PDA

View Full Version : Science



flogger
February 17th, 2005, 06:27 PM
I'm trying to understand why so many Christians deny science.

The thing I like about Islam is that all science is seen to be part of Allah's plan. I'm surprised that Christians don't believe that God could be responsible for something like THE BIG BANG. THE BIG BANG did happen-but you have to remember that all we can trace the universe back to is the BIG BANG-we have no idea where the matter came from that produced the BIG BANG. It had to have come from somewhere. I say God is responsible for the BIG BANG. I don't understand why Christians have to deny science? I don't understand it at all!!!

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 06:38 PM
I happen to think that God DID cause the Big Bang. I don't see that God and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. If one really looks at science, it points towards an Intelligent Designer.

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 06:38 PM
I'm disturbed by Christians who deny the Bible's historical account.

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 06:40 PM
I'm not denying the Biblical account of anything.

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

I happen to think that God DID cause the Big Bang. I don't see that God and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. But according to Big-Bangers, this event took place billions of years ago. Do you buy that?

If one really looks at science, it points towards an Intelligent Designer. Agreed.

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

I'm not denying the Biblical account of anything. Just so you know, I was speaking generally. My comment wasn't in response to yours. I hadn't seen your post until after I posted mine.

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 06:43 PM
I don't know whether or not it took place billions of years ago or not. But I do think that God could say, "BOOM" and cause the big bang, if you get what I mean.

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Ok, Turbo, my apologies.

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

I don't know whether or not it took place billions of years ago or not. But I do think that God could say, "BOOM" and cause the big bang, if you get what I mean. But according to Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth and everthing in them in six days. And the Bible gives a historical account through genealogies, king's reigns, etc. that places Creation Week around 4000 B.C.

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

But according to Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth and everthing in them in six days. And the Bible gives a historical account through genealogies, king's reigns, etc. that places Creation Week around 4000 B.C.

That may very well be the fact, but God could still have caused it to bang forth. Scientist could be wrong about the age of the universe.

Turbo
February 17th, 2005, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

That may very well be the fact, but God could still have caused it to bang forth. Scientist could be wrong about the age of the universe. Sure. Just be careful using the term "Big Bang." It carries a lot of naturalistic connotations, including the "billions of years" timeline, the notion that the earth was formed after the sun and the stars, etc.

Similarly, I belief that the different breeds of dog have a common ancestor, and but I wouldn't say I believe in evolution.

Ninjashadow
February 17th, 2005, 07:34 PM
I see your point. But God could have created the universe as a singularity.

Skeptic
February 17th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by flogger

I'm trying to understand why so many Christians deny science. It's because science tells us some fundamentally different things about the nature of the universe and life than the literal interpretations of fairy tales and superstitions found in the Bible.


I say God is responsible for the BIG BANG. There is no evidence for this. There is also no evidence for God.

Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?

One purpose of science is to explain things without having to resort to supernatural possibilities. Once the supernatural is invoked, science would stop looking for possible natural explanations.

The Berean
February 17th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

Exactly my view. A-fundies equate evolution with "science". I especially love their silly accusations that Christians deny scinece. As an engineer I was educated in mathematics, science, and logic. I use this knowledge and skills to solve daily problems that are based in science. In school I studied therodynamics, heat transfer, structual mechanics, manufacturing processes, all based in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I am also a Christian so I take offense when A-fundies say I deny science. Please get real...:rolleyes:

Skeptic
February 17th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by The Berean

Exactly my view. A-fundies equate evolution with "science". I especially love their silly accusations that Christians deny scinece. As an engineer I was educated in mathematics, science, and logic. I use this knowledge and skills to solve daily problems that are based in science. In school I studied therodynamics, heat transfer, structual mechanics, manufacturing processes, all based in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I am also a Christian so I take offense when A-fundies say I deny science. Please get real...:rolleyes: There is a difference between applied science and research science. Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied.

When fundies are criticized for denying science, it is because many have denied or misinterpreted some very basic and well established principles in fields such as physics, biology, geology, and astronomy.

The Berean
February 17th, 2005, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

There is a difference between applied science and research science. Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied.

When fundies are criticized for denying science, it is because many have denied or misinterpreted some very basic and well established principles in fields such as physics, biology, geology, and astronomy.

Skeptic,

Can you give an example of an application of evolutionary science? :think:

Mr Jack
February 18th, 2005, 05:17 AM
I can give two.

1. The combating of resistance; either antibiotic-resistance in diseases, or poison-resistance in vermin.

2. Genetic algorithm approaches to problem solving.

PureX
February 18th, 2005, 06:46 AM
When a religion is based on lies, and these lies are exposed by reality, then the participant will either have to let go of or drastically modify his religion to remain rational and honest, or else he'll have to deny reality itself. Some folks are so weak, and therefor so dependant upon their religion to help them live their lives, that they're simply too frightened to let their religion go even after it's been exposed as irrational, dishonest, and unhealthy.

It's like asking a dope addict to give up his dope, because the dope is clearly harming him even as it creates the illusion that it's "good" for him. The dope addict has become so dependant on the illusion that the dope creates that he can't let it go even as it's killing him.

Stratnerd
February 18th, 2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

Really? So what have you seen that falsifies the evolutionary and big bang hypotheses?

But if we are talking about creationists.. they primarily reject evolution and big bang cosmology because they conflict with scripture and nothing more. Many creationists organizations make you sign an oath that you accept scripture as Truth before you can work for them.

And you guys complain about bias in publishing!

Also, there are many applications of evolutionary theory - one important one is seeking biopharmaceuticals - by knowing the realtionships among plants we can identify those species that are likely to have biologically active compounds similar to those already discovered in a related species.

aharvey
February 18th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Originally posted by Turbo

But according to Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth and everthing in them in six days. And the Bible gives a historical account through genealogies, king's reigns, etc. that places Creation Week around 4000 B.C.
Turbo,

Let's put these ideas together. Are there any people who favor the woodenly literal interpretation of a single, 7-day Creation week that occured about 4000 B.C. because of science? And if so, where is that evidence?

flogger
February 18th, 2005, 10:10 AM
It seems to me that idiotic Christians who think the world began 6000 years ago are writing their own scriptures-nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world began 6000 years or 6 billion years or 100 billion years ago. The Bible simply says that "in the beginning when God created the universe, the earth was without form!"

Thus, one must rely on science-which comes from the Latin word for knowledge!!!

Stratnerd
February 18th, 2005, 10:12 AM
flogger,

they're using the geneologies in the Bible with some assumptions (ha!) about when people begat and begat and begat.

flogger
February 18th, 2005, 10:25 AM
How likely is it that scientists are wrong? If we say that then all of the evidence we have of dinosaurs existing must've come from Mars right? If we say that we can deny one type of science what is to keep us from denying other types of science-it's just like people who pick and choose their scripture-Jesus didn't like people who did that-even Satan tried to do that with him during his fasting in the desert-remember that? You cannot pick and choose the science you'll accept-unless there are flaws in it-astronomy is essentially an observational technique-to deny that our solar system has remained the way it has since 4000 BC is to deny the existence of gravity-which you can observe here on earth by jumping off a building or jumping on a trampoline. If gravity didn't exist then the earth wouldn't continuously revolve around the sun-the forces attracting the earth to the sun wouldn't exist and the forces pulling the earth away from the sun wouldn't exist and the earth wouldn't have it's own sun. In fact, if there was no such thing as gravity then I believe the earth wouldn't be able to sustain life-it would just be another Mars-except, this Mars would be lost in space and it would be without an atmosphere to contain heat and protect from ultraviolet rays.

This is such a big topic, I'm barely cracking the surface here.

But, you need to show me the evidence the Bible has to say that the world began in 4000 BC.

bob b
February 18th, 2005, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by flogger

It seems to me that idiotic Christians who think the world began 6000 years ago are writing their own scriptures-nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world began 6000 years or 6 billion years or 100 billion years ago. The Bible simply says that "in the beginning when God created the universe, the earth was without form!"

Thus, one must rely on science-which comes from the Latin word for knowledge!!!

It is a lie that a person must rely upon science to know the truth regarding the origination of the universe.

It seems to me to be logic 101 that a material universe could not arise in a material manner. Thus one has to believe that the universe is eternal, or that it arose in a non-material or "non-natural" manner.

Most people call a non-natural manner "supernatural".

Scripture says that God is a spirit and if this is true then it implies there is a spiritual world. Human beings are said to have been made in the "image" of God. This means that humans were created to have a spiritual component so that even though we have a physical, or animal body if you wish, we may be more than the mere animals which we superficially resemble from a materialistic point of view.

But scripture says that something very dreadful happened in those early days and we no longer fellowshipdirectly with God. perhaps we have a damaged "image" these days.

But God provided a cure for our fallen condition. He arranged for His son to come to Earth in the physical form of a man. Since His son was actually equal to the Father in the Godhead, the son's sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all the sins of humankind, something that would of course been impossible for an ordinary human being.

The Bible tells this story in many different places in scripture in many different ways. If one says the story is false then it follows logically that this would mean that all the books of the entire Bible, OT and new, are false. This is why those who try to find compromises between the lie of "uphill" evolution and the truth of scripture are doomed to gradually slide further and further into scriptural disbelief, as Bishop Spong has done.

But all of this is nonsense to a person who blindly follows the materialism of our age.

Compromisers claim that they believe in the supernatural birth of God in human form. But they gag when told that God supernaturally created the universe and first life in multiple types not that long ago.

The truth is that they are trying to serve two masters, God and Evolution, and we Christians know what Jesus had to say about such folly.

