Is "Origins" Science differ from (to) "Historical" Science?

[rwatts]

Then what DOES he do with all these data? How can he honestly ignore them?

The key word is "honestly".

K54

I've met many creationists on these forums and facebook who try their hand at presuppositional apologetics. Not all do this, but many do.

1) They have the absolute God given truth and so caring about what they do and say does not matter.

2) So you have to justify why you think differently to their God given truth.

This means that they can ignore everything you write, or distort it. If they distort it then it cannot be so, because they are representing God given truth. That they ignore it is fine, because you are not telling the truth anyway.


It never sinks in that they actually do make many demonstrable mistakes* and write so many stupid things while supposedly being guided by God. There are two consequences to this:-

1) Their claims cannot be trusted, even when they claim (or imply) that they represent God given truth. And that very claim itself, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, cannot be trusted.

2) If they can write so many silly things and make so many mistakes given such impeccable guidance, then why expect that the ancients necessarily did any better? So why should the ancient assertions be taken on face value?



The beauty about the early Church fathers and thinkers is that they knew how to mount real arguments in defence of their ideas. From what I gather, Alvin Plantigia doesn't do a bad job today, either. But Jorge shows how to mount lousy arguments in defence of his ideas, and his abilities rarely rise above those of a presuppositional apologist.




* They are demonstrable mistakes because they will make claims about what we think or say about things, and the claims are simply silly if not downright false.

[klaus54]

I've met many creationists on these forums and facebook who try their hand at presuppositional apologetics. Not all do this, but many do.

1) They have the absolute God given truth and so caring about what they do and say does not matter.

2) So you have to justify why you think differently to their God given truth.

This means that they can ignore everything you write, or distort it. If they distort it then it cannot be so, because they are representing God given truth. That they ignore it is fine, because you are not telling the truth anyway.


It never sinks in that they actually do make many demonstrable mistakes* and write so many stupid things while supposedly being guided by God. There are two consequences to this:-

1) Their claims cannot be trusted, even when they claim (or imply) that they represent God given truth. And that very claim itself, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, cannot be trusted.

2) If they can write so many silly things and make so many mistakes given such impeccable guidance, then why expect that the ancients necessarily did any better? So why should the ancient assertions be taken on face value?



The beauty about the early Church fathers and thinkers is that they knew how to mount real arguments in defence of their ideas. From what I gather, Alvin Plantigia doesn't do a bad job today, either. But Jorge shows how to mount lousy arguments in defence of his ideas, and his abilities rarely rise above those of a presuppositional apologist.




* They are demonstrable mistakes because they will make claims about what we think or say about things, and the claims are simply silly if not downright false.

In that case, why does a Presuppositional Apologist like Jorge even bother with a science forum?

He just makes a fool of himself.

It's plain for all to see he ignores the mountains of scientific data that are brought to him.

He ignores or doesn't understand the concept of consilience.

He can't even give an unambiguous, plain, simple-even-to-a-child, clear, straightforward, direct "reading" of the Genesis stories, which is ALL he has to counter the data! This is the main point I've trying to get across to PAs like Jorge these past few months.

When you put these epistemological, scientific, and exegetical ideas together, you end up with a rancid stew of foolishness, cognitive dissonance, and deceit.

K54

[JonF]

In that case, why does a Presuppositional Apologist like Jorge even bother with a science forum?

He just makes a fool of himself.

It's plain for all to see he ignores the mountains of scientific data that are brought to him.

He ignores or doesn't understand the concept of consilience.

He can't even give an unambiguous, plain, simple-even-to-a-child, clear, straightforward, direct "reading" of the Genesis stories, which is ALL he has to counter the data! This is the main point I've trying to get across to PAs like Jorge these past few months.

When you put these epistemological, scientific, and exegetical ideas together, you end up with a rancid stew of foolishness, cognitive dissonance, and deceit.

K54

He's interested only in spewing bile and there's plenty of opportunity for that here.

[Jorge]

He's interested only in spewing bile and there's plenty of opportunity for that here.

You would love for that to be true so as to feel "justified" in your anti-biblical beliefs. Allow me to be the first to inform you that you are as unjustified in those beliefs as you are wrong and nothing you can do will change that.

How's that for "bile"?

Jorge

[Jorge]

We want it explained in adult-like terms.

Bald-faced projection.

Ever heard of a t-Tauri protostar/star? These HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.

Let me begin by saying that I regard you in the same way as I do your ideological comrade, rwatts (Roland). As such, after this do not seek (at least for a spell) additional replies from me. You may, of course, have the final word.

Yes, I've heard of "protostars" and no, they have NOT been observed to collapse. They cannot be 'observed' (you ignorant buffoon!) because the collapse process - by their own theories and admission - would take thousands to millions of years to occur. What they do is make certain observations and the rest is conjecture based on theories and ideology. It's just the same as in the ideology of Evolution: they make an observation (such as a fossil) and then use their ideology with plenty of imagination and plaster of Paris to construct their fairy tale.

BTW, we're you there to see YHWH Elohim dictate the Pentateuch to Moses?

Nope - but as in many other things, you are totally ignorant about the concept of an unbroken chain of evidence. And, NO, I shan't waste my time educating you on it.

You weren't? Hmmm...

Sounds like a double standard to me.

What it actually sounds like is that you're an intellectually dishonest witless senile old clown.

