Noah and the rainbow

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

I think your irrationality has just about unraveled itself for everyone to see, Jig, but let me spell it out.

I have a good scientific explanation for the presence of 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, namely that they were laid down over the course of about 60,000 years.

You can show me no particular scientific objection to that explanation.
You have no alternative explanation for how those layers came about.
You are unwilling to commit yourself to even the most basic of positions about the layers (i.e. whether they were laid down before, during, or after the Flood).

And yet you consider yourself justified to be skeptical of my position!

Why is that so? You say:


Originally Posted by Jig

I feel I am entirely justified to be skeptical of certain explanations that contradict God's word.

I may not have been a direct witness to the past, but God was. His objective testimony is more valuable to me than man's subjective analysis.
​

Firstly, don't forget the elephant in the room: if you must insist that all the evidence I have must be interpreted, then allow me to insist that all the Scripture you have must be interpreted.

If you must insist that I interpret evidence by my own presuppositions, then allow me to insist that you interpret Scripture by your own presuppositions.

If you are allowed to be skeptical of my scientific position with no good reason and yet say you respect the evidence, then I am allowed to be skeptical of your theological position with no good reason and yet say I respect the Scriptures.

Except that I have a perfectly good reason to be skeptical of your theological position and it is this: that the tenor of your argument is entirely unlike the way Christians have argued over the centuries, and indeed in Scripture itself. It is weak and insipid and refuses to be informed by reality, and its blandness is a far cry from the vivid ability of the Apostles to say that they had seen Jesus with their own eyes.


Originally Posted by Jig

Is it rational to believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Using only human reasoning, no - this appears paradoxical and illogical. However, I believe this to be true based on God's word alone.
​

It's funny that you chose this, because I was just going to point to how the Scriptures argue for Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Yes, it is entirely illogical and irrational. It offends the presuppositions I hold dear, namely that miracles do not happen and that dead people do not come back to life - and these are presuppositions that serve me well, not least when our family buried my late grandma. But can you imagine Christianity and the apostles stopping at "well, you are using presuppositions to interpret the data"?

Can you imagine Peter thundering away on Pentecost Day, "Quite frankly folks, I haven't seen the tomb for myself, and I don't really know what you would see if you went there, but you must know that Jesus is alive, and if you don't believe me you'll just have to accept that sometimes your presuppositions can be wrong"?

Can you imagine Paul proclaiming to the crowds on Mars Hill in Athens, "You know, everybody has to interpret the evidence, and I've just happened to interpret the evidence in such a way as to conclude that Jesus has risen from the dead, and while there are better explanations out there, this is the one I've chosen"?

Can you imagine John penning on the island of Patmos that he was receiving the revelation of "the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I've never heard or seen since that day He died, but I believe He rose again because - well, because every once in a while you can be wrong about things like Galilean carpenters staying dead once they're killed"?

Those early Christians had evidence. Not simply interpretations. They had evidence that simply could not be interpreted any other way. Believe it or not, sometimes evidence demands one and exactly one interpretation. This happens when there is only one explanation for the evidence, unlikely as it may be, and when everybody who disagrees with your explanation has no better explanation and is forced to retreat to philosophical platitudes like "well, everybody interprets evidence" with no actual engagement with reality. (Sound familiar?)

Lest you trot out the old canard about the testimony of witnesses may I remind you that nobody actually saw Jesus coming back to life. People saw an empty tomb, but they never saw the moment it was emptied. (And to this day some will maintain that the grave was robbed, or Jesus had merely fainted, or the disciples had the wrong address - evidence being reinterpreted, but with obviously mediocre interpretations.) This was a historical event unwitnessed by any human eye, and yet humans were so convinced in the utter reality of such an impossible event that they were willing to lay down their lives for it.

And that's why I believe in the resurrection, because there is no better explanation for the ensuing evidence that has been seen since then. The skeptics and atheists may question my presuppositions all they want, but they simply cannot give me a better explanation.

