Now that Bob Enyart has withdrawn himself from the manganese nodule debate, I offer this thread as a testament to what sort of reasoning we are dealing with here. I realize how difficult it is to follow an argument unless you are actually participating or watching the thread daily. Below I have dissected out each individual argument and traced it throughout the thread so you can see clearly both of our lines of reasoning. At the end of each argument I have added my comments about what I found interesting and what was going through my mind about the discussion. Some of you may not have the time or interest to read through each discussion. I'd encourage everyone to at least Claim #1, as I feel it is one of the most important themes in the debate. I have included the source post for each claim and comment. I have gone to great lengths to ensure that all of the arguments from both sides were present. If I have missed an argument, please let me know and I will make the appropriate corrections.
Contents:
* Claim #1: Calling manganese nodules "old" was a reckless claim.
* Claim #2: Young manganese nodules help the young earth position and denying that young manganese nodules help young earth creationists shows my extreme bias.
* Claim #3: Bias is a belief that leads to a false judgment
* Claim #4: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.
* Claim #5: If manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the "evidence column" for an old-earth.
* Claim #1: Calling manganese nodules "old" was a reckless claim.
-Source:"it [rapid manganese nodule formation] gives us another example of reckless claims of great age".
My response (2nd and 3rd paragraph): (1) "You claim that it is yet another example of reckless claims of great age, but I implore you to research why it was claimed (and still is) that manganese nodules are very old. I am quite certain that you do not understand why, and you probably do not care to understand why. For this reason, you cannot accurately assess whether or not it was a reckless claim."
(2) "I would also like to point out that just because scientists turn out to be wrong about things does not mean they have made reckless claims. We are always learning. Science posits the best idea with the data available. We are not always privy to all of nature's workings. Thus, while a claim may be completely wrong, it can still be a very sound and reasonable claim given the available information. "
Bob's Response: "(1) I’m not a trained scientist, and I can easily be wrong regarding a scientific statement of my own...Yet it does not take an oncology expert to sense reckless tobacco-industry claims, nor an expert lawyer to sense reckless law practices, nor an expert economist to sense reckless monetary policy." (As an interesting side note, Bob claims here that "You brought up those disciplines, not me.")
Bob continued (same post): "(2) Of course, every incorrect claim is not reckless, and to suggest otherwise would be foolish. To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”"
My response again: "You only see these things because of expert oncologists, law strategists, and economists have exposed the other side and you take their word on it. Have you ever done a double-blind study to confirm the relationship between cancer and smoking? Probably not. You take the oncologist's word for it. The data is available, just like the data for every evolutionary claim is available for scrutiny."
My response continued (same post): "You have not validated your claim that these claims were reckless. As you agreed, wrong claims are not always reckless claims. You said that your claim was "instinctive" and I had to attempt to discredit your claim. That is very close to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. As such, it is implied that you have not read the literature and are not familiar with manganese nodule formation. Thus, your claim is unsubstantiated and unjustified. It constitutes what I would consider (and webster agrees) "reckless" and is misleading to your followers. This is an absolutely elementary aspect of both science and debate. It is quite revealing that you still struggle with this concept. You said: "To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”". That's called shifting the burden of proof, and again it is an elementary mistake that you're making here."
Bob's response: "I doubt the common folk in the 1800s joked of cigarettes as coffin nails after hearing expert testimony.
Law strategists? If the public evaluated attorneys based on the claims of the legal profession, they wouldn’t rate lawyers next to used car salesmen.
And all the economists of the Soviet Union combined had a hard time convincing the masses that they were prosperous.
Johnny, you sound like a Catholic bishop who says, “You can’t understand the Bible on your own. You have to either wear a robe, or trust the experts.”
My response: "There is no comparison here to assessing the validity of a scientific theory. Perhaps you could elaborate on the connection. Your main point is that you need not be an expert to assess the recklessness of claiming manganese nodules are old. And your evidence is two disciplines that are not related to the scientific method or process and then the link between cancer and smoking. That's a false analogy. As I said before, you must trust the studies and testimonies of oncologists and epidemiologists when assessing the validity of that claim."
