Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

I thought we'd gotten to your "last straw" and could move on ... I guess not, you still want to worry this badly gnawed bone ... OK, what's one more falsehood? We're used to that by now.

I do not move the goal posts, you tear down the stadium, and rebuild it so that the goal posts appear to be in a different place and then complain that the goalposts have been moved. An interesting variation on pigeon chess.

But stripping away all your guacamole, the bottom line is that, by your own admission, you're dealing in nonexistent hypotheticals. That's a waste of everyone's' time.

But plausible hypotheticals refute negative blanket statements. Surely you know this, don't you H.Sapiens?

You're hypotheticals are hardly plausible, as I already observed ... a sample with an N of 1000 and a variance of zero? Not plausible at all. Let's move on.

No? If a thousand sane adults were carefully observing a simple event, say for the sake argument, a man drinking a beer, is it not plausible that they would find a uniform agreement on what happened?

No, it is not plausible that 1000 people would agree. Some would say he was drinking ale, or cider, or soda, a few would say he never actually drank the beverage, some would claim it was not a man but rather a woman (and they might be right, you'd never be sure without a karyotype on the observed subject, in which case all the "sane" adults would have been wrong). You are remarkably naive. Let's move on.

[instantc]

No? If a thousand sane adults were carefully observing a simple event, say for the sake argument, a man drinking a beer, is it not plausible that they would find a uniform agreement on what happened?

No, it is not plausible that 1000 people would agree. Some would say he was drinking ale, or cider, or soda, a few would say he never actually drank the beverage

Obviously I did not suggest that everyone would catch every details, I merely said that all of them could reliably confirm that a man drank a beer.

a few would say he never actually drank the beverage

You suggest that a sane person could carefully observe a man empty a beer bottle from close distance without distractions and somehow come to a conclusion that the man never drank the beer?

[H.sapiens]

No? If a thousand sane adults were carefully observing a simple event, say for the sake argument, a man drinking a beer, is it not plausible that they would find a uniform agreement on what happened?

No, it is not plausible that 1000 people would agree. Some would say he was drinking ale, or cider, or soda, a few would say he never actually drank the beverage

Obviously I did not suggest that everyone would catch every details, I merely said that all of them could reliably confirm that a man drank a beer.

a few would say he never actually drank the beverage

You suggest that a sane person could carefully observe a man empty a beer bottle from close distance without distractions and somehow come to a conclusion that the man never drank the beer?

Asked and answered, welcome to the world of ignore.

[Danmark]

Studies on memory conclude, convincingly, that memories are much less accurate than most people realize. Eyewitness identification is particularly poor, hence the number of people convicted of very serious crimes who have been exonerated by DNA evidence years, and even decades later.

You can find numerous studies on the subject including those by John and Elizabeth Loftus. I called the latter as a witness in a murder case.
https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/ ... /sciam.htm

Long before these studies became popular, it was well known and published in basic college psychology texts, that our minds fill in details falsely, plugging in other memories for those missing details; thus a blank metal circle becomes a 25 cent piece.

My guess is that most of us have been in situations where facts were hopelessly confused. I remember one in particular. I was at an organization where I had to write a check for dues. I got out my checkbook and prepared to write the check. I got distracted and failed to write it. When I got back to the task, several people told me I'd already paid. I knew better and said so. They argued with me, but there was no evidence of a check, which was confirmed by my checkbook and register. People with no motive to do so simply fill in details based on expectations.

This is why illusionists are so successful.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 100 by Goat]

Hello Goat,

I will also address some of H.Sapien’s issues here in addition to my post for him.

You said, “And how does the Bible back that up? I mean,I can point you to a document that show Scarlet Ohara lived, but we know that is fictional Just because something say something, and other people tell you that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so. What independent verification do you have that what you were told is true? �

Signers, witnesses, observers, and users, may be independent verifiers of a written document. The document testifies of itself whether good or evil by its fruit. The Bible testifies of itself daily and is backed up by archaeology. Aren’t there adverse consequences for an author that produces fictitious documents as truth? One way I’m able to tell you what’s good is by basing my talk on my good experience in addition to what’s been passed to me.

Isn’t there such a thing as trusted authority? Who may you fully trust above all? When your parents told you it’s wrong to tell a lie, how did you know they were right? Did you ask them to employ a scientist to verify? Your parents proved their trust simply because they cared for fed you from birth. We even have a degree of general trust for each other. Can’t we trust the Guy that keeps our hearts beating and feeds us our momentary breath?

