Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Jig]

Natural causes are only looked at when one is proposing natural explanations. One can propose and look at supernatural explanations all one wants - just don't do so and say one is practicing methodological naturalism.

And this is what I was saying - I'm not sure why you continually misunderstand me. Under methodological naturalism (the philosophy of acquiring knowledge in modern science) natural causes are the only thing looked at. I'm saying this is a limitation in methodological naturalism. Looking at supernatural explanations require another philosophical approach to acquiring knowledge.

Evidence does speak for itself. If I posit it is raining, and look outside and see it is raining, that's evidence speaking for itself. That's why you cannot say that you have measured evidence of the natural laws being different in another place or time - because it hasn't been measured. That's evidence speaking for itself.

Evidence does not speak for itself. This is a ridiculous claim. All evidence is must be interpreted. Yes, even rainfall outside your window.

What? No it's not. If a scientist says he or she doesn't know, then he or she doesn't know. You don't have to read additional stuff into other's statements. Why do you think that when a scientist who is a Christian says that he or she does't know exactly how Jesus was raised from the dead, that this Christian scientist is assuming that it could only have happened by natural means? After all, a scientist who is a Christian already likely believes in the resurrection and that the resurrection is central to their faith. It sounds like you are saying that scientists can't be Christians.

This is nonsense. Of course a scientist can say they don't know. But following scientific ways of acquiring knowledge, the only explanation can only be assumed must be natural. Now, if the scientists wants to stop practicing science, he/she may very well assume supernatural explanations. But understand they are doing so outside of science. Saying that they are scientists while attributing religious faith is misguiding.

The only assumption I've said is needed is that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. We all assume that, every day.

But they are not talking about "today" in historical science, they are talking about the past: millions and billions of years ago. Beyond observational sciences scope.

Jig, maybe look into the scientific method yourself. Here is one tutorial: The Scientific Method

Okay, I went to your link. I saw nothing but observation this and observation that. This website did not help your claim that observation is not needed to use the scientific method.

You can say it all you want, but your personal interpretation of the same Bible that you recognize has metaphors in it is not a reason to ignore the evidence from the real world. I hope that you recognize that Genesis itself has clear metaphors in it.

I don't ignore the evidence - evidence is neutral. I don't even ignore the interpretation of the evidence you are trying to give me. I just choose to believe in another interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Preecher]

Yup. I don't deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture. It is God's holy and inspired written word. What I reject is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, it is a mytho-poetic narrative declaring God as supreme, Creator and that He created things with purpose--in contradistinction to the creation narratives of the Near East such as the Enuma Elish which has creation being a chaotic byproduct of the war of the gods. Genesis 1 summarily dismisses those mythologies by offering a narrative of creation whereby God, the one and only God, creates the heaven and the earth, He is before all things and sets all things into place with order and purpose. It is a theological declaration, not a literal-historical one.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

Amen, God created all things through His Logos, who became incarnate as our Lord Jesus Christ in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary.

-CryptoLutheran

Actually it's saying that Jesus is the Creator of heaven and earth and all therein.

 

[Preecher]

I trust rigorously tested and confirmed studies of the world God created when they contradict subjective and untestable opinions on how scripture should be interpreted.

Even if they contradict the Bible?

But I am in pretty good company there, when Copernicus showed the earth went round the sun, and people like Kepler and Newton filled out theory showing how gravity could move the planets in their elliptical orbits, the church, Catholic and Protestant abandoned their traditional geocentric interpretations, trusted in the reliability of science, and found new ways to interpret the geocentric passages. Were they wrong?

If they contradict the Bible, yes, they are wrong.

I found it out for myself. You can too, if you simply read Genesis 2 and see what it says without trying to make it fit Genesis 1. When does Genesis 2 tell us God created beasts and birds?

I see no contradiction whatsoever in the literal creation account in Genesis.

We are back to your opinion again that the six day creation is obviously literal.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

is not my opinion.