Bob's response: "You brought up those disciplines, not me."
Comments: It took some direct probing to get Bob to respond to my two points. Bob made more than two posts responding to me between the time that I initially put forth my response till he offered his first response. Bob never did adequately address these two issues. He managed to side-step them all the way through the thread until the very end. Notice how he wrongly accuses me of bringing up the three disciplines (oncology, law, and economics) that he brought up and he used in a false analogy. Perhaps the most interesting part of this exchange was that Bob called his claim that this was a "reckless claim of old age" "instinctive" and the proceeded to shift the burden of proof onto me to prove that they were not reckless. This is an elementary logical fallacy. Bob should not be making these mistakes.
* Claim #2: Young manganese nodules help the young earth position and denying that young manganese nodules help young earth creationists shows my extreme bias.
-Source: "Johnny, your statement that, "finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists," shows your extreme bias."
My response: "It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth. The two ideas are not connected by any logical stretch. Although creationists have long engaged in the practice of pretending that negative evidence of one idea is evidence of their own idea, simple common sense will reveal the fallacy in that line of thinking. Although it is true that if this claim was substantiated by real evidence you would have one less page in the book of things you disagree with, that does not constitute helping young earth creationism. Manganese nodules could have formed yesterday, but that does not eliminate the possibility of an old earth nor does it lend support to a young earth."
Bob's response: "Johnny, oh, I see, you're confusing your word "help" with the word "prove." Yes, I agree, that fast-forming nodules do not prove a young earth.
But you will give us "proof" of your own hopeless bias if, after this clarification, you cannot now *agree* that fast-forming manganese nodules does "help" the young earth side (whether we're correct or not), even though it may not "prove" our position."
My response: "I am not confusing the two words. Young earth creationism is defined by one simple idea: the earth is young. m-w.com defines help as: "to give assistance or support to". Young mangnese nodules to not give assistance or support the idea that the earth is young. It's really that simple."
Bob's response: "You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."
But your bias (and likely other factors) prevents you from saying so."
Bob again: "Johnny, I agree! (With that last sentence that is.**) That would be an inane argument. But you utterly misrepresented my point, and since you have such a commitment to be “scrupulously honest and above reproach,” I’m sure this was accidental, though clear evidence of your bias (which led to a false judgment )."
** Bob was quoting me here: "It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth."
Bob again: "Johnny and Fool, you have both established that evidence is not especially relevant to you. You both refuse to admit that discoveries that refute specific claims of old age would help YECists who oppose evidence of an old earth.
...
So, these old-earthers show their true lack of objectivity and disrespect for evidence and argumentation, by insisting that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side. Bias.
...
Until Johnny and Fool admit that when a debunked old-age process is removed from the old-age evidence column, that thereby helps the young earth side, they shout their bias from the rooftops (and betray their fear)."
My response: "2) I defined help with a dictionary, followed by why manganese nodules do not constitute helping the idea of a young earth. You did not address my definition nor did you assert how it has advanced your position. Instead, you restated your original claim without any mention of my arguments. Please address these before you bring up the point again....5) You still insist that I am wrong by claiming "that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side." Yet the burden of proof is undeniably on each individual side. If one of my evidences fails, it does not make your position any truer."
Bob's response: "Absolutely. But perhaps you’re being too stingy with the concept of “help.” If five contrary claims to a view need to be discredited before someone will consider an alternative view, then each time another claim is discredited, that helps the proponents of the alternative view. Let’s skip obvious examples. I never claimed that rapid formation is proof of YE, but to debunk yet another “million-year process” helps YE creationism. Oh, and by the way, it is an ism, that is, a systematic worldview, and that worldview is undeniably energized and easier to promote every time we can discard a million years here or there. Again, you confused proof with help, and should just drop that one also, because it’s simply diversionary."
