probably know what I am talking about)? Can any of you give me some particular examples of the sorts of things we see and how frequently they occur?

It would obviously be hard for ICR or any other organization to do lab tests on hydraulic sorting in the particular situation contemplated in the global flood. You would have to have an entire, probably tropical, ecosystem and then simulate an unescapable, enormously powerful, overwhelming flood. Perhaps something like this might be seen, at least to some degree, if there was intense flooding of a jungle on a tropical island somewhere. I know that ICR has done some experimentation with how sediments disturbed in water would naturally sort. They claim that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens gave us new information about catastrophic sorting (some of which involved water, though not all) that conformed to creationist predictions and indicated patterns of sorting that made appear more credible some of the creationist ideas of the sorting of things during and after the flood.

Hydraulic sorting, and related issues, is something I need to think more about. On the surface, it seems absurd. Wouldn't random flows of water over random surfaces lead mainly to random jumbles rather than predictable, ordered patterns? But nature can often be tricky and more orderly than one would expect.

I wish ICR had given me a more specific answer on the correlations between radiometric dating and the order of fossils in the strata. The claim of correlation in general is defintiely a major thing I need to continue to look into. I've always thought that that seemed like a crucial issue.

CJO, the reason I said that the methodological naturalism of Stahler and Scott is basically an assumption of atheism is that it seems to rule out any supernatural being or effect ever existing in the universe. Stahler explicitly said that the naturalism that undergirds science assumes that the universe came into being without supernatural agency, as opposed to the creationist view of the universe being created ex nihilo by God. Also, since only natural causes are allowed as explanations of anything, this implies the assumption that only natural processes, as opposed to supernatural breaks into the natural processes, have ever done anything in the history of the universe. So God did not create the universe nor has he done anything in it since. Does this leave room for God to exist somewhere outside the universe, never interacting in it? Well, if science ever studies such an area, it will assume that there are only natural processes operating, and so God will be assumed not to exist there either. Science, in principle, will never recognize God as a real object. It assumes that God is not a part of reality as a real, objective being. Stahler's claim is that everything in the observable universe can be explained without reference to God. This is a very naturalistic claim. Theism has historically insisted that the universe cannot be explained apart from God. God is eminently observable, according to classical theism, because he is a logically necessary deduction from everything that is observed. The very idea that "God did it" would be a science stopper is a naturalistic assumption. "God did it" would not be a science stopper if God actually did "do it." It would be an important recognition of reality, necessary to truly understand it. "God did it" is only a science stopper if you assume that God never did "do it." What if you were doing archaeology and found an artifact. You were about to identify it as being produced by a certain ancient tribe, but your companion stopped you, saying, "You can't do that! Saying 'people in the ancient tribe did it' is a science stopper. If you stop looking for a natural cause and just say that 'people did it,' you will never find the natural, or scientific, explanation." If God is a real being, as real as people in ancient tribes, he can be just as legitimately appealed to in scientific explanations. Naturalists and some others assert that God is in principle unverifiable or unobservable. We theists disagree, saying that God is supremely verifiable and observable. I agree that we should limit our investigations to verifiable and observable phenomena and causal explanations. Where we disagree is whether everything labelled "supernatural" is unverifiable and unobservable.

Talk to you all later,

Mark

Mark,
You're talking past my point. "God did it" is no better in epistemological terms than "I have no idea."

The problem with your appeal to archaeology for an example is the corollary. Saying "people of an ancient tribe did it" is a science beginner! Where did they live? What did they eat? What did they use this thing for? All these questions might lead to fruitful lines of inquiry. Contrast with "why did God make the Grand Canyon so big?" as a corollary to "God did it" in this instance. There's nowhere to go.

Given the history of our conversation, I see no reason to think you'll find this compelling, so let me approach the issue in a more Socratic fashion: What are the goals of a non-materialistic, or theistic, science? Is it your feeling that we'll actually gain greater explanatory depth of empirical matters? Or should science become more like a checklist, where once we are confident that "God did it," we cross it off, and go on to the next item, never to revisit our previously answered questions? What can theistic science acheive that methodological naturalism (mute, remember, on ultimate questions) cannot?

What I would like to see is a set of diagrams containing individual "maps" or diagrams of particular examples of the fossil record. When we talk about "the fossil record," we are of course abstracting general patterns from a lot of specific examples. I know that all the specific examples of strata are not exactly the same---some are missing various ages, some are inverted in various ways, etc. It would help me to see for myself some actual examples (a good number) of strata so that I can do a bit of my own generalizing as to patterns, etc. Do any of you know of any place where I can find something like this?

— Mark

How often do we find strata or fossils that are "out of order" in the fossil record, such as an older strata on top of a younger one, fossils out of place in various ways, a single object looking as if it was naturally buried through various layers of strata (like that tree I've often seen pictures of---you probably know what I am talking about)? Can any of you give me some particular examples of the sorts of things we see and how frequently they occur?

— Mark

It would obviously be hard for ICR or any other organization to do lab tests on hydraulic sorting in the particular situation contemplated in the global flood. You would have to have an entire, probably tropical, ecosystem and then simulate an unescapable, enormously powerful, overwhelming flood. Perhaps something like this might be seen, at least to some degree, if there was intense flooding of a jungle on a tropical island somewhere. I know that ICR has done some experimentation with how sediments disturbed in water would naturally sort. They claim that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens gave us new information about catastrophic sorting (some of which involved water, though not all) that conformed to creationist predictions and indicated patterns of sorting that made appear more credible some of the creationist ideas of the sorting of things during and after the flood.

— Mark

Hydraulic sorting, and related issues, is something I need to think more about. On the surface, it seems absurd. Wouldn't random flows of water over random surfaces lead mainly to random jumbles rather than predictable, ordered patterns? But nature can often be tricky and more orderly than one would expect.

— Mark

I wish ICR had given me a more specific answer on the correlations between radiometric dating and the order of fossils in the strata. The claim of correlation in general is defintiely a major thing I need to continue to look into. I've always thought that that seemed like a crucial issue.

— Mark

Needing it to have happened because of one's interpretation of a book does not constitute empirical data.

Can you imagine a classroom full of high school students having to slog through all this crap in order to find out who is telling the truth?

This is just what "Teach the Controversy" is all about. Having students trying to decide "Which one is the liar", and then getting bogged down in philosophical knots. And when the school year is all over, everyone's head is spinning and everyone gets to decide for themselves what they believe.

No child gets left behind any other. They all get left behind equally.

I have looked at the RATE project a bit, but I haven't really understood it yet, mainly due to its very technical nature

I wish ICR had given me a more specific answer on the correlations between radiometric dating and the order of fossils in the strata. The claim of correlation in general is definitely a major thing I need to continue to look into. I've always thought that that seemed like a crucial issue.

Stahler's claim is that everything in the observable universe can be explained without reference to God. This is a very naturalistic claim. Theism has historically insisted that the universe cannot be explained apart from God.

— Mark

AIG says... As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone.

over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures.... Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals.

what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age--- a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits.

(And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)

The RATE scientists have revealed the discordance, or difference between the different conventional dating methods.

It would obviously be hard for ICR or any other organization to do lab tests on hydraulic sorting in the particular situation contemplated in the global flood

As an outside observer up until this point I hope I'm not going too far in saying that it looks like the debate has become pointless. Mark has rationalized away many points that have been brought up, and stalled on the others, saying he'll look into them later.
He claims that the Bible is supposed to be interpreted as literal truth. When many vague or outright incorrect passages are quoted, then that view is changed to saying that many passages aren't specific, but the IMPORTANT ones can be interpreted literally. Except the occasions where they can't (Mary not being a virgin but a young woman, a word with many possible interpretations), in which case the religiously faithful just KNOW how to interpret them.

Many scientific concepts have been brought up. I have another "appearance of history" to mention, knowing full well that it's pointless. In astronomy there are examples of galaxies that have collided. The collisions do not destroy the galaxies because of the scales involved and how much empty space still exists in them despite their looking solid in our telescopes. The two galaxies do interact with each other though, distorting their shapes. We're left with things with look completely unlike standard galactic models. Sometimes the two galaxies are still together, sometimes we can see a single galaxy that shows evidence of a past collision.

These galaxies are millions of light years away. Therefore the light itself would have taken longer to reach us than the creationist age of the universe. The first rationalization says that God would have plugged the light gap, inserting the missing light so that we'd have a sky full of stars to look at. We mustn't ask why he didn't just create the universe with a Big Bang and let it evolve naturally, according to the model that we have, we have to assume that he went to great trouble to defeat the same natural laws he, presumably, created, in order to make his new creation work quickly.

But in these collision remnants we have another example of appearance of history, not just age. The galaxies show the after effects of a collision. Because of the time scales and distances involved God would have had to place these galaxies into position already distorted. Ignoring the scale of time on which these interactions take place, the fact remains that it would take longer for the light from these galaxies to reach our planet than the universe is supposed to have existed by the Creationist time-line. So it doesn't even matter how long it takes for the interactions to occur, we're left with the fact that God would have had to create the galaxies in a shape that shows the after effects of a collision and then placed the light into position so that it reached us before the light actually emitted from the galaxies had enough time to get here.
We're seeing the apparent history of a galactic collision that CAN'T have happened within 6000 years unless it was created in the post collision form, creating a false history.
The light itself is argued to be the appearance of age. But the distorted post collision forms of the galaxies that we see in the light are the appearance of history.
If a preexisting scar on Adam's body would have been a sufficient example of appearance of history (how convenient that the only offered example is of a mythical character in a mythical location that can't even begin to be verified by modern science) then the disruption of an entire galaxy, essentially a scar of galactic proportions, should fit into the same category.

Let me make the rationalization of that easy. It's not difficult to predict how it'll go. If fully formed tree rings can be argued to exist because they're pretty, then perhaps God just wanted us to have pretty things to look at in the sky too.

Basically, we've ended up with the "truth is beauty, beauty is truth" argument. The entire appearance of age argument is simply a dodge. One might as well suggest that a scar on Adam would have given him a look of rugged handsomeness.

I suggest that further scientific discussion is pointless. If he doesn't fall back on the "pretty galaxies" defense, then the other option is to say that it's an interesting suggestion, he'll have to look into it.
So basically, all he has to do is get himself a degree in astronomy, physics, paleontology, geology.. and any other discipline which has a bearing on the issue.
We're to assume that he intends to look into all that in good time, but in the mean time he's still interested in seeking out new evidence. Despite the fact that he already has a lifetime's worth of science to research.

I'm all for preaching tolerance and trying to work with people to build bridges, but at some point a limit has to be set. Perhaps at least he should be treated (by those who have this sort of a background) as a student. Require him to demonstrate an advancement on previously mentioned concepts before continuing on the path of knowledge. Only in this case we don't need evidence of mastery of the subject, just evidence of basic sincerity.

I second Nomad's statement. Unless, and until, Mark can show the beginnings of intellectual honesty, and address the countless points that he has so far steadfastly ignored, there's really no point in continuing the argument. He's completely ignored nearly all of the points I've tried to make, so I, for one, am pretty much done with him, other than to address a few of his latest points...

What I would like to see is a set of diagrams containing individual "maps" or diagrams of particular examples of the fossil record...

Gee, Mark, ever wonder why your creationist sources haven't provided such information?

If God is a real being, as real as people in ancient tribes, he can be just as legitimately appealed to in scientific explanations.

Please give us an example of a scientific explanation (any science), achieved by appealing to your God -- or any other God(ess) for that matter -- that has withstood the tests of time and verification and proven superior to a purely naturalistic alternative explanation.

Here's a fun intellectual exercise: let me rewrite the above sentence for you, Mark, and see if you agree with it:

"If God is a real being, as real as people in ancient tribes, he can be just as legitimately appealed to in criminal investigations."

If someone you love were found murdered, and the officer in charge of the investigation said that to you, how would you react? If you agreed with it, where would the investigation go from there? And if you disagreed, would that make you an atheist?

Thanks for the references on some of the oddities of the fossil record, and for all the recent responses.

I'm going to continue to look at the hydraulic sorting idea. Thamk you for suggesting some very good questions to ask about it.

CJO and Raging Bee: I suppose my real objection to methodological naturalism simply comes from the fact that I am not a naturalist. I believe that God exists, and is necessary to explain the existence of the entire universe and everything in it. I also believe he has supernaturally influenced the affairs of the universe in various ways at various times, particularly at creation, the resurrection of Christ, etc. I don't want to stop exploring the universe--I just want the exploring to take into account the most important aspects of that universe. Understanding the existence and nature of God and the modes of his interaction with our universe is one of the most interesting areas of exploration. The naturalistic approach assumes that all of that either doesn't exist or is outside of all knowable reality (which seems to amount to the same thing). To sum up, I would say that one cannot truly understand this universe in anything like an adequate way unless one understands it in relation to God, because that is how it exists and is an essential part of its nature. Most of the time, God ordains history to occur in regular, relatively predictable patterns (what we recognize as "natural law"), and so even a naturalist who accepts natural law (although he cannot account for its existence) will get along fine in most of his/her science. But the supernatural is an important part of reality as a whole and should not be overlooked. I do not want a criminal investigation to normally look for specific revelation or miraculous intervention, because I believe that normally there isn't any. Natural laws (i.e. God's regular pattern of working in history) will do fine most of the time. Basically, this comes down to a difference between a naturalistic and historic theist way of looking at the universe, as Stahler pointed out very well and clearly.

For those of you who are concerned that this conversation might be a pointless waste of time to continue, by all means don't continue it. I will take whatever feedback anyone wants to give me, but no one is forced to continue to interact with me. It's your choice. I'm not offended if you have other things to do.

Talk to you later,
Mark

Mark: if you're not a naturalist, but instead subscribe to a "historic theist" outlook on the Universe, then why have you refused to address the historic and theist objections to your assertions, which I and others have repeatedly made?

What about those quotes by St. Augistine? As a Christian, how do you respond to his theistic outlook?

And if your outlook on the Universe is more theistic than naturalistic, why are you so quick to brush off the wisdom and sincerity of other theists? Why have you (twice) explicitly said you prefer the opinions of anti-theists such as Dawkins and Harris to those of other Christian theists?

Mark,
You stated (Comment #182962) that supernatural might be verifiable and observable.
Do you mean verifiable in a "scientific" sense?
Let me reproduce here one way of looking at a scientific theory.

Lenny Flank, who used to post on Panda's Thumb, has said repeatedly that methodological naturalism is NOT a necessary requirement for a scientific theory. He presented an iterative process in five steps to end up with a scientific theory. The process involves building hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. An additional requirement is that the hypothesis is able to predict phenomena, yet to be observed, to serve its purpose. If the hypothesis gives consistently correct predictions in a large number of occasions (or in the vast majority of them), and even better, if it does so regarding a range of phenomena, it could well be on its way to becoming a scientific theory. During this process, it is fully allowed to use supernatural agents in the hypotheses. Methodological naturalism is not required a priori.

I wonder, if others agree on this assessment.

Methodological naturalism is a hallmark of any contemporary scientific theory. Why is it so?
The main problem with supernatural agents seems to be that it is very difficult to make verifiable predictions based on them.
Astrology maintains that planets and other celestial bodies affect our lives, and astrology further claims to be able to predict the way the effects are seen in our lives. Here, we have a hypothesis (or a set of hypotheses) and we also have more or less verifiable predictions. Clearly, astrology is a potentially scientific theory. However, astrology fails to predict anything in any consistent way, so it must, at least, be revised before it could be considered to be of any use in understanding the world.
Intelligent Design presents a hypothesis that can be deemed fully scientific. Unfortunately, ID lacks any predictions based on the hypothesis. We did know already that we are likely to encounter phenomena that we do not understand. Sadly, ID falls short of astrology, as science is concerned.
On the other hand, hypotheses limited to only natural causes have produced several useful theories. This does not mean that they came out easy (just take the five steps), but often required the work of many generations of scientists --- and the work is still going on.
In my opinion, methodological naturalism in science is a purely practical choice, rather than a philosophical one.
Philosophical naturalism (ontological naturalism) is a philosophical and religious position, which has nothing to do with the science I tried to depict above.

Mark,
Science is not against gods. Science seeks knowledge about the world around us.
Science is not based on atheistic philosophy.
Some of the scientists are theists and some are atheists. Still they get the same results.

Everyone else,
Mark is just one man.
You represent high education and extensive experience in several fields of science.
You can not (and quite clearly you do not) expect him to catch up all that in a couple of weeks.
You have made several excellent points, some of which Mark has already acknowledged.
It is not necessary for you to prove your superiority in scientific matters all the time.

Personally, I would like to use this opportunity to listen to what Mark has to say.

Regards
Eric

As I continue to think about it, I'm thinking maybe this would be a good time to bring this thread to a close. I have very much enjoyed and appreciated the personal feedback everyone has given me, but I think my progress in investigating the physical evidence is getting to the point where it is just too slow a process to continue to warrant an entire thread on Panda's Thumb being devoted to me. I greatly appreciate Nick's giving me this opportunity, and all the time you all have taken to help me in my investigations (and for debating with me about other, related things).

I am going to go over to Talkorigins, as many have suggested, and see about getting into the conversation there. I would feel more comfortable being a watcher and occasional participant in a thread not devoted entirely to talking to me. Also, I am hoping to find more creationists so that I can see a more two-sided conversation. I may also get my own blog as well. If I do that, I'll come back and post the address here in case anyone would like to visit me there. Meanwhile, hopefully I'll continue to see some of you at Talkorigins. I get the impression many of you visit there occasionally. And, of course, anyone is welcome to email me at mhausam@hotmail.com.

It's been fun! I will continue to research. I am reading Stahler's book and looking up various articles, and will continue to do so. Thank you all for all your feedback! Hopefully I'll talk to you again soon in another setting.

Mark

I don't want to stop exploring the universe---I just want the exploring to take into account the most important aspects of that universe. Understanding the existence and nature of God and the modes of his interaction with our universe is one of the most interesting areas of exploration.

But the supernatural is an important part of reality as a whole and should not be overlooked.

Of course, I know this thread wasn't created ONLY with me in mind. So I am not thinking I am shutting down the thread per se. But, in effect, the conversation seems to be limited to a lot of evolutionists and me about the details of the physical evidence. That is what I think might not be the most productive thing to continue at this point. I'd rather be part of a larger conversation since I have so much to learn.

Eric, I didn't see your post before I posted my previous one. You bring up some interesting points. I don't think I'll try to start a conversation about them here, but please feel free to email me if you want to talk further. I would very much enjoy it. A one-on-one conversation would be manageable. I do understand the ambiguity over whether science is a priori committed to methodological naturalism. Most scientists, like Scott and Stahler, usually say it is. Some have said it isn't. I think what is causing this confusion is that most scientists agree that science functions naturalistically, but they don't think of this as an arbitrary position but one based on experience that has proved naturalism to work best. Now, theists, including biblical Christians, agree that going by the natural laws works the vast majority of the time for explaining and manipulating the physical world (if you leave out the theist claim that those natural laws, and the universe itself, cannot be explained apart from God). But we think that some things have happened and will happen supernaturally, and we would object to those being discounted. Biblically, we expect supernaturalism to have played a role at the creation of the world, in some events through history (particularly the history of Israel), the resurrection of Christ, the end of the world, etc. We expect supernaturalism in these places/times because we believe we have good reason to think that God exists and that the Bible is a real revelation from God. Also, as I've mentioned, we believe that any attempt to explain anything in the universe holistically apart from its connection to God is going to result in a fundamental distortion of what that thing is.

So what we have here, as Stahler pointed out, is a conflict between two very different ways of looking at the universe as a whole, and different epistemologies as well. There will be many situations where that won't make a difference. But it will in some areas. One place it can make a big difference is in the interpretation of physical data about the origin of the universe, life and species (I almost said the universe, life and everything--been reading Douglas Adams too much!). A person coming to such data with a starting point of acceptance of the Bible as containing a literal history of creation, or even with simply a belief in theism, will or might have different expectations leading to a different interpretation of the evidence that is there than a person coming with the expectation that only natural causes played a role in origins. That doesn't mean that the physical evidence cannot falsify one view or the other, but it will lead to different takes on things where the evidence could conceivably lead in different directions depending on what seems possible or likely depending on one's expectations based on one's broader worldview.

OK, I ended up getting into the conversation in spite of myself! If anyone wants to continue to discuss this with me, please email me. If more than one of you want to, we could have an email conversation involving as many as are interested. I don't mind talking to more than one person at once, but I would like to do it in a setting that isn't geared towards a focus on my progress in sorting through the details of the physical evidence and that seems to imply an expectation that I will be able to move faster at that than I am in fact able to.

Mark

CJO and Raging Bee: I suppose my real objection to methodological naturalism simply comes from the fact that I am not a naturalist.

I believe that God exists, and is necessary to explain the existence of the entire universe and everything in it.

I also believe he has supernaturally influenced the affairs of the universe in various ways at various times, particularly at creation, the resurrection of Christ, etc. I don't want to stop exploring the universe---I just want the exploring to take into account the most important aspects of that universe.

Understanding the existence and nature of God and the modes of his interaction with our universe is one of the most interesting areas of exploration.

The naturalistic approach assumes that all of that either doesn't exist or is outside of all knowable reality (which seems to amount to the same thing).

To sum up, I would say that one cannot truly understand this universe in anything like an adequate way unless one understands it in relation to God, because that is how it exists and is an essential part of its nature.

Most of the time, God ordains history to occur in regular, relatively predictable patterns (what we recognize as "natural law"), and so even a naturalist who accepts natural law (although he cannot account for its existence) will get along fine in most of his/her science.

But the supernatural is an important part of reality as a whole and should not be overlooked.

I do not want a criminal investigation to normally look for specific revelation or miraculous intervention, because I believe that normally there isn't any.

Natural laws (i.e. God's regular pattern of working in history) will do fine most of the time.

Basically, this comes down to a difference between a naturalistic and historic theist way of looking at the universe, as Stahler pointed out very well and clearly.

I have been out of town and not able to contribute to the thread much, or even read all of it, but apparently it has evolved from mudslinging into a reasonable dialog with a young-earth creationist, Mark Hausam, who actually wants to discuss the issues. Mark has pretty much acknowledged that his belief is based on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible, and that he is willing to invoke miraculous "appearance of age" arguments to explain away physical evidence that conflicts with his interpretation of the Bible. Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism. With the appearance-of-age argument, they have already admitted that the physical evidence on its face is totally against them, and that they have admitted that Last Thursdayism is as well-supported as young-earth creationism (Last Tuesdayism, of course, is unspeakable heresy). Once they've gone this far, most people can't maintain the necessary doublethink for very long (Paul Nelson, John Mark Reynolds, Kurt Wise, and Marcus Ross are about the only exceptions, and they each have the peculiar ability to remorsely drown their scientific conscience whenever reality intrudes upon their textual interpretation).

— Matzke

Mark,
Thanks for your reply
About the ambiguity over whether science is a priori committed to methodological naturalism or not, I would like to hear some comments.

In my opinion, science can say very little about supernatural, including the acts described in the Bible.

You mention that different starting points may lead to different interpretations. That is all well. It happens all the time. However, it would be very interesting, if the different starting points led to different verifiable predictions. The winner would most certainly be published, no matter what the starting point was.

I thank you for your generous offer to continue the discussion by email. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in interpreting the Bible. The details of the physical evidence, I am sure, can be more effectively sorted out using other sources.

Glen,
I think your tone is unwarranted.
I feel that PT is most happy, when discussing amongst themselves.
This thread was a good idea. Unfortunately, I joined rather late for a discussion.
That happens.

Regards
Eric

Glen, I think your tone is unwarranted. I feel that PT is most happy, when discussing amongst themselves. This thread was a good idea. Unfortunately, I joined rather late for a discussion. That happens.

The biggest reason to think not is that the whole "naturalism" apologetic has always been his "ace-in-the-hole," and indeed, this nearly impenetrable barrier (for many, especially those who don't know science) has been used very effectively to ward off science in the ID and creo camps.

Eric worries.... In my opinion, science can say very little about supernatural, including the acts described in the Bible.

Eric further writes... However, it would be very interesting, if the different starting points led to different verifiable predictions.

The winner would most certainly be published, no matter what the starting point was.

stevaroni,

I do agree that science says absolutely nothing about the supernatural.
No disagreement here.

Also, I do agree that science can help in estimating the plausibility of given acts, especially the ones that are likely to leave a trace.
Again, no disagreement.

Please, do comment on the methodological naturalism as a necessary ingredient of any accepted scientific theory.

Regards
Eric

Please, do comment on the methodological naturalism as a necessary ingredient of any accepted scientific theory.

Please, do comment on the methodological naturalism as a necessary ingredient of any accepted scientific theory.

But if I can then conclusively demonstrate this skill, that is, in a repeatable experiment I can actually prove that I can do what I say I can do, maybe by invoking sight-at-a-distance or something, mainstream science would eventually accept that such powers exist.

... of course, that is even taking the fact that no scientist EVER has even used the term to describe the process of utilizing the scientific method, and the term "methodological naturalism" IIRC actually arose out of creationist circles to begin with (someone on PT, probably Nick, pointed this out a while back).

It was one of those very early:

"I don't think that means what you think it means" type of things.

Sir_Toejam,
Of course, the requirement is that the hypothesis under study does produce verifiable predictions. Then, the predictions of the said hypothesis can be tested irrespective of the assumptions made. It does not matter whether the explaining agents involve fairies or quantum phenomena. The only crucial requirement is to be able to produce verifiable predictions. The verifiability implicitly assumes that, in principle, everyone can verify it, provided the necessary equipment is at hand and that the person knows how to use it properly. For example, human intuition as a verification method is a bit dubious, since it is highly unlikely that everyone would come to the same conclusion.

stevaroni,
So, methodological materialism is not a priori necessary in science. I would imagine that natural explanations would be sought for, as you said, because they have the record of working best.
Anyway, naturalism, even methodological naturalism, does not seem to be a philosophical cornerstone in devising a scientific theory. Naturalism seems to be more important in verifying the predictions.

On occasions, science does have the tendency to introduce unknown agents in their hypotheses. An unexpected expansion rate of the universe was detected. Now scientists seem to be studying the properties of dark energy. About the only thing we know about dark energy is that it is unlike anything we know about. I am aware that giving a name to a problem does help to address it more easily. Also, I am aware that the unexpected expansion rate is the actual question under study and also other hypotheses, apart from the dark energy, has been proposed. However, to a layman dark energy does appear a bit supernatural.

Regards
Eric

Hello.

Perhaps I can jump in here without re-focusing the thread on me. Just think of me as a newcomer! : ) This new conversation is just too interesting to resist.

I agree on the requirement of verifiability and observability, etc. That is indeed the scientific method, and it should be the method in all forms of knowledge. Nothing should ever be believed except on sufficient evidence.

It seems to me that science works in two different directions. Sometimes you build a hypothesis based on observations, then the hypoethesis makes predictions, and if the predictions come true the hypothesis is confirmed. Other times, science involves logical deduction to devise an explanation for observed phenomena. In this latter category, we can include things like deducing the existence of planets from their gravitational effects on start. You can deduce quite a bit about the planet from its effects without ever directly seeing it. Probably, the more you can combine these two forms of scientific thinking, the better, because confirmation of your hypothesis or theory grows.

Theists have historically believed that you can deduce the existence of God from observations of the physical world, in a similar way that planets are deduced from gravitationsl effects. Thomas Aquinas's cosmological arguments are a good example of this. This is both verifiable and falsifiable, because it is either the case that God can in fact be logically deduced from the universe or he cannot. Now, whether or not this is a good argument or not, it does seem to be a scientific argument. It is using the same methods often used in science, and all good thinking. Richard Dawkins acknowledges the hypothesis of God to be a scientific hypothesis, although, of course, he thinks it is a bad one.

When we talk about methodological naturalism, I wonder if we are not to some degree being confused a bit by different usages of terminology. For example, someone said that if a "supernatural" object were observed and explained, it would no longer be "supernatural" but "natural." Perhaps you all are using "supernatural" to mean "unverifiable" or "beyond any observable connection with the observable universe." In that case, I would say that, as I intened the idea, God would not be a supernatural being but a natural one.

In other words, the claim of theists is that the existence of God is verifiable by logical deduction (a form of scientific methodology). We could restate this in reverse by saying that the existence of God is necessary to explain the observable universe. If we put it this way, we could say that the existence of the observable universe is a prediction of "the God hypothesis," but since we all already know about and accept the observable universe, this sounds like a strange way of putting it.

If the existence of God is established as a valid conclusion from the evidence, then other things become rational and more probable, such as the possibility of revelation from God. We would then need to examine claims of revelation to see if any can be rationally verified to be such. In my view, the Bible meets that qualification.

Whether you agree with my views or not (and I have not attempted here to argue my positions so much as to describe them), I (and most theists) am claiming to use rational, scientific methodology to establish the existence of God the existence of revelation, etc. I do not claim blind "faith" as a basis for anything I hold. So the only question is whether my scientific arguments are good or bad. Here's a question: As I have described my methodology in coming to the conclusion of God and revelation, would you say I am using (again, well or poorly) methodological naturalism? The answer to that question will probably tell us quite a bit about the meaining of that phrase.

Mark

Mark: your reference to the possibility of "other creationists" joining you in debating the issues got me thinking...Where are those other creationists? This is a well-known blog, and creationists have come here quite often with impunity; so why have they not come to this particular thread to join you in supporting your point of view?

Daniel Adelsek and "k" came here at the beginning, identified themselves as Christians, and then vanished after their arguments or questions were politely but firmly addressed. Then FL dropped by only to try to warn you to run away from the debate. Then he, too, buggered off. And Salvador Cordova, a self-proclaimed YEC, hasn't even made a peep here -- probably because he's been caught too often in too many lies already, and knows he has no credibility here (and would probably only embarrass you anyway).

So who, exactly, do you identify as "fellow creationists" anyway? Ken Ham, whose AIG is a laughingstock? Kent Hovind, now serving ten years for tax fraud? Cordova, whose unctuous dishonesty earned him the nickname "Wormtongue" and who consistently runs away as soon as he's called upon to back up any of his assertions? The right-wing politicians and activists who routinely blame evolution for just about every evil known to Mankind? Is this the kind of company you want to keep? Can you trust them to support you in an adult debate, in a way that would make you proud?

Tell us this honestly: can you really look at the behavior of other high-profile creationists, and tell us with a straight face that they are behaving in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus? If your side is the right one, then why do so many people on your side behave as badly as they do?

On to your latest post...

When we talk about methodological naturalism, I wonder if we are not to some degree being confused a bit by different usages of terminology.

That's quite possible, given that you've called your reasoning "empirical" while making up excuses to ignore and discount observed physical events that don't support your preset assumptions.

For example, someone said that if a "supernatural" object were observed and explained, it would no longer be "supernatural" but "natural." Perhaps you all are using "supernatural" to mean "unverifiable" or "beyond any observable connection with the observable universe."

No, we're using "supernatural" to mean "acting outside and/or in violation of known laws of nature" -- i.e., telekinesis, mind-reading, resurrection, creating whole universes out of nothing, "creation with appearance of history," etc. IF we ever reliably observe such events, and if we can't find evidence of mistakes or fraud (as we've found with just about all such events so far), we start looking for explanations as to how they are possible. And in finding such explanations, we will probably find that the laws of nature were not what we originally thought they were. Then, when our understanding of those laws is updated, the events in question will then be considered "natural."

If the existence of God is established as a valid conclusion from the evidence...

The operative word here is "if." It has not been done yet (as many Christians and other theists admit), and you have failed to show otherwise. (Please note that Aquinas wrote a LONG time ago, so his beliefs about natural phenomena are probably a bit out of date.) In the meantime, we will continue to discount "goddidit" explanations because we have no reliable evidence for the existence of any such God(ess).

Whether you agree with my views or not...I (and most theists) am claiming to use rational, scientific methodology to establish the existence of God the existence of revelation, etc.

Claiming to do something is not the same as doing it. Cordova claimed it could be "mathematically demonstrated" that evolution of certain biological systems is impossible -- but he never did the math to actually demonstrate it, despite repeated requests that he do so.

(And who are those "most theists" you claim agree with you on this? What results have they got?)

(And speaking of revelation, I notice you haven't described any revelations of your own. I find that omission telling.)

I agree on the requirement of verifiability and observability, etc. That is indeed the scientific method, and it should be the method in all forms of knowledge. Nothing should ever be believed except on sufficient evidence.

It seems to me that science works in two different directions. Sometimes you build a hypothesis based on observations, then the hypoethesis makes predictions, and if the predictions come true the hypothesis is confirmed. Other times, science involves logical deduction to devise an explanation for observed phenomena.

In this latter category, we can include things like deducing the existence of planets from their gravitational effects on start. You can deduce quite a bit about the planet from its effects without ever directly seeing it.

Probably, the more you can combine these two forms of scientific thinking, the better, because confirmation of your hypothesis or theory grows.

Theists have historically believed that you can deduce the existence of God from observations of the physical world, in a similar way that planets are deduced from gravitationsl effects.

Thomas Aquinas's cosmological arguments are a good example of this. This is both verifiable and falsifiable, because it is either the case that God can in fact be logically deduced from the universe or he cannot.

Now, whether or not this is a good argument or not, it does seem to be a scientific argument.

It is using the same methods often used in science, and all good thinking.

Richard Dawkins acknowledges the hypothesis of God to be a scientific hypothesis, although, of course, he thinks it is a bad one.

When we talk about methodological naturalism, I wonder if we are not to some degree being confused a bit by different usages of terminology. For example, someone said that if a "supernatural" object were observed and explained, it would no longer be "supernatural" but "natural." Perhaps you all are using "supernatural" to mean "unverifiable" or "beyond any observable connection with the observable universe." In that case, I would say that, as I intened the idea, God would not be a supernatural being but a natural one.

In other words, the claim of theists is that the existence of God is verifiable by logical deduction (a form of scientific methodology).

We could restate this in reverse by saying that the existence of God is necessary to explain the observable universe.

If we put it this way, we could say that the existence of the observable universe is a prediction of "the God hypothesis," but since we all already know about and accept the observable universe, this sounds like a strange way of putting it.

If the existence of God is established as a valid conclusion from the evidence, then other things become rational and more probable, such as the possibility of revelation from God.

We would then need to examine claims of revelation to see if any can be rationally verified to be such. In my view, the Bible meets that qualification.

Whether you agree with my views or not (and I have not attempted here to argue my positions so much as to describe them), I (and most theists) am claiming to use rational, scientific methodology to establish the existence of God the existence of revelation, etc.

I do not claim blind "faith" as a basis for anything I hold.

So the only question is whether my scientific arguments are good or bad.

Here's a question: As I have described my methodology in coming to the conclusion of God and revelation, would you say I am using (again, well or poorly) methodological naturalism?

The answer to that question will probably tell us quite a bit about the meaining of that phrase.

does not seem to be a philosophical cornerstone in devising a scientific theory.

IMO, "methodological naturalism" is a useless term for a set of much better terms and considerations.

You haven't begun to tell me how it is that your view of "supernatural intervention" is correct, and Ken Millers OTOH, and Cotton Mather's OTOH, is incorrect.

Marc
I have been keeping a close eye on this thread although
my contribution so far was a comment satirising FL and Bible-literalism views.
Now in a more serious mood I would like to advice you by this:

if you really want to understand how the
scientific-evolutionist camp thinks and works,

-in reality there aren't two camps,
99.9999999...% of scientists on the planet are "evolutionists",
creationism (including ID)
is mainly and almost totally an (US ) american cultural-political phaenomenon-

my opinion is to start not from biology but from physics.

Biology is perhaps too anthropocentric and biocentric therefore it is more
probable that your cultural bias will kick in and ruin the effort.
It is also (so far) very complex hence very difficult to quantify
(express in precise ,non ambiguous, mathematical terms).

I'm guessing that your general mathematicophysical background is very poor
so studying mathematics and science ex nihilo seems out of the question.
Therefore popularised science books (ie Hawking's "A brief history of time")
is the best choice IMO in order to really get accustomed with
the abstract (and at the same time data-oriented) reasoning and laws of science.
This kind of books covers basic+advanced physics,technology,cosmology,philosophy
and history of science in a non technical form.
Even without mathematical formulae
they are very dense and demanding.Total self disciplence is obligatory.
But they are very crucial ,fruitful and enlightining in
understanding how nature-reality works (or seems to work).
Every day,common sense (not to mention religious) misconceptions break down
once one studies the miraculous way in which nature operates.
Once you have passed the basic physics educational stage ,the way biology works
would come more easy.
(this is not meant to be offensive towards biology-biologists,
biology from another perspective is far more difficult)
Please don't be offended but once you have learned about the physical laws
and the harvested over millenia human knowledge of nature,
views like 10k years old universe and so on will seem ridiculous.
After being introduced and having done the research on topics
like quantum mechanics and relativity,
trust me,your understanding of the cosmos will never be the same.

You may also thereafter,if you like,
find yourself in a more profound admiration of God's Creation.

oops Marc -> Mark

No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available.

— Glen Davidson

The fact is that observations are not done "bare" any more than reinterpretations of the evidence are, for one has to take into account what is known about physics, chemistry, biology, etc., even to make a legitimate observation.

— Glen Davidson

it's not even a philosophical position to begin with. hence METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, as opposed to philosophical naturalism.

— Sir_Toejam

"Ontological naturalism" may be more precise.

Over the past several years, I have been studying the question, "How do creationists manage to ignore so much science in favor of a collection of texts that were written millenia ago, when science had not even been invented?"