We are all scientists engaged in the experiment of life that learn from each other. Or should we deprive ourselves of the knowledge by isolating ourselves.

If we can’t trust God as faithful with His authoritative word, who can we? Please? False authorities that want to steal our trust abound. If we know not who to trust, why not Him that feeds us our breath? Is there another that does the same?

I guarantee that the knowledge I share is only that which is based on trusted Authority that’s above fallible humanity besides humanity that’s proven trustworthy. Can you trust me now? If I point you to a website that contains all the scientific answers you want that prove God and His word true, would you be satisfied then? Are you familiar with the Answersingenesis website?

If the answers point to God, do you really want them? We all have a degree of naughtiness against authority that must be dealt with daily unless we are tempted astray. Did “science� (scientists or spokesmen for scientists) convince you that God is not true and that the Bible is a myth? If yes,where is your SOLID (i. e. witnessed, not inferred from fossils) evidence? Who do you ultimately trust as your source for knowledge? Who should we even trust with the use of the scientific method?

In case if you have suffered the “been there done that� syndrome as far as confidence in God is concerned, so have I and so had Saul before he became Paul. Religion that’s void of demonstration of the person and power of our Savior is only a needless “holy� trap.

Think of yourself owing a large amount of money and that you ended up unable to pay back. If the banker sees your situation and mercifully forgives you of the dept, would you yet see him as a task master or would you begin to see him as your best friend instead? The person that never gained a similar impression of our Savior has never known Him regardless the intensity of his “religion.�

I have no need to argue with you on the importance of documentation. You know it.

It is written,
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16).�

(OOPs! More of “dat� Bible stuff!) Of course! It’s good for you!

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and then note the huge firestorm of political controversy around us about God and His word. Controversy is among the chief weapons used by enemies of liberty to deconstruct society by building up public doubt and discontent against the good standards of God. Shall we perpetuate this by endlessly “fussin?�

The controversy around us is not because of difficulty to believe, but of deliberate attempts of some to lead us into refusal of God’s protective authority. The Bible is a big lie only to those that want it to be so. Let’s please not therefore allow anyone to pull us into the pit with them.


Take care,
Earl

[H.sapiens]

You said, “And how does the Bible back that up? I mean,I can point you to a document that show Scarlet Ohara lived, but we know that is fictional Just because something say something, and other people tell you that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so. What independent verification do you have that what you were told is true? �

You hit the nail on the head, but your problem is that you’ve no better authority for your Bible, in fact a much worse one because of all the clearly demonstrably false items it contains.

Signers, witnesses, observers, and users, may be independent verifiers of a written document.

But there are no signers, witnesses, observers (users are not useful for credibility) available … none!

The document testifies of itself whether good or evil by its fruit.

Then I’d say it is rather a mixed bag. Throw in all the clear untruths and, if forced to accept or reject the entirety, I’d reject it.

The Bible testifies of itself daily and is backed up by archaeology.

Actually archeology contradicts much of it, e.g., the Exodus has no evidence what-so-ever. But we know that Atlanta existed in Georgia … just as it said in Gone with the Wind.

Aren’t there adverse consequences for an author that produces fictitious documents as truth?

No often enough, what adverse consequences were there for Homer, or Thomas Malory or Bernard Cornwall?

One way I’m able to tell you what’s good is by basing my talk on my good experience in addition to what’s been passed to me.

That’s self deceptive claptrap.

Isn’t there such a thing as trusted authority? Who may you fully trust above all? When your parents told you it’s wrong to tell a lie, how did you know they were right? Did you ask them to employ a scientist to verify? Your parents proved their trust simply because they cared for fed you from birth. We even have a degree of general trust for each other. Can’t we trust the Guy that keeps our hearts beating and feeds us our momentary breath?

You mean that guy that doesn’t exist but who (if he were to exist) permits himself to be represented by so many palpable lies? Come on, get real, give us all a break.

We are all scientists engaged in the experiment of life that learn from each other. Or should we deprive ourselves of the knowledge by isolating ourselves.

No, I am a scientist, I have seen nothing that would indicate that you are.

If we can’t trust God as faithful with His authoritative word, who can we? Please? False authorities that want to steal our trust abound. If we know not who to trust, why not Him that feeds us our breath? Is there another that does the same?

Your Bible is full of lies, you lie (you are not a scientist), why should I believe anything about an invisible supernatural being who is surrounded and represented by what are clearly lies?

