Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

474 Excellent


About Tristen

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

866 profile views
  1. Hey Enoch, “It deserved every word. And Ridicule is a type of Ad Hom Fallacy, i.e., it's substituted in place of arguing the point of your claim. But I argued your point in detail, which renders your appeal here "Baseless"... a Fallacy.” The fallacy of ridicule is not diminished by ancillary rational argument – no matter how much you think a comment deserves it. The ridicule itself remains a departure from rational discussion, regardless of the context. “SUPPORT your claim that Abiogenesis is 'Technically' a Hypothesis” Abiogenesis meets the definition of hypothesis because it hypothesises that life on earth arose from abiotic conditions. If someone hypothesises something, they have formed/stated an hypothesis. Abiogenesis therefore qualifies as an hypothesis. “Huh??This is what you said....: Tristen: "Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis." So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy” Actually, what I first said was “What do you mean?” – indicating to any fair-mind person that I didn’t fully understand what you were asking. So accusing me of fallacy here is unnecessarily persnickety. “It wasn't a Similar Question, you didn't ask me to post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis; so how on Earth can it be similar?” I would never ask you to post a “Formal Scientific” anything because I know that there is no great bastion of “Formal Scientific” holdings – and so such a question has no significance - which your response to my question articulated nicely [i.e. “Laws aren't based on "Acceptance" (Nothing in "Science" is”]. I asked you the origin of your proposed law, so I could get a better handle on its prevalence and acceptance, not to challenge you (i.e. not the way you use such questions). “"YOU" made the claim that it was "Scientific"...” No I didn’t. I claimed it to be an hypothesis. You read “scientific” into that word. I don’t see the definitions as different regardless. But if we are operating on the premise that “scientific” only applies to the Scientific Method, then we are not having a “scientific” discussion – and so it belies logical consistency to request a “scientific” version of my points. So given the above premise, I am more than happy to concede that hypotheses and theories concerning past events aren’t “scientific” (though I personally find the distinction meaningless). “Huh?? "The independent variable is the core of the experiment and …” Yes, as I stated, identification of these variables is meaningless for a claim about the past. But if we could perform experiments in the past, the variables would be as I described. But we can’t, so what are you gonna do? Requests for these variables therefore add nothing to our discussion. “Well I wanted to make sure we're not Equivocating because the Colloquial Definitions of these terms are Light Years different than the "Scientific" Context..” I’m not equivocating because I only recognise single definitions of these terms. “Theory -- : abstract thought : speculation . a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.” This is one of the more nonsensical definitions of theory I have come across to-date. Theory doesn’t mean any of these things in any legitimate context. A theory can be speculative, but it does not mean “speculation”. Likewise a theory can stem from “abstract thought”, but theory does not mean “abstract thought”. “"Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of *PREDICTION* that forecasts how the *INDEPENDENT VARIABLE* will affect the Dependent variable."” I actually don’t have much of a problem with this definition; as applied to operational science. Hypotheses more generally just propose causal relationships. “"A *model * is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a *LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY*." ” I think your understanding of the use of models in science is limited. Though I agree that models of the past have particular logical limitations. “Impossible is NOT an Exaggeration” Unless you are omniscient God, and know every possible outcome of every possible permutation of circumstance throughout the expanse of the physical universe, then “impossible” is an exaggeration – every time – regardless of whether or not I can produce a refuting reference. “it is ABSOLUTE that Inanimate Matter cannot create Information because the sine qua non of Information is Sentience and Intelligence” You haven’t justified the “absolute” nature of this premise.