The joke is that "uphill" evolution isn't even scientific.

billwald
February 18th, 2005, 02:47 PM
I have seen an analysis that compares the 6 days of creation to the physical/scientific account on a log scale and it works out quite well.

Turbo
February 18th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by billwald

I have seen an analysis that compares the 6 days of creation to the physical/scientific [sic] account on a log scale and it works out quite well. Oh really? Naturalists/Evolutionists/Big Bangers believe that the Earth was created before the sun and the stars, and there was even plant life on Earth before the sun was formed? That's a new one.

Where did you see this? Can you share it with us?

billwald
February 18th, 2005, 02:52 PM
>Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied

How about dividing it into historical and scientific?

Second, most critics misunderstand the difference between evolution & abiogenics, between evolution and social darwinism, and the difference between science and philosophy. The problem of first cause is philosophical, not scientific.

Turbo
February 18th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

There is also no evidence for God. The very existence of the universe is evidence for God.


Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out? So you presuppose that God does not exist?


One purpose of science is to explain things without having to resort to supernatural possibilities.

...

When fundies are criticized for denying science, it is because many have denied or misinterpreted some very basic and well established principles in fields such as physics, biology, geology, and astronomy.Yet naturalistic atheists such as yourself promote the Big Bang Theory in which matter/energy creates itself from nothing in violation the first law of thermodynamics.

This is the part where you say that I believe "God poofed" the matter into existence. But God is supernatural. He is not bound by the laws of nature.

See that? Because matter/energy exists, and we know from science that matter/energy cannot create itself out of nothing according to a fundamental law of nature, we can conclude that whatever created matter/energy was supernatural.

aharvey
February 18th, 2005, 07:55 PM
quote by Skeptic:
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?


Originally posted by Turbo

So you presuppose that God does not exist?
Cheez, you guys are stubborn about this logical fallacy!

Listen to this conversation:

Me: Is there a marble in my hand?
You: How should I know?
Me: Well, do I?
You: How do you expect me to answer that from here?
Me: Okay, so do you assume there is a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume that.
Me: So you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume anything about the presence of a marble in your hand one way or the other.
Me: Ah, so then you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: I just said I make no assumptions about whether there is a marble in your hand!
Me: But that's ridicuous. Why do you assume there is no marble in my hand?
You: What is wrong with you? Can't you see the difference between "no assumptions about the presence of a marble" and "assuming there is no marble"?
Me: Yes, and can't you see how blinded you are by your assumption that there is no marble?

...continue in this vein endlessly...

bob b
February 18th, 2005, 08:23 PM
The evolutionary logic seems to tell them they cannot assume that there were multiple types at the beginning because that is what the Bible says and we can't allow that.

This is despite the fact that this assumption is a better scientific explanation of how all the different varieties of lifeforms got here than the bankrupt idea that life started with a single hypothetical protocell and progressed "uphill" via random mutations to finally reach the pinacle of human beings.

But Galileo never got anywhere either with his better theory with those that dogmatically clung to Aristotle's dumb idea. It has always been the same in science: many times dogmatists have to die off before better ideas take hold. Mayr himself said it sometimes takes about 80 years.

flogger
February 19th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Let's first figure out this question I pose:

Let's say that I am on the roof of a skyscraper-now, if I held a coin over the edge and opened my hand downwards, would the coin remain afloat in the air, or would the coin fall. If so, please tell me why, to the best of your ability!!!

Please answer this question as honestly as you can, and with as much effort as you feel called to!!!

taoist
February 19th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Greetings, flogger,

You'll find that muslims posting on islamic sites use exactly the same arguments to justify a young earth, and for exactly the same reasons as christian YECers. Trust me, I've copy/pasted the same arguments from a christan board to an islamic board questioning YEC interpretations. Just replace god-references with allah and you're good to go.

It was a fascinating experience.

In peace, Jesse

Turbo
February 19th, 2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by taoist

Greetings, flogger,

You'll find that muslims posting on islamic sites use exactly the same arguments to justify a young earth, and for exactly the same reasons as christian YECers. So?

I've read/heard the exact same arguments for an old Earth, evolution, and the Big Bang from hardcore atheists, agnostics, Taoists, Buddhists, Pantheists, Panentheists, wiccans, Muslims, Catholics, Methodists, and nominal Christians of various denominations. Does that make these arguments any more or less credible?

If your point is that you don't have to be a Christian to be a young-earth creationist and to recognize the evidence is against the Big Bang/Naturalistic Evolutionist model, then I agree with you. In fact, I was was a young-earth creationist for a few years before I became a Christian.


Trust me, I've copy/pasted the same arguments from a christan board to an islamic board questioning YEC interpretations. Just replace god-references with allah and you're good to go.I've noticed that its those arguing against the young earth model who tend to bring up God (or Allah) and theology when the young earthers are talking about scientific evidence.

Turbo
February 19th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by flogger

Let's first figure out this question I pose:

Let's say that I am on the roof of a skyscraper-now, if I held a coin over the edge and opened my hand downwards, would the coin remain afloat in the air, or would the coin fall. If so, please tell me why, to the best of your ability!!!

Please answer this question as honestly as you can, and with as much effort as you feel called to!!! The coin would fall due to the gravitational pull from the earth.

(Much of what we know about gravity is thanks to a Creationist named Isaac Newton.)

billwald
February 19th, 2005, 01:29 PM
>So what have you seen that falsifies the evolutionary and big bang hypotheses?

BB can't be falsified. "First cause" is a philosophical problem, not science. The only tow possible answers are "God" and "always was." There is no "scientific" experiment which will differentiate between God and Always was.

billwald
February 19th, 2005, 01:34 PM
Reliable personal and universal experience on this earth indicates that the coin falls toward the earth. Newton quantified reliable personal and universal experience.

The Berean
February 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

I can give two.

1. The combating of resistance; either antibiotic-resistance in diseases, or poison-resistance in vermin.

2. Genetic algorithm approaches to problem solving.

How are these applications of evolutionary science? I need more detail. :)

I

The Berean
February 19th, 2005, 05:33 PM
double post

The Berean
February 19th, 2005, 05:34 PM
never mind...double post

Lucky
February 19th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by aharvey


Skeptic:
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?


Turbo:

So you presuppose that God does not exist?

Cheez, you guys are stubborn about this logical fallacy!

Listen to this conversation:

Me: Is there a marble in my hand?
You: How should I know?
Me: Well, do I?
You: How do you expect me to answer that from here?
Me: Okay, so do you assume there is a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume that.
Me: So you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume anything about the presence of a marble in your hand one way or the other.
Me: Ah, so then you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: I just said I make no assumptions about whether there is a marble in your hand!
Me: But that's ridicuous. Why do you assume there is no marble in my hand?
You: What is wrong with you? Can't you see the difference between "no assumptions about the presence of a marble" and "assuming there is no marble"?
Me: Yes, and can't you see how blinded you are by your assumption that there is no marble?

...continue in this vein endlessly...
Aharvey, no one has forced Skeptic to make any presuppositions. That's something he decided to do on his own. In other words, your conversation doesn't compare at all to the debate above it.

The Berean
February 19th, 2005, 06:07 PM
never mind double post...

Skeptic
February 20th, 2005, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by bob b

It is a lie that a person must rely upon science to know the truth regarding the origination of the universe. It is a lie that a person must rely upon the Bible to know the truth regarding the origination of the universe


It seems to me to be logic 101 that a material universe could not arise in a material manner. Thus one has to believe that the universe is eternal, or that it arose in a non-material or "non-natural" manner.

Most people call a non-natural manner "supernatural". But, since there is ZERO evidence for any supernatural things or processes, it is not logical to believe that anything could arise in a supernatural manner.

The universe has been changing form, since the Big Bang. At the time of the Big Bang, there was a quite radical change in the form of the universe - from a singularity to a rapid expansion. The clock of our timeline starts at the singularity. There may be other "prior" timelines, but they are probably forever inaccessible to us. If "prior" timelines are inaccessible, then what happened "before" the universe expanded from a singularity, including its alleged creation, is inaccessible.

But common sense (which might be wrong) tells us that something must have been eternal, either (1) the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe itself, or (2) some unknown factor that created the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe. I think (1) is more likely than (2), because we already have evidence of the existence of the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe (just look around), but we do not have any evidence of any unknown creative factor that is outside of this universe.

Why should it make more sense that a hypothetical supernatural entity with a personality is eternal, but the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe itself is not? It does not make sense to me.


Scripture says that God is a spirit and if this is true then it implies there is a spiritual world. ...

But all of this is nonsense to a person who blindly follows the materialism of our age. All alternative viewpoints are nonsense to a person who blindly follows a literal interpretation of Biblical fairy tales and superstitions.


The joke is that "uphill" evolution isn't even scientific. The joke is that the "uphill" / "downhill" dichotomy inserted into discussions about evolution is not even scientific. :chuckle:

Skeptic
February 20th, 2005, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

The very existence of the universe is evidence for God. The very existence of the universe is evidence for the very existence of the universe. When talking about the universe as a whole, evidence of its existence is not necessarily evidence of a time when it did not exist.


So you presuppose that God does not exist? Until I have some rational reason to suppose something, I tentatively presuppose it does not exist.


Yet naturalistic atheists such as yourself promote the Big Bang Theory in which matter/energy creates itself from nothing in violation the first law of thermodynamics. I am a naturalistic agnostic. Currently, I think it is likely that the matter/energy of the universe did not create itself, and was not created by anything else. It is likely that it was never created in the first place! In which case it would be eternal.