I guarantee that the knowledge I share is only that which is based on trusted Authority that’s above fallible humanity besides humanity that’s proven trustworthy. Can you trust me now?

No I cannot, I think that you are confused and deranged.

If I point you to a website that contains all the scientific answers you want that prove God and His word true, would you be satisfied then? Are you familiar with the Answersingenesis website?

Yes, I am also quite familiar with the thorough debunking of everything that has been posted to that site. Talk about a pack of lies … Answersingenesis is high on the list.

If the answers point to God, do you really want them?

But the answers don’t, so that’s a stupid hypothetical.

We all have a degree of naughtiness against authority that must be dealt with daily unless we are tempted astray.

Please speak for your own failings, not mine, I have many, but that is not one of them and I don’t need you to add to my list.

Did “science� (scientists or spokesmen for scientists) convince you that God is not true and that the Bible is a myth? If yes,where is your SOLID (i. e. witnessed, not inferred from fossils) evidence?

Good try at shifting the burden, that’s an old trick, doesn’t work, no cigar. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; you can’t even come up with common evidence. Fossil evidence, in this age of genetics and DNA is no longer even needed.

Who do you ultimately trust as your source for knowledge? Who should we even trust with the use of the scientific method?

I trust the approximate consensus of the community of rationalist, naturalist scholars that I exist in.

In case if you have suffered the “been there done that� syndrome as far as confidence in God is concerned, so have I and so had Saul before he became Paul. Religion that’s void of demonstration of the person and power of our Savior is only a needless “holy� trap.

You can keep your preaching to yourself, I have no need of it and I find it offensive. I come from a long, long, long line of rationalists and I suffer from none of the problems that you seem to.

Think of yourself owing a large amount of money and that you ended up unable to pay back. If the banker sees your situation and mercifully forgives you of the dept, would you yet see him as a task master or would you begin to see him as your best friend instead? The person that never gained a similar impression of our Savior has never known Him regardless the intensity of his “religion.�

Another inapplicable hypothetical question, it is entirely irrelevant and without applicability.

I have no need to argue with you on the importance of documentation. You know it.

Good thing for you since you have nothing to argue with, you’ve brought a wooden club to a gun fight.

It is written,
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16).�
(OOPs! More of “dat� Bible stuff!) Of course! It’s good for you!

It’s also preachy horse puckey that is against the rules in this particular forum. You should check the rules before you run on much further.

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and then note the huge firestorm of political controversy around us about God and His word. Controversy is among the chief weapons used by enemies of liberty to deconstruct society by building up public doubt and discontent against the good standards of God. Shall we perpetuate this by endlessly “fussin?�

Enemies of liberty like most of the founding fathers? You need to read some history form the primary sources.

The controversy around us is not because of difficulty to believe, but of deliberate attempts of some to lead us into refusal of God’s protective authority. The Bible is a big lie only to those that want it to be so. Let’s please not therefore allow anyone to pull us into the pit with them.

You cannot demonstrate that the bible is anything but a big lie. I cannot prove that everything in it is a lie, just the major points. The Exodus never happened, if the Exodus never happened there was no Moses, no burning bush, no Golden Calf, no Ten Commandments. Now the Ten Commandments that support the idea of enhancing the well-being of conscious creatures I think are great, but you can keep the rest.

[Erexsaur]

Hello H.Sepiens,

My remarks are in blue.

Although you ask me what scientific theory was posited that rejects the premise of evolution, may I ask you what scientific theory supports it? Isn’t it possible to come to a conclusion simply by common sense even before having to arrive at a theory?

No it is not logical to have a conclusion even before having to arrive at a theory, that’s bad science biases the results.

I ask again after asking others many times before: If you walk alone on a beach and find a sandcastle, would you conclude that someone was there to make the sandcastle or that it would be a chance product of the wind and waves over a long period of time? Please? Would you find it necessary to have a scientist form a theory to explain the possibility of someone having been there?

The conclusion you are struggling to justify is a non sequitur.

If the sandcastle points to involvement of a person that was on the scene, how much more does the magnificent order around us that’s far more complex point to involvement of a much greater intelligence than us humans? Is there any need to fear the reality of such?

Your analogy is invalid.

As for me, do you think that I reject evolution because of religious belief? My answer is “yes� in the sense that genuine Biblical religion is based on the foundation of Truth. That automatically precludes belief on anything not supported by truth. What foundation is evolution based on? Please?

