Laurence Tisdall On Evolution
November 10, 2007Here is a debate I came across that was held on the Michael Coren show. This is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve ever seen on Creationism/ID (Intelligent Design)/Evolution. If I wasn’t a Christian I may have considered leaning towards Creationism or ID after watching this. It’s interesting that while the Christian (Laurence Tisdall) wants to talk about science and evidence, the Evolutionist (Jason Wiles) wants to change the topic. The only thing I hear the Evolutionist claiming is “Evolution is true because it is, it’s the majority position among scientists, or, I know of websites which counter Creationist arguments therefore I don’t need to try and explain anything.” The Evolutionist seems to have kept avoiding the Creationists challenges to him, esspecially how information within DNA can create itself.
Most people charge Christians or ID advocates for coping out by accepting that a Creator is a sufficient explanation for human existence. But as Tisdall says “I believe in a Creator because of what I do know (ie. life can only come from life), not because of what I don’t know (ie. using a Creator as an arbitrary answer to an unsolved problem). It is scientific to say there must be a Creator (just as it is scientific to say a computer program had a programer), but it is a metaphysical claim to say who that Creator is specifically. I also like the other point that Tisdall brings up about Galileo. The majority of scientists in Galileo’s day thought the earth was flat, but that didn’t make it true. The same with Evolution. Just because a supposed majority of scientists believe Evolution is true doesn’t mean the truth bell rings and it becomes so. Please watch this video for yourself and comment below with your own opinions.
You can also visit Tisdall’s website here for more Creationist/ID resources.
Restore The Gospel 
I watched the debate, but it was rather disorganized. Clearly Tisdall is much brighter than Wiles. No question that Wiles was the one ‘coping out’ in this review. It starts out with Wiles saying he really does not want to be there. No kidding. He has no background, skills, or facts to support his position.
shandai!
I know it!
I saw the show before this article but i agree completely. It was sad how the EVOLUTIONIST didnt have any information and kept telling people to go on a site. obviously he didnt have anything to say,if he had, he wouldnt refer to people who had timeto sit down and carefull word their answers.
God Bless.
Mita, that’s awesome! You put it great. And yes… he was quite the EVOLUTIONIST wasn’t he?!
Well they took a prominent debater such as Laurence Tisdall from the creationist right, they did not take such a man from the Evolutionist left. Why would you put someone who has little background at debating vs. someone who is as experienced as Tisdall at reciting things he ‘knows’ to be right?
All your saying is that tisdall is better!!!
I wish I could see a debate who’s advocates were both prominent. Have you seen one? If so, I’d appreciate it if you sent it my way. Every time the Discovery Institute is in the media, the same arguments are raised and the Evolutionist only says “well who is this designer?” and it never gets past that. For some reason, ID can’t be accepted as science by secularists unless the designer is identified. I don’t know who/what made Stone Henge but I infer that it was designed. I agree with you though, I wish there was a debate with people who represented each side well.
I watched this and my reaction was the following:
The “Creation scientist” seems to be basing his debating strategy in the fact that it take only a couple of seconds to make a false or misleading statement, but at least tens of minutes to intelligently explain why it is false or misleading.
And that strategy is:
1. Talk so fast that no one has time to think whether what you are saying makes any sense.
2. Bring up so many unrelated topics that your opponent will have no time to respond.
3. Keep interrupting your opponent so that he can’t respond and keep throwing more irrelevant arguments at him to attempt to disrupt his train of thought.
4. Don’t listen to anything he says.
5. Take every possible advantage of the fact that academics tend to think before they speak. This slows them down. You don’t have to think as you have all the answers memorized.
6. In general, attack! attack! attack!
Do you consider this a rational means of arriving at any semblance of truth?
(I’ve read references to the “Gish Gallop.” Is this what they were talking about?)
a smarter evoloutionist would have done the same!!!
attacking your opponent is not the same as proving a point, something which Tisdall did not do. If he can’t present evidence for his own side, how can he say the other side is false. just because someone doesn’t have the ability to answer a question at a certain moment, it does not mean their statement is false. in addition, even if evolution is false, that does not mean creation (or intelligent design) is true. I agree with the original comment.
D.R., how about this strategy… “go to this website.” The thing is, this is too large of a topic to be handled in the short time they had to explain. I’m sure there are scientists who could have countered all of Tisdall’s points. I personally believe Tisdall did a good job of representing the Creationist side. I appreciate it when Evolutionists do a good job at representing their side. I would think Evolutionists would want Creationists to come to the table with some substance too.
Clearly they had the wrong evolutionist there to debate. His rhetorical skills were hideous. I’m not an evolutionist, but I think they could have gotten some brighter lights on the evolutionary side of things to make a reasonable defense.
Tisdall was very well spoken, but jumped around too much. I like it when two sides take one particular point and grapple with it til it’s been exhausted.
l was atheist before and though lm not christian l have a weakness for a good debate, good rational flow of thoughts anbd outlining of points.
I was dissapointed.
It was a one-sided hammering by an intelligent man facing someone who was…let’s just say…sadly a let down.
I will like to see Tisdall talk to an evolutionist who has done his reading, knows what he is talking about and who has a knowledge of his subject area, has passion and insight – and not just knowledge of websites.
I agree Ken, I visit Tisdall’s website every once in a while hoping that he’s had some more public interaction with Evolutionists. Like you, I wish I could see him debate these things with an Evolutionist who knows his stuff.
May I ask, why aren’t you an atheist anymore? Where does your worldview stand now?
ok, so i see this video and all i can say is that tisdalls debate method isn’t very christian like. how can one consistently interrupt the other and then claim anything other than disenfranchisement? i think that wiles was lacking debate skills but even someone who had all the knowledge necessary to refute tisdalls weak points and the debate skills, what could you do against terrible manners? tisdall is a charlatan and anyone with a sense of propriety should realize this.
how about i debunk his ridiculous claim of “no new information” right here. he makes this claim and frames the argument as if evolution would require a new type of information to be valid but never defines what this “new information” would have to be. then he conjures up ideas about cross speciation which has nothing at all to do with evolution. it’s a matter of fact that he refuses to acknowledge that there is new information in the form of mutations. he would argue that this isn’t new but only a restructuring of old. this is completely not true and very disingenuous on his part. new information according to him would require the materialization of something that has never existed when in fact a restructuring of genetic code can and does create new information without any magic at all. look at it this way. if we have TAP but have never had PTA a mutation could restructure TAP into PTA and voila! new information.
So, I decided to jump into this discussion and make a few comments about the “debate”. Firstly, Jason is a top knowtch evolutionist finishing his doctorate at McGill specialization in evolutionary education. Though he clearly has less experience in debating (I have done 17 debates with 2 more coming this spring – most in French), he did use the same arguments that are used at all the debates I do, that being mainly ad hominum.
Keep in mind a TV program is not quite like a university debate. In this case the TV host was quite involved and so that makes the situation less clear then it might have been.
Cirri bings up an interesting point… do mutations create new information? Well in a way they might but the information produced is either almost neutral in affect or pathalogical (deadly). So maybe it would be better to say new “useful” information. Because for the information to be carried forward and be benificial to the species, it would have to affect the survival of the species. Now here is the kicker… natural selection selects for extreme utations (kills them off) but cannot select for almost neutral mutations. So every generation species increase the mutational load and there is nothing that can be done about it – this is called genetic entropy. It makes evolution through mutations simply impossible. By that I mean, you are never going to see chimps becomes humans through mutations and natural selection, ever.
I do not understand the need to not simply accept that life was created by an intelligent Creator. It is the simplist and cleanest explanation and it fits with what we already observe in nature today. There is a need for a programmer, if we have a program. To suggest a program, programs itself without an outside intelligence to organize things is simply rudiculous and goes against everything we know in science, in my opinion.
Oh, and Cirri, mutations are only restructuring of the old information – prove to me otherwise.
Have fun all.
Laurence
Mr Tisdall, how would you address the issue of Infinite regress?. If a program needs a programmer who creates the programmer.
Pondering,
I already answer this on my thread here: https://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/inconsistent-assumptions-of-naturalists-about-science-and-id/
look under point 4. I hope you also realize someday that even the “naturalist” must try to solve this problem within their worldview as well. In other words, even when you raise this issue, the ball is still in your court as much as it is in anyone elses. I’d like to ask you. How do you account for a prime cause, or an eternal uncaused cause, so that there is no infinite regress in time? Do you call it “God” or “?”?
laurence,
before delving into the topic i’d like to ask you to speak to why you choose(make a conscious decision) to “debate” in the manner that you do. how is constantly interrupting and out talking your opponent a positive thing for your side or the common good. i’d really like an explanation because at this point i can only see two; you get excited easily and forget your manners or this is a purpose driven tactic without regard to having a fair discussion. this question is very important because not only did this happen in the debate but now you are accusing your opponent, on an internet blog, where, unless notified, he can’t even defend himself, of ad hominem. this really calls your motivation into question.
i shouldn’t have to tell you that it’s impossible to “prove” something to you because science doesn’t work off of proofs. that’s why science is so great because it allows us to model the world around us based on what we know works best at the moment, without imposing a dogma that restricts us from continually learning more than we were previously able. this is a huge mistake on the part of creationists to imply that if science doesn’t have a complete answer now, then it must be wrong and we must fill in these knowledge gaps with a god.