The unnecessary introduction of a hypothetical supernatural eternal entity with a personality who created matter/energy out of nothing IS a violation of the 1st Law.


This is the part where you say that I believe "God poofed" the matter into existence. But God is supernatural. He is not bound by the laws of nature. The supernatural is hypothetical, and there is ZERO evidence that it has ever existed at all.

Just because something is not yet explainable and may never be fully explainable in naturalistic terms, it does not logically follow that one must introduce some far-fetched hypothetical supernatural entity or process, for which there is ZERO evidence, to explain it.


See that? Because matter/energy exists, and we know from science that matter/energy cannot create itself out of nothing according to a fundamental law of nature, we can conclude that whatever created matter/energy was supernatural. And if matter/energy was not created, but is eternal? What then?

Skeptic
February 20th, 2005, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by bob b

The evolutionary logic seems to tell them they cannot assume that there were multiple types at the beginning because that is what the Bible says and we can't allow that. The evolutionary logic that tells us that life probably evolved from a single type is contrary to your literal interpretation of your Bible, and you can't allow that.


This is despite the fact that this assumption is a better scientific explanation of how all the different varieties of lifeforms got here... What percentage of scientists agree that your assumption is a better scientific explanation?


... than the bankrupt idea that life started with a single hypothetical protocell and progressed "uphill" via random mutations to finally reach the pinacle of human beings. I know of no evolutionary scientist who thinks that evolution "progressed" to allow human beings to become the "pinnacle" achievement of evolution. Evolution does not have any long-term goals that it progresses toward. Since the dawn of life, every generation of DNA was selected for by the unique ecological circumstances in which it found itself. Each generation did not strive toward increasing sophistication or intelligence. The notion that humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution is quite anthropocentric.


But Galileo never got anywhere either with his better theory with those that dogmatically clung to Aristotle's dumb idea. It has always been the same in science: many times dogmatists have to die off before better ideas take hold. Mayr himself said it sometimes takes about 80 years. You have failed miserably to provide convincing evidence that your supernaturalistic fairy-tale hypotheses are "better ideas."

aharvey
February 20th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
Aharvey, no one has forced Skeptic to make any presuppositions. That's something he decided to do on his own. In other words, your conversation doesn't compare at all to the debate above it.
Um, Lucky? They're exactly the same. Skeptic's quote, to which Turbo replied, was: "Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?"

This doesn't say, Science assumes God does not exist. This says, Science does not include God, nor exclude God from theories, because science has no way to collect evidence about God one way or the other."

Are you guys constitutionally unable to see the differenc?

aharvey
February 20th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by bob b

The evolutionary logic seems to tell them they cannot assume that there were multiple types at the beginning because that is what the Bible says and we can't allow that.
bob, you are such a liar. I'm sorry, but I'm just sick to death of your attributing petty motives that you can't possibly believe are true to others simply because they have a different viewpoint from yours. You know full well that evolutionary logic doesn't assume anything about the impossibility of "multiple types at the beginning;" it infers that all life could have a common ancestor, and available evidence re: DNA and other commonalities suggests that this is a pretty good inference. Period. The fact that the Bible says otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Originally posted by bob b

This is despite the fact that this assumption is a better scientific explanation of how all the different varieties of lifeforms got here than the bankrupt idea that life started with a single hypothetical protocell and progressed "uphill" via random mutations to finally reach the pinacle of human beings.
You keep saying this over and over and over and over and over, and you never even fully develop it, much less provide the slightest shred of support beyond "it's absurd to think otherwise." Fine philosophy from a former "aerospace engineer."

Lucky
February 20th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Um, Lucky? They're exactly the same. Skeptic's quote, to which Turbo replied, was: "Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?"

This doesn't say, Science assumes God does not exist. This says, Science does not include God, nor exclude God from theories, because science has no way to collect evidence about God one way or the other."
So, the presupposition here isn't that "science assumes God does not exist." The presupposition is that "science has no way to collect evidence about God." Point taken.

Now, I agree with Skeptic in that "why introduce [into science] a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?" Empirical science is based on observation. And there is no way to empirically investigate something that beyond our ability to observe, correct?

Turbo
February 20th, 2005, 01:35 PM
aharvey, I asked Skeptic if he presupposes that God does not exist, and he confirmed that he does just that! See post #44.


Originally posted by Turbo

So you presuppose that God does not exist?


Originally posted by Skeptic

Until I have some rational reason to suppose something, I tentatively presuppose it does not exist.

aharvey
February 20th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

aharvey, I asked Skeptic if he presupposes that God does not exist, and he confirmed that he does just that! See post #44.

Oops, your recall isn't quite total. Here, let's try again, in order:

quote: (from Skeptic)
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?

Turbo's direct response to this quote: So you presuppose that God does not exist? (my emphasis)

[Me: Skeptic's quote doesn't say that at all. Why do creationists continuously conflate "lack of assumption" with "assumption of lack"?]

Skeptic: Until I have some rational reason to suppose something, I tentatively presuppose it does not exist.

So Turbo, what you say in this post is technically true, but irrelevant. You're the biblical wordsmith around here, you tell me why you started your reply (not new question) to Skeptic with the word "So," if not because you based your notion that Skeptic presupposes no God on the quote to which you are replying. Get it? Skeptic's statements about how science deals with God do not follow from his personal views about the existence of God. So the fact that he assumes God does not exist does not allow you to conclude that when science makes no assumptions about God, it's the same as science assuming there is no God.

aharvey
February 20th, 2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Lucky

So, the presupposition here isn't that "science assumes God does not exist." The presupposition is that "science has no way to collect evidence about God." Point taken.
Thank you. It's even better to say that science makes no assumptions about God one way or the other, with the main reason for this being that it's not clear how one could use data from the natural world to falsify hypotheses about the supernatural.


Originally posted by Lucky

Now, I agree with Skeptic in that "why introduce [into science] a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?" Empirical science is based on observation. And there is no way to empirically investigate something that beyond our ability to observe, correct?
As long as by "observe," you don't mean "see"!

Lucky
February 20th, 2005, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

As long as by "observe," you don't mean "see"!
I figured there would be a but. So tell me, how do you define "observe"?

And be careful, you gotta define it in a way that allows for some theories on how the universe began to be considered empirical science but not those other theories.

aharvey
February 20th, 2005, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Lucky

I figured there would be a but. So tell me, how do you define "observe"?
Let's just say that there are enough silly word games played out here that it pays to be cautious. A scientific observation requires the collection of data. That data could be based on any of our senses, as enhanced as need be (and possible!) by our technology. As always, it pays to be aware of the fine line between observation and inference.

There's nothing wrong with "but," incidentally. The people who are least likely to know what they're talking about are the ones who never qualify or limit their statements.

Turbo
February 20th, 2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

So Turbo, what you say in this post is technically true, but irrelevant. You're the biblical wordsmith around here, you tell me why you started your reply (not new question) to Skeptic with the word "So," if not because you based your notion that Skeptic presupposes no God on the quote to which you are replying.I was drawing a conclusion based not only on Skeptics statement that I had quoted, but also on previous posts of his that I have read. And I put a question mark at the end of it in hopes that he would either correct me or confirm that my conclusion was correct. (And he did confirm it.)


Get it? Skeptic's statements about how science deals with God do not follow from his personal views about the existence of God. So the fact that he assumes God does not exist does not allow you to conclude that when science makes no assumptions about God, it's the same as science assuming there is no God. :duh: I wasn't talking to science; I was talking to Skeptic. I didn't say "So science presupposes..." I said, "So you presuppose..."


Skeptic often claims that there is no scientific evidence for God. But when he is shown that based on what we do know through science, all possibilities for a naturalistic origin of the universe are eliminated and therefore point to a supernatural origin, he claims that there must be a naturalistic explanation that we just can't figure out yet. He would rather put blind faith in the possibility that maybe "science" is wrong about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and perhaps there are natural conditions under which they do not apply, than concede that the universe had to have a supernatural origin. He more readily abandons the laws of thermodynamics than his presupposition that God does not exist.

Lucky
February 20th, 2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

A scientific observation requires the collection of data. That data could be based on any of our senses, as enhanced as need be (and possible!) by our technology. As always, it pays to be aware of the fine line between observation and inference.
Not a bad definition. I like the kind of empirical science based on observation. Personally, I have trouble seeing how origins science fits under that category.

Turbo
February 20th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Currently, I think it is likely that the matter/energy of the universe did not create itself, and was not created by anything else. It is likely that it was never created in the first place! In which case it would be eternal.Then why is there still increasing entropy? Why hasn't the universe reached a state of cold equilibrium?


The unnecessary introduction of a hypothetical supernatural eternal entity with a personality who created matter/energy out of nothing IS a violation of the 1st Law.A supernatural entity, by definition, is not bound by laws of nature.


The supernatural is hypothetical, and there is ZERO evidence that it has ever existed at all. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there. See the last paragraph of my previous post.


And if matter/energy was not created, but is eternal? What then? Then you run into big problems with the second law of thermodynamics.

aharvey
February 21st, 2005, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I was drawing a conclusion based not only on Skeptics statement that I had quoted, but also on previous posts of his that I have read. And I put a question mark at the end of it in hopes that he would either correct me or confirm that my conclusion was correct. (And he did confirm it.)
Hmm, so you were reconfirming what you already know about Skeptic's persoanl views on God by putting it in the context of a quote by Skeptic about how science deals with God? That makes a lot of sense!


Originally posted by Turbo

:duh: I wasn't talking to science; I was talking to Skeptic. I didn't say "So science presupposes..." I said, "So you presuppose..."
So what was the purpose of the "so" again?