Your construct requires a leap of faith to the unsupported logical frame of your religion being based on something other than imagination. While you may believe anything that you want, when you trot it out in public, especially in a debate form that specifically precludes the very argument that you are trying to make … well, then you are both breaking the rules and treading on the very sort of preaching behavior that is specifically prohibited.


[font=Arial]
In response to your above statements, may I ask is it necessary to ignore the simple logic of my sandcastle example that supports truth that God exists only to substitute it for a made-up theory that appears to support evolution that's contrary? Do you want my analogy invalid? Do we need to engage in a contest on how to make simple reasoning hard? My conclusion may be considered non-sequitur only in the sense that it cannot support evolution that has no legs on its own to stand on.

I did not decide to trust and serve God only because of a mere want to believe some religion. I do so from a sense of responsibility. Isn't that true with us all? I did so because I was informed of who God is and out of the necessity to accept and trust Him. By my heeding, God proved Himself to me personally. Knowing Him personally, I am able to accurately inform you of Him. Please tell me why do you think that I shouldn’t share this knowledge with the public? Knowledge informs, doesn’t it?


The field of science is a very great blessing from God because it opens up more and more secrets of His creation. Any attempt to deny the reality that God created is the equivalent of trying to the admire the craftsmanship of a fine automobile while denying the existence of its builder. What kind of fun is derived from such an effort?[/font]

Random House tells us that science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: [such as] the mathematical sciences.� The Latin word for “science� is “knowledge.� But isn’t knowledge gained by many other ways than observation and experimentation (The scientific method)? What about the many things simply told us? Was it necessary for scientists to prove that your name is yours or did you simply believe your parents?

“Random House?� What’s that? Use a meaningful and authoritative source please and stop attempting to engage in a purely semantic argument that begs the real questions.

[font=Arial]Aren’t you familiar with the Random House Unabridged Dictionary? OK. I see that I should have instead said that the dictionary tells us so and so![/color[/font]]

The KJV Bible contains two occurrences of the word, “science� and 169 occurrence of the word “knowledge.� Please note the following scripture I happened to find while seeking these occurrences:
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)�
Please note the phrase, “falsely so called� that modifies the word, “science.� I ask again after many times before: what scientific law supports evolution, please?

Who cares? Your bible may be an “authority� in your home, but it is not one here.

[font=Arial]But you should care, shouldn't you? You are not a person that does himself the disfavor of resisting knowledge, are you? What other authority do you think that you and I are under? Who else but God gives us our breath? Shouldn’t we please be careful of what we take for granted?[/font]

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

Then you have done two things, commited the logical fallacy of onus probandi and asked someone to prove a negative, an impossible feat.

[font=Arial]
Thank you. Why then do so many conclude there’s no God?
[/font]

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

What you have been told is not evidence and what the Bible says is not evidence either.

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

I did not see any “reasons� that would so serve.

[font=Arial]If none of the reasons I gave suffice to convince you, I can only assure you that there are reasons that should convince you. I testify what I see. But whether you believe me or not is up to you.[/font]

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

That’s a logical fallacy: another argumentum ad populum.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

That’s a logical fallacy: third time’s a charm: argumentum ad populum.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

That’s a mixture of logical fallacies: argumentum ab auctoritate seasoned with argumentum ad populum.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

I call that an “augment from Son of Sam.� He have personal encounters through the neighbor’s dog who instructed him to go out and shoot people, every bit as real to him as god is to those who “witness.� BTW: Eyewitness testimony, especially when repeated over and over, has been shown to be notoriously undependable.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

The problem is that the Bible you think of so highly is, in so many places, demonstrably incorrect. It contradicts and impeaches itself so many times that none of it can be considered reliable and accuracy appears to be strictly accidental.

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

You’re depending on Moses, whom even Hebrew scholars discount, an Exodus that never occurred, etc. to document the “reality� of god? You’d do better watching “reality TV.�

[font=Arial]Why shouldn’t I depend on Moses? So should you. What Hebrew scholars are you speaking of that you are depending on for knowledge? Please be careful. Do you look to “reality TV� as your ultimate source of truth? I say again, please be very careful.[/font]

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?
None of Israel’s “victories� were miraculous, many were not even victories and those that were appear to be pyrrhic in retrospect. If that’s the best example you can come up with for the power of your god … you’re in deep do-do.
I can go on and on.

I’m sure you can … but to what end?

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

That’s nice.

[font=Arial]Thank you for the complement. I will be happy for you to have the same joy.[/font]

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us? What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge? But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

I’d settle for objective and rational evidence from ordinary scientists myself.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.