My response: "He [Bob] still insists that evidence against my position helps the young earth position, not because it makes their side any truer, but because it makes creationism "easier to promote". I was not addressing product marketability when I stated that young manganese nodules do not help the creationist position."
Comments: This one was particularly interesting because Bob Enyart jumped all over it as an example of my "bias". Yet he never quite articulated how bias is related to my claim. Nor did he elaborate on how exactly it advances the young earth position. His best attempt was when he essentially related it to the marketability of young earth creationism. My point was clearly that it does not advance the young earth creationist's position that the earth is young.
* Claim #3: Bias is a belief that leads to a false judgement.
-Source:"Johnny and Fool, let me offer a definition for the word “bias” in our situation which perhaps even you both may agree with. Bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment."
My response: "I do not agree with that defintion. I prefer the dictionary's definition which states that bias inhibits impartial judgement. That doesn't mean it always leads to the wrong conclusion."
Bob's response: "Johnny, I think by rejecting my definition of bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment, that actually, you are admitting that which I earlier stated, that old-earthers, et. al, often refuse to admit that they are biased."
(Fool correctly pointed out that this was a non-sequitor. Bob recanted his statement: "[Edit from post 54: Fool is right (post 43). That is a non-sequitur. What WAS I thinking? I recant the part about this being an admission from Johnny. That sentence came together wrongly. Sorry. Original post continues... -Bob]")
Bob continued (same post): "With the dictionary definition, then the term bias also applies to a true belief that leads to a correct judgment, and that just seems to make the term useless. A scientist who is partial to truth that he has knowledge of, and who instantly rejects flat-earth or geo-centric arguments, would thereby be called biased. And then the term bias would apply to all sides of every debate, and therefore it becomes useless, and might as well be abandoned. And Fool/Johnny, then it is strange for your side to use bias as a perjorative against my side. And if we're going to neuter the use of the word bias just because the dictionary insufficiently defines it, then we'd have to coin a new word, something like... foolohnny: a belief that leads to a false judment. You guys can use that if you'd like; I'll stick with the common use of the word bias, even though the dictionary insufficiently defines it."
My response: "No, it does not render the term useless. It lets you know about how the judgement was made. The judgement could turn out to be right or wrong. It is important to note whether or not a stance or argument is inherently biased, because it tells you about the process with which the conclusion was arrived at. It also tells you how likely it is that the conclusion is the correct conclusion. A biased conclusion, one that had a partial judgement, is statistically less likely to be correct than a conclusion based strictly on evidence. This is why the young earth creationist position is inherently weaker. It assumes from the outset that all evidence against a young earth must be inherently wrong, and thus the evidence can never be objectively approached.
What I find humorous is your rejection of the very definition of bias because it includes you. Redefinining it and calling the dictionary definition "insufficient" is quite an interesting tactic. While you are at it, you may want to go ahead and redefine evidence, observation, refutation, evolution, science, and intelligent design to suit your purposes--which it seems you have taken the liberty of doing with your "evolve.exe" fraud."
Me continued: "Since when is redefining word to mean something other than what the dictionary directly states an acceptable debate strategy? I could sit here all day and make up definitions for words I don't like."
Bob's response: "Since my definition for bias is better. Johnny, I guess you can’t see it, that even a commitment to evidence is itself unavoidably a bias (unless of course, you use my definition
)."
Comments: I don't think anything really needs to be said here. Bob's redefining of the word "bias" to suit his purposes and to exclude himself from the definition is a horrible and universally unacceptable debate tactic. It's downright comical. "Since my definition for bias is better".
* Claim #4: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.
-Source:"As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence."
My response: "While I disagree, I have to ask whether or not you are saying that evolutionists or "old earthers" are the one who made that claim? Afterall, you told me "welcome to our world" and implied that things like this never get said by mainstream science."
Bob's response: "No! Say it isn’t so! I would never have guessed. I think this thread has sufficiently established that you and OEers here are inclined to knee-jerk disagreement. It is silly to disagree with virtually everything stated, even careful generic statements which in other contexts would be easily acknowledged. Come on. I could agree with Fool when he caught me in a gaffe. Now it’s your turn. You should admit that this simple and obvious rule is generally (NOT ALWAYS, BUT GENERALLY), true."
