Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy 109 Replies latest jw friends

hooberus

Thus the whole presentation by Creationists of a very literal bent, such as YEC'ers, is not what they make it seem.
It is not the Bible versus science.

YEC's do not present the creation/evolution issue as "the Bible verses science" (actually this is the way evolutionists like to present the issue). In fact YEC's believe that the hard facts of science are generally compatible with the Bible.
It is their opinion of what the Bible means against science.
It is all about them.
It is all about the sanctification of their own opinion as divine truth.
Once again YEC's are not "against science." Also, they use for a guide a straightforward reading of scripture not merley "their own opinion."
Their unprovable claim that they have the sole correct interpretation of an ancient text leads them to make claims about what other parts of the Bible mean - claims which are again unprovable,
No "interpretation" of the Bible can be proved absolutely, however this does not mean that one should not try to discern correct doctrine (in fact the Bible states that we should). Also the "interpretation" of the Bible held by YEC's is highly substantiated by sound biblical exegis (and as I pointed out earlier even a NAS publication gives a fairly similar one).
hillary_step

Hooberus,
YEC's do not present the creation/evolution issue as "the Bible verses science" (actually this is the way evolutionists like to present the issue). In fact YEC's believe that the hard facts of science are generally compatible with the Bible.
When scientific findings disagree with the Bible, do YEC reject these findings. If so, on what basis do they do this?
HS
Abaddon
hooberus
Therefore the implication (if you intended to make it) that there is no support for AiG's Biblical exegesis is incorrect.

