The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Bonky]

Hey Bonky,

 

My reluctance to engage you on 'evidence for supernatural claims' is based on having previously discussed this issue with you – and you refusing to give reasonable consideration to my arguments.

 

So to briefly recap;

Supernatural claims are evidenced by their mention in the Bible which Christians consider, on faith, to be the reliable word of God. This faith is rational in the sense that the reliability of scripture can be tested through several strategies; including (but not limited to) consistency between the Biblical model and the archaeological evidence.

I still don't understand why archaeological evidence would speak to supernatural claims. If you just say, it's your faith, then I can't touch that.

 

 

Your second strategy was an Appeal to Ridicule. You characterised the Bible as “poorly written”, then described our examples as “poor” and “unimpressive” – though you provided no rational justification, argument or standard supporting these accusations.

When I asked for evidence of supernatural claims I got evidence of natural claims. So yes, I'm justified in waiting for the evidence I was looking for. You guys are creating a man made bridge from natural to supernatural claims and I reject that, I don't think it's rational.

 

(

)

Likewise in this thread, you resort to calling an opposing position as “complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible”

Christians have had no hesitation to call me a "fool" like it encourages them in Psalms, merely because I'm not convinced of any God. Above and beyond this, scripture also encourages people to jump to conclusions as to why I don't believe in God, reasons like:

- I want to live a life of sin [don't want to leave my "worldly" ways]

- I reject authority and want to be my own god

- I really believe in God but I just don't want to admit it.

Sound familiar?

In another thread I believe you encouraged the visitor to not call someone a fool as it might derail the discussion [since they'll get defensive], instead of telling them not to call someone a fool because it's rude. So I'm not too concerned if I rib you guys back a little. One of the worst things religion has done to us is give us the notion that if "God" is ok with it, anything goes. Whether it's being rude or killing someone.

 

 

Then finally, when rationally challenged for being unreasonable, you default to an Adhominem fallacy; implying (without supporting argument) that opponents are being dishonest.

( )

This is a strategy that you have previously used to avoid engaging in rational discussion on the issue at hand.

( )

And again in this thread, a claim of deception is implied by characterising our position of being held “by those that feed off the gullible”

 

 

 

So my question is, why should I waste my time formulating a response when you have demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of refusing to give fair and reasonable consideration to my position?

I felt your characterization of the Royal Society had some spin to it. You were trying to make it sound like if anyone speaks of ID they are attacked professionally etc.

So getting back to the point, if these supernatural claims are part of your faith, I don't have anything to say. If you say you have evidence, it better be something more than mundane archaeological discoveries.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

Hey Bonky,

 

My reluctance to engage you on 'evidence for supernatural claims' is based on having previously discussed this issue with you – and you refusing to give reasonable consideration to my arguments.

 

So to briefly recap;

Supernatural claims are evidenced by their mention in the Bible which Christians consider, on faith, to be the reliable word of God. This faith is rational in the sense that the reliability of scripture can be tested through several strategies; including (but not limited to) consistency between the Biblical model and the archaeological evidence.

I still don't understand why archaeological evidence would speak to supernatural claims. If you just say, it's your faith, then I can't touch that.

 

 

Your second strategy was an Appeal to Ridicule. You characterised the Bible as “poorly written”, then described our examples as “poor” and “unimpressive” – though you provided no rational justification, argument or standard supporting these accusations.

When I asked for evidence of supernatural claims I got evidence of natural claims. So yes, I'm justified in waiting for the evidence I was looking for. You guys are creating a man made bridge from natural to supernatural claims and I reject that, I don't think it's rational.

 

(

)

Likewise in this thread, you resort to calling an opposing position as “complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible”

Christians have had no hesitation to call me a "fool" like it encourages them in Psalms, merely because I'm not convinced of any God. Above and beyond this, scripture also encourages people to jump to conclusions as to why I don't believe in God, reasons like:

- I want to live a life of sin [don't want to leave my "worldly" ways]

- I reject authority and want to be my own god

- I really believe in God but I just don't want to admit it.

Sound familiar?

In another thread I believe you encouraged the visitor to not call someone a fool as it might derail the discussion [since they'll get defensive], instead of telling them not to call someone a fool because it's rude. So I'm not too concerned if I rib you guys back a little. One of the worst things religion has done to us is give us the notion that if "God" is ok with it, anything goes. Whether it's being rude or killing someone.

