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

Re: DBWillis' admission!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... SMCOFFEESHOP · welcome to the coffeeshop. Message #13034 ... Perhaps David doesn t realize this, but THIS IS THE EXACT POINT we ve been making all along
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 26, 2006
      Todd's discussion of the DBWillis admission:


      SMCOFFEESHOP · welcome to the coffeeshop.
      Message #13034

      --- In SMCOFFEESHOP, David Willis wrote (post #13031):

      >> Who was ruling anything out?

      >> 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.

      Perhaps David doesn't realize this, but THIS IS THE EXACT POINT we've
      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

      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 created
      > 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.

      As has been pointed out to David at least a dozen times (and not just
      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
      unscientific position.

      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]


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.