Is it that they have been told if the Bible is not correct in every detail, then God doesn't exist? Or is it that if the Bible is not correct in every detail, then human beings are not "special creations," selected by God to rule the earth?

I was not raised with these beliefs, so I really don't know.

I do know that if people are placed in an environment where they must bond with neighbors in an isolated setting, they will tend to adopt the others' beliefs. I know a couple of cases in point, where intelligent people, living out in the country, changed to fundamentalists (and Bush supporters) to fit in with their neighbors.

This seems too ridiculous and insulting of individuals' right to their own beliefs. But as I say, I don't know what motivates people to be creationists (or Bush supporters).

Any input would be welcome.

"Ontological naturalism" may be more precise.

— Sir_Toejam

fair enough

In other words, the claim of theists is that the existence of God is verifiable by logical deduction

We could restate this in reverse by saying that the existence of God is necessary to explain the observable universe.

If we put it this way, we could say that the existence of the observable universe is a prediction of "the God hypothesis,"

If the existence of God is established as a valid conclusion from the evidence, then other things become rational and more probable, such as the possibility of revelation from God. We would then need to examine claims of revelation to see if any can be rationally verified to be such. In my view, the Bible meets that qualification.

I (and most theists) am claiming to use rational, scientific methodology to establish the existence of God the existence of revelation, etc.

So, after having been exposed and accurately characterized after his first couple of posts, Mark has managed to "entertain" us with pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-religion, vacuous science, and inane rationalizations for his religious views and his rejections of scientific evidence. Pretty brain-dead crap and not worth the effort to deal with.

Why does he insist on telling this to everyone? It all comes down to a childish attempt to justify why he and his kind have the right to proselytize and why everyone else should be required to listen.

I'm sure he found all the attention quite an ego trip, but his religion, if it can be called that, ranks among the ugliest on the planet. It appeals only to those who refuse to grow up and who are kept in that state by their religious handlers.

Is anyone still expecting Mark to tell us something we didn't already know?

then the next obvious renaming step is epistemological naturalism. any objections?

Glen, et al, the main difference between us, in terms of this particular discussion, seems to be that that we disagree on the validity of the claimed evidence for the existence of God and related claims (such as the possibility and existence of revelation). My point in my previous post was not so much intended to try to argue that theistic and Christian reasoning is valid, but to point out that it is the same sort of reasoning that scientists use. In other words, whether, say, the existence of God is a good or a bad scientific theory or conclusion, it is a scientific theory, because it reasons from the empirically known universe, by means of logical deduction, to the existence of God. It is a good scientific theory if in fact God is logically deducible from the observable universe; it is a bad theory if God is not thus deducible. Where we really disagree is that I think God is deducible and you all (I haven't heard any exceptions so far--where are all the non-naturalist Darwinists?) believe he is not.

As far as some specific bases for my position on this point, see posts #177611 and #180588 of the earlier thread, "Is Creationism Child's Play?" I got some responses to my arguments in these posts, scattered about broadly in these two threads.

Eric, any more thoughts from you on any of this? I like your idea of seeing if the Christian vs. natualist starting points leads to different predictions of the empirical data. One prediction of the six-day view would be that there will not be found any physical or empirical evidence that cannot be reconciled with a six-day view. (Of course, there might be evidence that can't seem to be reconciled on the surface, but the prediction is that there will be no evidence that, when examined carefully and closely and honestly, will be inherently impossible to reconcile with the six-day view.) I'm sure there are more predictions than this. Part of my research into the physical evidence involves learning more about what those predictions are. Creationists have been working on this for a long time, and I believe they have come up with many predictions, many of which they believe have been fulfilled. You should look at their literature in a serious way to see if their claims have any substance, as I also am trying to do more thoroughly.

Thanatos, thank you for your recommendations. I do want to note, though, that in spite of a lot of assumptions to the contrary on this blog (which is not terribly surprising), I am not generally unlearned, ignorant, and/or stupid. I have said I need to learn more about some of the specific areas of the specific physical evidence in geology and biology. But I have not said that I am ignorant of philosophy, history, physics, or the nature of science. I understand the nature of science and the scientific method very well, and follow it myself very well, though you will of course disagree since you disagree with my views. But, whether you believe it or not, I do know how to think scientifically and I do indeed think that way.

Mark

Thanatos, the ending comments in my previous post were not intended to be solely directed at you, but just to everyone in general. I noticed it didn't come across as I intended it after I had posted it.

I am not generally unlearned, ignorant, and/or stupid.

"just redundant"

OK, maybe so sometimes! : )

it reasons from the empirically known universe, by means of logical deduction, to the existence of God.

One prediction of the six-day view would be that there will not be found any physical or empirical evidence that cannot be reconciled with a six-day view.

Mark, this is a completely vacuous statement. All the evidence points to a very old earth. There is no evidence that is better explained by a six day creation. A real scientific theory is falsifiable. By any scientific standard, a young earth has been falsified, over and over again.

But when you can invoke a supernatural agent with unknown motivations, then nothing is falsifiable. It ceases to matter that all lines of evidence, from distant starlight, to atomic decay, to the fossil record, to geology, to ice cores, to tree rings, to DNA studies agree with each other on a particular history. Hey, maybe god just wanted it to look that way. Suddenly any evidence can be reconciled with any history. Just as any evidence from before last Thursday can be reconciled with last-Thursdayism.

And that, in a nutshell, is why your claims of a scientific viewpoint are absurd. If the last two hundred plus years of accumulated evidence in multiple disciplines all showing the impossibility of a young earth isn't enough to falsify your "theory", then it just ain't science. And no amount of wishy-washy philosophical talk is going to change that.

But I have not said that I am ignorant of philosophy, history, physics, or the nature of science. I understand the nature of science and the scientific method very well, and follow it myself very well, though you will of course disagree since you disagree with my views. But, whether you believe it or not, I do know how to think scientifically and I do indeed think that way.

just redundant.

Hypotheses in general are put forward in an attempt to explain something we observe.
We could start building a hypothesis by listing all the observations and including them as part of our hypothesis. As new observations come, we include them as well. It is perfectly fine to revise a hypothesis as new knowledge is acquired. This kind of a hypothesis would always stay in agreement with the observed facts (for the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the observations do not contradict each other). However, the predicting power of this hypothesis would be very low, and there is no way to falsify it. A mere collection of observations can never constitute a scientific theory.

Another approach would be to start with a hypothesis based on poorly understood explaining agents, such as fairies (or dark energy), and try to figure out the properties of the explaining agents through observation. As an example, let's state that objects heavier-than-air can fly, because there are fairies that are fascinated by certain features of physical objects and by their speed (this example has appeared on PT before, I do not seem to have anything original to say). This would work, as the shape of an object does correlate with its ability to fly, and heavy objects do not float in air. Through observation we could conclude that these fairies do not live in empty space. On the other hand, they seem to live in the atmosphere of the planet Venus, and thus are not dependent on oxygen, and can tolerate high temperatures. This is all well, and we could predict that the fairies live also in the corona of the sun. This theory is clearly falsifiable. The hypothesis needs to be modified, if no fairies are found in the atmosphere of the planet Jupiter.
There is also a competing hypothesis: that of Bernoulli's principle. Bernoulli used only quantities that can be studied independently. Also, it is possible to predict the amount of lift exerted on an airplane wing or on a helicopter rotor blade. Even Occam's razor (Ockham's razor) would tell us to favor Bernoulli instead of the fairies.

There are ways to reconcile six-day creationism with physical evidence. The appearance of age and history may be due to the beauty of the tree rings --- and glacial layers. The radioactive decay might have been faster in the past (although it is not clear where did that huge amount of extra energy go to). Some of the Egyptian pyramids survived the world-wide flood, for some reason. Humans multiplied after Noah fast enough to build ancient structures, such as the great wall of china, some more pyramids in Egypt, and were leaving their marks all over the world. Maybe our dating methods, including the written history, are somehow skewed.
If the appearance of age and history is perfect, although not true, would it still be legitimate to refer to the dates as they appear, since they seem to work the same way for any practical purpose?

Regards
Eric

Thanatos wrote:

creationism (including ID) is mainly and almost totally an (US ) american cultural-political phaenomenon...

It's also catching on in Turkey, where Harun Yahya's BAV are using threats of violence to prevent evolution from being taught or discussed in Turkish universities. (Any comments on such tactics by your side, Mark?)

Since Mark has consistently ignored nearly all of my questions about his theology, and the behavior of others in his camp, and has reverted to repeating statements that have already been disproven at least once, I see no reason to continue participating in this debate. Besides, this thread is getting huge and slowing down, at least for my PC.

Over the past several years ... Any input would be welcome.

— Mousie Cat

No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available.

— Glen

Glen you're wrong;although Mark uses the few logical arguments he makes ,ultimately to irrational ends, ping-pongs from hypothesis to data, and inductive to deductive,analytic to synthetic reasoning and vice versa is very common in science.

Of course in the end,empirical-data confirmation is what matters. If that is what you meant ,I pass.

The fact is that observations are not done "bare" any more than reinterpretations of the evidence are, for one has to take into account what is known about physics, chemistry, biology, etc., even to make a legitimate observation.

— Davidson

From this perspective your aforementioned comment is of course correct.

(from my perspective this is the very self-referencial property of "everything" that I ,once upon a time, mentioned and wherefrom you called me a logocentrist)

But that doesn't eliminate the ping-pongs.

In other words the mathematicoempirical (pseudo or not) duality of the scientific method (not to mention also of the very essence of human thought) causes constant back and forth leaps.

Glen ie that has many times declared not believing in reality,ontology and metaphysics (if I may be a proxy) will discard this view as faulty,useless and perhaps stupid. :-) (Glen am I wrong?)

Mark,

If you could just get over your pathological aversion to methodological naturalism perhaps you would have time to read the talkorigins article on plagarized mistakes as I suggested nearly a month ago.

When you do finally get around to looking at some real evidence, you will see that there are only two possibilities. Either God copied the mistakes or descent with modification is true. If the latter, the a 6,000 year old earth and Biblical inerrancy are out, for good. If the former, the God is an unimaginative and incompetent idiot. Take your pick.

By the way, they really are mistakes and they really are copied. There is no way out. Perhaps that is why you haven't had time to look at the evidence yet.

not from me, but then I never describe it beyond the scientific method, anyways, in any normal conversation. you'll have to argue with the creationists and see how they take it. who knows? maybe you'll confuse em enough so that they start adopting something that at least makes SOME sense.

— Sir_Toejam

Thanatos wrote:

creationism (including ID) is mainly and almost totally an (US ) american cultural-political phaenomenon...

— Raging Bee

It's also catching on in Turkey, where Harun Yahya's BAV are using threats of violence to prevent evolution from being taught or discussed in Turkish universities

I apologise to Pt for the following huge and political post.I wrote it in the past after being insulted by Glen.I refrained from posting it in order to be civil and polite.
But Glen again made me mad so here it follows.
Again I apologise but...

----------------

Regarding my alleged antiamericanism.Perhaps I'm stupid,prejudised or-and a dogmatist.Or perhaps I've got some reasons to seem ,to act as, to speak like or simply just to be antiamerican.

Let's see:

Perhaps my grandfather and grandmother lived ---not to mention as children- the Micrasiatic (Asia Minor) Catastrophe.Perhaps they lived the burning of Smyrna and the slaughter of the Ionian (and in parallel Pontiac) Greeks (and Armenians) by the Turks ,where and when some (although most or eventually directly or indirectly all more or less helped) crews of the ships-boats of our ally and beloved friend ,the USA, perhaps axed and chopped down and off (or at least violently obstructed and opposed) the hands of the swimming-drawning refuges who were trying to come aboard.

Perhaps the humanitarian intervention of USA-NATO in Yugoslavia, against the Serbs, was not so humanitarian after all.(Not that there weren't Serbian attrocities.But perhaps there where also Croatian and Muslim-Albanian attrocities.That in our ignorant-biased oppinion perhaps generally happens in a ... war.) Perhaps because now that approximately 250,000 or more (western sources I believe have this estimation as the upper limit) Serbs have been forced to clear Cossovo by the Cossovarian Albanians not only USA isn't interveaning but instead is granting Cossovo semi-independence from Serbia. Perhaps it took place in order for Germany to "annex" Slovenia and Croatia.Perhaps it took place in order to prevent the creation of a strong Orthodox Arc from Russia to Greece.And in doing so perhaps the Albanians (Greece's neighbors) have since being partying in the Balkans, trying to create a Great Albania.Which perhaps ,in the Albanians' mind ,is composed in part by Greece's northwestern region Epirus.

Perhaps our friends and dear allies,the US Americans,have recognised our second neighbor FYROM by the name that they want ,"Macedonia" ,against all UN agreements and against our allied will.And perhaps we don't like that because these neighbors of ours besides the name ,want along it, all the history,heritage, culture and land that is linked historically to her.And perhaps a part of that land is what they call Aegean Macedonia , Greece's northern region Macedonia.

Perhaps our sincere comrades ,the US Americans,have created a stronghold in Greece's third neighbor Bulgaria,a country that perhaps has historically always wanted to exit onto mediterranean waters and perhaps is the country that around the 30s and 40s created the Macedonian Issue .Perhaps the Americans in doing so again kept Russians out and north.Perhaps they created thus one more (like Poland and of course their post WWII pet-state the UK) Trojan Horse inside EU,Greece's Mother Union.Perhaps the Americans have been for years,in order to lessen Russia's might in energy, obstructing via this country the creation of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis Oil Line,Greece's major strategic energy goal.

Perhaps the United States of America ,after having helped in the 40s Greece to stop Communist Gorillas annexing her to the Red Camp,settled down inside Greece and by means of military and oeconomic power and influence, created a state inside our state bringing into power juntas and crashing greek national interests.And perhaps although till the 90s we ,in general, accepted de facto that status,cynicly or stoicly, mainly due to the cold war, as a more or less primus inter pares understanding or status quo,now that the red satanic empire no longer exists, we would perhaps like our freedom ,autonomy and independence back in full.

Perhaps because the US American "neutrality" against arabs, against muslims and in favor of jews crussialy affects Greece as the only western country or one of the very few western countries that share borders with muslim countries (Turkey and Albania).

Perhaps (this is going to be a very extended perhaps) since the destruction of Greece's geopolitical power, firstly in the post WWI Greco-Turkish War and secondly in WWII and Greek Civil War ,and since Turkey ,Greece's fourth and final land neighbor,having mostly all the way remained neutral, has become the regional superpower, the USA, having emerged out of the last global conflict as one of two superpowers and now as the only existant global superpower, is perhaps acting and reacting to Greece's defence against Turkish agression in a very strange ---to our eyes- way.
Perhaps not as to a country that has never been an enemy at war with and not as to a country that during all global wars has been a loyal ally.
Perhaps we think so,because perhaps with the blessings of the USA during the cold war ,the Turks turkised many greek thracian muslims and now want to create a western Thrace (Greece's northeastern region) issue having a future annexing in mind.
Or perhaps because USA seems not to be able to stop doing the P.R-model-muslim-country campaign for the highly militaristic pseudo-democratic regime of Turkey.
Or perhaps because Turkey has US backing in declaring a casus belli against and if Greece ever exercises her -according to international laws- right to have a 12-mile national waters line (and not a 6-mile that is now unfortunately against her will keeping) in the Aegean although in other areas-regions the Turks follow a 12-mile water line practice.
Or perhaps because the United States Americans are being very strangely "neutral" to the creation of "grey zones" by Turkey inside Greek Aegean (6 miles) Waters and of greek Islands (like the Dodekannese ,Samothrace and Gavdos).
Or perhaps because against all UN decisions the USA-UK are being ab initio or even a priori "neutrally" in favor of the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus(perhaps because both keep major strategic bases in common there).
Or perhaps because "strangely" there is no serious American reaction to Turkey's declaration of casus belli against Cyprus following the Cyprean-Egyptian-Lebanese agreement in exploiting petroleum in the sea south of Cyprus.
Or perhaps because when Greece and Turkey almost came to war in 1996 when the Turks ceased by force a tiny greek island called Imia,USA was again strangely "neutral".
Or perhaps because Turks have declared ,semi-officially and against all logic and international laws and treaties,half of the Aegean Sea as theirs,and the Americans are whistleying around indifferently.
Or perhaps since the USA ,in order to win the battle-war of Irak,is being creating ,against turkish wishes and major fears,the Kurdish state,we Greeks,are perhaps fearing (a great fear I might add) that in order to balance their policy against Turkey(the peripheral superpower I repeat),the Americans are going to stop being semidiplomaticly "neutral" and are going to be openly,fully, 100% pro-Turkey in all the aforementioned Greco-Turkish differences.

Now count this issues,multiply them by how-many-countries-there-are-in-the-world-minus-two and you'll perhaps have a mild understanding of America's International Politics Image.Also please consider that You ,perhaps, have these "problems" with an allied country.Perhaps,think of Your "problems" with ,"evil" ,enemy countries.

Understand that perhaps the issues the USA has with Hellas or in general with the world, weren't suddenly caused by the-king-of-idiots-god-speaks-to-me G.W.Bush. He is ,perhaps, just TOO stupid,TOO pathogenic(literally).American foreign policies (according to external views) are perhaps in general independent of Republican-Democrat administration.And perhaps according to some oppinions,in a Representive Democracy,"we, we the plain folk ,we the citizens, ,are not to blame,our bad leaders are to blame" isn't an excuse. USA seems ,perhaps, to be the continuation of the post napoleonic British Imperium.USA is perhaps being projecting,by all means, the anglosaxons' oxymoron of protestant-puritan-secular-liberal-openmarket-highly-capitalistic-salad-nation-state onto the world,onto other stupid oxymora.And perhaps the world disagrees.

There are ,perhaps ,people around the world saying-pleading-begging-screaming to You:
PLEASE stop exporting Peace and Democracy.Otherwise ,You , are going eventually to be importing ICBMs and APFSDSs.

P.S.1 The superhyperultra ad nauseam overuse of perhaps was perhaps intended.

P.S.2 Again sorry for any orthographical,syntactical,grammatical,I-don't-know-whatical mistakes but considering the seriousness-importance of written matters, I really don't give a f___.

P.S.3 Next time ,please try to have a promethean attitude rather than an epimethean one.

P.S.4 The last time you critisised me ,speaking of antiamericanism,I thought I should answer-reply to you but I came to realise that I wouldn't know where to start at , where to begin from.So I just answered ,laconicaly and with a sense of humor, to your stupidity and to your dogmatism.But the next day, I calmly sat and wrote down this, as a crash course on Hellenic-American relations and on Earth-America relations (as an extrapolation of the former) for any benevolant but ignorant American.I thought that this text would eventually come handy.Or perhaps I was just fishing for or begging for an excuse,a malakia coming from you,you the moros,you the ignorant ,you the self-centered archon of elithiotes.

by the way
"I pass" is (at least here) poker slang.metaphorically used it means
in context "then no objection,I concur"

oh not to forget

1.Glen you're a self-centered dogmatist

2.Glen f___ you

Glen, et al, the main difference between us, in terms of this particular discussion, seems to be that that we disagree on the validity of the claimed evidence for the existence of God and related claims (such as the possibility and existence of revelation).

My point in my previous post was not so much intended to try to argue that theistic and Christian reasoning is valid, but to point out that it is the same sort of reasoning that scientists use.

In other words, whether, say, the existence of God is a good or a bad scientific theory or conclusion, it is a scientific theory,

because it reasons from the empirically known universe, by means of logical deduction, to the existence of God.

It is a good scientific theory if in fact God is logically deducible from the observable universe; it is a bad theory if God is not thus deducible.

Where we really disagree is that I think God is deducible and you all (I haven't heard any exceptions so far---where are all the non-naturalist Darwinists?) believe he is not.

As far as some specific bases for my position on this point, see posts #177611 and #180588 of the earlier thread, "Is Creationism Child's Play?" I got some responses to my arguments in these posts, scattered about broadly in these two threads.

Eric, any more thoughts from you on any of this? I like your idea of seeing if the Christian vs. natualist starting points leads to different predictions of the empirical data.

One prediction of the six-day view would be that there will not be found any physical or empirical evidence that cannot be reconciled with a six-day view.

(Of course, there might be evidence that can't seem to be reconciled on the surface, but the prediction is that there will be no evidence that, when examined carefully and closely and honestly, will be inherently impossible to reconcile with the six-day view.)

I'm sure there are more predictions than this.

Part of my research into the physical evidence involves learning more about what those predictions are.

Where we really disagree is that I think God is deducible and you all (I haven't heard any exceptions so far---where are all the non-naturalist Darwinists?) believe he is not.

As far as some specific bases for my position on this point, see posts #177611 and #180588 of the earlier thread, "Is Creationism Child's Play?" I got some responses to my arguments in these posts, scattered about broadly in these two threads.

Eric, any more thoughts from you on any of this? I like your idea of seeing if the Christian vs. natualist starting points leads to different predictions of the empirical data.

One prediction of the six-day view would be that there will not be found any physical or empirical evidence that cannot be reconciled with a six-day view.

(Of course, there might be evidence that can't seem to be reconciled on the surface, but the prediction is that there will be no evidence that, when examined carefully and closely and honestly, will be inherently impossible to reconcile with the six-day view.)

I'm sure there are more predictions than this.

Part of my research into the physical evidence involves learning more about what those predictions are.

Part of my research into the physical evidence involves learning more about what those predictions are.

Creationists have been working on this for a long time, and I believe they have come up with many predictions, many of which they believe have been fulfilled. You should look at their literature in a serious way to see if their claims have any substance, as I also am trying to do more thoroughly.

Thanatos, thank you for your recommendations. I do want to note, though, that in spite of a lot of assumptions to the contrary on this blog (which is not terribly surprising), I am not generally unlearned, ignorant, and/or stupid.

I have said I need to learn more about some of the specific areas of the specific physical evidence in geology and biology.

But I have not said that I am ignorant of philosophy, history, physics, or the nature of science.

I understand the nature of science and the scientific method very well, and follow it myself very well, though you will of course disagree since you disagree with my views.

But, whether you believe it or not, I do know how to think scientifically and I do indeed think that way.

I apologise to Pt for the following huge and political post.I wrote it in the past after being insulted by Glen.I refrained from posting it in order to be civil and polite. But Glen again made me mad so here it follows. Again I apologise but...

— A-hole incompetent hater Thanatos

I apologise to Pt for the following huge and political post.I wrote it in the past after being insulted by Glen.I refrained from posting it in order to be civil and polite. But Glen again made me mad so here it follows. Again I apologise but...

— A-hole incompetent hater Thanatos

by the way "I pass" is (at least here) poker slang.metaphorically used it means in context "then no objection,I concur"

oh not to forget 1.Glen you're a self-centered dogmatist 2.Glen f___ you

There is an aspect to ID/Creationist behavior that is reminiscent of cargo cults. The proselytizing sects that are drawn to ID/Creationism imitate the appearance of science without comprehending its substance.

These sects also imitate (almost to the point of caricature) other cultural phenomena such as various forms of popular music, dress, physical appearance, mannerisms, speech and other popular affectations.

Their prime purpose is hooking potential converts by using a familiar appearance (Angler fish, anyone?) or, when attempting to recruit individuals who ask tougher questions, the appearance of legitimate academic authority.

Trying to gain the appearance of scientific legitimacy is a losing strategy if it were directed at scientists. However, since it is directed at lay-people who tend to question things, the ID/Creationists need only to acquire the appearance of having done science and having creative new ideas in science.

Hence their practice sessions debating with people who not only know the words, but the substance as well. That way the ID/Creationists try to learn how to string together the words in a way that looks most like the scientific literacy they really despise.

With Mark we are also seeing the same tactic in trying to give the appearance of deep philosophical insight. Philosophy words are strung together, but the substance and context are missing. Now he is adding science words to his vocabulary. Does he care? He doesn't have to. It is all ultimately for directing at a more naive audience.

glen
I don't pretend to be infallible or know-it-all-ist,contrary to you.
I have apologised many times to many when
I was being overly passionate and unjust,
contrary to you.
I don't claim to be holding the truth,contrary to you.
I try to be polite(I admit I don't always accomplish that) even if I disagree with someone,contrary to you.
I haven't declared that my views (whatever they may be) represent all (true) scientists(in fact they don't),contrary to you(directly or indirectly).
(this along with some of the above is ludicrous ,you being antiplatonist and "antitruthist")
I have many times declared that english isn't my native tongue(it's obvious) and apologised for any mistakes.Anyway why must I be perfectly fluent in english?
Do you speak greek(fluently or not)?
who is what,is obvious when one has followed the history of our communications.

I know ,I'm aware of many american social realities,issues,problems etc.
I might add that some modern american like Sagan,Feynman are my personal heros.
Some public personae like Stewart and Colbert make me laugh endlessly.
Could you please say to me with who which neohellen do you relate?
Do you know anything about modern greece? About greco-american relations?
About european or balkan or mediterranean realities?
About how all this issues relate with american policies?
Do you you know how your country crucially effects my personal everyday life?
Do you have any idea of the sufferings due to USA("Bushian" or not)
of my nation and people?Of the world?
These are not academical issues for me ,for my nation or for the rest of the world.
It's everyday problems caused by people oceans and continents away.
keep living in your dreamworld,live and let die,
keep consuming the planet and believe you're innocent ,different and just.
oh what a phantasy world!!!

anyway the above questions are rhetorical,
I don't expect an answer,and if there will be an answer I won't answer.
I've tried to be civil and polite with you but it has been totally futile.
there is no reason for me to keep communicating with you,
bye

glen I don't pretend to be infallible or know-it-all-ist,contrary to you.

I have apologised many times to many when I was being overly passionate and unjust, contrary to you.

I don't claim to be holding the truth,contrary to you.

I try to be polite(I admit I don't always accomplish that) even if I disagree with someone,contrary to you.

I haven't declared that my views (whatever they may be) represent all (true) scientists(in fact they don't),contrary to you(directly or indirectly).

(this along with some of the above is ludicrous ,you being antiplatonist and "anitruthist")

I have many times declared that english isn't my native tongue(it's obvious) and apologised for any mistakes.Anyway why must I be perfectly fluent in english?

Do you speak greek(fluently or not)?

who is what,is obvious when one has followed the history of our communications.

I know ,I'm aware of many american social realities,issues,problems etc.

I might add that some modern american like Sagan,Feynman are my personal heros. Some public personae like Stewart and Colbert make me laugh endlessly.

Could you please say to me with who which neohellen do you relate?

Do you know anything about modern greece?

About greco-american relations?

About european or balkan or mediterranean realities?

About how all this issues relate with american policies?

Do you you know how your country crucially effects my personal everyday life? Do you have any idea of the sufferings due to USA("Bushian" or not) of my nation and people?Of the world?

These are not academical issues for me ,for my nation or for the rest of the world. It's everyday problems caused by people oceans and continents away. keep living in your dreamworld,live and let die, keep consuming the planet and believe you're innocent ,different and just. oh what a phantasy world!!!

anyway the above questions are rhetorical,

I don't expect an answer,and if there will be an answer I won't answer.

I've tried to be civil and polite

with you but it has been totally futile.

there is no reason for me to keep communicating with you,

bye

Perhaps I'm stupid,prejudised or-and a dogmatist.

— Thanatos

Comment #183270

What is probably the most amazing fact in your dealing with these matters is that you can't differentiate between clearly labeled philosophy and clearly labeled science.

(other than the typically stupid fare I quoted above), as you're an addle-pated twit, who hates where he should learn. But I'm glad you included it, as it shows how emotions over-rule your "reason" and "judgment", and it reveals your ignorance yet again (I can say that from reading your dull nonsense in the past)

— Glen Davidson

Many of us have many criticisms of the US and of particular administrations or even of recent (and past, but they hardly are a major issue now)

I know what it means in English, retard. It simply didn't make sense in your moronic attack. Richard-head.

Of course what I meant is that empirical confirmation is what matters in the end, and I have no idea why you'd conjure up any other sort of miraculous ideas in your mind which are so disconnected from, you know, the written word.

It seems to me that science works in two different directions. Sometimes you build a hypothesis based on observations, then the hypoethesis makes predictions, and if the predictions come true the hypothesis is confirmed. Other times, science involves logical deduction to devise an explanation for observed phenomena.

— Glen Davidson

No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available. The fact is that observations are not done "bare" any more than reinterpretations of the evidence are, for one has to take into account what is known about physics, chemistry, biology, etc., even to make a legitimate observation.

No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available.

— Glen Davidson

Glen you're wrong;although Mark uses the few logical arguments he makes ,ultimately to irrational ends, ping-pongs from hypothesis to data, and inductive to deductive,analytic to synthetic reasoning and vice versa is very common in science. Of course in the end,empirical-data confirmation is what matters. If that is what you meant ,I pass.

Oh, so you read the context after shooting your mouth off. Better late than never, I suppose.

As context-free as your former idiotic accusation. Whether it's your bigoted and stereotypical hatred of Americans, your rambling bad English, and your logocentrism, I fail to see much value in your posts.

Not from within your tinfoil hat and pidgin English. Your "ping-pongs" are as addled conceptually as they are stilted English.

No it doesn't, lackwit, because the scientific method isn't dualistic. Mathematics deals with the abstractions of "reality" that we conceptualize, and whether or not we use numerical methods or geometrical manipulations of our abstractions, the process is largely one of abstract analysis and synthesis. I'd expect such dualistic nonsense from a logocentrist, since logocentrism is largely a mistake of dualism, notably of Platonic dualism.

Mostly you're stupid, uneducated, with a poor command of the language used here, and too close-minded and unintelligent even to try to understand the issues involved in what I was discussing. In your usual addled way you reduce what I have claimed down to your ignorant and bigoted stupidity, and you totally lack the means to deal honestly and intelligently with philosophical issues.

I don't doubt that you're a proxy, meaning, in my interpretation of such a misplaced word, that you're not a real intellectual, just a proxy poseur whose ignorance shines forth like a gamma-ray burst. Otherwise, of course, "proxy" is as ill-used as is your "philosophical knowledge," your pidgin English, and your stupidity in merely attacking where you are so obviously ignorant even about what I write about philosophically.

If you ever have anything intelligent and educated to say to me, instead of shooting off your mouth with your mindless ignorance, please do so. Until then, why don't you just ramble on in your ignorance. You do little harm when responding to Mark, because even your very poor understanding of philosophy beats Marks even poorer understanding of philosophy and science.

I am denying the assumptions made by the unlearned Thanatos the learned Plato and Aristotle, and the great thinker St. Thomas Aquinas.

Glen ie that has many times declared not believing in reality,ontology and metaphysics (if I may be a proxy) will discard this view as faulty,useless and perhaps stupid. :-) (Glen am I wrong?)

— Thanatos

Well Thanatos is a bigot and a buffoon, so I can't say what he'll do (except that it'll probably be ignorant, stupid, and attacking where it was neither called for nor where he understood what was written).

Retarded buffoon Thanatos, it was your stupid and bigoted stereotyping that I objected to in the past, as you couldn't make a sane comment about Americans, but rather had to spew your vindictive, ignorant, and stupid hatred even when intelligent points were being made.

Btw, I didn't read your post (other than the typically stupid fare I quoted above), as you're an addle-pated twit, who hates where he should learn. But I'm glad you included it, as it shows how emotions over-rule your "reason" and "judgment," and it reveals your ignorance yet again (I can say that from reading your dull nonsense in the past). Reveal your soul, fascist effing fool. Many of us have many criticisms of the US and of particular administrations or even of recent (and past, but they hardly are a major issue now) administrations in general, but we think, we don't just spew bile like your vacant soul does.

glen I don't pretend to be infallible or know-it-all-ist,contrary to you.

— king of stupidity

So you start listing your great qualities with a flat-out lie. I'm not a know-it-all, of course, but I do stick with what I know when stupid gits like you start spouting your bigotry and faith in metaphysics. I learned your philosophy, you know, I just learned what was wrong with it as well.

And anyhow, I knew from the beginning that your pseudonym means "death" in Greek, for I have studied Greek partly to study philosophy. Not that this has anything to do with your strawman attack.

For what it's worth, as a neo-hellen I have related most to Thomas at New School University, a Greek student from Athens

and I'm not exactly the type who thinks that "democracy" means that even the people collectively do so.

— Glen the retarded fool

Not a lot about that, indeed, though the Cyprus issue festers, and American support for brutal dictators of the past is remembered in Greece.Not that this has anything to do with your rank bigotry, stupid git.

— Ho Archiblax

Frankly, I doubt that my country crucially affects your personal everyday life, except in your bigoted reactions and lies about Americans.And I already said that many of us have many criticisms of US foreign policy and that we think. Just because you're too dumb and close-minded to accept an honest statement doesn't justify your continued stereotypical attack upon me just because I'm "American," prejudicial moron.

You've dispelled the ambiguity implied by "perhaps".

— GuyeFaux

I know what it means in English, retard. It simply didn't make sense in your moronic attack. Richard-head. So in other words the metaphor is valid but it doesn't make sense.

As an addendum
I think I've got why Glen is so transfixed with my alleged logocentrism.
Being (I'm guessing from his stated-posted words,I'm no prophet,nor genius) a fanatic-dogmatic follower
of some branch of non-realism-positivism-instrumentalism-common language philosophy-...
he totally discards metaphysics.
But he can't really deal with
axiomatic principles like causality,verifiability,falsifiability,parsimony that
for any "follower" of science and philosophy(including open minded legitimate positivists etc)
belong to the realm of metaphysics.(at least until now,so far)
(this links to a Mark Perakh article with which I don't fully agree-and of course
I don't demand that Dr Perakh should agree with me- but nevertheless
is philosophically-scientifically sound,not to mention a wonderful work)
He can't base them on,deduce them from science
(may be he just somehow correlates them without proof)
so what he cunningly (the fool) constructs
inside his brain is perhaps something like this (which is of course plainly wrong) :
Metaphysics are wrong since they are not scientific.
Questioning the (metaphysical) essence of concepts
like the ones mentioned is plainly a unscientific rumbling with words,that is logocentrism.
In other words since questioning causality etc is not scientific (or falsifiable?)
causality itself is not metaphysical.
It's perhaps just a useful abstract tool that although now unproven, in the future science will
explain-prove it ,so since it will be scientifically proven,there's no need
to regard it now as metaphysical.Then generalising thusly for all -at the present-
metaphysical hypotheses,there is no reason to accept at the present any metaphysics.
So ,ending my wild goose chase,the only way
(this uniqueness is not certain,perhaps he's got many other magical words up his sleeve)
for him to escape metaphysical problems is to call them logocentric.

I don't claim of course of having really gotten into his mind and head.
I'm just trying to understand how he dismisses philosophy 101 issues so easily.
Any other ideas?(glen I'm not asking you)

In other examples and topics
I don't know how he would try to escape the intrinsic "logocentrism" of mathematics
or how would he react if an IDiot named him logocentrist after having
asked for a strict definition of "information".

he totally discards metaphysics.

I do too.

I (usually) have a different response mechanism, though.

ergo, I think your theory about relating that to an understanding of basic philosophical principles is a false one.

you're simply not going to solve why Glen posts the way he does by making assumptions about his knowledge of philosophy, cause actually, it's pretty damn good.

I rather suggest that what you are attempting to do is completely unproductive, both to this thread, and in general, and you'd be far better off just leaving it be.

no, he's saying he understands what metaphor you were using, but that it had no logical context in the post you used it in. if you're gonna attack him, at least interpret what you are attacking correctly. now then... roll on.

— Sir_Toejam

he totally discards metaphysics. I do too. I (usually) have a different response mechanism, though. ergo, I think your theory about relating that to an understanding of basic philosophical principles is a false one. you're simply not going to solve why Glen posts the way he does by making assumptions about his knowledge of philosophy, cause actually, it's pretty damn good. I rather suggest that what you are attempting to do is completely unproductive, both to this thread, and in general, and you'd be far better off just leaving it be.

Well, just as I predicted over a week ago, another three hundred plus thread down the tubes with absolutely nothing to show for it. Before this thread closes for good, let's summarize shall we? Here is the evidence that various posters have presented that Mark has absolutely no answers for:

tree rings
ice cores
pollen stratigraphy
continental drift
magnetic field reversals
radiometric dating
the geologic column
fossils (including intermediate forms)
gravitational lensing
phylogenetics and the tree of life
genetics (including retroviral transposons)

Feel free to add to the list if I have left out anything.

Of course, in his world, the Bible is still literally true, the earth is about 6,000 years old and there was a world-wide flood about 4,000 years ago. Well, here's a news flash, anyone who thinks that "Whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap" is meant as agricultural advice has missed the point entirely. By disregarding all the evidence, Mark has reduced his God to the point that no rational person would want to worship her. In the immortal words of Matt Dillon, "There's a lot of words in that book you aint livin by".

If Mark does decide to grace us with his presence again, I would suggest that we avoid all discussion of the Bible, naturalism, philosophy, etc. He can get his own web site for that. I would however recommend that we list the questions he has failed to answer again and again and again. Eventually the excuse of not having enough time will wear pretty thin.

I do agree that science is different from philosophy--they have different focuses and emphases. I do, however, think that they are much more similar than they are different They both study the real world, the real universe, and try to understand that world. And (if we are dealing with what I would consider good philosophy) they both have the same basic methodology in a broad sense. That is, they both rely on evidence-based reasoning, starting from the known, learning more about the known, reasoning to the unknown, etc.

I differ with many here in that I believe that much of the historic, metaphysical theistic reasoning works. (I don't agree with every argument advanced by every theist, of course, including Thomas Aquinas.) I think that such reasoning is really nothing more than a deep and intense form of logical thinking based on valid observation. This difference between us has profuund implications epistemologically, and leads us to view what is considered evidence very differently. I don't think this is the only difference between us, but it does seem to be a major one.