 

 

Then finally, when rationally challenged for being unreasonable, you default to an Adhominem fallacy; implying (without supporting argument) that opponents are being dishonest.

( )

This is a strategy that you have previously used to avoid engaging in rational discussion on the issue at hand.

( )

And again in this thread, a claim of deception is implied by characterising our position of being held “by those that feed off the gullible”

 

 

 

So my question is, why should I waste my time formulating a response when you have demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of refusing to give fair and reasonable consideration to my position?

I felt your characterization of the Royal Society had some spin to it. You were trying to make it sound like if anyone speaks of ID they are attacked professionally etc.

So getting back to the point, if these supernatural claims are part of your faith, I don't have anything to say. If you say you have evidence, it better be something more than mundane archaeological discoveries.

 

 

Hey Bonky, You said, “I still don't understand why archaeological evidence would speak to supernatural claims”

 

It’s the same reason cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifting galaxies are touted as evidence of the Big Bang. It’s the same reason genetic similarities and genetic mutations are marketed as evidence of Common Ancestry.

 

The basic logic goes as follows: Evidence that is consistent with the model is considered to attest to the model’s reliability – and therefore considered to be evidence of the model’s claims which cannot be directly observed or tested.

 

 

 

“If you just say, it's your faith, then I can't touch that.”

 

Faith is always required to fill the logical shortfall of this indirect method (aka Affirming the Consequent) – for secular and Biblical models alike.

 

Nevertheless, the Biblical model does have testable elements. Opponents of Christianity have long tried to exploit this to undermine the Christian faith – to show the Biblical model to be unreliable through alleged inconsistencies with science and history, through compiling large lists of alleged contradictions (i.e. attacking the logical self-consistency of the Bible), through attacks based on manuscript inconsistencies etc.

 

 

 

“When I asked for evidence of supernatural claims I got evidence of natural claims. So yes, I'm justified in waiting for the evidence I was looking for.”

 

Apparently, what you “asked for” and what you were “looking for” were two very different things. I was very clear that my method employed testing “the veracity of Biblical claims indirectly, through testing that the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible is reliable in those claims that can be supported, then it is reasonable for a person of faith to assume that it is reliable regarding its other claims”

 

What you were apparently “looking for” was an example of direct evidence of a supernatural claim. So you were after a natural observation of the supernatural; i.e. a logical contradiction. Whilst I am open to suggestions as to how this might be accomplished, until such a request becomes logically plausible (i.e. rational), I will continue to consider any request based on this standard to be fundamentally unreasonable.

 

 

 

“You guys are creating a man made bridge from natural to supernatural claims and I reject that, I don't think it's rational.”

 

“rational” is a measure of logical cohesion. The logic I employ states that if the model is reliable in the areas where it can be tested, then it is reasonable to assume (in the absence of evidence otherwise) that it is a reliable model; including in those areas where it cannot be tested. I readily acknowledge that confidence in the untestable element requires faith, but that faith is rationally supported by the established reliability of the model where it can be tested.

 

So where does my logic fail? And do you acknowledge the faith required to attribute confidence to the untestable claims of secular models?

 

 

 

“Christians have had no hesitation to call me a "fool" like it encourages them in Psalms, merely because I'm not convinced of any God”

 

The Bible teaches that disbelief in the existence of God is foolish from God’s perspective – which is a perfectly rational claim in light of the Christian premise that the Bible is God’s Word.  However, the Bible does not encourage anyone to go around calling unbelievers fools. I would class that strategy as an irrational (i.e. logically flawed), Adhominem attack.

 

Have I ever called you a “fool”?

 

 

 

“Above and beyond this, scripture also encourages people to jump to conclusions as to why I don't believe in God, reasons like:

- I want to live a life of sin [don't want to leave my "worldly" ways]

- I reject authority and want to be my own god

- I really believe in God but I just don't want to admit it.

Sound familiar?”

 

That the Bible makes generalisations about the motives of unbelievers is valid given the premise that the Bible if God’s Word. However, that is not the same as “encouraging” Christians “to jump to conclusions”.

 

Have I made any of these claims about your motives? Any claim I make about a persons motives is based on the quality of their presented arguments.