Can you identify some objective and rational evidence that scientists have recently revealed?

[font=Arial]You may find answers to the above by going to the AnswersinGenesis website I suggested to Goat. I’m happy to have shared my reasons with you. They’re in your memory.[/font]

Take care,
Earl

[font=Arial][/font]

[H.sapiens]

Hello H.Sepiens,

My remarks are in blue.

Although you ask me what scientific theory was posited that rejects the premise of evolution, may I ask you what scientific theory supports it? Isn’t it possible to come to a conclusion simply by common sense even before having to arrive at a theory?

No it is not logical to have a conclusion even before having to arrive at a theory, that’s bad science biases the results.

I ask again after asking others many times before: If you walk alone on a beach and find a sandcastle, would you conclude that someone was there to make the sandcastle or that it would be a chance product of the wind and waves over a long period of time? Please? Would you find it necessary to have a scientist form a theory to explain the possibility of someone having been there?

The conclusion you are struggling to justify is a non sequitur.

If the sandcastle points to involvement of a person that was on the scene, how much more does the magnificent order around us that’s far more complex point to involvement of a much greater intelligence than us humans? Is there any need to fear the reality of such?

Your analogy is invalid.

As for me, do you think that I reject evolution because of religious belief? My answer is “yes� in the sense that genuine Biblical religion is based on the foundation of Truth. That automatically precludes belief on anything not supported by truth. What foundation is evolution based on? Please?

Your construct requires a leap of faith to the unsupported logical frame of your religion being based on something other than imagination. While you may believe anything that you want, when you trot it out in public, especially in a debate form that specifically precludes the very argument that you are trying to make … well, then you are both breaking the rules and treading on the very sort of preaching behavior that is specifically prohibited.


[font=Arial]
In response to your above statements, may I ask is it necessary to ignore the simple logic of my sandcastle example that supports truth that God exists only to substitute it for a made-up theory that appears to support evolution that's contrary? Do you want my analogy invalid? Do we need to engage in a contest on how to make simple reasoning hard? My conclusion may be considered non-sequitur only in the sense that it cannot support evolution that has no legs on its own to stand on.

There is no logic to your analogy, it is a logical fallacy, technically a straw-man argument. I will not waste my time on such trash, neither should you.

I did not decide to trust and serve God only because of a mere want to believe some religion. I do so from a sense of responsibility. Isn't that true with us all? I did so because I was informed of who God is and out of the necessity to accept and trust Him. By my heeding, God proved Himself to me personally. Knowing Him personally, I am able to accurately inform you of Him. Please tell me why do you think that I shouldn’t share this knowledge with the public? Knowledge informs, doesn’t it?

Sounds to me like you slipped a mental cog.

The field of science is a very great blessing from God because it opens up more and more secrets of His creation. Any attempt to deny the reality that God created is the equivalent of trying to the admire the craftsmanship of a fine automobile while denying the existence of its builder. What kind of fun is derived from such an effort?[/font]

There's that straw-man construct again ... it is so, so, foolish.

Random House tells us that science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: [such as] the mathematical sciences.� The Latin word for “science� is “knowledge.� But isn’t knowledge gained by many other ways than observation and experimentation (The scientific method)? What about the many things simply told us? Was it necessary for scientists to prove that your name is yours or did you simply believe your parents?

“Random House?� What’s that? Use a meaningful and authoritative source please and stop attempting to engage in a purely semantic argument that begs the real questions.

[font=Arial]Aren’t you familiar with the Random House Unabridged Dictionary? OK. I see that I should have instead said that the dictionary tells us so and so![/color[/font]]

Written with all the sophistication of a second grade science curriculum (really!). Few consider math to be a "science."

The KJV Bible contains two occurrences of the word, “science� and 169 occurrence of the word “knowledge.� Please note the following scripture I happened to find while seeking these occurrences:
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)�
Please note the phrase, “falsely so called� that modifies the word, “science.� I ask again after many times before: what scientific law supports evolution, please?

Who cares? Your bible may be an “authority� in your home, but it is not one here.

[font=Arial]But you should care, shouldn't you? You are not a person that does himself the disfavor of resisting knowledge, are you? What other authority do you think that you and I are under? Who else but God gives us our breath? Shouldn’t we please be careful of what we take for granted?[/font]

Not really, consider the source, one of endless untruths. Why would anyone take it seriously?

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

Then you have done two things, committed the logical fallacy of onus probandi and asked someone to prove a negative, an impossible feat.