My response: "You cannot evaluate the strength of a claim by anything other than its evidence. What you're arguing is the evidence must have been strong for someone to change their mind. But this is an unacceptable way to evaluate a claim because you're evaluating the claim based not on its evidence, but on a person and all of the traits that go along with them. I used to be a creationist. Then I admitted evolution took place. Is my credibility increased?
You're trying to build an argument on a pile of sand here. In a nutshell, you are trying to justify believing some guy on some video based on his claim alone. Not his evidence. This is unacceptable reasoning. I can concoct all sorts of claims that, applying your "generalization" you would be forced to admit that it is not unreasonable to trust their report (even if they were truely outrageous)."
Bob's response: "But Johnny, you just contradicted your position on “bias.” For you wrote how important it is to identify bias, because: (QUOTE JOHNNY) …it tells you about the process with which the conclusion was arrived at. It also tells you how likely it is that the conclusion is the correct conclusion.(END QUOTE)(emphasis added).
Thanks for the concession.
But, have you decided? Are you conceding on my definition of bias? Or on my general rule of credibility?
And going deeper still on this, you wrote:
(QUOTE JOHNY)“I used to be a creationist. Then I admitted evolution took place. Is my credibility increased?”(END QUOTE)
No. Because: you switched sides while applying the rule! We must obey the rules! And switching sides during application is a no-no for this rule (and many others)! Example: When creationists admit that some of their arguments were wrong, there is increased credibility to that claim. Now Johnny, I imagine in a moment of weakness, you’ll want to agree with that, but remember, it cuts both ways."
Comments: Notice that Bob never even attempted to respond to my statement and the crux of my argument: "You cannot evaluate the strength of a claim by anything other than its evidence." Instead, he immediately reverts back to his claim that I am bias. I still haven't figured out what he's going on about here. Nonetheless, we can only speculate as to why Bob avoided arguing that point.
* Claim #5: If manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the "evidence column" for an old-earth.
-Source:"No, but it does mean they can form rapidly! Which takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth!"
My response: "Bob, respond to fool on this. He said, "Saying they can form rapidly does not mean they all did form rapidly." just in case you glazed over it. Do not ignore this."
Bob's response: "BEQ3-J: Would you agree that if otherwise typical, “million-year” sized nodules can be shown to have formed since the advent of modern breweries, that nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly?"
My response: "Yes, but there are things that need to be emphasized here. The first one is the word "if". I cannot find any supporting evidence that they have formed since the advent of modern breweries. The second thing that needs to be emphasized is the last half of your sentence. Often times manmade compounds and chemicals can accelerate natural processes (if you'd like an example I will provide).
4) You claim that if manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the old-earth evidence catagory. This is catagorically untrue. Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions."
Bob's response: "You’re over-exertion here contradicts the answer you already gave to BEQ3-J. You answered Yes, that “nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly.” And since neither of us has done the requisite re-evaluation of nodule formation rates, given that they can form rapidly, at least for now, you have to suck it up, and remove *nodule formation* from the Old Earth column. If you can produce evidence that equates to the pre-brewery view, that for certain nodules, formation requires millions of years, then you can put that newly established evidence into your column. You wrote, “Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions.” Of course (or with enzymes)! But I sure hope you’re not depending upon that general truth to put a nodule formation check mark in the Old Earth column. To re-check nodules, you would need to show specific evidence for this case:
* what conditions would prohibit rapid nodule formation anciently; then
* show that those conditions existed; and
* then that at least some of our nodules formed under those conditions.
You over-reached here Johnny."
Comments: Bob argues that I would have to show what prohibits rapid nodule formation anciently, show that those conditions existed, and then show that some of the nodules would have formed under those conditions. Unfortunately for Bob, all of the above conditions have already been discussed extensively and well demonstrated throughout the literature.
