Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,277 Year: 5,534/9,624 Month: 559/323 Week: 56/143 Day: 18/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 100 (463544)
04-18-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2008 2:55 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
The Bible says there was a flood.
Look, there really was a flood.
Ergo, the Bible was correct about the flood.
This, of course, is a logical error: Affirming the Consequent. This is where you say:
A -> B
B, therefore A
The problem is that there may be other things that result in B. All squares are rectangles (being a square implies being a rectangle), but not all rectangles are squares (having a rectangle does not imply you have a square.)
However, the contrapositive of a true statement is always true:
A -> B
~B, therefore ~A
That's part of why there has to be a flood: They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps god doesn't exist the way they think.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2008 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 8:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 100 (463703)
04-19-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2008 8:39 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Meh, not so much. The conclusion is not the same as the first premise.....
What is concluded is that the Bible is correct in saying that a flood occured. The conclusion is not that the Bible does, in fact, say that there was a flood.
As you say, meh, not so much. The conclusion is precisely the same as the premise.
They assume that if there were a global flood, this means their claim of god is true. It never occurs to them that it might be a different god (after all, the story of Noah is just a rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim and I doubt they're going to give allegiance to the Sumerian gods) or that something else might have caused the flood.
If Joe is the Stabbing Killer, then we should find a body that was killed by stabbing. But just because we find a body that was killed by stabbing doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is the one who did it.
If the god mentioned in the Bible is the Flooding Killer, then we should find evidence of a global flood. But just because we find evidence of a global flood doesn't necessarily mean that the god mentioned in the Bible was the one who did it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 8:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2008 2:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 100 (463763)
04-19-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
04-19-2008 2:16 PM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Not in the argument that I provided.
That's because your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. They are out to prove the existence of the specific god that caused a global flood and that there is no other. That the Bible is accurate is merely a stepping stone on the way to claiming, "See?! God exists!"
God gave us the Bible -> The Bible says there was a global flood -> We should find evidence of a global flood
They then affirm the consequent:
There was a global flood -> The Bible was right -> The god that gave us the Bible is the one, true god
Please do not play dumb and pretend that the only thing that is being done is claiming that the Bible is correct. After all, there are lots of religious stories regarding floods. If there were a global flood during a time when people were alive, why would it be impressive to find that an oral tradition that goes back a few thousand years would have a story regarding a global flood?
If god exists -> The Bible is true
And here comes the logical error of affirming the consequent:
The Bible is true -> God exists

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2008 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2008 11:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 18 of 100 (463932)
04-22-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2008 11:27 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
It would be nice if you responded to my argument, the argument that I actually provided
What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand?
You write:
I thought that they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible.
What part of "It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" is somehow not in direct response to that? It would seem to be a blatant contradiction of your claim.
quote:
Please do not be dumb and respond to arguments that I’m not making.
I asked you very nicely not to play dumb. What part of "Your argument isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. It is not merely to show the accuracy of the Bible but rather to prove the existence of god" are you having trouble with? How does it not respond to your claim of "they try to prove the flood occurred, not in an effort to prove the existence of god, but in an effort to show the accuracy of the Bible"?
Why do you think they are trying to prove the Bible accurate? Let us not be disingenuous and pretend that they are just playing at being Heinrich Schliemann and they will accord a finding of a global flood the same theological importance as the rediscovery of Troy.
The only reason for the search of a global flood is to prove the existence of the god of the Bible. This is the same disingenuousness as those who advocate ID, insisting that they're not talking about god. Strange how when someone brings up the possibility that an intelligence other than god could be responsible for "ID," it is ridiculed.
quote:
I haven’t seen many arguments for the flood that conclude that god exists.
Are you truly that naive? Why do you think there is such a search?
Are the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis not enough for you? How about Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood? The Institute for Creation Research has a museum just 20 minutes north of me. Exhibit #5 is about the flood. And then there's the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.
What on earth do you think the "wedge" strategy is about? It's about getting creationism accepted as science and one of the ways to do that is to show the Bible to be accurate, as if that somehow shows that the Christian god is real.
I have asked you very nicely on multiple occasions not to play dumb.
quote:
It would add veracity to the Bible, not prove that god exists.