Originally posted by Turbo

Skeptic often claims that there is no scientific evidence for God. But when he is shown that based on what we do know through science, all possibilities for a naturalistic origin of the universe are eliminated and therefore point to a supernatural origin, he claims that there must be a naturalistic explanation that we just can't figure out yet. He would rather put blind faith in the possibility that maybe "science" is wrong about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and perhaps there are natural conditions under which they do not apply, than concede that the universe had to have a supernatural origin. He more readily abandons the laws of thermodynamics than his presupposition that God does not exist.
First, remember that natural "laws" are not legally binding documents, they are descriptions of natural phenomena under a wide range of natural conditions.

Second, the fact that there are lots of scientists doing original research as we speak should clue you in that there is rather a lot we don't fully understand about how natural processes operate in the natural world. In theory, science could accept a supernatural process as necessary for an observation, but this would require more than a "we can't explain it given our current understanding." It would require that we actually know where the limits of natural possibilities lie (e.g, the dark line around the red box (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/supernatural.gif) ). Do you honestly think we're anywhere near there yet?

aharvey
February 21st, 2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Lucky

Not a bad definition. I like the kind of empirical science based on observation. Personally, I have trouble seeing how origins science fits under that category.
Me too. I only bother with these discussions on the origin of the universe, and the origin of life, because they are inevitably used to discredit the theory of evolution. You know, "if evolution can't explain the origin of the universe, and if it can't even explain the origin of life, then surely it can't be trusted to explain anything else either!"

Skeptic
February 21st, 2005, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I wasn't talking to science; I was talking to Skeptic. I didn't say "So science presupposes..." I said, "So you presuppose..." After further reflection, I take back what I said about science being neutral on the question of God. Science does not lead us to make the claim that there is no God. But, science operates by presupposing that supernatural entities and processes do not exist. If science did not presuppose the nonexistence of God, in which case God might be included as a possible variable, then the search for naturalistic possibilities might cease. Since God and supernatural possibilities are beyond our ability to investigate and rule out, introducing God as a variable does not benefit scientific theories in the least. Better to presume there is no God and proceed to look for naturalistic explanations, than allow God as an unverifiable and unfalsifiable possibility.

Let me ask you, Turbo, do you presuppose that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy does not exist? Please explain your answer.


Skeptic often claims that there is no scientific evidence for God. But when he is shown that based on what we do know through science, all possibilities for a naturalistic origin of the universe are eliminated and therefore point to a supernatural origin,... Science has not ruled out all naturalistic possibilities for the origin of the universe. And science does not in any way "point" to a supernatural origin. At this stage in our scientific understanding, the jury is out as to whether the fundamental substance of the universe ever had an origin. We know there was a Big Bang, but we do NOT know that nothing preceded the Big Bang, or the singularity from which the universe expanded.

The believers in supernatural origins are the ones who believe that the universe popped (poofed) into existence out of nothing by some hypothetical unverifiable supernatural entity with a personality.


... he claims that there must be a naturalistic explanation that we just can't figure out yet. No, I do not say that there must be a naturalistic explanation. Rather, I say that there might be a naturalistic explanation, and we may or may not someday be able to decipher such an explanation. Of course, there also might be a supernatural explanation, but such an explanation is beyond the ability of science to decipher. This is why science does not bother to look for supernaturalistic explanations (methodologically presumes they don't exist), and sticks to searching ONLY for naturalistic explanations.


He would rather put blind faith in the possibility that maybe "science" is wrong about the first and second laws of thermodynamics,... Science may be wrong about a lot of things. Science, as we know it today, does not violate the 1st and 2nd Laws. Remember, science does NOT presume the substance of the universe poofed into existence out of nothing. As far back as science can go, there is something (matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever). The supernaturalists are the ones who believe there was once a time when absolutely nothing existed!

If the singularity physicists are correct, then it is doubtful that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a singularity. The 2nd Law didn't kick in until after the Big Bang.

If, however, the singularity is simply one of an eternal series of singularities in an oscillating kind of universe, then the 2nd Law might get reset before every Big Bang, Or, perhaps, some other unknown (unknowable?) Laws of Thermodynamics might have applied to "previous" universes.


... and perhaps there are natural conditions under which they do not apply, than concede that the universe had to have a supernatural origin. I've already laid out a few alternative possibilities to your supernatural origin hypothesis. What makes you such an expert that you know that there just had to be a supernatural origin of the universe? On what do you base your certainty?


He more readily abandons the laws of thermodynamics than his presupposition that God does not exist. What good does it do to suppose that God exists? Does it such a hypothesis give you any better ability to predict things? Does it advance science in any way?

Clete
February 21st, 2005, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic
I take back what I said about science being neutral on the question of God.

But you maintain that you are neutral about the evaluation of evidence. This is where your fatal flaw is. You are not neutral at all, you are an enemy of God and all the evidence in the world or lack thereof has nothing to do with why you are an unbeliever.

I would like it very much if you could respond to the following quote from Battle Royalle VII...

Oringinaly posted by Bob Enyart

Transcendental Proof for God

As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here’s why:

God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. Unbelievers require theists to provide evidence for God which is not circular, which does not beg the question, that is, they insist that we do not assume that which we should try to prove. They claim that faith puts theists at a disadvantage, because we trust in God. Contrariwise, they claim that they reject faith, and constrain themselves to the laws of logic and reason. Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. For [BA10-9] if atheists attempt to justify “logic and reason” by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph.

On the other hand, as a last ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a no-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen successfully used the transcendental proof for God while debating a leading atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California at Irvine.)

A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines “faith” as accepting “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of [BA10-7]) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. So, in an atheist’s attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist’s ability to persuade.

Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said “surely!” I’ve used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ’s statement that, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.

Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). So naturally, the atheist community is most ready to admit to the moral consequence of atheism that denies the possibility of ultimate righteousness. But as the intellectual ramifications of atheism continue to work their way into mankind’s corporate thinking, eventually, atheists will lose their hesitancy and admit the same effect regarding logic. Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance.

With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein’s Gulf: “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.”

What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner’s point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical!

So try this: go and find an unsuspecting atheist, and ask him two questions. First, Q1: Is atheism logical? Second, Q2: Are the laws of logic absolute or has society only agreed upon them by convention? He will be happier with the first question than with the second. To the first, a typical atheist today will answer, yes! A1: Atheism is logical. (Why that answer? Atheists crave a foundation and so they are still substituting an indefensible, reasonless rationalism for the reasonable God whom they rebel against.) But for the second question, the atheist’s fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: “No, the laws of logic are not absolute!” as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. (When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: “What validates logic?” What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can’t be done. And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today’s atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible [BA10-9], and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God’s existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Skeptic
February 22nd, 2005, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Clete

But you maintain that you are neutral about the evaluation of evidence. This is where your fatal flaw is. I'm not sure I understand your point. Even though I am an agnostic, I am not a neutral with regard to the existence of God. While I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, I can say that I am tentatively quite confident that the probability of God's existence is small. I'm confident of this because there is no evidence for God's existence. Likewise, for the same reason, I'm confident that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy do not exist. In other words, the absence of evidence has biased me in favor of believing that God does not exist.


You are not neutral at all, you are an enemy of God and all the evidence in the world or lack thereof has nothing to do with why you are an unbeliever. Why do you think I am an unbeliever? Because I am Satan?


I would like it very much if you could respond to the following quote from Battle Royalle VII...

Oringinaly posted by Bob Enyart

Transcendental Proof for God

As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here’s why:

God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. It's impossible for God to not exist? :chuckle:


Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. So, evidence based on illogic and irrationality is valid?


For [BA10-9] if atheists attempt to justify “logic and reason” by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. No one justifies logic and reason by logic and reason. That's nonsense. Logic and reason itself always does the justifying.


And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. But atheists and agnostics CAN defend their world view by logic or reason.


To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Non sequitur.


Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. There are lots of things that can be knowable. It is God that cannot be knowable.


If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Nonsense.


Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph. Again, it is God that is unknowable.


On the other hand, as a last ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a no-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Atheism does not lead to the proposition that knowledge is impossible. Atheists know many things. I disagree with the premise that we can know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. This makes me an agnostic. I have no reason to believe God exists. So I don't. Some call my position "weak atheism." Atheists, on the other hand, think they have good reasons to believe that God does not exist. My nonbelief in God is based on an absence of evidence for God. Atheists who believe they have some evidence of God's nonexistence are called "strong atheists."


Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. Nonsense. Atheists know many things. God is beyond our ability to know. Personal experiences, which lead to private "knowledge," are as publicly unverifiable to others as is God.


As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God No, every observation provides direct evidence for existence. It requires a leap of faith to jump to the conclusion God is responsible for existence.


while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. Atheism is not in itself a method of accounting for the way things are. Science does that.


The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Atheists have knowledge of many things. Belief in God adds nothing to our understanding of the world around us. What is the value of asserting that "God did it"? The notion of God has no explanatory value.


Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. Nonsense.


No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. On the contrary, no certainty of God's existence can exist!


A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. More nonsense. Logic itself does not need justification. It is logic that does the justifying. We can disagree for a while what it means to be logical, but eventually such agreement can be had.

Saying that logic itself needs to be logically justified is like saying mathematics itself needs to be mathematically proven. It's akin to saying cooking itself needs to be cooked.


God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. How does one come to this certain knowledge that God is an actual being? Through faulty logic. Is there independently verifiable empirical evidence for this alleged actual being?


And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines “faith” as accepting “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). We can see hope and love, because they are behaviors, not ethereal psychic things.

