Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: Goliath, though in valid form, FAILS to give a TRUE conclusion

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: w_w_c_l Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:19 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Goliath, though in valid form, FAILS to give
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 14, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --------Forward from Rick Hartzog-------


      -----Original Message-----
      From: w_w_c_l
      Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:19 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Goliath, though in valid form, FAILS to give a TRUE conclusion


      > David Willis here,
      >
      > Shame, shame, repent!, repent!, yada, yada.
      > (Getting that out of the way).

      David Willis has "apparently" hardened his heart.


      > I think my question:
      >
      > DW>>
      > Is this part of the major and minor premise true
      > or false? "there is empirical evidence that no one
      > is able to rise from the dead">>
      >
      >
      > ...and the answer Rick gave to it ("false"), proves
      > exactly what I meant to prove.

      That isn't what you were hoping to prove at all, and
      you know it.

      You were hoping someone would tell you that it is
      true that there is empirical evidence that *no one*
      can rise from the dead, and then you were planning
      on saying "Aha!"

      I know how you operate, Willis.


      > That is that using a "loaded" and poorly defined term
      > like "empirical evidence" to try to prove what God may
      > or may not have done and how He may have done it, is
      > going to cause wrong conclusions to be reached.

      I'm afraid you don't know how this game is played.

      You said, "There is empirical evidence that *no one*
      is able to rise from the dead," a universal negative.

      I said, "That is false. Jesus rose from the dead."
      All it takes is one exception to a universal negative
      to show that the universal negative is false.

      So you said, "There is empirical evidence that Jesus
      did not rise from the dead."

      I said that is false, "all things considered". I deny
      your assertion.

      It is now your task to show that there is empirical
      evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.


      > Certainly that is true regarding the Resurrection, and
      > even Rick agrees.

      You are incorrect. There is no "empirical evidence" that
      Jesus of Galilee *did not* rise from the dead.

      There IS empirical evidence that the Earth is billions
      of years old.

      That is using the same definition of "empirical evidence"
      in both cases. "Empirical evidence" is not a "loaded and
      poorly defined term" as you call it.


      > Rick objected that the argument I used was flawed because
      > it was "asking for evidence of a universal negative."
      > Ooooo! Such a BAD thing to do in a logical argument!
      > Where is THAT rule stated that you can't do that?

      You can do it, but when you affirm a universal negative,
      in most situations your task of proving that it is true
      is much more difficult in principle -- and there is always
      the possibility of someone finding a *single exception*
      to your universal negative that proves your statement is
      false.

      That is what I did. I said that Jesus rose from the dead,
      a single example that shows your universal negative is
      false, unless you can present the evidence that the example
      I provided is not an exception.


      > If the argument was made to show that Dumbo can't fly
      > and I showed the empirical evidence that elephants
      > can't fly (a "universal negative"), wouldn't that be a
      > proper argument to use if we were going to rule out
      > supernatural acts of God?

      No. And here is why:

      You make the universal claim that elephants can't fly,
      and I point out the exception to your negative -- Dumbo
      could fly.

      You can't disprove the exception just by restating your
      original assertion that elephants can't fly.

      You claim that no one is able to rise from the dead. I
      point out the exception to your universal negative --
      Jesus rose from the dead. You can't prove that Jesus
      was not an exception to the negative just by restating
      the negative.

      In both cases you must disprove the exception *before*
      you can go on with your claims that *no* elephant can
      fly and *no one* rises from the dead.


      > Provided that we rule out the supernatural, it most
      > certainly is sufficient evidence to reasonable minds
      > to show Jesus in particular did not rise, if we can
      > show evidence that no human has ever risen from the
      > dead (as a naturalist scientist who rules out
      > supernatural acts would tell us the "empirical evidence"
      > shows).

      Realistically, if you went to Science (personified) with
      the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, Science would
      neither be able to prove Jesus did rise or that Jesus
      did not rise, using the constraints of quantitative
      research. You don't see any science journals publishing
      articles making a definitive statement either way.

      Science just says it doesn't have enough evidence to
      say one way or the other -- taking into consideration
      that Jesus isn't purported to be just some ordinary
      guy anyway.

      But a person who believes in Jesus, who knows something
      of scientific methodology, may say, "Well, wait a minute --
      there is some qualitative evidence that Jesus did rise
      from the dead," and begins to list all the things that
      may be interpreted as evidence for that. It still does
      not "prove" scientifically that Jesus did rise from the
      dead, but there seems to be more evidence that He did than
      that He did not -- at least to those who will accept
      qualitative evidence, which in this case is the best that
      Science can do.


      > "Universal" evidence is certainly fair game to prove
      > is a premise is true or false.

      We have no evidence of life on other planets, therefore
      there is no life on other planets?

      I don't think you realize what you are saying.


      > However, my point of course is that we should NOT
      > rule out supernatural acts for either the Resurrection
      > OR for creation...or the flood.

      Which means that you or anybody else can make up whatever
      claim they want to and say that supernatural acts mean it
      is possible, and therefore the claims must be true.

      So Dumbo can fly. Benny Hinn is for real. The angel
      Moroni brought Joseph Smith some golden plates.

      It's a miracle!

      But I'm not ruling out supernatural acts -- I am saying
      that God did not create the Universe and Earth and
      everything in it in one earthly week a few thousand
      years ago.