 

 

 

“In another thread I believe you encouraged the visitor to not call someone a fool as it might derail the discussion [since they'll get defensive], instead of telling them not to call someone a fool because it's rude”

 

Are the two claims mutually-exclusive? Or did I simply address the OP’s explicit desire to maintain engagement with those opposing the stated position?

 

 

 

“So I'm not too concerned if I rib you guys back a little”

 

What “guys”? If it’s a competition for who can be the least thoughtful, or who can present the least rational argument, then I don’t want to play.

 

 

 

“One of the worst things religion has done to us is give us the notion that if "God" is ok with it, anything goes. Whether it's being rude or killing someone”

 

Well, I can only speak to Christianity. Protestant Christianity has the safeguard of holding scripture to be the highest authoritative resource of our faith. So any claim that “"God" is ok with” something must be explicitly permitted and solidly supported in scripture. For example, with regards to “being rude”, the Bible teaches;

 

2 Timothy 2:24-25

²⁴ And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, ²⁵ in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth [emphasis mine]

 

Colossians 4:5-6

⁵ Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. ⁶ Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

 

 

 

“I felt your characterization of the Royal Society had some spin to it”

 

Yes – that has been your go-to strategy; to apply a ridiculously pedantic standard to an opponent’s comment in order to portray them as dishonest. And in-so-doing, you justify avoidance of the presented argument.

[Bonky]

[Guest]

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Ecclesiastes 3:21

 

~

 

Aw gee, nobody has evidence for these bodies "that fadeth not away"....

 

Such a shame, leaves one with the idea that this is just complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible....

 

~

 

Oh No~! Mocking Those Bible Believers

 

To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1 Peter 1:4

 

Makes This So Scientific

 

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

 

That I Can Hardly

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

 

Bear It

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

 

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

[Tristen]

Hey Bonky, you said, “But cosmic radiation isn't used to justify belief in demons or angels”

 

Agreed. CBM radiation is used to attribute confidence in the reliability of the secular, Standard Cosmology model. And that confidence is subsequently applied indirectly - as evidence for those elements of the model that have not, and can-not, be naturally observed (such as the Big Bang).

 

 

 

“It's an attempt to explain an event in nature at the beginning of our Universe”

 

Yep – as is the Biblical creationist model.

 

 

 

“Even arrogant physicists like Krauss admit there are other models and other ideas out there that could be valid”

 

Does that include the creationist model?

 

 

 

“let's not try to pretend that scientists refuse to go where the evidence leads”

 

Facts don’t “lead” anywhere. They have to be interpreted as “evidence” supporting hypotheses - by humans carrying subjective biases and presuppositions.

 

 

 

“There's no holy writ that is upheld that can't be questioned, like the creationists are fond of:”

 

The Bible makes temporal, historical claims which make the model overtly subject to scrutiny – including by those outside of the faith.

 

Some might suggest that uncompromising elements make a model more robust; more subject to falsification. Whereas models that permit adjustments to account for new facts are less robust because they are too malleable to be falsified.

 

 

 

“Christians often criticize science BECAUSE "they change what they say every decade or so, so how can we trust them anyway!"”

 

The problem is NOT that scientific understanding changes over time, but that proponents of science often imply that confidence based on scientific knowledge has the rational power to supersede confidence in scripture.

 

I recently viewed a BBC program where an atheist scientists interviewed a creationist (with a science PhD) asking, “which do you trust more, science or the Bible?” When the creationist dared to answer “the Bible”, oh-my-goodness! What an outrageous and fundamentally “dangerous” position for a qualified scientist- the utter gall of a PhD scientist to question the prevailing scientific consensus. It’s like he thinks we are actually allowed to question scientific claims.

 

Holding science on a pedestal this way is at odds with the skeptical nature and critical logic underpinning the scientific method.

 

The Biblical model has stood up to scrutiny, unchanged for thousands of years. Secular models are forced to change every so often to account for new facts. That doesn’t make science inherently untrustworthy, but it does make it perfectly rational for a Christian to trust the authority of scripture in spite of any conflicting, current scientific dogma.

 

 

 

“My issues with the Bible are what it says plainly, I don't need to dissect it to death”

 

But you are only prepared to consider those elements of the Bible that cannot be naturally observed – then dismiss its reliability because there are no natural observations of elements that cannot be naturally observed. You’ve stacked the deck in favour of your existing bias by requiring an irrational standard of evidence.