Contents:
* Claim #1: Calling manganese nodules "old" was a reckless claim.
* Claim #2: Young manganese nodules help the young earth position and denying that young manganese nodules help young earth creationists shows my extreme bias.
* Claim #3: Bias is a belief that leads to a false judgment
* Claim #4: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.
* Claim #5: If manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the "evidence column" for an old-earth.
* Claim #1: Calling manganese nodules "old" was a reckless claim.
-Source:"it [rapid manganese nodule formation] gives us another example of reckless claims of great age".
My response (2nd and 3rd paragraph): (1) "You claim that it is yet another example of reckless claims of great age, but I implore you to research why it was claimed (and still is) that manganese nodules are very old. I am quite certain that you do not understand why, and you probably do not care to understand why. For this reason, you cannot accurately assess whether or not it was a reckless claim."
(2) "I would also like to point out that just because scientists turn out to be wrong about things does not mean they have made reckless claims. We are always learning. Science posits the best idea with the data available. We are not always privy to all of nature's workings. Thus, while a claim may be completely wrong, it can still be a very sound and reasonable claim given the available information. "
Bob's Response: "(1) I’m not a trained scientist, and I can easily be wrong regarding a scientific statement of my own...Yet it does not take an oncology expert to sense reckless tobacco-industry claims, nor an expert lawyer to sense reckless law practices, nor an expert economist to sense reckless monetary policy." (As an interesting side note, Bob claims here that "You brought up those disciplines, not me.")
Bob continued (same post): "(2) Of course, every incorrect claim is not reckless, and to suggest otherwise would be foolish. To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”"
My response again: "You only see these things because of expert oncologists, law strategists, and economists have exposed the other side and you take their word on it. Have you ever done a double-blind study to confirm the relationship between cancer and smoking? Probably not. You take the oncologist's word for it. The data is available, just like the data for every evolutionary claim is available for scrutiny."
My response continued (same post): "You have not validated your claim that these claims were reckless. As you agreed, wrong claims are not always reckless claims. You said that your claim was "instinctive" and I had to attempt to discredit your claim. That is very close to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. As such, it is implied that you have not read the literature and are not familiar with manganese nodule formation. Thus, your claim is unsubstantiated and unjustified. It constitutes what I would consider (and webster agrees) "reckless" and is misleading to your followers. This is an absolutely elementary aspect of both science and debate. It is quite revealing that you still struggle with this concept. You said: "To attempt to discredit my instinctive claim of recklessness here, you’ll have to produce that link I’ve asked for, and we’ll see how strong the evidence was for the claim that “nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena,” “mm/million years.”". That's called shifting the burden of proof, and again it is an elementary mistake that you're making here."
Bob's response: "I doubt the common folk in the 1800s joked of cigarettes as coffin nails after hearing expert testimony.
Law strategists? If the public evaluated attorneys based on the claims of the legal profession, they wouldn’t rate lawyers next to used car salesmen.
And all the economists of the Soviet Union combined had a hard time convincing the masses that they were prosperous.
Johnny, you sound like a Catholic bishop who says, “You can’t understand the Bible on your own. You have to either wear a robe, or trust the experts.”
My response: "There is no comparison here to assessing the validity of a scientific theory. Perhaps you could elaborate on the connection. Your main point is that you need not be an expert to assess the recklessness of claiming manganese nodules are old. And your evidence is two disciplines that are not related to the scientific method or process and then the link between cancer and smoking. That's a false analogy. As I said before, you must trust the studies and testimonies of oncologists and epidemiologists when assessing the validity of that claim."
Bob's response: "You brought up those disciplines, not me."
Comments: It took some direct probing to get Bob to respond to my two points. Bob made more than two posts responding to me between the time that I initially put forth my response till he offered his first response. Bob never did adequately address these two issues. He managed to side-step them all the way through the thread until the very end. Notice how he wrongly accuses me of bringing up the three disciplines (oncology, law, and economics) that he brought up and he used in a false analogy. Perhaps the most interesting part of this exchange was that Bob called his claim that this was a "reckless claim of old age" "instinctive" and the proceeded to shift the burden of proof onto me to prove that they were not reckless. This is an elementary logical fallacy. Bob should not be making these mistakes.
