What's enough evidence?

[Calminian]

Why do you even bother reading about science? Why do you bother looking at the world around you? You ignore what is inconvenient, so save yourself the trouble of looking.

My logical response to you is why do you ignore the vast testimonial evidence found in the books of the Bible? They may give you some presuppositions about the world around you that may help you understand it even better.

For example, tree rings. The oldest person is about 120, so does this support the claim that the earth is only 120 years old? Your whole argument is patently absurd, and I suspect that even you know it.

This accusation is patently absurd. You won't find anywhere in my statements a claim that tree-rings prove a 5,000 year old earth. My goodness I believe the earth is old than 5,000 years! You seem to be much more emotional about this issue than I am. It's affecting your concentration ruining the dialog between us.

So give in, stop pretending that you have or need justification for your belief, and stop pretending that anything in the world could possibly shake your faith (even though, by rejecting the evidence of the earth, you are rejecting god's creation).

And I suppose any amount of corroborative historical testimony found in the Bible is not going to shake your faith in modern naturalistic theories about the past. Perhaps you are under the impression you have no faith, just a simple belief in facts? What you don't understand is, naturalism cannot be proven scientifically. Naturalism is the foundation of science, not the other way around. Your naturalistic beliefs about the past are no more supported scientifically than my supernatural beliefs about the past.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

naturalism cannot be proven scientifically. Naturalism is the foundation of science, not the other way around. Your naturalistic beliefs about the past are no more supported scientifically than my supernatural beliefs about the past.

when you use the term "naturalism" are you making the distinction between philosophic(PN) and methodological(MN)? if so, which type of naturalism are you referring to here?

for if you are referring to philosophic naturalism then the statement:
naturalism cannot be proven scientifically. is a tautology for of course you can't prove philosophy with science, different domains, science never claims to make philosophic statements.

if you are referring to methodological naturalism then you are wrong for science doesn't prove the correctness of it but rather it's usefulness and utility which in turn are evidence for it's truthfulness.

Naturalism is the foundation of science, not the other way around. with this statement you have the same problem. PN is not the foundation of science MN is, PN is built on top of science and is an extension of it, but not part of it. PN makes all kinds of philosophic claims that science does not, the primary one being sufficiency claims.

Your naturalistic beliefs about the past are no more supported scientifically than my supernatural beliefs about the past. the same confusion exists in this statement. i too believe that the great divide in humanity is between supernaturalists and naturalists but i am also aware that a MN science works, that a MN accessible past supports an evolutionary idea of living creatures and falsifies a YECist one, all the time i am aware that there are many supernaturalists who believe likewise.
YECist have yet to show any reason for not supporting a MN science and strive to build philosophically supernaturalistic one a la A.Kuyper. Knowing the limitations of our current MN science would be nice, however wherever those limits ultimately will be discovered to be, they will not support a 6KYA universe. YECism fights the issue too deep into the mechanisms of science and it doing so misses the greater battle of worldviews.
At this point, AFAIK, this YECist claim for a supernaturally accessible past is fully falsified by their lousy science, and is no more then bluster of words, their creationist science being worthless. which is a great disappointment to me, i would like to see Kuyper's two sciences work.


...

 

[Nightson]

I understand that and appreciate that. But you have to understand faith to me probably has a different meaning than you think. I don't want to just believe in something, I want to believe in what is true.

I wasn't raised a bible believer. My parents certainly weren't. In fact I wasn't very fond of bible believers. Over a period of time I became convinced the Bible was a reliable source of truth. I've looked into manuscript evidence (to make sure what I'm reading is the same as the original), read and listened up on corroborating archeological discoveries, studied predictive prophesies especially those concerning the coming Messiah. I've also checked out the ostensible discrepancies and contradictions between the various books of the Bible.

And when I did start to believe and follow biblical teachings I noticed and very significant change in my life. This is very hard evidence to ignore. 4900 tree rings just ain't gonna undo it. In fact 4900 tree rings makes it even easier.

The only thing I actively oppose is those who claim that the scientific evidence is behind creation, and those who claim creationism or ID should be taught in schools.The first on the principle that I am rather convinced they are wrong (excluding new evidence of course) and the second on the grounds of I believe it would be an intrusion on the seperation of church and state. Then there are the two beliefs which are perfectly fine, except I rather dislike them. The first that the universe is young and the flood and all that happened, which I rather dislike just on the personal level because it seems to make just a trickster god, who fools humans just for fun. Secondly, the belief that everything happened like a literal interpetation, irregardless f evidence. This is a perfectly acceptable posistion to hold, but it seems to me to be to much just a simple denial of the facts. So of course, hehe, my favorite belief among christians is Theistic Evolution, which I think blends the best of both worlds.