as far as new information, you are still using scandalous tactics. first you say that mutations “might”, “in a way” produce new information but that the information will be neutral or pathological. now, we both know that anyone who can use a search engine can find plenty of examples of beneficial mutations from bacteria all the way to humans so why are you still asserting not only that there are none but that they are either neutral or pathological? this is disingenuous because we both know that they are almost all nearly neutral and that a negative or positive distinction relies largely on environment. and how funny is that? that we know evolution varies depending on environment and relies on slight shifts (nearly neutral)throughout long periods of time.
now, if you believe in the biblical creation story and noahs ark, how do you explain humans having more than 16 alleles, anywhere? i have to say that information theory is not on your side, no matter how many times you use vague terms like, “new information”.
why would anyone simply accept something like a creator especially when it’s not a fact. you are presenting your opinion, which you absolutely can not definitively show to be true, as a fact. this is a horrible thing for any scientist to do, to present an unfounded opinion as immutable fact. you say that there is a need for a programmer if we have a program but you fail to see that you are comparing obvious man made products with natural phenomena. that is a fallacious argument based in ignorance of whether or not there is a prime mover and what that prime mover might be. to connect this question to evolution is ridiculous because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe but with the diversity of life. it’s chicanery to conflate a lack of origin knowledge with an argument against evolution. this intentionally preys on those who don’t have the education necessary to make these distinctions, though, you undoubtedly know this.
again with the mutations are “only” restructuring of old information. i agree. i already said that but you missed the point that restructuring of old information can produce new information. my example was very easy but i’ll show again. if you have always had PAT but never TPA and a mutation causes TPA then, presto chango! you have new information. you are asking for magic, basically. you want someone to show you a magical something manifesting in front of your eyes before you will admit that evolution happens. you see, i can’t even define this something with any word other than “something” because you can’t or won’t define it for us.
i don’t have a problem with your personal beliefs at all. i do think that with the evidence that we have now, believing that an incomprehensible being poofed life into existence as we see it now is wacky compared to an extremely slow natural progression but you have every right to believe what you want. the problem comes when you attempt to pass off your opinion as a fact. even if you have what you think is evidence for what you are saying, you don’t even bother to go through the rigors of test, repetition and peer review. why not start by publishing one airtight paper on a specific subject that hasn’t yet been scrutinized and failed to stand up to scientific rigor? doesn’t that seem like a better option than feeding off of other peoples outdated creationist objections and presenting your own personal opinion about them as fact? i think, if you could find something like that, that could stand up to peer review, then you wouldn’t have to delve into the dishonest realm of proposing your opinion as fact to uneducated religious peoples.
cameron, you posted here that you would like to see a better debate. here’s a good one that has two teams, not just two people so there’s more diversity in explanation and view. it’s a little old but still has some great points.
Cirri,
I am a Television producer and I’ve been working in tv shows for a while. I am not trying to defend Laurence. But, the format in those kind of shows is just like you saw it. What I mean by this is that you expect this kind of interactions from both sides at the point to get excited. Honestly, I don’t think his manners are something to be upset about it. He was doing his job. Tv shows are like this. If you look carefully, there was almost a whole section of the show only for Wiles (that’s a lot of time)
If you ask me, Wiles was more than prepared to “talk back”, but apparently he didn’t have the answers that were asked to him. Laurance in the other hand, was in all his right to ask for proves. From a TV producer prospective, his manners were not out of context at all. Wiles had plenty of time to refute. And Laurance has many things to say in a short period of time. Maybe you interpret this in a different way.
As you saw in the show, there was a host. His job is to control the discussion.
I thought you should know this my friend.
And I’ve seen that already, but thanks Cirri.
I watched this last night. Laurence, this is for you. I don’t know why it was never brought to your attention, but as a scientist you should understand that not knowing how something is done does not prove anything other than you don’t know.
Claiming that creationism exists because no one has come up with an explanation is not science, it’s imposing a belief system. How many times did you ask Jason to give you an explanation and based on him not providing one, you claimed you proved your point.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe in god and think this whole ‘deny the evidence because it doesn’t fit my belief system’ is plain nuts. Science attempts to observe and quantify while religion attempts to explain the nature of god and what god wants (how pompous is that?).
This whole religious/science thing is like to guys bickering where one says “The house is made of wood” while the other argues “No, it was built by Joe.” It’s apples and oranges. no wonder Jason was hesitant to even do the show, the debate (as he suggested), makes no sense.
Miker,
I don’t think we heard the same “discussion” (as it wasn’t really in a debate format). Laurence said repeatidly that he believes in a Creator based on what he does know, NOT on what he does not know. Namely, that intelligence only comes from intelligence, information only comes from information, and life only comes from life, not non-life, etc.
Further, If we call science “the observable” and religion the “non-observable” then these two are interconnected and can’t be seperated, which the Naturalist doesn’t realize. Namely, because we can’t empirically account for empiricism. Just as we don’t empirically account for God, as He is outside of time, made of spirit, is eternal, and is personal, so we don’t account for empericism with the empirical (which is a big foundation for why we can even do science). To have empirical science you need observers who can observe the observable. None of these can be accounted for by what is observable but only by what is not observable. Intelligent lifeforms (“observers”) most likely do not come fron non-intelligent non-lifeforms, and we have never seen the original intelligent lifeform source. The ability to use logic and “observe” requires absolute abstract meanings to exist, but since they are abstract we can’t empirically detect them. Lastly, the “observable” exists in time and space and was caused by something. Yet you can’t have an infinite amount for causes in time. We have never detected this first or primary cause.
Therefore, in this sense, science assumes that which is non-empirical to account for the empirical.
“Laurence said repeatidly that he believes in a Creator based on what he does know, NOT on what he does not know.”
That’s just it, he doesn’t know, he believes. Just as you and I have our own beliefs. He has no proof that the world is 10,000 years old. At best he can claim there’s no proof that the world is 5 billion years old either. And that means nobody can say for sure, and yet he (as well as others) claim that there is a truth.
You say that “…intelligence only comes from intelligence, information only comes from information, and life only comes from life, not non-life, etc.” Can you prove it? And, I mean prove it without speculation or belief. This is the kind of questioning that was used to “prove creationism”
Evolution is not a claim as to whether or not there is a creator, it merely attempts to make sense of data. Why then is it that the creationist attempts to debunk evolution? Why do creationist presume to know how God made everything. Who are we to say that evolution is not part of god’s plan?
And, who are we to describe the nature of god? You say that he is out of time. Does this mean he is not in time? You say that he is made of spirit. Does that mean he is not made of other things?
When anyone attempts to describe God, it always ends up limiting something that has no limit while attempting to explain something that can’t be quantified. When we describe God, we are creating something in our own image.
I believe God is much greater than that. And who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to say whether or not evolution is part of Gods plan.
Miker,
So what? That’s how science is done. Since no one knows for sure, we are left with differing interprations of the same evidence.
Yes we can prove that intelligence only comes from intelligence. We prove it inductively, NOT deductively! We prove it with propensities or liklihoods, NOT with 100% certainty. We don’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow with 100% or that the laws of physics will hold with 100% tomorrow like they have in the past. But if the latter two get to serve as prove for an inductive conclusion, why can’t the former? Because it deals with Creation so it’s an exception to science and you get to have a double standard?
Much of science, especially Evolution is done by speculation and belief! Again, you’re imposing your double standard. I’m assuming because you don’t like the idea of science leading to a Creator. If that’s your reason it’s an unfair and unfounded reason.
That’s the thing, Evolution doesn’t account for data. Intelligence accounts for data. ID advocates don’t deny all of Evolution but Naturalistic interpretations of it, namely that things become what they are intentionally and they couldn’t have become what they are unintentionally. And Evolution assumes that life came about somehow and doesn’t answer how it did. It only assumes the possibility of life somehow and then advances the theory that such lifeforms evolve.
I have no problem saying Evolution was part of God’s plan, but the evidence sucks for Evolution anyways so it’s hard for me to assume that. And no Creationist knows how God created things, they just believe He did. Kind of how Naturalists don’t know how things evolve to be more complex or how DNA code came about but say they just did.
We would describe the nature of God in 2 ways. 1. through natural revelation, and 2. through special revelation which would be mostly through Scripture.
God is not in time but holds time together within His own being. He is made of Himself. The substance is not created nor can it be uncreated. It’s hard to say that God is not physical because we don’t even know what the physical ultimatly is, but for shorthand say He is spirit.
The idea that you can only know something by quantifying it is itself not quantifiable. Thus you imposing an inconsistent standard along with a double standard. We can’t exhaust God in our limited conventions of language. We can barely exhause how electricity works with our language, let alone God. These are arbitrary statements which are void of any meaningful points on your part.
How is a God who is all-knowing, uncreated, outside of time, all powerful, and is Triune something in our image when we are not any of these?
What kind of Evolution are you talking about? Maybe micro evolution is but macro isn’t? And anyone is free to look at the evidence and Scripture for themselves and see what the most rational conclusion is. God has certainly give us much to work with to answer these things. May the most informed argument win.
Ok, let me put it this way. Science is collecting data, observing data, testing data and attempting to find a model that explains what is observed. This model is also known as a theory. Theory is not fact, it is a model. It does not become fact until all parts are completely understood and proven.
–The key here is that data is analyzed and conjectures are made based on this analysis.– This is science. Evolution is a theory. Evolution is science.
When you reverse the order of events, i.e. assume the model (or theory) and attempt to observe the data in such a way as to support your conjecture, you do not have science, you have philosophy. Philosophy is what had people believing that two spherical objects of different weight would fall to the earth at different rates. This philosophical conjecture was disproved via scientific experiment.
Creationism is not science, creationism is philosophy. It starts with assuming the bible is a factual description of how our universe and mankind came to be and then attempts to observe data in such a way that it supports the conjecture. This is backwards, this is not science.