And that's also why I accept that the 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu took 60,000 years to form, because there is no better explanation for the evidence. You may question my presuppositions all you want, but you simply cannot give me a better explanation either.
__________________

Wow, great post!

I wonder if there is a way to simply point any future "evidence must be interpreted" people back to this post.

Papias

 

[Jig]

I have a good scientific explanation for the presence of 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, namely that they were laid down over the course of about 60,000 years.

Given your presuppositions you have indeed provided a reasonable explanation of the physical evidence. Now while your explanation is reasonable (within your philosophical worldview), it is certainly not scientific in the operational sense. The historical hypothesis you believe in deals with unobservable past events and processes.

The scientific method does not work for past events. Past events cannot be directly observed, they cannot be predicted or deduced from the physical evidence, and they cannot be tested experimentally.

You can show me no particular scientific objection to that explanation.
You have no alternative explanation for how those layers came about.
You are unwilling to commit yourself to even the most basic of positions about the layers (i.e. whether they were laid down before, during, or after the Flood).

It has never been my goal to produce a particular scientific objection to your explanation nor was it ever necessary for me to show an alternative solution.

I have been unwilling to commit myself to a specific explanation because I readily admit I am ignorant to exactly how these layers were laid down. I was not there to witness this process and neither were you.

And yet you consider yourself justified to be skeptical of my position!

Only because the clear exegesis of the Biblical text, especially Genesis, comes into direct contradiction with your position.

Firstly, don't forget the elephant in the room: if you must insist that all the evidence I have must be interpreted, then allow me to insist that all the Scripture you have must be interpreted.

If you must insist that I interpret evidence by my own presuppositions, then allow me to insist that you interpret Scripture by your own presuppositions.

Absolutely. This is not something I am hiding. I have my own set of presuppositions.

I interpret the Scriptures using exegesis. I am lead to my conclusions based on following the text only. I do not subscribe to eisegesis.

Eisegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are allowed to be skeptical of my scientific position with no good reason and yet say you respect the evidence, then I am allowed to be skeptical of your theological position with no good reason and yet say I respect the Scriptures.

I have provided reasons. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are "no good". If you have an issue with my hermeneutics then please demonstrate why the method of eisegesis is a better way to interpret the text in contrast to my method of exegesis.

Those early Christians had evidence. Not simply interpretations. They had evidence that simply could not be interpreted any other way. Believe it or not, sometimes evidence demands one and exactly one interpretation. This happens when there is only one explanation for the evidence, unlikely as it may be, and when everybody who disagrees with your explanation has no better explanation and is forced to retreat to philosophical platitudes like "well, everybody interprets evidence" with no actual engagement with reality. (Sound familiar?)

Lest you trot out the old canard about the testimony of witnesses may I remind you that nobody actually saw Jesus coming back to life. People saw an empty tomb, but they never saw the moment it was emptied. (And to this day some will maintain that the grave was robbed, or Jesus had merely fainted, or the disciples had the wrong address - evidence being reinterpreted, but with obviously mediocre interpretations.) This was a historical event unwitnessed by any human eye, and yet humans were so convinced in the utter reality of such an impossible event that they were willing to lay down their lives for it.

Some evidence only has one interpretation? This is just plain wrong. As you just mentioned, plenty of people applied different interpretations to the empty tomb and the reappearances of Jesus - regardless if you believe these interpretations are mediocre, they still exist.

I believe the resurrection on faith alone. However, I feel that the historical evidence is best interpreted in support of my faith. While the Apostles may not have seen the actual resurrection, they directly observed Jesus alive again. We do not see them concerning themselves with the process of His resurrection, we see them giving accounts of what thy actually witnessed in the present.

And that's why I believe in the resurrection, because there is no better explanation for the ensuing evidence that has been seen since then. The skeptics and atheists may question my presuppositions all they want, but they simply cannot give me a better explanation.

There is no better explanation for this evidence given your current presuppositions.

If you held to metaphysical naturalism the better explanation for the historical evidence of the resurrection story of Jesus would not be that he actually came back to life after death.