But why do we care? Why is it that the only people who are so insistent that there was a global flood in contradiction to all the available evidence are the ones who are insisting that the Christian god exists, that the Bible is true in every word and deed? These very same people don't seem to think that Zeus and the rest of the Olympian pantheon have any connection to reality just because we've found the Iliad to be accurate. They certainly aren't going out of their way to show the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, even though the story of Noah is a direct ripoff of the story of Ut-Napishtim.
Can you show us a single person who is insisting that the flood actually happened who isn't using it as a justification for their theological position regarding the existence and identity of god?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2008 11:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2008 11:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 100 (464029)
04-22-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2008 11:01 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What part of "Your argument isn't accurate" do you not understand?
The part where it took you two posts of seemingly misrepresentation before you brought it up.
Excuse me, but I brought it up in my very first post, Message 12:
Rrhain writes:
They have pinned their theology on there having been a global flood. If there is no global flood, then their assumed theology falls apart.
Now, why on earth do you think I'm talking about "theology" if I were just responding to a claim that a book was accurate? Yeah, that's right, because I wasn't. I was contradicting your claim that they were just talking about a book. Instead, they're trying to be able to say, "See? God exists!" But the only reason they can do so is because they're starting from a position that god leads to the Bible leads to the flood. To then go from the flood to god is to affirm the consequent. Again, there are myriad examples of flood myths. Why do they land on the god of the Bible?
quote:
They are trying to prove the Bible accurate in order to add weight to their position of god existing.
Now I'm confused. You originally said in Message 11:
Catholic Scientist writes:
They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god.
Now you're saying they are trying to prove god exists. Which is it?
When you figure out your own argument, please let us know.
quote:
But they really aren’t taking the fallacious leap from proving the flood to concluding god exists.
You just contradicted yourself again. Which is it? Are they or are they not trying to prove the existence of god?
Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?
quote:
You’ve answered this, yourself, in Message 12:
[...]
quote:
And I answered it in Message 11:
Huh? We get to work backwards in time? Your original point is actually a response to something I hadn't even said yet? No, Catholic Scientist, my Message 12 is a response to your Message 11. It is now up to you to justify your claim that "They're just trying to add weight to the claims of the Bible, not prove the existence of god."
Don't play dumb.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2008 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 1:54 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2008 12:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 100 (464214)
04-24-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
04-23-2008 1:54 AM


Bluejay responds to me:
quote:
Here's how I see it. There are two steps in the IDist’s argument:
1. Prove the Bible is accurate, so it will be permitted in science and history
But we don't do that with any other piece of literature. Troy was a real place. It was sacked (multiple times).
We still don't teach the Iliad in history or science class.
quote:
2. Once it’s shown to be scientifically accurate, we can use it to prove God
And that's the logical error of affirming the consequent. They assume that the Bible comes from god and then use the Bible to prove the existence of god. Because god, then the Bible. Because the Bible, then god. Circular reasoning, affirming the consequent.
quote:
But, I agree with Catholic Scientists that at least some IDists have made the distinction between the two steps above and are trying to tackle number one without going to number two (yet).
What do you mean "yet"? Why does it matter that they have an intermediate point? Why is it none of them are ever using this information to justify Greek mythology? After all, they have a flood myth, too. And if the flood is true, then we need to start teaching the Iliad in science and history class, right?
No?
Then the idea that they are just trying to prove the Bible to be accurate is nothing but a distraction. To pretend that there is any hint of objectivity, "Just trying to find out what's true," is naive in the extreme.
quote:
As for Michael Behe, I personally think would realize it
Behe is a religious apologist. While he has been careful about not giving too many speeches regarding the literal truth of the Bible, he has been caught saying so. He is, after all, a fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 1:54 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 04-24-2008 3:53 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 100 (464216)
04-24-2008 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
04-23-2008 12:31 PM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
They try to prove the Flud to prove the Bible. Then they use the proof of the Bible to prove God exists. They do not leap from the Flud to God's existence and Affirm the Consequent like you are saying.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Do you truly not understand basic logic? It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you try to reverse the implications, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent:
A -> B -> C
C, therefore B, therefore A
That is affirming the consequent just as much as if we were to remove B from the process and just do A -> C; C, therefore A. In fact, you're doing it twice.
