Can we trust what God says?

[whag]

How is that proof for evolution? Tossing terms at me is not argumentation. Please explain, in your own words, why you think chromosome #2 proves evolution with 100% certainty.

Whuh? A young earth can't be proved with 100 percent certainty. It doesn't even have strong evidence.

Human chromosome 2 is strong evidence we are primates, and if you knew as much as you pretended to know about evolution, you'd already be aware of the genomic evidence and refute it. Instead, you responded with a ridiculous standard your own protology doesn't even have.

Your brethren should be helping you now. I don't have the patience for you.

[Doug Shaver]

I've given you a reason,

You have given me no reason besides your say-so.

but my giving you a reason and your acknowledgment of that fact are two different things, now aren't they? ;)

Sure, they are. And you can demonstrate my failure to acknowledge it by repeating the reason you gave me to believe that God has communicated with me. Make it obvious how the reason is more than "I say so."

[Mr. Black]

Whuh? A young earth can't be proved with 100 percent certainty. It doesn't even have strong evidence.

Yet another confusion on your part. This time you've confused proof with evidence. Evidence is assembled in a cumulative case and implies a conclusion which is said to be probable. Proof, on the other hand, demonstrates a conclusion with certainty.

Human chromosome 2 is strong evidence we are primates, and if you knew as much as you pretended to know about evolution, you'd already be aware of the genomic evidence and refute it.

Oh I'm well aware of secular arguments for macroevolution based on human chromosome 2 (I'm also aware of Creationist arguments against macroevolution regarding human chromosome 2). What I'm not aware of, is how you think human chromosome 2 proves with certainty (not merely evidences, suggesting a probably conclusion) macroevolution.
Everything you've said on this issue has been totally arbitrary, and I'm beginning to wonder if you're even able to debate this issue. Throwing terms at someone and simply saying, "This refutes your view" is not argumentation. If you're gonna be in the business of giving reasons for your assertions, then you have to actually give reasons. If your reasoning on it is sound, then you'd have no reason be so coy about this and avoid having to actually engage your opponent. In fact, I would think you'd be eager to explain it. Instead you appeal to a chromosome and then refuse to produce the reasoning by which you conclude with macroevolution.
If you want your view taken seriously you need to give reasons, not make unargued assertions.
How, exactly, does human chromosome 2 "prove" macroevolution, whag? If your response does not contain the reasoning which you employ to get to that conclusion, then I may as well be just as arbitrary. Check it out...

Human chromosome 2 is strong evidence we are God's creatures, and if you knew as much as you pretended to know about evolution, you'd already be aware of the genomic evidence and refute it.
How does it evidence God's creation you ask? Perhaps I won't tell you the reasoning by which I came to that conclusion, but by all means, refute that reasoning anyways.

Also, you still haven't answered my challenge. So I (once again) reiterate my epistemological challenge to you. Let's test your worldview's epistemology, to see whether or not it's made of industrial strength material.
Here's an argument against particles-to-people evolution and millions of years. It contradicts God's Word. The proof for God is that, since He's the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc), and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known, if He did not exist and reveal Himself to mankind, we couldn't know---much less prove---anything.

So here's my question for you, whag. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? Any reply from you that ignores this challenge begs the question against the biblical worldview by arbitrarily assuming that intelligibility is possible without reference to the biblical God, and thus is irrational.

[Mr. Black]

You have given me no reason besides your say-so.


Sure, they are. And you can demonstrate my failure to acknowledge it by repeating the reason you gave me to believe that God has communicated with me. Make it obvious how the reason is more than "I say so."

Aside from the innate and immediate knowledge all men have of God? Your demonstrating that your worldview reduces to absurdity by denying the God of Scripture demonstrates its obviousness.

By the way, could you be wrong about those claims of yours?

[whag]

Yet another confusion on your part. This time you've confused proof with evidence. Evidence is assembled in a cumulative case and implies a conclusion which is said to be probable. Proof, on the other hand, demonstrates a conclusion with certainty.



Oh I'm well aware of secular arguments for macroevolution based on human chromosome 2 (I'm also aware of Creationist arguments against macroevolution regarding human chromosome 2). What I'm not aware of, is how you think human chromosome 2 proves with certainty (not merely evidences, suggesting a probably conclusion) macroevolution.
Everything you've said on this issue has been totally arbitrary, and I'm beginning to wonder if you're even able to debate this issue. Throwing terms at someone and simply saying, "This refutes your view" is not argumentation. If you're gonna be in the business of giving reasons for your assertions, then you have to actually give reasons. If your reasoning on it is sound, then you'd have no reason be so coy about this and avoid having to actually engage your opponent. In fact, I would think you'd be eager to explain it. Instead you appeal to a chromosome and then refuse to produce the reasoning by which you conclude with macroevolution.
If you want your view taken seriously you need to give reasons, not make unargued assertions.
How, exactly, does human chromosome 2 "prove" macroevolution, whag? If your response does not contain the reasoning which you employ to get to that conclusion, then I may as well be just as arbitrary. Check it out...

Human chromosome 2 is strong evidence we are God's creatures, and if you knew as much as you pretended to know about evolution, you'd already be aware of the genomic evidence and refute it.
How does it evidence God's creation you ask? Perhaps I won't tell you the reasoning by which I came to that conclusion, but by all means, refute that reasoning anyways.

