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

Re: "Abiogenesis"!

Expand Messages
  • Terry
    ... TB: That would be expected on the basis that miracles had been observed by friends and enemies of Moses and Jesus, and naturally others would try to mimic
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
      >
      > Of course, this is all based on a flawed argument. The fact is that people all through history have either claimed magic powers for themselves or told stories about magic powers used by others.

      TB: That would be expected on the basis that miracles had been observed by friends and enemies of Moses and Jesus, and naturally others would try to mimic such events, or imagine that God was using them too. Difference is that friends and enemies did not see and corroberate the claim. Jesus' miracles were well attested by friends and enemies alike.

      TG: (Note that Terry himself AGREES WITH ATHEISTS that all sorts of religions have these made up stories which are not true.)

      TB: How do we know they were not true? Because they were not observed and confirmed by others who were first skeptical and then forced by the evidence to believe it. That is not the case with the miracles of Jesus. Further, atheists make up a miracle without any proof: Nothing miraculously produced something. Non-life miraculously produced life. Life produced eyes and brains and intelligence. These are atheistic made-up stories.


      TG: Nothing of the kind has ever been evidentially justified, and in fact all claims of magic powers today that have actually been investigated have been falsified.
      >
      > - Todd Greene

      TB: Magic powers today are never on the same scale and eyewitness verified scale as the miracles of Jesus. Jesus' miracles were not falsified then, and cannot be falsified now. The basis for believing in Jesus was solid then and remains a solid rock now.

      Terry W. Benton
      >
      >
      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Robert Baty..> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > Science is "knowledge".
      > > >
      > > > That is perhaps a little more equivocation from Terry. I figure science is what science does, not what "science" means as a word that one might find in a dictionary.
      > >
      > > TB: In that case, science does not "do" Jesus. Therefore, there is no real knowledge of Jesus. I figure that science is "knowedge" that is either acquired by modern observations or knowledge handed down from other's previous observations and experiences that were irrefutable. Thus, Jesus is still very valid science (knowledge). Science "did" Jesus in observing his miracles and his crucifixion and resurrection. That science never ceased to be true. Jesus also revealed God and truth about beginnings. Revealed knowledge is factual science. Naturalistic science is blind "science=falsely-so-called" as Paul said.
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > The best way to know something
      > > > > is to hear the witnesses who
      > > > > were present.
      > > >
      > > RB:> That is quite debatable as at least one other has already pointed out to Terry. And I think it is the case, if Terry wants to use such an analogy, that neither he nor I has direct testimony from the witness and we do not have the ability to cross-examine such witness.
      > >
      > > TB: Well, then unless Robert engages the scientific tests that "scientists" say they did, then we have no ability to cross-examine their tests, nor the ability to cross-examine them as to their beginning assumptions of naturalism. Therefore, according to Robert's argument here, we cannot rely on what people say that scientists have tested and proven.
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > I don't worry whether my
      > > > > position has "naturalistic
      > > > > science" for merit.
      > > >
      > > > That's what I have been making note of repeatedly; Terry actually, implicitly, agrees with me that young-earth creation-science can't stand the test of science, being a theological position as to the fundamental claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
      > >
      > > TB: And, Robert cannot tell us why theists should worry about standing the "tests of science", since there are no tests for observing origins, and there is philosophical naturalism that poses the tests and corrals the accepted conclusions on the basis of whether it was a natural-only conclusion. Robert says it is true that God's word can't be wrong and says "everything began over a period of six days", but that is Robert's theological position that "can't stand the tests of science". The result is that Robert's own position is:
      > >
      > > I, Robert Baty, have my interpretation of the text,
      > > and that trumps any empirical evidence of science
      > > to the contrary.
      > >
      > > Thus, Robert's position is no better than anyone elses. He has the same problems he claims that YEC people have. Big deal!
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > Which is factual, Robert?
      > > > > The theological or the
      > > > > naturalistic science conclusions?
      > > >
      > > > Both and neither; it just depends!
      > >
      > > TB: So,all of Robert's GRAS arguments are basically irrelevent since both the theological and the naturalistic science conclusions can be wrong or right or just depends. So, it really does not matter if the facts can really be on the theological side rather than on the naturalistic science side. Why should we care what the naturalistic sciences say contrary to God's word?
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > Robert, did God create man
      > > > > from the dust of the earth
      > > > > on day 6 or not?
      > > >
      > > > That seems to be your claim, Terry. Could you be wrong?
      > >
      > > TB: What is your claim Robert? If you cannot trust you ability of comprehending what God's word says on this matter, how can you trust what it says about Jesus? Could you be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God?
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > The real ultimate origins
      > > > > is just as God told us?
      > > >
      > > > While that may be the case, one should be careful to distinguish, as Terry does not appear to be doing, between what God told us and what we think God told us.
      > >
      > > TB: Well, then we should preface our confession of Jesus Christ in this manner: "I believe that Jesus Christ may possibly be the Son of God, depending on whether what I think God told us is actually what God told us, but who can really say?".
      > > >
      > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
      > > >
      > > > > I'm not the one having problems
      > > > > with your GRAS argument. You are.
      > > >
      > > > Speaking of testimony, the testimony of history is that Terry's claim is quite false. Terry has problems with the validity of the argument, the truth of its major premise, and the stipulations; though he has suggested he agrees that the conclusion is true.
      > >
      > > TB: Well, Robert says he doesn't have to prove any of it, so it is really immaterial. I don't have to prove my Adam2. So what? But, based upon Robert's position on the uncertainty of understanding anything in God's word, we may likewise declare "one should be careful to distinguish, as Robert does not appear to be doing, between what Robert told us His GRAS argument says and what Robert thinks his GRAS argument says." After all, we can never be certain of anything. Even what the scientists say and what we think they say may be as subject to error as anything else. We doubt that Robert can tell us what empirical evidence says about anything, because after all,"one should be careful to distinguish, as Robert does not appear to be doing, between what science says and what we think science says.
      > >
      > > Terry W. Benton
      > >
      >
    • Todd Greene
      Excerpt from: Examine Jesus miracles http://godisimaginary.com/i14.htm ... If someone were to come to you today and say, I am God! , what would you do? Yes,
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Excerpt from:

        Examine Jesus' miracles
        http://godisimaginary.com/i14.htm

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

        If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do? Yes, you would immediately ask for proof. Of course you would. And you would not want goofy proof.You would want real, solid, tangible proof.

        No normal person, and I mean no one, would accept anything less than rock solid proof from a person who claims to be God.

        Why should it be any different with Jesus? Jesus was a man who claims to be God. If he is God, then he ought to be able to prove it in a real, inimitable way. If he cannot prove it then, quite clearly, he is not God.

        A Christian would say, "But Jesus HAS proven it! Just look at all of the miracles he did in the Bible! He healed the sick! He changed water into wine! That PROVES that Jesus is the Lord!" Does that make sense to you? Imagine that someone, today, were to come up to you and say, "I am God, and I will prove that I am God by healing the sick and turning water into wine!" What would you say? Be honest. You would not believe this person because:

        1. Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.

        2. Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.

        3. Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.

        It is as simple as that. If someone claimed to be God today, you would never believe it if the evidence consisted of faith healing and magic tricks. Never. Yet billions of people claim that Jesus' faith healing and magic tricks prove that he is God.



        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #18997):
        > Of course, this is all based on a flawed argument. The fact
        > is that people all through history have either claimed magic
        > powers for themselves or told stories about magic powers
        > used by others. (Note that Terry himself AGREES WITH
        > ATHEISTS that all sorts of religions have these made up
        > stories which are not true.) Nothing of the kind has ever
        > been evidentially justified, and in fact all claims of
        > magic powers today that have actually been investigated have
        > been falsified.
        >
        > - Todd Greene
        >
        >
        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Robert Baty..> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > Science is "knowledge".
        > > >
        > > > That is perhaps a little more equivocation from Terry. I figure science is what science does, not what "science" means as a word that one might find in a dictionary.
        > >
        > > TB: In that case, science does not "do" Jesus. Therefore, there is no real knowledge of Jesus. I figure that science is "knowedge" that is either acquired by modern observations or knowledge handed down from other's previous observations and experiences that were irrefutable. Thus, Jesus is still very valid science (knowledge). Science "did" Jesus in observing his miracles and his crucifixion and resurrection. That science never ceased to be true. Jesus also revealed God and truth about beginnings. Revealed knowledge is factual science. Naturalistic science is blind "science=falsely-so-called" as Paul said.
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > The best way to know something
        > > > > is to hear the witnesses who
        > > > > were present.
        > > >
        > > RB:> That is quite debatable as at least one other has already pointed out to Terry. And I think it is the case, if Terry wants to use such an analogy, that neither he nor I has direct testimony from the witness and we do not have the ability to cross-examine such witness.
        > >
        > > TB: Well, then unless Robert engages the scientific tests that "scientists" say they did, then we have no ability to cross-examine their tests, nor the ability to cross-examine them as to their beginning assumptions of naturalism. Therefore, according to Robert's argument here, we cannot rely on what people say that scientists have tested and proven.
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > I don't worry whether my
        > > > > position has "naturalistic
        > > > > science" for merit.
        > > >