Accepting something as evidence without any kind of empirical observation it is not rational. Hence, faith, is not rational.


In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of [BA10-7]) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. Nonsense.


So, in an atheist’s attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist’s ability to persuade. More nonsense.


Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said “surely!” I’ve used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) What allows a theist to use logic, while the atheist cannot?


The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. Belief in God can lead one to a false sense of certainty.


By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ’s statement that, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. Now I get it! All things are knowable because the Bible says so!!

:doh: How ... illogical of me to think otherwise!!


In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic and reason are not absolutes. They are merely ways humans have come to make sense of things.


Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. :darwinsm:


God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge. Nonsense.


Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Nonsense.


Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. :blabla:


Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. Even if it were possible to know that a moral principle was absolute, it does not logically follow that such an absolute necessarily derived from God.


What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). Yeah, right. Atheists are really atheists because the desire to live an immoral life to spite God. :kookoo:


Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. This guy is simply full of nonsense, isn't he? :yawn:


Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. What "greatest difficulty"? I don't see any.

I suppose simply asserting that "God did it" explains everything? On the contrary, it explains nothing!


Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. Nonsense.


So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. The opposite is true.


So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. :kookoo:


Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. Wrong.


With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein’s Gulf: “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.” I see no falsification. I see only nonsensical assertions.


What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. :darwinsm:


The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner’s point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical! What is this guy smoking? :dizzy:


... the atheist’s fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. :noid:


If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: “No, the laws of logic are not absolute!” as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. Even though logic is not absolute, it is not an appeal to authority either. Logic is a way humans can communicate with clarity, consistency and efficiency.


And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. Why are Christians so ready to appeal to some unverifiable authority?


(When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. Denying the absoluteness of logic does not turn it into an argument from authority.


But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: “What validates logic?” What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). Logic is a means of validation or clarification. The success of logic at validation validates it. One does not need faith in logic. Logic works! If one form of logic failed to work for us, we would modify it or adopt a more consistent form of logic.


This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can’t be done. I don't try to defend absolute morality. I don't believe in it.


And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today’s atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. There are no Platonic absolute laws of logic.


Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. Logic is more than just convention. It works!

Too bad the kind of logic that many fundies use does not work.


As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. Christianity is based on poor logic.


For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible [BA10-9], and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. The "transcendental proof for God" proves nothing but that some people go to great lengths to justify in their beliefs in fairy tales and superstitions. One problem though, the "proof" does not work.


And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Which world view is more consistent with empirical evidence? Atheism. Why? Because neither the workings nor the origin of the universe are not understood any better by an appeal to some all-powerful supernatural entity with a personality. Therefore, why believe in God when doing so is unnecessary and offers no explanatory value? The "God did it" hypothesis explains nothing.


Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God’s existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis. Sorry, but it is Christianity that has no rational basis.

Clete
February 22nd, 2005, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

I'm not sure I understand your point. Even though I am an agnostic, I am not a neutral with regard to the existence of God. While I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, I can say that I am tentatively quite confident that the probability of God's existence is small. I'm confident of this because there is no evidence for God's existence. Likewise, for the same reason, I'm confident that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy do not exist. In other words, the absence of evidence has biased me in favor of believing that God does not exist.
Had you put a little more effort into trying to understand, you would have. You missed pretty much the entire point because you didn’t read the post and then respond. It’s clear that you responded as you read it which just about guarantees you’ll miss the point every time.
Be that as it may, you’ve managed to give me enough here to work with so I’ll proceed with what I have.


Why do you think I am an unbeliever? Because I am Satan?
No, because you actively choose to ignore both the nose on your own face and the fact that you are aware that there is a nose on your face.


It's impossible for God to not exist? :chuckle:
That’s precisely right. One day, you won’t think this so funny.


So, evidence based on illogic and irrationality is valid?
Don’t be stupid. Next time at least read the whole paragraph before responding.


No one justifies logic and reason by logic and reason. That's nonsense. Logic and reason itself always does the justifying.
This is the central point. You just contradicted yourself. More on this later.


But atheists and agnostics CAN defend their world view by logic or reason.
Logic OR reason? Is there a difference?
And no you cannot without first defending your use of logic and reason. How do you know that your logic and reason works? Which independent, unbiased test did you employ to determine your ability to think logically?
In other words, if all truth claims are verified by logic and reason then by what means is that truth claim verified? If by any other means other than logic and reason then you contradict the statement and prove it false, if you say by logic and reason then you beg the question and again prove your thesis false.


There are lots of things that can be knowable. It is God that cannot be knowable.
On the contrary, without God one cannot know that they don’t exist in The Matrix or in the Jolly Green Giant’s imagination.

Bob said:If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning.

Skeptic responded:
Nonsense.
Saying it doesn’t make it so, Skeptic. I just proved that it is not nonsense. If you attempt to justify logic and reason with logic and reason that is classic circular reasoning, and/or question begging. Now that’s nonsense!


Atheism does not lead to the proposition that knowledge is impossible. Atheists know many things. I disagree with the premise that we can know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. This makes me an agnostic. I have no reason to believe God exists. So I don't. Some call my position "weak atheism." Atheists, on the other hand, think they have good reasons to believe that God does not exist. My nonbelief in God is based on an absence of evidence for God. Atheists who believe they have some evidence of God's nonexistence are called "strong atheists."
On the contrary, your unbelief is not based on a lack of evidence but on a lack of desire to believe. The evidence is literally right in front of your face you just don’t care to see it or acknowledge its meaning. And no, assuming God does not exist, you remove the very ground upon which one must stand in order to be sure of anything, anything at all.


Nonsense. Atheists know many things. God is beyond our ability to know. Personal experiences, which lead to private "knowledge," are as publicly unverifiable to others as is God.
It is my point that without presupposing the existence of God you cannot verify anything at all! Without logic or reason nothing is verifiable and without God you cannot account for logic and reason without begging the question. Your whole worldview is logically incoherent. It is literally based upon question begging assumptions.


No, every observation provides direct evidence for existence. It requires a leap of faith to jump to the conclusion God is responsible for existence.
See what I mean? QUESTION BEGGING! You don’t see it, do you?
How do you know your observations are correct? How did you calibrate you senses in order to know that they are giving you accurate information upon which to form a conclusion. Where did you verify the veracity of you decision-making process?
All of these things and more, you have assumed without justification which is in direct contradiction to the basis of your worldview – “Logic and reason itself always does the justifying.”


Atheism is not in itself a method of accounting for the way things are. Science does that.
By what means? Logic and reason, right? Well how do you account for logic and reason? If you cannot answer that question then you have to admit that your worldview is incoherent.


Atheists have knowledge of many things. Belief in God adds nothing to our understanding of the world around us. What is the value of asserting that "God did it"? The notion of God has no explanatory value.
On the contrary! “The notion of God” is the only reason anything can be explained in the first place.


Logic itself does not need justification. It is logic that does the justifying. We can disagree for a while what it means to be logical, but eventually such agreement can be had.
Logic cannot justify itself, that’s circular reasoning and truly is nonsense. And no agreement can be made about what logic is with the use of logic so again, question-begging nonsense.


Saying that logic itself needs to be logically justified is like saying mathematics itself needs to be mathematically proven. It's akin to saying cooking itself needs to be cooked.
Mathematics is a form of logic. You can’t account for math either, Skeptic. You can count but you cannot account for counting without begging the question or assuming that God exists. Take your pick, those are, in fact, the only two options you’ve got.


How does one come to this certain knowledge that God is an actual being? Through faulty logic. Is there independently verifiable empirical evidence for this alleged actual being?
Sorry! You are not allowed to use logic until you can independently account for its existence. To do so would violate your own stated standard of truth. You will contradict yourself every time you attempt to ask such a question. You can’t even know that such thing as “independently verifiable empirical evidence” exists, much less demand that I provide it for you. Even if I did, you would have no way of verifying that I actually did it!


Accepting something as evidence without any kind of empirical observation it is not rational. Hence, faith, is not rational.
And yet you accept logic and reason without any kind of empirical observation or evidence. :think:


What allows a theist to use logic, while the atheist cannot?
Because we can account for its existence and you cannot!


Belief in God can lead one to a false sense of certainty.

Now I get it! All things are knowable because the Bible says so!!
No, the way we know the Bible is true is because we presuppose the existence of God and are therefore able to use reason and logic to evaluate the truth claims of the Bible.
God is the starting point, not the Bible. The Bible itself says so, “The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.”


Logic and reason are not absolutes. They are merely ways humans have come to make sense of things.
Question begging! How do humans come to make sense of logic and reason without the use of logic and reason?

Bob said: God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.

To which you replied:

Nonsense.
Then do it Skeptic. Defend truth, logic, reason and knowledge on some other epistemological basis other than God. Go ahead and try it. You’ll beg the question every single solitary time.


Yeah, right. Atheists are really atheists because the desire to live an immoral life to spite God. :kookoo:
Yeah it is right. Again, one day, you won’t find this so amusing.


Logic is a means of validation or clarification. The success of logic at validation validates it. One does not need faith in logic. Logic works! If one form of logic failed to work for us, we would modify it or adopt a more consistent form of logic.
More question begging nonsense!
How do you know that logic and reason are successful without using logic and reason to some to that conclusion. You’re going in so many circles you should be dizzy by now! :dizzy:


Logic is more than just convention. It works!
You cannot know this. You’re guessing and begging the question by doing so.


The "transcendental proof for God" proves nothing but that some people go to great lengths to justify in their beliefs in fairy tales and superstitions. One problem though, the "proof" does not work.
Oh boy, I feel more question begging coming on!