A square -> A rectangle -> A polygon
A polygon -> A rectangle -> A square
It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps we stick in there: A square -> a rectangle -> a quadrilateral -> a polygon -> a bounded, two-dimensional shape. If you try to reverse the process and start with the end as justification for the beginning, you are affirming the consequent. That's what "affirming the consequent" means.
quote:
If I say in message 1 that my favorite color is red, and then you ask me in message 2 what my favorite color is
Huh? Where did I ask you anything? I contradicted you.
Msg 1: "Joe's favorite color is red."
Msg 2: "No, Joe's favorite color is blue."
Msg 3: "I responded to that in Msg 1."
Huh? That's not a response. Msg 1 has nothing to do with Msg 2. Msg 2 is a response to Msg 1. For you to say that you already dealt with that is simply repeating your argument. That isn't debate. You need to show why you think Joe's favorite color is red.
For the third time: Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there?
quote:
quote:
Why on earth do you think that they're so gung-ho about justifying their preconception about a global flood? Since there are plenty of flood myths, why is it that they never mention that a global flood shows Gilgamesh to be accurate or that Greek myth is accurate? You never hear a talk about Ut-Napishtim or Deucalion and Pyrrha. Why is that, do you think?
Because they are trying to prove that the Bible is accurate, like I've been saying.
That's not an answer. Why are they trying to prove the Bible accurate? Why is it they're trying to prove the BIBLE accurate? Why aren't they trying to prove the Iliad accurate?
Can you show me anybody who is searching for evidence of a global flood that is going to use it as justification for anything other than the god of the Bible? Someone who will admit that it is exoneration for all the other flood myths out there?
If not, where do you find justifcation that they aren't trying to prove the existence of their preconceived notion of god?
quote:
.|.. ^.^ ..|.
Right...that's helpful. So the only way to justify your argument is to say, "Fuck you"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2008 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 100 (464217)
04-24-2008 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Blue Jay
04-23-2008 1:29 PM


Bluejay responds to Catholic Scientist:
quote:
I personally think, for a lot of them that do make the two-step distinction you propose
Name one. Same argument to you as to CS: Show me a single person who is searching for evidence of a global flood who will claim that it is justification for every culture's flood myth and doesn't restrict himself to just the Bible.
Besides, it doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. In fact, adding intermediate steps simply compounds the problem as you are affirming the consequent at every level.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 1:29 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 100 (464354)
04-24-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
04-24-2008 3:53 PM


Bluejay responds to me:
quote:
I think you've got too much of an "all-or-nothing" mindset in your argument.
No, it's a theory vs. practice mindset. Yes, it is theoretically possible that someone out there is treating the Bible as an historical document along with all of the other great historical documents such as the Iliad and the Bhagavad Gita and thus is searching for evidence of a global flood to place these texts within an historical context, but let's be honest: They aren't the ones claiming there was a global flood. Instead, they're making comments that the story of a flood is probably the result of the telling and retelling of a local flood and the one that seems to have originated in the western Mediterranean could have origins in a natural dam breaking.
quote:
I was arguing that they do have a system of sorts.
And I'm saying they don't. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they're interested in the historicity of the Bible and will only use it in the synthesis of their argument, not the analysis, but in practice, they don't. The argument is that god gave us the Bible, the Bible says there was a flood, therefore we must insist there was a global flood which will be proof of god. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.
quote:
we're not necessarily saying the ID position is "if the Bible is accurate, God is therefore real."
In theory, no.
In practice, yes.
Name me a single person who isn't arguing exactly that. No, not a person who is treating it as an intellectual exercise. I want someone who is seriously claiming that there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show it.
quote:
They know they can't pass off the "Flood = God" thing as science directly, at least not to scientists. So, they'll try to do it the in stepwise fashion that CS is saying.
But that just means they're repeating the logical error. It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you take. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are engaging in the logical error of affirming the consequent. Implication doesn't work that way.
quote:
Of course, if and when they find conclusive support for the Flood, they'll naturally start saying things like "We knew this all along. Aren't you going to listen to us about all this other stuff now?"
Well, that would contradict your previous claim of their intentions:
just because they have the end goal in mind, obscuring their judgment about the evidence, it doesn't mean they're not taking the necessary steps.