* Claim #2: Young manganese nodules help the young earth position and denying that young manganese nodules help young earth creationists shows my extreme bias.
-Source: "Johnny, your statement that, "finding a manganese nodule around a beer can does not help young earth creationists," shows your extreme bias."
My response: "It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth. The two ideas are not connected by any logical stretch. Although creationists have long engaged in the practice of pretending that negative evidence of one idea is evidence of their own idea, simple common sense will reveal the fallacy in that line of thinking. Although it is true that if this claim was substantiated by real evidence you would have one less page in the book of things you disagree with, that does not constitute helping young earth creationism. Manganese nodules could have formed yesterday, but that does not eliminate the possibility of an old earth nor does it lend support to a young earth."
Bob's response: "Johnny, oh, I see, you're confusing your word "help" with the word "prove." Yes, I agree, that fast-forming nodules do not prove a young earth.
But you will give us "proof" of your own hopeless bias if, after this clarification, you cannot now *agree* that fast-forming manganese nodules does "help" the young earth side (whether we're correct or not), even though it may not "prove" our position."
My response: "I am not confusing the two words. Young earth creationism is defined by one simple idea: the earth is young. m-w.com defines help as: "to give assistance or support to". Young mangnese nodules to not give assistance or support the idea that the earth is young. It's really that simple."
Bob's response: "You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."
But your bias (and likely other factors) prevents you from saying so."
Bob again: "Johnny, I agree! (With that last sentence that is.**) That would be an inane argument. But you utterly misrepresented my point, and since you have such a commitment to be “scrupulously honest and above reproach,” I’m sure this was accidental, though clear evidence of your bias (which led to a false judgment )."
** Bob was quoting me here: "It does not help your position because young earth creationism claims that the Earth is young. Finding young manganese nodules is not evidence of a young earth any more than a 5 year old tree is evidence of a young earth."
Bob again: "Johnny and Fool, you have both established that evidence is not especially relevant to you. You both refuse to admit that discoveries that refute specific claims of old age would help YECists who oppose evidence of an old earth.
...
So, these old-earthers show their true lack of objectivity and disrespect for evidence and argumentation, by insisting that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side. Bias.
...
Until Johnny and Fool admit that when a debunked old-age process is removed from the old-age evidence column, that thereby helps the young earth side, they shout their bias from the rooftops (and betray their fear)."
My response: "2) I defined help with a dictionary, followed by why manganese nodules do not constitute helping the idea of a young earth. You did not address my definition nor did you assert how it has advanced your position. Instead, you restated your original claim without any mention of my arguments. Please address these before you bring up the point again....5) You still insist that I am wrong by claiming "that evidence for one side, when refuted, does not help the other side." Yet the burden of proof is undeniably on each individual side. If one of my evidences fails, it does not make your position any truer."
Bob's response: "Absolutely. But perhaps you’re being too stingy with the concept of “help.” If five contrary claims to a view need to be discredited before someone will consider an alternative view, then each time another claim is discredited, that helps the proponents of the alternative view. Let’s skip obvious examples. I never claimed that rapid formation is proof of YE, but to debunk yet another “million-year process” helps YE creationism. Oh, and by the way, it is an ism, that is, a systematic worldview, and that worldview is undeniably energized and easier to promote every time we can discard a million years here or there. Again, you confused proof with help, and should just drop that one also, because it’s simply diversionary."
My response: "He [Bob] still insists that evidence against my position helps the young earth position, not because it makes their side any truer, but because it makes creationism "easier to promote". I was not addressing product marketability when I stated that young manganese nodules do not help the creationist position."
