Re: DBWillis' admission!
- Todd's discussion of the DBWillis admission:
SMCOFFEESHOP · welcome to the coffeeshop.
--- In SMCOFFEESHOP, David Willis wrote (post #13031):
>> Who was ruling anything out?Perhaps David doesn't realize this, but THIS IS THE EXACT POINT we've
>> David was asked to explain
>> how we are supposed to empirically
>> tell the difference between which
>> one is real and which one is fake.
> I don't claim one can. And it is not a
> "liability" of the creation model that
> one cannot "tell." A grain of sand
> instantly created can be expected to
> look just like one that took millions
> of years to form from cooled magma and
> erosion. To say one MUST be able to tell
> the difference is simply an artificial
> construct. Nothing says that MUST
> be so.
been making all along about the apparent age argument by asking the
question in the first place, and THIS IS WHY the apparent age
argument is totally unscientific, and THIS IS WHY when David makes
this argument he is actually AGREEING WITH US that the SCIENTIFIC
DATA shows that the Universe and the Earth have been around longer
than young earth creationists say. WE UNDERSTAND that David
says, "God just make things look that way," but we wanted David to
acknowledge the point he has acknowledged here which is that WHEN HE
MAKES THAT ARGUMENT he is acknowledging that the SCIENTIFIC DATA is
contrary to what it would be if the Universe and the Earth did not
exist more than 6,000 (or 15,000, or 100,000) years ago.
In the cases of the Crab Nebula and SN1987A we WITNESS two stellar
explosions, and according to David one really happened but the other
one is merely an illusion and he says IT IS EMPIRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. Therefore, David AGREES WITH US
1. All of the relevant empirical data shows that the star exploded
and even shows that the star exploded 168,000 years ago.
2. According to all of the relevant empirical data it is impossible
to tell otherwise.
(And when he asserts that the Universe did not exist more than, say,
6,000, or 15,000, or 100,000 years ago, even though - as he admits -
the relevant empirical data shows that the Universe has been around
longer, then in doing so he is acknowledging the fact that young
earth creationism is an unscientific position.)
> A nugget of gold could be createdAs has been pointed out to David at least a dozen times (and not just
> instantly by God, rather than by a
> long process involving an actual
> supernova explosion.
> Same is true of a beam of light...
> both are apparent artifacts but not
> nec. actual. Either you believe God
> exists and is powerful enough to
> instantly create... or you don't. I
> do. If you don't, then you have simply
> made an philosophical choice, not a
> scientific one.
by me), the issue is not what God can or can't do. The issue is what
does the actual evidence show HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. David runs away
from the evidence, by ignoring the evidence. David's argument for
ignoring the evidence goes something like this: 'The evidence doesn't
matter, because it's fake.' and 'No, it's impossible to get evidence
showing that it's fake.' and 'That's right, this means I'm
acknowledging that I don't have any evidence for my argument; indeed,
I'm explicitly telling you it is impossible to get any evidence for
my argument.' And the reason he uses the apparent age argument to run
away from the evidence is precisely because the scientific evidence
contradicts his religious dogma.
Either you believe that you have to evaluate your human ideas by
testing them against the relevant real world data, or you don't.
I do believe a person's ideas about the world must be tested against
the relevant real world data. That is a scientific position. (And
David's remark that it's not a scientific position to insist that
ideas must be testable by relevant real world data is simply
David does not believe that young earth creationists' ideas about the
world must be tested against the relevant real world data (because he
knows the data is contrary to young earth creationism). That is an
Anyone who makes an argument (such as the apparent age argument)
based on the premise that it's okay to believe whatever he wants to
believe REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE has made a completely unscientific
choice. He can call it a "philosophical choice" if he wants to, but
all that means is that the philosophy he is using is
epistemologically bankrupt and meaningless.
- Todd Greene
Top 10 Standard Rhetorical Fallacies used by Young Earth Creationists
An Index to Creationist Claims
The Crab Nebula
[link is line-wrapped]