And that's also why I accept that the 60,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu took 60,000 years to form, because there is no better explanation for the evidence. You may question my presuppositions all you want, but you simply cannot give me a better explanation either.

Of course I cannot give you a better explanation. Your presuppositions do not allow for a better one. However, if you held to different presuppositions, you would subsequently hold to different "better" explanations.

 

[Jig]

Shernren wrote:




Wow, great post!

I wonder if there is a way to simply point any future "evidence must be interpreted" people back to this post.

Papias

Encouraging and cheering on your teammates is fun isn't it? However, nobody has been able to show that evidence must not be interpreted - my main point. Seems like your team might have to forfeit.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

The scientific method does not work for past events. Past events cannot be directly observed, they cannot be predicted or deduced from the physical evidence, and they cannot be tested experimentally.

It sounds like you simply don't understand the scientific method. Reproducing the past event is not needed, all that is needed is being able to make a testable hypothesis which distinguishes between possible hypotheses.

For instance, if what you said was true, then science could not have been used to test OJ's guilt. Is your position really that all forensics and scientific tests of murder cases must be abandoned, as well as scientific inquiries to establish historical probabilities? It's not just geology, paleontology, biology, and anthropology that you are saying can't exist, but also history, forensic police work, forestry, entomology, volcanology, astronomy, and many more. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a scientific field that doesn't use science to understand past events. So of course science can, and is used to establish past events. It's used that way every day, in practically every scientific field.

This is yet another example where a misunderstanding is propagated by creationists, which Jig here has heard and been fooled by, reaches out into society making it harder and harder to establish basic scientific literacy. It's no wonder the Chinese are surpassing us, they at least aren't sabotaging their own efforts to get a more scientifically aware populace.

Papias

 

[shernren]

Quick question, Jig: did you observe your own birth? No. So you can't scientifically know that the people who claim to be your parents are actually your parents.

"But other people witnessed my birth!", you say. Fine: but did you observe them observing your own birth? No. So you can't scientifically know that they aren't lying their heads off to you either.

So do you actually know that your "parents" are actually your parents?

Now think about what a DNA paternity test might accomplish and you will realize that there are scientific ways to know, with some certainty, what happened in the past, face-saving philosophical platitudes aside.

Some evidence only has one interpretation?

Wrong. My exact words were:

Some evidence demands one and exactly one interpretation. This happens when there is only one explanation for the evidence, unlikely as it may be, and when everybody who disagrees with your explanation has no better explanation and is forced to retreat to philosophical platitudes like "well, everybody interprets evidence" with no actual engagement with reality.​

In other words, sometimes evidence has only one authoritative interpretation to the effect that everyone pushing a different interpretation (which they are certainly allowed to do) can do so only by ignoring evidence. Believe it or not, I actually know what I'm trying to say when I say it; and if you are careless with the words of man, how will you be careful with the words of God?

Evidence always has many interpretations. But sometimes evidence will have only one good explanation. You yourself have demonstrated that it is possible to interpret the evidence in such a way as to utterly fail to explain any feature it displays.

When evidence has only one good explanation, that may not discount the fact that other people have worse explanations. But firstly, it is still possible to distinguish between good and bad explanations, so that one sees that the bad explanation is really no explanation at all. A man beats his wife, and the wife thinks that he still loves her, while everybody around them knows that he hates her guts. There is a good explanation ("he hates you!") and a bad explanation ("no, he actually loves me") - but if she sees that everyone else's explanation is better than hers, she will see that her own explanation is no explanation at all.

Furthermore, here it really is the case that the evidence has only one good explanation. As you yourself are honest enough to state many times, you cannot explain the evidence. This can only mean that you are ignoring it.

Notice that you say of my belief in the resurrection:

There is no better explanation for this evidence given your current presuppositions.

but you say of my disbelief in the layers of Lake Suigetsu being laid down in a few thousand years:

Of course I cannot give you a better explanation. Your presuppositions do not allow for a better one. However, if you held to different presuppositions, you would subsequently hold to different "better" explanations.