I've spent hundreds of pages dialoguing with TEs. My interpretation of scripture is much closer to Bible skeptics' who realize what the biblical authors were saying but don't believe them. Actually I used to believe in old earth interpretations of the Bible. I used to believe something called the gap theory and then the day-age theory. But once I started closely examining the text I realized those models just weren't compatible.

This thought kinda just wandered into my head, but assuming that that is indeed what the biblical authors were thinking, what does it really matter? After all the scriptures are inspired by God, so it's not nessecarily what the author believes when he's writing it down, but what God means. Especially in the case of genesis which would have to be information directly given by God. So God's purpose in giving Genesis may indeed have been to describe man's relationship wioth God and not literal history.

I've also looked into claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth and a geocentric solar system. The text doesn't support these views. In fact it's totally equivocal on the subjects. In some ways I wish the same were true of the creation week and flood.

But they were interpeted as such. Even though the Bible does talk about the global flood and such, it never does say that it's history, or that it's literal. Basically I think that with the amount of evidence for evolution, the YEC interpetation must be flawed in some way. Because the evidence in the natural world. all poionts towards an old, universe, an old earth and evolution.

I'm just like you Nightson. I want to believe in what is true

May we both find it.

 

[Calminian]

when you use the term "naturalism" are you making the distinction between philosophic(PN) and methodological(MN)? if so, which type of naturalism are you refering to here?

Most scientists (regardless of world-view) seem to have slipped into PN (I’m generalizing of course). This is why I question the contemporary phenomenon of this society going to scientists for answers about origins and the Bible, miracles, etc.. As I’ve said in prior posts, scientists have done so many wonderful things, people tend to look to them for answers for everything, even highly philosophical/theological questions.

All creationists believe miracles are rare events in history (even charismatic and pentecostal ones). Therefore we have no problem with the sciences (which are based in MN) in fact science has always thrived in christian societies. But when you start applying the scientific method to learn about origins you must not only assume natural processes are the norm but were the means by which the world came to be. This is where I believe scientists (even christian ones) slip into PN unaware. It's one thing to heal someone using medical science and another to conclude Christ didn't rise from the dead because we know resuscitations can't happen naturally after 3 days. As you know there are many self-proclaimed christians that deny the physical resurrection of Christ. They instead believe it was figurative story containing spiritual truths. Why? They believe modern scientific theories shed light on scripture.

for if you are refering to philosophic naturalism then the statement:
naturalism cannot be proven scientifically. is a tautology for of course you can't prove philosophy with science, different domains, science never claims to make philosophic statements.

Yes. I’m referring to the belief that there have been no additions to natural process in the past, especially in regard to the creation of the world. It’s a philosophical belief.

if you are referring to methodological naturalism then you are wrong for science doesn't prove the correctness of it but rather it's usefulness and utility which in turn are evidence for it's truthfulness.

Quite correct and a good point. As I said, christians have always believed natural processes are the norm. This is again why science thrives in christian societies.

Naturalism is the foundation of science, not the other way around. with this statement you have the same problem. PN is not the foundation of science MN is, PN is built on top of science and is an extension of it,

While this is true, many scientists that I’ve talked to don’t understand this. They seem to believe that if they observe consistent natural processes now, there is no reason to believe it hasn’t always been this way and then ignore other types of evidence, especially testimonial evidence.

Now when you say PN is an extension of it, I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying science proves PN?

Your naturalistic beliefs about the past are no more supported scientifically than my supernatural beliefs about the past. the same confusion exists in this statement. i too believe that the great divide in humanity is between supernaturalists and naturalists but i am also aware that a MN science works,

All creationists believe MN science works.

that a MN accessible past supports an evolutionary idea of living creatures and falsifies a YECist one,

That’s your error IMO. In order to use MN to investigate origins you must slip into PN—the belief that the world was not formed supernaturally.

all the time i am aware that there are many supernaturalists who believe likewise.

Yes there are. As I said, PN is common among most scientists, even christian ones.

YECist have yet to show any reason for not supporting a MN science

No YECs deny MN science.

and strive to build philosophically supernaturalistic one a la A.Kuyper. Knowing the limitations of our current MN science would be nice, however wherever those limits ultimately will be discovered to be, they will not support a 6KYA universe. YECism fights the issue too deep into the mechanisms of science and it doing so misses the greater battle of worldviews.