Which world view is more consistent with empirical evidence? Atheism. Why? Because neither the workings nor the origin of the universe are not understood any better by an appeal to some all-powerful supernatural entity with a personality. Therefore, why believe in God when doing so is unnecessary and offers no explanatory value? The "God did it" hypothesis explains nothing.
I knew it! You can’t help but beg the question at every turn! You still don’t see it do you?
The point is you have no basis upon which to even evaluate the evidence if you do not presuppose that God exists. Your rejection of God has taken the ground out from beneath your feet. You have no way of even knowing what empirical evidence is when you see it much less evaluate its meaning because in order to do so you must use logic and reason, neither of which can be accounted for in your worldview. You’re worldview is illogical at its very basis.


Sorry, but it is Christianity that has no rational basis.
Christianity is rational but it is not based upon rationality. Christianity itself is the basis for rationality, that’s the whole point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. No time for editing. Please overlook spelling and errors of grammar. (Even though you have no basis upon which to decide what is and is not an error.)

billwald
February 22nd, 2005, 07:00 PM
The existance of God is immaterial if God can't be manipulated. Most of all of religion is an attempt to manipulate God. Listen to prayers. Everyone wanto to cut a special deal with God for a healing, a job, a winning lotto ticket (gots to buy mine for Wed). . . .

The attempts of manipulation can be statistically tested. Tests seem to indicate that there is a metaphysical effect to prayer BUT "Christian" prayer hs no advantage.

aharvey
February 23rd, 2005, 10:11 AM
Interesting challenge: justify the use of logic and reason without using logic and reason, because this would be circular logic, which logic and reason dictate is invalid. I can see at least three classes of replies:

1. Logic and reason have a pretty good track record. (assumes pragmatism is different from logic)
2. Eggplants are purple. (or any other illogical answer, as required above)
3. It's a dishonest, or at least internally contradictory, question.

What happening here is that Bob and Clete are trying to use a logical approach to prove that using logic is patently illogical. However, if one is constrained from using logic to validate the use of logic, surely one is constrained from using logic to invalidate the use of logic! That would be, er, illogical! Put it another way. Their argument may seem logical enough, but since it's designed to show that ultimately there can be no logical basis for using logic, if it's logically correct, then it is also incorrect! Interestingly, the converse is not true: if it's incorrect, then, well, it's incorrect. I sense a stable equilibrium here!

What's the fuss, anyways? Both Clete and Skeptic agree that belief in general, and belief in God in particular, is not logical. That just makes it less attractive to Skeptic, and more attractive to Clete.

One may complain that I'm misunderstanding the claim, that Clete and Bob are not trying to prove that logic is illogical, but rather that God is the true foundation of logic. But in fact, the many lines of text in their statements seem to contain a rather huge, er, leap in logic from "logic can't be used to justify itself" to "which proves that God exists, and is the true foundation of logic." They provide nothing to connect those ideas. And, from my perspective at least, that's okay. I'd agree with you and Skeptic that one's views in God do not need to be logically defensible. However, I'd say that applies to Skeptic's beliefs as well.

bob b
February 23rd, 2005, 10:49 AM
Bob said:If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning.

That wasn't me, Harvey.

I dropped out of this thread several days ago when you called me a liar.

aharvey
February 23rd, 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by bob b

That wasn't me, Harvey.

I dropped out of this thread several days ago when you called me a liar.
Bob Enyart, not you. And I am sorry for the "liar" bit; I just get so fed up with your persistent attribution of blatantly incorrect personal motivations to evolutionary biologists for favoring evolutionary theory, or having problems with nonevolutionary alternatives. You of all people should know better, as you've complained about being so victimized yourself.

billwald
February 23rd, 2005, 11:33 AM
There is no logical way to differentiate between "God" and "always way."

For that matter, observations of this universe don't seem to provide evidence that "God is good." Some people seem to confuse "good" with "technically excellent."

bob b
February 23rd, 2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Bob Enyart, not you. And I am sorry for the "liar" bit; I just get so fed up with your persistent attribution of blatantly incorrect personal motivations to evolutionary biologists for favoring evolutionary theory, or having problems with nonevolutionary alternatives. You of all people should know better, as you've complained about being so victimized yourself.

You shouln't take my motivation comments so personal. People have many reasons for believing what they do, many of which are not apparent even to themselves. My comment didn't single you out in the same manner as comments directed at me have done. People have claimed that I only rejected evolution (uphill that is) because I was religiously motivated, and I have gotten tired of explaining that this is simply not true in my particular case. I rejected it because I felt that uphill evolution via random mutations was technically absurd (and I still do), and only revisited the Bible I had rejected in my youth some years after my rejection of evolution.

As far as evolutionists not wishing to consider multiple types in the beginning is concerned, I find this strange since most evolutionists would claim that evolutionary theory does not include abiogenesis.

So why the reluctance to consider an alternative to the usual hypothetical primitive protocell?

Even Crick was willing to consider an alternative because the idea of life arising on Earth from non-life seemed to him to be a stretch (See his book "Life Itself").

Stratnerd
February 23rd, 2005, 04:10 PM
So why the reluctance to consider an alternative to the usual hypothetical primitive protocell?

simple... evidence!

aharvey
February 23rd, 2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by bob b

You shouln't take my motivation comments so personal.
You shouldn't make it so easy to do so! Some comments from you just in the last few days:


"Many scientists don't like to consider the possibility that there was a Creation Week because it takes away their "candy": supernatural creation that occurred during that week is forever beyond the bounds of investigation by materialistic based science.

The evolutionary logic seems to tell them they cannot assume that there were multiple types at the beginning because that is what the Bible says and we can't allow that.

Some people are like babies and don't like their "candy" being taken away from them, and the prospect of never being able to scientifically investigate creation appalls them. So they reject God, even though the initial conditions of multiple advanced types followed by rapid differentiation is far more logical and scientific than "uphill" evolution via random copying errors".

You resent the fact that Genesis has it right and Darwin had it at least partially wrong."

It seems to me that for these statements to be anything but empty slurs, you would have to believe that there is absolutely no logic or evidence behind the idea that higher taxa could share a common ancestor, that it is truly absurd to think that organisms that evolve from a common ancestor would share a common information storage system, that there is and has never been absolutely any evidence whatsoever that the vertical distribution of fossils is correlated with phylogenetic hypotheses, that radiometric dating is absolutely and positively empty of merit, etc. If all that were true, then one could at least honestly make the claims you make.


Originally posted by bob b

People have many reasons for believing what they do, many of which are not apparent even to themselves.
Including yourself, bob, including yourself.


Originally posted by bob b

My comment didn't single you out in the same manner as comments directed at me have done.
So the fact that you apply your false motivational charges to a whole group of people, rather than just one, makes it okay?


Originally posted by bob b

People have claimed that I only rejected evolution (uphill that is) because I was religiously motivated, and I have gotten tired of explaining that this is simply not true in my particular case. I rejected it because I felt that uphill evolution via random mutations was technically absurd (and I still do), and only revisited the Bible I had rejected in my youth some years after my rejection of evolution.
Since lots of creationists make this assertion, I guess it would be acceptable to you if specific comments to you took the form "The only reason creationists reject evolution is because it conflicts with their particular interpretation of the Bible."


Originally posted by bob b

As far as evolutionists not wishing to consider multiple types in the beginning is concerned, I find this strange since most evolutionists would claim that evolutionary theory does not include abiogenesis.

So why the reluctance to consider an alternative to the usual hypothetical primitive protocell?

Even Crick was willing to consider an alternative because the idea of life arising on Earth from non-life seemed to him to be a stretch (See his book "Life Itself").
As I've asked you before (here, for example) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=679058#post679058), how would you suggest that evolutionary biologist "consider multiple types in the beginning"? A normal scientist would "consider" an alternative hypothesis first by evaluating the logical basis for it, and if it passes muster there by then trying to generate a testable prediction, and if such is possible by then actually accumulating the data to test the prediction. At present, the "multiple types in the beginning" phrase is insufficiently developed to even be considered a true scientific hypothesis, and so its rationale cannot be evaluated as yet.

bob b
February 23rd, 2005, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by aharvey


It seems to me that for these statements to be anything but empty slurs, you would have to believe that there is absolutely no logic or evidence behind the idea that higher taxa could share a common ancestor,

The evidence and logic is quite "thin". It also requires believing that random mutations can generate "uphill" evolution. It also ignores the hard data of the Cambrian Explosion. It also ignores "living fossils", a growing category.


that it is truly absurd to think that organisms that evolve from a common ancestor would share a common information storage system,

Since I agree with the common ancestor hypothesis (up to a point) I certainly don't think it absurd. What is absurd is to extrapolate it beyond reason.


that there is and has never been absolutely any evidence whatsoever that the vertical distribution of fossils is correlated with phylogenetic hypotheses,

I tend to focus on those cases where it isn't. The "ideal" vertical distribution of fossils has been greatly exaggerated. This is one reason I posted the "ticks get older" type cases.


that radiometric dating is absolutely and positively empty of merit, etc.

C-14 is pretty good up to a few thousand years since it has been verified with historical data to some degree. The other methods have not used historical comparison except in cases where the methods fail.


If all that were true, then one could at least honestly make the claims you make.

There is reason to believe that all that is true.


Including yourself, bob, including yourself.

Actually my answers are a result of a very clever computer program, but the person who originally programmed me is omnipotent. ;)


So the fact that you apply your false motivational charges to a whole group of people, rather than just one, makes it okay?