Now isn't that something! My presuppositions are already strongly Christian enough for me to believe that a man can be God, rise from the dead, and ascend into Heaven, something nobody in my lifetime or yours has ever reliably witnessed. I will spit in the face of scientific materialism to hold to that outlandish belief ... and yet I won't accept what you say about a few meters of lake mud.

Shouldn't you find that curious? Just what do you propose I add to my presuppositions, so that I may believe in addition to the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ that dust can settle on the bottom of a lake in a few thousand years instead of a few tens of thousands of years?

Perhaps an explanation would do it. Perhaps you could show me just what process might accomplish this feat. You could even barefacedly invoke a capricious miracle - if you can countenance a God who would supernaturally interfere in the layering of the sediments of Lake Suigetsu but not the integrity of the nuclear power plants of Fukushima.

But anything, really, would be better than your pointless, peculiar insistence both that my presuppositions are wrong and that you have absolutely no idea what is wrong with them.

 

[Jig]

It sounds like you simply don't understand the scientific method. Reproducing the past event is not needed, all that is needed is being able to make a testable hypothesis which distinguishes between possible hypotheses.

I got my information directly from a secular forensic pathologist named Dr. Thomas Young in an article name "Forensic Science and the Scientific Method".

Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

It's not just geology, paleontology, biology, and anthropology that you are saying can't exist, but also history, forensic police work, forestry, entomology, volcanology, astronomy, and many more. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a scientific field that doesn't use science to understand past events. So of course science can, and is used to establish past events. It's used that way every day, in practically every scientific field.

This is because you are having a difficult time separating historical science from operational science.

Operational Science is a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Historical science deals with interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

 

[JVPITER]

Some evidence only has one interpretation? This is just plain wrong.

I think the correct statement is that some evidence has only one sane interpretation. Like the layers in Lake Suigetsu.

Historical science deals with interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

Correct.

However, the "presupposed philosophical point of view" you happen to be referring to is that the physical evidence is real, and not supernaturally faked.

There are only two possible interpretations of the Lake Suigetsu layers:
1. The layers are annual.
2. The layers have been supernaturally faked to look annual, even though they're not.

Most on this thread appear to accept (1), which is the sane interpretation. You appear to accept (2), which for various reasons is not sane (e.g. Romans 1:20).

If you disagree, then please clearly state your alternative interpretation that accounts for all the physical evidence. Ducking this question will amount to an acknowledgement that you do indeed accept (2). We can than proceed to discuss why it's insane.

Thanks and regards

 

[Jig]

There are only two possible interpretations of the Lake Suigetsu layers:
1. The layers are annual.
2. The layers have been supernaturally faked to look annual, even though they're not.

We have already been through this.

These layers cannot "look" annual - regardless if they are annual or not. They just look like layers. The term 'annual' is purely a descriptive adjective that is applied subjectively after interpretation occurs.

There is actually three possible interpretations:

1. All the layers were laid down in an annual process.
2. Some layers were laid down in an annual process.
3. No layers were laid down in an annual process.

If you disagree, then please clearly state your alternative interpretation that accounts for all the physical evidence. Ducking this question will amount to an acknowledgement that you do indeed accept (2). We can than proceed to discuss why it's insane.

Thanks and regards

This is ridiculous. I have already stated that it is not my goal to provide an alternative explanation for the physical evidence. My point has been that we both interpret the physical evidence based on our own presuppositions. Since you have already admitted that you hold certain presuppositions my point has been validated.

What someone determines to be a reasonable (or sane) explanation of the physical evidence is going to depend on their philosophical world view. Nice try, but your attempt at calling my position insane will not work. You've basically reverted to name calling.

 

[JVPITER]

There are only two possible interpretations of the Lake Suigetsu layers:
1. The layers are annual.
2. The layers have been supernaturally faked to look annual, even though they're not.

We have already been through this.

These layers cannot "look" annual - regardless if they are annual or not. They just look like layers. The term 'annual' is purely a descriptive adjective that is applied subjectively after interpretation occurs.