  2. Hi again Enoch, “Abiogenesis NEVER was and NEVER will be a Scientific Hypothesis!” I have addressed in another discussion your propensity to conjoin “Scientific” to terms in an attempt to undermine their legitimacy – so I won’t dwell unduly on that here – at least until you’ve had the opportunity to respond. [ ] “And to be quite frank and forgive me, but... R-Ya-Kiddin Me ?? 'Technically' it's a feebly contrived (and executed) fairytale.” I’m not sure what you think this kind of comment adds to the conversation. I know you know enough about fallacy to know that ridicule is a fallacy. “Please SUPPORT your Claim...” What do you mean? The definition I provided is self-evident. But abiogenesis not my claim, so I am not obligated to justify it. “Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis...?” So I asked you a similar question in another conversation regarding your claim of a Law – and your response was, “I'm the Origin. Laws aren't based on "Acceptance" (Nothing in "Science" is)'s based on Empirical Evidence”. So you are aware, at least on some level, that there is no “formal” hypothesis-reporting mechanism in the scientific method. But since we are dealing with a past claim (that life arose from inorganic conditions) which cannot be validated by strict adherence to the scientific method, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, this is not a scientific discussion. So requesting a “Scientific” hypothesis is inconsistent. “Identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for us...?” The independent variables are undirected nature and sentient design. The dependent variable is life. But since we cannot perform experiments in the past, identification these is meaningless. “do "actual" Scientific Hypotheses exist in perpetuity or await more 'data'...?” I’m not sure how you think the subjective caveats “actual” and “scientific” change the definition of hypothesis. A normal, everyday hypothesis does not need any subsequent, supporting data to exist (apart from the initial observations upon which it is formulated). Though without subsequent supporting data, it remains untested speculation. “1. 'Models' are Pseudo-Science.” According to your standards, models of the past aren’t any kind of science. But modelling is the only way we can investigate the past – since we don’t have direct access to observations of the past. It is not as logically robust as the strict scientific method, but the scientific method can’t be applied to such investigations. “2. How bout the Argument of: Where'd you get "Functional" DNA, RNA, or Protein (30 mer) Naturally/Spontaneously from their respective building blocks outside living cells/organisms ?? (Answer: It's Physically/Chemically Impossible) … How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?” These are strong arguments for intelligent design. “Impossible” is an exaggeration – i.e. absolutist terminology expressing confidence beyond what can be justified by the finite limitations of the human experience. “It's beyond me why most of this is even entertained much less discussed” The world is desperate to justify rejection of God and His gospel.
  3. Hi Argosy, You said “their view is worthy of mockery because abiogenesis is widely accepted yet is not even at hypothesis stage” Ridicule or “mockery” is an irrational tool of those who can’t formulate rational arguments. It belays fair consideration of the opposing argument – probably why it’s such a popular strategy among secularists. Ridicule doesn’t contribute anything of logical substance to a debate. In my experience, ridiculing an opposing position tends to alienate people from the conversation – which makes it incompatible with my goal of revealing Christ to those who don’t know Him. We who are secure in our faith don’t need to resort to such strategies. Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis. “Panspermia” is another poorly supported hypothesis. Both of these rely primarily on speculation and just-so storytelling. Facts supporting both are very ‘thin on the ground’. “At least creationism has an hypothesis that is not disproven” Since “disproven” is absolutist, “not disproven” represents the weakest of standards. There are many strong arguments supporting the Biblical model of reality; including your example regarding the direction of observed genetic changes. All observed natural changes to genes (including beneficial changes) have resulted from a loss or destruction of genetic information. That is consistent with God creating a “very good” world, but with subsequent corruption infiltrating the genome as a consequence of human sin. “on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis” That was not my claim. In terms of parsimony, I consider the facts to be far more consistent with the Biblical model of reality, than with the secular model. However the nature of the inquiry (i.e. historical) means that faith is logically required by both sides to attribute confidence to past claims. Christians generally understand this. I find secularists to be often offended by this, even though it is a requirement of logic (and secularists like to consider themselves to be the exclusive bastions of logic and reason). And so I agree that “empirically creation is at a huge advantage”. I would be cautious about interpreting the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ as an indication of creation. It is better characterised as a weakness of Common Ancestry (preferring slow change over long ages), rather than a strength of creationism. I understand the instinct to interpret ‘sudden appearance’ as evidence of a creation event, but the standard creationist position is that the fossil record is an artifact of the Biblical flood.