Hooberus, I have now stated what I think twice.
I am not saying anything about relative levels of support for various Biblical interpretations.
I am saying it is impossible to prove a particular interpretation is right.
If you carry on stating (even with 'ifs') what I make it obvious I am not saying you are doing your argument a disservice by resorting to a fallacy.
Literalistic Creationists who claim, in effect "if science disagrees with the Bible science is wrong" are not basing this claim on a text with a single undisputed interpretation.
They are claiming that THEY have the correct interpretation
That other Christians who interpret it differently are wrong
But have no way of substantiating this claim.
Why is it necessary for you to evade making a simple answer confirming that is what they are doing, when it is a statement of fact?
Essentially, YEC'er claim all other Christians (who don't believe in YEC) are wrong and they are right. On what basis do they make this claim against their co-religionists?
It would seem my claim that literalistic Creationist's beliefs are all about their opinion, and are not about some indisputable interpretation of the Bible, is true. It is not the Bible against science (as shown below, this IS the presentation YEC'ers make), it is INDIVIDUAL OPINION REGARDING THE MEANING OF A FEW HUNDRED WORDS OF TEXT against science.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
What Todd is saying is, in effect "IF data did point to an intelligent designer, it would be excluded as a hypothesis AS THERE IS NO PROOF of such an intelligent designer". When he says 'not naturalistic', in context he means 'unprovable'. I think you may have misunderstood this.
Todd is not saying "I am a presuppositionalist who has decided the Bible is literally God's word as I interpret it, and that if science disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible then science is wrong". The presumption he is making is a simple and reasonable one; things you can't prove exist don't belong in science.
It is wrong to paint all people who believe in a creator god as being YEC'ers; some may believe everything of science's interpretation of physical evidence, but still believe in god's guiding hand. Others believe something 'twixt the two poles.
I don't belive that I (nor AiG) have done this.
I wasn't saying you had; that statement is paired with the one immediately after it and is intended to illustrate you concentrating on people who believe in evolution who exclude god is unrepresentative, as it is.
I haven't painted evolutionists as people "who exclude the existence of a 'god'."
Like I say, it suits your argument to concentrate on evolutionists who exclude any possibility of a creator. I can quote back what you've said on this thread to prove to you you have done this.
I have however pointed out that the methodology practiced by many in the evolutonary establishment involves the practical consideration of only "naturalisitc explanations" for the origin of the various animal creatures.
I am sorry but you are mistaken. If god was provable, it would be naturalistic. You are so eager to condemn evolution's stance you make a mistake. Only naturalistic explanations are accepted in science, true, but this applies not only to 'various animal creatures', but to other claimed entities as well.
You are objecting to science not considering the supernatural or unprovable. Object away; that is why it is science.
Anyway, back to my questions;
1/ Why do you criticise evolutionists for excluding a priori a supernatural theory of origin, and yet quote people who exclude a priori a naturalistic theory of origin?
Isn't that inconsistent?
2/ Why do you endorse by quotation criticism of evolutionary theory for being "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", when your own theory is "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", and in addition has no evidence to support it and/or has evidence to contradict it.
Isn't that inconsistent?
You have in the past complained about the 'unfairness' of the peer review process. I earlier said;
An opinion based on evidence can be checked. An opinion based upon a presupposition cannot be checked. This is why it is difficult to have peer review of opinions based upon presupposition; you can't check them. The reason they don't publish creationist articles in mainstream science journals is that publishing an article based on someone's unsupported opinion without evidence or an underlying theory is something science journals strenuously try to avoid doing!
3/ Do you really think that it is unreasonable to exclude articles from science magazines if they are based on an opinion that cannot be matched with the evidence when it is examined by the reviewers?
I also put to you what I regard as a major quandary for literalistic Creationists;
In addition to believing their interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, people like YEC'ers also believe that much of modern science is wrong. Even though they use and trust the products developed with that science, if their opinion differs to science, they believe their opinion, and carry right on using phones, doctors, medicine, airplanes, cars, etc.
I mean, what are the odds, eh? 'Evil' science saves you from cancer but is wrong when it tries to date bones even if multiple methods arrive at similar dates?
4/ Do you think such a double standard (in absence of evidence to support it) is consistent?
In summary I said;
My opinions have changed and would change again if evidence arose that invalidated the theories I base my opinions on.
Your beliefs are incapable of change if the evidence doesn't support them as you are a presuppositionalist and the evidence doesn't matter, you've already decided your opinion is right.
5/ Have I stated this correctly?
YEC's do not present the creation/evolution issue as "the Bible verses science"
As quoted earlier;
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it?s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
Your opinion would seem to differ from that the evidence I have provided supports.
hooberus
Hooberus, I have now stated what I think twice.
I am not saying anything about relative levels of support for various Biblical interpretations.
I am saying it is impossible to prove a particular interpretation is right.

Of course its impossible to "prove" absolutely if a particular interpretation is right.
Literalistic Creationists who claim, in effect "if science disagrees with the Bible science is wrong" are not basing this claim on a text with a single undisputed interpretation.
They are claiming that THEY have the correct interpretation
That other Christians who interpret it differently are wrong
But have no way of substantiating this claim.
Why is it necessary for you to evade making a simple answer confirming that is what they are doing, when it is a statement of fact?
Of course AiG believes that their interpretation of Genesis is correct, and that others who interpret it differently are wrong. Though they may not be able to absolutely "prove" their interpretation correct, the fact remains that there is substantial support for it.
Essentially, YEC'er claim all other Christians (who don't believe in YEC) are wrong and they are right. On what basis do they make this claim against their co-religionists?
On the basis of hermeneutic principals and straightforward contextual analysis and comaprison with the rest of scripture.
It would seem my claim that literalistic Creationist's beliefs are all about their opinion, and are not about some indisputable interpretation of the Bible, is true. It is not the Bible against science (as shown below, this IS the presentation YEC'ers make), it is INDIVIDUAL OPINION REGARDING THE MEANING OF A FEW HUNDRED WORDS OF TEXT against science.
This whole bible interpretation "proof" argument has become a waste of time.
hooberus

