tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116369900115819239..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Sugar-coated DarwinismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163724376343762662006-11-16T19:46:00.000-05:002006-11-16T19:46:00.000-05:00Hi Jeff,Listening, thanks. I'm not totally up to s...Hi Jeff,<BR/><BR/>Listening, thanks. I'm not totally up to speed with Fuz, but I'm very familiar with Hugh Ross. Ross is someone I don't agree with on a lot of things, but a Godly, brilliant man all the same. Someone I admire very much. <BR/><BR/>I've got two pending requests for a "Hugh Ross on Adam" critique, so just the little I've listened to suggests it's time to do a post on that. <BR/><BR/>Check back on my blog for a post on it in the next couple days. Don't want to derail this thread but maybe I'll hazard a couple bullets here later.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163723913794122852006-11-16T19:38:00.000-05:002006-11-16T19:38:00.000-05:00Touchstone,I'd like to get your comments on this r...Touchstone,<BR/><BR/>I'd like to get your comments on <A HREF="http://christreformedinfo.squarespace.com/process/Redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christreformed.org%2Freal%2F20061110a.m3u" REL="nofollow">this recent lecture</A> from Fuz Rana. About halfway through he begins to talk about the view Reasons to Believe takes regarding the animals, before humans were created.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14336155651560538168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163718211733309612006-11-16T18:03:00.000-05:002006-11-16T18:03:00.000-05:00Hey Touchstone, Every Good christian knows those s...Hey Touchstone, Every Good christian knows those spears were used by Noah to round up the dinasaurs.<BR/><BR/>Carbon dating......<BR/><BR/>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163717224034845182006-11-16T17:47:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:47:00.000-05:00Anonymous is a secular fideist. The request was fo...<I>Anonymous is a secular fideist. The request was for something non-circular.</I><BR/><BR/>Care to elaborate?<BR/><BR/>Something unlike, "The Bible is true, because it's God's Word. We know it's God's Word because it says so." That would be circular, right?<BR/><BR/>So what do you have in mind? Quoting YEC "creation scientists"?<BR/><BR/>Right, because supporting a biblical idea with people committed to supporting it is not circular at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163717116612046792006-11-16T17:45:00.001-05:002006-11-16T17:45:00.001-05:00If my alleged bias has blinded me to a fair-readin...<I>If my alleged bias has blinded me to a fair-reading of the evidence, then it should be easy for you or someone else to point that out.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm still at a loss to figure out if you have ever had a reading at all, much the less a fair one, of the evidence.<BR/><BR/>You were, after all, quick to quote mine in the first response. A surfeit of ignorance and deception is all you'll find digging there.<BR/><BR/>Want to be a scientist for a day? Pick a fossil, Steve. Pick a real one. They have labels and numbers and dig sites and museums...<BR/><BR/>*THEN* tell me what in the #@($@*@ you think it is, and why, and try not to get into whether it was made on day 6 or 7.<BR/><BR/>The fossils that scientists call transitionals between humans and apes are real. What do you make of those? Just some quasi-ape, quasi-humans that God cooked up for fun, like the dinosaurs? On the same day?<BR/><BR/>Funny how "flood geology" will come in at this point -- cause you'll have to explain why these fossils are *always* found in late strata.<BR/><BR/>When you do go into flood geology, I have one simple request. One simple question. One question that in all my years of debating creationists not one has ever answered. I have written every "expert" at every creationist organization. I have written them all, and yet have gotten no response...<BR/><BR/>-Which strata correspond to pre-flood, syn-flood, and post-flood history?<BR/><BR/>A simple question, is it not? Once we identify this, we can start to dialogue about the significance of the stratigraphy, when things last lived on earth, that sort of thing.<BR/><BR/>So I'll be waiting for you to pick a bone and pick it apart. And I'll be waiting on you to find a scientist who will actually finally tell us dumb "OE" geology people which strata were there before Noah's waters, which represent the time of the waters, and which show us history since that point.<BR/><BR/>Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163717112632910952006-11-16T17:45:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:45:00.000-05:00Steve,Here's a link (10 years old!) from Archaeolo...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Here's a link (10 years old!) from Archaeology.org called "World's Oldest Spears":<BR/><BR/>http://www.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html<BR/><BR/>Here's a quote:<BR/><I><BR/>Radiocarbon dating has confirmed that three wooden spears found in a coal mine in Schöningen, near Hannover, Germany, are the oldest complete hunting weapons ever found. Some 380,000 to 400,000 years old, the six- to 7.5-foot javelins were found in soil whose acids had been neutralized by a high concentration of chalk near the coal pit. They suggest that early man was able to hunt, and was not just a scavenger. The development of such weapons may have been crucial to the settling of Stone Age northern Europe, whose cold climate and short daylight hours limited hunting.