History is full of examples of religion attempting to dictate as if it were science. For example, one of the more famous events is the treatment of Copernicus. Copernicus wrote a book entitled De revolutionibus in which he claimed among other things, that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it orbited around the sun.
In answer to this, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun doesn’t was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates around the earth?
Evolution is still a theory and it may turn out that there is another answer. Science will continue to investigate and modify conclusions based on new information. That is how science works, evolution is science.
Religion will continue to make faith based assumptions and attempt to mold data into something that supports their belief. Creationism would never cause a stir if all it claimed was that God created the universe. But, this is apparently not creationism. It seems that creationism is an attempt to prove the literal translation of the story of creation in the bible and to debunk science and an attempt to “correct” things that disagree with this particular story.
By the way, there are different versions of the bible, different translations, and religious scholars still argue over the meaning of its contents. Who is right?
Evolution and Creationism are two different things and arguing that one is right and the other is wrong is just plain nonsense.
Miker,
“let me put it this way. Science is collecting data, observing data, testing data and attempting to find a model that explains what is observed. This model is also known as a theory. Theory is not fact, it is a model. It does not become fact until all parts are completely understood and proven.
This is where you are revealing that you are just as bias as the religious nut, only a different kind of nut. Scientists are not unbias or specially neutral to their models. They also may choose a model which supports their anti-Christ beliefs.
The key here is that data is analyzed and conjectures are made based on this analysis.– This is science. Evolution is a theory. Evolution is science.
No, a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical not not tangible or directly observable. Evolutionary theory is based on much indirect evidence.
When you reverse the order of events, i.e. assume the model (or theory) and attempt to observe the data in such a way as to support your conjecture, you do not have science, you have philosophy.
Science is extremely philosophical, such as the idea of what “life” is, why we should do science, or what is the best method to collect or interpret data. But again, even non-religious scientists are just religious in their own way and want to make thier data fit their own favored beliefs. You’re just making baskets here and subtracting points from your own scoreboard because I can turn all of these arguments the other way too.
Philosophy is what had people believing that two spherical objects of different weight would fall to the earth at different rates. This philosophical conjecture was disproved via scientific experiment.
We have not proved with 100% certainty that they will behave this way all the time, only that they have given the times we’ve tried it. Something is only constant as long as it is constant. To the extent that anything else is possible, is the extent the scientist has faith. But we are all scientists really, thus all have faith.
Creationism is not science, creationism is philosophy. It starts with assuming the bible is a factual description of how our universe and mankind came to be and then attempts to observe data in such a way that it supports the conjecture. This is backwards, this is not science.
This is a broad brush. There are different types of Creationism and unless your omniscient, one of the positions could potentially be true.
History is full of examples of religion attempting to dictate as if it were science. For example, one of the more famous events is the treatment of Copernicus. Copernicus wrote a book entitled De revolutionibus in which he claimed among other things, that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it orbited around the sun.
And in recent history we have non-religious people trying to dictate that Naturalistic Evolution is true, when there is much evidence against it. What’s your point?
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates around the earth?
Scripture is not explicit on that issue, thus it doesn’t directly answer that question. It is primarily a book of Christ and the gospel of salvation. It does answer why we should do science as we are to do all things unto the glory of God. Science itself doesn’t account for itself nor can it tell us why we should do it.
Evolution is still a theory and it may turn out that there is another answer. Science will continue to investigate and modify conclusions based on new information. That is how science works, evolution is science.
Reasons to reject Evolution is science too.
Religion will continue to make faith based assumptions and attempt to mold data into something that supports their belief. Creationism would never cause a stir if all it claimed was that God created the universe. But, this is apparently not creationism. It seems that creationism is an attempt to prove the literal translation of the story of creation in the bible and to debunk science and an attempt to “correct” things that disagree with this particular story.
I’ve already pointed out your double standards with this type of thinking.
By the way, there are different versions of the bible, different translations, and religious scholars still argue over the meaning of its contents. Who is right?
The same for science. Who is right? May the most informed argument win.
Evolution and Creationism are two different things and arguing that one is right and the other is wrong is just plain nonsense.
Arguing that Naturalistic Evolution can account for DNA, life, and intelligence is just plain nonsense. You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.
Hrmmm, how do I even begin to address the… oh never mind. I will attempt this one more time and then I am done with this thread. And since we are now playing the “quote” game, I will try to make this short and to the point.
1) “This is where you are revealing that you are just as bias as the religious nut…”
Ok, not really sure what to say about this, although I think I am beginning to understand what you mean by “religious nut.”
2) “Scientists are not unbias or specially neutral to their models. They also may choose a model which supports their anti-Christ beliefs.”
Ok, let me put this another way, science does not “choose” based on a “belief.” If a model is “chosen” based on “belief,” then it is NOT science.
And by the way, believing or not believing in god has nothing to do with science, which I have been attempting to explain. They don’t overlap. Practicing science does not preclude one from believing in god. The atheist has no fact or evidence to support their belief and for them to try to prove there is no god is as silly as someone trying to prove there is a god. Faith needs no proof, faith is not science. But I digress, back to the “quoting.”
3) “No, a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical not not tangible or directly observable.”
Ok, I especially like the first part “a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical…” But, let me give you a textbook definition of theory.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1.it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2.makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
A theory is a speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence. If you want to call it something else, then you need to give it a different name or at least let me know what you want to call “speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence.” If you want to call it something like “neptopling,” then I will tell you that Evolution is neptopling and Creationism is not. But for now, I will stick with the word theory.
By the way, evolutionary theory is based on years of careful analysis of an overwhelming amount of evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god. I know because I believe in god and do not presume to know how god went about making our universe.
4)“But again, even non-religious scientists are just religious in their own way and want to make thier data fit their own favored beliefs.”
This is just another example of what science is not. When someone attempts to “make thier data fit their own favored beliefs” they are not practicing science.
5) “We have not proved with 100% certainty that they will behave this way all the time, only that they have given the times we’ve tried it.“
Actually, welcome to the present age. We have proven with 100% certainty that they will. Laws of gravitation are no longer theory they are fact. I’m pretty sure we don’t even want to go to discussing fact, should probably just stick with theory.
6) “There are different types of Creationism and unless your omniscient, one of the positions could potentially be true.”
I agree with this statement. If creationism means that God created the universe, then I believe in creationism. I do not believe because of science, I believe because of faith. And my belief does not in anyway contradict the theory of evolution.
7) “And in recent history we have non-religious people trying to dictate that Naturalistic Evolution is true, when there is much evidence against it. What’s your point?”
You have it backwards, let me fix it for you “..in recent history we have religious creationists trying to dictate that evolution is false in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Again, it’s belief trying to call itself science. Creation is something you believe in. Evolution is a theory, it is science.
8) “Reasons to reject Evolution is science too. ”
Ok, back to this again, a religious belief is not a reason to reject a scientific theory. If you have scientific evidence that rejects evolution, present it. Write a paper and you will become famous. And I’m not even being funny here. A discovery of this magnitude will make you as well known as Darwin.
9) “The same for science. Who is right? May the most informed argument win.”
Again, you confuse belief with science. Science is not a popularity contest or something that is dictated by the best debater, it is simply observation, experimentation, etc…
10) “You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.”
Exactly! No one can show you what to believe. Science is not about believing, science is about evidence. Faith is about belief. I think you are starting to get the idea!
I will say this about the nature of DNA, life and intelligence. I don’t thing science has scratched the surface of what there is to know about these subjects. And there may be some things that science will never know. This in no way is any sort of proof to the philosophy of creationism and intelligent design. In my opinion, science will never be able to prove or disprove those. They are based in faith and belief and science has nothing to do with faith or belief.
I wish you the best as you journey through life. God bless,
Mike
Miker,
Science does not “choose” as it is not a thing or a person but entails ways of gathering and interpreting data. The people who gather data have tendencies (great and small) to interpret the data in accordance to their worldview, especially Naturalistic Evolutionists. People who observe and analyze data “choose”, not science itself.
And by the way, believing or not believing in god has nothing to do with science, which I have been attempting to explain. They don’t overlap.
Sorry, you’re wrong and you haven’t offered any reason other than your blank assertions. It has everything to do with it, especially because God accounts for science. I expained in my first reply to you why empericism doesn’t account for the emperical, only the non-observable does. In other words, without God, science can’t exist, nor can there be a reason for why we do it.
Practicing science does not preclude one from believing in god.
But practicing science assumes God’s existence (or something extremely similar), whether one knows it or not.
The atheist has no fact or evidence to support their belief and for them to try to prove there is no god is as silly as someone trying to prove there is a god.
There is lots of proof for God’s existence, just not emperical proof. But I’ve already shown why that doesn’t matter and how we except truths which we haven’t observed with our 5 senses. I’m glad this is your last reply because I don’t think you are listening.
Faith needs no proof, faith is not science. But I digress, back to the “quoting.”
Which kind of faith needs no proof? The Christian faith which excepts the truths of God’s Word is based on the testimony of the Spirit living in us. It does not exist in a vacuum.
A theory is a speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence. If you want to call it something else, then you need to give it a different name or at least let me know what you want to call “speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence.” If you want to call it something like “neptopling,” then I will tell you that Evolution is neptopling and Creationism is not. But for now, I will stick with the word theory.
I agree that a lot of the evidence can be tangible, but theories usualy use indirect tangible evidence. We can’t repeat the Big Bang or directly observe it, like we can with dropping to stones from the same height that are different sizes, but we can make inferences based on what we are limited to observe. That was my point. That is why I said that theories are generally very theoretical, hence speculative.