Sure, you're right -- except the interpretation is not subjective. Nobody is suggesting the layers just "look" annual at a glance. The interpretation that they are annual is based on an enormous amount of objective, independently verified, mutually confirming physical evidence.

There is actually three possible interpretations:

1. All the layers were laid down in an annual process.
2. Some layers were laid down in an annual process.
3. No layers were laid down in an annual process.

This is ridiculous. I have already stated that it is not my goal to provide an alternative explanation for the physical evidence. My point has been that we both interpret the physical evidence based on our own presuppositions. Since you have already admitted that you hold certain presuppositions my point has been validated.

Yes, the interpretation of annual layers is based on the presupposition that the evidence is real, and is not supernaturally faked.

Your original point regarding geologic evidence against a global flood was "you cannot rightly claim the evidence is in support of your position - only that your own interpretation is."

What we're waiting to hear, and what you keep dodging, is what is your alternative interpretation? Nobody can think of one that even remotely makes sense of the evidence.

What someone determines to be a reasonable (or sane) explanation of the physical evidence is going to depend on their philosophical world view. Nice try, but your attempt at calling my position insane will not work. You've basically reverted to name calling.

The position that I called insane is the position that the evidence is supernaturally faked. That you would take offence implies that this is, in fact, your position. This is what I'm asking -- Is it your position that the evidence is supernaturally faked? Or something else we haven't thought of?

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Cheers

 

[cubinity]

I usually enjoy circular debates with parties that stick to their convictions, but this is not for me. I'm out. Have fun, guys.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

It sounds like you simply don't understand the scientific method. Reproducing the past event is not needed, all that is needed is being able to make a testable hypothesis which distinguishes between possible hypotheses.

I got my information directly from a secular forensic pathologist named Dr. Thomas Young in an article name "Forensic Science and the Scientific Method".

Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

​

*Sigh*.

Jig, first of all, please don't just get information from one source -it's too easy to misunderstand.

I think this is part of the whole creationism problem - that creationists often treat quotes from scientists as if they were scripture, instead of learning broadly about the scientific consensus from many converging lines of evidence.

More importantly, the link you provided shows that the scientific method can and indeed is used for historical events. The link spells out how a modified form of the scientific method is used, and makes it clear that sciece, and the scientific method are indeed applicable to past events.

For instance, do you, Jig agree with this statement from your own link?

The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events.

​

I understand that this was a simple misunderstanding on your part. However, in the case of some creationists, their repetition of this mistake after being corrected suggests deliberate misleading.

Papias wrote:

It's not just geology, paleontology, biology, and anthropology that you are saying can't exist, but also history, forensic police work, forestry, entomology, volcanology, astronomy, and many more. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a scientific field that doesn't use science to understand past events. So of course science can, and is used to establish past events. It's used that way every day, in practically every scientific field.

This is because you are having a difficult time separating historical science from operational science.

No, it's not. In both cases, the scientific method is used to determine which hypotheses are most likely to be closest to the truth.


In fact, I can't think of a time that I've heard anyone talk about drawing a sharp line between "historical" and "operational" science who wasn't a creationist trying to make it look like science can't be applied to past events. In practice, there is little if any distinction between the terms Jig is presenting.

In actuality, science is very often, if not usually, applied to past events. I can't think of a single scientific field where science, including the scientific method, isn't applied to past events. If you can think of one, Jig, please name it.
​

Papias

 

[Jig]

Sure, you're right -- except the interpretation is not subjective. Nobody is suggesting the layers just "look" annual at a glance. The interpretation that they are annual is based on an enormous amount of objective, independently verified, mutually confirming physical evidence.

All interpretations are subjective. Your interpretation is based on presuppositions. All other interpretations that agree or confirm your interpretation are formulated using the same presuppositions. This has nothing to do with the actual physical evidence.

Yes, the interpretation of annual layers is based on the presupposition that the evidence is real, and is not supernaturally faked.

I am not claiming the layers were laid down supernaturally. However, if something supernatural occurred to cause some of these layers then the evidence must be explained differently than how you are currently interpreting it. In such a case, it is not that the physical evidence is supernaturally faked, but you have applied incorrect presuppositions.