 

 

 

“Using this principle, lets say we know an old lady to be an absolute saint who was never known to lie her whole life. One day she started going on about how she was abducted by an alien and was told that the POTUS was the head alien. You're saying the only reasonable response is to believe her? Or would you say it's completely reasonable to doubt her as well?”

 

I think this is a false analogy on several levels.

 

Firstly, to compare the reliability of a document making hundreds (probably thousands) of testable claims by multiple authors form multiple cultures over thousands of years, to a single life span (albeit virtuous) is spurious.

 

Secondly, I would suggest that the reasonable response is to believe that she is being honest. So from outside of her experience, several possibilities present themselves (including mental deterioration, but also that she is telling the truth). My argument is NOT that “this principle” necessitates faith in unbelievers, but that the faith of those within the experience can be rationally justified by “this principle”. So the appropriate question given this hypothetical is, ‘Does the “old lady” trust herself?’

 

I would NOT consider it reasonable to automatically reject her claim out-of-hand, simply because I don’t currently believe in aliens.

 

 

 

“Jesus was performing logical contradictions during his ministry?”

 

The logical contradiction is in a standard requiring a natural observation of something which cannot be naturally observed. Rejecting of the possibility of supernatural miracles is a tenet of naturalistic faith. No law of logic excludes the possibility of the supernatural.

 

 

 

“I don't know that I need a real life example of the supernatural right in front of me, but it may be best put that I want "good reasons" to believe.”

 

What constitutes “good reasons” is highly subjective. My concern is that you have allowed your existing biases (which we all have) to unduly influence what you will accept as “good reasons”. My only goal is to present a rational argument because I consider rationality to be the most objective standard.

 

 

 

“What tests you're using [apples] don't follow with your conclusion [supernatural oranges]”

 

The logical nature of this indirect method is less robust than direct methods because it requires the application of Affirming the Consequent (which I have already acknowledged). That makes it a weaker form of evidence than direct observation. Since some claims cannot be naturally observed, it is the only method available to us.

 

What you have failed to do is elucidate why the method cannot be used to support Biblical claims, or why it’s ok to accept this method to support the claims of secular models, but not the Biblical model.

 

 

 

“Especially when I read statements about how evidence, by default, can never go counter to the claims....something sounds fishy. If you have the truth you don't need to protect it like that.”

 

That is a weakness for both historical and supernatural claims (i.e. claims which cannot be naturally observed). Even facts which are directly inconsistent with the model can be brushed aside as something we might figure out at a later date (have we previously discussed the reaction to finding pollen spores in Precambrian rock?)

 

 

 

“Now we're getting to the area where the Bible does a lot of damage to it's credibility. What if the Bible didn't exist, you weren't a Christian [no religious preference] and you heard from Muslims that Allah says you don't believe in him because:

- You don't want to stop living your sinful pagan lifestyle.

- You know he exists you're just too prideful to admit it.

- You want to be your own god, you are full of pride.

Does that sound like an all knowing, all wise and all benevolent being?”

 

I would not presume to know the mind of “an all knowing, all wise and all benevolent being”; apart from what this “being” has revealed. I would assume that such a being would have better access to information than I do from my finite perspective – and that no such being would be obligated to conform to my expectations.

 

The Bible makes various claims about the motives of unbelievers in various contexts. People can be blind, deceived, arrogant, prideful and hedonistic. I would consider myself to have gone through spouts of each of these at one time or another. That information in the Bible contributes to my understanding of unbelievers, but it doesn’t justify my employing Appeals to Motive against them.

 

 

 

“I was talking about my overall experience engaging with Christians”

 

A fundamental premise of Christianity is that humans are flawed – incapable of attaining God’s righteousness apart from a Saviour. So it shouldn’t surprise that Christians will behave poorly (even unchristian) at times. That’s not an excuse, just a reality – one which is consistent with what the Bible teaches. If you are sincere in your investigation, then you’ll need to be able to separate the message from the negative stereotypes.

 

Christianity is comprised of people ranging from those who have been Christians for a life-time, to those who have been Christians for a few minutes; some are secure in their faith, others are insecure and defensive; some have had better quality educations in their faith, and others are poorly educated; some are highly committed in their Christian experience, others just go to church and forget their faith for the rest of the week. Some who label themselves Christian wouldn’t qualify as Christian according to the Biblical definition.