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

What Todd is saying is, in effect "IF data did point to an intelligent designer, it would be excluded as a hypothesis AS THERE IS NO PROOF of such an intelligent designer". When he says 'not naturalistic', in context he means 'unprovable'. I think you may have misunderstood this.
Todd is not saying "I am a presuppositionalist who has decided the Bible is literally God's word as I interpret it, and that if science disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible then science is wrong". The presumption he is making is a simple and reasonable one; things you can't prove exist don't belong in science.
Your defense of Todds "presumption" seems to be that it is "reasonable" to exclude an intelligent designer hypothesis (even if data pointed to it) if you can't first prove the existence of the creator. I disagree (see Romans 1).
Anyway, back to my questions;
1/ Why do you criticise evolutionists for excluding a priori a supernatural theory of origin, and yet quote people who exclude a priori a naturalistic theory of origin?
Isn't that inconsistent?

Actually I think that you will find that I generally only criticise evolutionists in this manner in response to evolutionists first bringing up the issue of "creationist presupppositions" or if they use arguments which imply that they don't have presuppositions (ie: "peer review" argument). Keep in mind Abaddon that you are the one here who usually majors on the "presuppositions" issue -I think its usually a time waster, (despite you being the one that majors on the presuppositions issue it doesn't seem to bother you to then turn around and defend statements such as by evolutionist Todd).
hooberus

Before moving on to more time wasting (Normally I try not to dialogue with you because most of your posts on origins are simply accusations against creationists) I would like to make a comment on the AiG quote:
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it?s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It?s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ?hard facts?.

Note that Batton didn't say that that the empirical scientific data was itself wrong, but instead that if the interpretation contradicted history as presented in the Bible that the specific interpretation of scientific data was wrong. Also, he never said that "science" was wrong, but the interpretation. To me anyway this is no worse than Todds statement (which you don't seem to mind).
hooberus

2/ Why do you endorse by quotation criticism of evolutionary theory for being "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", when your own theory is "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", and in addition has no evidence to support it and/or has evidence to contradict it.
Isn't that inconsistent?

When did I make such a quote?
hooberus

By the way I would also like to state that I am nearing the end of my patience with the "game" that you play on these origin threads. I don't have a problem discussing origins and intepretations (indeed I think that I have participated in more evolution/creation threads than any other creationist here), however spending a lot of time responding to time wasting accusations is not in my schedule.
hillary_step