By the way, evolutionary theory is based on years of careful analysis of an overwhelming amount of evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god.
You have pointed our how religious folk try to fit data into their prefered models and I have explained how Naturalists for example do the same. So I could make a similar statement and say “rejection of Evolutionary theory has nothing do to with whether or not you believe in god”. There you go! By the way, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Naturalistic Evolution didn’t happen, nor macro Evolution.
I know because I believe in god and do not presume to know how god went about making our universe.
Jesus said that He is the only way to the Father and that those who reject Him will perish under the wrath of God, so I hope the “god” you believe in is the Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. Further, we do know how God made the universe. He spoke it into existence. The specific chronology of events is debatable.
This is just another example of what science is not. When someone attempts to “make thier data fit their own favored beliefs” they are not practicing science.
Then many scientists, especially Naturalistic Evolutionists, today are not scientists according to you.
Actually, welcome to the present age. We have proven with 100% certainty that they will. Laws of gravitation are no longer theory they are fact. I’m pretty sure we don’t even want to go to discussing fact, should probably just stick with theory.
What do you mean that gravitation is “fact”? That’s a vague statement. Fact in what sense? What causes gravitation and what it is in its essence is still under debate. But all that has nothing to do with my point which was that just because gravity operates the way it does in the present, doesn’t mean it always will in the future. Laws don’t tell us what “should” happen, but only what “does” happen. Thus, one is using faith when they assume that a law will continue as it always has.
I agree with this statement. If creationism means that God created the universe, then I believe in creationism. I do not believe because of science, I believe because of faith.
More correctly, one would ultimately believe anything because God is the source of the laws of logic and we are created in His image, thus pocess the ability to use logic as well. Second, one would only know a truth because God in His grace has enabled one to know it, whether it’s a practical truth or a spiritual one. Third, science is natural revelation of God, not special revelation. Hence, why it is proven (inductively – as all science is done) that DNA code comes from a coder, life comes from life, and intelligence comes from intelligence.
And my belief does not in anyway contradict the theory of evolution.
It does with Naturalistic interpretations of Evolution.
You have it backwards, let me fix it for you “..in recent history we have religious creationists trying to dictate that evolution is false in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Again, it’s belief trying to call itself science. Creation is something you believe in. Evolution is a theory, it is science.
There is no overwhelming evidence that Naturalistic Evolution is true or that macro Evolution is true. The science leads to Creationism because DNA code can be proven (inductively – like all science is done) to come from a coder, life comes from life, and intelligence comes from intelligence. Since you still have a hard time with these facts, you are tangible proof that an Evolutionist tries to fit the data into their prefered model – the very thing you are against. Thus, you are against yourself but don’t admit it.
Ok, back to this again, a religious belief is not a reason to reject a scientific theory.
I agree, and a religious belief (such as Naturalism) isn’t a reason to be in favor of a scientific theory!!!
If you have scientific evidence that rejects evolution, present it. Write a paper and you will become famous.
This is your blank assertion. How do you know I will become famous if I do? Maybe I will be right and be rejected like Copernicus and Gelileo were (who were Deists by the way).
And I’m not even being funny here. A discovery of this magnitude will make you as well known as Darwin.
Not true. Darwin wasn’t even the first person to come up with the theory. So you’re mistaken on that score. Second, since there is no single discovery which absolutey proves macro Evolution which made someone famous, I see no reason to do similar. Darwin provided a lot of evidence for micro evolution, however. Then he said that if there were no intermediary “species” to link other “species” then his theory of macro Evolution would fall apart. We haven’t, so his theory has fallen apart to him.
Again, you confuse belief with science. Science is not a popularity contest or something that is dictated by the best debater, it is simply observation, experimentation, etc…
Again, you are confused that science is somehow neutral or that interpretations of evidence is never bias. I never said it was determined by debate, that is YOUR filter. But those who are most informed of all the possible evidence for and againsnt it should win.
“You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.”
Exactly! No one can show you what to believe. Science is not about believing, science is about evidence. Faith is about belief. I think you are starting to get the idea!
I can show you how DNA code comes from other DNA code, how life comes from life, and how intelligence comes from intelligence. That is my belief because of the evidence. It would by YOUR faith that all of these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence. Sounds like you have great faith when on the other hand you claim to not confalait your faith with your “pure” scientific thinking. I have already shown you why you have faith as a scientist on 2 scores now, and you have not shown why I am incorrect. I’m waiting.
I will say this about the nature of DNA, life and intelligence. I don’t thing science has scratched the surface of what there is to know about these subjects. And there may be some things that science will never know. This in no way is any sort of proof to the philosophy of creationism and intelligent design. In my opinion, science will never be able to prove or disprove those. They are based in faith and belief and science has nothing to do with faith or belief.
I never said we had to exhaust all knowledge of these subjects before we can come to conclusions on them. That seems to be your mistaken idea. But we can still infer and prove that these only come from a coder, life, and intelligence. Now you are appealing to ignorance. Well I can do the same thing! Creationsts don’t know how God first brought about these things in full detail but maybe someday in His grace He’ll show us, just like He’s shown us how everything else works via His gift of science (which only He can account for).
Trying to explain God to an atheist that has to see God through his microscope is like trying to explain love to a computer that has to turn everything into numbers. What if everyone was deaf except for one person? I mean really, the only reason we believe in sound is because we experience it. Scientifically, it’s movement, something we should feel, not “hear”. But because others also “hear”, we ignore the scientific narrow minded rules and accept hearing as possible. Because lots of people hear. Aren’t there enough people who experience God? Isn’t it possible that something real is there that science doesn’t understand?
Great points Isaac. The die hard empericist would argue back that hearing is physical b/c particles are creating frequences which go into your ear and then your brain by which you can distinguish the sounds and understand, thus is a physical process, etc. blah blah. The real problem isn’t “science” but the bias that “pure” science is only emperical, or only applies to that which we can observe in the physical realm. The thing is though that empericism itself doesn’t account for the emperical!!! You can’t observe a scientists “belief”. Fruther, emperical science requires observers who observe the observable, not of which can account for themselves but something beyond them must account for them. Observeration requires thinking which requires abstract absolute universal meanings. To have observers requires life, which is better explained as comeing from life, not non-life. The observable is the physical realm which can’t account for itself but is finite, thus began from something outside itself. Thus, a Naturalistic worldview internally refutes itself.
Further, empericism only looks at finite matter. Yet God is eternal and immaterial, so emperical proof for God’s existence is a bit silly, let alone for all proofs because you can’t physically proove one’s “belief”, even a scientific belief. There are fine ways to prove God’s existence, it’s just that pedantic biased fundamentalistic empericism conveniently throws out the whole endeavor making science 1. inconsistant and 2. limited. But maybe it’s limited for a reason by Naturalists who supposedly only accept emperical evidence? Maybe b/c they’re hostile to God like Scripture states, thus limit science to supposedly deny His plain existence. But one science experiment we all participate in to see if God exists is death. Can’t wait! Also when Jesus returns that will be physical evidence for everyone. The very one who invented the physical realm and holds it together will show up, judge everyone, and demand His full Lordship! Can’t wait for that too!
“No, a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical…”
lololol!
you can’t even uniquely and positively define “immaterial” or the term “god” and you are calling science biased? ridiculous.
i have news for you. matter can’t be created or destroyed, only rearranged so maybe you should talk about finite forms or composites of matter rather than finite matter.
evolution is a theory. theories are based on facts. the only people who dispute these facts are people that are desperate to validate their baseless, superstitious worldview.
lololol!
Laughing is not an argument. It’s just laughing, or noise, kind of like a clanging symbol.
you can’t even uniquely and positively define “immaterial” or the term “god” and you are calling science biased? ridiculous.
I can define God’s substance in the sense that He’s not made up of a finite substance, and that He’s not comprised of “physical matter”. So if these 2 points are true then of course I can’t define God positively because everything to compare Him to would be limited to finite or physical examples! Silly! Therefore, this would meet your criterion of a “unique” definition. It’s the most unique definition to anything in the universe. Now this is all speaking specifically to God’s Spirit and nature. He is believed to be a substance entirely different then us. That’s why we call Him “God” and not “Steve”.
Our spirit is a whole other matter. It is finite yet is not made up of any physical matter. Proof of this is that you are a logical moral creature and logic and morality is itself non-material. So if you want to argue the immaterial you’re going to have to argue with yourself being created in God’s image and ask why you are a moral being who uses logic – both of which are immaterial.
Further, one reason it’s difficult to define “immaterial” is because it’s difficult to define “material”! No Naturalist ultimately knows what “physical matter” or “nature” even is. What is it ultimately comprised of? Does it have infinite smallness or limited smallness to it?
i have news for you. matter can’t be created or destroyed, only rearranged so maybe you should talk about finite forms or composites of matter rather than finite matter.
No, matter as you know it can’t be created or destroyed. Matter (whatever that even is) exists in a finite universe, thus its existence (whatever that even is) must have begun at some point.
evolution is a theory. theories are based on facts. the only people who dispute these facts are people that are desperate to validate their baseless, superstitious worldview.