However, my point did not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis, you are overstating the argument to try to give yourself grounds to reject it. What I was showing is that the bible is filled with metaphors and parables, often where people least expect them. There is no shortage in scripture either of people mistakenly taking parables and metaphors literally. Remember the parable Nathan told David of the poor man whose pet lamb was stolen? David took the parable completely literally until Nathan told him "you are the man!" 2Sam 12:7. In the New Testament we have Nicodemus thinking Jesus was speaking literally when he said you must be born again, and the disciples in John 6 who left Jesus when they thought he was literally advocating cannibalism.

Yes, there are parables in the Bible. But they teach truth. The Bible is literal unless it is obvious that it isn't. The six day creation is literal, simple and clear.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

 

[Jig]

In fact, even creationists who argue for a global flood assume that, such as when they say there must have been a "water canopy" (if the physical laws were different, then water could have just popped into existance, no canopy needed), and so on. Instead, they use the same assumption, then say scientists aren't justified in using the same assumption.

Creationists do not believe the world was in existence 4 billion years ago. In fact, many don't believe it was in existence 20,000 years ago. They don't claim the physical laws were different millions of years ago because they believe they didn't exist. They make claims about climate or effects of supernatural activity on physical objects. Remember creationists use the fine-tuning teleological argument too, the physical laws are proof for a designer.

Creationists are only pointing out an assumption: Scientists assume things were similar (such as decay rates) 2 billion years ago. This also implies the world was in existence 2 billion years ago. The premise evolutionists use is just "begging the question".

Even if some creationists were found to be hypocritical, that doesn't mean that what they are claiming is false. Your argument is Ad Hominem here.

Question 2a. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct?

This question implies that I was wrong. I already told you that I do not believe I was wrong.

Question 2b. Do you recognize that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

All this means is that tree rings can be counted.

I'll wait to hear from a real geologist about Patterson's assumptions (I would advise you do too, since we've seen creationist distort time and again, and your refusal to explain your source suggests it is a creationist source). At any rate, it doesn't matter, because like my Darwin story, it shows the creationist obsession with the first proposal of an idea, as if that (Patterson and his work) were relevant in any way.

You completely misunderstood why I posted that story. I even stated that Patterson's assumptions were wrong. I understand this. This story was an example of how results can be interpreted to match a desired time frame.

No, I'm not. God could well have used the process of accretion to specially create Earth.

Chasing the supernatural moment as far back as possible, huh? Wouldn't want it to mess up your assumptions. Either way, some supernatural moment in the past had to occur. God could not have done everything naturally. Purposed creation is not natural.

Would not an age sticker need to be in some language, and as such, interpreted? The test results were measured just as your temperature is measured. The only assumption invovled is that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places, which, as we saw, we all accept. I'm still waiting for the list of any additional assumptions.

You assume the Earth existed billions of years ago.

No, as we saw, the age of the earth is based on evidence. That's why the philosophical debates over the age of the earth ended when evidence became available.

Evidence is neutral on its own. Evidence is interpreted.

There is no reason why the Earth could not have formed (naturally) in much less than this, well under 2 billion years. And more to the point, many early test results (with flawed methods) did indeed produce ages much less than that.

Fine be picky. My point is still valid. I'll go more extreme to show you. Could the Earth have formed within the last million years? No. Evolutionists must have an old Earth to work or their theories cannot make sense.

No, they aren't. Contamination is not assumed, but shown based on evidence.

Your favorite word must be evidence. We've been through this, no response necessary here.

OK, Jig, do you understand what the process of peer review is?

Yes. Do you know that there is more then one valid venue to display scientific work?

Scientific work is expected to be peer reviewed by those who understand the field invovled.

So those creationists and design advocates who actually have professional degrees in their respected fields, don't understand their field? Or is it that they don't agree with the assumptions the status quo field has made?
There is more than one valid venue to publish scientific work. It does not need to be in an Darwinain bias peer-reviewed journal.

So you are still saying that the whole global scientific endeavor, of millions of scientists, of different religions, different backgrounds, different worldviews, and different motivations, are all somehow tied together and biased against creationism? Have you ever tried to herd cats?

You're focus on what's different and not on what's similar. Their religious background and motivations have little to do with their work within naturalistic science. All the same assumptions are made.

And then you maintain that creationists, with fewer than 0.01% of the publications, with practically no support from those trained in the relevant fields, with explicitly stated goals of evangelizing, who are practically all Christian, is on par? Come on.