  4. Hi Argosy, You said “it's [presumably evolution] as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that! haha” That’s why I propose that “disprove” is inappropriately absolutist for the OPs claim. Likewise “impossible”. - Though your unicorn scenario is rationally inconsistent with itself – i.e. life existed in the flea and unicorn before it formed from the flea. Even as a Biblical creationist, I think Common Ancestry can be weakly supported by facts and logic. I consider the facts and logic to be far more consistent with Biblical creation. But that, of itself, doesn’t render Common Ancestry irrational. What I do find irrational in this debate, is the propensity of secularists to overstate mathematical confidence in Common Ancestry, as though it is the only valid perspective. That degree of confidence cannot be justified or sustained, by either fact or logic. We Christians recognise that a degree of faith is required to uphold our preferred position. The secular community is generally less self-aware that their position also requires at-least as much faith. I didn’t mention “abiogenesis”. Abiogenesis is also inherently weak (as far as arguments go); being utterly bereft of observational support. However Biogenesis is a natural law – based in ubiquitous observation. That life has only ever been observed to form from life is a strong argument for an initial Life-Giver whose existence is not founded in, or bound by, the natural universe. That is eminently consistent with Biblical creation.
  5. Hi JM, So before I start, I want to point out that I am a Biblical, young-earth creationist. But I don’t think you have justified the conclusions in your argument. Firstly, when you use absolutist terminology like “disprove”, you are claiming an absolute truth – which is beyond the scope of human experience. You are claiming to have demonstrated your position beyond all possible doubt – utterly beyond question. We are finite creatures. Only God has access to ultimate truth – and we agree with Him by faith. I consider life’s complexity to be one of the strongest arguments for an intelligent Designer, but the existence of complexity in life doesn’t “disprove” anything. An intelligent designer could, for example, have directed an evolutionary process. I don’t believe that’s how it happened, but the point is that the existence of complexity in life doesn’t logically undermine the possibility of “evolution”. But then, what do you mean by “evolution”? I, as a creationist, have no real issue with Natural Selection, or speciation, or mutations or most of the other things commonly labelled “evolution”. None of these are necessarily inconsistent with the Genesis account of history. However, Common Ancestry and its required long ages do contradict the Bible. The word “evolution” is too easily equivocated for my liking. I prefer people to use more precise language when dealing with this issue – to avoid such unnecessary equivocation. You said “in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce”, yet many individuals live without reproducing, or are incapable of reproducing. So the capacity to reproduce cannot be essential to the definition of life. The observed fact that all life is derived from life (the natural law of biogenesis) is a very strong argument that life doesn’t arise naturally from inorganic conditions. But we cannot say its “impossible” without access to all the knowledge in all of reality (i.e. omniscience). Your assertion here is not supported. We can point to the mathematical incredulities involved in the formulation of information, translating the right amino acids in the right order, folded in the right conformation to make a beneficially functional protein – then multiply those odds by every different kind of functional protein in all life, which happens to be on a planet just the right distance from its star to provide for water in its liquid phase, on a planet full of water, with a magnetic field to protect DNA from degradation by solar radiation, in a pocket of the solar system protected from cosmic rays. Or you can point to the most complex human machine, then point out the stupendously more complex biological systems – making it more likely that a space shuttle, for example, would form naturally, than the simplest of living cells. But we can’t logically claim something to be “impossible” without claiming to know everything. Perhaps, ‘not possible given our current knowledge’. If we are going to be “rational”, we have to acknowledge the logical limits of our perspective.
  6. I got 36 out of 40 - though like you suggested, there were many false dichotomies were I was not comfortable with the wording of either option. Oddly - I don't have a category. Too high for a conservative, too low for a fundamentalist. I consider myself a fundamentalist in the sense that I adhere to the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith (i.e. the Divine Authority of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Eternal Deity of Christ, the Vicarious Sacrifice of Christ, the Bodily Resurrection of Christ etc.). Regarding "religious fundamentalism as harmful to society and as a form of mental disturbance" is unjustified ideological bias. It's a matter of people's non-Christian faith presupposition informing their position against Christianity - which is nothing new. It is most evident in the scientific community, so extending this trend to the social science disciplines is to be expected. It further consistent with the Biblical model of reality - predicting that the world will become increasingly anti-Christian. According to the Bible, the world is "under the sway of the wicked one" (1 Jn 5:19) and perceives Christianity as "aroma of death leading to death" (2 Cor 2:15-16). The world hates Jesus because His existence testifies to its moral corruption (Jn 7:7). The world hates Christians because we are Jesus' representatives on earth (Jn 15:18-23). Peter also warned that Christians would be reproached for the name of Christ (1 Pet 4:12-16) Also, it was pretty obvious to any Bible student which option would put you in which category. They could have just asked me if I believed the Bible is God's word and therefore its claims should be accepted as truth in their own context (including supernatural claims - which are rationally consistent with the premise of a supernatural Creator God).