      > DW>>There is empirical evidence that Jesus *did* rise
      > from the dead.

      "DW" didn't say that. Rick did. DW says that there is
      empirical evidence that Jesus did NOT rise from the
      dead. I deny that assertion.

      (You'll notice that "DW" misrepresents who says what
      from time to time.)


      > RH tells us that the Resurrection "...may be
      > considered true..."
      >
      > And of course it IS considered true by christians,
      > but that is NOT what the "empirical evidence" (as it
      > is used in the Baty's "Goliath") would tell us.
      > That is my point.

      No, that is not your point at all. What you are trying
      to do with your age-of-the-Earth supernatural claim is
      the same thing as finding the body of Jesus would be --
      with all kinds of indisputable evidence that this is
      indeed the body of Jesus -- no doubt about it,
      crucifixion evidence, a scroll of documentation, some
      DNA, etc. -- and you coming up with a bunch of
      pseudoscience excuses that misrepresent the data and
      saying that God "could have" just made this fake corpse
      to fool everybody -- the old "Apparent Corpse" argument!


      > It MAY be "considered true" by christians but to
      > NATURALISTS, it is NOT true in FACT because the
      > empirical evidence refutes it.

      Fine. Produce the empirical evidence that Jesus of
      Galilee did not rise from the dead.


      > And if you let THEM decide what is or isn't "empirical
      > evidence" then you will get wrong conclusions.

      No, you are misrepresenting what scientific evidence is.

      Evidence is evidence. People don't "decide" what
      evidence is -- the evidence speaks for itself.

      Now produce the scientific evidence that the man Jesus,
      the rabbi that caused such a stir 2,000 years ago, did
      not rise from the dead.


      > Therefore the minor AND major premises of the Goliath
      > argument Baty loves so much ARE UNTRUE...not with the
      > sort of definition he has in mind for "empirical evidence."
      > Rick himself provides the argument to show that.

      As usual, DB Willis, you are trying to get around sensible
      discussion by using nonsense arguments.

      We have the Earth right here. We can examine your claims
      about nothing being over a few thousand years old. Your
      claims are shown false, and your only counterargument is
      to say that Dumbo can fly and Benny Hinn performs
      miraculous healings. And if we don't take your word for
      it, then Jesus didn't rise from the dead.


      I said:

      >> ... but the "empiricism"
      >> in this case would have to be determined by
      >> "qualitative" rather than "quantitative" research
      >> methods, taking a lot of different things into
      >> account, and some of those things are perceived only
      >> through faith. Faith is a key factor.

      DB Willis replies:

      > Ah! Ya THINK? You mean that God CAN and sometimes
      > DOES things that are in conflict with what a naturalist
      > would say the "empirical evidence shows?"

      "Naturalists" have to rely qualitative evidence, too,
      for certain applications which cannot be measured in
      a quantitative way.

      I said to start with that there is not any empirical
      evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

      I say that the evidence that Jesus *did* rise from the
      dead is qualitative and not quantitative.

      You say that is in conflict with the "naturalist's"
      idea of empirical evidence.

      Now produce the empirical evidence that Jesus did not
      rise from the dead.

      I don't think you can do it.


      > Very interesting. SO what IS your problem with a
      > creation model then that also proposes something that
      > is a MIRACLE and INSTANTANEOUS?

      Because we can examine it. We can see it. Through
      astronomical observations we can see stars and planets
      coming into existence right now. They aren't just
      popping out of nowhere. While I don't deny that it is
      "miraculous", I do deny that it is "instantaneous" --
      at least in human terms.


      > Or one that uses such to explain part of what we
      > observe, though that may conflict with someone's
      > idea of the "empirical evidence"?

      What may be someone's "idea" of empirical evidence is
      irrelevant. You produce your idea of empirical
      evidence, and we'll see whether your evidence will
      indeed hold up to objective examination, or whether
      there might be other evidence that shows your
      "interpretation" of the evidence to be incorrect.

      And as far as explaining *part* of what we observe,
      you have already run into this brick wall before:
      where is the boundary between the "real" part, that
      really is as it appears to be, and the illusory part,
      that is only "apparent"?


      > Maybe some "qualitative-not-quantitative empirical
      > evidence" applies there too.

      You really don't understand science at all, do you?

      We have a planet here. We can examine it. We can
      propose answers, and those answers suggest more
      questions that we can check to see if our proposed
      answers were right.

      You don't settle for qualitative research when you
      have tons of quantitative evidence available, and you
      sure don't accept somebody's qualitative "evidence"
      when it is irrefutably contradicted by the existing
      body of quantitative evidence.


      > Is your "faith" not sufficient to be a "key factor"
      > in evaluating that?

      My faith is not dependent on the age of the Earth.

      There is therefore no reason for for me to expose my
      faith to ridicule by making false claims about the
      world. If I say the Earth is 6,000 years old and
      humans co-existed with dinosaurs in the same breath
      that I say Jesus rose from the dead, that would be
      damaging to my credibility.


      > And we are not just talking about miracles either.
      > We know that a uniformitarian approach (and I mean
      > relatively...I know that AE's will "allow" for
      > some relatively lesser catastrophes) which rules out
      > the sort of cataclysmic events most YEs say were
      > involved in the Flood also are considered to be
      > contrary to the "empirical evidence" though they
      > are not nec. involving miracles.