It is an improvement because I allow for exceptions to the general rule. A charge against a single individual is either true or false depending on a motivation which we do not know for sure, but we should give the person the benefit of the doubt if he/she denies it.


Since lots of creationists make this assertion, I guess it would be acceptable to you if specific comments to you took the form "The only reason creationists reject evolution is because it conflicts with their particular interpretation of the Bible."

If you included the qualifier "most creationists" it might be acceptable.


As I've asked you before (here, for example) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=679058#post679058), how would you suggest that evolutionary biologist "consider multiple types in the beginning"? A normal scientist would "consider" an alternative hypothesis first by evaluating the logical basis for it, and if it passes muster there by then trying to generate a testable prediction, and if such is possible by then actually accumulating the data to test the prediction. At present, the "multiple types in the beginning" phrase is insufficiently developed to even be considered a true scientific hypothesis, and so its rationale cannot be evaluated as yet.

Perhaps, but this forum is for discussing ideas, not generating grant proposals. So far most evolutionists here have simply rejected the idea "out-of-hand". Is this because they have made the fatal mistake in science (according to Feynman) of "falling in love" with a favored paradigm?

aharvey
February 24th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by bob b

The evidence and logic is quite "thin".
Thin logic? Behind the idea that higher taxa could share a common ancestor? Bob, I don't believe you really mean this. In fact, I'll bet you agree wih the idea that higher taxa could share a common ancestor (for example, see your statement below)! You just draw the line at some vague, undefined place prior to all taxa. So don't go telling me you think the logic behind the idea that higher taxa could share a common ancestor is "thin"!


Originally posted by bob b

It also requires believing that random mutations can generate "uphill" evolution.
Well, we'll have to take your word for this, since all you do is repeat this stupid phrase incessantly without even bothering to explain it, much less document either the logic or the evidence for it. Certainly the way you write it makes it seem like you're ignoring all the highly nonrandom steps between 1) the appearance of a random mutation and 2) the evolutionary change, which of course is what most creationists do when they pretend that evolution is "random."


Originally posted by bob b

It also ignores the hard data of the Cambrian Explosion.
Gee, since evolutionary biologists (including paleontologists, who are basically biologists who work with fossil organisms) are the ones who brough you all the hard data concerning the Cambrian Explosion, this assertion is kind of absurd on its face.


Originally posted by bob b

It also ignores "living fossils", a growing category.
Another empty assertion that is in fact false. Evolutionary biologists are the ones who study the organisms you call "living fossils." Please don't confuse your lack of awareness of research in the field with lack of research in the field!


Originally posted by bob b

Since I agree with the common ancestor hypothesis (up to a point) I certainly don't think it absurd.
Gee, in spite of its "thin" logical and evidential support?


Originally posted by bob b

What is absurd is to extrapolate it beyond reason.
Define the limits of reason here, please. As I've mentioned before, in one of those innumerable statements that you just seem to pretend never happened, scientists are aware of the risks of excess extrapolation, but normally, in any particular case, someone has to provide at least some reason for concern (other than conflicts with Biblical literalism, of course!).


Originally posted by bob b

I tend to focus on those cases where it isn't.
No kidding! Isn't that the standard creationist MO? To focus on the gaps or perceived inconsistencies? Well, those of the evolutionary view, of course! You never subject your own view to even an honestly critical eye! Don't you see a problem with this?


Originally posted by bob b

The "ideal" vertical distribution of fossils has been greatly exaggerated.
By who? I've seen no evidence of this. Wouldn't you need to compare the supposed "ideal" with the supposed "actual" to make a claim like this?


Originally posted by bob b

This is one reason I posted the "ticks get older" type cases.
Yeah, and as far as I know you still haven't fessed up to the twin facts that 1) new discoveries can only make the oldest known dates even older, regardless of how you think the fossils got where they are, and 2) these older dates, applying as they have across the board taxonomically, haven't had any impact on the relationship between the fossil record and the phylogenetic relationships of these organisms.


Originally posted by bob b

C-14 is pretty good up to a few thousand years since it has been verified with historical data to some degree. The other methods have not used historical comparison except in cases where the methods fail.
So a prima facie case can be made for the basic logic and methodology of radiometric analyses!


Originally posted by bob b

There is reason to believe that all that is true.
Since you just gave all kinds of qualifiers, exceptions, and actual personal support for the evolutionary perspective, I can only assume you're not following my logic here, as you've rather conclusively demonstrated that even you don't believe that the evolutionary viewpoint is completely devoid of logical and evidential support! Believing that your own viewpoint has stronger support is not the same thing, and does not entitle you to falsely attribute base motivations to people who disagree with you!


Originally posted by bob b

It is an improvement because I allow for exceptions to the general rule. A charge against a single individual is either true or false depending on a motivation which we do not know for sure, but we should give the person the benefit of the doubt if he/she denies it.
Ha! Whereas a charge against an entire group of people is utterly unassessable and therefore we should give the person making the accusation the benefit of the doubt?!?


Originally posted by bob b

If you included the qualifier "most creationists" it might be acceptable.
Well, I'm game!


Originally posted by bob b

Perhaps, but this forum is for discussing ideas, not generating grant proposals. So far most evolutionists here have simply rejected the idea "out-of-hand".
I love the way your mind "works", bob! You insist that evolutionary biologists refuse to even "consider multiple types in the beginning," while simultaneously continuing to refuse to explain what you mean, while simultaneously claiming to want to "discuss ideas"!!! So what you're really saying is that we refuse to do your work for you! I mean, if creationists think there is a better explanation, isn't it their responsibility to develop their own ideas and bring them to the table?

You're not fooling anyone, bob. Most creationists know that the creationist viewpoint is a complete non-starter from a scientific standpoint, and thus are not interested in wasting their time trying to develop and test it (who knows? Perhaps you have already been spending much time on this very quest, but are unwilling to share with us the fruitlessness of your labors!). That's why they concentrate all their efforts on attacking evolution, and why they keep trying to dump the responsibility of developing they ideas on their opponents, knowing that that's a no-lose situation for them: either biologists will refuse to do the work for creationists, in which case you guys can claim closemindedness, or they'll generate creationist models that are not supported by the evidence, in which case you guys can claim obvious bias, or they'll generate creationist models that are supported by the evidence! Win-win-win!


Originally posted by bob b

Is this because they have made the fatal mistake in science (according to Feynman) of "falling in love" with a favored paradigm?
You just can't help yourself, can you? That's okay. It's a favorite ploy of creationists to attack the character of evolutionary biologists they have never met and really know nothing about. It's called an ad hominem attack, popular in politics, used in formal debate by weaker teams, rather strongly frowned upon in science.

bob b
February 24th, 2005, 08:53 AM
In reading about C-14 dating last night it occurred to me that the recent revelation by physicists that the Earth's magnetic field has decayed by about 10% ever since they started measuring it some 150 years ago is an important piece of the puzzle.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

The Earth's magnetic field shields it from cosmic rays. It is believed that cosmic rays are what generates C-14 in the upper atmosphere. Now if the higher shielding from cosmic rays in the past caused a lesser amount of C-14 to be generated in the atmosphere, then life forms living in the past would have had less C-14 in their bodies to start with and hence would be younger than currently calculated by assuming that they had the same percentage of C-14 as is in the atmosphere today.

Thus, it would appear logical that scientists should correct their carbon dating ages to account for the newly recognized rapid decay in the Earth's magnetic field and hence a lesser amount of C-14 in the atmosphere in the past compared to today.

As an aside, I wonder if the giant forms of animals we find in the fossil record got that way because they were exposed to lesser amounts of the mutation causing cosmic rays? Perhaps such a reduction even affects their life spans, since one theory of aging claims that the accumulation of mutations over a life time is what causes life forms to age.

aharvey
February 24th, 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by bob b

In reading about C-14 dating last night it occurred to me that the recent revelation by physicists that the Earth's magnetic field has decayed by about 10% ever since they started measuring it some 150 years ago is an important piece of the puzzle.

The Earth's magnetic field shields it from cosmic rays. It is believed that cosmic rays are what generates C-14 in the upper atmosphere. Now if the higher shielding from cosmic rays in the past caused a lesser amount of C-14 to be generated in the atmosphere, then life forms living in the past would have had less C-14 in their bodies to start with and hence would be younger than currently calculated by assuming that they had the same percentage of C-14 as is in the atmosphere today.

Thus, it would appear logical that scientists should correct their carbon dating ages to account for the newly recognized rapid decay in the Earth's magnetic field and hence a lesser amount of C-14 in the atmosphere in the past compared to today.

As an aside, I wonder if the giant forms of animals we find in the fossil record got that way because they were exposed to lesser amounts of the mutation causing cosmic rays? Perhaps such a reduction even affects their life spans, since one theory of aging claims that the accumulation of mutations over a life time is what causes life forms to age.
Newly recognized? Why do you insist this is a "recent" "discovery"? Magnetic reversals have been known for a century. Do you think that we all assumed that this process has suddenly stopped or something? Oh wait. When I reread your post, it only makes sense in the absence of magnetic reversals, doesn't it? Because otherwise the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would fluctuate instead of showing the steady increase in C-14 that you prefer. So then what's your take on magnetic striping?

bob b
February 24th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Newly recognized? Why do you insist this is a "recent" "discovery"?

I didn't say it was a recent "discovery".

Professor Barnes pointed out some 25 years ago the 10% decay since the 1850's, based on the same measurement data which is only now being recognized publicly by main line scientists.

Barnes believed in Creation and so it seems that his article was explained away as unimportant for something like 25 years.