Hooberus,
When scientific findings disagree with the Bible, do YEC reject these findings? If so, on what basis do they do this?
Best regards - HS
Abaddon
hooberus
So, you admit it is impossible to determine if any interpretation of the Bible is correct.
Which is MORE likely
that god allowed his word to have no set interpretation?
that there is no set interpretation as it is not god's word?
Please explain your reasoning and site any evidence to support your claim.
You also admit that AiG (and I presume other YEC'ers) believe Christians who are not YEC'ers are in error. What implications does this have for them if YEC'ers are right? Is it neccesary for a Christian to believe in YEC to gain salvation? Again, please explain your reasoning and site any evidence to support your claim.
You say claims to rightness are based upon;
hermeneutic principals and straightforward contextual analysis and comaprison with the rest of scripture.
Well, those Christians who disagree with you disagree with you on the basis of (drumroll)
... "hermeneutic principals and straightforward contextual analysis and comaprison with the rest of scripture".
So you haven't proved a thing other than what you've already admitted to; you can't prove your interpretation of the Bible is right.
Oh, 'hermeneutics' is not a precise science. I don't know if using an obscure word for 'interpretation, especially of scripture' was meant to give it added gravitas, but essentially hermeneutics is opinion, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
It would seem my claim that literalistic Creationist's beliefs are all about their opinion, and are not about some indisputable interpretation of the Bible, is true. It is not the Bible against science (as shown below, this IS the presentation YEC'ers make), it is INDIVIDUAL OPINION REGARDING THE MEANING OF A FEW HUNDRED WORDS OF TEXT against science.
This whole bible interpretation "proof" argument has become a waste of time.
I interpret that to mean it is an argument you could not possibly win, as you have already admitted that it is impossible to determine if any interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that therefore my assertion that YEC'ers are not setting the Bible against science but their opinions against science is a valid one, by definiton (but I knew this when we started this discussion).
Your defense of Todds "presumption" seems to be that it is "reasonable" to exclude an intelligent designer hypothesis (even if data pointed to it) if you can't first prove the existence of the creator. I disagree (see Romans 1).
Like I say, things you can't prove exist don't belong in science. I don't recognise the validity of the quotation you make.
Actually I think that you will find that I generally only criticise evolutionists in this manner in response to evolutionists first bringing up the issue of "creationist presupppositions" or if they use arguments which imply that they don't have presuppositions (ie: "peer review" argument).
Keep in mind Abaddon that you are the one here who usually majors on the "presuppositions" issue -I think its usually a time waster, (despite you being the one that majors on the presuppositions issue it doesn't seem to bother you to then turn around and defend statements such as by evolutionist Todd).
But hooberus, there is a different between;
not accepting what cannot be reasonably proved
not accepting what can be reasonably proved.
Thus the presuppostions are different in character;
The Creationists presuppositon is that they are right, even if there is no evidence or there is evidence against their beliefs.
The scientist's presupposition is you shouldn't incorporate the supernatural or unprovable into scientific theory.
Which is the more reasonable presuppositon? ARe you going to avoid answering that question?
And I'm quite happy to defend Todd's presumption that things you can't prove exist don't belong in science.
But I do note you're not prepared to even admit you are inconsistant, not even when I use your own words or quotations to prove that you are.
(Normally I try not to dialogue with you because most of your posts on origins are simply accusations against creationists)
I do seem to remember these resulted in you having to conceed that AiG had not followed reasonable standards of science on at least one article we specifically discussed. Also, the direct accusations I made about certain Creationists were in response to Jerry Bergman (is that his name?) posting how unfair accusations against Creationists were; I simply proved that such accusations were reasonable and indeed provable. I can drag it all out of the archives if you really want.
But thanks hooberus, I've been trying to keep this clean and you make personal attacks. What a classy guy you are.
Note that Batton didn't say that that the empirical scientific data was itself wrong, but instead that if the interpretation contradicted history as presented in the Bible that the specific interpretation of scientific data was wrong. Also, he never said that "science" was wrong, but the interpretation.
Very nice but not nearly good enough; if science's beliefs are based (as they are) on the interpretation of data (something I've been trying to make clear is a distinguishing factor between presuppositonalism and science) then someone who says that if "scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault" is ALSO saying science is wrong. It is logically impossible to state one without stating the other.
When did I make such a quote?
That is something you quoted from AiG that was written in response to a Scientific American article, it was called something like "15 refutations of worldy materialism" and was responding to an article "15 refutations of creationistic nonsense". I c&p'd it from your post yesterday but neglected to give the URL. Remember now? I can look for it if you don't remember.
By the way I would also like to state that I am nearing the end of my patience with the "game" that you play on these origin threads. I don't have a problem discussing origins and intepretations (indeed I think that I have participated in more evolution/creation threads than any other creationist here), however spending a lot of time responding to time wasting accusations is not in my schedule.
Accusations? I've asked in this thread for you to explain apparent contradictions and inconsistancies in your agumentation. Those aren't accusations. It would appear that you are making an ad hom.
Maybe this time, because I am being more polite, measured, and am using your own words to probe the reliability and reasonableness (or lack there of) of your beliefs, and showing that they are just opinion presented as god's truth without any real substansiation, you are just preparing yourself for a dignified exit, as you are unable to rebutt my assertion, not even to your own satisfaction.
Would seem you failed there as well.
Oh, and I love a presuppositonalist accusing others of time wasting; a discussion with someone to whom the final argument is "because I think so" is THE definiton of a waste of time. LOL

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

Share this