      Your "catastrophic flood geology" is a real-world claim
      that is subject to empirical verification. It fails.

      You have no evidence for it.

      Ooops! Did I just make a universally negative claim?

      Yes, I did. How can I do such a thing? Might be
      something for you to think about...

      Everything every young-earth creationist has ever put
      forward for "flood evidence" is easily shown false by
      mountains of contradictory evidence. "Flood geology"
      is *NOT* an equally plausible explanation that simply
      depends on looking at the evidence in a different way.

      Additionally, you have neither Biblical support for
      all the cataclysmic events you imagine during the
      Flood year, nor do you have observational evidence
      that would make you suppose any such cataclysms and
      catastrophes ever happened.

      You *start out* with the idea that you have to explain
      all the fossil layers with a year-long Flood *NOT*
      because that is what we would expect sedimentary rocks
      to look like as the result of a global flood but RATHER
      because you have to find some way of explaining away the
      fossil layers themselves, which show the Earth is way
      older than any 6,000 years.

      So you try to force the sedimentary layers of the Earth
      into a year-long flood, and the result, of course, is
      a catastrophe. Your "flood model" is an incoherent
      wreck, unable to support the evidence or even its own
      weight.


      > So saying "empirical evidence" as Baty would use it
      > really means, "when viewed through a naturalist and/or
      > uniformitarian-only approach".

      "So" nothing! Your entire line of reasoning is shot,
      just because you want to try to play irrational games.

      The *evidence* is that the Earth is ancient. Your
      excuses of apparent age and supernaturalism and
      catastrophism do not have the slightest effect on
      that evidence -- the Earth is ancient, and the Universe
      is even older.


      > I won't accept that definition and no one else who is
      > not an atheist should either.

      Yes, I know, all of science is an atheist conspiracy.

      So why haven't any "Christian" scientists been able to
      show the flaws in the "atheist" scientists' dating
      methods? Why do the C-14 dates correlate with the
      layers of varves going back to 40,000 years ago, and
      the rings in fossil corals from 20,000 years ago, and
      the U/Th dates for those same corals, and the electron
      spin resonance dates, and the paleomagnetism dates and
      so on and so on? Why do all the radiometric dates
      and non-radiometric dates correlate and overlap going
      back and back and back in time? There is NO explanation
      for it other than that is just how old things are, in
      spite of how your creation "scientists" try to mislead
      you.


      > That definition for "empirical evidence" will only
      > "prove" the conclusion if the premise is true that
      > such approaches will always provide true interpretations
      > of the evidence, and as we see with the Resurrection,
      > they won't.

      Well, for one thing, this sentence doesn't even make
      sense. Nobody claims the premise that "empirical
      evidence" always provides the true interpretation of
      the evidence is true -- but the evidence sits there,
      nonetheless, waiting to be *disproved* (that's an
      important point) by additional evidence or a better
      interpretation.

      You have to produce the evidence that the Resurrection
      never happened before you can claim that the evidence
      has simply been misinterpreted and that science has
      come to the wrong conclusion about it.


      > Oh, and BTW, if there are any AEs out there who DO still
      > believe their Bibles when it tells you there was a GLOBAL
      > flood, killing all land life (and it DOES say that...I
      > challenge Baty to argue against that...see the
      > Goliath-killer argument after my sig)...

      Delusions of grandeur?


      > ...then they would have to also denounce that view and
      > accept the "empirical evidence" that tells them THAT is
      > impossible (because there is no evidence in the top-most
      > strata), even IF AE is true.

      Let's make it clear what the creationists are trying to
      pull here. As I said above, and in another message
      recently, it isn't the Flood itself that is so important
      to young-earth creationists, it is using the Flood to
      try to wave away the sedimentary strata that is so crucial
      to their argument. The Earth "could have" magically
      flooded a few thousand years ago, and that STILL would
      not be where the fossils came from. No, they have to
      make the Flood story sound a thousand times more violent
      than the Genesis account makes it sound -- just to get
      you to believe that's where the sedimentary layers came
      from.


      > Will all of you AE's do that? Will you say it was just
      > a fable...that story about the ark?...a fable that
      > deceives us about what really did happen?

      The fables that young-earth creationists have cooked up
      about the Flood are far more incredible than the Flood
      story itself.


      I said:

      >> There is empirical evidence that the Earth is way
      >> older than any few thousand years, and that is
      >> *quantitative*.

      DB Willis replies:

      > That is what is under dispute and what is not proven...
      > not when you rule IN "faith" as Rick tells us we SHOULD.

      Faith is for things that are *not* seen -- not for an
      excuse to deny reality.

      You claim that it is "under dispute" and *not* proven that
      there is empirical evidence that the Earth is way older
      than a few thousand years.

      That is denial of reality.

      Yet you claim that there *is* empirical evidence that
      Jesus did not rise from the dead, which I am demanding
      that you produce.


      > Faith in God acting in a supernatural way and also
      > the scientific approach of catastrophism.

      There isn't any "scientific approach of catastrophism".
      The scientific approach shows that your "catastrophism"
      is a fantasy.

      Here are just a few simple things that prove your
      "catastrophic flood geology" is nonsense: evaporites,
      varves, trackways (including spider tracks), raindrop
      impressions, and dinosaur nests, all right in the middle
      of so-called "flood layers". You can't explain these
      things with your catastrophism, and these are but a few
      of the problems which conclusively refute your "model".