I don't believe it is possible to escape metaphysics. No one really avoids it. As Thanatos suggests (if I understand him right--I apologize if I've gotten him wrong here), it is metaphysical reasoning that establishes everything else. For example, belief that the external world is real depends on metaphysical reasoning. It is a metaphysical position about the nature of reality. No metaphysics at all would mean no belief about the existence of the external world. Another example is Last Thursdayism. A person who denies metaphysical reasoning has no ability to fefute Last Thursdayism. For such a person, LTism is just as logical a position as the real existence of the past (beyond last Thursday). The choice between belief in the past and LTism is a metaphysical choice--it cannot be made by empirical observation apart from metaphysics. My metaphysical, philosophical reasoning gives me a foundation on which to show the errors of LTism and so rationally reject it. Without metaphysical reasoning, LTism is no more or less probable than the existence of the past. In fact, as I said, you can know nothing without metaphysical reasoning, because it is the sort of foundational reasoning that establishes the very nature of the empirical world that is the observational basis of science. For science to claim knowledge, it must deal with metaphysics. If it doesn't claim knowledge, it is nothing more than a hobby some people like to do that has no more reason to be trusted than reading fairy-tales.

Mark

Prosectution:

So, in conclusioin your honor, all of the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty. Fingerprints, tire tracks, trace evidence, ballistics, blood spatter analysis, footprints, hand writing analysis, forensic entomology, phone records, bank records, credit card records and last but not least DNA evidence all conclusively demonstrate that the suspect is guilty beyond all resonable doubt. And he doesn't have an alibi but he does have a very strong motive for committing the crime.

Judge:

What do you have to say for yourself before I pronounce sentence?

Defendant:

In fact, as I said, you can know nothing without metaphysical reasoning, because it is the sort of foundational reasoning that establishes the very nature of the empirical world that is the observational basis of science. For science to claim knowledge, it must deal with metaphysics. If it doesn't claim knowledge, it is nothing more than a hobby some people like to do that has no more reason to be trusted than reading fairy-tales.

Judge:

Guilty as charged. I sentence you to life in ignorance.

Mark,

You may be right that there is a metaphysical component in every kind of thinking, including science. We need to believe in the existence of the external world, to start with.

I feel that the origin of science might be in observations on where to find game to hunt, when are the animals there, how do they behave, where do the plants that we can eat grow. Sort of practical issues.
Even today, I see science as mostly a practical thing. Knowledge enables us to travel faster, to cure diseases, to control our environment more efficiently (including destroying it) and to fight our enemies. The thing called "pure science" is potentially useful knowledge, still lacking practical applications, but they may come later.

To me, religion addresses questions, such as "Why does the universe exist?", "What is the purpose of the universe?". These are valid questions, but not very practical or "scientific" ones. Science is more interested in how the universe works.

There are quite a few religions with written texts. Their descriptions of the world and the universe do differ. The descriptions are not generally thought to serve as handbooks in scientific matters. They are more often thought to relay other messages.

I do agree with David Stanton that you should address at least one of the items he presented.
Also, I would like you to comment on my earlier question (not directed specially to you) that the appearance of age and history, if perfect and consistent in all respects, would amount to true age and history for any practical purpose.

Regards
Eric

Has the ID movement become so weak that we're willing to spend 300+ posts on this nonsense? Science and philosophy more similar than they are different? To borrow a phrase from Christopher Hitchens, that's the sort of thing that should be utterred by a guy on the street corner selling pencils out of a tin cup, not someone engaging in serious discourse with educated intelligent people in the 21st century.

For example, belief that the external world is real depends on metaphysical reasoning. It is a metaphysical position about the nature of reality. No metaphysics at all would mean no belief about the existence of the external world.

My metaphysical, philosophical reasoning gives me a foundation on which to show the errors of LTism and so rationally reject it.

another three hundred plus thread down the tubes with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism.

"To me, religion addresses questions, such as "Why does the universe exist?", "What is the purpose of the universe?". These are valid questions, but not very practical or "scientific" ones. Science is more interested in how the universe works."

Yes, it is true that philosophy and religion generally (though not always) deal more with ultimate questions, and science usually (though not always) deals with more particular investigations of the physical world, often with the goal of pratical use of the physical world. However, we can't compartmentalize entirely. Knowledge gained in one area can and often does affect our views in another area, such as the issue of metaphysics and the existence of the physical world. Also, if the evidence from a study of ultimate things were to lead to the knowledge of a revelation, as I've mentioned before, that could affect our understanding of the physical world.

"There are quite a few religions with written texts. Their descriptions of the world and the universe do differ."

Yes, so we must look at all the available evidence from all sources to determine which one(s) are true and which are false.

"I do agree with David Stanton that you should address at least one of the items he presented."

We have addressed some things along these lines in this and the earlier thread. I am very interested in addressing (for myself and others) all of the items David has presented. As I've already mentioned, this is a slow process. It is not possible to deal with just one of the items at a time, typically. Many of them are tied together, and what I need to do is get a better grasp of the underlying processes and ideas from which these particular arguments spring. I've tried to do this in the context of this thread to some degree, but usually that has resulted in irritation that I am not moving fast enough or that my ideas don't reflect complete knowledge of all the areas of study. If other people here really want to do it, I would be quite happy to take a particular issue and focus some research on it, using it as a springboard for the broader category of issues. I did start to do this in the previous thread to some degree. But this will be a thorough and painstaking process. My educated guess based on previous experience is that people here don't want to take the time to walk with me through this to the degree necessary. They would rather I simply read one or two articles, believe what they have to say on face value without examining the issues in detail for myself, and just abandon all my previous thinking and submit to their authority. I am not going to do that, and that irritates them and brings accusations that I am not really interested in examining the evidence, etc. I don't blame people for not wanting to take the time to walk through such a painstaking process with me. I would not impose upon them to assume they would have the time to do it. It is probably something I need to do mostly on my own. However, if you, or someone else, would really, seriously, like to try to walk with me through one or two particular issues, I would enjoy the opportunity. But if you are thinking about saying yes to such a thing, don't get any illusions that I am going to take your word for things or believe something just because the mainstream scientific community says so. You won't convince me by giving me a few articles full of claims I haven't been able to examine for myself and then expecting me to come back convinced in a day or two, which seems to have been almost the universal expectation when we tried this before. It will require some time. Hard as it is to believe for some people apparently, I do have other things to do. I am progressing through the research myself, and would be happy to have whatever help I can get, as long as no one expects any time table other than my own. Again, I am not asking anyone to do this, so I don't want to hear any complains about how I am "imposing on you" or "wasting your time." But if you think it might be an interesting experiment, I am willing to try to work together on my progress as much as I reasonably can.

"Also, I would like you to comment on my earlier question (not directed specially to you) that the appearance of age and history, if perfect and consistent in all respects, would amount to true age and history for any practical purpose."

Well, yes, if there would be no physical difference between an old earth created by natural law and a younger earth involving some degree of supernatural creation, a global flood, etc., then it would make no practical difference, if you mean by "practical" results in terms of technology or other practical uses of nature. (It would, however, make a difference if you wanted to know the history of the earth.) However, it seems unlikely to me that these two different models would look exactly the same. I would rather expect there would be some discernable differences. Obviously, most people here agree with me. I am interested in exploring more what some of those differences might be. This is related to the idea of different predictions of the physical evidence based off of the different models.

Mark

Mark wrote:

"We have addressed some things along these lines in this and the earlier thread. I am very interested in addressing (for myself and others) all of the items David has presented."

OK, let's review again shall we?

Tree rings - created by God to make the insides of trees look pretty (they just happen to provide the same exact paleoclimate record as the ice cores).

All other evidence for an ancient earth - created by God to give the appearance of age not history (even thought they all give a consistent answer about one and only one specific history).

Radiometric dating - not reliable because of measurement error (despite the fact that this does not address the issue of how things could possibly be determined to be drastically different ages regardless of the magnitude of the error).

Geologic column - hydrologic sorting (even though he was specifically told that that is what the AIG people would say and that every one already knew it was completely wrong).

Gravitational lensing - no response.

Tree of life - no response.

Genetics - no response.

The fact that all data sets converge on the exact same answer - no response.

However, even though Mark did not have time to look at the evidence, he did have time to post almost a million words on Biblical inerrancy and naturalism. Now, you be the judge.

so all you have to do is stick this out for another 5 months or so, and voila!; you'll see him drop the scales from his eyes and watch him join the enlightenment age! I mean just look at AFDave, who has used the exact "appearance of age" argument over 2 years ago, and is still posting massive threads over on dawkins.net after we finally got tired of him after a year on ATBC a year ago. oh, wait...

"What is the purpose of the universe?"

Well, yes, if there would be no physical difference between an old earth created by natural law and a younger earth involving some degree of supernatural creation, a global flood, etc., then it would make no practical difference, if you mean by "practical" results in terms of technology or other practical uses of nature. (It would, however, make a difference if you wanted to know the history of the earth.) However, it seems unlikely to me that these two different models would look exactly the same. I would rather expect there would be some discernable differences. Obviously, most people here agree with me. I am interested in exploring more what some of those differences might be. This is related to the idea of different predictions of the physical evidence based off of the different models.

— Mark Hausam

Re "Step 1: Read the bible"

I read it. I conclude that Methuselah drowned. (Unless he died of something else shortly before drowning.) :D

That aside though, there is that gap after the last point at which the O.T. mentions a begat with an age of the parent. I've never quite figured out how absolute dates were assigned to events before that.

Henry

Mark,

Do you really think there is a Global Conspiracy of scientists to subvert "biblical truth?"

'Cause if you do then let me say that I didn't get the message. I didn't attend the Conspiracy Class in grad school.

Now, Mark, if the basis of your religious belief is in the literal belief in the bible, as in everything must be true, then you are in big trouble. You need to rethink your position.

Now, Mark, I know you're not a bit fan of reading stuff and studying stuff, but I suggest you start reading Bishop John Spong. He's a real Christian but can help you with your obvious dilemma.

Finally, Mark, don't come back here saying you want to learn stuff when it's clear you don't want to learn anything, rather you only want confirmation of your childish beliefs. Yes, I was perjorative using the word "childish." However, you've provided no alternative.

Thread closed.

Sir_Toejam.

I do acknowledge your question:
"Why does the universe have to have a purpose?"
as a valid one.

Evolution is deemed undirected, while religions often are teleological by their nature.

Do you think that here we may have a difference in philosophical starting setups,
or do you think that non-purpose has been confirmed through observation and study?

Regards
Eric

or do you think that non-purpose has been confirmed through observation and study

it's a non-starter, it CAN'T be determined through observation and study.

the point is, is it even necessary to postulate to begin with to explain what we CAN observe and study.

answer:

nothing so far to indicate that a purpose is a requirement to explain our current observations.

Sir_Toejam,

Sorry, two independent questions.
Not : either - or

Regards
Eric

I should clarify and say that the POSITIVE can't be confirmed through observation and study: it's essentially impossible for science to PROVE there is purpose in the universe.

that there is no apparent REQUIREMENT to including the idea of purpose to the universe is pretty clear, though.

make sense?

"However, it seems unlikely to me that these two different models would look exactly the same."

Mark,
Where do you think we should start looking for the differences?

Regards
Eric

Sir_Toejam,

It makes sense to me.

Regards
Eric

Evolution is deemed undirected, while religions often are teleological by their nature. Do you think that here we may have a difference in philosophical starting setups, or do you think that non-purpose has been confirmed through observation and study?

Mike,

"However, the wave function (its norm squared) represents a probability, so there is no way, even in principle, to predict the outcome of a quantum event."

Quantum theory is inherently probabilistic, and thus is not deterministic. Some physicists think that there is a good opportunity for the God to do his work (within the Heisenberg uncertainty).

"Even Poincare recognized that the non-linear nature of most physical phenomena precludes certainty, and hence the development of chaos theory, which at the mesoscopic scale, merges with quantum mechanics."

Many phenomena may be chaotic (whether linear or non-linear), but at the same time they may be fully deterministic (in the framework of the underlying model).

Quantum statistics does produce more or less deterministic predictions, as you implied.

Regards
Eric

Some physicists think that there is a good opportunity for the God to do his work

Quantum theory is inherently probabilistic, and thus is not deterministic. Some physicists think that there is a good opportunity for the God to do his work (within the Heisenberg uncertainty).

Many phenomena may be chaotic (whether linear or non-linear), but at the same time they may be fully deterministic (in the framework of the underlying model). Quantum statistics does produce more or less deterministic predictions, as you implied.

Eric
in a very benevolent and friendly spirit
I would advice you to follow Mike's advice.It's veeery sound.
Posting comments like the one numbered #183468 in the digital company of scientists
and especially physicists is ,
how to put it politely,a very baaaad choice.
Personally I would also advice you to read what
I adviced Mark to read(ie Hawking's "A brief(+er) history of time")
if you really want to be able ,if not to express yourself on
(for this you might need much more effort-reading),
to understand at least the essence of what specialists
have to say on the subjects on which you commented.
ciao

By replying I admit of being very weak, but the dux of stupidity is so ludicrous that I just can't help myself. Next time I'll try to keep my pledge.

let's see Supergenius Glen didn't answer to anything I posted in comment #183259 because Glen Davidson wrote: (other than the typically stupid fare I quoted above), as you're an addle-pated twit, who hates where he should learn. But I'm glad you included it, as it shows how emotions over-rule your "reason" and "judgment", and it reveals your ignorance yet again (I can say that from reading your dull nonsense in the past)

Then he stated Many of us have many criticisms of the US and of particular administrations or even of recent (and past, but they hardly are a major issue now)

The way you energetically oppose,form groups against,post,get organised over the internet,support political parties, et cetera et cetera fighting creationism(including ID) ,the same way ,if you are indeed a democrat (literally) and anti-imperialist,you should fight your country's imperialist and fascist actions and policies over global issues.In fact even more, cause human lifes are at stake.This is like saying in front of a camera "oh,how deeply I empathise with the dying starving poor africans" and away from the camera throwing away most of the food uneaten,(spending more money as a nation on dog food rather than on humanitarian cause) and remaining plainly egoistic. The parenthesised text is plain evidence of ignorance on your present foreign policies.

next the self proclaimed king of intellectual clarity wrote I know what it means in English, retard. It simply didn't make sense in your moronic attack. Richard-head. So in other words the metaphor is valid but it doesn't make sense.

And let's say that in english it is totally wrong. (not being a native anglophone I'm not of course an authority on this) Although you have a minimal IQ enough to understand what I meant your argument was that it didn't make sense.So again you're just accusing me of poor command of the english language.Something that I have many times admitted (may be not poor but at least not very fluent in writing) A brilliant philosophical argument!

continuing Glen wrote Of course what I meant is that empirical confirmation is what matters in the end, and I have no idea why you'd conjure up any other sort of miraculous ideas in your mind which are so disconnected from, you know, the written word. so the following are of course my mad miraculous ideas Glen Davidson wrote: Mark Hausam wrote: It seems to me that science works in two different directions. Sometimes you build a hypothesis based on observations, then the hypoethesis makes predictions, and if the predictions come true the hypothesis is confirmed. Other times, science involves logical deduction to devise an explanation for observed phenomena. No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available. The fact is that observations are not done "bare" any more than reinterpretations of the evidence are, for one has to take into account what is known about physics, chemistry, biology, etc., even to make a legitimate observation. Let's say that I misunderstood Glen,couldn't he just say "Thanate you have misunderstood me..."Does my comment

Glen Davidson wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. It may seem like it, since sometimes science operates without conducting experiments or observations specifically for its conclusions, but the only difference is what evidence is already available. Glen you're wrong;although Mark uses the few logical arguments he makes ,ultimately to irrational ends, ping-pongs from hypothesis to data, and inductive to deductive,analytic to synthetic reasoning and vice versa is very common in science. Of course in the end,empirical-data confirmation is what matters. If that is what you meant ,I pass. qualify as an attack?

Normal mentally healthy people from time to time disagree or miscomprehend each other;if each time in disagreement people behaved like Glen does ,well human population would be considerably small.Glen did you forget to take your pills?

Glen ie that has many times declared not believing in reality,ontology and metaphysics (if I may be a proxy) will discard this view as faulty,useless and perhaps stupid. :-) (Glen am I wrong?)

Furthermore we have (it's comment #183253,I've not included quotes of me) this comment by his excellency Oh, so you read the context after shooting your mouth off. Better late than never, I suppose.

As context-free as your former idiotic accusation. Whether it's your bigoted and stereotypical hatred of Americans, your rambling bad English, and your logocentrism, I fail to see much value in your posts.

Not from within your tinfoil hat and pidgin English. Your "ping-pongs" are as addled conceptually as they are stilted English.

No it doesn't, lackwit, because the scientific method isn't dualistic. Mathematics deals with the abstractions of "reality" that we conceptualize, and whether or not we use numerical methods or geometrical manipulations of our abstractions, the process is largely one of abstract analysis and synthesis. I'd expect such dualistic nonsense from a logocentrist, since logocentrism is largely a mistake of dualism, notably of Platonic dualism.

You stupid ass by dualistic (note that I prescribed "pseudo or not") I meant (and its obvious) mathematics(including obviously geometry)-logic vs empiricical data-confirmation.

Since our "logical" brain is (or seems to be) a part of nature the dichotomy is strange and perhaps false.But the problem hasn't been solved (at least totally).

For a plainly intelligent human that would be rational but for people of "IQ radikioy" ( funny greek rhyme meaning IQ of somekind of vegetable) like Glen this is logocentrism.

As for the "mistake of dualism" and the falsification of "platonic dualism" where is the scientific objective proof ,you ignorant?

Kant proved nothing ,he is great,but his philosophy is as (equally) unproved and perhaps unprovable(unverifiable or unfalsifiable) as platonic dualism or any other major philosophical school views are.Perhaps a superposition of principles is more possible or probable.(I'm not rediscovering America,this view is evidently not new)

Moving on we have Mostly you're stupid, uneducated, with a poor command of the language used here, and too close-minded and unintelligent even to try to understand the issues involved in what I was discussing. In your usual addled way you reduce what I have claimed down to your ignorant and bigoted stupidity, and you totally lack the means to deal honestly and intelligently with philosophical issues.

I don't doubt that you're a proxy, meaning, in my interpretation of such a misplaced word, that you're not a real intellectual, just a proxy poseur whose ignorance shines forth like a gamma-ray burst. Otherwise, of course, "proxy" is as ill-used as is your "philosophical knowledge," your pidgin English, and your stupidity in merely attacking where you are so obviously ignorant even about what I write about philosophically.

then a plain stupid metaphor(it's not really a metaphor,I'm not sure on what is the correct word,simile?),wow Glen knows about gamma rays!!! isn't that cool?,

claims of "attacks" that show obviously the presence of paranoid schizophrenia, and then of course the argument from authority "I'm the king of Philosophy" continuing

If you ever have anything intelligent and educated to say to me, instead of shooting off your mouth with your mindless ignorance, please do so. Until then, why don't you just ramble on in your ignorance. You do little harm when responding to Mark, because even your very poor understanding of philosophy beats Marks even poorer understanding of philosophy and science.

next in comment #183268 we read I am denying the assumptions made by the unlearned Thanatos the learned Plato and Aristotle, and the great thinker St. Thomas Aquinas.

Thanatos wrote: Glen ie that has many times declared not believing in reality,ontology and metaphysics (if I may be a proxy) will discard this view as faulty,useless and perhaps stupid. :-) (Glen am I wrong?)

Not that I really did(at least not overly) since many times in PT threads (including this one) Glen has atteacked realism,ontology and metaphysics.

After that Glen posts commenting on Mark.Although at most major points I agree with him what strikes me is his general acceptance of religion as sound-legitimate when at the same time he thinks metaphysics is-are void. let's focus on

Well Thanatos is a bigot and a buffoon, so I can't say what he'll do (except that it'll probably be ignorant, stupid, and attacking where it was neither called for nor where he understood what was written).

Retarded buffoon Thanatos, it was your stupid and bigoted stereotyping that I objected to in the past, as you couldn't make a sane comment about Americans, but rather had to spew your vindictive, ignorant, and stupid hatred even when intelligent points were being made.

Reading,following the exchange in that thread of comments is very clarifying. continuing arch-duke of moroi wrote Btw, I didn't read your post (other than the typically stupid fare I quoted above), as you're an addle-pated twit, who hates where he should learn. But I'm glad you included it, as it shows how emotions over-rule your "reason" and "judgment," and it reveals your ignorance yet again (I can say that from reading your dull nonsense in the past). Reveal your soul, fascist effing fool. Many of us have many criticisms of the US and of particular administrations or even of recent (and past, but they hardly are a major issue now) administrations in general, but we think, we don't just spew bile like your vacant soul does.

Being a prophet can be very helpful. I can't stop thinking that this pretty much resembles usual creatonist or fanatic attitude. As for accusations of fascism ,my answer is that whether I am a Communist,Fascist,Democrat,Capitalist,Socialist,Nazi,Extremist,Anarchist or Taliban is irrelevant and unimportant.

My main concern is not to live in or get any close to the fascist imperialistic capitalistic racist nazi militarist USA.By that I of course I mean your presence in the global human enviroment and history as a whole,as a country.I don't mean that all Americans are fascist imperialist capitalist racist nazi militarist pigs. Nevetheless citizens of a democracy (infact my opinion is that all humans are more or less responsiple regardless of the regime of their country) are responsible for-of the actions of their leaders.(that is of course obviously valid for all,including me,including greece and greeks)

The following comments by Glen the jerk are either already addressed or too long(anyway they are worthless,being over and over the same swearing,paranoid schizophrenia and I-know-it-all-ness). But let me focus in just a few key phrases (comment 183308) king of stupidity wrote: Thanatos wrote:

glen I don't pretend to be infallible or know-it-all-ist,contrary to you. So you start listing your great qualities with a flat-out lie. I'm not a know-it-all, of course, but I do stick with what I know when stupid gits like you start spouting your bigotry and faith in metaphysics. I learned your philosophy, you know, I just learned what was wrong with it as well. Yes Glen ,I'm guilty,I lied, you're not infallible nor know-it-all-ist, you're not always right,you don't own the truth,it is just that all others are always wrong and know nothing .

"I learned your philosophy, you know, I just learned what was wrong with it as well." Yeah the Great Glen has spoken,he is the bearer of the Holy Criterion,Divine Ruler of philosophical matters,he is Wise,Ho Sophotatos ton Sophotaton.

What endless generations of humans have not yet been able to resolve,Glen dismisses in a few words.And with what ease,what beauty! Metaphysics are wrong;not true,not possible,not even non-falsifiable,just wrong.Oh world,fear not,Glen is here!

moving on And anyhow, I knew from the beginning that your pseudonym means "death" in Greek, for I have studied Greek partly to study philosophy. Not that this has anything to do with your strawman attack. Oh Lord he knows what "Thanatos" means,so therefore he indeed speaks greek!

A wonderful proof of multilinguality And he studied Greek to study philosophy,so his knowledge and command of greek must be infinite!!! What a moros I am

,in a few courses he must have surely learned to speak Greek fluently ( regardless of that the context of my question of whether he speaks greek evidently meant neohellenic not ancient on which I'm guessing he attended some classes) After all greek compared to english, is easy to learn.He was indeed just when accusing me of ill knowledge of english.

continuing For what it's worth, as a neo-hellen I have related most to Thomas at New School University, a Greek student from Athens This is hilarious,mentioning that I regard prominent americans as personal heros(Sagan,Feynman) and totally admirable ultrafunny comedians(Stewart and Colbert) ,I asked him with whom neohellen he relates to,that is which prominent neohellen he admires etc (if I was dubious in correctly expressing this in english,understanding what I meant is by the context obvious),and he answers to me saying that he once knew a greek-american and a greek student .That's great. Good for you Glen.

moving on to another revelation Glen the retarded fool wrote: and I'm not exactly the type who thinks that "democracy" means that even the people collectively do so.

He also proves and shares with us his infinite knowledge(having been rhetoricaly asked by me) by writing phrases like these: Ho Archiblax wrote: Not a lot about that, indeed, though the Cyprus issue festers, and American support for brutal dictators of the past is remembered in Greece.Not that this has anything to do with your rank bigotry, stupid git. Frankly, I doubt that my country crucially affects your personal everyday life, except in your bigoted reactions and lies about Americans.And I already said that many of us have many criticisms of US foreign policy and that we think. Just because you're too dumb and close-minded to accept an honest statement doesn't justify your continued stereotypical attack upon me just because I'm "American," prejudicial moron. Conclusion Glen you shouldn't have stopped taking your pills!!! They are goooooood fooooor-tooooo yoouu

P.S.1 To readers others than Glen I apologise for any grammatical or of any other kind of errors-mistakes made.

P.S.2 It's a very tiresome but entertaining effort

to try to count how many times Glen swears (calls people stupid etc...) in just this thread(not just to me).In fact since this is hardly a one-time habit of his,I would be very curious to see his total pandathumb scatological record

P.S.3 Having written this I conclude that in the future I must fight to refrain myself from answering-replying to this barbarous paranoid dogmatist self centered fool ,cause it is futile,overly time consuming and worthlessly boring and tiresome.

(ok I admit it's not that boring, his stupidity after the initial shock is very funny)

As an addendum I think I've got why Glen is so transfixed with my alleged logocentrism.

Being (I'm guessing from his stated-posted words,I'm no prophet,nor genius) a fanatic-dogmatic follower of some branch of non-realism-positivism-instrumentalism-common language philosophy-... he totally discards metaphysics.

But he can't really deal with axiomatic principles like causality,verifiability,falsifiability,parsimony that for any "follower" of science and philosophy(including open minded legitimate positivists etc) belong to the realm of metaphysics.(at least until now,so far) (this links to a Mark Perakh article with which I don't fully agree-and of course

I don't demand that Dr Perakh should agree with me- but nevertheless is philosophically-scientifically sound,not to mention a wonderful work) He can't base them on,deduce them from science (may be he just somehow correlates them without proof) so what he cunningly (the fool) constructs inside his brain is perhaps something like this (which is of course plainly wrong) : Metaphysics are wrong since they are not scientific.

Questioning the (metaphysical) essence of concepts like the ones mentioned is plainly a unscientific rumbling with words,that is logocentrism.

In other words since questioning causality etc is not scientific (or falsifiable?) causality itself is not metaphysical. It's perhaps just a useful abstract tool that although now unproven, in the future science will explain-prove it ,so since it will be scientifically proven,there's no need to regard it now as metaphysical.Then generalising thusly for all -at the present- metaphysical hypotheses,there is no reason to accept at the present any metaphysics. So ,ending my wild goose chase,the only way (this uniqueness is not certain,perhaps he's got many other magical words up his sleeve) for him to escape metaphysical problems is to call them logocentric.

I don't claim of course of having really gotten into his mind and head. I'm just trying to understand how he dismisses philosophy 101 issues so easily. Any other ideas?(glen I'm not asking you)

In other examples and topics I don't know how he would try to escape the intrinsic "logocentrism" of mathematics or how would he react if an IDiot named him logocentrist after having asked for a strict definition of "information".

As an addendum I think I've got why Glen is so transfixed with my alleged logocentrism.

Being (I'm guessing from his stated-posted words,I'm no prophet,nor genius) a fanatic-dogmatic follower of some branch of non-realism-positivism-instrumentalism-common language philosophy-... he totally discards metaphysics.

But he can't really deal with axiomatic principles like causality,verifiability,falsifiability,parsimony that for any "follower" of science and philosophy(including open minded legitimate positivists etc) belong to the realm of metaphysics.(at least until now,so far) (this links to a Mark Perakh article with which I don't fully agree-and of course

I don't demand that Dr Perakh should agree with me- but nevertheless is philosophically-scientifically sound,not to mention a wonderful work) He can't base them on,deduce them from science (may be he just somehow correlates them without proof) so what he cunningly (the fool) constructs inside his brain is perhaps something like this (which is of course plainly wrong) : Metaphysics are wrong since they are not scientific.

Questioning the (metaphysical) essence of concepts like the ones mentioned is plainly a unscientific rumbling with words,that is logocentrism.

In other words since questioning causality etc is not scientific (or falsifiable?) causality itself is not metaphysical. It's perhaps just a useful abstract tool that although now unproven, in the future science will explain-prove it ,so since it will be scientifically proven,there's no need to regard it now as metaphysical.Then generalising thusly for all -at the present- metaphysical hypotheses,there is no reason to accept at the present any metaphysics. So ,ending my wild goose chase,the only way (this uniqueness is not certain,perhaps he's got many other magical words up his sleeve) for him to escape metaphysical problems is to call them logocentric.

I don't claim of course of having really gotten into his mind and head. I'm just trying to understand how he dismisses philosophy 101 issues so easily. Any other ideas?(glen I'm not asking you)

In other examples and topics I don't know how he would try to escape the intrinsic "logocentrism" of mathematics or how would he react if an IDiot named him logocentrist after having asked for a strict definition of "information".

As an addendum I think I've got why Glen is so transfixed with my alleged logocentrism.

Being (I'm guessing from his stated-posted words,I'm no prophet,nor genius) a fanatic-dogmatic follower of some branch of non-realism-positivism-instrumentalism-common language philosophy-... he totally discards metaphysics.

But he can't really deal with axiomatic principles like causality,verifiability,falsifiability,parsimony that for any "follower" of science and philosophy(including open minded legitimate positivists etc) belong to the realm of metaphysics.(at least until now,so far) (this links to a Mark Perakh article with which I don't fully agree-and of course

I don't demand that Dr Perakh should agree with me- but nevertheless is philosophically-scientifically sound,not to mention a wonderful work) He can't base them on,deduce them from science (may be he just somehow correlates them without proof) so what he cunningly (the fool) constructs inside his brain is perhaps something like this (which is of course plainly wrong) : Metaphysics are wrong since they are not scientific.

Questioning the (metaphysical) essence of concepts like the ones mentioned is plainly a unscientific rumbling with words,that is logocentrism.

In other words since questioning causality etc is not scientific (or falsifiable?) causality itself is not metaphysical. It's perhaps just a useful abstract tool that although now unproven, in the future science will explain-prove it ,so since it will be scientifically proven,there's no need to regard it now as metaphysical.Then generalising thusly for all -at the present- metaphysical hypotheses,there is no reason to accept at the present any metaphysics. So ,ending my wild goose chase,the only way (this uniqueness is not certain,perhaps he's got many other magical words up his sleeve) for him to escape metaphysical problems is to call them logocentric.

I don't claim of course of having really gotten into his mind and head. I'm just trying to understand how he dismisses philosophy 101 issues so easily. Any other ideas?(glen I'm not asking you)

In other examples and topics I don't know how he would try to escape the intrinsic "logocentrism" of mathematics or how would he react if an IDiot named him logocentrist after having asked for a strict definition of "information".

I dunno, Glen, ya think 8 consecutive posts is enough to make your message clear?

better keep going. after all, english is obviously not his first language.

:-) :) :-) :) :-)
Glen since and because I've passed,got over the past initial shock
you are ,are being,have been very funny.
But you're being also once again very boring.

PS
I remembered one more magic word of yours: (philosophical) fundamentalism

So now we have
Glen can't escape the metaphysical nature of axiomatic principles->
logocentrism
Glen can't evade fundamental philosophical questions->
(philosophical) fundamentalism

You naughty naughty logocentrist (philosophical) fundamentalists!!!
Bad bad boys(and girls)!!!

PS (to readers other than Glen)
I know ,I know,once again I replied to the "Philosophiae Imperator" .
(left "imperator" uninflected-undeclined cause in english it would be strange,bizarre-looking)
Well,I'm only human.
At least this time it was a short reply.
(after all once again he's repeating his usual "argumentation",
so the effort would be very very very boring-useless)

...and you, Mr. death, could try to stop baiting him with your nonsense. You're obviously aware of the pointless nature of it.

after all, english is obviously not his first language

— Sir_Toejam

Glen ie that has many times declared not believing in reality,ontology and metaphysics (if I may be a proxy) will discard this view as faulty,useless and perhaps stupid. :-) (Glen am I wrong?)

Asking if you misrepresented my position as stupid changes nothing of your jackassery.

"However, it seems unlikely to me that these two different models would look exactly the same."

"Mark,
Where do you think we should start looking for the differences?"

Well, this is a major part of what I am trying to figure out myself. You may know more than I currently do about the geological issues, so you may know more where to start than I do. The creation scientists have been dealing with this issue for a long time. I got another response from ICR (I don't know if you were lurking when I pasted my questions to ICR earlier and their first response). This time, because I had mentioned I was talking to people on the Panda's Thumb, they sent me more weblinks. I don't know if you have really seriously read any creationist writings (books, articles, web articles, etc.) before, but, obviously, if you want to see what creation scientists have come up with, that would be the place to go. One site they gave me that looks particularly useful so far is http://www.trueorigin.org/. It is a creationist alternative to Talkorigins.org. Some other websites they referred me to are "The Revolution Against Evolution," "The Anti-Creationists," and "Creation Science FAQs." I haven't had a chance to look at these other sites yet. Anyway, I wish I could be more help in answering your question directly, but I am still at the stage of beginning to try to answer the question myself.

"However, even though Mark did not have time to look at the evidence, he did have time to post almost a million words on Biblical inerrancy and naturalism. Now, you be the judge."

I am looking at the evidence, David. I have also been involved in other related topics of conversation on these threads that I happen to know more about. Those aren't mutually exclusive practices. Since when did I agree to never discuss any other subject until I had finished researching the physical evidence to my satisfaction? But there is really no point in trying to reason with you about this. You are not really interested in evaluating this conversation objectively; you are more interested in making out that you have confirmed all your biases and prejudices about creationists you obviously cling to so dearly.

"yes the very-small-god-of-quantum-gaps argument. we don't yet have a stong enough pesticide to concretely flush god out of those holes yet. working on it though. No reason to assume he's hiding there, either, btw."

No naturalistic biases here, no! Here's a question for you all: How many of you believe that the ultimate goal of science, if it could be carried to its ideal goal, is to provide a completely naturalistic description of all of reality--in other words, a description that doesn't include "the supernatural" (whatever that is), particularly God?

Mark

Mark,

I think you're missing the point. Science doesn't have the goal of eliminating God - our aim as scientists is to understand the world around as best we can, interpreting the data rationally and as completely as possible. If evidence for a supernatural being (outside of our current understanding) comes to light, then science will consider the evidence and if it pans out, fold it into our universe-model. Science would seek to understand the nature of the 'being' and the mechanisms by which he/she/it works. Once we understand nature/mechanism, the supernatural being would then by definition no longer be 'supernatural'.

I've suggested a couple of times that you give us an idea of what evidence/data you would require to falsify young-earth creationism. What would you regard as necessary?

Delurks

...particularly God?

I don't know if you have really seriously read any creationist writings (books, articles, web articles, etc.) before,

Mark wrote:

"I am looking at the evidence, David. I have also been involved in other related topics of conversation on these threads that I happen to know more about. Those aren't mutually exclusive practices. Since when did I agree to never discuss any other subject until I had finished researching the physical evidence to my satisfaction? But there is really no point in trying to reason with you about this. You are not really interested in evaluating this conversation objectively; you are more interested in making out that you have confirmed all your biases and prejudices about creationists you obviously cling to so dearly."

Yea, it is all my fault. It's my fault that Mark can't be bothered to even figure out the predictions of his hypothesis and how it would differ from evolution. It's my fault that Mark, who claims to want to look at evidence, has not bothered to do so for his entire life. It's my fault that he is more interested in discussing the Bible than science.

One last time Mark, did God copy the mistakes? It is a simple question, one I have posed at least four times now. If you still won't answer then allow me to answer for you, since I have looked at the evidence. No, God did not copy the mistakes. She isn't that stupid. All the evidence shows that descent with modification is true. Deal with it.

As for evaluating the conversation objectively, you are right, I don't care in the least. As for confirming all my biases and prejudices, you are right again. You have confirmed all of them by steadfastly refusing to look at the evidence. If you ever do get around to it, I hope you can have the courage to face up to the answer it provides.

The choice between belief in the past and LTism is a metaphysical choice---it cannot be made by empirical observation apart from metaphysics.

No, Mark, it is most certainly NOT a "metaphysical" choice; it's a practical one. If we assume that we cannot trust our own observations of the Universe, and our ability to draw reasoned conclusions from what we observe, then we are left in stifling, static bubble-verses where nothing can be learned and no progress can be made. But if we assume we CAN do so, than we are able to increase our understanding and get a lot of useful things done -- things which, in fact, scientists have accomplished and reactionary theists have not. This is why we -- and, as I've said before, the overwhelming majority of sensible theists -- reject Last-Thursdayism, Last-Tuesdayism, and all of your clearly-made-up "appearance of age" and "God's not really lying if he does it for aesthetic purposes" crap.

This is why the basic assumptions that underlie methodological naturalism are more valid than those that underlie Mark's young-Earth bubble-verse: the naturalists are able to explain, enlighten, understand and predict; and the theists can only use ever-increasing amounts of word-salad to hide from the truth, refuse to understand what is obvious to everyone else, and pretend everyone else is as blind and befuddled as they have chosen to be.

Mark, after identifying yourself as a Christian and asserting that the Bible is an "infallible" source of Truth, you have been amazingly silent in response to the theological and spiritual questions put to you by other theists such as myself -- questions that a committed theist such as yourself should be both able and eager to answer. This leads me to conclude that your religious pretensions are just as empty and dishonest as your scientific and philosophical pretensions.