 

So I can only engage on behalf of myself.

 

 

 

“The Bible encourages people to make assumptions about others who think differently”

 

Everyone, based on their own faith perspective, makes assumptions “about others who think differently”. It’s only an issue if those assumptions are misapplied; e.g. applying an Appeal to Motive rather than engaging in rational argument.

 

 

 

“We humans know better than that, I'd expect the most intelligent/wise being in existence to be on par with us”

 

If the “being” has infinite knowledge, then the claims are not “assumptions”.

 

 

 

“Right but your REASON for not calling the person a fool was strategy, not the reason I would hope most people would choose [respect]”

 

I think this is overly pedantic. I generally encourage respect. In this instance I encouraged respect through discouraging the implication that opponents are fools. I didn’t see the need to point out that such an encouragement falls under the umbrella of respect – I assumed it was self-evident.

 

 

 

“I can find verses where men were instructed to kill children by YWHW and then turn around and hand their young sisters over to the soldiers as "wives". Who's to say the Spaniards weren't an "instrument of God's wrath"? What would you think of a human who asked another person to gut their child to show devotion to them?”

 

If you’d like to have a theological or philosophical discussion about the veracity of your characterisations, and as to how these incidents relate to Christian behaviour, start a new thread.

 

 

 

“Michael Behe seems to be doing ok isn't he? You seem to be cherry picking incidents and then holding them up as the norm”

 

I don’t follow “Michael Behe”, so I don’t know what you’re implying here. You've employed this strategy enough times in our conversations for me to recognise it as a pattern – and I will continue to call you on it as long as you use it.

[Bonky]

Agreed. CBM radiation is used to attribute confidence in the reliability of the secular, Standard Cosmology model. And that confidence is subsequently applied indirectly - as evidence for those elements of the model that have not, and can-not, be naturally observed (such as the Big Bang).

Yep, and if scientists start talking about cosmic spirits and use CBM to justify it let me know. I'll be the first to raise my eyebrows and say "come again?".

 

 

“It's an attempt to explain an event in nature at the beginning of our Universe”

 

Yep – as is the Biblical creationist model.

No issue there.

 

 

 

“Even arrogant physicists like Krauss admit there are other models and other ideas out there that could be valid”

 

Does that include the creationist model?

I wouldn't imagine so, but I also wouldn't imagine Krauss sitting there and saying the creationist model is impossible.

 

 

“let's not try to pretend that scientists refuse to go where the evidence leads”

 

Facts don’t “lead” anywhere. They have to be interpreted as “evidence” supporting hypotheses - by humans carrying subjective biases and presuppositions.

A single fact in a vacuum? Yes absolutely, but when you have a huge body of facts, a picture does emerge. It could still be a bit murky in many cases, but we're not usually relying on one single fact.

 

 

“There's no holy writ that is upheld that can't be questioned, like the creationists are fond of:”

 

The Bible makes temporal, historical claims which make the model overtly subject to scrutiny – including by those outside of the faith.

Subject to scrutiny so long as you end up believing, those that don't end up in a lake of fire to be tormented forever. We don't see much of that in a secular model do we?

 

Some might suggest that uncompromising elements make a model more robust; more subject to falsification. Whereas models that permit adjustments to account for new facts are less robust because they are too malleable to be falsified.

You CAN'T allow any falsification, that's the point. No evidence is accepted if it's contrary to scripture. It's the exact opposite of what we see in science, you're encouraged to challenge anything.

 

 

“Christians often criticize science BECAUSE "they change what they say every decade or so, so how can we trust them anyway!"”

 

The problem is NOT that scientific understanding changes over time, but that proponents of science often imply that confidence based on scientific knowledge has the rational power to supersede confidence in scripture.

 

I recently viewed a BBC program where an atheist scientists interviewed a creationist (with a science PhD) asking, “which do you trust more, science or the Bible?” When the creationist dared to answer “the Bible”, oh-my-goodness! What an outrageous and fundamentally “dangerous” position for a qualified scientist- the utter gall of a PhD scientist to question the prevailing scientific consensus. It’s like he thinks we are actually allowed to question scientific claims.

 

Holding science on a pedestal this way is at odds with the skeptical nature and critical logic underpinning the scientific method.