      (Remember DB Willis once speculated that the Laetoli
      tracks were made *during* the Flood!)


      > Having some "qualitative/quantitative" imaginary
      > distinction won't fly.

      And thus do you show your ignorance of research methods.

      We are restricted by the nature of the data we are able
      to collect. If you do well in school, how much of that
      success can be attributed to the way you *feel* about
      your teacher? How do you go about quantifying "feeling"?

      You can't do it -- there are too many complex variables
      that have to be controlled, and the same experimental
      method may not be able to be replicated in other classes
      in different settings. You are stuck with qualitative
      research that kinda gives a general idea that a good
      rapport with the teacher is in some way related to
      better learning outcomes.

      Measuring the age of the Earth is not so complicated or
      "fuzzy" -- and the methodology can be replicated by
      other researchers all over the world, who will all come
      up with the same results. That is quantitative.


      > I can imagine the scoffs and hoots if a YE had
      > introduced such a distinction! There is no such
      > distinction between one miracle (the Resurrection)
      > and another (instantly creating with apparent age)...

      Oh, do you really think so? Are you saying that the
      Earth doesn't exist except as a "quality"? Are you
      saying that it can't be examined using quantitative
      research methods?

      We don't have the body of Jesus to examine, but the
      Earth is right here. Why don't you show us that
      miraculous line between the part of the Earth as God
      poofed it into existence with "apparent age" and the
      part that bears a true record of the things that have
      happened since then?


      > ...so waving around an argument which has that concept
      > as one of its premises upon which the conclusion hinges
      > is just waving around a lot of hot air.

      If you can't show us the boundary between the real and
      the apparent it will be evident who is full of hot air.


      > It sure is strange that Baty himself refused to answer
      > the question. Maybe he's still struggling to come up
      > with a decent answer.
      >
      > DW

      Always ready with the insinuations, aren't you, Willis?

      Robert might have something else going on right now.


      > Here is the argument I want someone to refute. Don't
      > just CONTRADICT the minor premise.

      Why not? Your minor premise is an affirmative statement
      that makes a truth claim.

      You have to show that both of the premises are true
      to show that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed
      by the argument.


      > Naked contradiction is not argument.

      If both premises cannot be shown true, the argument
      is not sound.


      > SHOW that it is false by fairly exegeting God's word
      > using proper hermeneutics...not just trying to twist
      > it using a "scientific" filter to make the text say
      > something it doesn't actually say.

      Nope! It isn't the task of the negative to do the
      exegesis -- if a full exegesis is even needed.


      > If you can't refute this argument by dealing with the
      > text itself, then you must admit to the truth of the
      > conclusion.

      Sorry, but that is not the case at all. To refute
      the argument requires nothing more than showing that
      you have failed to prove your two affirmative statements,
      the major and minor premise, are true.


      > Willis's Goliath-Killer
      >
      >
      > Major premise:
      >
      > If God's word when fairly read using proper hermeneutics
      > tells us of a recent global flood, and that conflicts with
      > what conventional science says occurred in recent time,
      > then either God's word is false or conventional science
      > is false.
      >
      > Minor premise:
      >
      > God's word when fairly read using proper hermeneutics
      > tells us of a recent global flood, and that conflicts
      > with what conventional science says occurred in recent
      > time.
      >
      > Therefore:
      >
      > Either God's word or conventional science is false.


      OK, folks, there's your conclusion! Something is wrong
      somewhere, according to DB Willis. According to DB Willis
      he has inerrantly exegeted the text and either God's word
      is wrong or science is wrong, because we know that DB Willis
      cannot be wrong. Nope, it has to either be the word of
      God or all of conventional science. Now, DB Willis is
      left with the job of figuring out which one it is that's
      wrong.

      Around these parts, most of us assume that "God's word"
      cannot be wrong, and I'll be the first to say that if
      God really does say something and conventional science
      wants to argue about it, conventional science is badly
      mistaken.

      We can guess that DB Willis is going to declare that
      conventional science is all wrong, but I've got news for
      you: conventional science is going to want to see some
      evidence for DB Willis's accusation.

      I'm simply going to deny the minor premise is true --
      "proper hermeneutics" does not allow us to claim that
      the text teaches a global flood.

      If the interpretation you come up with doesn't match
      anything in the world that the story is about, it seems
      like that ought to be a hint that you have NOT been using
      "proper hermeneutics". There are other things to take
      into account as well.

      Simply by reading the text you don't have any way of
      knowing that you have come to the right conclusions
      about it if you never test your interpretation against
      reality.

      Otherwise you are just engaging in a circular argument.

      (And don't think that DB Willis won't be perfectly happy
      to go around and around and around in circles -- we
      have already had this discussion about the Flood.
      DB Willis wasn't able to explain how Jabal, Jubal and
      Tubal-cain, of the lineage of Cain, became the fathers
      of those who dwelt in tents, and handled musical
      instruments, and worked metals in *the post-Flood world*.

      Neither was he able to explain the presence of bitumen
      in the pre-Flood world.)



      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      Rick, As you seem to imply, I might return DBWillis unseemly behavior and start complaining about his neglecting to have already joined in agreeing with me as
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 14, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick,

        As you seem to imply, I might return DBWillis' unseemly behavior and start complaining about his neglecting to have already joined in agreeing with me as to those "succinct" five steps in the process of understanding the fundamentals of sound reasoning, common sense, my "Goliath of GRAS", and related issues.