Nice assertion! Let me turn it on its head by offering mine. evolution is a theory. theories are based on some facts while many things are still theorized since we can’t go back in time to observe them, or can’t repeat them, i.e. how we account for DNA in order to get a living cell to begin with. the only people who dispute these facts are people that are desperate to validate their baseless, superstitious worldview i.e. life comes from non-life.
evolution is not abiogenesis so the more you try and conflate the two the more you look like a jack ass.
describing something by stating what it’s not is not a coherent definition. you could make up anything and do this. you speak as if you know all about “immaterial” yet you can’t even begin to describe it let alone define it.
logic and morality are not existing entities. they are words that represent existing relationships between beings.
we know what matter is. it’s composites of energy. we know what energy is, at least enough about what it is to know what it means to our existence. maybe we will learn more about it but for you to compare something that we have a highly practical working knowledge of to something that you can’t even define, only speculate without any unique or coherent descriptors, that is just plain ridiculous and disingenuous to say the least.
“Scientifically, it’s movement, something we should feel, not “hear”
seriously? we can feel the vibrations. we should only “not hear it” if we “don’t have ears”.
Sorry for my long reply but I wanted to touch on all your points. 🙂
I never said abiogenesis is the same as Evolution, however, you can’t get to Evolution theory without assuming that life could come about somehow. How do you account for life dude with no name? By non-life or prior life? Hence why they mentioned the retarded Miller-Urey experiment in my biology text book in High School. In fact, more naturalistic Evolutionists use this experiment as an Evolutionary landmark WAY more then non-naturalists! Thus, your team would be the idiots here, to use your own standard.
Nevertheless, if you don’t want me to use the example of “DNA coming about” then I’ll change it to the example of not being able to observe a living species become an entirely different species (while “species” can’t even be defined – since everything is an intermediate species – which begs the question, intermediate of what?). But because we can’t directly observe this taking place, for example, Evolution is known more as a theory.
The problem with your criterion for a valid “definition” as that it must fit in the box of Naturalism. Since God is more natural then nature itself He can’t be fit in this box. That’s a category error, and is an error on your part because it’s a faulty presupposition.
logic and morality are not existing entities. they are words that represent existing relationships between beings.
They’re abstract realities which disprove Naturalism. You’ve already said all is permissible when when it comes to morality so I won’t argue to much with you there. I’ll just tell you again to stay away from my family or I’ll call the cops.
Your position on morality is an honest and consistent position for atheism, yet you don’t consistently live your life like that’s the case. Or maybe you do and you’re OK with murdering and eating children for fun. Since all is permissible this should theoretically be OK to you.
With logic, show me where absolute universal concepts exist in the physical realm? Did you find yours under a rock? And further, what in finite mindless nature determines that we ought to not contradict?
we know what matter is. it’s composites of energy. we know what energy is, at least enough about what it is to know what it means to our existence. maybe we will learn more about it but for you to compare something that we have a highly practical working knowledge of to something that you can’t even define
You still don’t know what matter is ultimately comprised of, nor if it has infinite smallness or finite smallness. You still don’t even know what the most basic components of energy are! You’re just begging the question. You still can’t define the “material”. Sorry to be the one to tell you. Since for some reason your standard of “valid worldview” is to be able to define everything in material terms you run yourself through with your own sword because “material” itself can’t be defined.
I know enough about cause and effect, minds, life, and intelligence to know that minds don’t come from non-minds, life doesn’t come from non-life, and intelligence doesn’t come from non-intelligence. So as far as our existence is concerned, finite mindless matter in motion can’t account for this.
Then you give a promissory note that “maybe we’ll learn more”. Here’s my promissory note: we’ll all learn more about God when we die. You gave one and so did I!
And I never said God’s Spirit our our spirit (immaterial) could be tested the same as “matter” and “energy” in the here and now. My point is that you yourself are proof of the immaterial because you are created in the image of God and use the laws of logic to reply on here and against Him. You should be giving thanks to Him that He lets you use the laws of logic instead of being ungrateful and trying to think of ways to do this without Him, which are inconsistent.
seriously? we can feel the vibrations. we should only “not hear it” if we “don’t have ears”.
Isaac said we still feel. Your snide reply just re-hashed what he affirmed. His overall point I believe is that to know what is said, much more must take place then the 5 senses. A mind is required. Understanding is required. This actually ties into my challenge for you to show where the laws of logic exist in “nature”. These are required for knowledge in the first place.
“I never said abiogenesis is the same as Evolution, however, you can’t get to Evolution theory without assuming that life could come about somehow. How do you account for life dude with no name? By non-life or prior life? Hence why they mentioned the retarded Miller-Urey experiment in my biology text book in High School. In fact, more naturalistic Evolutionists use this experiment as an Evolutionary landmark WAY more then non-naturalists! Thus, your team would be the idiots here, to use your own standard.
Nevertheless, if you don’t want me to use the example of “DNA coming about” then I’ll change it to the example of not being able to observe a living species become an entirely different species (while “species” can’t even be defined – since everything is an intermediate species – which begs the question, intermediate of what?). But because we can’t directly observe this taking place, for example, Evolution is known more as a theory.”
you said that one reason evolution is still just a theory is because we can’t account for dna. this is a conflation. accounting for dna has NOTHING to do with evolution. if you think you can dig up some credible scientist who also conflates evolution with abiogenesis then be my guest. the fact that you would even say the words, “But because we can’t directly observe this taking place, for example, Evolution is known more as a theory.” shows that you are way out of your league. evolution is a theory, plain and simple. it will never be more than a theory. you don’t understand what the word “theory” means. just google “examples of speciation”. really look into it. don’t just take talking points from your favorite creation apologist.
“The problem with your criterion for a valid “definition” as that it must fit in the box of Naturalism. Since God is more natural then nature itself He can’t be fit in this box. That’s a category error, and is an error on your part because it’s a faulty presupposition.”
everything about the idea of “definition” relies on material. i’m not forcing an inappropriate constraint. it is literally unable to be applied to anything else, by it’s very nature. it’s you who must assume an applicability that can’t even be accounted for linguistically or rationally. for instance, you call it “he” but at the same time deny that it can be described in material terms. this is contradictory and you know it.
logic and morality are not existing entities. they are words that represent existing relationships between beings.
“They’re abstract realities which disprove Naturalism. You’ve already said all is permissible when when it comes to morality so I won’t argue to much with you there. I’ll just tell you again to stay away from my family or I’ll call the cops.”
you are so full of it, thinking that you’re understanding of theo/philosophy could actually disprove anything. unfortunately for you, i have observation on my side and you have nothing but your words. we have never observed an existing moral entity. we have however observed the word “morality” being used to represent existing relationships and the assessment of those relationships. plato called. he wants his thoroughly debunked philosophy back.
Your position on morality is an honest and consistent position for atheism, yet you don’t consistently live your life like that’s the case. Or maybe you do and you’re OK with murdering and eating children for fun. Since all is permissible this should theoretically be OK to you.
i do live my life like that’s the case. every single one of us does. we can’t help it because that’s how we operate. the only limitations that we have are physical. real life proves you wrong every single day. however, your assumption that because all is permissible then that means i must be ok with murder, is just plain ridiculous and is excellent evidence that you lack even a basic foundation for your position. just because people can do things does not mean that they will or want to. it does not mean that every human finds every action right or acceptable. you do not get to redefine words simply because you have the ability to question their meaning.
“With logic, show me where absolute universal concepts exist in the physical realm? Did you find yours under a rock? And further, what in finite mindless nature determines that we ought to not contradict?”
they don’t exist as anything more than relationships between existing entities. nothing determines that we “ought” to not contradict. we just can’t contradict.
we know what matter is. it’s composites of energy. we know what energy is, at least enough about what it is to know what it means to our existence. maybe we will learn more about it but for you to compare something that we have a highly practical working knowledge of to something that you can’t even define
You still don’t know what matter is ultimately comprised of, nor if it has infinite smallness or finite smallness. You still don’t even know what the most basic components of energy are! You’re just begging the question. You still can’t define the “material”. Sorry to be the one to tell you. Since for some reason your standard of “valid worldview” is to be able to define everything in material terms you run yourself through with your own sword because “material” itself can’t be defined.
yeah and we knew even less 100 years ago. and we can in fact define based on the parameters that apply to our understanding. if we learn more, then those definitions will be updated to include this new data.
I know enough about cause and effect, minds, life, and intelligence to know that minds don’t come from non-minds, life doesn’t come from non-life, and intelligence doesn’t come from non-intelligence. So as far as our existence is concerned, finite mindless matter in motion can’t account for this.
obviously you don’t. you think you do but that’s just your ego talking. you also don’t know that matter is finite. quit pretending that you do or are you one of those christians that forfeits your moral autonomy for the “greater good”, lying for the cause?
And I never said God’s Spirit our our spirit (immaterial) could be tested the same as “matter” and “energy” in the here and now. My point is that you yourself are proof of the immaterial because you are created in the image of God and use the laws of logic to reply on here and against Him. You should be giving thanks to Him that He lets you use the laws of logic instead of being ungrateful and trying to think of ways to do this without Him, which are inconsistent.
do you have any clue how circular this is? i am proof of the immaterial because god made me in his image? that is not an argument. that is a statement of belief.
seriously? we can feel the vibrations. we should only “not hear it” if we “don’t have ears”.
“Isaac said we still feel. Your snide reply just re-hashed what he affirmed. His overall point I believe is that to know what is said, much more must take place then the 5 senses. A mind is required. Understanding is required. This actually ties into my challenge for you to show where the laws of logic exist in “nature”. These are required for knowledge in the first place.”
the laws of logic exist as relationships between existing entities, nothing more. i invite you to show me an actual entity that is solely the law.
you said that one reason evolution is still just a theory is because we can’t account for dna. this is a conflation. accounting for dna has NOTHING to do with evolution.
