The Cumulative Argument for the Whingdingdilly

[Ooberman]

In a debate with Edwin Curley, William Lane Craig said in his opening statement, "These reasons are independent of one another, so that if even one of them is sound, it furnishes good grounds for believing that God exists. Taken together, they constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-exis ... z2JqYx3lbK

In that debate he used three arguments:

1. Kalam
2. Teleological
3. Moral

The first obvious criticism is that the moral argument and Kalam have nothing to do with each other. There is no "powerful" connection between the cause of the visible universe and moral values. After all, they could exist independently of each other, theoretically.

And, neither require a God.

So:


1.

The Kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The theist then slips in, usually, "This cause we call God".

Well, the theist MAY call it whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it IS God.

That is, I call it the Cause of the Universe, and it fits perfectly within a naturalistic framework.

After all, for the Cause to be called "God" the theist needs to prove the Cause is ALSO tied to other aspects of God in a sufficient and necessary way.

It's not enough to declare "we know the universe had a cause" (Something science has verified, which means Kalam is now redundant.) and use it for God if it equally applies to other explanations.


Craig argues, "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.�

I argue, “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, Cause of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.�

My argument sounds like a plausible sketch of how an event like a vacuum fluctuation in quantum foam could explain the observable universe. (The quick analogy is that our universe is like a bubble in a pot of water, sans pot, and the water is the infinite sea of undifferentiated energy)

That is, by using Kalam, we both arrive at a proof for our beliefs. Craig, however, tries to add "intelligent" which is a poorly defined term and certainly only makes sense if there is a Mind, and Minds only make sense if there are Brains. Brains only make sense if there is matter. Matter only makes sense if there is Time and Space.

And Intelligence only makes sense if there is Time.

This is one of those examples that Craig tries to overwhelm the audience by piling on too much and hoping they don't recognize his addition of the things he REALLY needs to prove: intelligence or some personal aspect.

His argument for the personal aspects of God, are, again, not part of Kalam, but a separate argument all together; the neck of the Whingdingdilly.


2.
WLC then moves to the teleological argument. Well, this is one of the least used arguments used, but Craig being a great orator uses it to great effect on people who are already theists.

Here, I am going to counter this argument for the Whingdingdilly's hind legs and point out that there is scientific evidence that people may be prone to belief in God due to brain activity, and not because there is a God. (Similarly some people believe in ghosts, phantoms and other non-existent beings because of the sense of agency and other psychological states, as well as confusion over data we get from the environment and our inability to properly assess it.)

For example, pareidolia is common. You can do it yourself. Find a richly patterned wallpaper and stare at it for a while. You will see "design" of faces in it.

Of course, there was no design of faces, but our human brains evolved to recognize faces, so we are exceptionally good at finding them.

This is what Craig preys on - he is hoping people use this evolved trait to extend to the natural world; design and agency.

Clearly, there is a reason ID (which was the most serious push of the teleological argument to date) is not taught in schools or is a serious field of study.

I don't feel the need to continue with a rebuttal of the teleological argument since it is becoming less used by theists in scholarly circles for good reason.

If someone wants to press it, I will continue.


3.
The moral argument, or the Whingdingdilly's head, is not a serious concern either and everyone calls it Craig's weakest argument.

The reason it is weak is because he presumes: "if objective morals exist, then god exists".

This is clearly contradicted by deontology and the vast majority of philosophers.

And, if that's not enough to stop Craig's argument, it's enough to point out that saying "objective morals SEEM to exist, therefore they exist". Yes, there need to be arguments to explain this seeming truth, but it would have been a lot harder for Craig to argue his "killing children just seems wrong" in ancient times when it was a normal practice.

And, I might add, the world today kills millions of children in the form of abortion and has legalized it. If "killing children" is objectively wrong, then we, collectively, don't seem to realize it.

This means the objectivist must add certain qualifiers, which under deontology are perfectly explainable.

"It's wrong to torture babies for no reason". Well, but on naturalism, we have reasons not to do things for no reason, whether it's torturing babies, killing witches, or stoning children, or maintaining realms of eternal torture.



All in all, the arguments for God all seem to be flawed, and, even if they are persuasive in any one area, they don't seem to get us to the argument the the Whingdingdilly (God) exists.

That is, let's say the Moral argument works. It only shows, then, that there may be a God of Moral Values that was created when the universe was created.

Or, if Kalam is an argument for God, it only shows that the God that created the universe was capable of creating a universe, not making it appear designed (after all the Kalam God could be a Cause-maker, and he eternally pumps out causes that, in this one case, caused this universe).