Comments: This one was particularly interesting because Bob Enyart jumped all over it as an example of my "bias". Yet he never quite articulated how bias is related to my claim. Nor did he elaborate on how exactly it advances the young earth position. His best attempt was when he essentially related it to the marketability of young earth creationism. My point was clearly that it does not advance the young earth creationist's position that the earth is young.
* Claim #3: Bias is a belief that leads to a false judgement.
-Source:"Johnny and Fool, let me offer a definition for the word “bias” in our situation which perhaps even you both may agree with. Bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment."
My response: "I do not agree with that defintion. I prefer the dictionary's definition which states that bias inhibits impartial judgement. That doesn't mean it always leads to the wrong conclusion."
Bob's response: "Johnny, I think by rejecting my definition of bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment, that actually, you are admitting that which I earlier stated, that old-earthers, et. al, often refuse to admit that they are biased."
(Fool correctly pointed out that this was a non-sequitor. Bob recanted his statement: "[Edit from post 54: Fool is right (post 43). That is a non-sequitur. What WAS I thinking? I recant the part about this being an admission from Johnny. That sentence came together wrongly. Sorry. Original post continues... -Bob]")
Bob continued (same post): "With the dictionary definition, then the term bias also applies to a true belief that leads to a correct judgment, and that just seems to make the term useless. A scientist who is partial to truth that he has knowledge of, and who instantly rejects flat-earth or geo-centric arguments, would thereby be called biased. And then the term bias would apply to all sides of every debate, and therefore it becomes useless, and might as well be abandoned. And Fool/Johnny, then it is strange for your side to use bias as a perjorative against my side. And if we're going to neuter the use of the word bias just because the dictionary insufficiently defines it, then we'd have to coin a new word, something like... foolohnny: a belief that leads to a false judment. You guys can use that if you'd like; I'll stick with the common use of the word bias, even though the dictionary insufficiently defines it."
My response: "No, it does not render the term useless. It lets you know about how the judgement was made. The judgement could turn out to be right or wrong. It is important to note whether or not a stance or argument is inherently biased, because it tells you about the process with which the conclusion was arrived at. It also tells you how likely it is that the conclusion is the correct conclusion. A biased conclusion, one that had a partial judgement, is statistically less likely to be correct than a conclusion based strictly on evidence. This is why the young earth creationist position is inherently weaker. It assumes from the outset that all evidence against a young earth must be inherently wrong, and thus the evidence can never be objectively approached.
What I find humorous is your rejection of the very definition of bias because it includes you. Redefinining it and calling the dictionary definition "insufficient" is quite an interesting tactic. While you are at it, you may want to go ahead and redefine evidence, observation, refutation, evolution, science, and intelligent design to suit your purposes--which it seems you have taken the liberty of doing with your "evolve.exe" fraud."
Me continued: "Since when is redefining word to mean something other than what the dictionary directly states an acceptable debate strategy? I could sit here all day and make up definitions for words I don't like."
Bob's response: "Since my definition for bias is better. Johnny, I guess you can’t see it, that even a commitment to evidence is itself unavoidably a bias (unless of course, you use my definition
)."Comments: I don't think anything really needs to be said here. Bob's redefining of the word "bias" to suit his purposes and to exclude himself from the definition is a horrible and universally unacceptable debate tactic. It's downright comical. "Since my definition for bias is better".
* Claim #4: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.
-Source:"As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence."
My response: "While I disagree, I have to ask whether or not you are saying that evolutionists or "old earthers" are the one who made that claim? Afterall, you told me "welcome to our world" and implied that things like this never get said by mainstream science."
Bob's response: "No! Say it isn’t so! I would never have guessed. I think this thread has sufficiently established that you and OEers here are inclined to knee-jerk disagreement. It is silly to disagree with virtually everything stated, even careful generic statements which in other contexts would be easily acknowledged. Come on. I could agree with Fool when he caught me in a gaffe. Now it’s your turn. You should admit that this simple and obvious rule is generally (NOT ALWAYS, BUT GENERALLY), true."