"I've suggested a couple of times that you give us an idea of what evidence/data you would require to falsify young-earth creationism. What would you regard as necessary?"

I've already given a general answer to this a number of times previously. Given all the weight of other sorts of evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible and the six-day interpretation of it, it would have to be something that could be shown conclusively that it could not be reasonably or plausibly reconciled with YEC, including the belief in a non-deceptive God. Specific candidates will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. If it turned out that there were many lines of converging evidence that clearly and unmistakeably pointed to a very specific history, with specific events, of life on earth, and could not reasonably or plausibly be interpreted in another way, I would find that strongly unexpected for a six-day model. But it would have to be very specific indications of particular history. If I walk into my house and there is a message on the answering machine--a specific person saying something specific about specific things, this is an example of a record of a very specific history. If evidence was conclusively found of something that specific in the record of the history of the earth, it would at least be very odd, and I would have trouble reconciling it with a YEC view. But, as I said, it would have to be a very strong, very clear, conclusive indication of real past events that must indicate a very long passage of time. This sort of reasoning is why creationists don't generally take the fossil record as something originally created as part of the rocks, but as indicating past events. Of course God could put images of creatures in the rocks if he wanted to, and if the images were not so full of specific indications of history, that would be a more plausible take on them. But the fossils record not just images of creatures but skeletons of creatures, sometimes broken and scattered, missing bits here and there, sometimes caught in the act of doing something specific like giving birth or fighting or eating, etc. These images are so strongly suggestive of specific events that almost no creationist takes the fossil record as anything but a record of real history. But for a piece of evidence, or lines of evidence, to be deemed to falisfy or present an unresolvable challenge to a position I have very good reason to accept on other grounds, it would have to be extraordinarily conclusive and rationally rule out other possibilities. This is where I expect our different beliefs about what sort of evidence is out there and whether there is good, conclusive evidence to believe the Bible from other sources are very likely to come into play and lead us to interpret things differently. That is, we are very likely to have significantly different criteria for what constitutes conclusive evidence for an old earth.

"One last time Mark, did God copy the mistakes?"

If I recall correctly, you are referring to what you take to be examples of mutations in the genes of certain life forms, such as pseudogenes. The example of this we have discussed previously is the alleged broken vitamin-C gene. I just came across a good article on this from a creationist perspective on the trueorigin.org website I mentioned earlier. Here is the link: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1c.asp#pred7. The discussion of pseudogenes occurs under the heading of "preediction 7: molecular vestigial characters." (The previous section on vestigial organs, etc., is applicable as well.) This seems like a good article that raises some good points and questions. Do we know there are such things as pseudogenes? Often, what we think has no function turns out to have a function. We don't know enough to be too presumptuous. And even if there are true pseudogenes (which is not ruled out in a creationist model), they do not necessarily indicate common ancestry when they occur in different life forms. The actual characteristics of various life forms is frequently hard to reconcile with the proposed branchings of the evolutionary tree of life. That is, reality frequently doesn't fit the theory. The existence of the concept of "convergent evolution" and the frequency with which it is invoked seem to be admissions of this lack of fitting that frequently occurs. If it is true that most primates have a "broken vitamin-C gene," and we assume such a thing really is a pseudogene, there are many possible reasons for why the gene might have been broken in the specific primates in which it is in fact broken. The article mentions the possibility of certain non-random causes of mutation such as viruses. I would suggest also the possibility of certain similar characteristics of the primate genome and other shared or similar characteristics that might render certain mutations more likely or even highly probable in primates. More research needs to be done to determine precisely what these genes are and what has happened, but it is clear that such genes do not prove the creationist view false since they haven't been shown to require the hypotheses of common ancestry and lack of an intelligent designer. It would be presumptuous to claim that we know enough to prove common ancestry from such genes at this time. It will be interesting to see what further research turns up as we continue to explore the nature and possible functions of these genes and continue to explore possibilities of what they might be able to tell us about the past. But there is nothing in all this at this time that conclusively refutes or contradicts my position. (See the article for more details, including some links to further research.)

Mark

Some other websites they referred me to are "The Revolution Against Evolution," "The Anti-Creationists," and "Creation Science FAQs."

Evolution theory also fails to adequately explain many observations such as the evolution of symbiotic relationships, the evolution of stereoscopic vision and other parts of anatomy that would require thousands of compounding, complementary, beneficial mutations.

I'm not sure there's much more to be discussed, then, given your approach ...

"Given all the weight of other sorts of evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible and the six-day interpretation of it, it would have to be something that could be shown conclusively that it could not be reasonably or plausibly reconciled with YEC, including the belief in a non-deceptive God"

Your position appears to be that in science, the Bible has primacy - you will interpret all the evidence in this light. As many more eloquent people than I have pointed out in this thread, you're unlikely to have a productive discussion with scientists if you follow this route.

When the bible and science are contradictory, you accept the bible. For the rest of us (and for many xtians), when the bible and science are contradictory, science wins every time.

I dunno, Glen, ya think 8 consecutive posts is enough to make your message clear? better keep going. after all, english is obviously not his first language.

— STJ

:-) :) :-) :) :-) Glen since and because I've passed,got over the past initial shock you are ,are being,have been very funny. But you're being also once again very boring.

PS I remembered one more magic word of yours: (philosophical) fundamentalism

So now we have Glen can't escape the metaphysical nature of axiomatic principles->

logocentrism Glen can't evade fundamental philosophical questions-> (philosophical) fundamentalism

You naughty naughty logocentrist (philosophical) fundamentalists!!! Bad bad boys(and girls)!!!

PS (to readers other than Glen) I know ,I know,once again I replied to the "Philosophiae Imperator" . (left "imperator" uninflected-undeclined cause in english it would be strange,bizarre-looking)

Well,I'm only human. At least this time it was a short reply. (after all once again he's repeating his usual "argumentation", so the effort would be very very very boring-useless)

Mark,

Thanks for at least trying to answer the question. However, it would have been better to answer the question I asked. It did not have to do with vitamin C or pseudogenes. But, as long as we are on the subject, you cannot presume to call anyone presumptuous in an area where you yourself are completely ingorant. Pseudogenes are indeed good evidence for evolution and cannot be reasonably reconciled with intelligent design. Your hand-waving argument about possible function has no support, especially when we consider that some of the genes in question are of mitochondrial origin. Even the genetic code is different for these genes.

As far as retroviral transposons are concerned, you obviously still have not read the talkorigins article on plagarized errors. When you finally do, you will find that that evidence cannot possibly be reconciled with a young earth either.

You claim that any evidence of a specific history would invaliudate your hypothesis. You have been given many examples of exactly that. You say that converging lines of evidence would count against your hypothesis, well they certainly do. You say that you will not take our word for anything and you shouldn't. But if you refuse to look at any evidence, then no rational discussion is possible. You will find that this is all that scientists care about. You can gripe about it all you want, but if you want to play the game those are the rules.

As to post #183590, it's another place where his lie about quitting is revealed for all of its wretchedness, and it's another random driveling rant, neither responding to what I actually wrote, nor shoring up any of his pathetic lies. I only scanned part of it, as I've treated him as if he were intelligent for too long now.

Babble on, Thanatos, and try to keep your drool off your keyboard.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Dear dear Glen I started visiting this site some time ago interested in the american religion vs science-evolution wars having -I admit-in my mind the American=Idiot stereotype. The blog is wonderful,so I started to think then ,following this and relevant blogs that there may be hope for the transatlantic barbarians. Unfortunately your kind of thinking although evidently not religion-wise dogmatism,is a dogmatism,and is unfortunately refueling my stereotypism(sic). I can't really answer when you're failing to see that your argumentation is a philosophy,is a point of view.You fail to see all the metaproblems.You fail to see that I'm not saying that my view is correct and yours wrong.(which is my view by the way?) I just mentioned ,in hummoristical manner by the way,read between the lines MORE (more (vocativus-kletike) by the way not moron,please when naming me in greek names ,use my language correctly, that we're are talking about very fuzzy things and one should have in mind the complexity of them. I apologise to any bystander for the harsh words I use,but unfortunately it comes to this: for any non USAer talking to USAers usually-statistically is the same whatever the USAer may be,a fanatic christian YEC-OEC,a kill_all_the arabs_they_are_all_terrorists_peaceloving jew ,an IDiot,a self centered overspecialised scientist in a desperate need of sphaerical education. Charein!

— Thanatos

Mark, after identifying yourself as a Christian and asserting that the Bible is an "infallible" source of Truth, you have been amazingly silent in response to the theological and spiritual questions put to you by other theists such as myself --- questions that a committed theist such as yourself should be both able and eager to answer. This leads me to conclude that your religious pretensions are just as empty and dishonest as your scientific and philosophical pretensions.

I totally respect your opinion,I also totally respect Glen's opinion.

Non-realism,total disregard of metaphysics etc are perfectly sound and legitimate.

What I don't respect is Glen's total disrespect of realism,platonism et cetera ,and his claim that the non-"existence" of metaphysics etc has really been (in an objective logical and/or scientific way) proven.

And of course I totally disrespect Glen's barbarous uncaused swearing-naming. His total disrespect of me.

I do agree that science is different from philosophy---they have different focuses and emphases. I do, however, think that they are much more similar than they are different

— Hausam

They both study the real world, the real universe, and try to understand that world.

And (if we are dealing with what I would consider good philosophy) they both have the same basic methodology in a broad sense.

That is, they both rely on evidence-based reasoning, starting from the known, learning more about the known, reasoning to the unknown, etc.

I differ with many here in that I believe that much of the historic, metaphysical theistic reasoning works.

(I don't agree with every argument advanced by every theist, of course, including Thomas Aquinas.) I think that such reasoning is really nothing more than a deep and intense form of logical thinking based on valid observation.

This difference between us has profuund implications epistemologically, and leads us to view what is considered evidence very differently. I don't think this is the only difference between us, but it does seem to be a major one.

I don't believe it is possible to escape metaphysics. No one really avoids it.

As Thanatos suggests (if I understand him right---I apologize if I've gotten him wrong here), it is metaphysical reasoning that establishes everything else. For example, belief that the external world is real depends on metaphysical reasoning.

It is a metaphysical position about the nature of reality. No metaphysics at all would mean no belief about the existence of the external world.

Another example is Last Thursdayism. A person who denies metaphysical reasoning has no ability to fefute Last Thursdayism. For such a person, LTism is just as logical a position as the real existence of the past (beyond last Thursday). The choice between belief in the past and LTism is a metaphysical choice---it cannot be made by empirical observation apart from metaphysics.

My metaphysical, philosophical reasoning gives me a foundation on which to show the errors of LTism and so rationally reject it.

Without metaphysical reasoning, LTism is no more or less probable than the existence of the past. In fact, as I said, you can know nothing without metaphysical reasoning, because it is the sort of foundational reasoning that establishes the very nature of the empirical world that is the observational basis of science.

For science to claim knowledge, it must deal with metaphysics.

If it doesn't claim knowledge, it is nothing more than a hobby some people like to do that has no more reason to be trusted than reading fairy-tales.

Mark exhibits a profile that seems remarkably standard in several other cases I have seen in the past. These people (they were all males) tried to make themselves high-profile figures on various college and university campuses.

1. They all had a brief foray into teaching in a secular institution (high school or community college) that ended in failure and non-renewal of contract, which they attributed to religious persecution.

2. They each held a fairly important position within the hierarchy of their church (deacon, elder, youth leader, etc.)

3. They buttressed themselves with a set of standard rebuttals to scientific and philosophical arguments that questioned their sectarian claims. Lots of repetition in their answers.

4. They enhanced their position within their religious sect by taking on the "heroic role." Like the grandmaster chess player who could play multiple games, they displayed their "virtuosity" to their peers by replying to multiple challengers with long-winded obfuscations that their peers saw as overwhelming the "enemy."

5. They consciously trained on campus quads after having trained in sessions involving disputation, rhetoric, forensics, and logic.

6. They learned to speak loudly, interrupt frequently, and redirect the conversation.

7. They memorized and could quote many passages from their bible.

8. They used their atrocious knowledge of science and their indirect insults of other religious views to make people angry, and then exploited that anger to make themselves appear rational and reasonable.

9. In any "debate" they always surrounded themselves with a group of followers and cheerleaders who jeered at the right places. There was always a support group that could make it appear that they were winning even when they looked ridiculous. Getting heard was sufficient for them.

10. They all had a similar belief in biblical inerrancy.

I think most of us have seen these characters on campuses around the country and could add to the profile. The "more prestigious" the campus, the more extreme these characteristics.

I could be wrong, but I suspect Mark is in training after some similar failures in his own life. I would even guess that he holds some position of importance in his church. He is too entrenched in the culture of his church to risk changing his views. Delurker pointed that out. He isn't trying to learn science. He is too much of a stereotype.

I've already given a general answer to this a number of times previously. Given all the weight of other sorts of evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible and the six-day interpretation of it, it would have to be something that could be shown conclusively that it could not be reasonably or plausibly reconciled with YEC, including the belief in a non-deceptive God.

— Mark, in response to what exactly would falsify a 6kyo Earth,

I could be wrong, but I suspect Mark is in training after some similar failures in his own life. I would even guess that he holds some position of importance in his church. He is too entrenched in the culture of his church to risk changing his views. Delurker pointed that out. He isn't trying to learn science. He is too much of a stereotype.

The one thing I'm virtually certain about is that Hausam's here for some reason other than to "discuss", that is, even to preach to us. There's an audience other than us that he is speaking to, even though it may be very small.

Glen
you're boring
bye

I forgot to mention in my list of characteristics of the "quad preachers" that many of them at that time (back in the 1950s to 1980s) were taking as their model the hero in John Bunyan's allegory, Pilgrim's Progress.

I don't know if that is what is being done today. C.S Lewis seems to be in vogue now.

Believers are always the worst, claiming that the one who doubts the "truth" are wrong because, of course, the truth is axiomatic. No real scientist would claim that any of those are "axiomatic", and for instance causality in science today is quite unlike how it was considered as "axiomatic" by Aristotle, or even Newton.

— Glen Davidson

he just insists that anyone not a "believer" is wrong to fault his unwarranted belief system.

philosophy isn't about proof

Thanatos,

I don't think that this is helpful here.

Even the "spark plugs" at the Discovery Institute aren't much more advanced in their philosophical reasoning than Mark. And this isn't helping us understand Mark's reasons for appearing here.

C.S Lewis seems to be in vogue now.

*yawn* his arguments were trashed decades ago.

Wow, four hundred posts, that has to be some kind of record around here (I hope). Time for one final review before this thread closes for good (I hope). Here are some of Mark's responses to scientific evidence:

Tree rings - created by God to make the insides of trees look pretty (they just happen to provide the same exact paleoclimate record as the ice cores).

All other evidence for an ancient earth - created by God to give the appearance of age not history (even thought they all give a consistent answer about one and only one specific history).

Radiometric dating - not reliable because of measurement error (despite the fact that this does not address the issue of how things could possibly be determined to be drastically different ages regardless of the magnitude of the error).

Geologic column - hydrologic sorting (even though he was specifically told that that is what the AIG people would say and that every one already knew it was completely wrong).

Gravitational lensing - no response.

Tree of life - no response.

Vitamin C genes - they all happen to be broken in exactly the same way in exactly the same place in all primates by coincidence, or maybe for some unknown reason (I guess God has a pretty evil sense of humor).

Pseudogenes - they really do have a functiopn after all, we're just not smart enough to figure out what it is (even though many are mitochondrial in origin and couldn't possibly be expressed in the nucleus, even though they mutate at rates consistent with lack of functional constraint, even though many lack regulatory elements essential to function, etc.).

Retroviral transposons - no response (even though they demonstrate conclusively that cetaceans were derived from terrestrial ancestors, etc.).

The fact that all data sets converge on the exact same answer - no response.

Mike has tried valiantly to deduce Mark's true motivation for trying to engage in conversation here. From his responses it is pretty clear that he has no idea of how to deal with evidence and no desire to increase his knowledge. I guess that is why everyone eventually gave up on trying to educate him. Oh well, maybe he is right, maybe God is just a lying fool who is trying to get us to believe things that can't be true. Maybe that is his definition of faith. She sure did go to a lot of trouble to fake the evidence.

I don't think Mark ever convinced anyone of Biblical inerrancy. If that was what he was after I would say he failed at that as well. He also failed to convince anyone that they were committed to naturalism, even though he demonstrated beyond doubt that he is committed to supernaturalism.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that Mark is a time traveler who is hopelessly stuck in the Dark Ages and wants all of us to join him there. Pretty pathetic really, until you realize that someone with absolutely not scientific knowledge somehow managed to travel in time.

In way of summary, don't forget that Mark said that the Bible is infallible except when it isn't:
1) The Bible must be interpreted in context,
2) Some bits are "poetic", and therefore not literal (e.g. Psalms),
3) The Bible is "selective" in its recording of history,
4) There are plausible explanations to every Biblical contradiction,
5) Quotations are often "loose" in the Bible,
6) Unnatural stuff in the Bible is simply "supernatural", whereas in other religious texts it's it's simply "absurd".
7) People have a psychological tendency to believe in god(s), but for some reason Mark's preference is better than others'.

philosophy isn't about proof

— quote miner Thanatos

If philosophy isn't about proof,Glen, you can have it ,it's all yours,I don't want it.:-)

As for the "mistake of dualism" and the falsification of "platonic dualism" where is the scientific objective proof ,you ignorant?

C.S Lewis seems to be in vogue now.

Stanton, this isn't close to the record. One thread went well above 700 posts, maybe above 800. This is long for recent times, however.

It looks like this is winding down, with little to show for it than that Hausam is interested only in one thing, denying evolution and anything else that threatens his belief.

What's remarkable (yes, remarkable in the sense of worth remarking upon, no matter that it's common with the anti- and pseudo-scientists) is that Hausam has his conclusions well in hand, and goes off to creationists in order to get "evidence" for his conclusions.

Stanton has his list (good) of questions not answered, or anyway, not answered at all convincingly. We could increase that list by an order of magnitude, I'm sure.

What I really wanted to say about it is that it was Mark who was asked, not the ICR, AIG, or any other devious anti-science organization. If we wanted the ICR's answers, we'd have gone there ourselves and read their material, or asked point-blank. But we don't want their "answers", we've heard them repeatedly, and they fail to reach the level of science.

We wanted sufficient answers from Mark, since he claims to have reasons for his conclusions. Did he? Usually he didn't even have the ICR tripe down. He's asked, and he trots off to get some disgusting nonsense from the ICR, as if that were a legitimate source.

I'm not claiming that we don't go off to get information for specific matters relating to these issues, but for most of the general matters of geological and evolutionary evidence we already know the answers, and most of the nonsense coming from the ICR as well. That is, we've actually considered the evidence in order to come to our conclusions, not looked desperately for reasons to cling to an a priori position.

And that is the crucial difference between an open mind that considers the evidence, and the closed mind that desires only to refute the implications of the evidence presented.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

The new timescale takes advantage of a growing ability to date rocks using astronomical events, says Felix Gradstein of the University of Oslo, Norway, ICS chairman and another of the timescale's editors. Using this technique, the past 23 million years--the Neogene period--has been dated to within plus or minus 40,000 years. "This is the single most exciting scientific development in the new timescale," says Gradstein. "Every geologist should be amazed by this." John Whitfield. "Time lords." pp. 124-125 v. 429 13 May 2004. Nature. p. 125.

Some more questions for "Mark":

How did the Colorado River climb the Kaibab Plateau to carve the Grand Canyon?

Why does DNA dating correlate so well with radiometric dating, astronomical dating, etc.? Note that I'm not talking about the "same dates" being given by both DNA and, say, radiometric dating, since DNA dating is relative. The point is that DNA dating generally indicates that twice as much time has passed when radiometric dating indicates twice as much time has passed, during, for instance, a particular vertebrate evolutionary sequence (I use vertebrates because they're reasonably well-documneted in the fossil record)?

Why does relative "fossil dating" correlate with radiometric dating in the same way, and relative to similar conditions?

This is related to the two foregoing questions, but worthwhile because it emphasizes evolution: Why do vertebrate fossil transitionals appear at the time when DNA dating suggests that these events occurred? Tiktaalik being the most famous, since it was not only "predicted by theory", it was predicted in practice. Is this all just some grand conspiracy, did God, scientists, Satan, somehow put transitionals into "flood layers" in such a manner that they would be in the right place for DNA dating, radiometric dating, and relative dating would all agree and point to evolution?

Why are there "nested hierarchies" at all if organisms were simply created? And have similar nested hierarchies ever been produced by human invention (and I don't mean attempts to recreate evolutionary observationis)?

Most important of all, since it deals with epistemology and the honest evaluation of evidence, why would you accept the evidence that (most) Britains, HIV strains, and OJ Simpson and his blood found at the crime scene are related, while the exact same kind of evidence that humans and chimps are related are denied by you (whether retroviruses, pseudogenes, or coding and non-coding sequences are considered)? I've never gotten a good answer from you, the ICR, or the IDists ('the "Designer" didn't want to change those particular data' doesn't cut it).

Answer that one first, how about, then go beyond and try to answer that plus the fact that DNA dating, radiometric dating, and the fossil evidence show a roughly consistent (there are extant issues, of course) picture of humans diverging from chimps.

See, we have your correlations. You have exactly none in your scenario, mainly because you have no (or vanishingly little, depending on definition) evidence for your scenario.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

I don't think that this is helpful here. Even the "spark plugs" at the Discovery Institute aren't much more advanced in their philosophical reasoning than Mark. And this isn't helping us understand Mark's reasons for appearing here.

— Mike Elzinga

Glen,

I don't know. I cannot answer your claims.

I oould probably answer some of them to some degree, as I have (such as with the vitamin-C genes). I can suggest directions from which possible solutions might come, and I could probably follow those directions to some degree. But I cannot at this time give you an adequate answer to most of your claims.

This doesn't prove your claims are unanswerable, of course. It just proves that I can't answer them now. I can't answer the claims of creationists either. That doesn't prove them right. It proves I am incapable of debating this particular subject to anywhere near an adequate degree with my current state of knowledge of the relevant subjects and data, which I already knew and have been saying all along.

I am in the process of slowly researching these things so that that situation will change. The claims of correlation are particularly interesting to me. I agree with you, as far as I can tell these things, that if the data correlates in the way you suggest, that would be very odd from a creationist perspective. I think one of the most important things I need to do to check your claims (and the claims of creationists) is to try to get a hold of some of the raw data on which those claims are based. I would like to see some actual diagrams of actual fossil strata. I would like to see diagrams of the ice cores and the tree rings. I would like to see the raw data of the genetic similarities and differences between various creatures. I would like to see the specific results of the specific experiments, including any discordant data and the methods used to interpret the data, that have been used to ascertain the dates of rocks, fossils, etc. Basically, you have given me claims and interpretations of the evidence. I want to see the evidence itself to check your claims and interpretations of it. I want to hear proposals of alternative interpretations of the evidence and investigate those as well. I want to compare various interpretations of the data, and gain an understanding of the bases of those interpretations, to see which ones make more sense in light of all the evidence (physical and otherwise).

Probably my next step in this process, beyond continuing to read Stahler and Dalrymple and various articles, will be to try to get a hold of diagrams of observed strata. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to pass them on.

By the way, I emailed ICR again this morning re-asking my question number two from my original email to them. I don't know if anyone there will have time to answer my question directly. If they do, that will be helpful. Below this post I have pasted my email to ICR.

All the reconstructions of my past and my motives are very interesting. You all are amazingly suspicious, at least of creationists. It is interesting to watch people try to figure things out from googling my name, etc. If you want to know something, I will probably be happy to tell you. But you will think I am lying. Oh well. I'm not sure how to break through that barrier in your minds. I guess you will break through it yourselves if you ever really want to. If you don't want to, there's probably nothing I can do about it. (Glen, I get the impression you may be doubting whether my name really is "Mark." Haven't you googled me? Do you think I am using "Mark Hausam" as a pseudonym at Mormon conferences and everywhere else, including at my own church? I would think Occam's razor might lead you to a better interpretation--like I call myself "Mark Hausam" all these places because my name happens to be Mark Hausam. I am a Presbyterian, by the way, but if you have googled me thoroughly you surely must already know that.)

I have no interest in hiding my religious views or whatever. I don't remember now all of Raging Bee's questions or everybody else's, but here are some I do remember:

I haven't reported any of my own revelations because I don't receive personal revelations.

I haven't checked out the Augustine quote, but I'm sure he was more literal-minded than the quote gives the impression of. I know he interpreted the six days metaphorically because he thought it made more sense that everything should have been created at once. I disagree with his interpretation. (I like the Galileo letter, by the way. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have seen I agree with. He seems to think the same way I do. Interpret the dubious or unclear data in light of the more clear data, whether the more clear is Scripture or the physical evidence.)

I do believe my own religious views are better than those of other religions (where they disagree). Everyone, unless they are lying about their own beliefs, believes their views to be better than everyone else's (where they disagree). If they didn't, they wouldn't hold those views. On what basis do I think my views are better? The evidence. Same as just about everyone else.

I believe nations should be Christian nations because I believe Christianity is true and I believe groups of people as well as individuals should accept reality as it really is and work from within that framework. That's why I earlier described my view on this as something like a Christian version of CFI.

I don't remember any more specific questions off the top of my head.

Mark

Oops, forgot to paste the email to ICR. Here it is:

Mr. Wood,

Thank you for your further advice and resources. Thank you especially for referring me to some resources that deal with the sort of internet format encountered at Panda's Thumb, Talkorigins, etc. Those are especially helpful. I wasn't aware of any of the websites. I have already found a great deal of help from trueorigins.org in particular.

One thing I have not been able to find as of yet is the answer to the second question I asked in my first email. That may be because the question itself contains faulty premises. According to the people at Panda's Thumb, various dating methods consistently give older dates for lower strata, younger dates for higher strata, etc. If this is true, it seems very odd from a creationist perspective. If the dating methods are off due to faulty assumptions, which seems very likely, why would they consistently date lower strata older? This would seem like too much of a coincidence to discount. I would rather expect the strata to date the same or randomly. So my first question is, Is it in fact the case that dating methods consistently assign older dates to lower strata, or is that conclusion reached by means of faulty assumptions, selective use of data, etc.? If the answer to the first question is that the methods do indeed date lower strata as older, how have creationists accounted or tried to account for that?

I realize you are very busy and don't have time to have an ongoing conversation with me. I will not be offended if you cannot answer my specific question. I'll find the answer myself as I continue to research. But if you are able to shed some light on it for me, it would be helpful to me.

Thanks again for all the help you have given me.

Mark

(Glen, I get the impression you may be doubting whether my name really is "Mark." Haven't you googled me? Do you think I am using "Mark Hausam" as a pseudonym at Mormon conferences and everywhere else, including at my own church? I would think Occam's razor might lead you to a better interpretation---like I call myself "Mark Hausam" all these places because my name happens to be Mark Hausam. I am a Presbyterian, by the way, but if you have googled me thoroughly you surely must already know that.)

You all are amazingly suspicious, at least of creationists.

Mark wrote:

"It proves I am incapable of debating this particular subject to anywhere near an adequate degree with my current state of knowledge of the relevant subjects and data, which I already knew and have been saying all along."

"On what basis do I think my views are better? The evidence. Same as just about everyone else."

So, I have made up my mind, based on the evidence, even though I have not looked at the evidence, nor am I qualified to do so. Still, I don't intend to take anyone's word for anything when it comes to evidence, unless they agree with me and give me some excuse to ignore the evidence. I suppose that this could make some kind of sense, given a sufficiently nebulous definition of evidence. Unfortunately for Mark, that isn't going to work when talking to people who have examined the real evidence professionally. Still no clue as to why his religious views are preferable and still no hint of this evidence he has claimed exists over and over again.

I suggest that Mark get degrees in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, Paleoclimatology, Geology, Palentology and Anthropology. Then he can come back and discuss the scientific issues intelligently, at least theoretically. At least then he wouldn't have the excuse of lack of expertise to ignore evidence any longer. All the data Mark says he is looking for can be found in the college textbooks for these courses and in the primary literature. Until then, here are some tips: don't try to debate science with scientists if you have no clue what you are talking about; and don't claim your views are based on evidence until you are at least in a position to try to examine the evidence. By the way, even if Mark did get degrees in all of the above subjects, science will have advanced and there will be at least another ten years worth of evidence to explain away. Oh well, at least he would appear to be trying.

I don't know. I cannot answer your claims.

The strategy Mark claims he is using to study all the evidence is a classic set-up for procrastination and failure. As David Stanton points out, he will have to get degrees in multiple fields, and advanced degrees at that. You notice that he is always turning to the creationists for reassurance, and makes the suggestion that we may not know about these. Is he reading anything that people are posting here?

Even the short reads he has been pointed to he hasn't read. Raging Bee even provided the quotes from St. Augustine in comment #181007. I was fairly certain Mark wouldn't get very far with Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, and he just confirmed that. It appears he didn't get past the first page and thus has missed the entire gist of the letter (as well as some other interesting items).

He seems to scan only far enough into something to find some confirmation of his preconceptions, and then he stops. It's as though he is stuck at some earlier time in his development and everything since that time has to be bent to conform to what he has already learned. If what I understand from the researchers on brain development is any indication, that is not a good sign, especially as he gets into his senior years.

If he cannot find the time to read something that takes less than 15 minutes (and maybe an hour to re-read several times and savor the thoughts), how does he expect to find the time to read and digest all the things he claims he is going to study?

So I am still asking: what is the real reason he chose to appear on this and the previous thread?

This raises an interesting question, how far is it necessary to be able to personally and critically evaluate the (raw) evidence in order to be personally sure that the conclusions drawn are appropriate.

Even if I could get my hands on a bunch of ice cores, I doubt I'd have the remotest chance of interpreting the data sufficiently well to challenge the authors of a paper on ice core dating, at least without doing a PhD in ice-core-dating. Still less astrophysics!

How far should we allow the 'argument from authority' to persuade us - ie if enough renowned and respected scientists agree on a topic, that's pretty much good enough?

Of course, we have the alternative - one which I espouse - I know who I trust, or can usually find a colleague who I trust in a given discipline. Because it's impractical to get a degree in every subject under the sun, we trust, in general, the body of scientific literature. When a paper is controversial, we go ask someone who's educated in that area.

Mark's problem is that he's arguing against the consensus (99.5% of the world's scientific community are unlikely to be wrong when they together date the earth as old).

Delurks,

You make an excellent point. No, we should not in general trust any authority, no matter how presumably trustworthy. However, due to practical considerations, this becomes almost inevitable.

To me the answer is three-fold. First, I tend to trust in the peer review process more than in any one individual. I know that the process is far from perfect. However, with peer review, at least you have the possibility of real experts with no obvious bias or conflict of interest making evaluations. The reputation of any particular journal then becomes very important, at least as a first indicator of quality. But more importantly, publishing in top notch journals virtually guarantees scrutiny from the entire scientiic community. There is nowhere to hide if others cannot confirm your results.

Second, I want to do the research myself. Since it is impossible to become an expert in every field, I choose one field that I thought was of primary importance to evolution and to me that is genetics. I sequenced the genes myself. I collected the specimens, extracted the DNA did the sequencing and analyzed the data myself. Then I published the results for all to see so that they could be confirmed or refuted. You can't do that in every field of course, but you can do it in at least one field.

Third, if you are not an expert you have to trust the experts, at least sometimes. There eventually comes a point where evidence for the concensus view becomes overwhelming. If you don't believe it, or don't want to believe it, the burden of proof is on you to prove the experts wrong. UNtil you can do that, no amount of whining is going to convince anybody.

Mark does not appear to want to do any of these things. He has totally avoided the primary literature, preferring creationist web sites as a source of information. He is not capable of performing original research in any relevant field as far as I can tell. He also refuses to accept the concensus view, despite being totally unfamiliar with the eivdence on which it is based. His problem is that he must find some way to do away with all the evidence and he cannot.

"Mark,
I wonder, if you find the claims presented by "Creation Science FAQs" convincing ?
Reference: Comment #183 632"

I really can't say. I am in the same position with them that I am in with regard to the mainstream arguments at this point, for the most part.

David, I didn't come here to debate scientists. I didn't come here with any particular purpose, except to look at some of the articles on Panda's Thumb. I posted a couple of comments and ended up in a conversation I had no idea was coming.

Delurks, I think your method is a good one in many cases. But I'm afraid in this case I lack your confidence in the scientific consensus. If you had lived in the middle ages, the consensus of maintream European intellectuals was that medieval Christianity was true. This didn't prove it true or put it beyond question. The consensus can be wrong. The vast majority of those who craft the mainstream consensus are either naturalists are sympathetic to naturalism in science. That is why most of them affirm methodological naturalism as an a priori and part of the very essence of science. All of you on this thread have fit this description as well. You all think that only naturalism "works," even with regard to the history of life on earth (even if a few of you don't want to assume naturalism as an a priori). None of you (that have spoken up anyway) take the Bible seriously as containing real history. Maybe you were objectively convinced of your positions by the objective evidence, but I have no reason to assume that. Even if you started out with non-naturalist assumptions, the existence of a consensus can be overwhelming and convince people of ways of thinking or particular beliefs by the force of "everybody thinks this way" rather than by a careful, thorough, objective look at all the evidence. Since I do take theism and the Bible seriously, I do not expect naturalism to work with regard to understanding the entire history of the earth from the very beginning, so I have reason to question the consensus. I also have reason to suspect that your naturalistic biases influence your views of the evidence, and this is even more true probably of those scientists who have actually been instrumental in formulating the consensus on these issues. That doesn't mean I discount everything you say, but it does mean I will not take your word for it. Imagine yourself living in a culture where the scientific community was dominated by a vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. The mainstream consensus coming from that community was that the objective evidence supported a young earth and that evolution didn't happen. Many of them (pretty much all those highest up) claimed explicitly that biblical Christianity should be assumed a priori as part of the essence and definition of science. When you protest this, they say they don't mean the biblical view should be accepted arbitrarily but because it works. A minority deny that biblical Christianity should be an a priori, but they are fundamentalists also or at least sympathetic to fundamentalism, and they themselves think the consensus is right and makes sense. You can hardly find anyone with a purely naturalistic worldview in the mainstream group, including on mainstream blogs. Yuu hear a couple of bloggers and others saying that it is too much of a task to examine every bit of evidence oneself; it is more wise to trust the scientific consensus. 99.8 percent of scientists are unlikely to be wrong. You suggest that maybe they have come to the young earth conclusions they have because they are influenced by their biblical assumptions, which you take to be wrong. They assure you (with some irritation) that they are not, but that an objective view of the evidence led them to their position. Biblical Christianity just happens to work. Some even tell you that they started out as naturalists but were overwhelmed by the objective evidence for the more biblical view, and now they naturally think in biblical terms. Here's the question: Would you trust the scientific community implicitly on the age of the earth and evolution or would you want to do your own research? This is the position I am in in relation to the mainstream scientific community. Just replace biblical, fundamentalist Christianity with naturalism, deism, and the like.

Also, as I've said before, your confidence in psychoanalyzing me reduces my confidence in the objectivity of some of you even further. I know that I have told you the truth about myself and my reasons for being here. I know that I am truly interested in learning and looking at the evidence. The absurd arrogance and overconfidence of people like Elzinga, quite sure they know about my REAL motives, doesn't exactly scream out "objectivity"! Elzinga is the worse, probably, but some others have come close (like David Stanton). Those of you who indulge in this kind of behavior make yourselves look more like consipiracy theorists deluded with paranoia than objective investigators. To put it mildly, your attitude and overconfidence in assuming you know all about me just because I am a creationist--when, being me, I can see how ridiculously wrong you are--does not increase my confidence in your ability to evaluate the creationist views objectively. You exhibit all the symptoms of bitterness and closed-mindedness. And you complain that I don't trust people like you implicitly?

Mark

Mark,

The difference is that in the 21st century, we start from a substantially more informed perspective than in the medieval ages as we interpret our findings.

Your argument is that you are sufficiently persuaded by the Bible's authority that you feel science should be interpreted exclusively in it's light. Why should we vest authority this way around? Should we have a Bible on our lab shelves alongside our textbooks, and check whether the results of our experiments are somehow in conflict with what's written? And if not, why not?

Many christian theists say that we should interpret the Bible in the light of the scientific knowledge we now have - where there is a conflict, the rationalisation is that the Bible was written in a civilisation which lived 1000s of years ago, with a necessarily limited understanding.

As I said when I made my first post, for many years I had the same YEC viewpoint that you appear to. However, after looking at the evidence critically, it just made no sense at all to say that the earth is only 6ky old, and that the evidence of age was created ex nihilo by God.

Mark: you have expressed "amazement" at how mistrustful we are of creationists. And yet you have not followed up by actually asking us WHY we might be so mistrustful; and you have completely failed even to acknowledge, let alone honestly address, any of the numerous posts in which we have explicitly stated why we don't trust creationists. If you had the guts to read what we've already written here (and in the previous thread), you would not be at all "amazed" at our mistrust. And if you really were a well-meaning Christian, you would be eager to acknowledge and dispel all of the suspicions we've raised here -- both to protect your own reputation, and to better represent the religion you want us to embrace as THE source of all Truth.

Instead, you insist on pretending that our objections to creationist behavior, explicitly stated in plain English, simply don't exist. This longstanding pattern of behavior on your part leads me to one, count it, one, conclusion: you are knowingly and willingly participating in the creationist con-game, and (despite rules against such behavior set forth in your own Bible) consider such rank dishonesty to be perfectly acceptable behavior in a Christian.