 

The Biblical model has stood up to scrutiny, unchanged for thousands of years. Secular models are forced to change every so often to account for new facts. That doesn’t make science inherently untrustworthy, but it does make it perfectly rational for a Christian to trust the authority of scripture in spite of any conflicting, current scientific dogma.

The Bible doesn't need to change, you can hold a position with an iron fist and you probably can't be proven to be wrong. So what? I'm sorry but not allowing evidence is a sign of hiding something if you ask me. When has dogma ever been good to us, no matter what the source? And I freely admit, science is often portrayed in such a way that our current understanding is the only possible understanding [meteor killed the dinos etc]. This is a problem with our representation of current scientific thought, not necessarily the scientists.

 

“My issues with the Bible are what it says plainly, I don't need to dissect it to death”

 

But you are only prepared to consider those elements of the Bible that cannot be naturally observed – then dismiss its reliability because there are no natural observations of elements that cannot be naturally observed. You’ve stacked the deck in favour of your existing bias by requiring an irrational standard of evidence.

Irrational standard of evidence? I assess each claim as it's given to me, I don't "stack" successful claims up and then cash them in so to speak and purchase wild claims using faith. I guess that's just where we differ. I hear of many situations where people experienced something that wasn't natural, many times people convert to Christianity [or whatever] because of this experience. I don't see why I can't wait for more data or evidence before believing.

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

Hey again Bonky, you said, “I also wouldn't imagine Krauss sitting there and saying the creationist model is impossible”

 

Lawrence Krauss equates creationism to ignorance, scientific illiteracy, a rejection of reality, and of course, such a “big error” that teaching it equates to “a mild form of child abuse”. I think that blasts through the wall of “saying the creationist model is impossible”; leaving “impossible” in its wake.

 

At the very least, we can safely assume the creation model is off the table for Krauss.

 

 

 

“A single fact in a vacuum? Yes absolutely, but when you have a huge body of facts, a picture does emerge. It could still be a bit murky in many cases, but we're not usually relying on one single fact”

 

Any “picture” beyond the existence of the facts themselves requires interpretation. This is evidenced by the ability to paint a different “picture” with the very same facts. That is why each argument must be assessed on its own merits, rather than just accepting Innuendo about how all the facts overwhelmingly support a single position.

 

 

 

“Subject to scrutiny so long as you end up believing, those that don't end up in a lake of fire to be tormented forever. We don't see much of that in a secular model do we?”

 

You are apparently talking about the implications of the model. I am talking about the capacity to test the model.

 

 

 

“You CAN'T allow any falsification, that's the point. No evidence is accepted if it's contrary to scripture”

 

“Evidence” means fact or facts which have been interpreted to support an idea; i.e. as “evidence” of that idea. I have not rejected any fact (I am happy to consider any fact you think I may have overlooked). I am not obligated by any scientific principle to merely accept any interpretation of that evidence.

 

 

 

“It's the exact opposite of what we see in science, you're encouraged to challenge anything”

 

You mean without being accused of scientific ignorance and illiteracy (or “child abuse”). I understand that’s the ideal, but it’s not the reality – even in areas that have nothing to do with faith or origins.

 

 

 

“I'm sorry but not allowing evidence is a sign of hiding something if you ask me”

 

What facts have we failed to "allow"? What are we “hiding”? You haven’t justified the premise.

 

 

 

“I freely admit, science is often portrayed in such a way that our current understanding is the only possible understanding [meteor killed the dinos etc]. This is a problem with our representation of current scientific thought, not necessarily the scientists”

 

But are we not then justified in correcting this misrepresentation by reminding everyone that scientific knowledge is incomplete; i.e. subject to revision.

 

 

 

“Irrational standard of evidence?”

 

Some claims cannot be naturally observed. Requiring an observation of the unobservable equates to demanding a logical contradiction – and is therefore technically irrational.

 

 

 

“I assess each claim as it's given to me, I don't "stack" successful claims up and then cash them in so to speak and purchase wild claims using faith. I guess that's just where we differ”

 

We differ in two areas;

 

1) I consider all claims which are unobserved/unverifiable to be claims of faith, whereas you only consider such claims to be faith when they are inconsistent with the secular faith perspective.

 

2) I consider the logical method used to indirectly support unobservable claims to be equally valid for all models, whereas you only recognise the logic as valid when it is used to support the unobservable claims of secular models.