Appeal to common practice and popularity. Come on.

Are you denying that there is plenty of metaphor use in Genesis? Could you please list for me the verse that states that SoS is a different genre? I'm sure you aren't using man's opinion to guide your views.

I am claiming that your position is equally philosophical. No need to point out that my position is based on assumptions, I already know this.

 

[Assyrian]

Even if they contradict the Bible?

How can you tell if they contradict the bible or just contradicting your interpretation of the bible?

But I am in pretty good company there, when Copernicus showed the earth went round the sun, and people like Kepler and Newton filled out theory showing how gravity could move the planets in their elliptical orbits, the church, Catholic and Protestant abandoned their traditional geocentric interpretations, trusted in the reliability of science, and found new ways to interpret the geocentric passages. Were they wrong?

If they contradict the Bible, yes, they are wrong.

Are you saying Copernicus was wrong and that the sun really does go round the earth?

I see no contradiction whatsoever in the literal creation account in Genesis.

You don't see a contradiction, but you didn't answer my question.

When does Genesis 2 tell us God created beasts and birds?
​

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

is not my opinion.

Remember I addressed this back in post 162? You didn't really address Moses' use of metaphor in the ten commandments, you just claimed the creation account was literal. Let's have a better look at what Moses is doing here. He is not teaching six day creationism in the passage, he is teaching Sabbath observance, the reference to God creating the world in six days was used as an illustration of the Sabbath command. But we have seen from the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:15, Moses uses a metaphorical description of God leading the Israelites out of Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, he is using the metaphor to teach the same Sabbath command. How do you know Moses isn't using a metaphorical description of of the creation to teach the Sabbath in Exodus?

Yes, there are parables in the Bible. But they teach truth.

Of course parables metaphors and allegories in the bible teach truth. And if the creation accounts in Genesis are metaphorical they still teach truth.

The Bible is literal unless it is obvious that it isn't. The six day creation is literal, simple and clear.

Who told you the bible is literal unless it is obvious that it isn't? I just gave you a list of examples in scripture were it wasn't obvious to the people listening that what they were hearing was a metaphor. Creationists seem to have this rule, that is a passage isn't obviously figurative, then it must be taken literally. But it is a man made rule, not one I have ever seen Creationists show based on scripture.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Was God literally refreshed after a day's rest? This is describing someone worn out and exhausted stopping to get their breath back. This is hardly a literal description of the Almighty. It is however a beautiful anthropomorphic description of God's identification with the weary labourers who did need a Sabbath rest to be refreshed, his identification with the weary and downtrodden, child working in the fields, migrant labourers. Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

Preecher: There is no reason to believe the creation account is not literal.
Assyrian: If Genesis was literal then the messiah was supposed to step on the snake's head and get bitten on his heel. We don't read about Jesus doing any of this in the gospels, though if Genesis was speaking figuratively, then Jesus wonderfully fulfilled this messianic prophecy on the cross. It wasn't a snake he defeated though. I only know of one tree that can give us everlasting life, It wasn't a fruit tree growing in Eden, it was the wooden cross Jesus died on outside Jerusalem.
Preecher: Using the obviously non-literal accounts to disprove the obviously literal makes a mockery of the Bible.

You said there was no reason to believe the creation account is not literal. But when I show you examples from Genesis 2&3 that cannot be taken literally, you call them obviously non literal accounts.So which is it? Are these examples from the creation account obviously literal or obviously non literal? If throughout Genesis 3 the account describes Eve chatting to what is a literal snake in the account, a beast of the field, that is cursed as a snake, that is prophesied to have its head stepped on by the Messiah and bite Messiah's heel, and we only discover in the New Testament that the messiah does not step on a snake's head, that the snake in Eden actually refer to a fallen angel Satan, If all this is 'obviously non-literal' how can Genesis 3 still be 'obviously literal'? How is it 'mockery of the bible' rather than biblical exegesis?

 

[Jig]

Remember I addressed this back in post 162?

Hey Assyrian did you read post 178?

 

[Mess]

Not having read this thread, and at risk of repeating something, but the EU has accepted a resolution some time ago that teaching your kids Creationism should be illegal as they consider it a danger to humanity.

