Standard Creationism Thread

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:But:
Doug wrote:... so "P and not-P" must be true because of how we use definitions, not because the universe works in certain ways.
Would you agree that we are able to develop these definitions, rules, and laws because the universe -- while perhaps not "work[ing] according to logic" -- works in consistent, understandable ways?
DOUG
Yes. It is only because the universe works the way it does that we have certain concepts. For example, referring to objects by the same name time after time (my house, my car, etc.) shows that we believe in object permanence of a certain sort. (Infants have to develop the concept of an object maintaining existence when it is behind a screen or under a cover.) As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, if houses routinely turned into steam, or people became trees gradually, etc., we would have much different concepts about such things than we do now. We see the universe in the particular way we do, and we developed certain ways to describe it. The logic is in the descriptions, not in the world.

But there is no logical dimension in the universe apart from human beings anymore than there is a legal dimension or a slapstick comedy dimension apart from human beings.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Savonarola »

Doug wrote:But there is no logical dimension in the universe apart from human beings anymore than there is a legal dimension or a slapstick comedy dimension apart from human beings.
Point well taken.

For you observers, Doug and I were performing a demonstration. (No, not really, but it worked out well that it happened in this thread.):
First, I expressed a disagreement with a point of view and asked a reasoned question.
Then, Doug provided a logical, coherent explanation describing why his point of view is right.
Unable to counter his explanation, I accepted that my previous view of what the discipline of logic is was wrong, and I even identified the connection between my misconception and the reality as explained by Doug to strengthen my conceptualization of the distinction between the two.

I was wrong and am now smarter for it. Now, if only certain people would realize that learning from being wrong, such that one is no longer wrong, is something to feel good about.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Dardedar »

...Round of applause...
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DJ

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by DJ »

....more applause!....
youngearther

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by youngearther »

The theory of evolution is how the universe came into existence (the big bang), the first cell and then through mutation and natural selection the evolution of the species (molecules to man). These are all physical processes. Rules of logic are invisible and invariant. The theory of evolution can not account for Universal rules of logic. The evolutionist takes pride in explaining everything by natural processes but rules of logic are not physical. They exist apart from the physical world. Yes Doug I am saying the logic you use is out of this world.
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Savonarola »

youngearther wrote:The theory of evolution is how the universe came into existence (the big bang),
That aspect is independent. Suppose that the universe was popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago by any magical being you choose to select. Why would that mean that earlier forms of life couldn't have evolved into modern forms?
youngearther wrote:the first cell
That aspect is independent.
Suppose that the first life was popped into existence 3.7 billion years ago by any magical being you choose to select. Why would that mean that earlier forms of life couldn't have evolved into modern forms?

These are both old and incredibly stupid arguments.
youngearther wrote:and then through mutation and natural selection the evolution of the species (molecules to man).
Well, you're almost right here. The "molecules to life" question is a good one, and the answer to it likely incorporates lots of what we've learned from molecular biology, but the theory of evolution per se deals only with the "life to man" part of the "molecules to man" strawman.

Did I mention that your argument is incredibly stupid?
youngearther wrote:The theory of evolution can not account for Universal rules of logic.
It doesn't claim to, nor should it have to. This is akin to arguing that gravitational theory doesn't explain Poe's law, therefore gravitational theory is wrong.

Did I mention that your argument is incredibly stupid?
youngearther wrote:The evolutionist takes pride in explaining everything by natural processes...
I know of no "evolutionist" who claims to be able to explain everything. That's typically the pseudo-position of religion: Goddidit.
youngearther wrote:but rules of logic are not physical. They exist apart from the physical world.
As I pointed out, we develop our rules of logic within the realm of the physical world. Whether the rules themselves are physical is irrelevant. As Doug pointed out, these rules are our linguistic constructs.
youngearther wrote:Yes Doug I am saying the logic you use is out of this world.
Not that Doug needs any help, but...
Just because it's alien to you, youngearther, doesn't mean that it's nonsense. It is, however, out of this world in its excellence.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Dardedar »

youngearther wrote:
The evolutionist takes pride in explaining everything by natural processes...
That's because an appeal to a supernatural process, or magic, or a god, or a spook, or a demon is never an explanation of anything. It's an assertion. There is a difference.

D.
------------------
“All valid scientific theories are predictive, and
evolution theory predicts quite well. Theories and hypotheses are tested
by examining the results of their predictions, so if a conjecture either
makes no predictions or can't be tested, it is not scientific. The theory
of evolution makes predictions testable by observations, experiments, and
models, and makes postdictions testable by observations. It has been
making successful predictions (about genetics, systematics, morphology,
anatomy, physiology, behavior, etc.) for about 140 years.”
--Steven Schafersman
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
youngearther

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by youngearther »

Sir Issac Newton was a great scientist who promoted the scientific method 200 years before Darwin. In order to deduce and prove his theories, using the scientific method, he had to use three great principles. Laws of logic, uniformity of nature and absolute morality. These principles are assumed and used by Darwin but his theory does not explain why they exist. An example of absolute morality that Sir Issac Newton used would be "You shall not bear false witness." He had to use this principle both to produce his results and then for others to believe his results.
youngearther

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by youngearther »

The theory of evolution can not account for Universal rules of logic. It doesn't claim to, nor should it have to. This is akin to arguing that gravitational theory doesn't explain Poe's law, therefore gravitational theory is wrong
At least we agree on one thing since the theory of evolution can not account for Universal rules of logic. The Biblical worldview can account for Universal rules of logic better than the theory of evolution.

Edited by Savonarola, 20101123 0137: fixed quote tags
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Savonarola »

youngearther wrote:These principles are assumed and used by Darwin...
It's quite clear that you don't know the first thing about what Darwin truly did. He needed no appeal to morality to support his findings.
youngearther wrote:An example of absolute morality that Sir Issac Newton used would be "You shall not bear false witness." He had to use this principle both to produce his results and then for others to believe his results.
I am stunned. You have managed to find an argument even more ridiculous than the ones you used in your previous post.

Present any combination of truth-telling or lack thereof that you'd like, but when Newton performed experiments, he got certain results. Anybody else doing the same experiments would get the same results. Whether those results could be communicated effectively is irrelevant. Science uses a system that is designed to catch flaws, and a subset of that which gets caught is fraud. That is, science can overcome liars.
(Nevermind that "thou shalt not bear false witness" is arguably not a moral absolute.)
youngearther wrote:At least we agree on one thing since the theory of evolution can not account for Universal rules of logic.
Too bad you are unwilling to see that this is not a shortcoming of evolutionary theory any more than the inability to determine the number of hairs on my head is a shortcoming of atomic theory.
youngearther wrote:The Biblical worldview can account for Universal rules of logic better than the theory of evolution.
No, it really can't. The Bible is -- without a doubt -- one of the most illogical works in existence.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Doug »

youngearther wrote:The Biblical worldview can account for Universal rules of logic better than the theory of evolution.
a. You missed the point. Evolution is not about logic. So it is not supposed to explain logic. Hence it is not deficient in any way in its lack of explaining logic.

b. People can "explain" logic using, among other things, evolutionary theory, but this is not the same thing as saying that evolution explains logic. For example, one can explain the origin of logic using appeals to language, concepts, etc. And language, for example, can be easily explained using evolutionary theory. So evolution can be used as part of such an explanation. Similarly, to explain sky diving, I might appeal to recreational activities, the rules of safety, etc. Certainly one thing I would use in such an explanation is the law of gravity. But it would be absurd to say that the law of gravity "explains" sky diving. It would be equally absurd to say that the law of gravity is deficient in that it does not fully explain sky diving. And so it is with evolution and logic. Evolution can be part of an explanation for why it is that we have something we call logic. But evolution does not fully explain logic, nor is it supposed to.

c. Your Biblical worldview cannot account for logic for the simple reason that there is no such account in the Bible. (Further, if there was, this would do absolutely nothing to show that such an account is true.)

If you think you can explain the origin of logic using the Bible, by all means let's see it.

d. There are no such things as "universal rules of logic." There are many different kinds of logic, and there are as many different sets of logical systems as there are whole numbers, but there is no such thing as a "universal" set of logical rules. I have taken logic classes, and I've taught logic at the college level, and I can tell you that "universal rules of logic" does not have any recognizable meaning.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Doug »

youngearther wrote:Yes Doug I am saying the logic you use is out of this world.
DOUG
Talk is cheap. Let's see what you can show to be true.

Please tell us how a magical ghost made universal rules for correct reasoning. Tell us how you know that this is so. Use evidence, not just empty Bible quotations that you cannot show to be true.

Then kindly take the trouble to explain why your magic ghost wrote a book that undermines the universal rules for correct thinking that he so generously provided. You might also want to include an explanation of why the Bible gets so much science wrong, and why the magic ghost is so concerned about how we should arrive at correct conclusions in our thinking, yet he also gives us numerous falsehoods in his book, falsehoods that have been shown to be stumbling blocks to human intellectual progress (i.e. the Bible tells us that the world is flat, that the earth had a universal flood with only a boatload of animals and people surviving it, that there was a "firmament" around the earth with water on both sides of it that created this flood, and other things that we now know are untrue).

At the very least, explain to us why you don't have the evidence, intellect, or courage to do any of the above.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Dardedar »

Young earther asked this question in this thread in October. I answered. Why has he not responded?
YOUNG E
"If evolution proves there is no God, Why do moral absolutes exist?"
DAR
Two points:

1) I don't know any who believes or has ever said evolution proves there is no God.

2) If you believe moral absolutes exist, give us a few specific examples please. And don't forget to show your examples are:

a) moral (involve a rule by which humans should interact with each other)

b) are absolute (no exceptions)

Does Young E. have an example of one of his supposed "moral absolutes?" If he doesn't, what's his point in referring to "moral absolutes?" What is the use of "moral absolutes" if you can't give a single example of one?
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
youngearther

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by youngearther »

I am stunned. You have managed to find an argument even more ridiculous than the ones you used in your previous post.

Present any combination of truth-telling or lack thereof that you'd like, but when Newton performed experiments, he got certain results. Anybody else doing the same experiments would get the same results. Whether those results could be communicated effectively is irrelevant. Science uses a system that is designed to catch flaws, and a subset of that which gets caught is fraud. That is, science can overcome liars.
(Nevermind that "thou shalt not bear false witness" is arguably not a moral absolute.)
So are you saying that Sir Issac Newton could produce good results by being dishonest? Even if his motivation is to not be caught in a lie or to be humiliated in front of his peers he is still using the Biblical concept of honesty.

I also see by your statement that you believe in the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature because "Anybody else doing the same experiments would get the same results." This could only be true if the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature were true. Next I am going to prove I am better looking than Doug

Edited by Dar, fixed quote tags
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Doug »

youngearther wrote: So are you saying that Sir Issac Newton could produce good results by being dishonest? Even if his motivation is to not be caught in a lie or to be humiliated in front of his peers he is still using the Biblical concept of honesty.
DOUG
Several points need to be mentioned here.
A. You said Newton used absolute morality. So show that when Newton was being honest, he was not just using morality, but using absolute morality. How are you going to show this?

B. Why do you say that honesty is relevant here? How is the principle of honesty an example of absolute morality when the Bible shows that lying is not always wrong? In fact, God commands it! If you are pretending that honesty is a moral absolute, check out these Biblical counterexamples:

1 Kings 22:23:
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
See 2 Chronicles 18 for another account of the same story: 2Ch. 18:20-22
Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, `I will entice him.’ “`By what means?’ the LORD asked. “`I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “`You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. `Go and do it.’ “So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”
So God tells a spirit to go and lie. This is done at the specific request of God. The Lord put the lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets, says the Bible. Therefore, the Bible depicts lying as a good thing on some occasions. In fact, since God commands the lying in this case, lying is not only good, it is morally obligatory. There cannot be an absolute prohibition against lying if it is sometimes morally obligatory to lie.

Ezekiel 14:9 also tells us:
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..."
So your Bible God lies, and orders lying. Where is the absoluteness? I can provide more examples of God lying, and of people lying--even lying and getting praised for it from God's representatives. You have no case for saying that the Bible depicts honesty as a moral absolute.

Solve these problems and I'll be glad to load you up with more.
youngearther wrote: I also see by your statement that you believe in the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature because "Anybody else doing the same experiments would get the same results." This could only be true if the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature were true.
The Bible does not have the concept of the uniformity of nature. Quite the contrary. It depicts miracles, which are violations of natural law. That is the exact opposite of uniformity of nature.

And not only does the Bible not endorse the concept of the uniformity of nature because of miracles, it has God changing nature, such as the creation of the rainbow after Noah's flood (Gen. 9:12-13)? That is not uniformity of nature, that is the exact opposite. The Bible is clear that we should not expect nature to be uniform.

The Bible also has nature change when Adam & Eve eat the magic fruit (Gen. 3:7). Adam & Eve changed human nature? So not only does God change the uniformity of nature, people can do it too! And when God changes how women will give birth, so that it will be painful (Gen. 3:16), that is changing the uniformity of nature as well. And the nature of the serpent was changed (Gen. 3:14), further changing the natural order.

Need more examples of this too?

So you claim absolute morality in honesty and the uniformity of nature, but the Bible opposes each! You're 0 for 2.
youngearther wrote: Next I am going to prove I am better looking than Doug
Thanks for proving that you are out of intellectual ammo.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Savonarola »

youngearther wrote:So are you saying that Sir Issac Newton could produce good results by being dishonest?
That's not what I said, but that's not important. You said that Newton relied upon the "absolute morality" of "thou shalt not bear false witness." First, I argue that you haven't shown that not-lying is a moral absolute. Second, Newton could certainly have lied in any number of statements, scientific or not.
youngearther wrote:Even if his motivation is to not be caught in a lie or to be humiliated in front of his peers he is still using the Biblical concept of honesty.
Saying that not-lying is "using the Biblical concept of honesty" is like saying that buying shoes by the pair is "using the Genesis concept of coming two by two." They are not related. Honesty was around long before the Bible, and the vast majority of scientist employ honesty because it is useful, not because of some sky daddy lawgiver. (Furthermore, your logic allows us to say that Southern slaveholders were "using the Biblical concept of slavery," which I'm sure you'd deny.)
youngearther wrote:I also see by your statement that you believe in the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature because "Anybody else doing the same experiments would get the same results." This could only be true if the Biblical concept of Uniformity of Nature were true.
"Uniformity of nature" is a conclusion derived from repeated observation, not a book or religion. It is not a Biblical concept. In fact, this is an anti-Biblical concept; the very events that Christians allege are so important to their religion are non-uniform. You have accepted the bankrupt position that anything mentioned in the Bible must be a Biblical concept. According to your reasoning, if I believe that the sun provides light to the earth, then I must believe in the Biblical concept of the sun as explained in Genesis 1. But such a conclusion is nonsense. I accept that the sun provides light to the earth because of the evidence for that position, no more. It makes no sense to argue that such a belief could not be possible without the Bible.
youngearther wrote:Next I am going to prove I am better looking than Doug
Let me guess: Using the "Biblical concept of beauty"?

ETA: Looks like Doug has just beaten me to the punch. and much more effectively, too.
freethinker

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by freethinker »

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power......... Hebrews
1:3
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Genesis 8:22

These are why I believe in the Uniformity of Nature The observation in the physical world is the confirmation.

Sir Isaac Newton lived in England after the English defeated the Spanish Armada,after William Shakespeare but before Jack and the Beanstalk was written. Protestant Christianity was the worldview of his nation. The scientific method was new. The old Roman view of many gods who were arbitrary and finite had fallen away.

It was Sir Isaac Newton's belief in the God of the Bible that provided the foundation for his theories. His belief in the uniformity of nature gave him the power and courage to develop, test and prove his theories. It is not enough for me to observe things. I have to know why they are true.
(I know Jack and the Beanstalk has nothing to do with anything but I did not want to pick on Doug again and I like having a little fun)
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Doug »

freethinker wrote:It was Sir Isaac Newton's belief in the God of the Bible that provided the foundation for his theories. His belief in the uniformity of nature gave him the power and courage to develop, test and prove his theories.
DOUG
Of course, we now know that Newton's scientific theories are wrong--at least, they are not true universally. At the quantum level, as well as speeds approaching the speed of light, Newton's views are mistaken.

It is especially funny that quantum physics shows that Newton was wrong because it is the presence of quantum randomness that shows that the "uniformity of nature"--if that is taken to mean "the consistency of nature"--is a chimera.

Nature presents us with observational results we cannot extrapolate to extremes (of size (quanta) and speed). That is why Newton's observations cannot be used in all of nature. This is tantamount to saying that nature is NOT uniform, at least in the sense that observation-based conclusions at our usual size and speed conditions are NOT uniform in nature. Since those are the methods that are "God-given," Newton would have said, if God exists, he is a deceiver. He made the universe look one way to Newton and us, but it is really acting in other ways behind the scenes.

Newton placed his faith in the uniformity of nature, and this is why his theories are no longer correct.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by Dardedar »

freethinker wrote:It was Sir Isaac Newton's belief in the God of the Bible that provided the foundation for his theories.
DAR
Science doesn't have demi gods. Newton had a lot of wacky ideas about religion and he liked to fiddle with numerology and ludicrous hidden prophecies he "believed" he found in the Bible. All wrong, all on the rubbish pile. No one gives a handful of warm piss about what Newton "believed." What matters is what can be demonstrated and replicated. And it doesn't matter who does the demonstrating or what they believed about religion.

J.S. Bach said he wrote his music "for the glory of God." Who cares. Beethoven was an infidel. Nobody cares. What matters is that they wrote great music.

For a scientist, "great music" is having your science replicated and confirmed. Personal religious musings are irrelevant.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
youngearther

Re: Standard Creationism Thread

Post by youngearther »

"Uniformity of nature" is a conclusion derived from repeated observation

In order to proof uniformity of nature by repeated observation. I first must presuppose uniformity of nature. When Stanley found Dr Livingstone and said "Dr. Livingstone I presume? Did he not presume before it was confirmed?" Uniformity of nature was once a new concept. What is your theory on why scientists began to presuppose uniformity of nature?
FYI freethinker=youngearther it was an accident. I have not been converted.
Post Reply