        > > > That's what I have been making note of repeatedly; Terry actually, implicitly, agrees with me that young-earth creation-science can't stand the test of science, being a theological position as to the fundamental claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
        > >
        > > TB: And, Robert cannot tell us why theists should worry about standing the "tests of science", since there are no tests for observing origins, and there is philosophical naturalism that poses the tests and corrals the accepted conclusions on the basis of whether it was a natural-only conclusion. Robert says it is true that God's word can't be wrong and says "everything began over a period of six days", but that is Robert's theological position that "can't stand the tests of science". The result is that Robert's own position is:
        > >
        > > I, Robert Baty, have my interpretation of the text,
        > > and that trumps any empirical evidence of science
        > > to the contrary.
        > >
        > > Thus, Robert's position is no better than anyone elses. He has the same problems he claims that YEC people have. Big deal!
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > Which is factual, Robert?
        > > > > The theological or the
        > > > > naturalistic science conclusions?
        > > >
        > > > Both and neither; it just depends!
        > >
        > > TB: So,all of Robert's GRAS arguments are basically irrelevent since both the theological and the naturalistic science conclusions can be wrong or right or just depends. So, it really does not matter if the facts can really be on the theological side rather than on the naturalistic science side. Why should we care what the naturalistic sciences say contrary to God's word?
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > Robert, did God create man
        > > > > from the dust of the earth
        > > > > on day 6 or not?
        > > >
        > > > That seems to be your claim, Terry. Could you be wrong?
        > >
        > > TB: What is your claim Robert? If you cannot trust you ability of comprehending what God's word says on this matter, how can you trust what it says about Jesus? Could you be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God?
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > The real ultimate origins
        > > > > is just as God told us?
        > > >
        > > > While that may be the case, one should be careful to distinguish, as Terry does not appear to be doing, between what God told us and what we think God told us.
        > >
        > > TB: Well, then we should preface our confession of Jesus Christ in this manner: "I believe that Jesus Christ may possibly be the Son of God, depending on whether what I think God told us is actually what God told us, but who can really say?".
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@> wrote, in part:
        > > >
        > > > > I'm not the one having problems
        > > > > with your GRAS argument. You are.
        > > >
        > > > Speaking of testimony, the testimony of history is that Terry's claim is quite false. Terry has problems with the validity of the argument, the truth of its major premise, and the stipulations; though he has suggested he agrees that the conclusion is true.
        > >
        > > TB: Well, Robert says he doesn't have to prove any of it, so it is really immaterial. I don't have to prove my Adam2. So what? But, based upon Robert's position on the uncertainty of understanding anything in God's word, we may likewise declare "one should be careful to distinguish, as Robert does not appear to be doing, between what Robert told us His GRAS argument says and what Robert thinks his GRAS argument says." After all, we can never be certain of anything. Even what the scientists say and what we think they say may be as subject to error as anything else. We doubt that Robert can tell us what empirical evidence says about anything, because after all,"one should be careful to distinguish, as Robert does not appear to be doing, between what science says and what we think science says.
        > >
        > > Terry W. Benton
      • rlbaty50
        ... In making such statements, Terry implicitly promotes the concept of falsification. That is, that such claims are subject to falsification. That being
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote, in part:

          > Jesus' miracles were not
          > falsified then, and cannot
          > be falsified now.

          In making such statements, Terry implicitly promotes the concept of falsification. That is, that such claims are "subject to" falsification.

          That being the case, I again can only wonder at Terry's behavior in making like he had anything to offer that would impeach my setting forth in simple, logically valid form a "falsification" test for the fundamental claim of young-earth creation-science (e.g., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old).

          It doesn't matter whether or not Terry believes the position has been falsified. It has been stipulated from "the beginning" that some will claim that it has NOT been falsified.

          It does matter whether or not the position is subject to falsification. Some (e.g., DBWillis) have taken up a position that the claim is NOT subject to falsification, and that is important to recognize in discussions of such important public issues.

          Here's the "Goliath of GRAS" again for ready reference and an appeal to Terry to recognize it for what I have claimed for it:

          "Goliath of GRAS"

          Major premise:

          > If God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years, then the
          > interpretation of the text by
          > some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > The interpretation of the text
          > by some is wrong.

          My claims for the "Goliath of GRAS"
          (not necessarily exhaustive):

          (1)

          The argument is addressed to bona
          fide young-earth creation-science
          promoters.

          (2)

          If its premises are true, the
          conclusion will follow as true
          from the truth of the premises.

          (3)

          The major premise is true.

          (4)

          Typical young-earth creation-
          science promoters stipulate that
          God's word says everything began
          over a period of six days and,
          as a result, that issue is not
          in dispute as far as the
          argument and its intended
          target is concerened.

          (5)

          Some interpret what they believe
          to be God's word to mean that
          everything began no more than
          a few thousand years ago and,
          as a result, that issue is not
          in dispute as far as the
          argument and its intended
          target is concerned.

          (6)

          Typical young-earth creation-
          science promoters admit that
          there is evidence independent
          of the text indicating that
          some things are more than a
          few thousand years old.

          (7)

          Without successful scientific
          rebuttal to the admitted
          evidence that some things are
          more than a few thousand years
          old, reasonable folks may
          properly conclude that the
          interpretation of the text by
          some is wrong.

          (8)

          The substance of any legitimate
          dispute as to the merits of the
          "Goliath of GRAS" for its
          intended audience, those who do
          not wish to entertain that the
          alleged God's word is wrong, is
          the evidence of age.

          (9)

          To date, the attempts to rebut,
          from young-earth creation-science
          promoters and sympathizers, the
          evidence of age can be briefly
          summarized as follows:

          > Any evidence of age beyond a
          > few thousand years is simply
          > an indication that God can
          > make things look older than
          > they are and, anyway, I've
          > got my interpretation of the
          > text regarding the age of
          > stuff and that trumps any
          > evidence of age independent
          > of the text.

          I think that's it, and I think that's why my "Goliath of GRAS" has been so successful, so utilitarian, in demonstrating the UNscientific nature of the fundamental positions of young-earth creation-science promoters.

          It's good to know as this issue continues to be a "hot topic" in the public square.

          The "Goliath of GRAS" allows us tyros to quickly figure out that, whatever it may be, young-earth creation-science cannot measure up to the scientific test(s) necessary to warrant the place its promoters try to demand for it.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          P.S. I realize that on the "subject to" falsification issue regarding the age of stuff that Terry W. Benton may be, in these discussions, guilty of further equivocation. Perhaps this note will provide him with the motivation to make clear his position related thereto.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.