 

 

 

“I don't see why I can't wait for more data or evidence before believing”

 

Have I suggested otherwise?

 

 

 

“What I wouldn't do is demonize those who are skeptical”

 

Who have I “demonized”?

 

 

 

“The prophecies you mention …”

 

I think this may have been someone else. I don’t recall discussing specific prophecies.

 

 

 

“if we're talking about my approach to claims my subjective view is what I have to work with”

 

By that measure, you are a slave to your experience. I disagree.  I think you have the intellectual capacity to be objective; to fairly consider the existence of possibilities beyond your own experience.

 

 

 

“Excluding evidence you don't like isn't rational and yet it seems to be the bedrock of the creationist camp”

 

Which facts have we (“the creationist camp”) excluded from consideration? – specifically.

 

 

 

“I remember reading one christian state that if the Bible declared that there is no moon, he would assume the glowing white orb in the sky at night was an illusion”

 

Well again – I can only speak for myself. I consider the rejection of facts to be irrational; i.e. blind faith.

 

 

 

“Which makes you wonder why an all benevolent being would resort to this kind of game knowing what is in the balance....eternal torture.”

 

It’s a pity you chose to frame this as Innuendo. It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask why God’s salvation requires faith rather than knowledge through observation. Maybe start a thread.

 

 

 

“what's the point of describing a being as all powerful, knowing, wise etc etc?”

 

The point is to recognise that if I disagree with the decision of said “being”, it may be because I don’t have access to the information upon which the being's decision is made. I therefore cannot simply dismiss that the “being” is all-knowing, just because the “being” doesn’t conform to my expectations. Maybe there’s a path of reasoning I haven’t considered.

 

 

 

“I have a hard time sitting here thinking that you'd have this vague indifferent response to the scenario I presented. So be it.

Additionally, based on what you just said, you've validated the cruelest of terrorists”

 

I haven’t “validated” anything. You presented a hypothetical which you summed up in the question; “Does that sound like an all knowing, all wise and all benevolent being?” My answer is that I could not rationally dismiss any claim out-of-hand; based entirely on the claim NOT conforming to my expectations (not even the claims of “the cruellest terrorists”). Just because I don’t like something doesn’t justify the assumption that it is necessarily untrue.

 

 

 

“who are you to question what an all knowing being would ask of his followers?”

 

I never made this argument.

 

I am free to “question”, I just don’t permit myself to assume something is wrong because it doesn’t meet with my expectations.

 

 

 

“so instead of the Bible being cautious about judging people and making assumptions, it provides plenty of fuel for people to walk around doing just that. Even if you believe they're misapplying scripture”

 

I have had several people admit to me that they believe everything I say, but they are not yet ready to give up on their lifestyle. Others have said to me’ “How dare God presume to tell me what I can and cannot do?” and one person admitted to me that she rejected the faith because she didn’t like the calibre of person in the church (i.e. pride). So in my experience, the Bible is correct in declaring the existence of these motives.

 

The Christian church is admonished in the Bible to ‘spread the gospel’. Mentioning some of the motives that they might have to overcome in this endeavour is not the same as encouraging assumptions about specific individuals.

 

All communication is subject to misinterpretation and misapplication. Communication is a two-way street. The weakness in humanity, not in what the Bible actually says.

 

 

 

“there's plenty in the Bible, your personality may impact which verses speak to you”

 

Agreed – All I can do is my best to sincerely ascertain the intent of the author in each text.

 

 

 

“You don't know who Michael Behe is?? He's only one of the most popular intelligent design advocates who was present at the Dover trials”

 

I am familiar with the name “Michael Behe”, but I haven’t familiarized myself with his work. I am a Biblical creationist. I could probably name about ten or twenty relatively well-known creationists. I couldn’t name anyone from the ID movement without looking it up.

 

 

 

“That toilet flushing sound you hear is your argument that ID advocates get shunned and mistreated. Behe is proof that they don't, although you can scour the web and find isolated incidents here or there [as you can with anything]”

 

So then, I present a well-known example of professional scientific bias against creationism, but when you present a single example of an employed ID advocate (i.e. not even a creationist) as “proof”, no less, that there is no such bias, my claim gets flushed down the toilet. You have an unusual concept of consistency.