Your original point regarding geologic evidence against a global flood was "you cannot rightly claim the evidence is in support of your position - only that your own interpretation is."

This claim is not defending any position in particular - it is neutral. It simple is true.

What we're waiting to hear, and what you keep dodging, is what is your alternative interpretation? Nobody can think of one that even remotely makes sense of the evidence.

I am not dodging it. I simply do not have a specific alternative explanation readily available. My argument has not been based on providing such information either.

The position that I called insane is the position that the evidence is supernaturally faked. That you would take offence implies that this is, in fact, your position. This is what I'm asking -- Is it your position that the evidence is supernaturally faked? Or something else we haven't thought of?

I have not taken offense to such outlandish claims. I have been attempting to correct your understanding on your own position. I have never claimed the physical evidence was supernaturally faked. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Jig]

Jig, first of all, please don't just get information from one source -it's too easy to misunderstand.

It is not that I am getting ALL my information from one source. I merely used that one particular source to quote from.

I think this is part of the whole creationism problem - that creationists often treat quotes from scientists as if they were scripture, instead of learning broadly about the scientific consensus from many converging lines of evidence.

More importantly, the link you provided shows that the scientific method can and indeed is used for historical events. The link spells out how a modified form of the scientific method is used, and makes it clear that sciece, and the scientific method are indeed applicable to past events.

For instance, do you, Jig agree with this statement from your own link?

It seems to me that you only read the abstract. But to answer your question: Yes I do. This is because eyewitness reports (anamnestic evidence) are intimately involved. Something that is only available for recent past events.

Do you agree with this quote from that same link?

"How does the past prevent the use of the scientific method?

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past...

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events."

In actuality, science is very often, if not usually, applied to past events. I can't think of a single scientific field where science, including the scientific method, isn't applied to past events. If you can think of one, Jig, please name it.

This is because each field dabbles in both aspects, the operational and the historical. A brain surgeon in the field of medicine does not need to subscribe to Darwinist beliefs to operate successfully on his patients.

 

[JVPITER]

I am not claiming the layers were laid down supernaturally. ... This claim is not defending any position in particular - it is neutral. ... I am not dodging it. I simply do not have a specific alternative explanation readily available. My argument has not been based on providing such information either.

Hi Jig

So you continue to refuse to give your explanation or interpretation of this evidence. What this reluctance exposes, for all to see, is your retreat to complete subjectivism about this evidence.

Subjectivism means one can believe whatever they want to believe, because evidence and reasoning don't matter. This is not a Christian position, which holds that absolute truth exists, and we can discover it and we will be held to account for our treatment of it (1 Thess 5:21, Romans 1:20, John 16:13).

You have absolutely no explanation for this evidence, yet you refuse to modify your opinion -- this is the very definition of subjectivism. You are not "interpreting the evidence differently", you are completely ignoring the evidence, because it allows of only one sane interpretation that you don't happen to like.

I have not taken offense to such outlandish claims. I have been attempting to correct your understanding on your own position. I have never claimed the physical evidence was supernaturally faked. That doesn't even make sense.

I have never denied that my own position, and that of the majority of Christians (I daresay), is based on the presupposition that the evidence is not faked. So you efforts to "correct [my] understanding" are moot. You have never explained why there is supposed to be something wrong about this presupposition -- its perfectly valid, reasonable and Biblical.

If you don't think the Lake Suigetsu layers were supernaturally faked, and you don't agree that they are annual, then what is your alternative explanation?

Continuing to dodge this question will show you have completely retreated to the land of subjectivism, and slammed the door behind you.

Cheers!

 

[Jig]

Hi Jig

So you continue to refuse to give your explanation or interpretation of this evidence. What this reluctance exposes, for all to see, is your retreat to complete subjectivism about this evidence.

How can I refuse to give you something I do not have? I do not hold to subjectivism because I believe there is a true reality that exists independent of my perception - namely God and His creation. This is why I use God's word as my foundation for absolute truth.