Here is a typical example of how the importance of the 10% rapid decay was effectively "hidden" in an avalanche of words that threw everything but the kitchen sink into the discussion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html


Magnetic reversals have been known for a century. Do you think that we all assumed that this process has suddenly stopped or something? Oh wait. When I reread your post, it only makes sense in the absence of magnetic reversals, doesn't it? Because otherwise the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would fluctuate instead of showing the steady increase in C-14 that you prefer. So then what's your take on magnetic striping?

Although reversals (a misleading term actually) have been known, until recently it was not publicized how fast the magnetic field can decay on a global basis or that it is doing so right now.

It is also worth emphasizing that the referenced measurements that started to be taken 150 years ago were global in extent and so naturally were automatically time synchronized, meaning that local fluctuations in the rocks would not "muddy the waters". For instance, some studies have shown that the field is capable of reversing itself locally within weeks.

Jukia
February 25th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by bob b



For instance, some studies have shown that the field is capable of reversing itself locally within weeks.

Got a cite to this? I thought the earth's magnetic field was a global thing, not a local thing. If it is local then should I not believe my boat's compass? Are you saying that a compass could point north to the Arctic in New York and south to the Antarctic in California??? Makes no sense to me so please enlighten me if you can. Thanks

Stratnerd
February 25th, 2005, 12:53 PM
I know that the poles "wander" so if you were very near the poles - then I could see how a pole wander would flip a compass. No doubt the effect goes away the farther you are away from the pole.

bob b
February 25th, 2005, 12:54 PM
The field is global but there is evidence that it can vary locally.

The discovery that local variation can be extremely rapid is documented in the following papers:

Coe, Robert S., and Michel Prévot. 1989. Evidence supporting
extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic
reversal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 92(3/
4): 292–298.
Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps. 1995. New evidence
for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic
field during a reversal. Nature 374:687–692.
Courtillot V., and J. L. Le Mouël. 1984.

Stratnerd
February 25th, 2005, 12:56 PM
What is meant by "rapid" and what was the extent of the reversal? Because don't you dismiss the idea of global reversals?

bob b
February 25th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

What is meant by "rapid" and what was the extent of the reversal? Because don't you dismiss the idea of global reversals?

I am agnostic regarding global reversals since there are no truly simultaneous data which would document their reality beyond question. Rock measurements cannot do this because of the difference in presumed timescales, i.e. reversals are said to be possible every 7000 years and dating of rocks is not precise enough to support the simultaneity of samples from around the world. Thus, it is still possible that what is being called global reversals are actually local reversals that are occurring at different times and locations.

Incidentally, the articles cited are not talking about reversals per se, but instead cite evidence of extremely rapid fluctuations in local fields, presumably during a period when a global reversal was taking place.


The 'impulses' documented in the paper may have involved periods of fluctuation on the order of a few degrees/day although this seems to be at odds with timescales of magnetic field models.

This quotation is from an excellent discussion of the Coe et al paper by an evolutionist teacher by the name of Joe Meert (who posts to many creation/evolution debate sites). Naturally his "spin" is conventional.

As an aside I might note that the magnetic "stripes" in the Mid Atlantic can now be seen in the light of the Coe paper as possibly being due to "impulses" or fluctuations of the local magnetic field during a rapid period of magma upwelling on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In fact, the very movement of the magma itself could have possibly been responsible for the variations in the magnetic field recorded in the solidified lava.

aharvey
February 25th, 2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by bob b

I am agnostic regarding global reversals since there are no truly simultaneous data which would document their reality beyond question.
Interesting standard!


Originally posted by bob b

Rock measurements cannot do this because of the difference in presumed timescales, i.e. reversals are said to be possible every 7000 years and dating of rocks is not precise enough to support the simultaneity of samples from around the world. Thus, it is still possible that what is being called global reversals are actually local reversals that are occurring at different times and locations.
Yes, that would explain their symmetry on either side of a spreading zone , wouldn't it? But do us clueless ones a favor and explain how. Keep in mind that spreading zones tend to be very long, very thin, and not necessarily very straight.

bob b
February 25th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by aharvey
Yes, that would explain their symmetry on either side of a spreading zone , wouldn't it? But do us clueless ones a favor and explain how. Keep in mind that spreading zones tend to be very long, very thin, and not necessarily very straight.

I have seen the measurements from the MidAtlantic Ridge and it doesn't look to me to be too promising for the long ages theory. I would say it favors local magnetic disturbances and rapid motion.

Of course nobody would dare suggest a process in a grant proposal or PhD thesis.

aharvey
February 25th, 2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by bob b

I have seen the measurements from the MidAtlantic Ridge and it doesn't look to me to be too promising for the long ages theory. I would say it favors local magnetic disturbances and rapid motion.

Talk about a weak appeal to authority (your own, of course!)! Since you a priori know that the world is young, I can't pretend to be shocked that you wouldn't see support for long ages anywhere, including magnetic striping patterns! It's impossible for you to see that evidence could support long ages, or deep common ancestry. But that's not what I'm inquiring about, so let me try again. Magnetic striping patterns are symmetrical on either side of spreading zones pretty much anywhere in the world. Spreading zones, kinda by definition, are long and thin, and don't move in uninterrupted straight lines. So how is this symmetry, sustained over such long and winding distances, explainable as a local phenomenon? Does the "local disturbance" actually track the spreading zone for hundreds, even thousands of miles? Perhaps the spreading zone itself, or its mysterious inhabitants, is the cause of the magnetic disturbance. Or by "local" do you mean "up to half the planet or more"?


Originally posted by bob b

Of course nobody would dare suggest a process in a grant proposal or PhD thesis.
And of course this is because we're all cowards, afraid to suggest the obvious, not because there is no obvious process to suggest, right?

bob b
February 25th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Talk about a weak appeal to authority (your own, of course!)! Since you a priori know that the world is young, I can't pretend to be shocked that you wouldn't see support for long ages anywhere, including magnetic striping patterns! It's impossible for you to see that evidence could support long ages, or deep common ancestry. But that's not what I'm inquiring about, so let me try again. Magnetic striping patterns are symmetrical on either side of spreading zones pretty much anywhere in the world. Spreading zones, kinda by definition, are long and thin, and don't move in uninterrupted straight lines. So how is this symmetry, sustained over such long and winding distances, explainable as a local phenomenon? Does the "local disturbance" actually track the spreading zone for hundreds, even thousands of miles? Perhaps the spreading zone itself, or its mysterious inhabitants, is the cause of the magnetic disturbance. Or by "local" do you mean "up to half the planet or more"?

In the case cited by Coe the disturbances were perhaps hundreds of miles in extent if not more, but certainly not global. That is the only data point I have.



And of course this is because we're all cowards, afraid to suggest the obvious, not because there is no obvious process to suggest, right?

You have objected to me suggesting motivations.

In my own case I have always lived under a curse of foreseeing technical outcomes that appear to me to be obvious, but apparently not obvious to others.

At my retirement dinner my boss of many years mentioned two things: [1] He said that I was the smartest person he had ever known, and [2] I was also the most frustrating person he had ever known because I would state my opinion about a proposed project and say that the outcome would "obviously" be so-and-so.

Since nobody else could see it, a many month project was undertaken to scientifically determine the answer.

The frustrating part for him was that after expending all that time and effort the results, in his recollection, had always validated my off the cuff initial assessment, which I had always accompanied by "it's obvious".

Although this may sound like boasting to many, I really do not completely understand why some things seem obvious to me, and why they don't seem obvious to others. I also do not completely understand why almost always (if not always) it has turned out that the "obvious" has turned out to be correct.

I really can not remember when it wasn't, but will admit that this could well be a quirk of selective memory on my part.

noguru
February 26th, 2005, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by bob b

In my own case I have always lived under a curse of foreseeing technical outcomes that appear to me to be obvious, but apparently not obvious to others.



I can certainly relate to that. Wisdom and perceptiveness are often a double edged sword.


Originally posted by bob b
At my retirement dinner my boss of many years mentioned two things: [1] He said that I was the smartest person he had ever known, and [2] I was also the most frustrating person he had ever known because I would state my opinion about a proposed project and say that the outcome would "obviously" be so-and-so.

Since nobody else could see it, a many month project was undertaken to scientifically determine the answer.

The frustrating part for him was that after expending all that time and effort the results, in his recollection, had always validated my off the cuff initial assessment, which I had always accompanied by "it's obvious".



Ah yes, the prodecures that professionals must take to obtain a hard copy verification of ideas are often quite frustrating. In my profession we call the result of such research "documentation". We use it so the less astute can visualize these brilliant concepts. And so that those who follow do not have to cover the same ground. Just imagine what your profession would be like now, if all your knowledge and experience were only in your head.

Perhaps you should have just dictated your "obvious" conclusions to a typist. So that it could have served as documentation.

Personally, I don't see how they can make it without you. :confused:


Originally posted by bob b

Although this may sound like boasting to many, I really do not completely understand why some things seem obvious to me, and why they don't seem obvious to others. I also do not completely understand why almost always (if not always) it has turned out that the "obvious" has turned out to be correct.



I wouldn't call it boasting. It just means that you are not as astute as you believe. Since in your own you words, you say you "do not completely understand", I am left with an obvious conclusion. You do not have a good grasp of this normal part of life. But don't fret Bob. Most if not all of us are not completely competent in all aspects of life. That is why we often need to consult others.


Originally posted by bob b
I really can not remember when it wasn't, but will admit that this could well be a quirk of selective memory on my part.

I agree. In my experience you do have a very selective memory. :thumb:

"They say every man can be replaced"

Bob Dylan