[Bonky]

“A single fact in a vacuum? Yes absolutely, but when you have a huge body of facts, a picture does emerge. It could still be a bit murky in many cases, but we're not usually relying on one single fact”

 

Any “picture” beyond the existence of the facts themselves requires interpretation. This is evidenced by the ability to paint a different “picture” with the very same facts. That is why each argument must be assessed on its own merits, rather than just accepting Innuendo about how all the facts overwhelmingly support a single position.

Replace "argument" with "claim" and reread your last statement. You're actually stating my position in this discussion, interesting isn't it?

 

 

“You CAN'T allow any falsification, that's the point. No evidence is accepted if it's contrary to scripture”

 

“Evidence” means fact or facts which have been interpreted to support an idea; i.e. as “evidence” of that idea. I have not rejected any fact (I am happy to consider any fact you think I may have overlooked). I am not obligated by any scientific principle to merely accept any interpretation of that evidence.

So it seems that pretty much anything can be propped up and supported.

 

 

 

“It's the exact opposite of what we see in science, you're encouraged to challenge anything”

 

You mean without being accused of scientific ignorance and illiteracy (or “child abuse”). I understand that’s the ideal, but it’s not the reality – even in areas that have nothing to do with faith or origins.

Like I've said before, part of the issue is bad publicity in my opinion. I view William Lane Craig as a champion for the defense of Christianity. He's absolutely the best I've personally ever seen in a debate. What does the young earth have speaking for them? The banana man Ray Comfort, Dr. Dino Kent Hovind who's in jail for tax evasion. I don't think the young earth movement does a good job presenting itself. I think you do a pretty good job presenting the YEC point of view. I disagree with you on many things but you handle your case well.

 

 

 

“I'm sorry but not allowing evidence is a sign of hiding something if you ask me”

 

What facts have we failed to "allow"? What are we “hiding”? You haven’t justified the premise.

Creationist organizations are admitting up front they won't allow evidence that goes against scripture. Your aren't free to interpret the evidence any way other than a way that supports scripture. That's very telling to me.

 

 

 

“I freely admit, science is often portrayed in such a way that our current understanding is the only possible understanding [meteor killed the dinos etc]. This is a problem with our representation of current scientific thought, not necessarily the scientists”

 

But are we not then justified in correcting this misrepresentation by reminding everyone that scientific knowledge is incomplete; i.e. subject to revision.

I have no issue with that.

 

 

  

“Irrational standard of evidence?”

 

Some claims cannot be naturally observed. Requiring an observation of the unobservable equates to demanding a logical contradiction – and is therefore technically irrational.

The Bible states that we aren't just natural beings, that there's a spiritual side to us and that we indeed can interact with the supernatural. What I'm saying is I've never seen Christians that had access to knowledge I don't or abilities that I don't have. No special discernment, insight or access to divine power that I can see. I'm not using this as evidence against the Christian position as much as an explanation as to why I'm still skeptical.

 

 

  

“I assess each claim as it's given to me, I don't "stack" successful claims up and then cash them in so to speak and purchase wild claims using faith. I guess that's just where we differ”

 

We differ in two areas;

 

1) I consider all claims which are unobserved/unverifiable to be claims of faith, whereas you only consider such claims to be faith when they are inconsistent with the secular faith perspective.

I will allow evidence where the conclusion is that the supernatural does indeed exist. To me, black holes are really not that much crazier than evil spirits, it's just that I have evidence of the one and not the other.

 

 

2) I consider the logical method used to indirectly support unobservable claims to be equally valid for all models, whereas you only recognise the logic as valid when it is used to support the unobservable claims of secular models.

Is the big bang really that bizarre a conclusion based on CMB and redshifting of galaxies?

 

 

 

“I don't see why I can't wait for more data or evidence before believing”

 

Have I suggested otherwise?

Then you seem reasonable to me, the God as described by the Bible thinks my conclusion is not only unreasonable but worthy of torment. I don't find this portrayal of "the most logical, all-wise being" to make sense, therefore I reject it. I fully admit that I could be 100% wrong.

 

 

“What I wouldn't do is demonize those who are skeptical”

 

Who have I “demonized”?

If you follow the Bible you must also agree with what it says about people like me. You can't divorce yourself from scripture and act like you're not a part of it. You may be nice to me but at the end of the day you have to conclude that I'm wicked, in league with the devil, "against Christ" etc like the Bible proclaims.

[Bonky]