Well this is the thing. We have a book we both believe is a reliable source of truth. When it says God supernaturally caused a six day creation, a world-wide curse, and a world-wide flood, YECs take Him at his word. You are right, it is nice to know the limits of MN science. The only thing keeping you from knowing it is philosophical naturalism.

At this point, AFAIK, this YECist claim for a supernaturally accessible past is fully falsified by their lousy science,

YECists don’t use science to prove a supernatural past. They know better. They simply show that science does not disprove a supernatural creation.

 

[TrueCreation]

Withdrawn post.

 

[TrueCreation]

what justification do you have for entertaining young earth ideas?

It is more complex than this as my assertion here is a bit simplified (for instance, undeveloped hypotheses cannot be well tested). Nevertheless, as long as the statements and existential claims given by such hypotheses remain falsifiable and a motivation for inquiry exists, I will continue to entertain and develop those ideas. Because of this I can continue doing so without breaching scientific error (in methodology of inquiry).

There are young earth idea that don't breach scientific error?? What pray tell would those be?

There is no perfect scientific theory (if there were, we might as well begin to reconsider tentativity as a vice of scientific methods). I was speaking in reference to the methods of scientific inquiry, not the veracity or deterministic accuracy of theories.

-Chris Grose

 

[michabo]

My logical response to you is why do you ignore the vast testimonial evidence found in the books of the Bible?

I don't ignore it, I just don't find ancient testimony compelling. They were a superstitious lot, and were writing with very clear and open biases. In many cases, the stories they tell are clearly not historical. As a philosophy, I find much of it shocking, though some of it is appealing. Even finding gems of truth doesn't make it a science book, however.

And I suppose any amount of corroborative historical testimony found in the Bible is not going to shake your faith in modern naturalistic theories about the past.

Some things are simply false, though I hardly expect you to admit that.

I would accept some things if there was sufficient reason. You have shifted the goal posts to naturalism and miracles. I would accept them based on testimony, with some caveats. The evidence would have to be very strong, and the bible is not up to the challenge. The authorship is mysterious, the dates it was penned must be inferred, the stories don't corroborate each other. There are no writings of critics which corroborate the stories. Worse, contemporary writers make no mention of these events though we would expect them to - these silences are a very big deal which I've seen no Christian address.

 

[TrueCreation]

I don't ignore it, I just don't find ancient testimony compelling. They were a superstitious lot, and were writing with very clear and open biases. In many cases, the stories they tell are clearly not historical. As a philosophy, I find much of it shocking, though some of it is appealing. Even finding gems of truth doesn't make it a science book, however.

No book claiming to have ultimate truth is a science book--regardless of whether that ultimate truth is.. ultimately true.

-Chris Grose

 

[michabo]

No book claiming to have ultimate truth is a science book--regardless of whether that ultimate truth is.. ultimately true.

Very true.

 

[stone]

Do you have any monkeys giveing birth to humans?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Do you have any monkeys giveing birth to humans?

I would laugh at this if it didn’t make me want to cry so much.

 

[stone]

is that a yes or a no?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

is that a yes or a no?

It’s a: I can’t believe there are still creationists that are lied to and think that the ToE posits that ANY species can give birth to ANY OTHER species.

 

[stone]

just answer the question, or can you?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

just answer the question, or can you?

The answer is that no monkey ever has or ever will give birth to a human. You have been deceived into believing that the ToE sates that this should or can happen. In fact, if this happens it would go against the ToE. Populations evolve, not individuals.

 

[stone]

Is there a population of a species that you have seen evolve into... whatever?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is there a population of a species that you have seen evolve into... whatever?

not me personally but science has.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/091396.htm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r.../abstracts2005pt1.pdf&ei=U44MQ66GF8m8YOTb3NwI


there are literally dozens of lists of observed speciation events.
especially common is plant polyploidy ones

 

[AirPo]

Do you have any monkeys giveing birth to humans?

Of course not. Why would you think that monkeys ever give birth to humans?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

not me personally but science has.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/091396.htm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A//www.asih.org/meetings/2005/abstracts2005pt1.pdf&ei=U44MQ66GF8m8YOTb3NwI


there are literally dozens of lists of observed speciation events.
especially common is plant polyploidy ones

Beat me to it. If you are a reasonable person stone, you will have to question the assertion of whoever told you that monkeys should give birth to humans if evolution is to be true. Do you understand this?

 

[stone]

thats not proof, so i guess you cant show something outside of a laboratory