 

[gluadys]

Under methodological naturalism (the philosophy of acquiring knowledge in modern science) natural causes are the only thing looked at. I'm saying this is a limitation in methodological naturalism.

You've referred a couple of times to methodical naturalism as a limitation in the way science acquires knowledge. I get the impression you think this is a bad thing.

Why? Why should we not see it as a good thing? What is wrong with science being limited in the way it acquires knowledge?

 

[Assyrian]

Hey Assyrian did you read post 178?

Sorry, missed it.

Hmmm...I tried my hardest to stay out of this discussion

Clearly not trying hard enough if you remind me when I missed your post

because I am already in a separate discussion within this same thread. But I can't let this comment get by.

Rigorously tested, yes. Confirmed? Well, that depends on what you are talking about.

Completely different methods coming up with the same results, like independent dating systems giving the same ages, or the way physiology, the fossil record and DNA all showing we are most closely related to chimps and then the other great apes. That is confirmation, and it fits some very good biblical advice:
1Thess 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
2Cor 13:1 By the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter will be established.

Let us review your examples below shall we.

This is all based in operational science. We are learning how something works using observation and experimentation. This cannot be used to support claims based in historical/origin science. The two are not the same.

Or is 'operational science' simply an excuse Creationist use to reject the science they don't like. Evolution is supported by observation and experiment. In most sciences we cannot observe our subjects directly, too small too inaccessible. But there are things we can test and observe. Science is about working on what it can test, not making excuses based on what we cannot observe.

I would agree with what they did. They trusted in operational science.

I seriously doubt any of the 16th and 17th century believers would have know what you were talking about with your 'operational science'. There was an attempt by geocentrists to limit heliocentrism to an abstract model, a way of calculating astronomical position, rather than a description of reality. But science and the church rejected this. If you want to compare the evidence they had back then to the evidence we have for evolution, we have vastly more evidence for evolution than they had when they accepted the reality of heliocentrism.

You think evolution does not count because we cannot travel in time, space travel was just as remote back then. No one could travel out into space to experiment with how objects move out there or see the motion of the planets from another perspective. Compared with the vast amount of information we have from fossils, comparative anatomy, physiology and genetics, they just had the regular movements of a handful of astronomical bodies and the occasional comet. You talk about presuppositions, geocentrists could fit all the observations into a coherent geocentric system, so could heliocentrists. It is just that the geocentric model was more elegant, especially when they abandoned Copernicus's circular orbits for Kepler's ellipses. But it was all still theory. No one saw the planets move in circles or ellipses, the saw the orbits side on as the planets moved across the night sky. The geocentrists had their geocentric explanation of the data, and one and an half millennia of church tradition interpeting scripture geocentrically. The heliocentrists had a more elegant mathematical model. Then Newton came along and gave a theoretical explanation for why the planets move in elliptical orbits - gravity.

But look at the wild leaps Newton took in proposing this.

• Gravity operates in space as well as on earth, though no one had gone into space to see if this is true.
• Gravity does not just pull objects straight down, but if they are travelling fast enough it can also pull them in circular and elliptical orbits. No one had ever shown this was true. You could look at the parabolic curve of a cannon ball in flight, but to say if they are shot fast enough they would travel in a ellipse around the earth is a wild extrapolation, and I know how creationists love extrapolations.
• He claimed other bodies like the sun and planets exert a pull of gravity too, though we had only experience gravity on earth. It would have been even madder to suggest you could fire a canon ball from the sun and the sun's 'gravity' would would turn the cannon into another little planet orbiting the sun.
• He proposed that the force of gravity operated on the inverse square law. If you double the distance, the force of gravity is a quarter as strong. No one had ever tested this. They need it to be true to explain how orbital period varied with distance, but there was not evidence it was true.
• It wasn't until Sputnik was launched (those atheist scientists) that we had the first direct experimental evidence Newtons laws operated in space, and IIRC the Luna probes before we had direct evidence of gravity on other astronomical bodies like the moon drawing objects into elliptical orbits.

Heliocentrism was unproven and simply impossible to test directly. Even indirect evidence like stellar parallax did not come until much later. But the church accepted Heliocentism and changed their interpretation of scripture because Heliocentrism was simply the best scientific explanation available.