This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that you worship a God who systematically deceives his creations, then make up "aesthetic" rationalizations to justify such deception. And, as if that weren't enough, you shamelessly ignore all of our points about philosophy and Biblical interpretation (the root and basis of all your reasoning), while pretending to embark on a long and arduous fact-finding expedition as an excuse to run away (as you ran away once before) and avoid addressing any of the issues raised here.

Mark, we've given you plenty of chances to prove yourself; and you have proven yourself to be just another lying creationist, albeit with a bigger vocabulary, and with no more integrity than Salvador Cordova or Larry the Confederate Information Minister. I, for one, see no point in wasting any more time trying to have a rational dialogue with someone who has proven himself as dishonest as you have.

I like the Galileo letter, by the way. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have seen I agree with. He seems to think the same way I do. Interpret the dubious or unclear data in light of the more clear data, whether the more clear is Scripture or the physical evidence.

Mark wrote:

"Here's the question: Would you trust the scientific community implicitly on the age of the earth and evolution or would you want to do your own research?"

As I carefully explained three weeks ago, I was raised in a culture where I was taught that the earth was 6,000 years old and all species were created by God fixed and perfect. After examining some of the evidence, I had good reason to doubt that this was the case. So, what did I do? Did I take anyone's word for it? NO, I did not. I got a BS in biology. Then I got an MS in Biology. Then I got a PhD in Biology, specializing in molecular systematics. Then I did three postdocs and published ten papers in the field of molecular evolution. I have my answer and I didn't get it from anyone else.

Now I ask you the same question. Do you want to trust anyone else to answer the question for you? If not, why have you not done anything about it? Why are you still unqualified to address any of the evidence? Why do you go to creationists web sites for your answers and repeat them back to people who already know better?

You say that you did not come here to debate scientists but in fact you came here claiming to be interested in evidence. Then you proceeded to rationalize away every piece of evidence presented without even looking at it. If you don't want to learn and you don't want to debate, what's the point? Come back when you are prepared to discuss science, or not.

Mark,

I agree that some issues are sufficiently serious that one needs to take extra care in evaluating them. However, I have to say that your approach is bound to fail unless you actually start thinking critically for yourself. For example, if you urgently needed heart surgery would you study the history of cardiology and demand all of the statistics and then learn how to analyze them yourself before having the surgery? If your ideas are wrong then your life on this planet may be all you have and, therefore, there is some urgency in trying to figure out what the actual evidence says. But, in addition to points already raised here are a few things to consider.

(i) Why would scientists from so many different fields arrive at the same conclusions independently? Is there a vast conspiracy that relates solely to issues related to evolution? After all, science seems to work extremely well in other areas. Or do you get a degree in engineering before boarding a plane?

(ii) If there is a conspiracy then all it would take is for someone to enter one of the suspect scientific fields and obtain actual evidence for such a conspiracy. This evidence would take two forms: (a) evidence that data was being faked or wrongly analyzed and (b) evidence that contrary findings were being suppressed or destroyed. Given the vast resources available to the creationist camp this would seem to be a relatively simple thing to do.

(iii) As has been noted already, some of the methods and concepts used for dating etc. are the same methods - and rely on the same principals - as are used in many other areas of life. Blood typing has already been mentioned. But many methods used were not invented to date the Earth or study evolution. Instead they are methods which have been developed based on findings unrelated to that goal. Nuclear physics exists independently of carbon-14 dating.

(iv) Any scientist who could prove that the earth was 6000 years old would get an immediate Nobel prize. It would be a huge coup. In fact, the modern view of how old the earth is (and, partly, of evolution) was arrived at because of the total failure of flood-based geology to explain observations. Why would scientists hide evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. What would they they gain? What would they lose (think: recognition, grants, fame)?

(v) When evidence is found that seems to support some aspect of creationism what happens? Do the creationists apply the same level of skepticism to that evidence that they do to other evidence? Or do they pick and choose to find evidence that suits their beliefs.

(vi) When evidence is found that contradicts a well established scientific theory then what happens? Who is actually open to examination of the evidence?

(vii) Why do no other societies beyond those related to the ancient Jews have a history in which Noah and his family are known by name? The flood happened only 4000 years ago. Is that reasonable? There are many questions like this. How did kangaroos get from Australia to the ark and then back to Australia without leaving a trace?

(viii) Here's another. The flood happened around 2300 BC according to biblical chronology. The Exodus happened around 1500 BC after 400 years of the Jews being captive in Egypt. So, in about 400 years from Noah and his family coming to of the ark a lot of history happened including the construction of the pyramids, and that happened in the aftermath of a huge catastrophe.

(ix) Had you been born in China what are the odds that the Bible would now constitute your view of Earth's history.

(x) Had you been born in China what are the odds that science would now govern your view of Earth's history?

As I say, it's not entirely about evidence but about thinking about the evidence and the implications of literal Bible chronology.

I've been periodically downloading all the comments of this and the previous thread with the thought that, with a lot of editing, it could be compressed into the best science-creationist debate I've seen. That's not saying a lot, but usually the creationist side comes off as loony, and the scientific side comes off as snarky and arrogant.

I take Mark at his word, and anyway his motivations aren't the primary issue, so I would delete all the speculations about them, as well as a bunch of off-topic stuff. That would cut down the word count by at least half. Then I would select what I thought were the best arguments. The result would still be fairly long, but would leave readers wanting more instead of less.

I would probably delete well-meant but not terribly strong comments like the following:

To the list of recommended reading material, I would add "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It is a history of the accumulation of evidence and thinking that went into the Big Bang theory (over hundreds of years).

I too have been thinking about when to and when not to accept a scientific consensus. I am not a scientist myself, but there are some scientific positions I would be willing to bet large amounts of money on and others which I wouldn't. The idea of "dark matter" seemed very ad hoc to me, until I read the post about the "bullet cluster" at Cosmic Variance. So a major criterion for me would be how much evidence has been gathered. (Is there enough to justify a strong conclusion?) There are still passionate voices on both sides of the "global warming" issue, but I think that enough evidence has been accumulated and analyzed to make it likely that the consensus of climate scientists is not wrong in a major way.

Secondarily, I try to evaluate the credibility of the people on each side. As I look around me, everything man-made thing I see (houses, cars, medicine, electronics, etc.) was produced by technology based on science, discovered without recourse to supernatural causes. I don't know of any theories based on supernatural effects which have produced useable results. I have heard of claims of such, but the James Randi million-dollar prize still goes un-won.

So when all the major scientific organizations support evolution and an old Earth over creationism, and continue to do so as more is discovered about DNA and fossils each day, the amount of evidence and the credibility of the proponents would cause me to wager my life's savings on the consensus side --- if Las Vegas had a line on it.

"Should we have a Bible on our lab shelves alongside our textbooks, and check whether the results of our experiments are somehow in conflict with what's written?"

Yes.

"This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that you worship a God who systematically deceives his creations, then make up "aesthetic" rationalizations to justify such deception. And, as if that weren't enough, you shamelessly ignore all of our points . . ."

Raging Bee, I have no intention of ignoring anyone's points, although I may not answer every point that everyone makes all the time. However, why do you continue to ignore my points? How many times do I have to say that I don't believe that God has employed deceptive tactics? If God being deceptive is the only way to preserve a young earth view, that would discredit a young earth view in my opinion. Will you acknowledge my real viewpoint please?

"As I carefully explained three weeks ago, I was raised in a culture where I was taught that the earth was 6,000 years old and all species were created by God fixed and perfect. After examining some of the evidence, I had good reason to doubt that this was the case. So, what did I do? Did I take anyone's word for it? NO, I did not. I got a BS in biology. Then I got an MS in Biology. Then I got a PhD in Biology, specializing in molecular systematics. Then I did three postdocs and published ten papers in the field of molecular evolution. I have my answer and I didn't get it from anyone else."

Good for you. People can give personal accounts of how they started out atheist and evolutionist and coverted to creationism because of the evidence as well. In fact, there are probably personal accounts of just about every sort of conversion the world has ever seen. Personal accounts are interesting, but cannot by themselves prove that a position is true.

"Now I ask you the same question. Do you want to trust anyone else to answer the question for you? If not, why have you not done anything about it? Why are you still unqualified to address any of the evidence? Why do you go to creationists web sites for your answers and repeat them back to people who already know better?"

I am doing something about it, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. I'm so sorry I haven't been persuaded by your authoritative claims to abandon what I believe I have good reason from other sources to hold in all the vast amount of time (three or four weeks, by golly!) I've been talking to you. If you don't know why I go to creationist websites as well as mainstream websites by now, you have no excuse, and I am not going to nursemaid you by answering a question you should be able to answer for yourself.

"I agree that some issues are sufficiently serious that one needs to take extra care in evaluating them. However, I have to say that your approach is bound to fail unless you actually start thinking critically for yourself."

Why do you think I am not thinking critically for myself? Because I am a theist, a traditional Bible-believing Christian? Because I haven't immediately abandoned my former perspective because a few evolutionist bloggers tell me I should without giving me a chance to look at their claims in my own way?

"For example, if you urgently needed heart surgery would you study the history of cardiology and demand all of the statistics and then learn how to analyze them yourself before having the surgery? If your ideas are wrong then your life on this planet may be all you have and, therefore, there is some urgency in trying to figure out what the actual evidence says."

I would not do exhaustive research on heart surgery. But I don't trust evolutionists to get the interpretations of the facts right. If I have to default anywhere with my trust, it will be the creationists, who share my assumptions. And please, everyone, get this right once and for all: I did NOT say I will believe the creationists, or even the Bible, in spite of contradictory evidence. But I do default to them until I see that contradictory evidence for myself.

"(i) Why would scientists from so many different fields arrive at the same conclusions independently? Is there a vast conspiracy that relates solely to issues related to evolution? After all, science seems to work extremely well in other areas. Or do you get a degree in engineering before boarding a plane?"

An a priori worldview that is assumed to be obviously the case can create a tremendous amount of something like group-think, especially when that worldview dominates a community that is seen in the culture as being the intellectual, authoritative guide to getting reality right. It can cause people to think in a certain way. I am not saying all people will consciously ignore evidence that contradicts the consensus view, but evidence against becomes very hard to see properly when a certain viewpoint is so closely and automatically associated with right thinking in people's minds. This is not a complete account, but gives you some hints as to why I might not implicitly trust the mainstream scientific community, particularly when I have good reason to think that they are wrong from other sources.

"(iv) Any scientist who could prove that the earth was 6000 years old would get an immediate Nobel prize. It would be a huge coup. In fact, the modern view of how old the earth is (and, partly, of evolution) was arrived at because of the total failure of flood-based geology to explain observations. Why would scientists hide evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. What would they they gain? What would they lose (think: recognition, grants, fame)?"

It is difficult and costly to challenge a reigning paradigm that almost all the authorities who have the power are absolutely convinced is obviously true and supremely important.

"(v) When evidence is found that seems to support some aspect of creationism what happens? Do the creationists apply the same level of skepticism to that evidence that they do to other evidence? Or do they pick and choose to find evidence that suits their beliefs."

I have no reason to accept your charges against creation scientists.

"(vi) When evidence is found that contradicts a well established scientific theory then what happens? Who is actually open to examination of the evidence?"

As far as I know, creationists are.

"(vii) Why do no other societies beyond those related to the ancient Jews have a history in which Noah and his family are known by name? The flood happened only 4000 years ago. Is that reasonable? There are many questions like this. How did kangaroos get from Australia to the ark and then back to Australia without leaving a trace?"

You reveal your bias as a non-fundamentalist (i.e. historic, traditional) Christian. This is, of course, not surprising. There are many flood legends from around the world. I don't know if animals were spread the same way before the flood as after. Apparently they had supernatural help getting to and into the ark; they may have had such help getting re-settled afterwards, but I don't know of any reason right now why that would be necessary. Creationists have ideas and theories on these things.

"(viii) Here's another. The flood happened around 2300 BC according to biblical chronology. The Exodus happened around 1500 BC after 400 years of the Jews being captive in Egypt. So, in about 400 years from Noah and his family coming to of the ark a lot of history happened including the construction of the pyramids, and that happened in the aftermath of a huge catastrophe."

You raise some good questions. It is worth looking into further, but for now I don't see any reason why those things could not have happened.

"(ix) Had you been born in China what are the odds that the Bible would now constitute your view of Earth's history."

It depends on whether I heard the preaching of the gospel and was brought to accept it by the work of the Spirit causing me to honestly acknowledge the truth. Your expected answer, of course, assumes that traditional Christianity (and therefore the Bible) isn't true. You assume that it is merely cultural prejudice that brings a person to believe the Bible over whatever is popular in China (atheism at this time), or at least that a straigtforward, historical Christian interpretation of the Bible has no rational foundation.

"(x) Had you been born in China what are the odds that science would now govern your view of Earth's history?"

You assume that holding the Bible as infallible and science are contradictory. I don't believe they are. So I would hope that the Bible and science would govern my view of earth history.

"As I say, it's not entirely about evidence but about thinking about the evidence and the implications of literal Bible chronology."

Yes.

Blogs are very addictive. I am spending too much time on this. I am not going to disappear entirely, but I am going to stop trying to answer everyone's questions all the time. I will post briefly when I think I reasonably should and can. That's what I was trying to do before, but this time I am going to try harder! : ) Consider the thread focused on discussion with me closed.

Mark

"I've been periodically downloading all the comments of this and the previous thread with the thought that, with a lot of editing, it could be compressed into the best science-creationist debate I've seen."

Please don't think this is the best evolution-creationist debate you've seen. I cannot fairly represent the creationist side, for reasons that surely are clear from the thread. This wasn't even really supposed to be a debate. There are lots of better examples of debate elsewhere. If you do anything with this thread, please don't represent me as an adequate defender of creationism or anything close to it.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark wrote: You reveal your bias as a non-fundamentalist (i.e. historic, traditional) Christian

Actually, the opposite: I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and most of the creationist arguments are present in their literature, with entire books and pamphlets devoted to this topic. It was going to University - strongly discouraged by the JWs - and becoming a researcher and actually researching the topics we are discussing which brought me to my present views. That's what I mean by critical thinking.

I take Mark at his word, and anyway his motivations aren't the primary issue, so I would delete all the speculations about them ...

The idea of "dark matter" seemed very ad hoc to me, until I read the post about the "bullet cluster" at Cosmic Variance. So a major criterion for me would be how much evidence has been gathered. (Is there enough to justify a strong conclusion?)

Mark wrote:

"I am doing something about it, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. I'm so sorry I haven't been persuaded by your authoritative claims to abandon what I believe I have good reason from other sources to hold in all the vast amount of time (three or four weeks, by golly!) I've been talking to you. If you don't know why I go to creationist websites as well as mainstream websites by now, you have no excuse, and I am not going to nursemaid you by answering a question you should be able to answer for yourself."

Mark, I defy you to give one example of anything I asked you to take my word for. I never said such a thing, nor would I ever. What I did say, over and over again, was that you should not take anyone's word for anything. I proved to you that I did not, you have not done likewise. I urged you to read the literature, you did not. I urged you to take a course and get a degree, you did not even express the slightest interest. I gave you web sites with credible information with scientific references, you didn't read them. Instead you went to creationist web sites and got rotten old arguments that have been discredited for many years. You seem content to take their word for anything. Why is that Mark? Do you really want me to answer that question for you as well?

Just for the record, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what you believe. You are perfectly free to live out the rest of your life in ignorance. In fact, I suspect that you would be much happier doing just that. Since you have utterly failed to address even one scientific issue in a scientific manner in over a month now, I conclude that such will indeed be your fate.

Mark,

You make other faulty assumptions about the questions I raised. Again, it comes down to critical thinking. For example, unless God is somehow biased against the Chinese then you'd expect that the Holy Spirit would draw similar numbers of people irrespective of their cultural background. I'm not assuming that the Bible is simply the result of cultural prejudice. I am asking what the expected consequences would be if the Bible were actually true.

And my point about Chinese people coming to the Bible versus science was not about whether the two are contradictory or not. It was making the point that science tells a story that is universally accepted (and acceptable) across cultures. This pertains to the point about whether we should accept the consensus view of science. It is a consensus across many cultures and even religions. Also, some of your responses indicate that while - and this is not meant as an insult, merely and observation - you obviously don't understand at all how science operates you talk as if you actually do understand the process. In fact, your view is exactly the same as many other YECs but it isn't an accurate picture. So how is that an example of critical thinking? Your position is exactly the same as a person who claims that medical science is quackery. As a former JW I know all of the distorted arguments JWs make against blood transfusions and the faulty logic they engage in to allow some blood parts but not others. And, that logic is functionally equivalent to the arguments and methods used by YECs. But only you can discover that and it doesn't take a degree in science to do so - just some critical thinking and an honest examination of Creationist arguments which range from the dishonest and/or ad hoc to outright misrepresentation of what various scientists have said. In a nutshell it's like the Proverb which warns against speaking about a matter until one has heard it. Also, Job 13 the first few versus should give any Christian pause.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the questions I raised but they were questions that, if you are so inclined, you might try answering convincingly - and honestly - to yourself. I'm already convinced.

Good luck,

Robert

Mark:
Visit some web sites that are defending evolution against creationism (e.g. TalkOrigins) and count the number of links that are given to creationist sites (e.g. AnswersinGenesis). Now visit the creationist sites and count how many links are given to sites supporting evolution. You will find a great disparity.

Also, compare the way in which you can post freely here but I (and many other people) am banned from UncommonDescent because I sent a post politely indicating that adding fart noises to a video of a judge did not contribute to scientific discourse.

Ask yourself why the difference in attitude to dissenting voices. Who does not want you to be aware of the opposing views? What are they afraid of?

People can give personal accounts of how they started out atheist and evolutionist and converted to creationism because of the evidence as well.

I did NOT say I will believe the creationists, or even the Bible, in spite of contradictory evidence. But I do default to them until I see that contradictory evidence for myself.

Raging Bee, I have no intention of ignoring anyone's points, although I may not answer every point that everyone makes all the time.

You say you have no intention of ignoring my points; then you offer an excuse for ignoring the points you've consistently chosen to ignore; then you continue to ignore the very same points. Your actions, and the excuses you offer for them, speak louder than your stated intentions.

However, why do you continue to ignore my points? How many times do I have to say that I don't believe that God has employed deceptive tactics?

You keep on saying you don't believe God uses deceptive tactics; and we keep on laboriously pointing out that the things you insist God did are, in their effect, systematically deceptive, regardless of what you say you believe. (Here's a little hint: if you lie to your wife, and tell her you did it for "aesthetic" purposes, she won't buy it. So why should we?)

Will you acknowledge my real viewpoint please?

We have been acknowledging your real viewpoint, and telling you exactly where it leads. You are the one refusing to acknowledge what we have said; and you are the one who keeps on saying "I believe" something that has already been refuted.

It is difficult and costly to challenge a reigning paradigm that almost all the authorities who have the power are absolutely convinced is obviously true and supremely important.

So you're right and the entire rest of the world is wrong? LaRouches and mentally-ill homeless people say the same thing; and so do con-artists of all sorts. Prove the existence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth on so large a scale, including names and specific acts, and we'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another liar making up conspiracy stories to pretend everyone else is at fault but yourself.

Mark, read Richard Simons' post #183927 and follow his directives. With all due respect to those here most scientifically learned, the answer to this problem is not to study the science yourself. You do not have the tools to evaluate the evidence and fight off the truthiness the like of the ICR will give you in rebuttal. Besides, there is only so much time in the day. By their lies ye shall know them.

Just look at how creationists quote mine, as the most glaring example I can think of. This is easy to verify, and requires no scientific training. Simply check the references of creationist literature vs scientific literature and see who is the more honest. You will notice a dramatic pattern.

Mark ...

""Should we have a Bible on our lab shelves alongside our textbooks, and check whether the results of our experiments are somehow in conflict with what's written?"
Yes."

Well, no-one can criticise you for not giving a succinct unambiguous response to that question! There are obvious follow ups, though ...

Is it possible, do you think, for non-christian scientists to interpret their data correctly without the Bible as guidance? Moslem, Hindu, agnostic, whatever? On what basis do you make that claim?

What should the christian scientist do when the data he/she acquires is in direct conflict with scripture? Which particular interpretation of a passage should they use?

In other words, what doyou say to the many, many christian scientists who work in astronomy, geology or evolutionary biology who have come to the conclusion that the universe is actually really old, and who reconcile this with the bible by interpreting Genesis in a different way to you?

Delurks

"Is it possible, do you think, for non-christian scientists to interpret their data correctly without the Bible as guidance? Moslem, Hindu, agnostic, whatever? On what basis do you make that claim?"

Since I take the Bible to be a true, factually correct revelation from God, I believe it should be accepted as a part of the knowledge of human beings. It has the potential to shed light on certain things on which it speaks. But it doesn't speak about everything or even most things, so in a great many areas, as long as someone believes in natural law, it probably won't make much difference to their science whether they accept the Bible or not.

"What should the christian scientist do when the data he/she acquires is in direct conflict with scripture? Which particular interpretation of a passage should they use?"

If physical data is truly in direct conflict with Scripture, then Scripture cannot be true. At that point, I would reezamine the validity of the idea of biblical infallibility. If biblical infallibility is reaffirmed to be essential to belief in Christianity, I would have to abandon belief in Christianity.

But I think I have good reason to believe the Bible and its infallibility, so I don't expect this to happen. And coming to the physical data with the starting assumption (gained from other sources of evidence) that the Bible is trustworthy, as opposed to an assumption that it is not, can lead to different cut-off points as to when the evidence should be considered to be conclusively contradictory to the Bible. In other words, if you don't accept the Bible to begin with, you will probably be a lot more quick to consider an interpretation of the data that makes it contradictory to the Bible than you would be if you started out assuming you have good reason to think the Bible is trustworthy. This is, of ocurse, true in any siuation where you bring prior knowledge and expectations into new research. For example, if you accept evolutiono, you will be a lot less quick to interpret a bit of data as contradicting evolution than you would be if you approached that data from the perspective of already being a creationist. This doesn't mean that the physical data cannot falsify the starting assumption; it simply means that one's criteria for when it should be considered to do so will be effected, and rightly so, by one's starting assumption. That is why when someone on this thread suggests a bit of data they say contradicts my interpretation of the Bible's account, I don't just immediately abandon my view. I take it into cnsideration and continue to look into it, and if the data ends up being conclusive enough, it would eventually switch my paradigm. But paradigms must naturally have some resilience and require a good deal of effort to overturn. If we had no "tenacity of belief" in our paradigms, we would be switching back and forth between paradigms constantly, every time anything that seems on the surface somewhat anomalous turns up.

"In other words, what doyou say to the many, many christian scientists who work in astronomy, geology or evolutionary biology who have come to the conclusion that the universe is actually really old, and who reconcile this with the bible by interpreting Genesis in a different way to you?"

I say, "let me see your reasons," and then I take the time to look at them. I examine both their reasons for believing that the physical evidence says what it says, and I examine the validity of their argument that Genesis can be interpreted to fit with what they take to be the physical data.

By the way, thanks to everyone for your continued suggestions, including the suggestion to check out creationist quote-mining, etc.

Mark

Brave Sir Hausam appears to be bravely running away again...

And please, everyone, get this right once and for all: I did NOT say I will believe the creationists, or even the Bible, in spite of contradictory evidence. But I do default to them until I see that contradictory evidence for myself.

You have seen, at the very least, the contradictory evidence we have presented to you on this very blog. And you ignore it while pretending to look for it. So once again, you prove yourself to be lying, both about your intentions, and about your willingness to accept evidence contrary to your belief. And since you are clearly not arguing in good faith here, why should we bother to take you seriously?

I cannot fairly represent the creationist side, for reasons that surely are clear from the thread.

Actually, from what I've seen of creationists, you've done a pretty good job representing creationists and their "style" of "debate." (Also, you haven't described exactly how you differ from other creationists in a way that makes you less representative of them.)

This wasn't even really supposed to be a debate.

NOW you tell us. Why didn't you say that BEFORE we spent several hundred posts proving you wrong?

There are lots of better examples of debate elsewhere.

Yeah, there's this transcript of a Federal court ruling in Dover. Your side lost that debate too -- big time. And that's not the first court case you've lost.

If you do anything with this thread, please don't represent me as an adequate defender of creationism or anything close to it.

So now you're resorting to yet another standard creationist tactic: after losing an argument, and losing it in a public and obvious way, you insist that your losing arguments don't "really" represent what creationism "really" is.

(First you said you were a creationist. Now you're implying your arguments aren't "anything close to" creationism. These two assertions cannot both be true -- so where were you lying?)

So if your arguments don't represent "the real creationism" (any relation to "the Real IRA?"), then what does? Who do you consider "representative" of creationism? (Chances are, whoever you might name has already had his arguments exposed and debunked too.)

News Nature 447, 894-895 (21 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447894a; Published online 20 June 2007 Fossils challenge DNA in the dating game John Whitfield Top of page Abstract Findings revives debate on when modern mammals evolved Yet again, molecules and fossils are at odds in the dating of a key event in the history of life. On page 1003 of this issue, palaeontologist John Wible of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and his colleagues use their discovery of a Cretaceous mammal from Mongolia to build the most complete fossil-based mammal family tree so far. It suggests that modern mammals arose only after the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, thus contradicting dates derived from the DNA of living mammals --- including another recent Nature paper (O. R. Bininda-Edwards et al. 406, 507---512; 2007). In the DNA analyses, modern groups appear earlier, between 100 and 80 million years ago, with the extinction of the dinosaurs seeming to have had little effect on their evolution.

It is difficult and costly to challenge a reigning paradigm that almost all the authorities who have the power are absolutely convinced is obviously true and supremely important.

Mark backpedals thusly:

Since I take the Bible to be a true, factually correct revelation from God, I believe it should be accepted as a part of the knowledge of human beings. It has the potential to shed light on certain things on which it speaks.

Yes, and, as anyone who has actually read and understood the bible can tell you, those certain things include Man's relationship to God, and how humans should behave toward one another, but not science, bats, cud, or the exact age of the Earth.

But it doesn't speak about everything or even most things, so in a great many areas, as long as someone believes in natural law, it probably won't make much difference to their science whether they accept the Bible or not.

So once again, you admit that the Bible is neither infallible nor indispensible with regard to explanations of physical phenomena within the material Universe. But of course, you won't admit you just admitted that, and continue to pretend you can ignore huge masses of physical evidence that contradict the Bible on matters the Bible was not meant to cover at all.

Your mindset isn't just dishonest -- it's broken.

In other words, if you don't accept the Bible to begin with, you will probably be a lot more quick to consider an interpretation of the data that makes it contradictory to the Bible than you would be if you started out assuming you have good reason to think the Bible is trustworthy. This is, of ocurse, true in any siuation where you bring prior knowledge and expectations into new research. For example, if you accept evolutiono, you will be a lot less quick to interpret a bit of data as contradicting evolution than you would be if you approached that data from the perspective of already being a creationist. This doesn't mean that the physical data cannot falsify the starting assumption; it simply means that one's criteria for when it should be considered to do so will be effected, and rightly so, by one's starting assumption. That is why when someone on this thread suggests a bit of data they say contradicts my interpretation of the Bible's account, I don't just immediately abandon my view. I take it into cnsideration and continue to look into it, and if the data ends up being conclusive enough, it would eventually switch my paradigm. But paradigms must naturally have some resilience and require a good deal of effort to overturn. If we had no "tenacity of belief" in our paradigms, we would be switching back and forth between paradigms constantly, every time anything that seems on the surface somewhat anomalous turns up.

But [the Bible] doesn't speak about everything or even most things, so in a great many areas, as long as someone believes in natural law, it probably won't make much difference to their science whether they accept the Bible or not.

— Mark

I just thought it would be useful to give an example of just how censorious the "expert IDist" Dembski is. Polite commenter "The Pixie" is banned from UD for, ironically, questioning the assertion that evolution isn't allowed to be questioned. Since it doesn't appear to link, here's the address to copy and paste into the address bar:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-church-of-the-living-darwin

There's another syndrome not often commented upon, which Mark exhibits (explicitly in at least one case), wherein the believer who can't provide answers to important questions assumes that someone out there somewhere has answered them. But here is the mighty Dembski, not answering Pixie's questions (Sal mendaciously calls it a joke, when he knows full well that it's a joke embodying the prejudicial statements by him and his), instead summarily banning anyone who'd question the false claim that evolution isn't allowed to be questioned (in science circles it is true that the questions need to be scientifically sound, a standard requirement in science). After all, where would ID and creationism be without such false accusations?

Glen D

I mentioned that anyone trying that address should check out posts #2, #5, & #8 for the case to which I'm explicitly referring.

Somehow I managed to erase that remark before posting, probably during my futile attempt to get the address to link.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Mark wrote:

"If physical data is truly in direct conflict with Scripture, then Scripture cannot be true. At that point, I would reezamine the validity of the idea of biblical infallibility. If biblical infallibility is reaffirmed to be essential to belief in Christianity, I would have to abandon belief in Christianity."

See post 183743 for a partial list of some of the evidence that is truly in direct conflict with Mark's interpretation of scripture. Of course, there is a lot more where that came from. Even though the vast majority of trained experts have validated the conclusions and even though there is consilience between all of the data sets, Mark still refuses to believe any of it because he thinks he will have to give up his faith. Well, as many have pointed out already, a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a requirement for belief in God or some form of Christianity. Many people from many different denominations believe in evolution and in God.

It seems that this thread just won't die. Still, it seems pretty obvious that with so much at stake, Mark will never be able to look at the evidence objectively. He simply can't afford to jepordize his faith. Obviously he has too much invested socially and perhaps financially as well (not to mention everlasting life). That is understandable perhaps, but then he has the audacity to claim that we are all too biased to have a valid opinion!

He has had a month now to read the books that Nick recommended and still not a word about them. I wonder why that is? I'm sure that as soon as he finds some creationist web site that mentions the books he will come back and triumphantly claim victory once again. Well, I'm going to try realy hard to care, but somehow I don't think it's going to happen.

But paradigms must naturally have some resilience and require a good deal of effort to overturn. If we had no "tenacity of belief" in our paradigms, we would be switching back and forth between paradigms constantly, every time anything that seems on the surface somewhat anomalous turns up.

Unless Mark speaks Biblical Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic - and has access to the no longer extant original of Genesis - it is awfully presumptuous of him to claim a literal reading of the Bible is even possible. In fact, one suspects he is simpy relying on the experts in those languages to interpret for him.

*****
Moses was preparing to write down the history of creation that God had just revealed to him.

Aaron (his accountant) says to Moses, what ARE you doing?? Don't you know the price of papyrus? We can't afford the amount of that stuff we'd need if you include every little thing!

Moses to Aaron: But God told me all this, we have to share it, don't we?

Aaron: We can't afford the papyrus for 16 billion years of prehistory.

Moses: Well, what can we afford?

Aaron: One week.

Moses: A week???? (sigh) Well, if that's all we can manage, I guess I'll have to leave out a few things. Trilobites. Dinosaurs. Continental drift. (sigh).

*****

A question: I know I'll find more about this as I continue to read, but since we're all still here I thought I'd ask. Let's take the ice cores and the tree rings. David and others hae said that they match in that they have patterns indicating the same historical events. How is that ascertained? Does it have to do with the width of various tree rings matching the width of ice cores? Do they date the tree fossil from which the tree rings come and then assume that the date of the fossil is the date the tree died, and then count the tree rings back from that data to get something close to an absolute date, and then compare the patterns (the differing widths) of the tree rings during that period of time in the past with the widths of the sections of the ice cores dated to the same period of time?

Elzinga, you indicate that you think I have been misrepresening myself on this thread. Could you tell me more specifically what about myself I have misrepresented?

Thanks,
Mark

Mark,

Glad to see you want to look at evidence. Here are a few articles from the Talkorigins site that provide information. They are "biased" in that they present the scientific view. However, they do include refutations of common creationists arguments and all include references from the scientific literature.

Talkorigins.org/faq/

timescale.html
faq-age-of-earth.html
icecores.html

If you want an "unbiased" treatment of paleoclimatology, the NOAA web site has a page that shows how all of the different data sets, (including tree rings, ice cores and pollen stratigraphy, etc.), are used to reconstruct paleoclimate. Note that this site has nothing to do with the topic of evolution.

ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Thanks for the references, David. The NOAA site looks particularly interesting. I will make reading through these the next thing on my list.

Mark

you indicate that you think I have been misrepresening myself on this thread. Could you tell me more specifically what about myself I have misrepresented?

Mark:

Clearly, belief in (1) god, (2) in the nature of god as envisioned in the Christian paradigm, and (3) in what one might call essential inerrancy of the bible are the anchors for your belief system.

You have also repeatedly stated that these anchors of your belief system are based on evidence and reason, not wishful thinking, blind faith, etc.

Could you perhaps provide for the readers of this thread a succinct summary of the evidence and rationale for these conclusions. This would be most accommodating of you, since a number of other contributors have done so with regard to the evidence and rationale which have led them to another conclusion.

On a personal note, though I do not agree with your approach or conclusions, neither do I share the opinion of those who think you are a liar. My experience with those who one might term fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalists of other persuasions as well) is that they are sincere, and that they wholeheartedly believe what they profess to believe, and I can only assume the same in your case.

Regards,
Jared

Jared,

I appreciate your not thinking me a liar without good reason.

Your question also is a very good, reasonable one. I haven't been able to get back to the blog this weekend, but hopefully will have some time on Monday morning to answer your question.

Mark

. . . or maybe Tuesday morning! Sorry, these last few days have been unusually busy.

OK, to answer Jared's question . . .

You asked me for a succinct answer, and I agree that that would be best for now. I could write pages and pages explaining the evidence in great detail, but what I will do now is provide a very brief statement of some of my reasoning without going into a lot of detail, answering lots of objections, etc. Then, if you (or anyone else) would like me to elaborate on one or more points, if they seem confusing or you want to see more evidence for them, or you have objections to them, I can go into greater detail later.

Basically, the greatest part of the evidence for the truth of Christianity, in my opinion, is that its doctrines perfectly match the reality we live in immensely more than any other worldview. I've quoted this before, but as C. S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." The phenomena of the world and our experiences in the world only make sense in the light of Christianity.

Here are a few examples of some of Christianity's main claims: 1. God, an infinite-personal being who is the ground of all being, exists. 2. This God exists in the form of three persons--the Trinity. 3. God created human beings in his image--reflecting his nature on a (much) smaller scale. He created us, and all things, to display his glorious perfections and attributes. 4. God is perfectly good and is the foundation of goodness. 5. Human beings, since the fall of Adam and Eve, have been in revolt against God. All of us are, by nature, born rebels and enemies of God. By nature we are evil, and we are thus guilty before God and deserving of his wrath and punishment. 6. God is so infinitely great and glorious that to reject him and treat him infinitely less than he deserves (which we do every time we disobey him) is to commit an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment. Our sins, as human beings, are not light, but infinitely serious. Therefore, eternal suffering under the wrath of God in hell--complete and total misery--is the only fitting punishment for us. 7. Our only hope of salvation from this condition is that God has taken upon himself a human nature (while still being fully divine) and was born as Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Christ took the sins of his people upon himself and suffered for them, ultimately dying for them, and then rose from the dead. All those who trust in him and are thus united to him have their sins forgiven because of his suffering for them, and have his righteousness (his goodness, his virtue) counted theirs. He gets our sins, we get his righteousness. Also, the virtue of his death works in us to change our natures, so that we are brought back from a state of wickedness to love and obey God. This process is substantial in this life, but perfected only after this life. 8. Since we are all rebels by nature, only those can turn to Christ to trust and accept him who have their natures changed by God's grace. God chooses to whom he will give that grace. Those to whom he does not give that grace remain in their rebellion and reject Christ, ending up in hell forever for their wickedness. To those whom God has chosen, he gives grace to change their natures, and they accept Christ and are united to him so that the benefits of his redemption are theirs, and their end-state is to be adopted by God as his children and to spend eternity glorifying and enjoying him. There is more to Christian doctrine than that, but this sums up the heart of it for the most part.

All of these points make up a distinct worldview, and while some of them are similar in some ways to other worldviews, overall the worldview here is very unique. It gives us a fundamentally and signficantly different picture of reality than other worldviews. What is remarkable is that this worldview, or description of the universe, matches the real universe perfectly. You can think of the doctrinal points of Christianity as predictions of what we will find in the real universe. It turns out that its predictions are 100% accurate.