        However, I am willing to wait.

        DBWillis needs to take his assignment seriously and make sure of his position(s) when he returns to take up the "step by step" process he needs to go through in order to be "succinct" in addressing and correcting his problems understanding these important public issues.

        Here's one of the links to my latest "succinct" presentation for DBWillis' consideration:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15433

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ---------Rick's Forwarded Message---------

        From: w_w_c_l
        Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:19 PM
        To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Goliath, though in valid form, FAILS to give a TRUE conclusion

        > David Willis here,
        >
        > Shame, shame, repent!, repent!, yada, yada.
        > (Getting that out of the way).

        David Willis has "apparently" hardened his heart.

        > I think my question:
        >
        > DW>>
        > Is this part of the major and minor premise true
        > or false? "there is empirical evidence that no one
        > is able to rise from the dead">>
        >
        >
        > ...and the answer Rick gave to it ("false"), proves
        > exactly what I meant to prove.

        That isn't what you were hoping to prove at all, and
        you know it.

        You were hoping someone would tell you that it is
        true that there is empirical evidence that *no one*
        can rise from the dead, and then you were planning
        on saying "Aha!"

        I know how you operate, Willis.

        > That is that using a "loaded" and poorly defined term
        > like "empirical evidence" to try to prove what God may
        > or may not have done and how He may have done it, is
        > going to cause wrong conclusions to be reached.

        I'm afraid you don't know how this game is played.

        You said, "There is empirical evidence that *no one*
        is able to rise from the dead," a universal negative.

        I said, "That is false. Jesus rose from the dead."
        All it takes is one exception to a universal negative
        to show that the universal negative is false.

        So you said, "There is empirical evidence that Jesus
        did not rise from the dead."

        I said that is false, "all things considered". I deny
        your assertion.

        It is now your task to show that there is empirical
        evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.


        > Certainly that is true regarding the Resurrection, and
        > even Rick agrees.

        You are incorrect. There is no "empirical evidence" that
        Jesus of Galilee *did not* rise from the dead.

        There IS empirical evidence that the Earth is billions
        of years old.

        That is using the same definition of "empirical evidence"
        in both cases. "Empirical evidence" is not a "loaded and
        poorly defined term" as you call it.

        > Rick objected that the argument I used was flawed because
        > it was "asking for evidence of a universal negative."
        > Ooooo! Such a BAD thing to do in a logical argument!
        > Where is THAT rule stated that you can't do that?

        You can do it, but when you affirm a universal negative,
        in most situations your task of proving that it is true
        is much more difficult in principle -- and there is always
        the possibility of someone finding a *single exception*
        to your universal negative that proves your statement is
        false.

        That is what I did. I said that Jesus rose from the dead,
        a single example that shows your universal negative is
        false, unless you can present the evidence that the example
        I provided is not an exception.

        > If the argument was made to show that Dumbo can't fly
        > and I showed the empirical evidence that elephants
        > can't fly (a "universal negative"), wouldn't that be a
        > proper argument to use if we were going to rule out
        > supernatural acts of God?

        No. And here is why:

        You make the universal claim that elephants can't fly,
        and I point out the exception to your negative -- Dumbo
        could fly.

        You can't disprove the exception just by restating your
        original assertion that elephants can't fly.

        You claim that no one is able to rise from the dead. I
        point out the exception to your universal negative --
        Jesus rose from the dead. You can't prove that Jesus
        was not an exception to the negative just by restating
        the negative.

        In both cases you must disprove the exception *before*
        you can go on with your claims that *no* elephant can
        fly and *no one* rises from the dead.

        > Provided that we rule out the supernatural, it most
        > certainly is sufficient evidence to reasonable minds
        > to show Jesus in particular did not rise, if we can
        > show evidence that no human has ever risen from the
        > dead (as a naturalist scientist who rules out
        > supernatural acts would tell us the "empirical evidence"
        > shows).

        Realistically, if you went to Science (personified) with
        the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, Science would
        neither be able to prove Jesus did rise or that Jesus
        did not rise, using the constraints of quantitative
        research. You don't see any science journals publishing
        articles making a definitive statement either way.

        Science just says it doesn't have enough evidence to
        say one way or the other -- taking into consideration
        that Jesus isn't purported to be just some ordinary
        guy anyway.

        But a person who believes in Jesus, who knows something
        of scientific methodology, may say, "Well, wait a minute --
        there is some qualitative evidence that Jesus did rise
        from the dead," and begins to list all the things that
        may be interpreted as evidence for that. It still does
        not "prove" scientifically that Jesus did rise from the
        dead, but there seems to be more evidence that He did than
        that He did not -- at least to those who will accept
        qualitative evidence, which in this case is the best that
        Science can do.


        > "Universal" evidence is certainly fair game to prove
        > is a premise is true or false.

        We have no evidence of life on other planets, therefore
        there is no life on other planets?

        I don't think you realize what you are saying.

        > However, my point of course is that we should NOT
        > rule out supernatural acts for either the Resurrection
        > OR for creation...or the flood.

        Which means that you or anybody else can make up whatever
        claim they want to and say that supernatural acts mean it
        is possible, and therefore the claims must be true.