Christians trust this on a daily basis when taking Tylenol for a headache or sending an e-mail to a friend. It is far different trusting in historical/origin science.

I know Christians who trust in homoeopathy, so that is not much of a recommendation. The actual evidence for tylenol its molecular structure, how it interacts with a living cell, is impossible to observe directly. But it can be tested indirectly, as all science does.

"the geocentric passages" This wording is fallacious - it suggests these passages promote geocentric ideas on their own without human interpretation.

No passage interprets itself, but the geocentric passages are the ones whose plain literal interpretation describes the sun moving around the earth or the earth fixed and immovable. They are the passages which for all the entire history of the church before Copernicus were interpreted as describing a geocentric cosmos.

The author/s/editor/s of Genesis didn't seem to think these two chapters were contradictory. Why would they want to combine contradictory tales when trying to write a coherent account? Unless you'd like to support the idea that the author didn't care about the intelligibility of his work.

I would just say the editor or authors did not care about the literal interpretation of the passages, not the intelligibility. What I can say is that the accounts describe completely sequences of creation. They are only contradictory if they are meant to be taken literally. So either the writer was stupid (as creationist often propose when they deny the plain meaning of passages like this) he didn't care about intelligibility as you suggest here, neither of which are biblically sound explanations, or the other alternative is that the writers or editor wasn't thinking of the passages as literal history. Personally I think that a metaphor or parable a much more biblical explanation than the writer not caring about intelligibility.

 

[Christos Anesti]

The idea that it would be illegal for parents to teach their kids "bad science" seems a little absurd. Especially seeing as how what constitutes "good science" one generation (heck a few years ago) often ends up being bad science a generation later. I'm not saying the people who claim that the earth is only 7,000 years old are right but that would just be crazy. What will we call this the scientific inquisition?

 

[Jig]

Or is 'operational science' simply an excuse Creationist use to reject the science they don't like.

Are you denying that there is a difference between operational science and historical science?

Evolution is supported by observation and experiment.

Evolution is a very board term. It is slowly becoming ambiguous. Are you talking about "lizard to bird" Darwinianism or antibiotic resistance? Only one is supported by experimentation.

In most sciences we cannot observe our subjects directly, too small too inaccessible. But there are things we can test and observe. Science is about working on what it can test, not making excuses based on what we cannot observe.

The farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception. All observations (direct/indirect) must be done of the present.

No one could travel out into space to experiment with how objects move out there or see the motion of the planets from another perspective. Compared with the vast amount of information we have from fossils, comparative anatomy, physiology and genetics, they just had the regular movements of a handful of astronomical bodies and the occasional comet. You talk about presuppositions, geocentrists could fit all the observations into a coherent geocentric system, so could heliocentrists. It is just that the geocentric model was more elegant, especially when they abandoned Copernicus's circular orbits for Kepler's ellipses. But it was all still theory. No one saw the planets move in circles or ellipses, the saw the orbits side on as the planets moved across the night sky. The geocentrists had their geocentric explanation of the data, and one and an half millennia of church tradition interpeting scripture geocentrically. The heliocentrists had a more elegant mathematical model. Then Newton came along and gave a theoretical explanation for why the planets move in elliptical orbits - gravity.

You are still talking about operational science. I don't see anything that deals with historical/origin science here.

No passage interprets itself, but the geocentric passages are the ones whose plain literal interpretation describes the sun moving around the earth or the earth fixed and immovable.

Are you saying that the plain literal interpretation of a passage is always its true meaning. We both know this is not correct - so to define/label certain passages by their literal meaning is a fallacy. When the newspaper tells me the times for the "sunrise" and "sunset", I don't tell them to stop the presses. The sun may not be moving, but we still use such terminology. Why? Anyone who has spent much time watching the sky can testify that each day the Sun, moon, planets, and most stars do rise, move across the sky, and then set. Such observation and description do not at all address what actually causes this motion.

They are the passages which for all the entire history of the church before Copernicus were interpreted as describing a geocentric cosmos.

Key word: interpreted.