That’s right. You need DNA to have life. All Evolution theories assume life could come about somehow. I already touched on how trying to account for life is even greatly emphasized by Naturalists, hence the Miller-Urey experiment. Sure I agree this is a bad example for why Evolution is a theory, yet its still an issue extremely related, just avoided. There’s a lot of things Naturalistic Evolution can’t account for and there are many aspects to this theory that we cannot observe directly. That’s why it’s a theory and I have looked it up. I can say you are just re-hashing talking points of Naturalists. I’ve already argued why Naturalism isn’t natural. Let’s see if your arguments hold up.
everything about the idea of “definition” relies on material.
OK, so why do we have a definition for “belief” when beliefs are abstract? Or how about “infinity”? That is also abstract or immaterial.
logic and morality are not existing entities. they are words that represent existing relationships between beings.
No, they describe how relationships between things “ought” to function, not merely “how” they function. I’ve already touched on this in regards to morality in the other thread. Logic is the same way because we “ought” to not contradict in order to think logically. What in “matter” determines this should be the case?
unfortunately for you, i have observation on my side and you have nothing but your words. we have never observed an existing moral entity. we have however observed the word “morality” being used to represent existing relationships and the assessment of those relationships. plato called. he wants his thoroughly debunked philosophy back.
I have observation too. I just have much more then this, hence a consistent worldview and a non-Naturalistic worldview at that! You wouldn’t know where my worldview differs from Plato’s because you’re stuck in the box of Naturalism, which Plato would rightfully laugh at.
just because people can do things does not mean that they will or want to. it does not mean that every human finds every action right or acceptable. you do not get to redefine words simply because you have the ability to question their meaning.
Many people actually want to molest children and murder and therefore, do. You’re wrong. I’m not redefining words. You are redefining what philosophers have for centuries meant by “moral”. You are conflating it with “ethos”.
we just can’t contradict.
Yes you can, if you say you can contradict. Then you would be contradicting.
obviously you don’t. you think you do but that’s just your ego talking. you also don’t know that matter is finite. quit pretending that you do or are you one of those christians that forfeits your moral autonomy for the “greater good”, lying for the cause?
OK, prove my “ego” or whatever wrong by telling me where life came from non-life and where intelligence came from non-intelligence. I believe in the Big Bang theory, Christ spoke and Bang! So yes, matter is finite because our closed system of a universe is not infinitely old. You have no foundation within your worldview to say that “lying” is a wrong. To you it’s just a word which describes sound vibrations coming out of a mouth. I find it weird that I have to help you stick to your presuppositions since you wont and keep borrowing from my worldview.
do you have any clue how circular this is? i am proof of the immaterial because god made me in his image? that is not an argument. that is a statement of belief.
Because God’s mind is eternal, He accounts for the laws of logic, hence the laws of logic being absolute, universal, abstract, and prescriptive. When we’re dealing with absolutes you MUST use circular reasoning because you’re dealing with an ultimate standard. Otherwise you’d have to say “the laws of logic are absolute because they became that way” which is impossible. Therefore, my statement is one of reason and consistency. You haven’t shown why I’m wrong but have only asserted it.
the laws of logic exist as relationships between existing entities, nothing more. i invite you to show me an actual entity that is solely the law.
So where is the existing entity of the concept of “infinity”? Where in matter did you observe this entity? Further, you haven’t even defined what an “entity” ultimately is. So far entities are made up of entities which are made up of entities, etc. You’re caught in an infinite regress.
I don’t have to show you an entity that is solely the law because I’m not a Naturalist! However, you believe in non-physical entities without realizing it because absolute universal concepts are not physical, hence the concept of “infinity”. Further, there is nothing in the physical that determines we ought to not contradict. You still haven’t dealt with that.
Silly naturalistic atheist!
you said that one reason evolution is still just a theory is because we can’t account for dna. this is a conflation. accounting for dna has NOTHING to do with evolution.
“That’s right. You need DNA to have life. All Evolution theories assume life could come about somehow. I already touched on how trying to account for life is even greatly emphasized by Naturalists, hence the Miller-Urey experiment. Sure I agree this is a bad example for why Evolution is a theory, yet its still an issue extremely related, just avoided. There’s a lot of things Naturalistic Evolution can’t account for and there are many aspects to this theory that we cannot observe directly. That’s why it’s a theory and I have looked it up. I can say you are just re-hashing talking points of Naturalists. I’ve already argued why Naturalism isn’t natural. Let’s see if your arguments hold up.”
yeah, it’s a theory and if you had any idea what that implies you would not be saying, “it’s just a theory”.
everything about the idea of “definition” relies on material.
“OK, so why do we have a definition for “belief” when beliefs are abstract? Or how about “infinity”? That is also abstract or immaterial.”
beliefs represent a mental relationship. thoughts are material. there is objective evidence for this.
logic and morality are not existing entities. they are words that represent existing relationships between beings.
“No, they describe how relationships between things “ought” to function, not merely “how” they function. I’ve already touched on this in regards to morality in the other thread. Logic is the same way because we “ought” to not contradict in order to think logically. What in “matter” determines this should be the case?”
haha, no they don’t. they represent how things do function. the nature of matter necessitates this.
unfortunately for you, i have observation on my side and you have nothing but your words. we have never observed an existing moral entity. we have however observed the word “morality” being used to represent existing relationships and the assessment of those relationships. plato called. he wants his thoroughly debunked philosophy back.
“I have observation too. I just have much more then this, hence a consistent worldview and a non-Naturalistic worldview at that! You wouldn’t know where my worldview differs from Plato’s because you’re stuck in the box of Naturalism, which Plato would rightfully laugh at.”
no, you have speculation with no observation to back it up.
just because people can do things does not mean that they will or want to. it does not mean that every human finds every action right or acceptable. you do not get to redefine words simply because you have the ability to question their meaning.
Many people actually want to molest children and murder and therefore, do. You’re wrong. I’m not redefining words. You are redefining what philosophers have for centuries meant by “moral”. You are conflating it with “ethos”.
many in comparison to what? you must be worse at math than i am. i’m not redefining at all. i’m simply not referring to the theological presupposition of what morality is. you attempt to redefine it by playing word games with “right/wrong” as if because you can question their meaning then that makes them meaningless.
we just can’t contradict.
“Yes you can, if you say you can contradict. Then you would be contradicting.”
no. lol. that’s not an actual contradiction. it’s a word game. black is white. see, i can do it to. now, show one actual contradiction.
obviously you don’t. you think you do but that’s just your ego talking. you also don’t know that matter is finite. quit pretending that you do or are you one of those christians that forfeits your moral autonomy for the “greater good”, lying for the cause?
“OK, prove my “ego” or whatever wrong by telling me where life came from non-life and where intelligence came from non-intelligence. I believe in the Big Bang theory, Christ spoke and Bang! So yes, matter is finite because our closed system of a universe is not infinitely old. You have no foundation within your worldview to say that “lying” is a wrong. To you it’s just a word which describes sound vibrations coming out of a mouth. I find it weird that I have to help you stick to your presuppositions since you wont and keep borrowing from my worldview.”
you made the claim, you back it up. the funny thing is that in order to back that claim up you would have to know absolutely everything there is to know about every single material relationship in existence. nice hole you’ve dug for yourself. i’m also getting tired of this holier than thou b.s. in the form of baseless assertions that i have no moral foundation. i have the same one that you and everyone else has, which is the ability to assess cause and effect relationships and apply personal meaning to them.
do you have any clue how circular this is? i am proof of the immaterial because god made me in his image? that is not an argument. that is a statement of belief.
Because God’s mind is eternal, He accounts for the laws of logic, hence the laws of logic being absolute, universal, abstract, and prescriptive. When we’re dealing with absolutes you MUST use circular reasoning because you’re dealing with an ultimate standard. Otherwise you’d have to say “the laws of logic are absolute because they became that way” which is impossible. Therefore, my statement is one of reason and consistency. You haven’t shown why I’m wrong but have only asserted it.
again, you’re the one making the claim. you’re making the assertion. i’m saying you have no evidence to reinforce it. i do have evidence. the very nature of identity and existence necessitates non contradiction. this gives us the ability to know anything. this is observed. this is a requirement for observation to take place. none of this needs a god. god just adds an unexplainable, unnecessary variable.
the laws of logic exist as relationships between existing entities, nothing more. i invite you to show me an actual entity that is solely the law.
“So where is the existing entity of the concept of “infinity”? Where in matter did you observe this entity? Further, you haven’t even defined what an “entity” ultimately is. So far entities are made up of entities which are made up of entities, etc. You’re caught in an infinite regress.”
in one respect, plenty of places. talk to a computer programmer. as far as we’re concerned for this conversation, it doesn’t exist as anything more than an exchange of ideas, which is completely reliant on material and evidenced to be material.
“I don’t have to show you an entity that is solely the law because I’m not a Naturalist! However, you believe in non-physical entities without realizing it because absolute universal concepts are not physical, hence the concept of “infinity”. Further, there is nothing in the physical that determines we ought to not contradict. You still haven’t dealt with that.”
yeah, you do because you’re advocating it. you’re the one that is all up on a soapbox about accounting for things yet you really can’t account for what you speak of in any way other than useless platitudes full of undefinable terminology. once again, infinity, while not approachable by the human mind still has a practical place in the world of computer science. or how about this, even though we’re not capable of doing it, how many times could an apple be divided? that’s right, an infinite amount because there is an infinite amount of points between just 1 and 2. yet we still get to 2. funny, huh?
Silly naturalistic atheist!
i’m not an atheist you cowardly christian fundamentalist.
i’m not an atheist you cowardly christian fundamentalist.