It turns out that they are, indeed, not taking the necessary steps. They're just trying to baffle you with bullshit by throwing in a lot of intermediary steps so that they don't have to say that "flood = god." It's the exact same reason why they started calling it "intelligent design" rather than "creationism." They wanted to be able to have their religious argument without mentioning the word "god."
But just because they don't use the word "god" doesn't mean that they aren't trying to prove the existence of god through an illogical reverse implication.
Name me a single person who isn't arguing that a global flood necessarily means the god of the Bible is true. Again, not someone who thinks of it as an interesting exercise. Someone who actually thinks there was a global flood and that there is evidence to show for it.
You will note that I was the one who brought up the fact that there are other flood myths out there. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that I would accept that there is some actual knowledge to be learned from investigating the possibility of such a common story across multiple cultures.
But if you're only going to say that this means the Bible is true and never mention any of the others, then you're not treating it as an example of cultural and historical geology. You're doing it to prove the existence of your vision of god.
Theory is lovely. Let's talk about reality.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 04-24-2008 3:53 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:17 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 100 (464493)
04-26-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 1:17 PM


Bluejay responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Name me a single person who isn't arguing exactly that.
I can't actually name specific people who don't argue that
Which leaves me wondering just who it is you're talking about, then. If there isn't anybody who doesn't claim an actual flood who doesn't also then use it to insist that the god of the Bible is the one, true god, then how is this argument not an example of affirming the consequent?
quote:
but I can cite a few ICR research papers in which they don't.
And those same people claim they're not talking about god when they bring up "intelligent design." We don't believe them when they do the latter, why should we believe them when they do the former? They're the very same people.
quote:
in their research, they often don't say "Flood = God."
Because they know they will be letting the cat out of the bag if they do. Since invoking god is clearly not science, they simply restate everything to specifically avoid mentioning god and then pretend that they're being sweet and innocent, praying that everybody will be as gullible as they are disingenuous.
quote:
But, those two papers do not make the leap from Flood geology to God: they do exactly what CS is saying--the leap from Flood to "true Bible."
Because they're playing you. "See? We're not talking about god! We never used the g-word!" As if simply not saying "god" doesn't mean you're not talking about god. But look at the keywords in your first reference:
Fountains of the Great Deep
Windows of Heaven
Where did those terms come from? That's right...the Bible. No other mythological source is mentioned. Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to prove god out of this.
The very first sentence of the abstract:
In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah's Flood.
Wait a second..."Noah's" flood? Why not "Deucalion and Pyrrha's" flood? Why not "Ut-Napishtim's" flood? Gee, I wonder if they're not trying to justify the existence of the biblical god.
And later on:
Because of the enormous explanatory and predictive success of the plate tectonics model (reviewed in [122,124]), we feel that at least some portion of plate tectonics theory should be incorporated into the creation model.
"Creation model"? Gee, I wonder what they're up to.
We feel that this model is not only capable of the explanatory and predictive success of conventional plate tectonics, but is also capable of clarifying a number of Scriptural claims and explaining some physical data unexplained by conventional plate tectonics theory.
"Scriptural claims"? What's up with that?
As creationists we could also use the services of a geochemist to develop a model for the origin of carbonates and precipitites during the Flood.
Well, there you have it. Creationism is a religious claim. They're doing this research in the service of creationism. It is being done solely to prove the existence of god.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:17 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 100 (464494)
04-26-2008 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 4:13 PM


Bluejay writes:
quote:
I'm trying to say that I think ID involves more than just a "scientific" way to God: I think they want to take the Flood -> Bible step via "science," and the "Bible -> God" step via religion.
And I'm contradicting you.
They're trying to make belief in god "scientific." Since society has turned to science for answers to questions, they are trying to use the tools of science to justify their theology.
Now, none of them need this. Not one of them believe in god because of any experiment. In fact, there isn't a single experiment you could possibly carry out that would make them change their mind about god. But seeing as how they're facing a world that wants evidence, they're trying to come up with something that would be convincing.
quote:
I don't think they're trying to take the "science" all the way through to God.