<BR/><BR/>The spears show design and construction skills previously attributed only to modern humans. "They are really high tech," says Hartmut Thieme of the Institut für Denkmalpflege in Hannover, who discovered them while excavating in advance of a rotary shovel digger used in the mine. "They are made of very tough Picea [spruce] trunk and are similarly carved." Their frontal center of gravity suggests they were used as javelins, says Thieme. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>So, that's 400,000 years ago, hominins using crafted spears. Now, if that's the case, what does that do for (proto-)man's capabilities? I'd say that a spear more than compensates for a pair of fangs, no?<BR/><BR/>And, I'm wondering what more we need than this. There's plenty of other evidences to look at, but if we understand that hominins were crafting spears a half million years ago, don't we have more than we need to dismiss the idea that early man was defenseless? <BR/><BR/>We can look at (proto-)man's social and collaborative organization, and the combat advantages of the brain itself, prior to even looking at available weapons. But, really, is anything more needed? If you say yes, I suggest this is one of those easy points to point out your YEC bias!<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163717063371842562006-11-16T17:44:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:44:00.000-05:00"If my alleged bias has blinded me to a fair-readi..."If my alleged bias has blinded me to a fair-reading of the evidence, then it should be easy for you or someone else to point that out."<BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>When it is pointed out, you ignore it and/or throw stones at it. What scientific evidence would be acceptable for you to drop your YEC views, Steve? can you be honest enough to say that this evidence does not exist, can not exist?<BR/><BR/>your bias is totally relevant to any conversation you have concerning any science that contradicts your religious beliefs if you from a theological basis reject anything that contradicts your interpretation of the bible. Any in-depth conversation with you is impossible because it just becomes an assertion war with you poo-pooing any and all science that goes against what you already believe.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It is disengenuous for you to claim you reject 'darwinism' on scientific grounds when you are committed to rejecting this evidence if it contradicts your holy book.<BR/><BR/>This is why you aren't being engaged in this conversation in any meaningfull way. It is a fruitless exercise that is repeated ad-nausem by amateur theologians and amateur scientists thruout the web, never bearing fruit. So Steve, believe away...we leave you to your YECism.<BR/><BR/>r10b, nice thesis. However, you miss the point entirely. I couldn't care less whether the earth is 6000 years old or 6 trillion. this is not a problem for my worldview, and if it was I would adjust my worldview accordingly... so I remain open to the evidence. So far the evidence points away from YECistic claims, at least as I interpret it and as the vast majority of the worlds scientists interpret it. This blogger, Steve, is committed to a theological stance that must discredit all science that goes against his beliefs. You want to claim my bias is a problem? LOL at pot/kettle/black.<BR/><BR/> By all means, yes...lets leave it here. I don't wish to insult anyone's beliefs nor do I wish to play intellectually dishonest games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163716438239535172006-11-16T17:33:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:33:00.000-05:00Steve,I'm OK with the attendant theologies that ac...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I'm OK with the attendant theologies that accompany YEC, OEC or TE, so long as they represent a serious view of scripture -- they do at least nominal justice to the witness from God's creation. So no, I don't think I'm on the same epistemic plane as a YEC, for example. YEC is a position that is manifestly dismissive of the available evidence, and can only be arrived at through theological grounds.<BR/><BR/>That's not the case for OEC or TE. I'm aware of many "old earth" agnostics and atheists who argue with evolutionary theory. TEs, of course largely agree with the conventional science. I'm not aware of *anyone* who arrives at 6,000 years for the age of the earth other than for theological/scriptural interpretional reasons.<BR/><BR/>If you are saying that YEC gets thrown out the window as soon as we start discussing archaeological evidence -- all of it dating way, way beyond the time constraints of YEC, I'd be amazed, but gratified to hear it.<BR/><BR/>If one is convinced the earth is flat, it hardly makes sense to argue about the tides, right? How would you engage someone on the physics of tidal motion that was committed to a belief in a flat earth?<BR/><BR/>Not saying you ascribe to a flat earth, but I am suggesting you ascribe to an epistemic which forbids even *consideration* of the evidence at hand as evidence, forget the interpretation of it.<BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163715616978517312006-11-16T17:20:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:20:00.000-05:00Touchstone said...Steve,YEC is totally relevant he...Touchstone said...<BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>YEC is totally relevant here. If one is theologically committed to a YEC position, I can't think of a stronger bias against a fair reading of the arcahaeological evidence than that. <BR/><BR/>That is, you have a fundamental, core theological interest in rejecting any archaeological evidence for man's ancient roots and developmental path. It's the "mother of all vested interests" in this inquiry. Such interests are totally fine to entertain, but they should be acknowledged as a matter of discclosure:<BR/><BR/>NOTE: As a YEC I'm committed to a core theological position which cannot accept evidence of ancient tools or weapons.<BR/><BR/>Etc. Assuming you are committed to A YEC theology.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-Touchstone<BR/><BR/>**************<BR/><BR/>As far as full disclosure is concerned, I've often blogged on the YEC debate, so it's not as if I have a hidden agenda.<BR/><BR/>But that is still irrelevant to the present thread. All you've done is to attempt to shift the ground to an ad hominem attack on my motives.<BR/><BR/>There are several problems with that line of attack:<BR/><BR/>1. You're assuming, w/o benefit of argument, that someone begins as a doctrinaire YEC, and then rejects any archeological evidence to the contrary--as if no one could start with the evidence and reason to YEC.<BR/><BR/>It's naive for you to suggest that one's bias always comes first. It's possible to form a bias on the basis of evidence. It's always possible for the evidence to override one's bias. That has been known to happen, yes?<BR/><BR/>2. It is possible to oppose evolution on a variety of grounds—scientific, philosophical, ethical, theological. <BR/><BR/>Let's not oversimplify.<BR/><BR/>I agree that one can have a theological precommitment to some form of special creation (e.g. YEC). Nothing wrong with that.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't prevent one from having other reasons as well, which enjoy an independent degree of intellectual merit.<BR/><BR/>3. Whatever your position, you have an incentive to look for flaws in the opposition position and a disincentive for find flaws in your own.<BR/><BR/>This is true whether you're into YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, or naturalistic evolution.<BR/><BR/>So your objection cuts both ways.<BR/><BR/>4. If my alleged bias has blinded me to a fair-reading of the evidence, then it should be easy for you or someone else to point that out.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163714575830765152006-11-16T17:02:00.000-05:002006-11-16T17:02:00.000-05:00Steve,YEC is totally relevant here. If one is theo...Steve,<BR/><BR/>YEC is totally relevant here. If one is theologically committed to a YEC position, I can't think of a stronger bias against a fair reading of the arcahaeological evidence than that. <BR/><BR/>That is, you have a fundamental, core theological interest in rejecting any archaeological evidence for man's ancient roots and developmental path. It's the "mother of all vested interests" in this inquiry. Such interests are totally fine to entertain, but they should be acknowledged as a matter of discclosure:<BR/><BR/>NOTE: As a YEC I'm committed to a core theological position which cannot accept evidence of ancient tools or weapons.<BR/><BR/>Etc. Assuming you are committed to A YEC theology.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163713372542863602006-11-16T16:42:00.000-05:002006-11-16T16:42:00.000-05:00Anonymous said:Doesn't this guy believe that the e...Anonymous said:<BR/>Doesn't this guy believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Noah brought dinosaurs on the Ark?<BR/><BR/>*********************************<BR/><BR/>Notice how Anon is trying to change the subject from the actual topic of this thread to YEC. But the topic of this thread is irrelevant to the YEC debate.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163709993452608542006-11-16T15:46:00.000-05:002006-11-16T15:46:00.000-05:00Doesn't this guy believe that the earth is only 6,...Doesn't this guy believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Noah brought dinosaurs on the Ark?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163708112599353282006-11-16T15:15:00.000-05:002006-11-16T15:15:00.000-05:00he doesn't want answers, anon. As my father used ...he doesn't want answers, anon. As my father used to say "don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is already made up".<BR/><BR/>You say I ran out of arguments. This is far from true. However, You are not a biologist and neither am I. We may as well be discussing cellular biology and the theological implications of DNA. For me to argue back and forth with you lends credibility to your patently biased arguments that exist soley to prop up your theology. We all know you reject science because it goes against your magical book. Why don't we just leave it there? That is easy to accept. You psuedo-intellectualizing about it just makes you look silly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163706157476701752006-11-16T14:42:00.000-05:002006-11-16T14:42:00.000-05:00Anonymous is a secular fideist. The request was f...Anonymous is a secular fideist. The request was for something non-circular.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163702155983651412006-11-16T13:35:00.000-05:002006-11-16T13:35:00.000-05:00You want answers, start hereThere's a nice list at...<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0684810239/nationalcenter02/002-9119745-6094654" REL="nofollow">You want answers, start here</A><BR/><BR/>There's a nice <A HREF="http://www.natcenscied.org/store.asp?sectiontype=bookstore&bookcategorynumber=9&categoryname=Human+Evolution" REL="nofollow">list</A> at NCSE.<BR/><BR/>In the meanwhile, stick do your dayjob -- theologizing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com