        So Dumbo can fly. Benny Hinn is for real. The angel
        Moroni brought Joseph Smith some golden plates.

        It's a miracle!

        But I'm not ruling out supernatural acts -- I am saying
        that God did not create the Universe and Earth and
        everything in it in one earthly week a few thousand
        years ago.

        > DW>>There is empirical evidence that Jesus *did* rise
        > from the dead.

        "DW" didn't say that. Rick did. DW says that there is
        empirical evidence that Jesus did NOT rise from the
        dead. I deny that assertion.

        (You'll notice that "DW" misrepresents who says what
        from time to time.)

        > RH tells us that the Resurrection "...may be
        > considered true..."
        >
        > And of course it IS considered true by christians,
        > but that is NOT what the "empirical evidence" (as it
        > is used in the Baty's "Goliath") would tell us.
        > That is my point.

        No, that is not your point at all. What you are trying
        to do with your age-of-the-Earth supernatural claim is
        the same thing as finding the body of Jesus would be --
        with all kinds of indisputable evidence that this is
        indeed the body of Jesus -- no doubt about it,
        crucifixion evidence, a scroll of documentation, some
        DNA, etc. -- and you coming up with a bunch of
        pseudoscience excuses that misrepresent the data and
        saying that God "could have" just made this fake corpse
        to fool everybody -- the old "Apparent Corpse" argument!

        > It MAY be "considered true" by christians but to
        > NATURALISTS, it is NOT true in FACT because the
        > empirical evidence refutes it.

        Fine. Produce the empirical evidence that Jesus of
        Galilee did not rise from the dead.

        > And if you let THEM decide what is or isn't "empirical
        > evidence" then you will get wrong conclusions.

        No, you are misrepresenting what scientific evidence is.

        Evidence is evidence. People don't "decide" what
        evidence is -- the evidence speaks for itself.

        Now produce the scientific evidence that the man Jesus,
        the rabbi that caused such a stir 2,000 years ago, did
        not rise from the dead.


        > Therefore the minor AND major premises of the Goliath
        > argument Baty loves so much ARE UNTRUE...not with the
        > sort of definition he has in mind for "empirical evidence."
        > Rick himself provides the argument to show that.

        As usual, DB Willis, you are trying to get around sensible
        discussion by using nonsense arguments.

        We have the Earth right here. We can examine your claims
        about nothing being over a few thousand years old. Your
        claims are shown false, and your only counterargument is
        to say that Dumbo can fly and Benny Hinn performs
        miraculous healings. And if we don't take your word for
        it, then Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

        I said:

        >> ... but the "empiricism"
        >> in this case would have to be determined by
        >> "qualitative" rather than "quantitative" research
        >> methods, taking a lot of different things into
        >> account, and some of those things are perceived only
        >> through faith. Faith is a key factor.

        DB Willis replies:

        > Ah! Ya THINK? You mean that God CAN and sometimes
        > DOES things that are in conflict with what a naturalist
        > would say the "empirical evidence shows?"

        "Naturalists" have to rely qualitative evidence, too,
        for certain applications which cannot be measured in
        a quantitative way.

        I said to start with that there is not any empirical
        evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

        I say that the evidence that Jesus *did* rise from the
        dead is qualitative and not quantitative.

        You say that is in conflict with the "naturalist's"
        idea of empirical evidence.

        Now produce the empirical evidence that Jesus did not
        rise from the dead.

        I don't think you can do it.

        > Very interesting. SO what IS your problem with a
        > creation model then that also proposes something that
        > is a MIRACLE and INSTANTANEOUS?

        Because we can examine it. We can see it. Through
        astronomical observations we can see stars and planets
        coming into existence right now. They aren't just
        popping out of nowhere. While I don't deny that it is
        "miraculous", I do deny that it is "instantaneous" --
        at least in human terms.


        > Or one that uses such to explain part of what we
        > observe, though that may conflict with someone's
        > idea of the "empirical evidence"?

        What may be someone's "idea" of empirical evidence is
        irrelevant. You produce your idea of empirical
        evidence, and we'll see whether your evidence will
        indeed hold up to objective examination, or whether
        there might be other evidence that shows your
        "interpretation" of the evidence to be incorrect.

        And as far as explaining *part* of what we observe,
        you have already run into this brick wall before:
        where is the boundary between the "real" part, that
        really is as it appears to be, and the illusory part,
        that is only "apparent"?


        > Maybe some "qualitative-not-quantitative empirical
        > evidence" applies there too.

        You really don't understand science at all, do you?

        We have a planet here. We can examine it. We can
        propose answers, and those answers suggest more
        questions that we can check to see if our proposed
        answers were right.

        You don't settle for qualitative research when you
        have tons of quantitative evidence available, and you
        sure don't accept somebody's qualitative "evidence"
        when it is irrefutably contradicted by the existing
        body of quantitative evidence.

        > Is your "faith" not sufficient to be a "key factor"
        > in evaluating that?

        My faith is not dependent on the age of the Earth.

        There is therefore no reason for for me to expose my
        faith to ridicule by making false claims about the
        world. If I say the Earth is 6,000 years old and
        humans co-existed with dinosaurs in the same breath
        that I say Jesus rose from the dead, that would be
        damaging to my credibility.