[font=Arial]
Thank you. Why then do so many conclude there’s no God?
[/font]

Perhaps it's the lack of convincing evidence that a god, any god, exists?

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

What you have been told is not evidence and what the Bible says is not evidence either.

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

I did not see any “reasons� that would so serve.

[font=Arial]If none of the reasons I gave suffice to convince you, I can only assure you that there are reasons that should convince you. I testify what I see. But whether you believe me or not is up to you.[/font]

I believe that you believe what you think you saw ... but I do not believe it was real.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

That’s a logical fallacy: another argumentum ad populum.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

That’s a logical fallacy: third time’s a charm: argumentum ad populum.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

That’s a mixture of logical fallacies: argumentum ab auctoritate seasoned with argumentum ad populum.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

I call that an “augment from Son of Sam.� He have personal encounters through the neighbor’s dog who instructed him to go out and shoot people, every bit as real to him as god is to those who “witness.� BTW: Eyewitness testimony, especially when repeated over and over, has been shown to be notoriously undependable.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

The problem is that the Bible you think of so highly is, in so many places, demonstrably incorrect. It contradicts and impeaches itself so many times that none of it can be considered reliable and accuracy appears to be strictly accidental.

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

You’re depending on Moses, whom even Hebrew scholars discount, an Exodus that never occurred, etc. to document the “reality� of god? You’d do better watching “reality TV.�

[font=Arial]Why shouldn’t I depend on Moses? So should you. What Hebrew scholars are you speaking of that you are depending on for knowledge? Please be careful. Do you look to “reality TV� as your ultimate source of truth? I say again, please be very careful.[/font]

I do not watch TV, so have no concern. Wiki: The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence. (Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802862600, p. 81.). There are LOTS of others.

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?
None of Israel’s “victories� were miraculous, many were not even victories and those that were appear to be pyrrhic in retrospect. If that’s the best example you can come up with for the power of your god … you’re in deep do-do.
I can go on and on.

I’m sure you can … but to what end?

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

That’s nice.

[font=Arial]Thank you for the complement. I will be happy for you to have the same joy.[/font]

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us? What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge? But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

I’d settle for objective and rational evidence from ordinary scientists myself.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.

Can you identify some objective and rational evidence that scientists have recently revealed?

[font=Arial]You may find answers to the above by going to the AnswersinGenesis website I suggested to Goat. I’m happy to have shared my reasons with you. They’re in your memory.[/font]
[/quote]
Worst pack of easily falsified lies I've ever seen, foolishness written by failed scientists that is only taken seriously by those already converted to true believer status.

I note how you avoid even trying to answer any of my questions.

[Bust Nak]

In response to your above statements, may I ask is it necessary to ignore the simple logic of my sandcastle example that supports truth that God exists only to substitute it for a made-up theory that appears to support evolution that's contrary? Do you want my analogy invalid? Do we need to engage in a contest on how to make simple reasoning hard? My conclusion may be considered non-sequitur only in the sense that it cannot support evolution that has no legs on its own to stand on.

The problem with the sandcastle analogy is that complexity is not the deciding factor with the conclusion that it was made by men. We did not come to the conclusion that a sandcastle was the product of men because it is complex. A sand dune is far more complex than a sandcastle yet we conclude it is the product of wind.

As such it is not logical to point to the complexity of biological life and come to the conclusion that life is the product of intelligent design.

[Danmark]

Ken Ham of AiG has decided that since he can't get his silliness published in any legitimate peer reviewed journal, he'll start his own, Answers Research Journal.
In order to make sure his journal only accepts papers that are interested in genuine science, AKA, an unbiased search for truth, ARJ gives a lengthy guide for how to write 'scientific' articles, which includes:

The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingene ... uthors.pdf

What's in the 'Statement of Faith?'

In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture....
The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel....

In other words, ARJ is not a scientific journal at all, but dedicated to proclaiming 'the gospel.'
AiG and ARJ are jokes.

Ken Ham has unwittingly become an advocate for not trusting the Bible:

"[My father] was always very adamant about one thing - if you can't trust the Book of Genesis as literal history, then you can't trust the rest of the Bible. . . .
... f Adam wasn't created from dust, and that if he didn't fall into sin as Genesis states, then the gospel message of the New Testament can't be true either."
—Ken Ham,
Ham, K. & Ham, S. (2008), Raising Godly Children in an Ungodly World: Leaving a Lasting Legacy, New Leaf Publishing Group