When human reasoning contradicts the Scriptures, it is proper to reject human reasoning. Many scientists and philosophers today would rather reject Scripture though.

You have absolutely no explanation for this evidence, yet you refuse to modify your opinion -- this is the very definition of subjectivism. You are not "interpreting the evidence differently", you are completely ignoring the evidence, because it allows of only one sane interpretation that you don't happen to like.

It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking your interpretation. I disagree with your presuppositions because they lead to conclusions that directly contradict Scripture.

I have never denied that my own position, and that of the majority of Christians (I daresay), is based on the presupposition that the evidence is not faked. So you efforts to "correct [my] understanding" are moot. You have never explained why there is supposed to be something wrong about this presupposition -- its perfectly valid, reasonable and Biblical.

When have I claimed the evidence is faked? Never. I explained in my last post this is nonsensical because to view the evidence as such means you have already given it an interpretation.

Do you even know your own presuppositions?

Want to know one of mine? I assume the scientific method is valid. However, the scientific method cannot be used to prove its own validity and accuracy. That would be circular. If there is an explanation of all things, scientists cannot find it from within the framework of the scientific method.

If you don't think the Lake Suigetsu layers were supernaturally faked, and you don't agree that they are annual, then what is your alternative explanation?

The interpretation that each layer is annual contradicts with the clear exegesis of the book of Genesis. Therefore, if I had to attempt to explain the evidence of multiple layers, I would presuppose that not all the layers are annual.

 

[shernren]

Therefore, if I had to attempt to explain the evidence of multiple layers, I would presuppose that not all the layers are annual.

So, to you, not all the layers are annual because you assume not all the layers are annual. That's mighty fine reasoning if I ever saw any.

Meanwhile, I can begin my study of the Lake Suigetsu layers by not assuming anything about them,
then finding that historically recorded events have left traces in the top thousand layers at exactly the position that they would need to if the layers were annual,
then concluding that the top thousand layers are annual,
then finding that the next 59,000 layers look essentially identical to the top thousand layers,
then concluding that the next 59,000 layers are also annual.

Exactly where in the preceding chain of logic have I presupposed something wrong?

 

[JVPITER]

How can I refuse to give you something I do not have? I do not hold to subjectivism because I believe there is a true reality that exists independent of my perception - namely God and His creation. This is why I use God's word as my foundation for absolute truth.

When human reasoning contradicts the Scriptures, it is proper to reject human reasoning. Many scientists and philosophers today would rather reject Scripture though.

Hi Jig

Thanks for responding and explaining your intepretation of the Lake Suigetsu layers.

1. It is not proper to reject human reasoning for any reason. Paul counselled the Thessalonians to examine all things carefully -- that is, using our reason. Human reasoning is just as involved in the interpretation of scripture as it is in the interpretation of the physical world. The real question is whose interpretation of the physical and scriptural evidence is more reasonable.

It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking your interpretation. I disagree with your presuppositions because they lead to conclusions that directly contradict Scripture.

2. It's not "Scripture", it's your interpretation of scripture based on your human reasoning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

When have I claimed the evidence is faked? Never. I explained in my last post this is nonsensical because to view the evidence as such means you have already given it an interpretation.

3. Hang on -- my presupposition is that the evidence is not faked. You just got through saying you disagree with my presuppositions. Now you turn around 180 degrees and say you agree the evidence is not faked. That's not logical.

Do you even know your own presuppositions?

4. Yep. Same as you some of the time -- the evidence isn't faked.

Want to know one of mine? I assume the scientific method is valid. However, the scientific method cannot be used to prove its own validity and accuracy. That would be circular. If there is an explanation of all things, scientists cannot find it from within the framework of the scientific method.

The interpretation that each layer is annual contradicts with the clear exegesis of the book of Genesis. Therefore, if I had to attempt to explain the evidence of multiple layers, I would presuppose that not all the layers are annual.

5. Oh dear. You just presupposed your conclusion: You said the layers are not all annual because you assume the layers are not all annual. As shernren pointed out, that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question". No such statement that assumes its conclusion can be logically valid -- that would be unreasonable. As Paul noted, how can you possibly have good exegesis if you abandon reason?

6. And look at your first paragraph quoted above -- you denied subjectivism quite clearly. Yet you continue to embrace textbook subjectivism by acknowledging you have no explanation for the evidence, yet still refusing to change your opinion in the clear light of that evidence.

To avoid logical inconsistency you should either acknowledge your subjectivism, or shift your opinions about Noah's flood in line with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers

 

[Jig]

Meanwhile, I can begin my study of the Lake Suigetsu layers by not assuming anything about them,
then finding that historically recorded events have left traces in the top thousand layers at exactly the position that they would need to if the layers were annual,
then concluding that the top thousand layers are annual,
then finding that the next 59,000 layers look essentially identical to the top thousand layers,
then concluding that the next 59,000 layers are also annual.

Exactly where in the preceding chain of logic have I presupposed something wrong?

You are not starting from a purely neutral, non-assumptious position. This is to suggest that you do not hold to a foundational philosophical worldview or subscribe to any presuppositions about nature and our environment. This is impossible.

We both look at the layers at Lake Suigetsu and see the exact same thing - multiple layers. While I readily admit my assumptions, you have a hard time admitting yours.

My argument has not been that you are presupposing anything wrong (although I do disagree with your conclusions), my argument has been that you have presuppositions that direct your interpretations of the physical evidence.

 

[Jig]

Hi Jig

Thanks for responding and explaining your intepretation of the Lake Suigetsu layers.

1. It is not proper to reject human reasoning for any reason. Paul counselled the Thessalonians to examine all things carefully -- that is, using our reason. Human reasoning is just as involved in the interpretation of scripture as it is in the interpretation of the physical world. The real question is whose interpretation of the physical and scriptural evidence is more reasonable.

I do not reject human reasoning altogether. I only reject human reasoning that contradicts with God's word. Example: materialism contradicts Scripture therefore I reject it.

How do you determine whose presuppositions are more reasonable?

2. It's not "Scripture", it's your interpretation of scripture based on your human reasoning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You are correct. Do you not interpret Scripture based on your human reasoning?

I reason that we should take the text in its literal sense.

3. Hang on -- my presupposition is that the evidence is not faked. You just got through saying you disagree with my presuppositions. Now you turn around 180 degrees and say you agree the evidence is not faked. That's not logical.

Maybe I should clarify. Sorry if I was not clear earlier. I do not agree with some of your presuppositions. Obviously we will have some shared presuppositions.

5. Oh dear. You just presupposed your conclusion: You said the layers are not all annual because you assume the layers are not all annual. As shernren pointed out, that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question". No such statement that assumes its conclusion can be logically valid -- that would be unreasonable. As Paul noted, how can you possibly have good exegesis if you abandon reason?

I did not presuppose my conclusion. My presuppositions merely limited what is possible to conclude. The same is seen with your presuppositions - they set restrictions on what is possible within your worldview.

6. And look at your first paragraph quoted above -- you denied subjectivism quite clearly. Yet you continue to embrace textbook subjectivism by acknowledging you have no explanation for the evidence, yet still refusing to change your opinion in the clear light of that evidence.

That is not textbook subjectivism. Textbook subjectivism states that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of our perceptions.

I would have to reject absolute truth to subscribe to such a belief. I don't. Try another method of undermining my position because this one is not working.

To avoid logical inconsistency you should either acknowledge your subjectivism, or shift your opinions about Noah's flood in line with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers

Your assuming my position suffers logical inconsistency. I disagree.

 

[shernren]

My argument has not been that you are presupposing anything wrong (although I do disagree with your conclusions), my argument has been that you have presuppositions that direct your interpretations of the physical evidence.

But if we have the same evidence (you keep saying so)
and you do not disagree with any of my presuppositions

then why should you disagree with my conclusion?

Therefore, you must either disagree with at least one of my presuppositions - in which case you should be able to tell me which it is - or you should agree with my conclusion - in which case you're not a YEC any more.