Let's look at this with each of the points I mentioned: 1. Christianity predicts that this is fundamentally a personal universe rather than an impersonal one. That is, everything doesn't reduce to matter and energy or emergent properties of these, but those characteristics that make up the essence of and concern persons are most fundamental to the universe. All of reality is rooted in an infinite-personal ground of all being--God exists. It so turns out that Christianity gets the universe right here. Theism, rather than naturalism or any other alternative, is supported by the evidence. (See my post #177611 from the earlier thread, "Is Creationism Child's Play?" for more detail on this point.) 2. The description of God as one being who exists or subsists in the form of three persons is supported by what can be known of the nature of God through reason. The Trinity asserts that the three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--are absolutely one in essence, but are various relations or modes of the one essence of God and have relationships with each other, etc. This is born out by philosophical reasoning. This is a complicated point, so I won't elaborate on it more at this time. 3. Good reasoning about the nature of God leads to the conclusion that God loves himself and his own glorious perfections supremely, and that love to his glory must have been the motive of his creation of the world. Observation of ourselves and our fellow human beings indicates that, as beings who possess consciousness, reasoning, etc., we resemble God in remarkable ways, although on an infinitely smaller scale. Our value as human beings comes from our reflection of the nature of God. So Christianity rightly predicts the basic nature of who we are and why we exist. 4. Good reasoning leads us to conclude that moral goodness and moral wickedness, if there is such a thing (which we all recognize is the case), must be definied by the loves and hates of God. His preferences create the moral standard. Since good and evil are measured hy him, it would be a logical contradiction for God himself to be evil. He would be out of conformity with himself. So, as Christiantiy predicts, God is the foundation of goodness and is perfectly good. 5. Observation of our own characteristics and actions, internal and external, bears this out. We all have something of a basic awareness, even if it is suppressed to our subconscious, that there is an objective moral standard that we are rightly measured by. We are also all aware that we do not measure up to that standard. We choose our own pleasures over what is truly right. This characterizes us. By nature, we are those who love our own ways above the good. 6. Good reasoning about the nature of God leads us to be aware that he is infinitely great and valuable, and that to reject him and put ourselves above him is to treat him with infinite contempt and become worthy of infinite wrath. If you highly prize a piece of artwork, and you see someone spit on it, you hold the person in contempt and want justice to respond to his action. We value ourselves, those close to us, and human beings in general to some degree; that is why we despise the actions and the character of those who disrespect their fellow human beings by lying, stealing, murdering, etc., and we want justice to come upon them and feel that it ought to. God is infinitely more valuable and great and important. When we understand that, we see the greatness of our disrespect for him and we realize that we deserve punishment to the utmost for our character and actions. 7. When we realize numbers 5 and 6, we see that it would be infinitely unfitting of God to simply let us off the hook for our rebellion and contempt of him. Do do so would be to treat that which is infinitely important lightly. Also, if God is the fulness of value and the ground of our being, happiness can only come from being in a right relationship with him. Thus, the very nature of things does not allow us to be happy in our current condition of guilt and corruption. Our only hope is that the strength and depth of what we have done can be taken on by God himself so that, by his power and righteousness and forgiveness and restoration, we can be recovered from our guilty and corrupt state. We are corrupt. Only God can take on our corruption and thus restore us to unfailing purity. We owe a debt to justice. Only God can take upon himself the fullness of that debt, pay it, and still come out good on the other end so that we can have the infinite riches of his righteousness counted ours as a gift of grace. So the whole concept of atonement--our sins are laid upon, dealt with and paid for by God himself so that we can be made pure and righteouss through the strength of his purity and righteousness--can be seen by observation and good reasoning to be the only possible solution to our biggest problem. We can see that nothing but this sort of thing will do. 8. Good reasoning can see that if God is the ground of all being, he determines all that happens, including who is saved and who is not. We also see that since we deserve his infinite wrath, God would be perfectly good and just to destroy all of us without mercy, which is unmerited. So God, according to his own purposes, can choose who will be saved and who will not. This choice is not based on any positive merit or goodness in the character of those who are chosen. If we are rebels at heart, we can see that only a change of heart from God can cause us to have the new motives necessary to accept Christ, which involves turning away from our rebelliousness. We can see by good reasoning that those who remain in their wickedness must in justice receive infinite punishment--the definition of hell. We see that if any are redeemed from that state, they would be fit for an eternity of happiness, which must consist in the enjoyment of God and a relationship with him.

So in all these points, Christianity remarkably captures the reality of the universe we live in, the reality of God, the reality of ourselves, etc. Every other worldview on earth gets this picture fundamentally wrong. Naturalism misses the main contours of reality by trying to reduce all things personal to impersonal laws. It loses the ground of being (and thus the explanation for the universe), ethics, the purpose of our existence, etc. Eastern religions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) recognize there is an absoltue realm/being at the back of the universe, but they get its nature wrong (they aren't clear that it is personal), our relationship with it wrong, our nature and purpose wrong, our sinfulness wrong, our hope of happiness wrong. Older pagan religions have a lot of the same problems, with other absurdities added. Other theistic religions, like Judaism and Islam, are much closer to reality (not surprisingly, since they are based in some of the same revelation from God that Christianity is), but they too miss fundamental things. They get the existence of God right, but they miss the Trinity, the full reality and consequences of the sinfulness of humanity, the only hope of salvation, and other things frequently. The world is full of nonsense and lies in most of its worldviews. People have the reason to recognize these things, but they have become confused and wander blindly. Christianity cuts through all this like a ray of light through a storm cloud. It confronts us with the real picture of how things are, something we never see anywhere else.

When Christianity comes to us and brings the clarity of truth in such a way, claiming to be able to do so because it is a revelation of God in the world, it is rational to accept it as such. It comes to us and tells us, "This is the universe you live im. This is who God is. This is who you are. This is your problem. This is your only solution." Then it says, "The solution--the atonement--has been accomplished by God in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is offered to you for your salvation. Turn from your rebellion and trust in Christ for your salvation. Turn to love of and obedience to God. Also, God has given you the revelation of the Bible. It is his word. Be guided by it and accept it as truth." Christianity has already, so to speak, shown its ID by its match with reality. It makes sense to accept it, to accept Christ, to accept the Bible as a revelation from God.

We then must look through the information we now have, both from reason directly and from the new revelation to determine other facts. Christianity gives us the Bible as the word of God. It claims infallibility for itself. Thus it is inconsistent to accept Christianity without accepting the Bible as the infallible word of God, speaking truth in all it says. Thus we have good reason to accept the things it claims to be facts. The Bible claims that God created the world is six days. It makes sense to accept that. Physical evidence should be examined in the light of this piece of revelation. (Now, human beings are fallible and sometimes interpret things wrong, both in terms of the physical evidence and in terms of the Bible, so as we go forward we must be open to correction. We should not be afraid to come to conclusions, but we should be willing to be corrected by further evidence or demonstration from both the Bible and from observation of the universe.)

I must stop here for now.

Talk to you later,

Mark

Could you perhaps provide for the readers of this thread a succinct summary of the evidence and rationale...

Actually, I do know what "evidence" is--Evidence is "good reason to think something is true." I provided what I consider to be much good reason to think Christianity and the Bible are true. It is true that I did not go into enormous detail explaining each of my points, nor did I answer specific objections, for reasons I explained in the post. We wanted something succinct. So I gave a relatively succinct answer and invited further questions to look into particular points and particular objections in more depth and detail. I even gave a link to another post where I went into one of the points in much greater detail.

I assert that what I have alleged amounts to good reasons--i.e. good evidence--to think certain things are true. You disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. If you disagree, can you point out particular problems or will you just assert, "I don't see any evidence there!" Anybody can assert pretty much anything, but it is harder to back it up. I never did get any good responses to my earlier post on evidence for the existence of God. Mostly what I got amounted to the un-argued assertion that "that sort of metaphysics doesn't work and has been shown not to work." But people had a hard time pointing out any particular, actual problems with my arguments. The few who tried did not have good reasoning for their objections, and I responded to them. I never got a response to my responses. Again, it is easy to assert, but if you want to argue against my evidence, you have to do more than assert--you have to show particularly where I have gone wrong. And let's hear more than the assertion, "You haven't proven any of this!" as well. I claim that my points are based on real observations of various things and reasonable deductions from those observations. It is not enough to assert, "You haven't proven anything!" in light of that. You must show me specifically how my observations and/or deductions are invalid or inadequate. To sum up, I need real, particular arguments, not sweeping, un-argued assertions.

Mark

Predictably, all Mark offers is his sectarian version (among hundreds of versions) of Christian dogma that he claims is the "proper" one because of his "correct reasoning". Apparently the centuries of sectarian wrangling over proper dogma boils down to which sect is doing the "correct reasoning".

What, then, are the criteria for "correct reasoning"? Obviously evidence doesn't mean anything because Mark doesn't provide any. His only pretense at providing evidence is to say that his doctrines match "reality". But it appears that "reality" is being bent to match his doctrines.

As has been pointed out before, it is all pretty air-tight and self-contained. No need to consider the findings of science because these are wrong by definition within the closed sphere of his religious dogma. Many of the preachers in Marks sectarian world view say exactly that to their congregations. Doctrine first, and anything that can't be bent to fit is automatically wrong. No thinking necessary.

But we knew all this (and said so) way back in the first thread when this all started. How many times does Mark want to go around this circle? It was not only predictable, the repetition is robotic boredom.

He is here to practice preaching to the stubborn, unwashed evilutionists in front of an audience of admiring followers, not to learn anything about science (one of Gish's and Johnson's rules is to never admit this; just plow on without responding). All Mark has done is to confirm the profile we already observed. Nothing further needs to be said.

Mark,

Sorry, but your post isn't evidence, it's just a statement of evangelical christian theology. You seem to be arguing that 'it makes sense to me that this is true', ergo, it must be.

The entire third paragraph could have been taken from a catechism, the rest simply assumes what you are supposedly trying to prove.

If there's an argument there at all about your personal position, the best one can say is 'My particular interpretation of scripture makes me feel good'.

Delurks

Mark Hausam said: Evidence is "good reason to think something is true.

Mark ...

This also comes across as mildly ironic!

"I claim that my points are based on real observations of various things and reasonable deductions from those observations. It is not enough to assert, "You haven't proven anything!" in light of that. You must show me specifically how my observations and/or deductions are invalid or inadequate."

I think if you're going to expect anyone to respond to your theological post, you at least need to provide an adequate, reasoned response to any one of the many scientific pointers you've been given about the evidence for an old universe. Pick one, we really don't mind which it is.

Delurks

Actually, I do know what "evidence" is---Evidence is "good reason to think something is true."

I assert that what I have alleged amounts to good reasons---i.e. good evidence---to think certain things are true. You disagree.

...you provided plenty of rationale, but zero evidence.

You asked me for a succinct answer, and I agree that that would be best for now. I could write pages and pages explaining the evidence in great detail, but what I will do now is provide a very brief statement of some of my reasoning without going into a lot of detail, answering lots of objections, etc...

And with that, Mark proceeds to waste even more precious time repeating what he has already said (needlessly, since the original posts are still accessible), and to continue to ignore ALL of the questions and objections that we have already posted here.

...Then, if you (or anyone else) would like me to elaborate on one or more points, if they seem confusing or you want to see more evidence for them, or you have objections to them, I can go into greater detail later.

We've already asked you to do just that, in hundreds of posts on two threads, and the response quoted above is all we got from you in "response." You keep saying you can answer our objections and questions, and you keep refusing to actually do so.

...3. God created human beings in his image---reflecting his nature on a (much) smaller scale. He created us, and all things, to display his glorious perfections and attributes. 4. God is perfectly good and is the foundation of goodness. 5. Human beings, since the fall of Adam and Eve, have been in revolt against God. All of us are, by nature, born rebels and enemies of God. By nature we are evil, and we are thus guilty before God and deserving of his wrath and punishment.

So God created us to reflect his nature, and display his most glorious perfections, AND he's perfectly good; BUT we're enemies of God "by nature" (i.e., we're created that way), and thus God hates what he created and we all deserve eternal punishment. Is self-loathing self-destructive schizophrenia one of your God's "glorious perfections" that you wish to display? Are you and your parishoners really so pathetically sick that none of you see how contradictory your point #5 is to points #3 and #4?

(Speaking of parishoners, you never mention your fellow churchgoers, the name of your denomination, or anything about your minister or other spiritual leader. Are you completely alone in your twisted picture of God, or are you ashamed of your colleagues?)

Our sins, as human beings, are not light, but infinitely serious.

Please elaborate. What, exactly, do you know we're all so horribly guilty of?

There is more to Christian doctrine than that, but this sums up the heart of it for the most part.

There's a LOT more to Christian doctrine than that sort of bigoted, self-hating lunacy, which some of us have tried to point out to you -- and you completely ignored all of it.

...overall the worldview here is very unique.

Ever ask yourself why? Ever wonder why so many Christians, for so many centuries, don't share your picture of what Christianity really is? Ever consider the possibility that billions of people might have a wiser, saner, more honest picture of God's nature than you do? Ever think to listen to the wisdom of others before judging them?

Let's look at this with each of the points I mentioned: 1. Christianity predicts that this is fundamentally a personal universe rather than an impersonal one. That is, everything doesn't reduce to matter and energy or emergent properties of these, but those characteristics that make up the essence of and concern persons are most fundamental to the universe. All of reality is rooted in an infinite-personal ground of all being---God exists. It so turns out that Christianity gets the universe right here...

Here Mark's sophistry degenerates into nothing but bland, meaningless word-salad, the kind of thing one might expect to find in the repetitious ramblings of a lonely anti-social crank who hasn't admitted a new idea into his head, or spoken to anyone different from himself, in years, if not decades. Seriously, this is the stuff of obsessed lunatics and "High Wierdness by Mail." Even "God Soap" labels make more spiritual sense.

So God, according to his own purposes, can choose who will be saved and who will not. This choice is not based on any positive merit or goodness in the character of those who are chosen.

Here you've just given yourself a perfect excuse not to recognize or respect the goodness of other people: God doesn't give a shit what kind of people we are, he just chooses who he likes and the rest of us go to Hell because our Creator didn't create us perfect and doesn't want anything more to do with us. That's the most pathetic, ignorant, self-hating, downright negative and nihilistic interpretation of Christianity I've ever heard (so far). Your God is nothing more than a double-talking, abusive, capricious, deranged parent, and doesn't deserve worship. I've imagined better Gods in grade-school -- probably because I had better parents and role-models on whom to base my imaginings of an ideal authority-figure.

We can see by good reasoning that those who remain in their wickedness must in justice receive infinite punishment---the definition of hell.

You just said that our positive merits have nothing to do with how God judges us; now you're saying "good reasoning" tells us that "those who remain in their wickedness" go to Hell. Do you even TRY to understand what you're saying before you say it?

...Thus it is inconsistent to accept Christianity without accepting the Bible as the infallible word of God, speaking truth in all it says.

The Bible itself says otherwise: in the New Testament we are specifically told that those who sincerely repent of their sins, ask Jesus for forgiveness, and accept him into their hearts, will be saved and admitted into Heaven. You don't even have to READ any of the rest of the Bible, let alone believe it. Enlightenment through communion with God is sufficient; the rest of the Bible is merely a useful guide to get you started in the right direction.

I'll close by repeating what David Stanton said in post #180759 above (WAY above):

So, let's summarize shall we? I challenged Mark to set aside his belief in the Bible in evaluating the evidence. He even agreed that if the Bible were true the evidence should bring one to the same conclusion. Then he admits that the evidence actually gives you an answer that is different from that given in the Bible, but he simply can't accept it due to his prior assumption of biblical inerrancy, which he still refuses to question.

Hate to say I told you so, but there it is. Mark is emotionally incapable of questioning his prior assumptions, whatever the evidence. Of course, in so doing, he is forced to adopt a belief in a deceitful diety who renders all evidence irrelevant. Wow, talk about being impervious to evidence! And of course he still claims not to be authoritarian!

Now there's a theory with real predictive value.

Let's look at this with each of the points I mentioned: 1. Christianity predicts that this is fundamentally a personal universe rather than an impersonal one. That is, everything doesn't reduce to matter and energy or emergent properties of these, but those characteristics that make up the essence of and concern persons are most fundamental to the universe. All of reality is rooted in an infinite-personal ground of all being---God exists. It so turns out that Christianity gets the universe right here. Theism, rather than naturalism or any other alternative, is supported by the evidence. (See my post #177611 from the earlier thread, "Is Creationism Child's Play?" for more detail on this point.

Mark in post #177611 from the earlier thread Christians argue that you have to have a self-existent, infinite (unlimited) being who is outside of space and time in order to explain the universe. One of the basic principles of logic is that all things or events that begin to be must have a cause of their existence, and a cause sufficient to produce the effect. Some atheists have argued that the universe itself could be self-existent, and thus not need a cause. The problem with this is that the universe simply isn't self-existent. The universe is not really a unified thing but a collection of interacting things. The collection as a whole must have had a beginning, and thus all the things in the collection must have had a beginning as well. Time itself had to have had a beginning. Since the big bang theory has been accepted, most scientists have accepted that time has not gone on indefinitely, but this is better proven by philosophical argumentation. Time cannot have gone on forever because it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite series. If time had been going on forever, there would have passed already an infinite number of, say, minutes. But there cannot have already passed an infinite number of minutes, because it would take literally forever to traverse an infinite number of minutes. You would never get to the end of the series, by definition. And yet, we have arrived at this present moment. So time hasn't been going on forever in the past, which means that the time-series began, and everything in the time-series began. We are therefore necessarily led to the existence of a cause for the beginning of the time-series and everything in it. There must be a reason why time began. If we say that the cause that began the time-series is in time, that just pushes the problem further back, because it, for the same reason, would have to have a cause outside of itself as well. So the first cause of all things must be outside of time. There is something that is timeless that "gave birth" to the temporal universe we all live in.

I never did get any good responses to my earlier post on evidence for the existence of God.

(Speaking of parishoners, you never mention your fellow churchgoers, the name of your denomination, or anything about your minister or other spiritual leader. Are you completely alone in your twisted picture of God, or are you ashamed of your colleagues?)

A demanding transfer course, designed to challenge students to (1) explore and clarify their values; (2) critically read worksof philosophy, literature, religion, and history toward understanding the basis of their ethical views; and (3) read, study, research, discuss, and write about difficult ethical issues. Focuses on issues of good vs. evil, justice vs. injustice, equality vs. inequality, and the necessity of defining and examining happiness and values. This confrontation with major philosophical concepts and systems is intended to engage students in serious reflection on issues of ethics and values as they relate to the students' own lives.

Evidence: support for the truth of a proposition, especially that derived from empirical observation or experience. Recommended Reading: Karl R. Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 1992). [emphasis mine]

Mark Hausam is listed as a panelist and a speaker in a 2005 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City

He is listed as a doctoral candidate University of Wales; member, Christ Presbyterian Church.

His panel is session 173 (page 11), and talk is session 265 (page 18).

So, if this is really him, there is no doubt that he is committed to this game. Now the question becomes, what is wrong with the training they give in his church? I don't recall ministers in training having such medieval world views and such ignorance of science. Of course there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of sects, so there is a large range of strange dogma that is taken seriously by someone. I'm sure I haven't been exposed to all of them. But many have very common features.

So my analysis still stands. He isn't here to learn science; he is here to develop his apologetics on enemy territory.

Mike says .... 'I don't recall ministers in training having such medieval world views and such ignorance of science'.

Ignorance of science aside, Mark's theology is certainly contemporary, in so far as it is pretty much a summary of evangelical theology (which of course, hasn't changed much since Luther and Calvin). You could go to a thousand churches next Sunday and hear this expounded. It may be medieval, but that would actually be part of the argument (we, alone, adhere to the True Faith and haven't been seduced by Liberalism').

Delurks

Sorry, no. I have good reasons to believe many mathematical theorems, but most of them have nothing to do with evidence. They have to do with rationale and logic.

support for the truth of a proposition, especially that derived from empirical observation or experience. Recommended Reading: Karl R. Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 1992). [emphasis mine]

He isn't here to learn science

To sum up, I need real, particular arguments, not sweeping, un-argued assertions.

My experience with those who one might term fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalists of other persuasions as well) is that they are sincere, and that they wholeheartedly believe what they profess to believe, and I can only assume the same in your case.

To me, religion addresses questions, such as "Why does the universe exist?", "What is the purpose of the universe?". These are valid questions, but not very practical or "scientific" ones. Science is more interested in how the universe works.

For me personally, I know that I am incapable of questioning God. You are correct there. At least, I would really hope to be so. Don't misunderstand; I have had questions, but I can honestly not tell you one instance where He has not been faithful to me. You are right, it is not logical to have such a belief. The Bible even says it is not logical: if you are interested, check out 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 1:19-25. What the verses say (from my interpretation) is that Christ's message is foolishness in the world's eyes. What you see as foolish is the very core of my existence, and I know it's true. I know that's not very convincing for you, but I'm not trying to convince you. I am merely explaining why I cannot be convinced to agree with you, although I recognize that to you, my explanation will not be logical either.

— k

Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism. With the appearance-of-age argument, they have already admitted that the physical evidence on its face is totally against them, and that they have admitted that Last Thursdayism is as well-supported as young-earth creationism (Last Tuesdayism, of course, is unspeakable heresy). Once they've gone this far, most people can't maintain the necessary doublethink for very long (Paul Nelson, John Mark Reynolds, Kurt Wise, and Marcus Ross are about the only exceptions, and they each have the peculiar ability to remorsely drown their scientific conscience whenever reality intrudes upon their textual interpretation).

But that emphasis is quite dishonest, because the wording implies that evidence isn't restricted to empirical observation or experience.

— PG

Did you bother to check even one dictionary,...

— PG

But that emphasis is quite dishonest, because the wording implies that evidence isn't restricted to empirical observation or experience.

— PG

It may be medieval, but that would actually be part of the argument (we, alone, adhere to the True Faith and haven't been seduced by Liberalism').

Mike,

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that Mark's perspective represents a 'cosmology', still less attempts to rationalise his belief in God from a scientific perspective. His post is basically plain, simple evangelical protestant theology, which of course, I grew up with. I can appreciate that if you haven't listened to sermons along the lines of Mark's most recent major post, it probably sounds irrational, medieval, and (even) insulting, but it's basically just a sermon that gets preached pretty much every week in conservative christian churches around the world. See if you can get hold of a transcript of a Billy Graham sermon from when he was doing crusades in the 1950s and 60s, and spot how many overlaps you can see between what he said, and what Mark wrote.

The disconnect, of course, is clearly there between those who espouse protestant theology (paras 3/4 in Mark's post) but who think that while the bible may be inerrant, it wasn't written to be interpreted literally and scientifically - and those who believe this this is the only way to interpret scripture, viz Mark's statement 'The Bible claims that God created the world is six days. It makes sense to accept that.'

In my experience in Christian circles, there is a very clear distinction between those who have had a decent scientific education, who see that it is plainly hogphooey to believe that the world is 6ky old, but who still believe that God exists, was manifest through Jesus, etc - and those who really haven't got the benefit of scientific training, and who thus are fooled by the YEC propaganda into believing that it really *is* intellectually sustainable to believe in a young earth.

I started off believing in the whole deal - including trying to persuade my classmates at school that the world was young - then went to university, got a BSc and a PhD in the chemical sciences and figured out very quickly that the bible and science can't be reconciled in any literal sense. Unfortunately, that's where it became extremely difficult to interact with my earlier social circle, who basically regarded me as apostate, even though at that time I still thought of myself as a christian. The step from there to actually saying 'you know what, this whole supernatural deal is baloney' is on one hand a simple one, but even more problematic if you want to maintain any kind of relationship with one's friends in evangelical circles.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out whether Mark is really willing to ask himself difficult questions about the age of the earth because he's genuinely conflicted by the possibility that the bible isn't literally inerrant, or whether this is just a massive troll. I have many, many christian friends who believe firmly in Jesus Christ as their Personal Saviour, but who think it's rubbish to think that Genesis is in any sense literal. Because I know it's such a difficult journey, I'm probably erring on the side of generosity!

Here's a question I've asked myself over the last weeks while following this thread. The next time someone appears, with questions about the science of the world's history, from a creationist standpoint, can we think of a simple, straightforward, specific question to be answered , that would require some small investigation, but addressing which would demonstrate good faith on behalf of the enquirer? Part of the problem here in the discussions we are having with Mark is that we want him to address specifics. Mark wants time to address them, which is fair enough, but in the meantime, we're being sucked into a whole morass of comparative philosophy, etc which are largely irrelevant to the specific question 'is the world old, or young'.

Anyway, nuff said. Does that answer your question?

Delurks

Lest anyone thinks I'm making this stuff up, this sentence appears in the 'beliefs' section of a modern church in the UK to point enquirers to the basis of the church's faith ...

"For convenience, as a more detailed summary of our beliefs and practice, we employ the historic London Baptist Confessions of Faith of 1646, and 1689 ( in particular that which is common to both)."

Clause 4 of the 1646 confession says 'In the beginning God made all things very good; created man after His own image, filled with all meet perfection of nature, and free from all sin; but long he abode not in this honor; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce first Eve, then by her seducing Adam; who without any compulsion, in eating the forbidden fruit, transgressed the command of God, and fell, whereby death came upon all his posterity; who now are conceived in sin, and by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subject of death, and other miseries in this world, and for ever, unless the Lord Jesus Christ set them free.'

Mark basically paraphrases the 1646 version when he writes 'Human beings, since the fall of Adam and Eve, have been in revolt against God. All of us are, by nature, born rebels and enemies of God. By nature we are evil, and we are thus guilty before God and deserving of his wrath and punishment. God is so infinitely great and glorious that to reject him and treat him infinitely less than he deserves (which we do every time we disobey him) is to commit an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment. Our sins, as human beings, are not light, but infinitely serious. Therefore, eternal suffering under the wrath of God in hell---complete and total misery---is the only fitting punishment for us.'

You say 'these beliefs are medieval', whereas evangelical 'reformed' theology says 'the truth never changes'.

Delurks,

I think I have seen plenty of the evangelicals you describe. There have been plenty of them in the various communities I have lived in over the years, and I have cousins who belong to some of these churches. And I have seen Billy Graham preach.

Most of the people I have known would probably subscribe to the Confessions of Faith you cite. However, I think they would demure if pressed to offer a proof of the existence of their god. Mark did not; instead offering a chain of reasoning using concepts exhibiting Greek and medieval misconceptions that had not been completely addressed until the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

I then wondered how Mark might respond to arguments that would be stated from the perspective of someone who was immersed in the medieval world view and who questioned the literal interpretations of the Christian Bible as arguments against the findings of scientific observation. So I referred him to Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.

As you saw, he read only a small part of it and totally misinterpreted it; identifying himself with Galileo and not picking up on the fact that Mark himself would have been one of the very individuals Galileo would be criticizing for abusing scripture. One of my conclusions is that he screens everything through his own world view, reading only far enough to confirm his preconceptions and then stopping.

I don't claim to have any qualifications in psychology or psychiatry, but in Mark's case, I suspect there is something along these lines involved. And he may be emboldened by his belief that his "epistemology" and "metaphysics" gives him some edge in debates of this sort, I don't really know. But my past experiences with these "aggressive debaters" necessitated the development of a triage strategy. While that is a practical strategy, it doesn't probe deeper to find out why the misconceptions such as the ones Mark exhibits are so robust. That takes more time than most people have.

Thinking about him teaching philosophy makes me shudder.

Mike ...

I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here - it looks like you're focussing on a much earlier post by Mark, and I thought you were speaking to his most recent long post! I'm probably only really qualified to address the latter, not the former - I claim no qualifications in philosophy, and what theology I know was learnt in church! Apologies if I missed your point.

I guess I would probably say that I didn't consider anything outside Christianity, when I was forming my own world view, certainly nothing in Greek philosophy!

Delurker,

No need to apologize. What you offered was quite helpful.

If I think back, I suspect that if you'd asked me to 'prove' God existed, I would have given you an argument from personal experience (God speaks to me so I know he's real), with the classic false dilemma (if I'm wrong, I lose nothing, if you're wrong, you lose everything), and a soupcon of 'the bible is the most validated book written'. I seriously doubt I'd have invoked Aquinas - because I was ignorant about him!

I imagine that if I'd had a modicum of philosophical education, as Mark appears to have, that I would have used it as well.

D.

Delurks,

Yeah, that's what I would have thought since those I have known have used this kind of argument. However, that rationale is no more convincing than the "philosophical" one, but the later sounds more "learned" and intimidating to someone who isn't familiar with intellectual history and science. I think that those who choose to go that latter route are gunning for more prestigious positions within their sects, hence the more rigorous training in battles with the "enemy".

But there isn't enough depth of rational thinking to overcome the fear of eternal punishment. So reasoning with them doesn't produce any significant result. It looks like fear wins out in their minds and emotions.

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. and also 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[a] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

If I think back, I suspect that if you'd asked me to 'prove' God existed, I would have given you an argument from personal experience (God speaks to me so I know he's real)...

Yeah, those are the arguments I find most convincing -- at least when I hear them from people who really seem to have their acts together and know where their respective towels are. (Notice how Mark has NEVER offered such a tale form his own experience? That should go a long way toward explaining his desperate haste to make up "philosophical" reasons for rejecting so much objective evidence all at once.)

But there isn't enough depth of rational thinking to overcome the fear of eternal punishment. So reasoning with them doesn't produce any significant result. It looks like fear wins out in their minds and emotions.

Because they and their "beliefs" have nothing positive to offer, and have to fall back on "Stop asking questions or you'll burn in Hell for all Eternity!!" That's about the surest sign of an empty and morally bankrupt "belief."

Robert ...

"For example, neither they nor Mark can understand that God clearly discriminates based on place of birth. If the Mormons are right then the Holy Spirit apparently guides more people in Utah to become Mormons than it does in, say, Arkansas. If they are wrong then the Holy Spirit is less effective in Utah or China or you name it."

The justification usually goes ... God, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen to work through his people on earth, wherever they are. While he could instantaneously work across the globe, he wants his church to be the instrument of his power. Because there are more of his people speaking his truth in Utah, that's where his voice is mostly heard. Thus, God doesn't discriminate, he simply is limited to working where his people are, or are willing to go.

This, of course, raises the age-old question, 'what about those people who have never heard the Word (eg small tribes in deepest Africa - are they damned through their ignorance?' This is more interesting theologically, but still fruitless.

Popper's Ghost, I have enjoyed and learned from your recent posts.

One of your comments (184802) in response to my post, though, I would like to take issue with: "This is a straw man --- it is, in fact, dishonest. It is not his purported belief in what he claims to believe that is the lie."

This I see rather differently. Whether an untrue/incorrect statement is a lie or not, as uttered by the speaker, depends, inter alia, on whether the speaker knows it is untrue/incorrect.

If someone lies to me, telling me that I have won the lottery, and I naively believe him, then run to tell my friends that I am rich, I am not lying to them. I am in good faith giving them faulty information. The person who told me is lying, but when I repeat the same information I am not lying. Same claim, in one telling a lie, in the other not a lie, just errant information.

Similarly, I do not think that Mark has been lying when making the incorrect statements and claims that he has. He has in good faith been repeating what he has learned; those from which he has learned, in turn, naturally were either lying or repeating in good faith faulty claims and information that they received from others.

Hence, it seems I can view Mark as an honest person who is not lying to me and still think that what he is saying is incorrect. (I would hope that if I study and think about some issue and come to some faulty conclusions, then tell some better informed people what I think I have learned, that they regard me as misinformed, not a liar, even if I, perhaps somewhat stubbornly, argue my point for a while, thinking I am correct.)

Of course, the reasons why Mark believes manifestly incorrect and unreasonable things is another issue, one I like to title "Why otherwise intelligent people believe absurd things".

A further issue still is whether my saying to Mark that I do not believe he is a liar is a straw man. As you might expect, I do not think it is. The intent of my statement was to establish a line of personal communication with Mark, to let him know that I have no wish to attack him or his integrity, even if I do not share his beliefs. By saying that I do not regard him as a liar I am making no statement about the legitimacy of his claims, and thus it need not be seen as a straw man. If I were to say that Mark is not a liar, intending that this has some relevance for the status of his claims ("Mark is honest, therefore his claims must be true!"), that would be a straw man.

Regards,
Jared

... or rather a red herring.

Delurks,

In Utah it's even weirder. When pressed, I've had Mormons explain that they believe that God selected them before their birth and at that point decided that they would be placed in Utah. So, in essence, all of humanity is assessed before birth, fairly and impartially. (Don't ask on what basis the assessment is made.) Only after that process do the luckiest ones end up in Utah (predominantly as white, with the top layer being male). That, in a nutshell, is why Utah is mainly Mormon. Then the missionaries spread out from Utah to give the less fortunate a second chance to mend their ways. They have no right to this second chance (having been assessed already) and so God is actually being extremely generous and no one should worry if only a rather small fraction of, say, the Chinese become Mormon. I've no idea if this is official Church dogma (which is very hard to get at) or simply some quick thinking on the part of the person I was talking to - but he seemed to believe it. Oh, and he just "knew" that God heard his prayers, etc. But I find this no more ridiculous than some of Mark's arguments who, by the way, will be considered to be a Gentile by his Mormon compatriots.

The take home message is that no matter how devastating and simple the question posed is, a priori, the true believer in no time at all will have come up with a completely ludicrous answer that cannot be argued with. If the the true believer brain is a computer then it's program surely is:

accept some premise
10 continue
look for evidence to confirm premise
ignore all contradictory evidence or ideas
if(God wants me today) stop
go to 10

Robert ...

This is the essence of strict Calvinism, which can conveniently be remembered by the mnemonic TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints) ... http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

When I read it, I'm always reminded of the saying 'I always try to believe three absurd things before lunch' - was it Douglas Adams originally who said this?

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I can usually manage 3 or 4, but 6 is simply way too many!

Jared: I really cannot share your opinion of Mark's honesty. We have repeatedly pointed out the breathtaking dishonesty we have observed in nearly all of his fellow creationists, young-Earth and otherwise; and he has had not one word to say in response. If he had said anything along the lines of "What are you talking about?" or "I didn't know this was going on," or "Please provide some proof," or "I don't condone such dishonesty," then he would have at least shown some good faith in acknowledging our objections. Instead, he ignored them altogether and didn't even pretend to show the slightest curiosity about what we had said. He simply wasn't interested in talking about this important issue, in much the same way that Bush Jr. isn't interested in admitting he was in any way wrong about anything.

It is this deafening silence that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mark knows full well how dishonest his "camp" are, and how necessary that dishonesty is in propping up their brittle world-view. He shows no interest in being part of the solution; therefore he's part of the problem.

When creationists question the honesty of this or that scientist, we bend over backwards to demonstrate, either that the scientist was really being honest, or that we don't condone his dishonesty either, and that such dishonesty is, and has been, exposed and overthrown from within the scientific community. We admit dishonesty when we see it, because we know our world-view can stand without it. Creationists, on the other hand, refuse to admit dishonesty on their side, because they all know that their world-view cannot stand without it.

You can say Mark is "sincere" in his beliefs, but that really doesn't say much when those beliefs are so riddled with, and built on, dishonesty as we have seen here.

You will notice that Joseph Newman and his "Energy Machine" uses similar biblical arguments about the "folly of Man's wisdom" on his website.

I think he will also still sell you a franchise if you are willing to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars.

This appeal to certain groups by denigrating the education of others is a pretty common tactic among the ID/Creationists as well.

Let me respond to some of the more substantive objections to or questions about my outline of argumentation in my hext-to-last post:

1. "You didn't present any evidence and don't know what it means." The conversation with Popper's Ghost dealt well with some of that. The claim has been made that evidence must be empirical, either directly or indirectly. Actually, I agree. I am an empiricist in that sense. I don't think it is logically possible to have any knowledge of anything that is not ultimately reducible to observation and/or rational deduction based on observation. A few of you suggested that I did not provide any actual evidence but only restated evangelical theology, etc. But I did point out a number of observations. My post listed eight claims made by Christianity, and then I went through the eight again and pointed out observations and deductions from observations that confirm those claims. That is why I called the claims predictions. Christianity predicts (in a scientific sense of the word) certain things about the world, and those predictions turn out to be true based on observations and rational deductions. If you inquire further into how I have come to some of my specific observations or deductions, I will be happy to elaborate. You may disagree that I have really observed what I claim to have observed, and you may try to find flaws in my deductions. Great. Point out specific arguments and let's look deeper. Some of you have done so to some extent already, and I have responded below.

Some observations can only be observed by a limited number of people, sometimes only by one person. For example, I believe that I exist based on direct observation of my own consciousness. No one else (except God), as far as I am aware, has access to that observation. You have to believe in my existence on other grounds. But that does not invalidate my observation. We should be wary of limiting our definition of what counts as acceptable evidence so much that it excludes a number of normal, rational judgments we all make. However, the observations I observed are not limited to only a few people, but I believe they are widely accessible to everyone, whether everyone actually recognizes or acknowledges them or not.

2. The claim continually comes up that my metaphysical arguments have been refuted long ago. "Nobody believes in that stuff anymore." "Mark must be ignorant of the history of Western Civilization because he believes things that most people don't anymore." I am aware that metaphysical reasoning of that sort I use to prove God's existence is out of favor. I am aware of the historical reasons as to why it is out of favor. The medieval period had much good thinking, and much bad thinking. The Enlightenment philosophers, some of them anyway, tended to overreact against scholastic reasoning, throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is now, in many circles (esp. the natural sciences), quite commonly believed that precise metaphysical reasoning is bunk. I disagree with that view. That makes my view a minority view in some circles, but I'm not interested in pleasing the majority, I am interested in what I think is true. Those of you who assume metaphysics of my sort are obviously absurd and have been refuted are wrong, in my opinion. You can call me ignorant all you want, but insults don't count for good reasoning. And saying "everybody who isn't ignorant just knows that metaphysics is false" doesn't cut it either. Specific arguments, not un-argued assertions!

3. Yes, I am a Calvinist. I am a member of (and an elder in) the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (www.opc.org). You spent some time figuring that out, when you might have saved time by asking me. Don't some of you realize that it is kind of rude to continue to have an extended converstation about somebody in the third person when they are standing right there? Instead of googling me to find out all the dirty secrets of my life, why don't you try asking me if you want to know something? Of course, I don't really expect some of you to do that since you have already decided I am a liar and won't budge from that opinion no matter what. Closed-mindedness is the order of the day for you. Creaionist predictions about Darwinist attitudes being fulfilled . . .? "(I'm being partly facetious here. Some of you are capable enough of engaging in rational conversation. If I were interested to do so, though, I could cleverly desconstruct people here as well as they like to do to me. But I am more interested in intelligent conversation than the childish games that seem to run so rampant on this blog.)