I would just say the editor or authors did not care about the literal interpretation of the passages, not the intelligibility.

Writing an account that is non-literal and writing an account that is contradictory are two different things. If the account is truly contradictory then the the writing negates coherency.

What I can say is that the accounts describe completely sequences of creation. They are only contradictory if they are meant to be taken literally.

While reading through the book of Genesis or even Jesus' genealogies that link Him directly to Adam...at what point does true literal history kick in? After Adam? After the Fall? After the Flood? After Noah? After Abraham? How do you know when to start reading literally?

So either the writer was stupid (as creationist often propose when they deny the plain meaning of passages like this) he didn't care about intelligibility as you suggest here, neither of which are biblically sound explanations, or the other alternative is that the writers or editor wasn't thinking of the passages as literal history. Personally I think that a metaphor or parable a much more biblical explanation than the writer not caring about intelligibility.

You act like those are the only options I have, yet you know that my position holds to none of the above.

 

[shernren]

The farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception. All observations (direct/indirect) must be done of the present.

I was in Melbourne two days ago.

What is the probability, based on my evidence, that Melbourne still exists now, about a day later?

What is the probability, based on my evidence, that Melbourne still exists at the time that you write your reply post?

At what point in time did my operational evidence that Melbourne exists become historical evidence?

Did every house I passed suddenly have a non-zero probability of ceasing to exist the moment it passed out of my view?

When I arrived back in Canberra, should I have kissed the ground in thankfulness at the fact that my historical knowledge of its existence did not become obsolete during my four days away?

And why should I not ask these questions?

After all, two days ago is as much in the past as two million years ago. I can access the events of two thousand years ago no more than I can access the events of two million years ago. And yet we both believe that about two thousand years ago a man named Jesus, who is also God, was crucified by Roman authorities and resurrected from his tomb. You have no qualms building your life around that event (and neither do I), even though it's historical and experimentally inaccessible and open to interpretation and all that.

So your denial of evolution, whatever it is about, is not about the experimental inaccessibility of the past. I respect your right to dissent, but please let it be honest, reasoned dissent.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Actually it's saying that Jesus is the Creator of heaven and earth and all therein.

Yes, inasmuch as "through Him all things were made" as St. John records in the prologue to his gospel. As the Creed says,

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

I was in Melbourne two days ago.

What is the probability, based on my evidence, that Melbourne still exists now, about a day later?

Being 2 days removed is way different than being 365,854,701,002 days removed.

At what point in time did my operational evidence that Melbourne exists become historical evidence?

So let's see. You had direct observation (operational science) of Melbourne's existence and then you entered into an assumption about the past (historical science) using your previous direct observational evidence to determine it was highly probable it was still there. Sounds reasonable.

As for Tony the T-Rex, he didn't have a scientist beside him collecting direct observational evidence. Assumptions (historical science) are all there truly is. There is no PAST observational science to collaborate the historical science being done in the present. This is Melbourne in reverse.

Since it is probably supernatural activity has occurred in the past, it may not be always reasonable to use PRESENT observational natural science to form historical assumptions about the vast natural past.

Did every house I passed suddenly have a non-zero probability of ceasing to exist the moment it passed out of my view?

For the houses to instantly cease to exist by some form of natural process, extremely improbable - if not impossible. My position holds that supernatural activity happened in the past though (either being misinterpreted or unknown by those who acquire knowledge of the past by practicing methodological naturalism) , so your point lacks any real ability to derail my position being that it deals only with the probability of something naturally happening.

After all, two days ago is as much in the past as two million years ago.

Two millions years is further in the past, well BEYOND human history. You going to Melbourne is WITHIN known human history.

How do you know something supernatural didn't occur BEYOND prehistory?

I can access the events of two thousand years ago no more than I can access the events of two million years ago.

You do not have the same kind of access.

So your denial of evolution, whatever it is about, is not about the experimental inaccessibility of the past. I respect your right to dissent, but please let it be honest, reasoned dissent.

I guess you're right, I don't have any reason not to believe the philosophy of Darwinianism. What have I been doing with my life??

 

[Preecher]

How can you tell if they contradict the bible or just contradicting your interpretation of the bible?

What interpretation?