  7. Hey Enoch, “Ok, Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates anything from geology... ?? Please Highlight the "Independent" and "Dependent" Variables for us...?” If you can’t even imagine the other functions of geologists, I suggest I would be wasting my time finding examples. The main work of geologists is to determine the suitability of geologic foundations for human construction and habitation. Others are employed in searching for natural resources. They don’t just make claims about the past. “1. How in the World can you construe a “For instance...?” as being antagonistic ?? Is "Can you Provide an Example??" Condescending ?” Many of your posts demonstrate that the secularist go so far beyond the facts, so far that you even refute the credibility of calling them scientists Yet when I summarise the same idea (i.e. an idea that you demonstrate overwhelming agreement with), you deem it worthy of challenge. That speaks to your reactive disposition. “2. Trend in fossil succession... is not a "Scientific Theory".” The trend in fossil succession represents the observations. Common Ancestry is the theory. That absolute confidence in Common Ancestry based on fossil succession goes beyond the “scientific” method is my explicit point. So again, not sure why you feel the need to find a wedge when we are in agreement “Can you wait until I make a Speculation to charge me with... Speculation ? I'd appreciate it” You called them “demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests” (speaking to their ‘religious’ motives - but without any empirical support). But when I suggested that many are deceived rather than intentionally, knowingly, following religious dogma (implied by your use of "priests", you required empirical support before considering my position. But apparently only my position counts as “speculation”. So I don’t feel as though you are being fair-minded. You seem to be looking for an argument for arguments sake. I can’t claim to know your motives either, but you are coming across as reactive and unnecessarily antagonistic. So I am signing off from this conversation. Regards.
  8. Enoch; “More precisely, these: paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental' ---astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology” I think my use of “e.g.” indicated that my list wasn’t exhaustive. Nevertheless, I would suggest that, for example, geologist don’t just apply their knowledge to claims about the past. Investigating and describing the current constitutional makeup of geological structures is legitimate science. It’s only in making claims about the past that they depart from the scientific method. “exaggerating the confidence in secular theories beyond what is logically justified by the facts” “For instance...?” OK (still not sure why you feel the need to be so antagonistic) – but “for instance”, claiming that the trend in fossil succession can only rationally be interpreted to support Common Ancestry. NOTE: I don’t need a rebuttal to that position as I clearly already disagree with it – I was just providing an answer to your request for a “for instance”. “And I think most of them would come under the umbrella of deceived, rather than being intentionally dishonest” “Please provide the Empirical TESTS that confirm your claim here...?There's really no way to tell, to broad a brush...just speculation; they're motives or predispositions are irrelevant anyway. They will have to give account either way” Obviously, I can’t provide empirical evidence of their inherent deception any more than you can provide empirical evidence of their ‘priestly’ motives (with the exception of a few; such as those I mentioned - who state their motives). The “speculation” works both ways. Though I can appeal to scripture which claims that the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one, the prince of the power of the air, and they are in darkness, and under a veil etc. I can also appeal to my personal interactions whereby most (atheists/agnostics and scientists) have been generally nice to me, despite my faith. You are correct, we will all “have to give account”. Ascertaining their motives helps me to differentiate between who is ready to consider what I have to say, and who is wasting time playing games, just trying to assert some dominance over an opposing position and put me in my place. “And about a week into their studies...if they're paying any attention (i.e., Fogging a Mirror) and their Instructors and Textbooks are anywhere near the vicinity of coherency, they will invariably reach...Werner Heisenberg Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, (Nobel Prize, Physics)..."The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." [“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10)” If by all that you mean that science is taught from a presupposed naturalistic perspective, then I agree.
  9. Hi Enoch, You said, “Well because the Secular 'Scientific Community' are demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests” I think that only really applies to people engaged in historical disciplines (e.g. the studies of Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry). And I think most of them would come under the umbrella of deceived, rather than being intentionally dishonest. But there are some (like Dawkins, deGrassy-Tyson, Hawking, etc. and their ilk) who push the secular line religiously – i.e. exaggerating the confidence in secular theories beyond what is logically justified by the facts. However, there are many people in the non-Christian cohort of society who have a sincere interest in the natural world, and so pursue educations and careers in investigating the natural world. Contrary to populist myth, Common Ancestry is not necessary for the overwhelming majority of scientific endeavours. The assumption of Common Ancestry is only really ever required to underpin “evolutionary” claims. This is true despite the fact that “evolution” tries to lay claim to all of biology (and bits and pieces of other disciplines such as geology) – which is of course ridiculous.