And yet, when you look at their overall action, that is clearly what they are doing. After all, if "they're just hoping peoples' faith will take them the rest of the way," then they wouldn't be so specific about which god you're supposed to wind up with.
Remember, science hinges on the ability for you to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong. That there was a global flood is no more evidence of the Bible than it is evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet these people never point to Babylonian mythology.
quote:
The papers I provided didn't go all the way to the "God" step
...except that they did.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 100 (464650)
04-27-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
04-26-2008 5:29 PM


Bluejay responds to me:
quote:
This isn't evidence of anything: don't you prescribe how your results should be interpreted in the Discussion section of your papers?
It is evidence of everything. Yes, you discuss the interpretation of your results, but you have to do it within the context of all the other evidence available. The fact that these "investigators" never mention any other source of a flood story except the Bible shows that they aren't actually trying to interpret the evidence as proof of the Bible. That's already been assumed. Which means they are assuming that which they are trying to prove. Circular argument, affirming the consequent.
quote:
Their discussion-section equivalent is written for believers in Christianity: they have to explain how the results fit into the Christian paradigm.
That's precisely my point! They're using their "research" to prove that god exists! They're not talking about a flood for a flood's sake. They're not actually trying to show the physical possibility of a flood. They're trying to prove that god exists. But they only reason they're looking for a flood is because god told them that there was a flood. God -> flood. Flood, therefore god. That's affirming the consequent. It doesn't matter that there's an intermediary step of the Bible in between.
The fact that they never talk about all the other flood myths being just as justified by their so-called "evidence for a global flood" shows that they aren't interested in simple geology. They're trying to prove the existence of god.
quote:
So, they're saying, "under these results, it's still okay to believe in God, biblical literalism, etc." That's different from saying "these results prove God."
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
That's exactly what they're saying. When you say that it is "still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc." you are directly saying, "These results prove god." That's the entire point.
quote:
They didn't say "these results prove God,"
They don't need to. They know that they cannot use the g-word lest the game be revealed for what it is. That doesn't mean they're not talking about god.
quote:
they didn't mean to say "these results prove God,"
They most certainly did. That's the entire point behind saying, "It's still okay to believe in god, biblical literalism, etc."
quote:
and I don't think they believe they could ever prove God.
Oh, they most certainly do. We know that evolution can be proven to act right in front of your eyes and they know that god acts right in front of theirs. Thus, they intend to show even more evidence of the bibilcal god acting so that it can be proof that god exists and they can then use that to further their political agendas.
quote:
They're only trying to prove what they know they could theoretically prove, and using that to rationalize their irrational faith in God.
Um, you do realize you just proved my point, right? If they are using the results to "rationalize their irrational faith in god," then they are trying to prove the existence of god. That's the entire point behind a rationalization: To prove something.
quote:
They don't point to Bablyonian mythology because it isn't relevant to the argument
It most certainly is! If there was a global flood, then all sorts of flood myths become reality, the vast majority of which are not the Bible's...especially since the Bible's story isn't even original to the Bible but is a plagiarism of the Babylonian story. For them to conclude that the BIBLE is true because of a flood is to assume what they were trying to prove.
quote:
The only evidence you would need is conformity of the geological facts to the story in the Bible.
But the only thing they've managed to say is, "There was a flood." That doesn't fit the facts to the story except in the most superficial sense. That's why we don't accept the finding of Troy to be affirmation of the Iliad. It's too general. Because the story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim, to show that there is any validity to the Bible's telling of events will require much more evidence.
quote:
These are all in response to citations of or appeals to the Bible. They are not appeals to God.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? When a creationist talks about "Scripture," they aren't referring to a literary analysis. They are talking about the "word of god."
quote:
Because they never even try to make that step scientifically!
But that's precisely what they're doing! God made a flood. Look! We have a flood! Therefore, god exists! We proved it "scientifically"!
quote:
Their science only goes so far as to say "the Bible was right" (in Flood-related arguments).
But the entire point behind saying, "The Bible was right," is to then immediately say, "And thus, the god described therein exists."
It doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you put in. If you reverse the arrows of implication, you are affirming the consequent.
The way you show that they aren't doing so is to show me a single person who searches for evidence of a flood who then admits that this is justification for every single flood myth out there.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024