Wow, this doesn’t sound peachy like you made yourself out to be on the other thread. Really, to you “nature” is a cowardly christian fundamentalist because I’m just comprised of nature. So why are you calling nature names? Are you insane or something?
And if you’re a naturalist, which you’ve completely made yourself out to be so far, then you’re by default an atheist because God is not finite, thus not comprised of finite matter. That’s why all naturalists are atheists but not all atheists are naturalists. And yes all matter is finite because it exists in time and and was caused. Only an un-caused cause can be eternal, not finite.
Since this is dragging on, I’ll try to get to the most important points and prove to you that the material (whatever that even is) isn’t all there is. There is an eternal and personal realm beyond this finite material realm. We can look at the existence of the laws of logic as proof, which science itself requires. Real quick, you kept saying before that you get to use empiricism and I only theorize or something. Like I’ve already pointed out I get to do both. I can also account for empiricism to begin with. You’d know that if God gave you a new heart. Anyways, this should help demonstrate that…
we just can’t contradict.
Saying white is black is a logical contradiction, otherwise its true that black is white, which it isn’t. More correctly, we ought to not contradict in order to be rational. Let me give a theoretical example: infinity is not non-infinity. What in nature determines that we ought to not contradict then, especially when things we ought not contradict are non-physical concepts? The law of non-contradiction is a prescriptive law. It tells us what we ought to do. Laws of nature are only descriptive. They only tell us what nature is doing. How does nature then account for a prescriptive law?
it doesn’t exist as anything more than an exchange of ideas, which is completely reliant on material and evidenced to be material.
You’re begging the question because ideas themselves are what logic is, hence they consist of absolute concepts.
Sure you can have something equal infinity, but only as it is theorized. It’s not that infinity manifests itself before you when you do the math problem, only the “concept” of it. That’s what a material universe can’t account for, namely, an abstraction which must follow a prescriptive law.
Likewise, I’ll give you one more chance to account for the laws of logic (which are required for empiricism to be possible) then I’m ending the discussion. You’ve had your shot to consistently account for it by now but I’ll give you another go at it. Otherwise, I think you’re just trying to prove something which doesn’t make sense because you can’t prove something to nature. There’s on the illusion that you can according to naturalism. 🙂
do you just ignore the fact that you’ve been called out on making this fallacy of composition when you refer to “atoms banging around”? i know you’re smarter than this so you must be ignoring the point for the benefit of your own. until you can muster up some intellectual integrity, there’s really nothing more i can say. banging my head against a brick wall is not my idea of discourse.
Take it up with other Naturalists who use this language for shorthand of “matter”, NOT me.
really? can you cite and source these other naturalists that state that the material composite known as the neural net is equatable to the material composite known as a rock?
i’d love to see how these two objects compare.
You can ask them yourself if they make those distinctions. I’m not the one who holds their worldview. Again, they say “atoms banging around” as shorthand for the natural realm.
If you listen to the debates between naturalist Dan Barker and theists Paul Manata, Douglas Wilson, and James R. White, Barker does talk in those ways. I believe Barker says “everything is atoms banging around”. But so neuron firings in the brain aren’t made up of atoms to you? Or we could simply just say “matter banging around”. There, is that better?
no it’s not better. it’s still a fallacy in reference to the way you are using it. you are equating a rock to a person. i sure hope that you can tell the difference in your practical, day to day experience, that your not stuck taking up absurd positions there as well.
You have the fallacy because I never equated a rock to a person. Both are made of matter, however. You even said before that absolute concepts are material. “thoughts are material.” A direct quote from you.
ummm, you’re the one saying that we are just matter banging around, equating our experience to be no different than tht of a rock. no you didn’t use the word rock but please be honest for once and admit that this is the logical conclusion of your statements. you are forcing your preconception about what it means to be material onto the idea of a purely material universe. my life has every bit of meaning that yours does, regardless of the fact that i see no supernatural explanation as valid or necessary. you are the one presupposing that my life can’t have real meaning unless i adopt your world view. this is about as arrogant as it gets. all this even after you are the one claiming that material can’t be defined!!! if that’s the case then who the hell are you to say that materialism can’t account for meaning? try being consistent, for once. nothing like shooting your self in the foot.
I’ll touch on your actual arguments:
you’re the one saying that we are just matter banging around, equating our experience to be no different than tht of a rock.
No. This is according to naturalism, not my worldview. I understand we are more complex than a rock, but that provides no consistent bases to listen to us more than a rock or to make us worth more then rocks. That’s been my point.
you are the one presupposing that my life can’t have real meaning unless i adopt your world view.
I never said this. In fact, I’ve said the opposite. According to my worldview your life CAN have real meaning, only because you’re created in God image and likeness and come from more then star dust (which the Discovery channel said). My actual argument was that you cannot account for meaning if you’re worldview were true.
no, that’s your opinion of naturalism. it’s not a necessary conclusion of it. you need to be able to make that distinction if you want to be credible.
splitting semantic hairs will not suffice. you are saying that your worldview in comparison to a naturalistic one, is the only offering of meaning. that’s your opinion. that’s what you need to project onto a natural worldview in order to subjugate it to your argument. naturalism can easily account for meaning. we make it. simple because it only applies to us.
Yes, and people have different opinions, especially the opinions of the naturalists who agree with me that matter is ambiguous from your view of it (which just so you know is still ambiguous). I have made the distinctions. I don’t know what you mean by “necessary conclusion”.
How am I splitting semantic hairs? Finite mindless matter (part of how I define “natural”) does not account for meaning, in the sense of the 1st law of logic (classical logic). Some meanings refer to things that aren’t physical, but are only conceptual, hence the meaning of “meaning”. I agree it only applies to us because we’re created in the likeness of a personal eternal God who thinks, not star dust.
and i asked for citations of all th naturalists that you claim agree with your interpretation of naturalism and you balked. you dropped the claimant responsibility onto me, the one you were making the claim to. that is an excellent example of irresponsibility. oh well, your forum, your rules i guess.
by necessary conclusion i’m saying that you make a claim that if we are only material, then we absolutely can not be more important than a rock. you imply, or more accurately, state that this is true, a necessary conclusion of naturalism. this just isn’t true. it’s your opinion and it’s borne of a need to raise your world view above a natural one.
for one thing, matter is not finite. it can’t be created or destroyed, only rearranged. secondly, please explain in detail how the first law of logic does not allow a natural accounting for meaning? you term mindless does not work. we have minds. it only applies to us because we are the only beings to which it is applicable. anything conceptual exists as a thought and thoughts exist as neural connections and represent actual relationships. so, show me the entity called logic. show me the entity called meaning. explain exactly how these words represent something more than a relationship.
You never asked me to cite naturalists who agree with me, only to cite Barker making a distinction that I don’t know if he’d make, hence why I told you to ask him. I brought up Dan Barker’s already stated view of naturalism however and gave you the name of the debates where he makes those claims which you have free and easy access to at any moment.
this just isn’t true. it’s your opinion and it’s borne of a need to raise your world view above a natural one.
Yes, but it’s an opinion I gave reasons for. You have merely stated your opinion that humans are more special than rocks. That’s just your opinions. 1. someone could disagree with you and you’d have no standard to know who’s more right. 2. “special” is an immaterial quality which disproves naturalism, and 3. nothing is really special, there is only the illusion of “special” in a universe of mindless meaningless atoms banging around. 4. you are special because you are the pinnacle of God’s (an eternal being who gives meaning) creation thus worth more than a rock, but mindless meaningless atoms can’t account for this. Otherwise you must go from non-meaning and non-special to meaning and special. How complex do the atoms have to be before something is really special then? There is no bases for this standard.
Matter as we know it is finite and God can create it and destroy it. Time, space, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe cannot be infinitely old. Otherwise we would never have arrived here today if it were. We have only inferred that it can’t be destroyed by means of other matter. Scientific inquiry is good for telling us what has been the case, thus what will likely be the case in the future, yet does cannot tell us what always will be the case. You must unclench your absolute faith in induction.
Yes we have minds, but moreso minds which use the laws of logic, unlike any other animal, because God’s mind uses the laws of logic, which entails abstract concepts which ought to not contradict. A non-abstract universe cannot account for something abstract, let alone govern how it must function, not merely how it does function. I can account for our type of minds, while mindless atoms cannot sufficiently account for minds – based on what we infer from cause and effect and by virtue that something non-abstract can’t account for something abstract, let alone prescriptive.
Yes, thoughts, or concepts, represent what something is by how it functions. But you need the laws of logic to know what those relationships are to begin with! Thus, you’re just begging the question when you say “their just describing relationships”. Also, concepts are absolute, thus can only be eternal. If they are true, then they cannot be finite otherwise at one point they were not true. Concepts only exist in a mind and an eternal mind can account for these absolutes, not mindless finite atoms, or even finite minds.
I don’t have to show you the entity of logic and “meaning” or “infinity” or “belief” or “truth” or “right” or “preposition”, etc. I’m not a naturalist. You must show ME these things. Send them to me in the mail. Nevermind, don’t because you can’t. Further, you can’t observe the laws of logic to verify if they’re true because you must use logic (apriori) to be able to observe something in the first place.
I believe in absolute universal invariant concepts, many of which have no referent to anything observable. I agree concepts and meanings are relational and can describe certain functions, yet the functions of “meaning”, “belief” and “infinity” for example are not observable, only conceptual. They are abstract absolute concepts which can moreso be accounted for in a dualist’s worldview, not a monist’s.
Again, this is dragging on and on. We can let this be the last reply on this thread since you had the first reply. Good day!