  10. It somewhat depends what you mean by the scientific community. You could get an undergraduate degree and then a scientific job, and do you job well without any compromise to Christianity whatsoever. However, if you desire to get a PhD and be involved in research and get published, you would want to keep creationist views to yourself until you have established a career - as there is an overt bias against such ideas in the secular scientific community, which will close off opportunities for you if you make your creationist beliefs known. But just saying you are a Christian, in-general, usually doesn't present any problems.
  11. Hey Enoch, You have reacted to my previous post as though I provided an argument for you to put down and destroy. Whereas I only wish to provide an explanation as to why I am disengaging. God Bless.
  12. Hi Bonky, “this will be my last post on this topic, the discussion has been interesting and informative but I'm losing interest in the topic. Just an FYI” Fair enough, we have recently gotten off-track anyways. “what of the children, especially the very young? They were a part of the plan? Or were they just not as useful as the virgins?” So there are a couple of Biblical premises to discuss here as background. Firstly, the corruption of sin is not restricted to the person committing the sin (consider that Adam’s sin corrupted all of subsequent humanity and creation). So corruption exists in children as well as parents by way of inheritance. And that corruption in a population increases as sin increases. Therefore, a population can become so corrupt that they have placed themselves beyond redemption – by virtue their own free-will (i.e. they choose to be so unreasonably anti-God, such that no one can change their mind). In the case of the Biblical flood, all of humanity had reached a point of corruption so as to put the line of the promised Savior of humanity in jeopardy – i.e. if humanity had destroyed itself before the birth of the Savior, there could be no salvation for anyone. So God removed the corruption and bottlenecked humanity through the one remaining righteous person and his family. God had previously commanded Israel to “Harass the Midianites, and attack them” (Numbers 25:17) because of their schemes against Israel. But by Numbers 31, God had deemed it necessary to destroy the Midianites completely because of their unrepentant corruption – and the threat that posed to Israel (and thereby, once again, the line of the Savior). Moses expected them to kill all of the Midianites, and was angry when they returned with people as spoil (Numbers 31:14-15). God commanded all males be killed because He had mandated the end of the Midianite people (I think you can figure out how that works). Also, all the females were killed who likely participated in the scheme to corrupt Israel. Yet God showed mercy to 32,000 young girls (probably mostly children) by allowing them to be absorbed into Israel. “The scripture [Deuteronomy] that I mentioned says to NOT do what they did and spare them. It warns about taking these pagan women as wives as there's a risk of being enticed into worshiping other gods” So Deuteronomy 7 is a slightly different context (i.e. Deuteronomy 7 was mandated before they entered Canaan, whereas the encounters with the Midianites occurred previously, whilst traversing the desert wilderness for 40 years – so the Deuteronomy mandate happened after the Midianite war). Nevertheless, I think the same general principles can be assumed. Moses clearly expected no Midianite survivors. However, God showed mercy to those young girls for the reasons discussed above. There is no mention of “wives” in the Numbers 31 account. This is where I think you are making assumptions. Most would be too young to be wives and, as you state, they were not Israelites – so it wouldn’t make sense after what had just occurred. Though proslytic relationships are permitted under Hebrew Law – e.g. Rahab (a Canaanite from Jericho) married into the tribe of Judah and thereby entered the ancestral line of Jesus. Moses himself was married to a Midianite. “I was hoping that you would back up your claim that the virgins were spared because they weren't involved in the Midianite plan. You mentioned Numbers 31:15-18 but that says nothing about the virgins being innocent” No. but it explicitly implicates and condemns the non-virgins as participating in the scheme to bring down the Israelites. “I also need to understand if "innocence" equates to mercy then why did the children get slaughtered?” I can’t find where I used the word “innocent/innocence”. If I did, I only meant of participation in the Midianite scheme against the Israelites. All of the Midianites were originally condemned for their corruption. It was only after they had survived the war that God chose to permit the survival of that specific cohort. I think I addressed the issue of “innocence” in children above (and previously). “Unless you back up your view with something it appears to me you're just offering baseless commentary” I think the concept of God having the right to destroy populations due to their inherent corruption is most evident in the flood account. But I think the ideas of God’s perfect justice, and humanity’s inherent corruption saturate scripture – culminating in our need for a Savior. I would go so far as to say it represents the main theme of the entire Bible. I think your characterisation of “baseless commentary” is unfairly dismissive. My “commentary” is based on the information from the primary account, surrounding context, and principles from the rest of scripture. If the Bible spelled everything out in full, then you wouldn’t be asking the questions. You ask me to explain the why, when something is not explicit in the immediate text, then criticise me for applying ideas more broadly (but still from the same overall source – i.e. the Bible). Does that not speak to a lack of fair-mindedness? “So at this point my interest has plummeted because I feel that I'm just going to get what appears to me to be excuses rather than thoughtful consideration to my challenges” It is unfortunate that you choose to end the conversation on empty fallacious sentiment and unsupported insinuations against my ability to respond with “thoughtful consideration”.