        > And we are not just talking about miracles either.
        > We know that a uniformitarian approach (and I mean
        > relatively...I know that AE's will "allow" for
        > some relatively lesser catastrophes) which rules out
        > the sort of cataclysmic events most YEs say were
        > involved in the Flood also are considered to be
        > contrary to the "empirical evidence" though they
        > are not nec. involving miracles.

        Your "catastrophic flood geology" is a real-world claim
        that is subject to empirical verification. It fails.

        You have no evidence for it.

        Ooops! Did I just make a universally negative claim?

        Yes, I did. How can I do such a thing? Might be
        something for you to think about...

        Everything every young-earth creationist has ever put
        forward for "flood evidence" is easily shown false by
        mountains of contradictory evidence. "Flood geology"
        is *NOT* an equally plausible explanation that simply
        depends on looking at the evidence in a different way.

        Additionally, you have neither Biblical support for
        all the cataclysmic events you imagine during the
        Flood year, nor do you have observational evidence
        that would make you suppose any such cataclysms and
        catastrophes ever happened.

        You *start out* with the idea that you have to explain
        all the fossil layers with a year-long Flood *NOT*
        because that is what we would expect sedimentary rocks
        to look like as the result of a global flood but RATHER
        because you have to find some way of explaining away the
        fossil layers themselves, which show the Earth is way
        older than any 6,000 years.

        So you try to force the sedimentary layers of the Earth
        into a year-long flood, and the result, of course, is
        a catastrophe. Your "flood model" is an incoherent
        wreck, unable to support the evidence or even its own
        weight.

        > So saying "empirical evidence" as Baty would use it
        > really means, "when viewed through a naturalist and/or
        > uniformitarian-only approach".

        "So" nothing! Your entire line of reasoning is shot,
        just because you want to try to play irrational games.

        The *evidence* is that the Earth is ancient. Your
        excuses of apparent age and supernaturalism and
        catastrophism do not have the slightest effect on
        that evidence -- the Earth is ancient, and the Universe
        is even older.

        > I won't accept that definition and no one else who is
        > not an atheist should either.

        Yes, I know, all of science is an atheist conspiracy.

        So why haven't any "Christian" scientists been able to
        show the flaws in the "atheist" scientists' dating
        methods? Why do the C-14 dates correlate with the
        layers of varves going back to 40,000 years ago, and
        the rings in fossil corals from 20,000 years ago, and
        the U/Th dates for those same corals, and the electron
        spin resonance dates, and the paleomagnetism dates and
        so on and so on? Why do all the radiometric dates
        and non-radiometric dates correlate and overlap going
        back and back and back in time? There is NO explanation
        for it other than that is just how old things are, in
        spite of how your creation "scientists" try to mislead
        you.

        > That definition for "empirical evidence" will only
        > "prove" the conclusion if the premise is true that
        > such approaches will always provide true interpretations
        > of the evidence, and as we see with the Resurrection,
        > they won't.

        Well, for one thing, this sentence doesn't even make
        sense. Nobody claims the premise that "empirical
        evidence" always provides the true interpretation of
        the evidence is true -- but the evidence sits there,
        nonetheless, waiting to be *disproved* (that's an
        important point) by additional evidence or a better
        interpretation.

        You have to produce the evidence that the Resurrection
        never happened before you can claim that the evidence
        has simply been misinterpreted and that science has
        come to the wrong conclusion about it.

        > Oh, and BTW, if there are any AEs out there who DO still
        > believe their Bibles when it tells you there was a GLOBAL
        > flood, killing all land life (and it DOES say that...I
        > challenge Baty to argue against that...see the
        > Goliath-killer argument after my sig)...

        Delusions of grandeur?

        > ...then they would have to also denounce that view and
        > accept the "empirical evidence" that tells them THAT is
        > impossible (because there is no evidence in the top-most
        > strata), even IF AE is true.

        Let's make it clear what the creationists are trying to
        pull here. As I said above, and in another message
        recently, it isn't the Flood itself that is so important
        to young-earth creationists, it is using the Flood to
        try to wave away the sedimentary strata that is so crucial
        to their argument. The Earth "could have" magically
        flooded a few thousand years ago, and that STILL would
        not be where the fossils came from. No, they have to
        make the Flood story sound a thousand times more violent
        than the Genesis account makes it sound -- just to get
        you to believe that's where the sedimentary layers came
        from.


        > Will all of you AE's do that? Will you say it was just
        > a fable...that story about the ark?...a fable that
        > deceives us about what really did happen?

        The fables that young-earth creationists have cooked up
        about the Flood are far more incredible than the Flood
        story itself.

        I said:

        >> There is empirical evidence that the Earth is way
        >> older than any few thousand years, and that is
        >> *quantitative*.

        DB Willis replies:

        > That is what is under dispute and what is not proven...
        > not when you rule IN "faith" as Rick tells us we SHOULD.

        Faith is for things that are *not* seen -- not for an
        excuse to deny reality.

        You claim that it is "under dispute" and *not* proven that
        there is empirical evidence that the Earth is way older
        than a few thousand years.

        That is denial of reality.

        Yet you claim that there *is* empirical evidence that
        Jesus did not rise from the dead, which I am demanding
        that you produce.

        > Faith in God acting in a supernatural way and also
        > the scientific approach of catastrophism.

        There isn't any "scientific approach of catastrophism".
        The scientific approach shows that your "catastrophism"
        is a fantasy.