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Are you saying Copernicus was wrong and that the sun really does go round the earth?

Who's Copernicus? Don't know, don't care. I care about what Moses and Jesus said.

You don't see a contradiction, but you didn't answer my question.

When does Genesis 2 tell us God created beasts and birds?​

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
​

Remember I addressed this back in post 162? You didn't really address Moses' use of metaphor in the ten commandments, you just claimed the creation account was literal. Let's have a better look at what Moses is doing here. He is not teaching six day creationism in the passage, he is teaching Sabbath observance, the reference to God creating the world in six days was used as an illustration of the Sabbath command. But we have seen from the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:15, Moses uses a metaphorical description of God leading the Israelites out of Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, he is using the metaphor to teach the same Sabbath command. How do you know Moses isn't using a metaphorical description of of the creation to teach the Sabbath in Exodus?

Moses clearly says "six days".

Who told you the bible is literal unless it is obvious that it isn't? I just gave you a list of examples in scripture were it wasn't obvious to the people listening that what they were hearing was a metaphor. Creationists seem to have this rule, that is a passage isn't obviously figurative, then it must be taken literally. But it is a man made rule, not one I have ever seen Creationists show based on scripture.

"Six days" is still six days.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Was God literally refreshed after a day's rest? This is describing someone worn out and exhausted stopping to get their breath back. This is hardly a literal description of the Almighty. It is however a beautiful anthropomorphic description of God's identification with the weary labourers who did need a Sabbath rest to be refreshed, his identification with the weary and downtrodden, child working in the fields, migrant labourers. Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

You said there was no reason to believe the creation account is not literal. But when I show you examples from Genesis 2&3 that cannot be taken literally, you call them obviously non literal accounts.So which is it? Are these examples from the creation account obviously literal or obviously non literal? If throughout Genesis 3 the account describes Eve chatting to what is a literal snake in the account, a beast of the field, that is cursed as a snake, that is prophesied to have its head stepped on by the Messiah and bite Messiah's heel, and we only discover in the New Testament that the messiah does not step on a snake's head, that the snake in Eden actually refer to a fallen angel Satan, If all this is 'obviously non-literal' how can Genesis 3 still be 'obviously literal'? How is it 'mockery of the bible' rather than biblical exegesis?

You are going around in circles. Six days is still six days. Are you saying that you don't know that the serpent was Satan? The Bible is a Book of miracles. To try to make it otherwise is an effort that will fail.

 

[laconicstudent]

What interpretation?

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Who's Copernicus? Don't know, don't care. I care about what Moses and Jesus said.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Moses clearly says "six days".

"Six days" is still six days.

You are going around in circles. Six days is still six days. Are you saying that you don't know that the serpent was Satan? The Bible is a Book of miracles. To try to make it otherwise is an effort that will fail.

Your interpretation is in taking that literally.

 

[Preecher]

Your interpretation is in taking that literally.

No interpretation needed.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[shernren]

Being 2 days removed is way different than being 365,854,701,002 days removed.

So let's see. You had direct observation (operational science) of Melbourne's existence and then you entered into an assumption about the past (historical science) using your previous direct observational evidence to determine it was highly probable it was still there. Sounds reasonable.

As for Tony the T-Rex, he didn't have a scientist beside him collecting direct observational evidence. Assumptions (historical science) are all there truly is. There is no PAST observational science to collaborate the historical science being done in the present. This is Melbourne in reverse.

But how do I remember that Melbourne existed? After all, lying now in my warm bed in Canberra, I need to be able to trust the memories of the past. But every event that has formed my memories is a past event, something I can access only by historical science. How can I know for sure that some past event, between now and my "visit to Melbourne", has not altered my memories so that my memories of the visit to Melbourne was tampered with and Melbourne has, in fact, never existed?

You see, I may have memories of events two days ago while I don't have memories of events two million years ago. But that doesn't change the fact that the events that formed my memories are located firmly in the past. The results of my operational science can only be accessed by historical science - which to you is inherently unstable and open to multiple possible interpretations at anybody's whim and fancy, especially yours. So why should I trust my memories? And indeed, we don't: that's why we have papyri and stone tablets and books and electronic tablets.