  13. Hi Enoch, “Attack? I'm not 'attacking' you sir. I'm challenging your baseless erroneous claims” I am happy for you to “challenge” my claims. But you seem to find it difficult to provide a view without adding some form of meaningless verbal denigration. This is an attack/bullying strategy that speaks to your intent. It speaks to you being more concerned with dominating the conversation and putting me in my place than you are with having a respectful debate. I lack both the time and desire to engage with someone more interested in demonstrating how clever they are, than fairly considering the issues. I am happy with the arguments I have provided. I think I have been respectful in my presentation. The only way for me to engage on your level would be for me to forego that respect and become more reactive. I appreciate your zeal, but I don’t want to play that game. I am mandated by 2 Timothy 2:24-25 not to go there. I pray God’s favour over you in all your endeavours.
  14. Enoch, Why the sudden descent into attack mode? “'evolution' is allegedly the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science, right?” Surely you remember that I’m also a young-earth Biblical creationist. If so, who are you talking to? I don’t get it. I explicitly addressed the misuse of the term in my comments. “But ACTUAL "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process)” All theories address the hows and whys – opposed to the empirical facts/observations. “Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...” This (and your subsequent provided definitions) do not reflect the usage of theory in a scientific context. In my experience, these definitions are actually based on attempts to differentiate preferred scientific theories from being characterised as “just a theory”. In usage, debunked theories and even untestable theories are still labelled theories. The degree of testing or validation does not legitimately inform the definition of theory in any context. “As opposed to the Colloquial 'theory' which means Abject Speculation” Generally, theory is juxtaposed against practice – explaining how and why certain actions produce certain results. In science, theory is juxtaposed against observation – explaining the causal relationships leading to observed outcomes – i.e. how and why those resulting observations manifested. “A complete and utter moron @ the beginning of time could have come to the "Change" conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels I’m not sure how this is relevant to anything I’ve claimed, or why it warrants such aggression. “Well you can't have 'evidence' for a Non-Existent Scientific Theory” “evidence” just means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that position). Clearly, certain facts have been interpreted to support the various ideas finding themselves under the umbrella of “evolution”. “Somebody has observed "Natural Selection" ?? If so, can you post a Picture of it...? Chemical Structure...? Location...?” Yes – well done. This ridiculously aggressive approach you have adopted has justified you taking a hyper-critical, hyper-literal interpretation of my words. So now I am wondering if you are really here to participate in a discussion, or just out to put me in my place – because I don’t have much time for that. Observations are of changing allele frequencies in populations statistically correlated to environmental factors. Natural Selection describes the theoretical mechanism by which environmental factors influence gene frequency. “Mutations?? Of what, pray tell? Where'd they get Genes?” What genes? All I said was mutations. I didn’t specify novel, additional, functional mutations – just mutations. The scientific literature is saturated with reports of mutations. In my lab, it is common to induce mutations in bacteria. They can be directly observed through sequence comparisons, or indirectly observed (for example in selective media). You have oddly jumped to wrong conclusions – which is strange, given you are aware of my creationist position. “Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon” The initial observation(s) (or facts) is the same, regardless of the underlying paradigm. A massive diversity of life coexists on earth. “Step 3: Hypothesis” This is where presupposition and paradigm start to play a role. If one assumes a naturalistic reality, then the current diversity of life on earth is hypothesised to be the result of millions/billions of years of ‘evolution’ from a Common Ancestor. The current theory is that, over time, the accumulation of genetic mutations produced novel, functional genes which were subsequently filtered for fitness by environmental pressures (i.e. Natural Selection). Now before you get your panties in a twist – you know I don’t subscribe to this hypothesis or the subsequent theoretical framework. But the hypothesis exists – and so cannot be excluded from the secular model. “Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT” Some (such as mutation and Natural Selection) can be experimentally tested. They are ostensibly current, natural phenomena – and therefore available to experimental scrutiny. However, Common