Wow, things have heated up since I was on here last. Yeah, I’m a Christian and I will forever defend my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the Bible. I’m not looking to convert or be converted necessarily, but would it be awkward to add you guys as friends on facebook? Chat would work better and I’d feel more comfortable about us being friends who can talk and learn than sit here and read aggressive comments back and forth. I promise, I hate debates with winners and losers. Seriously though, I’d love to chat with either of you, I’m really a pretty cool dude, lol. If you want to “befriend” me, you can use my email address, and let me know who it is in a message, so I can add you too.
I’m just going to stick to conversation on here. The conversation above with “Anonymous” ended a while ago anyways.
The area right now that is helping me to confirm God’s existence is purpose. Matter should have no incentive to do anything. Even if DNA were to be formed, there is no incentive for it to re-create itself. Why would it want to? That means sharing space, competing, and useless hassle. For that matter, why would the primitive DNA strand want to survive. It shouldn’t WANT anything! It’s a line of chemicals. If emotions and desires are advancements made throughout evolution, then there should have been no reason for the first organism to prolong it’s life. Yet everything does. Organisms are designed specifically to survive, which (mathematically) wastes energy. Change is tiresome, and not infinite. Like a pendulum, it wants to slow down and even everything out. Unless a force outside of nature, with a will and with power over nature, made nature run it’s unmathematically induced course, nothing would exist.
I fully agree. Take survival of the fittest for example. This assumes that atoms banging around know what survival is and “chooses” that as opposed to not survive. However, atoms banging around does eventually “choose” to not have us survive b/c we are dead way longer then we are alive. It makes no sense to say before us there is no real purpose, after us there is no real purpose, but somehow in the middle of these two points, there such a thing as real purpose. That’s the inconsistency with “naturalism” when “naturalists” assume these kinds of things.
Does Tisdall know how to make any arguments other than ones based on personal incredulity? I also like how he mentions how life arose and the Big Bang in relation to evolution, in spite of the fact that neither one of those are related to evolution. The first is abiogenesis, an emerging field and something that evolution does not require to be true. Second, the Big Bang deals with cosmology, something else which is not evolution. I’m not sure why Tisdall thinks he understands biology when it’s clear he does not.
Also, Michael Coren changing the subject to carbon dating when Wiles was trying to give evidence of observed instances of genetic change (like the bacteria that evolved to digest nylon) on Talkorigins was rather rude. He basically prevented Wiles from presenting a source for evidence of observed instances of genetic change that Tisdall claimed did not exist. It also seems rather odd that Wiles was able to point to reference material citing peer reviewed material whereas Tisdall was not.
Creationism deals with both the origin of life and the origin of the species. So if Tisdall is defending Creationism he has every reason to bring up abiogenesis. If Wiles agrees that Creationism can explain the origin of life then he should have said so. And Evolutionary theory doesn’t predominantly deal with abiogenesis, but many of its proponents are “naturalists” whom cater to supposed evidence of “naturalistic” explanations for the origin of life, hence the Miller/Urey experiment, which was an experiment being carried out by two intelligent beings. Evolution does not require that Creationism is not true also.
Um, Cameron, the debate was on evolution, not the origin of life. The origin of life on Earth is what abiogenesis deals with, not evolution. Evolution can work just fine with or without abiogenesis, so I’m not sure why you think bringing up abiogenesis or Creationism as an explanation for the origin of the first life on Earth would be even remotely relevant in a debate about evolution. The origin of life has nothing to do with the fact that the process of evolution happens in biology.
Um, I never said the debate was on the origin of life. I said it was Creationism vs Evolution, and Creationism deals with the origin of life. Even Evolutionists have their own “naturalistic” biases towards the origin of life, yet they don’t like to talk about it that much since that topic caters so much towards Creationism! You don’t know if Evolutionary theory as its assumed today can work just fine, but if it could work and completely new species could evolve (which Tisdall also talked about – not just abiogenesis) one is still assuming abiogenesis happened somehow. Everyone must. Apparently the “naturalists” who write the text books for schools think abiogenesis and Evolution are directly related, hence why the silly Miller/Urey experiment is always talked about in them. Tisdall even mentioned how text books in Canada start with the Big Bang and Miller/Urey’s experiment. So you’ll have to take your complaint up with them, not just Creationists.
So dfe, are you an Evolutionist who’s also an ID advocate since you drive such a huge wedge between the two topics of abiogenesis and Evolution? If you’re not an ID advocate then how did life come about to you? Isn’t it so interesting that people who are Evolutionists reject ID, while the 2 aren’t related according to you. Such interesting behavior by all these Evolutionsists then! You should show up to all these debates and tell all the Evolutionists to shut up and that they can be Evolutionsists and ID advocates.
Cameron. You are needed in places like youtube.
I like the way you explain things. It do make sense to me and I will start changing my approach when talking to evolutionists as Proverbs 26:4-5 says.
I hope to see your commments at youtube land someday.
Johannes, I really appreciate it. I’ve been arguing these same things on youtube for quite some time. My youtube handle name is ‘solaphyde’. You can check out my videos by searching it. Some of my posts on this blog are copy and pastes of some of my discussion from youtube as well. If there’s any particular discussion going on that you’d like me to join let me know.
Also, the type of argumentation that I mostly use is what’s called “presuppositional apologetics”. Heard of it? If not and you’re more interested I would recommend googeling Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and check out debates by Paul Manata, Gene Cook Jr, and Doug Wilson against Dan Barker. Also search for Sye TenBruggencate. Let me know if there’s anything else I can do. Thanks.
Cameron
I had a evolutionist ask me why are there 300 different beatles. I said that there a some people who are cacasion and they had a african american baby because a past reletive was african american it has happend. Is that possible that god gave bugs and other animals other geans that can cause new bugs to be made
I lean towards Creationist Hugh Ross who believes in a very old earth, but that humans have only been around for about 24,000 to 6,000 years (depending on what theory you accept, etc). So because I believe in an old universe and old earth, I believe beetles would have plenty of time to do that. Sure God could have made them all right away, but why not take his sweet time too? A thousand years is like a day to him anyways. Either view is still glorious.
1. I believe it makes more sense to believe that a beetle was created by God, rather than star dust.
2. Micro evolution deals with species oscillating features and cross breeding being able to take place within species (i.e. dogs).
3. Macro evolution would deal with species turning into a completely different species, which there is no observable evidence for, and the evidence we do have for that depends on one’s bias and how they’re going to interpret the evidence. It’s not slam dunk evidence.
It took me by surprise that you are not a young earth creationist. I am familiar with the gap theory, in which God creates the world and then over a long period of time, the earth evolves with God’s help until man is created. (I don’t hold that particular theory) However, I have never heard your take. You say that the earth is old, but no macro-evolution occured. Why do you say that it is old…Tisdall provided information supporting a young earth.
Whether believing in millions of years as opposed to thousands (old earth vs young earth Creationism) only produces a small difference in opinion, as Hugh Ross points out. Believing in billions of years as opposed to millions or thousands (naturalistic leanings vs Creationist views) produces an enormous difference in opinion. So whether a young or old Creationist, both are much closer in opinion than old earth Creationists are with most naturalistic views.
I don’t find any explicit Biblical evidence, especially in Gen, for a 6 thousand year old earth. I can’t stand AIG’s interpretation of “yom”, as though they hold the market on interpreting it.
I think it’s beautiful and loving to say that God took his time on the universe in getting it ready for us (extreme fine tuning) as Ross also points out.
I mostly believe it after listening to Ross, and the fact that young earthers act like old earthers are heretics, or as though this issue is as important as the gospel, makes me all the more think the young earthers are caught up in tradition.
I am not against an old earth so much as I would be against saying that God created the world completely through natural selection because that would require death before the fall of man, eroding the connection between sin and death. However, and being very respectful of your opinion, people come up with 6,000 years by adding the ages of the men up to Noah, and then guestimating up to Abraham. I believe in six day creation because of the emphasis on evenings and mornings, and by the fact that the sun and moon are assigned a portion of each “day”, and given the order of creation, or at least the account, there are complications with “long” days, such as creating plants before the sun. I’m sure you’ve had to reason through these issues before, what is your take on all that?
Sure. I believe humans weren’t here until maybe 6,000 years ago, but don’t limit the earth and universe to being that young. I believe night and day can be a reference to a close of a time period. Days as we know it wouldn’t have been created until day 4. There’s no close on day 7. Psa 95 and Heb 3-4 refers to us still being in the 7th day as we enter into God’s rest, which is ultimately in Christ. Plants before the sun? I’m not following, can you flesh that one out and I’ll try to address it?
I know you didn’t bring it up but I’d argue that with the word “yom” Zech 14:6 and Hosea 6:2 do have yom with numbers and contexts which are longer periods of time. Walter Kaiser is an OT professor and agrees with these things. You can find the interaction between AIG vs. Ross and Kaiser on youtube. That interaction persuaded me a lot. Ken Ham had some remarks that weren’t addressed by Ross, but I answered them easily in my own mind. He says bad arguments like “well if Satan was in the garden on day 7 then why would God call it good or holy?” But Gen 2:3 says he called it holy because he rested on it, not because it was void of sin still. Then AIG has these double standard in saying that the way God created the universe can be different than how he upholds it now, but won’t allow Ross or Kaiser to use that argument when it supports their position.
Laurence Tisdall: “How to debate an evolutionist and NEVER lose”
http://www.castanet.net/events/how_to_debate_an_evolutionist_and_never_lose/21567
http://creationwiki.org/Laurence_Tisdall