Since it is probably supernatural activity has occurred in the past, it may not be always reasonable to use PRESENT observational natural science to form historical assumptions about the vast natural past.

For the houses to instantly cease to exist by some form of natural process, extremely improbable - if not impossible. My position holds that supernatural activity happened in the past though (either being misinterpreted or unknown by those who acquire knowledge of the past by practicing methodological naturalism) , so your point lacks any real ability to derail my position being that it deals only with the probability of something naturally happening.

So I should assume that supernatural activity may have happened in the distant past, but I cannot assume that supernatural activity (to destroy the houses of Melbourne) may have happened in the recent past. When did God go on vacation?

Two millions years is further in the past, well BEYOND human history. You going to Melbourne is WITHIN known human history.

How do you know something supernatural didn't occur BEYOND prehistory?
You do not have the same kind of access.

What makes our records of the past any more reliable than nature's records of the past? Did the creation (or evolution ) of man suddenly rip a hole in the space-time continuum and make human memory a reliable historical science where all other historical science remain unreliable?

Take the Bible, for example. After all, all you have today are copies of copies of a manuscript purportedly written by Luke the physician. (I believe they were actually written by him; but if you were right, as I will show, then I would have no grounds for such belief.)

But Luke the physician did not have a historian standing beside him to collect direct observational evidence. Assumptions (historical science, not that of the Virgin Mary) are all there truly is. There is no PAST observational science to collaborate the historical science being done in the present, namely the efforts to prove that Luke really wrote Luke and Acts. And even if you knew for sure that Luke wrote them, again - Scrooge the Scribe did not have a historian standing beside him to collect direct observational evidence as he recopied the manuscripts of Luke, nor did Xerox the Xenographer have a historian standing beside him to collect direct observational evidence as he recopied the manuscripts of Scrooge. Why, we don't even have names for these guys (which makes the job of the comic that much more enjoyable).

Indeed, you (and the vast majority of biblical textual scholars, even evangelical ones) are assuming that nothing supernatural happened during the transmission of the Scriptures. Note that I'm not saying anything about the inspiration of Scriptures - but even divinely inspired Scriptures need to be copied by mortal, fallible hands, and the existence of goofballs such as the Wicked Bibles shows that God has not seen fit to extend infallibility to copies of the Bible. So what right do you have to assume that, between then and now, the composition of the Bible has not been supernaturally tampered with? How do you know that the accounts of the Crucifixion were not inserted by the Devil to deceive people into believing that Jesus was not actually spirited away to have a surrogate crucified in His place? (Harun Yahya is a creationist too!)

If there is nothing sacrosanct about human memory as a record of the past (and there isn't), then there is nothing sacrosanct about human history as a period of time within which historical science is infallible or even reliable.

I guess you're right, I don't have any reason not to believe the philosophy of Darwinianism. What have I been doing with my life??

Oh, I care very little by now whether you embrace evolution or not. But I do echo your question. What have you been doing with your life? Being an unintelligibly skeptical nihilist may be a worthy human enterprise - but like any other, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

 

[Jazer]

It never surprises me what Darwinist fanatics will say to force their view upon others. So if this view makes it to law, we will now go to jail for "not" teaching our Kids that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

They learn what the Board of Education says they are to learn. My son is in a "excellent rated district". They tested well on what they are required by the state to learn. Evolution itself is a huge collection of theorys. Often theorys that conflict with each other. Even you can have two Harvard professors who disagree on evolutionary theory. There is plenty of room for discussion and debate between evolutionists as to what the evidence supports and what the evidence does not support. Also there is discovery and new evidence as the theory continues grow and increase. I am told there are hundreds of thousands of books that cover evolutionary theorys. Few people know or understand much about it. When I was growing up people were expected to function at the level of a 8th grader. Now they are doing good to function at the level of a 5th grader.

 

[Jazer]

After all, two days ago is as much in the past as two million years ago. I can access the events of two thousand years ago no more than I can access the events of two million years ago.

Two thousand years ago we have recorded history. In fact recorded history can go back over 6,000 years. If we want to go back two million years, there is no recorded history, so we have to look at and study something different. Geology for example tells us a lot of what was going on 2,000,000 years ago.