Our side has it a lot easier -- we can observe "historical" scientific data over and over and over and over again. Why you ask? FYI, the speed of light is finite and Hutton's Laws of stratigraphy -- for good general examples.

K54

Thanks for providing that proof that you understand NOTHING about these concepts.
Stick to your day job, Santa - ya ain't got much of a future at anything else.

Now, just as I asked of your pal, stay clear of my path.

Jorge

[headheart]

He ignores or doesn't understand the concept of consilience.

That's a really great word!

'....the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. ....' - Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Kinda reminds me of something I read yesterday, whilst lurking in BL301. Something about Tacitus' history and the gospel of Mark, relating to the matter of Tiberius, Pilate and the death of Jesus. (I know a little off topic, but still a really good word! Well done!)

[HMS_Beagle]

That's a really great word!

Yep. It's the one word guaranteed to scare the pants off YECs and send them running for the door.

They can and do make hand-waving excuses for any single piece of evidence, any single dating method but they can never explain the consilience of multiple independent lines of evidence. They don't even try.

[headheart]

Yep. It's the one word guaranteed to scare the pants off YECs and send them running for the door.

They can and do make hand-waving excuses for any single piece of evidence, any single dating method but they can never explain the consilience of multiple independent lines of evidence. They don't even try.

Yes, Glenn R. Morton's website used to host this page: Old Earth Creation Science Testimony : Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism : http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm -- though he removed it, because he felt it was being used (abused by YEC-haters), I found it quite compelling. (though I didn't really understand what he was talking about at the time)
Moving from one extreme to the other -- Young to Old, is quite a big 'jump'!

[Jorge]

Yes, Glenn R. Morton's website used to host this page: Old Earth Creation Science Testimony : Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism : http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm -- though he removed it, because he felt it was being used (abused by YEC-haters), I found it quite compelling. (though I didn't really understand what he was talking about at the time)
Moving from one extreme to the other -- Young to Old, is quite a big 'jump'!

As an individual, Glenn appears to be a nice-enough guy. Unfortunately, as a Bible-based Christian he falls way short. As I read his posts over the years, I became convinced that for all his time as a YEC he never once truly understood the foundations of Biblical Creationism. As such, his abandoning of Biblical Creationism was not only unsurprising, it was predictable.

Jorge

[headheart]

Reminds me of a 4 year old continually asking "why" to further and further explanations.

And ignoring literally "mountains" of data in support of Deep Time and History by continually asking "how do you know that?" is pretty much exactly what a philosopher calls "epistemological nihilism".

K54

There's another beauty: "epistemological nihilism"

[headheart]

Yep.

HMS_Beagle,
I know you didn't ask for a reference, but here's one for post 36 (relative to the following stanza) :

Kinda reminds me of something I read yesterday, whilst lurking in BL301. Something about Tacitus' history and the gospel of Mark, relating to the matter of Tiberius, Pilate and the death of Jesus. (I know a little off topic, but still a really good word! Well done!)

I'm not sure which thread it was, as there are about four which John Reece is busy with at the moment (in BL301) -- but I think it was from THE EARLIEST SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS by F. CRAWFORD BURKITT (it's available for download at archive.org: here)

[headheart]

Now, just as I asked of your pal, stay clear of my path.

Have you written a peer-reviewed essay, or book explaining your view of Biblical Creationism? Or, is there some work which you highly esteem, which explains the view you espouse? Please direct me to it, so that I my gain some insight into your view?

b.t.w -- which path is this that we must be stay clear of?

[klaus54]

As an individual, Glenn appears to be a nice-enough guy. Unfortunately, as a Bible-based Christian he falls way short. As I read his posts over the years, I became convinced that for all his time as a YEC he never once truly understood the foundations of Biblical Creationism. As such, his abandoning of Biblical Creationism was not only unsurprising, it was predictable.

Jorge

Again you show your arrogance with the equating of Jorgian YECism with "Bible-based Christian".

Rwatts has you pegged correctly. "Presuppositional Apologist"...

You're the textbook example of ossified ignorance.

K54

[klaus54]

Yes, Glenn R. Morton's website used to host this page: Old Earth Creation Science Testimony : Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism : http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm -- though he removed it, because he felt it was being used (abused by YEC-haters), I found it quite compelling. (though I didn't really understand what he was talking about at the time)
Moving from one extreme to the other -- Young to Old, is quite a big 'jump'!

"Young to Old" -- The present to around 4 B.C. is the key time interval for Christians.

2,000 years is kinda old.

The time when humans became moral agents responsible for their behavior is also important, but this lies in mystery allegorized by the Garden story.

K54

P.S. Slightly off-topic of this post, but the comparison of 4.5 Ga to 6Ka, using water depth as an analogy, is like comparing the Marianas Trench to a puddle about 1 cm deep.

[klaus54]

HMS_Beagle,
I know you didn't ask for a reference, but here's one for post 36 (relative to the following stanza) :



I'm not sure which thread it was, as there are about four which John Reece is busy with at the moment (in BL301) -- but I think it was from THE EARLIEST SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS by F. CRAWFORD BURKITT (it's available for download at archive.org: here)

HH,

Thanks for you input regarding another example of consilience!

Yes, Bible scholars and historians certainly avail themselves of the concept.

Thus, it should be easy for the Jorges of "Biblical Scientific Creation" to grasp.

K54