"Look, you think that your reasoning is evidence. It's not. I'm not a philosopher of science, but my take on this is that evidence needs to be:
* Empirical, i.e. directly or indirectly observable with the senses (e.g. you can see it),
* Intersubjective, i.e. everyone who sees it agrees as to what it is, and
* Public, i.e. anyone who wants to can see it.
Now, a piece of evidence for a proposition P meets the above requirements, and in addition
* Does not falsify P, while at the same time
* falsifies many other propositions."

I like your list of qualification for evidence, except that your second point claims too much. Everyone doesn't have to agree on something before it can be counted as real evidence. If that were so, Darwinists better give up the ship, because there are a lot of people who disagree with it in the world. What you probably meant, though, is that everyone who is objective, sufficiently informed, and sufficiently capable in other ways of evaluating properly can potentially come to an agreement about what the evidence is. That I agree with. One more disagreement: As I argued earlier, evidence doesn't have to be public in the sense of available to all in every case, or my argument for my existence from my observation of my own consciousness, any many other things I believe (such as the myriad things that I believe based on observations unique to me right now), would have no evidential basis, which is clearly not the case.

"So God created us to reflect his nature, and display his most glorious perfections, AND he's perfectly good; BUT we're enemies of God "by nature" (i.e., we're created that way), and thus God hates what he created and we all deserve eternal punishment. Is self-loathing self-destructive schizophrenia one of your God's "glorious perfections" that you wish to display? Are you and your parishoners really so pathetically sick that none of you see how contradictory your point #5 is to points #3 and #4?"

Raging Bee, I would suggest you adopt a more scientific attitude to asking questions in the future. It is important first to make sure that you understand a claim before you attack it, rather than automatically misinterpreting it in the worst way you can and then attacking your caricature. You seem particularly prone to this latter kind of reasoning. One hopes you don't do this in your reasoning to an old earth and Darwinism. Maybe it would help to try to get your anger and/or bitterness or whatever it is that makes you do that under control before you respond to a post. "Raging Bee" might be better as "Reasoning Bee." It is more conducive to finding truth.

Let me restate my position more clearly. I believe that God created human beings, and all things, to relect his glorious perfections. Different things and events do this in different ways. Some things do that in their own basic nature, such as humans (insofar as they reflects the image of God). Other things are in themselves repulsive to God, but are ordained by him to exist in order to be woven into a greater picture that is pleasing to him and does reflect his glory. We Calvinists believe that God ordains not only good but evil in this world, not for its own sake, but in order to use it to build such a larger tapestry that revelas his perfections. For example, God displays his justice againt sin, his mercy, his power over evil, and many other attributes in a wonderful way in the crucifixion of Christ. Some of these attributes would not be revealed so starkly and clearly without evil. So he ordained the crucifixion of Christ, not for the sake of the evil of it, but for the sake of the good he would bring about by means of it. The ultimate result of God's activity is a tapestry that is absolutely perfect in every way, only enhanced and not flawed by evil. However, that is not to say that evil is really good. In itself it is evil, but it plays an ultimately good role in the overall plan of God. We are getting into some deep waters here. I would be happy to discuss it further and in more depth. By the way, to have be evil by "nature" doesn't mean that God created the human race that way. He created us good, but we fell into sin. It is true, however, that he ordained that fall to come to pass for his good purposes.

"Please elaborate. What, exactly, do you know we're all so horribly guilty of?"

All of us are guilty of rebellion against God, of complete disrespect for the infinite greatness and glory of God. Whenever we disobey God, we are loving our own will more than God, and that is to treat him with infinite disrespect. Because of the greatness and glory of God, our wickedness is a crime of infinite proportions and deserves an infinite punishment. We are all guilty of a large number of sins (although they may be reckoned small from the perspective of someone who doesn't take the greatness of God seriously). We are also guilty of many sins against each other as human beings, which is criminal because we are made in God's image and are valuable to him.

An analogy might help here. Imagine you are watching the sentencing of a criminal in a law court. The criminal had been found guilty of stealing a gum ball from the grocery store. What would you think if the judge sentenced him to life in prison or execution? Obviously, punishment would seem too harsh, because it would be so disproportionate to the crime. What if the criminal was convicted of brutally raping, torturing and murdering twelve people, and the judge sentenced him to life in prison or execution? It wouldn't so harsh, would it? What if the judge sentenced the same criminal (the one who murdered, etc.), not to life in prison or execution, but to pay a $5.00 fine? Many people would be outraged. Why? Because the punishment is disproportionate to the crime in the other direction. To make a person pay only a $5.00 fine for raping, torturing and murdering people would be to treat the lives of his victims cheaply. The value of the human beings is greater than the value of gum balls, so the punishment must be greater in proportion to it. God, in my view, is infinitely greater than all human beings put together. To sin against him deserves infinite punishment.

"Ever ask yourself why? Ever wonder why so many Christians, for so many centuries, don't share your picture of what Christianity really is?"

But they do. Most Christians through history have held most of my beliefs. Raging Bee, you give the impression that you are only aware of modern liberal Christianity and think it is representative of Christians in general through all of history. This is not true. Modern liberals are a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the beginning of the nineteenth century, most liberals would have been denounced by almost all Christians as heretics who had abandoned the orthodox faith. And the charge would have been just, in my opinion. Liberals want the veneer of being Christians while they don't take the substance of Christianity seriously. They want to fit in with both real Christians and with naturalists/deists, and end up being annoying to both because they won't be consistent. Pretty much all my points expressing Christian views have been the majority opinions among most of Christendom, especially western Christendom (the East has traditionally not been so keen on Augustinian--Calvinist--views).

"You just said that our positive merits have nothing to do with how God judges us; now you're saying "good reasoning" tells us that "those who remain in their wickedness" go to Hell. Do you even TRY to understand what you're saying before you say it?"

We are all wicked and deserve hell, but God chooses some to save in spite of their ill desert. So those who are condemned are condemned on their demerit, but those who are saved are not saved on their merit. (This doesn't mean they remain enemies of God. God atones for their wickedness through Christ and changes their hearts and actions through the work of the Holy Spirit. But this is all the gift of God, not reflective of any more goodness in these fallen people any more than any other fallen people."

"Enlightenment through communion with God is sufficient; the rest of the Bible is merely a useful guide to get you started in the right direction."

This has been a minority Christian viewpoint through history, and in my opinion is inconsistent with a reaonable reading of the Bible and Christianity in general.

"Also, I failed to see what this "personal universe" might predict that we could observe and agree on."

It predicts a number of things. Here's a couple: In a personal universe, 1. there will be beings with consciousness, 2. objective ethics will exist. In a naturalistic (impersonal universe--no personal being at the root, bottom or foundation of all things) universe, 1. there will be no beings with consciousness, and 2. there will be no objective ethics. Everything will be reducible to matter/energy or something impersonal. It is logically impossible to derive consciousness from the workings of matter/energy (in the materialist sense of these things), because consciousness is simply a fundamentally different sort of thing from matter/energy in a materialist sense. My post back in the other thread dealt with this claim in more detail. It appears to me obvious from observation that consciousness exists, and I believe we are all on some level aware that there is a real, objective right and wrong. These things, among others, falsify naturalism and prove theism, because only theism can account for them.

"For example, neither they nor Mark can understand that God clearly discriminates based on place of birth."

I do understand that. God has linked the regeneration of the heart, bringing people to accept Christ, with the preaching of the gospel. Where there is no gospel preached, there is generally no regeneration and obviously no conversion to Christianity. God ordains where the gospel will be preached, because he ordains everything in history. So he does discriminate. He gives more to one person than another, more to one nation than another. he does this for his own good purposes, and no one can complain because we all deserve hell.

"This, of course, raises the age-old question, 'what about those people who have never heard the Word (eg small tribes in deepest Africa - are they damned through their ignorance?' This is more interesting theologically, but still fruitless."

Those who have never heard the gospel are damned through their rejection of God. Everyone knows, on some level, that God exists and that he demands certain things of us. Unreached peoples are all rebels and idolaters and deserve hell like the rest of us. God has ordered us to bring the gospel to them, and when they hear the gospel, he may regenerate them through it.

On a different note, I have been reading articles on dating methods and various things. Among the things I've been reading are a couple of articles on isochron dating methods. I read a few talk.origin articles on this, and then I began reading some creationist articles. It is very difficult to figure out whose interpretation of the data is more accurate because it is difficult to figure out exactly what the data is, what methods have been used to arrive at interpretations, etc. But I am slowly getting a better grasp of these things. Two notworthy articles I read can be found here. Here is the creationist article: http://tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html. Here is the talk.origins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html. If you feel like reading them and commenting on them, I would be interested in your opinions.

Mark

Thank you for your comments, Bee.

I see your point, I believe. Mine, one might say, is perhaps rather a semantic one than a defense of or attack on Mark's behaviour, about which we agree. I have tried to make it clear that I do not condone Mark's methodology or endorse his conclusions. And I fully share with you and many other readers of this thread the frustration of dealing with fundamentalists and creationists who adhere to such methodology and tactics in defending their impossible positions ad nauseum. I have followed this and many other threads on the Thumb, am aware of Mark and Co.'s stunning scholastic and apologetic gyrations, and FSM knows I have led dozens of fruitless debates with any number of creationists and fundamentalists!

At the same time, when I call someone a liar, I mean that he knows full well that what he is saying is untrue, and that he is saying so with the intent to deceive, e.g. when I tell my wife that I'm not having an affair with my cute little secretary, even though I know full well that I am. So if I were to call Mark a liar, it would essentially mean that I in fact think that he is fully convinced of an old universe and of the explanatory power of evolutionary theory, but that because he wants to deceive us, he is saying a bunch of things he knows are not true. But I don't think this is the case. To the contrary, I think he believes the absurd positions he espouses. Therefore, when he advocates them, he is not lying, he is mistaken, ill informed, employing unsound methodology, etc.

And, at the risk of sounding redundant, it seems to me that the great majority of creationists and fundamentalists (there are of course exceptions, real genuine hucksters, usually very wealthy ones) really believe the incorrect claims and statements that they make.

It doesn't really matter that one shows a creationist a seemingly infinite number of times with hard evidence and sound reasoning that they are wrong and that the evidence doesn't support their beliefs. They still believe. It's like trying to convince someone who believes he is Napolean with reference to evidence to the contrary that he is not Napolean. And Mark, for one, has written endless pages of flapdoodle which he in all honesty (or so I assume) believes adequately deals with all of our objections, except, of course, those he promises to get back to time permiting. We may correctly repeat until we agonizingly asphyxiate that he has not; he still believes, wholeheartedly -- and indeed, with an intensity and conviction of belief that the more scientifically minded can hardly imagine -- that he has surmounted those objections and defended his position. In short, he is a believer. What we call lies they believe with all their being.

I also avoid resorting to the "liar" explanation, apart from the fact that I think it is generally not accurate, because other explanations are in most cases more convincing, even if they may have less rhetorical zing. Of the many possible explanations (many or most of which have been at least alluded to in this thread) for why otherwise intelligent people believe absurd things are mental disorders, low intelligence, psychological aberrations, peer pressure, fear, the methodology of apologetics, etc., and any combination of them.

But please don't get me wrong. This is no defense of Mark's positions. I assert only that he believes the nonsense he writes, and that he is therefore not a liar when he does so.

Best,
Jared

We are all wicked and deserve hell

Mark ...

"Two notworthy articles I read can be found here. Here is the creationist article: http://tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html. Here is the talk.origins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html. If you feel like reading them and commenting on them, I would be interested in your opinions."

How about this as an alternative. Would you be willing to summarise the talk.origins isochron faq, and tell us where either find it lacking, or have problems understanding the argument? If you are serious about evaluating the old-earth perspective, I think you will get a more positive response from contributors to this thread if you demonstrate that you are engaging with the science yourself, and not just provoking others to (futile) discussion. The suspicion is clearly that you aren't serious about evaluating the science. Show people that you are doing the ground work, and you may be able to win them over. You can assume, I
think, that pretty much everyone here knows the creationist arguments. The talk-origins faq is written explicitly to address them.

Those who have never heard the gospel are damned through their rejection of God.

Everyone knows, on some level, that God exists and that he demands certain things of us.

"Also, I failed to see what this "personal universe" might predict that we could observe and agree on." It predicts a number of things. Here's a couple: In a personal universe, 1. there will be beings with consciousness, 2. objective ethics will exist. In a naturalistic (impersonal universe---no personal being at the root, bottom or foundation of all things) universe, 1. there will be no beings with consciousness, and 2. there will be no objective ethics. Everything will be reducible to matter/energy or something impersonal. It is logically impossible to derive consciousness from the workings of matter/energy (in the materialist sense of these things), because consciousness is simply a fundamentally different sort of thing from matter/energy in a materialist sense. My post back in the other thread dealt with this claim in more detail. It appears to me obvious from observation that consciousness exists, and I believe we are all on some level aware that there is a real, objective right and wrong. These things, among others, falsify naturalism and prove theism, because only theism can account for them.

What a depressing, frightening world you must live in. If that view is usual, it is no wonder that so many Christian sects are intolerant.

I like your list of qualification for evidence, except that your second point [that evidence should be Intersubjective, i.e. everyone who sees it agrees as to what it is] claims too much. Everyone doesn't have to agree on something before it can be counted as real evidence. If that were so, Darwinists better give up the ship, because there are a lot of people who disagree with it in the world.

Mike,

Well said. These images of Armageddon from Jehovah's Witness literature are horrific and illustrate the point (for some reason I cannot get html links to work....)

http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/pictures.htm

But at least the JWs don't believe in eternal torment in Hell, arguing that a "loving God" could not do such a thing. He could, however, wreak the havoc portrayed in these pictures.

I wonder what the world would be like if scientists were as fractioned as is Christianity. It's quite remarkable that science has no single dogma yet is fairly uniform worldwide whereas Chrsitians have a single book - the Bible - and are, apparently, totally unable to agree on what it means. By their fruits shall ye knoweth them.

Well another 10,000 words down the tubes. Maybe next time we should define evidence as observable, objective, quantifiable, and preferably published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. That should cut down on the hyperbole.

And so, after two months, still no response regarding:

ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
talkorigins.org.faq/molgen

Please note that both of these sites are replete with references from the scientific literature.
Man, I'm sure glad this guy will be deconverted in another four months.

Thanks to Raging Bee for the acknowledgement.

My post listed eight claims made by Christianity, and then I went through the eight again and pointed out observations and deductions from observations that confirm those claims.

Mark, please tell me I have the wrong post. Please, oh please, tell me you aren't referring to post #184681. If you are, then despite your apparent sincerity, I have to side with those who claim you're either trolling or deranged. Moreover, I suspect that anyone who still believes you to be both sincere and in any way worth engaging simply hasn't read your post. Let's recap your 8 claims of evidence (and please correct me if you feel the portion of each claim I've quoted here doesn't accurately represent the claim):

1. Everything doesn't reduce to matter and energy or emergent properties of these, but those characteristics that make up the essence of and concern persons are most fundamental to the universe.
2. The description of God as one being who exists or subsists in the form of three persons is supported by what can be known of the nature of God through reason. The Trinity asserts that the three persons---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---are absolutely one in essence.
3. Observation of ourselves and our fellow human beings indicates that, as beings who possess consciousness, reasoning, etc., we resemble God in remarkable ways, although on an infinitely smaller scale. Our value as human beings comes from our reflection of the nature of God. So Christianity rightly predicts the basic nature of who we are and why we exist.
4. Good reasoning leads us to conclude that moral goodness and moral wickedness, if there is such a thing (which we all recognize is the case), must be definied by the loves and hates of God.
5. We all have something of a basic awareness, even if it is suppressed to our subconscious, that there is an objective moral standard that we are rightly measured by. We are also all aware that we do not measure up to that standard.
6. Good reasoning about the nature of God leads us to be aware that he is infinitely great and valuable, and that to reject him and put ourselves above him is to treat him with infinite contempt and become worthy of infinite wrath.
7. Thus, the very nature of things does not allow us to be happy in our current condition of guilt and corruption. Our only hope is that the strength and depth of what we have done can be taken on by God himself so that, by his power and righteousness and forgiveness and restoration, we can be recovered from our guilty and corrupt state.
8. Good reasoning can see that if God is the ground of all being, he determines all that happens, including who is saved and who is not. We also see that since we deserve his infinite wrath, God would be perfectly good and just to destroy all of us without mercy, which is unmerited.

There is not a single empirical observation in your 8 lines of evidence. Not a single one! Not in the "evidence" presented, nor in the "predictions" made. The closest you get is to describe something outside of matter an energy in point 1 (which there is no empirical evidence for, and which wouldn't support any particular theology if found), and your statements about feelings of immorality and guilt in points 5 and 7. In those cases, however, you falsely claim that the feelings are universal. How sad that you and everyone you know apparently feels inadequate. Hey, does the fact that I and my friends don't feel that way serve as falsification of your belief system? It would if your belief system were as close to scientific as you pretend it is.

Just about every other "line of evidence" simply uses your theology to predict.... other aspects of your theology! And if you think that what you've written is in any way comparable to scientific reasoning based on empirical evidence, then I'm a little scared.

Re "While he could instantaneously work across the globe, he wants his church to be the instrument of his power."

Yep. The problem with basing stuff on the word of God, is deciding what group of people get to decide what that Word is.

----

Re "It's quite remarkable that science has no single dogma yet is fairly uniform worldwide"

Yeah, funny how basing conclusions on verifiable evidence can have that effect.

Henry

So in all these points, Christianity remarkably captures the reality of the universe we live in, the reality of God, the reality of ourselves, etc. Every other worldview on earth gets this picture fundamentally wrong. Naturalism misses the main contours of reality by trying to reduce all things personal to impersonal laws. It loses the ground of being (and thus the explanation for the universe), ethics, the purpose of our existence, etc. Eastern religions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) recognize there is an absoltue realm/being at the back of the universe, but they get its nature wrong (they aren't clear that it is personal), our relationship with it wrong, our nature and purpose wrong, our sinfulness wrong, our hope of happiness wrong. Older pagan religions have a lot of the same problems, with other absurdities added. Other theistic religions, like Judaism and Islam, are much closer to reality (not surprisingly, since they are based in some of the same revelation from God that Christianity is), but they too miss fundamental things. They get the existence of God right, but they miss the Trinity, the full reality and consequences of the sinfulness of humanity, the only hope of salvation, and other things frequently. The world is full of nonsense and lies in most of its worldviews. People have the reason to recognize these things, but they have become confused and wander blindly. Christianity cuts through all this like a ray of light through a storm cloud. It confronts us with the real picture of how things are, something we never see anywhere else.

We are all wicked and deserve hell

Mark ...

You'd rather we ask you direct questions about your background than infer from your postings, so here goes. If you find this obtrusive, don't answer. On the other hand, answers may help people make a judgement about what they can expect in a discussion about science with you.

What level of formal education have you reached, in any subject?

Do you have formal scientific qualifications at any level (bachelors, doctorate, etc)?

Do you have formal scientific qualifications in any of the 'hard' sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, geology etc) as opposed to the 'soft' sciences (social science, economics)?

Delurks

Comment #185035 Posted by Mark Hausam on June 28, 2007 2:06 PM (e) ... A few of you suggested that I did not provide any actual evidence but only restated evangelical theology, etc. But I did point out a number of observations. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Some observations can only be observed by a limited number of people, sometimes only by one person. ...

— Mark Hausam

... 2. The claim continually comes up that my metaphysical arguments have been refuted long ago. ...

— Mark Hausam

... That makes my view a minority view in some circles, but I'm not interested in pleasing the majority, I am interested in what I think is true. ...

— Mark Hausam

... 3. Yes, I am a Calvinist. I am a member of (and an elder in) the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (www.opc.org). ...

— Mark Hausam

... Instead of googling me to find out all the dirty secrets of my life, why don't you try asking me if you want to know something? ...

— Mark Hausam

... Of course, I don't really expect some of you to do that since you have already decided I am a liar and won't budge from that opinion no matter what. Closed-mindedness is the order of the day for you. ...

— Mark Hausam

... I'm being partly facetious here. Some of you are capable enough of engaging in rational conversation. If I were interested to do so, though, I could cleverly desconstruct people here as well as they like to do to me. But I am more interested in intelligent conversation than the childish games that seem to run so rampant on this blog. ...

— Mark Hausam

... I like your list of qualification for evidence, except that your second point claims too much. ...

— Mark Hausam

... What you probably meant, though, is that everyone who is objective, sufficiently informed, and sufficiently capable in other ways of evaluating properly can potentially come to an agreement about what the evidence is. ...

— Mark Hausam

... One more disagreement: As I argued earlier, evidence doesn't have to be public in the sense of available to all in every case, or my argument for my existence from my observation of my own consciousness, any many other things I believe (such as the myriad things that I believe based on observations unique to me right now), would have no evidential basis, which is clearly not the case. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Raging Bee, I would suggest you adopt a more scientific attitude to asking questions in the future. It is important first to make sure that you understand a claim before you attack it, rather than automatically misinterpreting it in the worst way you can and then attacking your caricature. You seem particularly prone to this latter kind of reasoning. One hopes you don't do this in your reasoning to an old earth and Darwinism. Maybe it would help to try to get your anger and/or bitterness or whatever it is that makes you do that under control before you respond to a post. "Raging Bee" might be better as "Reasoning Bee." It is more conducive to finding truth. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Let me restate my position more clearly. I believe that God created ...

— Mark Hausam

... He created us good, but we fell into sin. It is true, however, that he ordained that fall to come to pass for his good purposes. ...

— Mark Hausam

... All of us are guilty of rebellion against God...

— Mark Hausam

... An analogy might help here. Imagine you are watching the sentencing of a criminal in a law court. The criminal had been found guilty of stealing a gum ball ...

— Mark Hausam

... God, in my view, is infinitely greater than all human beings put together. To sin against him deserves infinite punishment. ...

— Mark Hausam

... But they do. Most Christians through history have held most of my beliefs. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Modern liberals are a fairly recent phenomenon. ...

— Mark Hausam

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

— St. Augustine

... It predicts a number of things. Here's a couple: In a personal universe, 1. there will be beings with consciousness, 2. objective ethics will exist. In a naturalistic (impersonal universe---no personal being at the root, bottom or foundation of all things) universe, 1. there will be no beings with consciousness, and 2. there will be no objective ethics. Everything will be reducible to matter/energy or something impersonal. ...

— Mark Hausam

... It is logically impossible to derive consciousness from the workings of matter/energy (in the materialist sense of these things), because consciousness is simply a fundamentally different sort of thing from matter/energy in a materialist sense. ...

— Mark Hausam

... It appears to me obvious from observation that consciousness exists, and I believe we are all on some level aware that there is a real, objective right and wrong. ...

— Mark Hausam

... On a different note, I have been reading articles on dating methods and various things. Among the things I've been reading are a couple of articles on isochron dating methods. I read a few talk.origin articles on this, and then I began reading some creationist articles. It is very difficult to figure out whose interpretation of the data is more accurate because it is difficult to figure out exactly what the data is, what methods have been used to arrive at interpretations, etc. But I am slowly getting a better grasp of these things. Two notworthy articles I read can be found here. Here is the creationist article: http://tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html. Here is the talk.origins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html. If you feel like reading them and commenting on them, I would be interested in your opinions ...

— Mark Hausam

A common refrain in some recent posts responding to Mark's theology is that it is horrible, repulsive, scary, etc., as indeed it is. This, however, is no argument against it; just as the common argument often palavered by many believers, according to which evolution is surely not true because if it were our lives would be so meaningless, is fallacious.

And of course Mark's theology is quite a reasonable explanation for those who believe in a biblical god who commands his people to commit genocide and himself whimsically slaughters babies and occasionally everything else that he errantly created; more reasonable, anyway, than those who profess to believe in the basic Christian doctrines but deny most of what the only source for those Christian doctrines has to say, i.e. pick out the nice, warm, fluffy, teletubby stuff and conveniently ignore the rest.

Regards,
Jared

Henry J wrote in Comment #184112 on June 21, 2007 at 9:50 PM: Moses was preparing to write down the history of creation that God had just revealed to him. Aaron (his accountant) says to Moses, what ARE you doing?? Don't you know the price of papyrus? We can't afford the amount of that stuff we'd need if you include every little thing! Moses to Aaron: But God told me all this, we have to share it, don't we? Aaron: We can't afford the papyrus for 16 billion years of prehistory. Moses: Well, what can we afford? Aaron: One week. Moses: A week???? (sigh) Well, if that's all we can manage, I guess I'll have to leave out a few things. Trilobites. Dinosaurs. Continental drift. (sigh).

I don't think it is logically possible to have any knowledge of anything that is not ultimately reducible to observation and/or rational deduction based on observation.

And yet you cling to Bible-based assumptions that give you an excuse to ignore a planetful of physical evidence against your opinions, and pretend that evidence was faked by your God ("appearance of age/history"). So no, you're most certainly NOT an "empiricist." Do you even care wht the word means, or are you just using it as a label because you know it sounds good?

That makes my view a minority view in some circles, but I'm not interested in pleasing the majority, I am interested in what I think is true.

You're confusing "accepting the reality that is objectively proven and cannot be wished away" with "pleasing the majority." This is a mistake commonly made by children and the mentally ill.

Specific arguments, not un-argued assertions!

We've given you specific arguments, in hundreds of posts on two threads, one of which was created specifically to continue this discussion with you. And guess what -- you ignored nearly all of them, and lie by pretending we haven't given you any.

It is important first to make sure that you understand a claim before you attack it, rather than automatically misinterpreting it in the worst way you can and then attacking your caricature.

This statement would be a little more credible if you had actually specified WHICH of your claims I've misrepresented, and offered a correction to each of my mistakes. Instead, you made a vague accusation with no specifics, which I have no choice but to discount as yet another evasion.

"Enlightenment through communion with God is sufficient; the rest of the Bible is merely a useful guide to get you started in the right direction."

This has been a minority Christian viewpoint through history, and in my opinion is inconsistent with a reaonable reading of the Bible and Christianity in general.

So now, all of a sudden, you're claiming to represent the majority of Christians, after insisting that that very same majority were wrong about their own beliefs for all these centuries and you alone had the Truth?

All of us are guilty of rebellion against God, of complete disrespect for the infinite greatness and glory of God.

Including those Christians who show, every day, more understanding of God's creations than you do? And you know this about us...how? You've shown breathtaking ignorance of other people's actual beliefs -- including the beliefs of other Christians -- and now you're passing judgement on us? If anyone here is in "rebellion against God," it's the young-Earth creationist who preaches Genesis, ignores Jesus, insists that all the evidence that disproves his opinions was faked by his God, calls the Bible "infallible" even when he's admitted it's not, and shows absolutely no respect for the wisdom of his fellow Christians. The Gods have given you senses to perceive their creation, and a large cerebral cortex (almost as large as a dolphin's!) to understand its wonders and mysteries, and which of us refuses to use what the Gods have given him? You, Mark, not us.

Those who have never heard the gospel are damned through their rejection of God.

How can they "reject" something if they've never been exposed to it in the first place? And why should God have such relentless, unending hatred for those of HIS OWN CREATIONS whom HE HIMSELF has chosen to deny the gospel?

I am a member of (and an elder in) the Orthodox Presbyterian Church...

That explains a lot -- you're trying to enforce a doctrine that reinforces your authority over other people without requiring you to contribute anything positive to them; and allows you to ignore the goodness and achievements of others, refuse to make any sacrifices of your own, and avoid anything resembling responsibility, accountability, or compliance with any code of ethics, including that of your own Savior.

Since you're stating your belief, Mark, let me state mine: if God is perfect, all-powerful and all-knowing, then the more perfect your imagining of God is, the closer your imagining is to the truth of God's nature. The God you imagine is a vindictive, abusive, capricious, small-minded, deceitful and utterly untrustworthy father, who hates his own children for being what he made them to be and forces them to blame themselves for the consequences of his insane actions; the God(s) I imagine honestly love their creatures, don't lie to us by "creation with appearance of age," and want us all to use the powers we're given, grow, learn, and become the best we can be. Therefore, my God(s) is/are closer to the true nature of God than yours, and therefore more real. (Hell, my own real and very fallible father was more perfect than your wretched excuse for a God!)

Hello.

1. You all find my worldview repulsive and claim that my evidence is not valid evidence at all. Well, that is not surprising. If you thought otherwise, you would be Reformed Christians like me. I think my evidence is valid and that my worldview is not repulsive. We are dealing here with two very different worldviews. We see reality very differently. We have very different epistemologies. We both claim that our own epistemology and worldview is right and the other is wrong. We both claim our own views and ways of thinking are rational. It can be difficult (but not impossible) to discuss evidence when the differences between the positions are not minor or superficial but are so fundamental.

In my view, your responses to my doctrine are symptomatic of rebellion against God. The rebels always think the true king is a tyrant. Your rebellion gives you a distorted view of reality so that what is right and just seems cruel and mean to you. You don't understand the greatness and glory of God, so you find his response against sin to be absurdly harsh. You are like a person who cares nothing for human life being shocked that the judge in the courtroom would sentence the guy who raped, tortured and murdered to such a harsh punishment.

I'm sorry you don't like the evidence I am presenting for my position. I think it is good evidence. But I am not surprised that naturalists and semi-naturalists (deists, liberal Christians, etc.) don't think so. I don't find your arguments and reactions against my views at all convincing either, which probably doesn't surprise you.

2. Some get irritated that I keep "preaching." Can anyone remember why I began to give arguments for my worldview? I was answering Jared's question. I was asked to discuss the evidence for my worldview, which you want to characterize as "preaching." But most of you don't care about being fair. You have an idea of what you think a fundamentalist and a creationist ought to be and you will ignore reality to make sure I fit your view. Fundamentalists ought to be "preachy" and try to force people to listen to them; therefore that is what I am doing; just ignore that I was answering a question from one of you.

3. "There is no objective moral law." I know people have somewhat different ethical codes around the world (and in our local communities as well). I believe that we are all aware that there is a real right and wrong. I believe that an objective moral law follows from theism and cannot exist in any other system. If you don't agree about an objective right or wrong, why are you so upset with my doctrine? Who cares if my doctrine is "repulsive" if there is no objective morality. In that case, my views being "repulsive" simply means that you don't like them. Why should I care if you like them or not? For those of you who will stand up for religious liberty and are so scared of the possibility of a theocracy, if there is no objective morality, you are simply expressing your subjective feelings. Why should I or anyone else care?

4. "Explaining consciousness by menas of another consciousness doesn't work." My point was that consciousness is irruducible. It cannot be reduced to matter/energy. Therefore, the materialistic view of the world, which wants to reduce everything to matter/energy, cannot be true. Consciousness cannot be reduced to anything else, because its essence is inherently different from everything else. Therefore, it cannot ultimate be reduced to something else, but must find its source in a consciousness that is rooted in ultimate reality or in the first cause of all things.

5. "Where are the predictions of a personal universe?" I consider an explanation that must be true for the physical universe and consciousness to exist at all to be a major prediction. But you want some kind of physical observation that we don't already have that a personal universe would predict. Then we would go and look for this phyisical phenomenon to see if the prediction is confirmed. I can't think of anything along these lines, because the real predictions of theism concern things we already know about, such as the existence of the universe, conscious life, etc. There may be predictions about hitherto-unobserved things, but I cannot think of anything off the top of my head. I don't really care, though, because I think the predictions of things we do observe conclusively establishes the truthfulness of the claims. What predictions of unobserved phenomena are made by naturslism?

You mention Tiktaalik as a fulfilled prediction of evolution. Well, maybe it is. I don't know enough about all the details to be able to speak conclusively about it at this point. The fact that such a claim is made by evolutionists, however, doesn't prove it in itself. What is construed to be an amazing fulfillment of evolutionary prediction might turn out not to be so impressive when all the facts are taken into account. It is worth looking into further, though.

6. Some have said that evidence available only to one person is not valid. I don't think my evidence is available only to one person, although Wayne Francis's post accuses me of making this claim (although I specifically denied it in my actual post), but I do think that evidence can be valid sometimes though only available to one person. What about my argument for my existence based on my own consciousness?

7. Calvinists don't find Calvinist to be mean. Nor do we believe in hell because we like the idea of people going there.

8. I did look up ncdc.noaa.gov. I find it very interesting, but unfortunately I couldn't understand hardly anything there because it seemed to consist mainly of technical reports in their untranslated form, which meant that they were pretty much inaccessible to me. I am continuing my study of the physical data, though, whether you believe me or not.

9. My formal education: I am in the process of getting a PhD in Theology (with a focus on philosophical theology and theological communication) with the University of Wales, Lampeter. I have experience teaching philosophy. I do not have any formal training in science (beyond the classes taken in college and previous general education).

10. "WE don't feel inadequate." If not, it shows a serious lack of awareness of your own condition as fallen human beings. I hope you come to see things as they really are someday. You claim my views are repulsive. I don't find them so. Do you think that proves they are not, or do you only say that there must be somthing wrong with me for not finding them repulsive?

11. "Mainstream Christians disagree with you." Actually, thoughout most Christian history, a strong Augustinian view was popular and even (though sometimes inconsistently) formally embraced in the western Christian church. Some of my other "repulsive" views (like hell) have always been embraced by just about all historic Christians, western and eastern.

12. "You don't like infinite sets. So God can't be infinite." I don't believe there can be an infinite number of finite things. I already explained the connection with time in an earlier post. I think the same with regard to objects in space, but I won't go into it right now. If you want to know more ask me. When we say God is "infinite," the word has a different meaning in that case. It doesn't mean an infinite number of finite thing; it means "fullness." So God is the fullness of being, has the fullness of power, knowledge, etc.

13. I know Augustine interpreted Genesis 1 metaphorically. I don't care because I don't think he had good arguments. But overall, he was much more literal than your selective quote (quote mining?) implies.

14. "Tylenol alters consciousness, so consciousness czn be reduced to matter/energy." Mind-brain are closely related and connected to each other, but that doesn't prove mind can be reduced to brain as we usually conceive it.

15. Someone suggested a new article to look at. Thank you for the suggestion.

16. Jared makes a good point. Finding something repulsive is not the same as having a rational argument against it.

"How about this as an alternative. Would you be willing to summarise the talk.origins isochron faq, and tell us where either find it lacking, or have problems understanding the argument? If you are serious about evaluating the old-earth perspective, I think you will get a more positive response from contributors to this thread if you demonstrate that you are engaging with the science yourself, and not just provoking others to (futile) discussion. The suspicion is clearly that you aren't serious about evaluating the science. Show people that you are doing the ground work, and you may be able to win them over. You can assume, I
think, that pretty much everyone here knows the creationist arguments. The talk-origins faq is written explicitly to address them."

Good idea. But I've already spent my time today; I'll have to get back to this later.

"Won't it be ironic if you are right and after a life time of preaching, for your "God", that your "God" has already damned you to hell but lets in Richard Dawkins into "God's" kingdom of heaven! Don't answer that because I don't care what spin you give it really I've heard it all before and seen the goal shifting enough times."

You say you don't want me to answer because you've heard it all before. Well, if you have, you apparently didn't listen very carefully, because your comments show a complete lack of understanding of Calvinism. Calvinists dont' say it doesn't matter what you do. They say that God has ordained all that happens. These are both true statements: "If I trust in Christ and obey God, I will be saved" and "God has determined whether I will in fact do so." This is not a true statement: "God has determined I will be saved regardless of whether I trust and obey." The fact is that God ordains the means as well as the ends.

OK, I must go now. Thanks again!

Mark

Some get irritated that I keep "preaching."

If you don't agree about an objective right or wrong, why are you so upset with my doctrine?

I believe that an objective moral law follows from theism and cannot exist in any other system.

My point was that consciousness is irruducible (sic). It cannot be reduced to matter/energy. Therefore, the materialistic view of the world, which wants to reduce everything to matter/energy, cannot be true. Consciousness cannot be reduced to anything else, because its essence is inherently different from everything else. Therefore, it cannot ultimate be reduced to something else, but must find its source in a consciousness that is rooted in ultimate reality or in the first cause of all things.

You mention Tiktaalik as a fulfilled prediction of evolution. Well, maybe it is.

What about my argument for my existence based on my own consciousness?

Mind-brain are closely related and connected to each other, but that doesn't prove mind can be reduced to brain as we usually conceive it.

We are dealing here with two very different worldviews. We see reality very differently. We have very different epistemologies. We both claim that our own epistemology and worldview is right and the other is wrong. We both claim our own views and ways of thinking are rational. It can be difficult (but not impossible) to discuss evidence when the differences between the positions are not minor or superficial but are so fundamental.

Careful, dude, you're dangerously close to implying that the atheist world-view is no less valid than your own. What happens to your Absolute Truth then?

But then again, you never were one for understanding the implications of your own stated beliefs.

Calvinists dont' say it doesn't matter what you do. They say that God has ordained all that happens.

So humans don't have free will, and therefore our moral choices aren't really choices at all? That sounds like evolution as misrepresented by creationists. According to your belief, I can do anything I want, and then blame God because he pre-ordained it all and there was nothing I could do to stop what God had pre-ordained.

Calvinists don't find Calvinist to be mean.

And abusive parents don't find themselves to be abusive (not when they're talking to Child Protective Services at least). And stupid people don't consider themselves stupid. So what?