My response: "You cannot evaluate the strength of a claim by anything other than its evidence. What you're arguing is the evidence must have been strong for someone to change their mind. But this is an unacceptable way to evaluate a claim because you're evaluating the claim based not on its evidence, but on a person and all of the traits that go along with them. I used to be a creationist. Then I admitted evolution took place. Is my credibility increased?
You're trying to build an argument on a pile of sand here. In a nutshell, you are trying to justify believing some guy on some video based on his claim alone. Not his evidence. This is unacceptable reasoning. I can concoct all sorts of claims that, applying your "generalization" you would be forced to admit that it is not unreasonable to trust their report (even if they were truely outrageous)."
Bob's response: "But Johnny, you just contradicted your position on “bias.” For you wrote how important it is to identify bias, because: (QUOTE JOHNNY) …it tells you about the process with which the conclusion was arrived at. It also tells you how likely it is that the conclusion is the correct conclusion.(END QUOTE)(emphasis added).
Thanks for the concession.
But, have you decided? Are you conceding on my definition of bias? Or on my general rule of credibility?
And going deeper still on this, you wrote:
(QUOTE JOHNY)“I used to be a creationist. Then I admitted evolution took place. Is my credibility increased?”(END QUOTE)
No. Because: you switched sides while applying the rule! We must obey the rules! And switching sides during application is a no-no for this rule (and many others)! Example: When creationists admit that some of their arguments were wrong, there is increased credibility to that claim. Now Johnny, I imagine in a moment of weakness, you’ll want to agree with that, but remember, it cuts both ways."
Comments: Notice that Bob never even attempted to respond to my statement and the crux of my argument: "You cannot evaluate the strength of a claim by anything other than its evidence." Instead, he immediately reverts back to his claim that I am bias. I still haven't figured out what he's going on about here. Nonetheless, we can only speculate as to why Bob avoided arguing that point.
* Claim #5: If manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the "evidence column" for an old-earth.
-Source:"No, but it does mean they can form rapidly! Which takes *nodule formation* out of the evidence column for an old-earth!"
My response: "Bob, respond to fool on this. He said, "Saying they can form rapidly does not mean they all did form rapidly." just in case you glazed over it. Do not ignore this."
Bob's response: "BEQ3-J: Would you agree that if otherwise typical, “million-year” sized nodules can be shown to have formed since the advent of modern breweries, that nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly?"
My response: "Yes, but there are things that need to be emphasized here. The first one is the word "if". I cannot find any supporting evidence that they have formed since the advent of modern breweries. The second thing that needs to be emphasized is the last half of your sentence. Often times manmade compounds and chemicals can accelerate natural processes (if you'd like an example I will provide).
4) You claim that if manganese nodules can form rapidly, they must be removed from the old-earth evidence catagory. This is catagorically untrue. Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions."
Bob's response: "You’re over-exertion here contradicts the answer you already gave to BEQ3-J. You answered Yes, that “nodules would have to be removed from the old-earth column, unless additional evidence indicated that other existing nodules could not have formed rapidly.” And since neither of us has done the requisite re-evaluation of nodule formation rates, given that they can form rapidly, at least for now, you have to suck it up, and remove *nodule formation* from the Old Earth column. If you can produce evidence that equates to the pre-brewery view, that for certain nodules, formation requires millions of years, then you can put that newly established evidence into your column. You wrote, “Processes which occur very slow naturally can occur very fast under unnatural conditions.” Of course (or with enzymes)! But I sure hope you’re not depending upon that general truth to put a nodule formation check mark in the Old Earth column. To re-check nodules, you would need to show specific evidence for this case:
* what conditions would prohibit rapid nodule formation anciently; then
* show that those conditions existed; and
* then that at least some of our nodules formed under those conditions.
You over-reached here Johnny."
Comments: Bob argues that I would have to show what prohibits rapid nodule formation anciently, show that those conditions existed, and then show that some of the nodules would have formed under those conditions. Unfortunately for Bob, all of the above conditions have already been discussed extensively and well demonstrated throughout the literature.
Bob Enyart said:
Last edited:
