I am well aware of what the fallacy is and the fact you have indeed committed it. You make statements like, “Well no real scientist can be a young earth creationist.” And then in the face of contrary evidence like the fact that Newton, Bacon, Kepler, The head of the Apollo Space Program, and countless other examples of young earth creationists who are greatly involved in modern science you just say either, “Well those guys are not actual young earth creationists!” or, “Well those guys are not true scientists!” It’s a classic example of the fallacy, and by all means keep committing it because it is easy to refute. That’s why most atheists worth their salt won’t try to take the “no real scientist” course because they realize it’s an illogical argument at best.
Well actually, Francis Bacon (Young Earth Creationist) is credited with the Scientific Method as we know it today.
observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
Since you seem to really love Wikipedia, I will even quote from that for you…
“Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.[2] His works established and popularized inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today.”
Those that do not ignore the evidence that contradicts their worldview find a way to re-interpret it and make it fit. Just look at all the work that has been done on comets; comets directly deny the old universe model and yet all sorts of ad hoc explanations have been developed to make them fit the model. A philosophically astute person will always find a way to invoke a rescue mechanism in order to save his/her worldview. This is why it is more of a debate on consistency of worldviews than it is on raw evidence, since both sides have the same evidence available.
Quote: Those that generally go against where the evidence leads eventually end up either loosing their career or they loose all credibility as a scientist.Again, evidence doesn’t “lead” anywhere. It is interpreted using a person’s interpretive framework (worldview). This is a pretty basic concept.
To the contrary, Newton’s faith was directly responsible for his findings. As Dr. John Lennox (Oxford Mathematician) in his debate with Dawkins, Newton believed that God upheld His creation in a consistent and predictable manner because scripture told him so. He also believed that man was given dominion over the rest of creation and was encouraged to gain knowledge because scripture told him so. So Newton expected to find laws that describe how creation works, and he did. Once he found God’s mechanism, it only strengthened his faith in God. So not only was Newton a young earth creationist who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, it was this belief that directly fueled his science, just like young earth creationists today. So it is actually the secular crowd that conducts science only because they hold presuppositions that are completely inconsistent with their worldviews.
I found this quite amusing actually. How do you prove your senses or someone else’s senses are reliable without using your senses? So you have to assume your senses are reliable in order to prove they are reliable. Hence why this is a presupposition that we must have before we can do any scientific inquiry.
Quote: 2. Like our senses, our memory has proven reliable, not because we think it's reliable. Not a preconcieved notion.
Again, quite amusing. How do you know that you ever proved your memory was reliable? You would of course have to remember doing this, so you would have to use your memory in order to prove your memory is reliable. So again, this is a presupposition we must have before we can conduct any scientific inquiry.
Quote: 3. There is expected uniformity in nature and this has been proven though the course of scientific progress. Things don't just happen for no reason and each day we find more nuances about natural phenomena in the natural world that we didn't quite understand before. As such, it's not a preconcieved notion that uniformity in nature and that the past will resemble the future, it has proven to be the case upon scruitiny.
Nope, saying that we know the future will resemble the past because that has always worked for us in the past is again assuming that because things in the past have worked they will continue to work in the future, which of course is assuming the future resembles the past. So this uniformity in nature has to be presupposed before we can conduct any scientific inquiry.
Another circular argument. “There are only natural explanations for our natural universe because this is where the evidence has brought us.” “Well what about those scientists who believe the evidence is best explained by supernatural causes?” “Well they are not allowed to use supernatural explanations.” “Why not?” “Because we know that the natural world is all there is.” And round and round we go!!!
I see you are trying to make a logical argument as to why we should be logical. Being logical has nothing to do with being sane or surviving. I see people everyday who us illogical reasoning and I assure you they are quite sane and survive just fine. We should be logical because the laws of logic are the way God thinks and we are told we should try our best to think like God does. This is why the greatest work on the subject was written by the Christian Apologist Isaac Watts. Either way, the existence of laws of logic and our adherence to them is a necessary presupposition in order to conduct any scientific inquiry.
What kind of argument is this? “Even though we all make presuppositions, creationists make a presupposition that I don’t like, therefore they are not legitimate.” They actually make a presupposition that provides a basis for all the other presuppositions that everyone else makes. They are the only ones who are truly consistent in their worldview and are therefore quite legitimate. As to the “Creationists are not scientists because scientists do science!” I am sure you can see the circular nature to that argument. I will just stick to my position that guys like Newton, Mendel, Carver, and the head of the Apollo Space Program were not only scientists but also some of the greatest scientists in the history of modern science. You can stick to your fallacious view that these men were not “true” scientists.
Yes I guess you really do have limited knowledge. Wernher von Braun was the head of the Apollo Space Program at NASA, and yes he was a young earth creationist. He believed that the evidence points directly to a young earth and universe that God created only 6,000 years ago. So I guess your statement is only true if you don’t consider putting a man on the moon as a major achievement for modern science. I however do. Your beloved Wikipedia even states, “Braun would later be regarded as the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century in his role with the United States civilian space agency NASA.[” NASA certainly does not endorse any particular religion over another, but they also apparently didn’t buy into your “no true scientist” argument considering they made a YEC the head of their entire Apollo program.
Quote: Again - many grandiose claims, no evidence, no backing, and history disagrees with you.
As I pointed out above, the Baconian Method (a.k.a the Scientific Method) was formulated by a YEC. So I guess history disagrees with you.
Quote: It's not my fault that someone apparently so educated as to be an astrophysicist (as perported by AIG) wrote up a paper so full of holes that anyone bothering to read it can point out how inane it is upon a casual read-through.
Yeah I would expect someone who doesn’t understand units of measurement to have a problem with it. Those of us who actually understand units of measurement and synchrony conventions have no issues with it at all.
Just because you lack a basic fundamental understanding of Synchrony Conventions (demonstrated by your attempt to argue against ASC by using ESC) does not make Dr. Lisle a hack. I love how you say it will never move any faster than 300,000 km/s, which of course is absolutely right, when using ESC. However, I hope you noticed Lisle is talking about ASC, and when using ASC light moves instantaneously towards an observer. So fail. I am really befuddled as to why you are having such a tough time grasping this concept, when I was teaching my freshman Physical Science students grasped synchrony conventions in less than an hour.
Quote: See, the problem is that "old Albert" and that paper reach two wholly seporate conclusions. One of them is and always has been testable and is currently the mainstay of modern physics and may very well likely be there for a long time yet to come.
Nope that’s like saying two men who measure the same board but one used inches and the other used metric units came to difference conclusions. It’s just fundamentally incorrect. If you are having such a tough time with this, maybe you should shoot Dr. Lisle an email, he’ll respond back.
However he does address your special relavtity questions in his papers, one such place is below…
“Relativity only requires that the two-way time averaged speed of light is constant for any observer. Although Einstein synchrony is normally used as the particular system in which the equations are expressed, it is not a requirement. By dropping this second axiom, we find that there are alternative definitions of simultaneity that are logically consistent for any given observer.”
- Dr. Jason Lisle
Quote: ASC can only be found at AIG and other related websites as well as skeptic and pseudoscience debunking sites.
So? Prior to 1916 you would have had a tough time finding any literature on Special Relativity. So your point is irrelevant.
Actually you can find videos of him on ‘youtube’ debating atheists, so he does not only talk to creationists. As to the whole “acceptance by the scientific community” canard, I thought that we had already established the fact that scientific fact is not established by consensus or acceptance by others. So that point doesn’t hold any water.
Quote: That said, you've once again demonstrated that you are either unwilling or unable to actually provide me with anything that would demonstrate that I am wrong about my points isofar as ASC is concerned.
Actually I have provided you with loads of evidence demonstrating you are in fact wrong, now whether I have persuaded you that you are wrong, that’s a different matter and is quite frankly irrelevant to the fact that you are indeed wrong.
I don’t remember anyone in that movie even making a reference to the shape of the earth, so I am not sure where you are going with this. However, if someone in the movie had said something along the lines of, “The news of this tragedy has spread to the ends of the earth.” I would not therefore think that those who wrote the script or who said the original quote believed the earth was flat. Or if someone in the movie said, “This tragedy has shaken the very foundations of our planet!” I would not believe that the person thought the earth was built on physical foundations. Figures of speech and metaphors are fairly easy to spot.
]
No it’s just pretty apparent by the original Hebrew which parts of the Bible are metaphoric and which parts are written as literal history. Maybe you should learn Hebrew, sounds like a bit less confusing language for you.
Wait, we are back on Dr. Lisle now? Well his work on ASC has been peer-reviewed, so I don’t see your point I guess. I just pointed out his accomplishments because you acted as if he had never heard of Special Relativity before, which of course is a ridiculous claim.
Like I said, even if Poe had described the eyes as fiery throughout the poem I would still think it was a metaphor because of the intent. As I have done with the Bible, I think I have done quite appropriate exegesis on these matters.
Quote: It doesn't really mention any other way that Christ was shown all the kingdoms of the world, either. Otherwise, you're just inserting your own meaning into the passage to avoid the conclusion I used that passage for in a vain attempt to disqualify the passage as evidence of a flat earth.
Since you can’t see all the kingdoms in the world from one mountain top, I would conclude that they did not go up there to have a great view. Just like when I say, “I am going over to Brent’s house to watch the Superbowl.” You certainly wouldn’t say, “That’s impossible! You can’t see the Superbowl from his house!” I never said I was going over there because I could see the physical game from his house now did I?
Changing the rules again, why would Poe have to use the exact same metaphor to describe the exact same thing? If at some point in time he had said the Raven had eyes made of ice, I still would not believe he now actually believed the Raven’s eyes were made of ice.
It’s clear you don’t understand the relativistic nature of motion. If I am in an elevator, I will never move in relation to the elevator (if I am standing still), even if the elevator itself is moving in relation to the building and earth. So no matter how hard you try, you can never move the earth in relation to the earth. That’s what I meant by frame of reference. Thanks for trying though!
Yeah that was the B.S. I was talking about. You say you know the second sentence is not a metaphor because it is not constructed like a simile just minus the “like”. This of course is wrong because you could very well say “The air is like a thick syrup”. Of course it IS constructed like a simile just minus the “like”. So you can just admit you were pulling all of that out of your butt now.
I assure you that if I went around saying, “The air is a thick syrup”, most people excluding you I guess would realize I was speaking metaphorically.
Oh man!! What a disappointment! I was all excited to see how I could find out how long of telomeres my ancestors had 160 generations ago! Sadly not a single one of these articles says you can do that, in fact not a single one of the articles I searched even had the term “telomeres” in it! What a waste of my freaking time.
Quote: I put the passages up, it's not my fault you didn't repost them. Mark 16:16 for example but there were four others in addition to that one that refuted your point that people do not choose their own salvation. Clearly, however, the bible evidences that people can be saved through any number of methods.
This ought to be fun; I always wanted to get in a soteriological debate with an atheist. As you will notice, Mark 16:16 says that whoever believes will be saved and whoever does not will be condemned. However, it does not say that we freely choose to believe, in fact that Bible is clear that without regeneration by the Holy Spirit not only will man not believe but he is unable to do so. So Christ’s sheep believe because they are his sheep, they do not become his sheep because they choose to believe.
A person’s faith follows God’s choosing of them…
“ 48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and(A) glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
- Acts 13:48
“One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
- Acts 16:14
Man is unable to choose Christ without God’s choosing of man, all who God chooses will trust in Christ and all who trust in Christ will be saved.
“44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me(A) draws him. And(B) I will raise him up on the last day.”
- John 6:44
“65And he said, "This is why I told you(A) that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
John 6:65
God has the right to do with His creation as he pleases, saving some, passing judgment on others, all to bring glory to Himself.
“14What shall we say then?(W) Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses,(X) "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,(Y) "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For(Z) who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man,(AA) to answer back to God?(AB) Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21(AC) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump(AD) one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience(AE) vessels of wrath(AF) prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known(AG) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he(AH) has prepared beforehand for glory— “
- Romans 9:14-22
Even if this was a completely accurate statement which it is not, so what?
Quote: I'll keep your statement in mind about god being good no matter what he does the next time I have the inkling to release a strain of genetically modified ebola virus into the general population or use a nuclear weapon to set fire to a continent since that's clearly a strive for the perfection of god.
Oh I didn’t realize you were God. Judgment is His prerogative, not yours.
Quote: I never tried to. I wouldn't touch 'christian morality' with a 10ft pole.
I'll have to remember this the next time a pasteur says something about the repeal of DADT (don't ask don't tell) instigating the fall of humankind or whatever natural disaster of the month kills thousands as a result of being nice to gay people.
So apparently you still think you determine right and wrong for everyone since you dodged the issue.
Sure it is! Humans are just a result of billions of years of purposeless evolution that arose from the “accident” of abiogenesis that arose from non-living matter that was created by the “accident” of the Big Bang. So our offspring really have no more value than bacteria, rocks, and electrons because there really is no reason as to why we are here. Sounds kind of depressing actually, I am glad I hold a worldview that goes give human life value and has a basis for absolute morality.
Quote: I value human life because I am a human being myself and I have value in my own life and the life of others to varying degrees. I value the lives of others because I am a social being and I need other people to function and grow as a human being as much as I need everything else a human values as much as they need me.
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. So when someone like Jeffery Dahmer decides that he does not need other humans and does not value human life because the theory of evolution tells us we are all just animals and it is survival of the fittest you really can’t say he did anything wrong as he was eating the bodies of his victims? Can’t say I like your worldview much. It’s no wonder that Dahmer had to convert to Christianity before he could see why his actions were truly wrong.
So the value of human life is completely arbitrary. That is scary. Since apparently morals are relative then you really can’t get on anyone else for hating homosexuals or any of that other stuff you seemed to think was wrong since they just might choose different morals than you.
Again you are just making all of this up. So since apparently murder only applies to killing humans and not humans killing humans can you bring bacteria to trial when someone dies of infection? What about a car when the brakes go out? How about this one! You should bring the earthquake in Haiti to trial for murder!!! You are being ridiculous, murder is when humans kill other humans without proper justification just like the Bible tells us; hence why I will never see HIV sitting in the defendant’s chair.
There you go appealing to absolute morality again, which of course you have already said doesn’t exist. So according to you, if the assassin does not choose to value human life then he can kill all the abortion doctors he wants, if the Christian country in Africa (no idea which one you are talking about) chooses not to value the lives of homosexuals then you can’t tell them they are doing anything wrong. You are just completely inconsistent in your worldview.
Quote: Which would make the bible a great artifact of history if any of what you just said were true.
The one thing you directly stated was a result of religion was the introduction of the scientific method despite having no real basis for that assertion and the fact that the scientific method actually predates christianity by the entire length of human history with aristotle's records being among the earliest documented historical sources of its use.
In short, another point made with zero evidence and assertions with zero backing.
The scientific method predates Christianity? Wow, it says here that Francis Bacon died in the 17th century, that dude must have been old if he came up with the method before Christ! Maybe people really did have extended life spans! You completely dodged the point that you could not conduct any science if the biblical world was not accurate. I don’t really blame you though, there really is not a rebuttal to that claim.
I am only going to respond to this point, because it is obvious my other points were all lost on you. It was not refuted at all, if you had actually read the article you would know this. It pretty much just says they don’t use K-Ar dating anymore because it was so unreliable, which of course was proven by creationists because nobody else cared to cross check the method with rocks of known ages. So know I guess the burden of proof is on you, can you give any radiometric method that can actually date rocks of known ages correctly? I want actual peer-reviewed work, not just some guy from talkorigins blowing smoke saying “yeah the methods are reliable despite the fact I give no examples.” Thanks!