Ancestry is a claim about the past, and therefore not available for experimental scrutiny (as we cannot perform experiments in the past or go back in time to make the required observations – necessary to produce scientific confidence). So this is where we have to depart from the scientific method. The best we can do with Common Ancestry is create a model of the past based on available facts, then test that model against new evidence. The weakness of this methodology is that we can only test the model, not the claim of Common Ancestry itself. So it is logically indirect; we therefore cannot legitimately claim scientific confidence in Common Ancestry without Affirming the Consequent. So the data can be analysed (Step 5) but Common Ancestry can never be validated scientifically (step 6). But the results can still be reported. “do you think Colloquial 'theories' and Scientific Theories are the same and we shouldn't fret over it?” My overriding passion is to see people come into fellowship with Christ – not to be validated as technically right. I find leading with the, “it’s not scientific” argument tends undermine that goal – especially when delivered in an obtuse manner. I think there are enough scientific processes followed when investigating Common Ancestry, that making the “scientific” distinction is less important than addressing the underlying logic of each claim. “Some misuse the term “Scientific” as though science represents some unequivocal bastion of objective truth. Well it does, it's denotes EMPIRICAL. SEE: The Scientific Method, above” Empirical is just a fancy way of saying that confidence can only be attributed to the degree that the claim is supported by observation. Scientific logic makes no provision for claims of truth – just claims of confidence. “I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof. Really?? Based on what... besides your little Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) here? Greek is HIGHLY Precise. Each Verb has 5 different parameters it has to satisfy. Quote Conceptually, I agree with translators who render the word “test” or “examine” rather than “prove”. You just contradicted yourself: You just said... "I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof."Then you agree with them ? :blink:” I think it was fairly obvious that I make a logical distinction between prove and test. Different words exist to designate different ideas. Just because the connotations of different words are close enough to appear on a synonyms list, or are sometimes used interchangeably – doesn’t alter the fact that different words are intended to reflect different ideas. My claim was not Ipse Dixit. Translators of modern Bibles use “test”, not “prove”. I suspect that is to create separation between the absolutist nature of the modern connotation of prove and the non-absolutist intention of the author. I am happy to consider the possibility that prove may have had a different connotation in classical English – or perhaps they just used a too strong word. You yourself advocate for the absolutist concept of prove – which doesn’t make reasonable sense to me 1 Thessalonians context – unless it just means test. “Who's your surrogate 'correctly defining' "PROOF" ??” It’s an issue of logic – so I was hoping you’d have the capacity to give it fair consideration for yourself. But if you need an appeal to authority, I’ll start with science philosopher Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory" “What on Earth are Abstract Absolutes ??” They are logical constructs (or algorithms) where the conclusion is absolutely true if the provided premise is true. “1. Proof is not correctly used in the scientific sense – as though facts can render an issue logically beyond contention – 2. which itself is logically contrary to the critical nature of scientific inquiry. This is a Convoluted Mess. 1. Really? How so...?” Not sure exactly what you are asking here. It is simply an incorrect use of proof. It is admittedly a very common mistake – but an error nonetheless. “2. Really? How so...?” Science operates under the auspices of critical reasoning. It is designed to be an intensely sceptical process. There can therefore be no logical provision in science for certainty – i.e. no provision for a claim to be established to the point of being beyond possible contention. All scientific ideas remain subject to scrutiny, even those we call laws. “Prove/Proofs, as we've already established, are TEST/TESTS. And Experiments ---part of The Scientific Method--- are TESTS. I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that have to be called upon to get out of this mess” “we” haven’t “already established” anything. You presented an argument and assumed it was unequivocal based on nothing more than the fact that you presented it. I make a logical distinction between proofs (which are absolutist) and tests (which have no absolutist connotation). No mental gymnastics required. Different words have different (albeit in this case, similar) meanings. “We don't TEST "Ideas". We TEST 'Reality'. And, the logical underpinning of The Scientific Method is "Hypothesis TESTING"” Now I think you are contradicting yourself. An hypothesis is a cognitive construct (i.e. an idea) formulated to explain the observation. If we are “hypothesis TESTING”, we are testing ideas. “Observations in science are called facts. False! Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)” So firstly nothing in this latter comment justifies your mindless exclamation of “false!”. You appear to have had a bit of a moment. Secondly, observations/facts are the fundamental currency upon which all scientific confidence is based. They don’t merely occur at the “FIRST STEP” of the process. The primary outcome of experimentation is observation (i.e. results). It is the analysis of experimental observation that generates scientific confidence. Facts can be direct, human observations, mechanical observations, or some other measure of recorded data. “Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think you are using incorrect terminology. Based on what...?” Primarily based on the logical inconsistency between the absolutist concept of proof, and the skeptical nature of the scientific process. Secondarily based on philosophical authorities who have come to the same conclusion; such as Karl Popper (but before me - to be fair). “We eliminate the Fallacy of Affirming The Consequent by Repeatedly TESTING the Hypothesis” Until you have repeated the experiment in a manner that accounts for every possibility (including unknown possibilities) in the entire universe, claiming access to ultimate truth based on science Affirms the Consequent. “You then commit an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy by postulating the mere possibility of inconsistency by fiat innuendo that has never been witnessed or confirmed, only conjured!” You have either misunderstood, or misapplied the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when a refutation/argument is founded on what is not known. It does not characterise acknowledging the limits of scientific logic. If limiting confidence to reflect the limits of logic is a fallacy, then logic itself is a fallacy. Which is getting ridiculous. If your paradigm prohibits you from acknowledging the possibility of a future discovery overturning current knowledge, then you have departed from logic. No crying “Appeal to Ignorance” can belie that. “Ya see, in "Science" we base our claims on what we DO KNOW... not on ambiguous appeals to what we don't know” I am addressing the logic upon which the scientific process is founded. So attempts at empty, self-congratulatory ridicule are meaningless. “That's characterized as 'waffling'-- that has as it's basis the mere Absence of Observation. Let's introduce some 'Cow Bell' thumbsup.gif : Life ONLY comes from Life.” My characterization is scientifically accurate. I agree that “Life ONLY comes from Life” – but phrased that way is a statement of faith, not science.
  15. Bonky, you have a knack for innuendo, and overlooking facts that don’t suit your position. You said, “The real villains were the women who enticed the Israelite men to be unfaithful to God” In chronological order of punishment, the first villains were the Israelites who permitted themselves to be enticed away from God. Their sin invoked a plague from God until all who succumbed to the Midianite plan were killed – the plague alone taking 24, 000 lives (Numbers 25). But the initial villains were the Midianites (males and females), who intentionally conspired to entice the Israelites away from God (including a campaign of sexual enticement) – who were all slaughtered in the Numbers 31 battle by the Israelite army – except for those taken as spoils of war. “so their logic was to take the younger women?” Who’s logic? God’s logic after the battle was to save the women who had not participated in the Midianite plan. “Because they would never dream of doing what their mothers did” I suspect after seeing their people slaughtered, they would definitely be more informed and cautious as to the consequences of trying draw Israelites away from God. “ I'm stunned” Innuendo is meaningless, though not surprising – since at every turn you insist on peeling away relevant data in order to maintain the appearance of moral superiority and indignation. “In fact I'm almost positive elsewhere in the OT God specifically warned the Israelite men to not interact with pagan women for fear that they would be led astray [Deuteronomy 7:2-5]” Yes, and those who went against that edict were destroyed. You appear to be assuming something about the nature of the relationships between the conquerors and their spoil. “this defense may work with people who are already committed to a biblical model but I expected more” I’m not defending anything. The justifications are self-evident when considering all of the information in its appropriate context – which I am providing, as opposed to some fantasy built around missrepresentative oversimplifications. You have flipped this into a moral justification issue but you originally used this event as evidence that God had motives for sin beyond our welfare – which you haven’t made the slightest attempt to justify – and which was the basis of my criticism.