        Here are just a few simple things that prove your
        "catastrophic flood geology" is nonsense: evaporites,
        varves, trackways (including spider tracks), raindrop
        impressions, and dinosaur nests, all right in the middle
        of so-called "flood layers". You can't explain these
        things with your catastrophism, and these are but a few
        of the problems which conclusively refute your "model".

        (Remember DB Willis once speculated that the Laetoli
        tracks were made *during* the Flood!)


        > Having some "qualitative/quantitative" imaginary
        > distinction won't fly.

        And thus do you show your ignorance of research methods.

        We are restricted by the nature of the data we are able
        to collect. If you do well in school, how much of that
        success can be attributed to the way you *feel* about
        your teacher? How do you go about quantifying "feeling"?

        You can't do it -- there are too many complex variables
        that have to be controlled, and the same experimental
        method may not be able to be replicated in other classes
        in different settings. You are stuck with qualitative
        research that kinda gives a general idea that a good
        rapport with the teacher is in some way related to
        better learning outcomes.

        Measuring the age of the Earth is not so complicated or
        "fuzzy" -- and the methodology can be replicated by
        other researchers all over the world, who will all come
        up with the same results. That is quantitative.

        > I can imagine the scoffs and hoots if a YE had
        > introduced such a distinction! There is no such
        > distinction between one miracle (the Resurrection)
        > and another (instantly creating with apparent age)...

        Oh, do you really think so? Are you saying that the
        Earth doesn't exist except as a "quality"? Are you
        saying that it can't be examined using quantitative
        research methods?

        We don't have the body of Jesus to examine, but the
        Earth is right here. Why don't you show us that
        miraculous line between the part of the Earth as God
        poofed it into existence with "apparent age" and the
        part that bears a true record of the things that have
        happened since then?

        > ...so waving around an argument which has that concept
        > as one of its premises upon which the conclusion hinges
        > is just waving around a lot of hot air.

        If you can't show us the boundary between the real and
        the apparent it will be evident who is full of hot air.

        > It sure is strange that Baty himself refused to answer
        > the question. Maybe he's still struggling to come up
        > with a decent answer.
        >
        > DW

        Always ready with the insinuations, aren't you, Willis?

        Robert might have something else going on right now.

        > Here is the argument I want someone to refute. Don't
        > just CONTRADICT the minor premise.

        Why not? Your minor premise is an affirmative statement
        that makes a truth claim.

        You have to show that both of the premises are true
        to show that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed
        by the argument.

        > Naked contradiction is not argument.

        If both premises cannot be shown true, the argument
        is not sound.


        > SHOW that it is false by fairly exegeting God's word
        > using proper hermeneutics...not just trying to twist
        > it using a "scientific" filter to make the text say
        > something it doesn't actually say.

        Nope! It isn't the task of the negative to do the
        exegesis -- if a full exegesis is even needed.

        > If you can't refute this argument by dealing with the
        > text itself, then you must admit to the truth of the
        > conclusion.

        Sorry, but that is not the case at all. To refute
        the argument requires nothing more than showing that
        you have failed to prove your two affirmative statements,
        the major and minor premise, are true.

        > Willis's Goliath-Killer
        >
        >
        > Major premise:
        >
        > If God's word when fairly read using proper hermeneutics
        > tells us of a recent global flood, and that conflicts with
        > what conventional science says occurred in recent time,
        > then either God's word is false or conventional science
        > is false.
        >
        > Minor premise:
        >
        > God's word when fairly read using proper hermeneutics
        > tells us of a recent global flood, and that conflicts
        > with what conventional science says occurred in recent
        > time.
        >
        > Therefore:
        >
        > Either God's word or conventional science is false.

        OK, folks, there's your conclusion! Something is wrong
        somewhere, according to DB Willis. According to DB Willis
        he has inerrantly exegeted the text and either God's word
        is wrong or science is wrong, because we know that DB Willis
        cannot be wrong. Nope, it has to either be the word of
        God or all of conventional science. Now, DB Willis is
        left with the job of figuring out which one it is that's
        wrong.

        Around these parts, most of us assume that "God's word"
        cannot be wrong, and I'll be the first to say that if
        God really does say something and conventional science
        wants to argue about it, conventional science is badly
        mistaken.

        We can guess that DB Willis is going to declare that
        conventional science is all wrong, but I've got news for
        you: conventional science is going to want to see some
        evidence for DB Willis's accusation.

        I'm simply going to deny the minor premise is true --
        "proper hermeneutics" does not allow us to claim that
        the text teaches a global flood.

        If the interpretation you come up with doesn't match
        anything in the world that the story is about, it seems
        like that ought to be a hint that you have NOT been using
        "proper hermeneutics". There are other things to take
        into account as well.

        Simply by reading the text you don't have any way of
        knowing that you have come to the right conclusions
        about it if you never test your interpretation against
        reality.

        Otherwise you are just engaging in a circular argument.

        (And don't think that DB Willis won't be perfectly happy
        to go around and around and around in circles -- we
        have already had this discussion about the Flood.
        DB Willis wasn't able to explain how Jabal, Jubal and
        Tubal-cain, of the lineage of Cain, became the fathers
        of those who dwelt in tents, and handled musical
        instruments, and worked metals in *the post-Flood world*.

        Neither was he able to explain the presence of bitumen
        in the pre-Flood world.)

        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

        -------------------------
        -------------------------




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.