Also, you still haven't answered my challenge. So I (once again) reiterate my epistemological challenge to you. Let's test your worldview's epistemology, to see whether or not it's made of industrial strength material.
Here's an argument against particles-to-people evolution and millions of years. It contradicts God's Word. The proof for God is that, since He's the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc), and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known, if He did not exist and reveal Himself to mankind, we couldn't know---much less prove---anything.

So here's my question for you, whag. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? Any reply from you that ignores this challenge begs the question against the biblical worldview by arbitrarily assuming that intelligibility is possible without reference to the biblical God, and thus is irrational.

No, it's highly unlikely that I'm wrong about the claim the earth goes round the sun. Asking this dopey question over and over while saying you're certain you're right isn't much helping your evangelistic effort.

[Doug Shaver]

could you be wrong about those claims of yours?

I am as fallible as you are. If that doesn't answer your question, then you're not looking for an answer.

[whag]

I am as fallible as you are. If that doesn't answer your question, then you're not looking for an answer.

I think a YEC is the most ineffective purveyor of the Christian message. At minimum, the Christian evangelist must accept the general revelation, which says something entirely different than what Christian fundamentalism promotes.

That's a critical obstacle that the YEC evangelist erects himself. The motivation for the skeptic to correct his error isn't really there.

[Mr. Black]

No, it's highly unlikely that I'm wrong about the claim the earth goes round the sun.

Notice that that's not what I asked. To say that something is "highly unlikely" is to say that it's still possible that you're wrong (however slim you wish to say the chances of that area). My question has to do with epistemic certainty. Is there a possibility----however slim you wish to say it is---that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know?
If your answer is no, then please tell me one thing you know for sure, and how you know it.

[Mr. Black]

I am as fallible as you are. If that doesn't answer your question, then you're not looking for an answer.

Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I'm not basing my knowledge claims on me, but on the infallible God who has imbued all people with knowledge of Him.

[tabibito]

Good point. I was sleep deprived yesterday and had a brain fart. But thanks, you just refuted your own point, as the evening and morning denote the start and end of the first day by noting that both halves of the day had passed.

a time period bracketed by evening and morning, in that order, is neither a solar day nor a daylight day in anyone's language.

Not at all. God was establishing six terms of work, which was six days. And His basis for setting six days of work for man was that He Himself worked six days and then rested on the seventh.

The creation of all life on the same day in Revelation 2 renders the claim invalid.

No, they don't and Exodus 20:11 confirms it.

Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, According to Genesis 2 - everything was created on the same day. If you read "day" to mean a solar day in Genesis 1 and 2, you force a wholly unwarranted contradiction on the text. If you read "day" as being "a period of time", as is wholly admissible by the range of definitions of yom, there is no conflict. Nor does any conflict with Exodus 20:11 arise.

1.) Scripture does make the claim (2 Timothy 3:6, for example).

2 Timothy 3:16 ?? 2 Timothy 3:15 From childhood you have known ..... 16 every scripture inspired by God and profitable for various purposes. "inspired by God" is an adjective: the term describes the scriptures that Timothy knows.

2.) That wouldn't be a contradiction anyway. Claiming something that is not explicitly stated in Scripture is not the same thing as claiming something that's denied by Scripture.

Claiming that the scriptures say things they don't is not an approved practice. It might even be said that it is a matter of bearing false witness about God.

Notice that there's a difference between (1) God inspiring a document that's all merely His own words, and(2) God inspiring a document that contains reports of what others have said. In both cases the document is fully inspired by God, and therefore is an accurate report of the events.

In making that claim, only prophecy would be left as inspired by God. If God inspired no more than the production of the document, there would be no guarantee of everything within the document being accurate. Any statement made would have to be checked for validity.

So, let's see if you're up to the challenge. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

No.

[shunyadragon]

Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I'm not basing my knowledge claims on me, but on the infallible God who has imbued all people with knowledge of Him.

You are basing it on the belief that you 'know' this Divine knowledge from God.

[whag]

Notice that that's not what I asked. To say that something is "highly unlikely" is to say that it's still possible that you're wrong (however slim you wish to say the chances of that area). My question has to do with epistemic certainty. Is there a possibility----however slim you wish to say it is---that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know?
If your answer is no, then please tell me one thing you know for sure, and how you know it.

This reminds me of that scene from Dumb and Dumber. "So you're telling me there's a chance" -- however minuscule that chance might be.

Epistemology has to do with reliable knowledge, which you have failed to fully grasp. It is certainly possible that evolution is a huge hoax and that our eyes deceive us regarding the age of the universe. It's just not likely thanks to the reliable methodologies that we have.

Scientific epistemology isn't divorced from epistemology. Notice CS Lewis accepted scientific epistemology first. It's much harder to go backwards like you're doing. Good luck with that!

It's almost as if God equipped humanity with the means to figure out spectacular truths. That's called the general revelation. Process the general revelation, and then you just might be heard on epistemological matters. Until then, you'll be deservedly laughed at for thinking the universe only looks *deceptively* ancient.

[tabibito]

As tis written
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter
It is the glory of man to search it out.

[Doug Shaver]

I'm not basing my knowledge claims on me, but on the infallible God who has imbued all people with knowledge of Him.

You say so. If you can assume it without argument, I can deny it without argument.

[whag]

As tis written
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter
It is the glory of man to search it out.

Those two glories are at considerable odds in the fundamentalist mind.