Well, now we know why Mark refuses to look at any real evidence. His definition of evidence is not the same as that used in science. Not surprising really, since he has no training in science at all. Well I'm really not interested in his religious beliefs or his metaphysical speculations. However, just as an exercise, let's see where this leads.

Mark's idea of evidence is apparently: anything I can think up that justifies my preconceptions. He then uses this "evidence" to justify all of his preconceptions! Wow, why didn't I think of that. No research, no experiments, no grant proposals, no messy facts to get in the way. Sounds great. I want to play. Here goes:

My theory is: God is change

My evidence: God is everywhere and everything everywhere changes
God is constant and change is the only constant
God is eternal and only change is eternal
God is all powerful and change is all powerful

My conclusion: My theory is correct and God exists

My prediction: Since my theory is correct God exists and change will occur
Some change will occur over time
Some change will occur in response to the environment
Some change will occur over time in response to the environment
The above is one possible definition of evolution

My conclusion: Evolution is God

Now don't get offended. I know I am not supposed to denigrate anyone's religious beliefs. But just think about it. If my reasoning is correct, (and as far as I can tell this is exactly the same type of reasoning used by Mark), then these must be my religious beliefs, so you can't denigrate them!

Anyway, one of Jerry Seinfeld's friends converted to Judism in order to tell jokes about Jews with impunity. Someone asked Jerry if he was offended by this as a Jew. He replied that no, he was offended as a comedian. Well if you are offended by the above I apologize, but quite frankly I am offended as a scientist by someone using the above definition of evidence.

Thanks to Octavia Butler for the idea.

"Explaining consciousness by menas of another consciousness doesn't work." My point was that consciousness is irruducible.

It cannot be reduced to matter/energy.

Therefore, the materialistic view of the world, which wants to reduce everything to matter/energy, cannot be true.

Consciousness cannot be reduced to anything else, because its essence is inherently different from everything else.

Therefore, it cannot ultimate be reduced to something else, but must find its source in a consciousness that is rooted in ultimate reality or in the first cause of all things.

As many have pointed out many times, Mark came here to preach to the unwashed, not to learn science.

In the "quad preacher" scenario Mark is riling up the "wicked" and deftly handling the multiple, simultaneous jabs of their "evil weapons".

What is supposed to happen in next part of this scenario is that those of the wicked who are "most rebellious", have the "hardest hearts", and are the most "blinded by their egos and worldly knowledge" will run off "in defeat" (being "unable to answer his profound words"), and the rest of the wicked will submit as lambs at Mark's feet, listening in rapt awe to the wise words of the "master".

This is the way it will be reported in Marks heroic record as he progresses through his warrior stages to "victory" and becomes one of the "shining lights" in the pantheon of heroes in his sect.

It's right out of their playbook.

This is why he will continue to refuse to address the scientific questions and keep steering the conversation back to his sectarian beliefs.

You will note that he can't afford to lose at this point. He is in the spotlight, and many of his cohorts are watching him and breathlessly waiting for his victory (already partially reported).

Of course there is an escape route for him; he can become a revered martyr.

There is no way he will address any of the science on this forum. He has turned it into a melodramatic soap opera over which he wants to maintain control.

I believe that we are all aware that there is a real right and wrong. I believe that an objective moral law follows from theism and cannot exist in any other system.

— Mark

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Good idea. But I've already spent my time today; I'll have to get back to this later.

— Mark

... and the JWs have to record their "time" so this is no exaggeration...

Thank "God" they are not in control and if they ever get in control you'll see me fly back to the USA to do my US Constitutional duty and over throw such a government.

Did you ever do such a "post mortem" of your answers and revise them in the light of the impression they would make on believers?

— Mike E

Mark,

THe Talkorigins article is fairly short, only about 20 pages or so and it starts with the very basics. If you cannot understand the material as presented you will have great difficulty discussing any genetics with anyone.

As for the NOAA site, it has a section on the main page for Outreach under which is a link called Paleo Primer. This goes over the very basics of paleoclimatology and provides links for each type of data. For example, to learn more about ice cores follow the links to:

www.aga.org/sci_soc/vostole.html

For tutorials on tree rings go to:

www.ltrr.arizona.edu/treerings.html

or the link at that site /dendrochronology.html

A very good discussion of tree ring basics can be found at:

web.utk.edu/%7Egrissino/contents.html

I know it is a lot to wade through, but if you want to look at real evidence you must have the necessary background. That is why most people pick one field of science and spend their entire lives becomiong experts.

I still recommend a college science education and I still recommend you get your own web site.

To do as David Stanton recommends Mark must first learn what the scientific method is and then convince himself of its validity. If he believes that this approach is "foolishness with God" then he will get nowhere no matter how much reading he does.

David,

Thanks for the websites. I didn't see the paleo primer section. I'll check it out. I read a number of talk.origin articles recently, at least one of them was one you had recommended, but I don't remember the specific names off the top of my head. I was led by one the articles you suggested to the Isochron dating methods page, which I then read and plan to talk about more soon. I've spent a bit of time looking for articles particularly on the convergence of methods, but I have started to focus more on articles directly discussing radiometric dating in general in the hopes that these will give me some more basic background and indirectly lead to the convergence issue. So far that is working out well. Also, I have reached the section in Dalrymple's book describing radiometric dating, and it is looking helpful so far. Anyway, I'm having fun, slowly but surely. Thanks again for the references.

To do as David Stanton recommends Mark must first learn what the scientific method is and then convince himself of its validity. If he believes that this approach is "foolishness with God" then he will get nowhere no matter how much reading he does.

I still recommend a college science education

P.S. One of my biggest thrills took place not far from Lampeter. A friend and I were visiting a Roman gold mine at Pump Saint (5 Saints). As we walked along the remains of the aqueduct that supplied it with water we looked back towards the setting sun and saw crop marks of streets and houses and a large oval, the whole extending over about 5 times the known area of the Roman town. I reported it to the appropriate people the following day, who said they had had their suspicions but it was good to have it confirmed.

Comment #185164 Posted by Mark Hausam on June 29, 2007 5:16 PM (e) David, Thanks for the websites. I didn't see the paleo primer section. I'll check it out. I read a number of talk.origin articles recently, at least one of them was one you had recommended, but I don't remember the specific names off the top of my head. I was led by one the articles you suggested to the Isochron dating methods page, which I then read and plan to talk about more soon. I've spent a bit of time looking for articles particularly on the convergence of methods, but I have started to focus more on articles directly discussing radiometric dating in general in the hopes that these will give me some more basic background and indirectly lead to the convergence issue. So far that is working out well. Also, I have reached the section in Dalrymple's book describing radiometric dating, and it is looking helpful so far. Anyway, I'm having fun, slowly but surely. Thanks again for the references.

— Mark Hausam

Bee wrote: "the God(s) I imagine honestly love their creatures, don't lie to us by "creation with appearance of age," and want us all to use the powers we're given, grow, learn, and become the best we can be. Therefore, my God(s) is/are closer to the true nature of God than yours, and therefore more real."

I would suggest that this is nothing more than an argument from personal taste, a la "if my idea of god is more likable, then it is also true," or "my god is nicer than yours, therefore mine is the real one." I could just as reasonably argue that slugs are furry and cuddly, not slimy and cold, because I like furry warm things and dislike slimy gooey things.

But I would ask a similar question of your theology as I posed to Mark: On what evidence and rationale do you base your idea of god/the gods? Certainly not on the state of our world, which is undeniably a mixture of good and evil? Presumably not on the bible, and more specifically the NT, since the Jesus you hold in such high esteem claimed, inter alia, to be one with the god of the OT who commanded genocide, slaughtered babies and all of mankind, claimed to do only his will, and unequivocally endorsed the scriptures said to have been inspired by him, as did other NT writers? At least Mark's disgusting god can rather easily be reconciled with scripture.

In short, where in the world do you get the idea of this wonderful, loving god? How exactly do you defend such a position when an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god is necessarily present at every rape of a child, at every genital mutilation of a little girl, etc., and does nothing to hinder it, though he is well aware of it and could easily intervene? (I assume I can anticipate your responses, but who knows, perhaps you will surprise me.) Is this not the perfect definition of a gruesome monster? Is s/he really a figment of your imagination ("the God(s) I imagine"), like a unicorn or my occasional intimate encounter with Selma Hayek is a figment of mine, or do you claim to be able to support this notion with evidence and sound reasoning?

My point was that consciousness is irruducible. It cannot be reduced to matter/energy. Therefore, the materialistic view of the world, which wants to reduce everything to matter/energy, cannot be true.

I consider an explanation that must be true for the physical universe and consciousness to exist at all to be a major prediction. But you want some kind of physical observation that we don't already have that a personal universe would predict. Then we would go and look for this phyisical phenomenon to see if the prediction is confirmed. I can't think of anything along these lines, because the real predictions of theism concern things we already know about, such as the existence of the universe, conscious life, etc.

Hello.

I'm going to start limiting my time posting on this blog to no more than a half-an-hour everyday. That means I am going to have to focus only on a very narrow portion of everything that is said to me, probably one or two items at a time.

Also, let me remind you that although I appreciate your help, my examination of the physical evidence needs to be done on my terms. Some of you have the attitude as if I were a formal student of yours and you were my examiner or instructor. I don't report to you. I will go about my investigations ultimately as I think best and on my time scale. You may give suggestions, but don't think you can give orders and have any weight to them. You can make up whatever imaginative stories you wish about how I am ignoring the evidence because I don't do exactly what you want me to do or come to the conclusions you want when you want; I really don't care, since I know what I am doing.

Our conversation here is made difficult due to different criteria for what counts as evidence. I'm not sure our criteria are really all that different, but we use different terminology to discuss it, and I suspect some of you are using a definition of evidence that even you do not hold to in real life. I don't think there should be a qualitative distinction between the methodology of natural science and any other area of life where we ought to come to our conclusions based on sufficient evidence. The key component in all evidence-based thinking is that claims are checked out against real observations of reality and only held to if they match, and that all appropriate care should be taken in any situation (to a greater or lesser degree sometimes based on the importance of the claim) that the process not be contaminated by unverified claims, misinterpretations of the evidence from observation, ungrounded bias, etc. It is not always necessary in every situation to make predictions about unknown phenomena and then do experiments to test for the unknown phenomena. Sometimes that is necessary, sometimes not. But the same key principles must be playing out either way.

Well, my time is a bit more limited than usual this morning, so I must go.

Talk to you later,
Mark

Also, let me remind you that although I appreciate your help, my examination of the physical evidence needs to be done on my terms. Some of you have the attitude as if I were a formal student of yours and you were my examiner or instructor. I don't report to you. I will go about my investigations ultimately as I think best and on my time scale.

Our conversation here is made difficult due to different criteria for what counts as evidence.

I don't think there should be a qualitative distinction between the methodology of natural science and any other area of life where we ought to come to our conclusions based on sufficient evidence. The key component in all evidence-based thinking is that claims are checked out against real observations of reality and only held to if they match, and that all appropriate care should be taken in any situation (to a greater or lesser degree sometimes based on the importance of the claim) that the process not be contaminated by unverified claims, misinterpretations of the evidence from observation, ungrounded bias, etc. It is not always necessary in every situation to make predictions about unknown phenomena and then do experiments to test for the unknown phenomena. Sometimes that is necessary, sometimes not.

Mark ...

If you're just able to commit half an hour to contributions to this thread, I recommend that rather than focussing on isochron dating, which involves some heavy duty mathematics and relatively impenetrable physics, you follow the suggested lines of enquiry in dendrochronology (tree ring dating). The science is much more intuitive and understandable by the layman.

Once again, if you make it evident that you are genuinely trying to understand the scientific issues with old earth/young earth scenarios, I think you get more constructive input from people here.

Best of luck.

Also ... my examination of the physical evidence needs to be done on my terms.... Our conversation here is made difficult due to different criteria for what counts as evidence

Mark,

Perhaps I can make a suggestion which might help us distinguish between the way you are using the word evidence and the way most others on this thread are using it.

Let's leave aside for the moment such contentious issues as the age of the earth, evolutionary theory and Calvinist theology and concentrate briefly on an easily grasped and (as far as I know) universally accepted theory, the kinetic theory of gases. (I initially thought of suggesting we take a look at the theory of continental drift or plate tectonics, but then it occurred to me that this might not be so free of contention as I had thought.)

I suggest that you take a few minutes to brush up on this tiny corner of science, then list for yourself what is counted as evidence for kinetic theory. You could then compare what is considered evidence that supports this theory with what you have offered as evidence for your theology.

Perhaps you will see that we are dealing with two different things, even if you conclude they are conceptually related. I personally would not object to you calling both sets evidence, but presumably we will need to distinguish between two kinds of evidence, one type which we refer to when we discuss what can be said to support the kinetic theory of gases and another type that supports the theology you espouse.

Sound like a useful exercise?

Regards,
Jared

You can make up whatever imaginative stories you wish about how I am ignoring the evidence because I don't do exactly what you want me to do or come to the conclusions you want when you want; I really don't care, since I know what I am doing.

Bee, concerning my post #185255, I'm afraid I may have misunderstood your intent in some of your posts, thereby making a bit of an ass of myself. (I guess that's what I get for trying to digest this unending thread on my coffee breaks.) If so, please forgive me. I see now (I think) that my objections to "your" theology are actually objections to a theology which you have proposed several times as a commonly held alternative to Mark's, not necessarily a theology you hold yourself. So please see my post in that light, in which case it may still have some worth.

Unfortunately he won't have much opportunity to take science courses at the college in Lampeter.

Jared: no problem. The theology I described is based on my own personal feelings and experiences, what other Christians have said in answer to my questions, and the common sense which I and others have used to connect Christian doctrine to the world in which we are expected to apply it. And the whole point of my post was to demonstrate that my imagining of God simply made more sense, and ws better able to accomodate a wider range of observable reality (both general and personal) than Mark's.

Mark: we're not trying to tell you what to do; we're telling you what's real, what's logical, and what works, whether or not any of us like it. As they repeatedly say in Narcotics Anonymous, we are supposed to be able to live and enjoy life on its own terms, not on terms we might wish, for whatever reason, to impose on it. Getting pissy and stamping your feet won't make any part of this huge complex reality go away; nor will ignoring an oncoming train make it less dangerous.

Comment #185240 Posted by Mark Hausam on June 30, 2007 9:19 AM (e) Hello. I'm going to start limiting my time posting on this blog to no more than a half-an-hour everyday. That means I am going to have to focus only on a very narrow portion of everything that is said to me, probably one or two items at a time. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Also, let me remind you that although I appreciate your help, my examination of the physical evidence needs to be done on my terms. Some of you have the attitude as if I were a formal student of yours and you were my examiner or instructor. I don't report to you. I will go about my investigations ultimately as I think best and on my time scale. ...

— Mark Hausam

Comment #184175 Posted by Mark Hausam on June 22, 2007 10:25 AM (e) Thanks for the references, David. The NOAA site looks particularly interesting. I will make reading through these the next thing on my list. Mark

— Mark Hausam

... I don't think there should be a qualitative distinction between the methodology of natural science and any other area of life where we ought to come to our conclusions based on sufficient evidence. The key component in all evidence-based thinking is that claims are checked out against real observations of reality and only held to if they match, and that all appropriate care should be taken in any situation (to a greater or lesser degree sometimes based on the importance of the claim) that the process not be contaminated by unverified claims, misinterpretations of the evidence from observation, ungrounded bias, etc. It is not always necessary in every situation to make predictions about unknown phenomena and then do experiments to test for the unknown phenomena. Sometimes that is necessary, sometimes not. But the same key principles must be playing out either way. ...

— Mark Hausam

... Well, my time is a bit more limited than usual this morning, so I must go. Talk to you later, Mark

— Mark Hausam

Our conversation here is made difficult due to different criteria for what counts as evidence. I'm not sure our criteria are really all that different, but we use different terminology to discuss it, and I suspect some of you are using a definition of evidence that even you do not hold to in real life. I don't think there should be a qualitative distinction between the methodology of natural science and any other area of life where we ought to come to our conclusions based on sufficient evidence.

Bee, thanks for the clarification. I guess I wasn't all that wildly off the mark then.

You write: "And the whole point of my post was to demonstrate that my imagining of God simply made more sense, and ws better able to accomodate a wider range of observable reality (both general and personal) than Mark's."

And my assertion would be that this alternative picture of god that you suggested for Mark's consideration is in fact absurd in the face of simple observations of our world and of those holy texts which purport to describe him, and further, that Mark's disgusting god, who is such a mixture of good and evil (and which can be shown to be absurd on other grounds), is actually more reasonable in the face of the state of our world and the descriptions found in the holy texts.

So perhaps I can repeat my earlier questions, regardless of whether they relate more to your own personal beliefs or merely to the picture you presented as an alternative to Mark (naturally anyone else with a cuddly, teletubbies version of god can feel free to respond as well):

On what evidence and rationale do you/they base your/their idea of god/the gods? Certainly not on the state of our world, which is undeniably a mixture of good and evil? Presumably not on the bible, and more specifically the NT, since the Jesus you/they hold in such high esteem claimed, inter alia, to be one with the god of the OT who commanded genocide, slaughtered babies and all of mankind, claimed to do only his will, and unequivocally endorsed the scriptures said to have been inspired by him, as did other NT writers? At least Mark's disgusting god can rather easily be reconciled with scripture.

In short, where in the world do you/they get the idea of this wonderful, loving god? How exactly do you/they defend such a position when an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god is necessarily present at every rape of a child, at every genital mutilation of a little girl, etc., and does nothing to hinder it, though he is well aware of it and could easily intervene? (I assume I can anticipate your/their responses, but who knows, perhaps you/they will surprise me.) Is this not the perfect definition of a gruesome monster? Is s/he really a figment of your/their imagination ("the God(s) I imagine"), like a unicorn or my occasional intimate encounter with Selma Hayek is a figment of mine, or do you/they claim to be able to support this notion with evidence and sound reasoning?

Regards,
Jared

In short, where in the world do you/they get the idea of this wonderful, loving god?

In short, from the bits of the Bible, and other holy texts, that seem most relevant and make the most sense to me today; from the occasional revelations I have had, and those that others have described; and from separating the good actions of some believers from the evil acts of others, and taking what the good ones say a little more seriously.

How exactly do you/they defend such a position when an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god is necessarily present at every rape of a child, at every genital mutilation of a little girl, etc., and does nothing to hinder it, though he is well aware of it and could easily intervene?

The gods allow all this to happen, either because they're not really omnipotent, or because they want us to act freely and learn from our experiences as a species. Yes, the Gods could stop us from doing evil deeds, but in the process they would also stop us from recognizing, understanding, and counteracting evil as well; just like a father who kept the training wheels on his kid's bike would thereby keep him from learning how to handle himself sensibly in all circumstances.

Presumably not on the bible, and more specifically the NT, since the Jesus you/they hold in such high esteem claimed, inter alia, to be one with the god of the OT who commanded genocide, slaughtered babies and all of mankind, claimed to do only his will, and unequivocally endorsed the scriptures said to have been inspired by him, as did other NT writers? At least Mark's disgusting god can rather easily be reconciled with scripture.

Jesus did not "unequivocally endorse" the OT; the main thrust of his message, in fact, was that his way was an alternative to the OT way, and that he brought his mercy to temper the merciless justice of the OT. (That's one of the reasons so many of the people of Judea supported his crucifixion.)

As for whose idea of God can be most easily reconciled with the Bible, that would depend on which parts of the Bible you consider most important or relevant. I choose the teachings of Jesus, simply because they make the most sense, independent of whether any of the rest of it is true. Mark chooses the OT splatter-fest, either because he's an ultra-Orthodox Jew, or because he's too narrow, hateful and inflexible to understand the wisdom of Christ (which, in fact, is so simple that any kid raised in a non-abusive household can understand the basics of it).

(with a focus on philosophical theology and theological communication)

Don't some of you realize that it is kind of rude to continue to have an extended converstation about somebody in the third person when they are standing right there? Instead of googling me to find out all the dirty secrets of my life, why don't you try asking me if you want to know something? Of course, I don't really expect some of you to do that since you have already decided I am a liar and won't budge from that opinion no matter what. Closed-mindedness is the order of the day for you. Creaionist predictions about Darwinist attitudes being fulfilled ...?

Mike Elzinga,

Do you think you have good evidence to conclude that your stories about me are true? I find that rather ironic given the recent conversation about the nature of evidence.

As far as I am aware, the University of Wales couldn't care less about apologetics or proselytizing. That is certainly not what I am learning there. "Theological communication" means communicating theological substance across diverse terminological or philosophical boundaries. Particularly, I am studying the communication between two groups of Calvinists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries--the mainstream tradition and the New England Theology.

Would you like to know how many "followers" of mine have been following this conversation on the Panda's Thumb? None that I know of, unless you count my wife as a follower, and she has only followed it occasionally, usually when I want to point out to her something particularly interesting (or particularly funny, like your posts). Actually, I can't think of anybody whom I would call my "follower," so I guess its not surprising they aren't watching the thread. But thank you for providing such wonderful examples of good ol' Darwinist "evidence." Just look at what us fundies are missing!

Mark

Do you think you have good evidence to conclude that your stories about me are true?

(or particularly funny, like your posts)

But thank you for providing such wonderful examples of good ol' Darwinist "evidence." Just look at what us fundies are missing!

Mark,

I haven't participated on this thread for 400 odd posts, but I'm just dying to ask you this question: Do you know what "begging the question" is?

If not, here's a short Wikipedia entry that describes it nicely. Should only take you a couple of minutes to read.

Please read it, and then explain to us all why your views on "evidence" for biblical creation are not an example of this logical fallacy? Enquiring minds want to know!

Mike Elzinga,

I noticed you failed to admit that your predictions about me in specific instances were wrong. I have no followers who are watching this thread. The University of Wales program has nothing to do with apologetics or proselytizing.

You are wrong in your broader picture as well. If you were as scientifically-minded as you claim, you would admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to conclude about me what you have concluded. If you can't see that, then it is you who are trapped in your little world, insulated from reality.

But let's start small. Admit your predictions based on the "evidence" have been wrong in the specifics I mentioned. That would provide some evidence that, at least when forced, you are somewhat willing to let reality influence your beliefs in some circumstances.

Mark

It boggles the mind that so many intelligent, science-minded people will hang around wasting so much of their time arguing with this zealot over his assertion that the scientific evidence better supports his theory of creationism, when it's crystal clear that his real intention is to redefine "scientific, "evidence," and "theory" to co-opt science as apologetics for his narrow fundamentalist BS.

It's a nice sunny day, don't you guys have a genome to sequence or something?

Folks ...

A suggestion. Let's see if we can help Mark to stay focussed on simple scientific questions. The more we press him to justify his theology, the less likely is that the half an hour a day that he has to contribute to this blog will be spent on self-justification and so on.

Mark, in return, we eagerly your summary of your perspective on the science of tree-ring and/or ice-core dating.

Delurks.

Hi Bee,

The gods allow all this to happen, either because they're not really omnipotent...

Yes, this would be a perfectly reasonable explanation in the face of a world full of good and evil (another would be that god/the gods are themselves a mixture of good and evil), though one would of course encounter serious problems with such an impotent god if one at the same time assumes that this god was potent enough to create the universe or carry out other great acts. How is it that s/he could do such magnificent things but not stop the rape of a child?

... or because they want us to act freely...

Well, the argument from free will fails miserably in my view. With such an explanation one is essentially saying that god does not intervene when a little child is about to be raped because the free will of the rapist is a greater principle to him than the question of the life-long suffering of his victim. And no one really believes this. On the contrary, we imperfect humans throw precisely such people in jail, i.e. take away their free will, because of our sense of justice and mercy. If a person with a baseball bat in his hands were to sit in the room with the rapist and his victim and do nothing, we would call him the most dastardly barbarian. And I would suggest that any god who has the power to do anything about it and does not equally deserves our scorn.

... and learn from our experiences as a species. Yes, the Gods could stop us from doing evil deeds, but in the process they would also stop us from recognizing, understanding, and counteracting evil as well; just like a father who kept the training wheels on his kid's bike would thereby keep him from learning how to handle himself sensibly in all circumstances.

And this argument fails in at least two ways. First, because it assumes that such experiences as being slaughtered in untold different ways is really the best way to learn what we should be learning and that indeed we are learning the lessons intended by our suffering, neither of which can reasonably be asserted to be true. In other words, would you put your children through the most egregious suffering imaginable so that they could learn what life is all about? No one relates to one's own children in this way, thinking that only by doing and suffering evil can the child learn. On the contrary, we try to teach them through reason, example, etc. and attempt to minimize their suffering. Second, it fails to distinguish between minor bumps and bruises (taking the training wheels off) and horrific, gratuitous suffering.

Jesus did not "unequivocally endorse" the OT; the main thrust of his message, in fact, was that his way was an alternative to the OT way, and that he brought his mercy to temper the merciless justice of the OT. (That's one of the reasons so many of the people of Judea supported his crucifixion.)

As support from my assertion that Jesus unequivocally endorsed the OT, I would suggest that you simply type in „scripture" at biblegateway.com and read the many passages in which he does so (even apart from the other NT writers who do so). And I would also suggest that no NT scholar would agree with the rest of your statement (though obviously there is room for discussion here, because the NT is contradictory and ambiguous in many places). But Jesus never presented his teachings as an alternative to the OT, but as an alternative to the corruption of it by the religious authorities of the day. To the contrary, he repeatedly emphasized that those he was criticizing should not only keep the OT laws but also change their hearts in accordance with them. But he never (at least explicitly) preached that the OT was invalid or superseded.

Moreover, you addressed only one of the three aspects I mentioned. Not only did Jesus (1) endorse the OT, he also (2) claimed to be one with the OT god and (3) claimed to do his will.

As for whose idea of God can be most easily reconciled with the Bible, that would depend on which parts of the Bible you consider most important or relevant. I choose the teachings of Jesus, simply because they make the most sense, independent of whether any of the rest of it is true. Mark chooses the OT splatter-fest, either because he's an ultra-Orthodox Jew, or because he's too narrow, hateful and inflexible to understand the wisdom of Christ (which, in fact, is so simple that any kid raised in a non-abusive household can understand the basics of it).

Yes, and your pick-and-choose method is thus vastly superior, ethically, and is essentially based on secular humanism and reason. And it is clear that you do not see the bible or any other holy text as any kind of authority or „word of god", but rather the collected wisdom and folly of various peoples, from which we can glean whatever wisdom they contain. To which, assuming I'm correct, I can only breath a sigh of relief.

Best,
Jared

Just focus on the science, Mark. No one here feels the need to impress you with anything.

Hmm. This clearly made no sense!

"The more we press him to justify his theology, the less likely is that the half an hour a day that he has to contribute to this blog will be spent on self-justification addressing evidence about the age of earth and so on."

More coffee needed here.

It's a nice sunny day, don't you guys have a genome to sequence or something?

But let's start small. Admit your predictions based on the "evidence" have been wrong in the specifics I mentioned. That would provide some evidence that, at least when forced, you are somewhat willing to let reality influence your beliefs in some circumstances.

Do you think you [Elzinga] have good evidence to conclude that your stories about me are true? I find that rather ironic given the recent conversation about the nature of evidence.

As far as I am aware, the University of Wales couldn't care less about apologetics or proselytizing. That is certainly not what I am learning there. "Theological communication" means communicating theological substance across diverse terminological or philosophical boundaries.

Particularly, I am studying the communication between two groups of Calvinists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries---the mainstream tradition and the New England Theology.

You may give suggestions, but don't think you can give orders and have any weight to them. You can make up whatever imaginative stories you wish about how I am ignoring the evidence because I don't do exactly what you want me to do or come to the conclusions you want when you want; I really don't care, since I know what I am doing.

Comment #185493 Posted by Mark Hausam on July 2, 2007 9:07 AM (e) Mike Elzinga, I noticed you failed to admit that your predictions about me in specific instances were wrong. I have no followers who are watching this thread. The University of Wales program has nothing to do with apologetics or proselytizing. You are wrong in your broader picture as well. If you were as scientifically-minded as you claim, you would admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to conclude about me what you have concluded. If you can't see that, then it is you who are trapped in your little world, insulated from reality. But let's start small. Admit your predictions based on the "evidence" have been wrong in the specifics I mentioned. That would provide some evidence that, at least when forced, you are somewhat willing to let reality influence your beliefs in some circumstances. Mark

— Mark Hausam

Jared said:
"Yes, this would be a perfectly reasonable explanation in the face of a world full of good and evil (another would be that god/the gods are themselves a mixture of good and evil), though one would of course encounter serious problems with such an impotent god if one at the same time assumes that this god was potent enough to create the universe or carry out other great acts. How is it that s/he could do such magnificent things but not stop the rape of a child?"

Well, this is actually not that hard to imagine.
Let's say that I program a vast simulation of Conway's Game of Life. A truly vast one, on scales many magnitudes above anything that was ever tried or that is in power of the current computers.

Now I let it run. Since it's proved that GoL is complex enough to support Turing's machines (and therefore, arbitrary computation), there is a possibility that in some region, a population of "organisms" will appear that will behave as living creatures (or that will be actually alive, whatever you prefer).

Or, what the heck, just consider any sufficiently complex simulation.

The important thing is that in this scenario, I am effectively a God:
I am omniscient (since I can read arbitrary bit of my simulation).
I am omnipotent (since I can FLIP arbitrary bit in arbitrary point of the simulation).
I am capable of creating such "universe".

Despite this, I still lack something: I lack intelligence neccessary to understand the complexity of what I created. I can only interact on micro-level, and while any macroscopic change can be done by flipping some large amount of bits, I have no way to know which bits should be flipped to effect a particular change. In your example, "raping a child" might simply be a very complex pattern which could be, in theory, prevented or reversed - but I just can't figure out how to do it.

BTW, Game of Life was not chosen accidentally for this example - it has the interesting property that it's completely deterministic (equal input will always evolve in the same way), but also completely unpredictable (it's impossible to decide eventual fate of arbitrary pattern without actually running it through the simulation).

I guess the main point I'm trying to say is this:

Creating the universe might be relatively easy thing to do, as opposed to understanding said universe and effecting changes in it.

Marek,

You say there are things that you don't know how to do as "God" in your simulation. Therefore, by definition, you are either not omnipotent, because there are things you can't do, or not omniscient, because there are things you don't know how to do...

demalien:

This might be just a question of what exactly is meant by "everything". In this case, it includes facts about universe, but not necessarily conclusions that could be deduced from such facts.

I guess my example uses a relaxed definition of omniscience, rather than omnipotence. It was meant mainly to illustrate the point that knowledge is quite useless without enough intellect.

That leads me to wonder, though - if a god would be omniscient and omnipotent in the strong sense of word, could it be also intelligent at the same time? After all, with true omnipotency you could certainly pretend that you think well enough to fool anybody. (Or, stated in another way - intelligence is basically a tool for solving problems; but an omniscient, omnipotent beings would have no problems to solve, thus no need for intelligence.)

Marek,

Yes, I understood where you wanted to go with "everything", but as we were talking about the Christian God, I felt that your definition of "omniscient" was at odds with the Big Guy In The Sky(tm), as pictured by Christians. Google "God know heart" for example. In your analogy, he's apparently supposed to be able to know what the quarks in your body are up to at any given moment, AND derive what you are feeling at that precise moment as a consequence. Or alternatively, he's supposed to be able to operate at a higher level of abstraction that sub-atomic particles and forces...

I guess it's a bit like that distinction that Dawkins likes to make between a neutered kind of god that kicked the universe off, never to touch it afterwards, and the kind of god worshipped each Sunday in churches around the world... The first could be your Programmer, but the second cannot, because he's supposed to be omniscient...

demallien: We were talking about Christian God?

Well, Jared was when you responded to him with your God as Programmer thing...

Ah. I thought he was asking generally.

I've been thinking about the question of what kind of physical evidence would falsify a young-earth perspective. I've come to a bit of a different conclusion than what I had previously thought. I'm thinking now that my previous ideas as to what would falsify the YEC position (particularly, similar apparent histories in ice cores and tree rings, convergence of results of dating methods, etc.) were based on arbitrary assumptions. I was assuming that God would be deceptive to include anything of this sort in his methods of arranging things in his work of creation and providence (ongoing control over what happens). But it seems that this would not be the case.

I was getting hints of this early on, but it only fully dawned on me a few days ago. When we were talking about Last Thursdayism some time ago, I started to write that LT would be deceptive "unless God had given a clear revelation saying the world had been created last Thursday." I didn't fully grasp the implications of that at the time. Similarly, when we talked about Adam and Eve being createc with childhood memories, I realized that this would only be deceptive if God didn't tell Adam and Eve that their memories were created.

If God creates something that appears to indicate previous history, and yet he then tells us in an accessible way how to interpret the data correctly, he cannot be charged with deception. My fauly assumption was to conclude that God could have no reason to create an appearance of history. But how do I know that? I don't, really. Even if I can't think of a reason, that is hardly a basis for concluding an omniscient being can't have one. Upon reflection, I can even think of a few possibilities: 1. It may be that the results of historical processes are the goal rather than the by-product of the processes. In other words, it may be that what is normally the result of historical processes is precisely how God wants things to be. Therefore, when he initially created, or when he ordains how things will be arranged after a catastrophe (like the flood), he might use sudden processes to produce the same results and appearances in things. an analogy: People like cheese ane wine. You ususally have to age things a certain amount of time to get these foods the way we want them. However, if we could figure out a process to make these things instantaneously, we would no doubt do it, and give them what would look like an appearance of a certain age but wouldn't be. God may desire what we call an appearanc of age as a characteristic of at least some created things. 2. God may very well have ordained that there be some appearance of age and even history in the features of the earth in order to highlight the necessity of accepting his revelation in the Bible in order to make sense out of those features. Those who choose to ignore the evidence for the Bible will go on a wild goose chase and get the interpretation wrong, while those who will accept the Bible have the eyewitness account that is necessary to interpret the physical evidence. This would not be outside of the kinds of ways God likes to act, judging from history, both biblical and otherwise. God often will make things appear one way to test whether people will trust him. For example, when the Israelites were at the Red Sea, God waited until the Egyption army were right on top of them before revealing the way out through the sea itself. He did this to make the Israelites have to trust him in spite of appearances. They had good reasons to trust God. Would they do so, or would they ignore all that and believe only the way things immediately appeared?

An analogy: Let's say I have a friend who needs to get some important papers out of my house when I am not home. I tell him he can go in through the back door to get them. i Warn him that there is a "Beware of Dog" sign on the back door, but I tell him he can ignore it because there really isn't any dog. I just use the sign to keep intruders out. He goes to the house to get the papers, but won't go in because he is frightened by the sign. He comes back to me and complains that it was my fault he couldn't get the papers because I had placed a deceptive sign on the back fence. Is it really my fault that he was deterred by the sign? If he had listended to me, which he had good reason to do because I was his friend, he would have known how to interpret the sign. He has only himself to blame. Similarly, whatever the appearances of nature might seem to suggest, God has told us how to interpret them, and has given us good reason to trust in his word. If we ignore him and try to interpret that evidence without his help, our false conclusions are our fault; they imply no deception on the part of God. It all comes down to what God has told us and what reasons we have to believe what he has told us.

So my faulty assumption was assuming God could have no reason to cause things to be such that later scientists might be inclined to interpret them as an appearance of age if they ignored God's eyewitness account. I have no basis for that assumption; therefore it is a faulty argument. Therefore there is no reason to believe God could not have done it that way or that he would be deceptive if he did. Therefore such appearances in the physical evidence can fit equally well a YEC position or an old earth perspective, as far as the physical evidence itself goes. Which is the best explanation depends on the evidence we have to accept the Bible as the infallible word of God and the evidence we have that our interpretation of it is correct. I am going to call my faulty assumption the "Panda's Thumb Fallacy," because it is the same sort of fallacy used in the panda's thumb argument: "Somehow I know that God would not or could not have done it this way, therefore I know that he didn't."

So it would seem that the real dispute between an old earth and a young earth view probably cannot be decided by our investigation of features of the natural world, even more than I realized before. It needs to be decided on other grounds. It hinges on our interpretation of the Bible and our reasons for accepting it as reliable. However, I am not yet convinced that there is such an appearance of history as you claim is there, even if it would be consistent with a young earth view. I am continuing to investigate to see what sort of data we really have. Dalrymple is proving very helpful here so far. I am continung to read articles as well.

Mark

Comment #185564 Posted by Wayne E Francis on July 2, 2007 10:02 PM (e) Comment # 185493 ... My prediction is that you'll at least avoid discussing any scientific topic in your own words. You'll probably site that you don't have enough evidence to make a statement. You may site a lack of time to do the task. You'll probably ignore any of important parts of my, and others posts. You will in all likely hood keep to that which you believe you are good at, giving sermons of your world view. Please ... invalidate any and all of my predictions. PLEASE for the love of your own "God".

— Wayne E Francis

Mark Hausam revealed: My fauly assumption was to conclude that God could have no reason to create an appearance of history. But how do I know that? I don't, really. Even if I can't think of a reason, that is hardly a basis for concluding an omniscient being can't have one.

Mark,

It seems, then, that you are trying to reconcile the scientific evidence that the earth is, in fact, very old, and the creation story as related in the Bible. Are we to take it, therefore, that you accept that our conclusion that the universe is, indeed, really old, is a justifiable conclusion from the data. Or are we all still fooling ourselves, and the world was actually created in six days, worldwide flood caused plate tectonics to acccelerate, etc etc.

Assume that you don't have the bible to influence your interpretation. Does the universe appear to you to be 6ky old, or many billions of years old?

Delurks.