Or, if teleological argument is true, it only shows that the cause of the universe may have caused something to design a universe...


So, my challenge to the theist is prove the actually Whingdingdilly exists, not each of it's attributes, which can be used to prove more mundane and naturalistic claims.

Yes, the elephant, giraffe, camel, rhino and reindeer exist.
The Whingdingdilly is what needs to be argued for.

So far I have not, to date, seen any theist argue why each argument must support the other. I have seen no argument the the "cumulative argument" is sound.

Can someone provide a logical argument for why the "cumulative argument" should be considered seriously?

[S.T. Ranger]

Ranger, when I say "Many" or "Some" don't correct me for not saying "some" as if I implied all.

That's not a correction, it's annoying.

I'll respond again when you seem to understand the arguments.

Your right, I should have said: Clarification.

Point ceded, however, that I "understand the arguments" presented being a reason for response, I will just say...nice talking with you Ooberman.

God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

I supplied a few links which I think evidence a flood, would you care to respond to that part of my post?

Are you talking about the stuff about turbidity and polystrate fossils? Can you explain how you've combined those two things? "Apply turbidity currents to polystrate fossils" isn't going to cut it.

[Filthy Tugboat]

I mean that if you look at all the bulk of professional and scholarly papers that have been published in the last 100-200 years, and particularly if you track the general papers of serious, sober research and attempts at understanding our world from the proper experts (not pundits, apologists, spinmeisters, commentators, etc. - which dominate the internet, tv, etc.)... there is no need or attempt to insert God into any of the equation.

...It has been my experience that nearly everything that opposes the popular teachings of those that are called Scientists is almost always called "junk science," a popular term among atheists...

I personally don't refer to it as such but the meaning behind the term is basically that the "science" some people purport is not actually science.

Hello FT, nice to meet you. Sorry to have to begin discussion with this is laughable.

Not science according to who?

The scientific community, people that work within scientific fields. Geology, Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, etc.

What is not science?

Whatever is being referred to as "junk science".

Are you going to tell me you have looked at all that creation scientists have said and found all of it to be...not science?

What I've seen of creation science has proven to be unscientific, but I do not claim to have seen it all.

Your comments suggest you have looked at nothing that a scientist or scientists have suggested point to the veracity of scriptural accounts.

Should I? Which scriptural accounts? In the Hindu Vedas, there are stories of flying cities fighting each other, in scripture relating to the Greek Pantheon, it is said that male god's often raped mortal women which produced demigods, in the Abrahamic traditions it is said that the world flooded and that the water rose above the tallest mountain. Everything I've seen from mythic or religious scripture is evidently false, I have no reason to consider these stories as anything more than stories.

What makes a field of inquiry actually science is that it follows the scientific method and has an efficient and accredited peer review system.

So you will acknowledge study of the Bible to be a science? Have not archaeologists, language scolars, textual critics for far longer than the study of DNA appraoched the Bible from a Scientific manner? And have not the findings been reviewed by believing and unbelieving peers in that time?

Why should it be considered science? As far as I'm aware, it is not subject to the scientific method.

Creationism and it's advocates do not have such a system,

Sure we do.

It's just a matter of not conforming to indoctrination that many that oppose creationism have been.

What indoctrination is that? What is the peer review system that creationism is subject to? Are there multiple systems for the different fields creationism claim to have all the right information that the vast majority of professionals in those fields don't have?

anything they purport is "actually science" is not peer reviewed, nor, as far as I've seen, has it ever been subject to the scientific method.

I gave a link to a scientific study concerning prayer and whether those prayed for heal faster. In the article, taken from a secular source, it was admitted that in the scientific community anything that even had the word prayer associated with it was not even considered.

I suggest to you, FT, that this is the case with most of Creation Science. It is like Dawkins refusal to debate the fellow Ooberman focuses on in this thread: he gives his reason for not debating based on the beliefs of WLC and denounce them as unreasonable, when in fact, one such belief which is that God's mercy can be seen in instances such as the Flood and other events where children died, based upon two primary and basic principles, in that God is just (and would therefore not condemn a child to eternal separation) and that their death actually prevented them from going up to become guilty of the sins of their fathers which would likely ensure their eternal separation. Dawkins dismisses this as terrible, yet the belief is not only reasonable when we balance what we know of God it is probable.

The idea that the death of children is a good thing because that way they can't grow up to become evil is abhorrent and counterproductive to community and society as a whole. You might disagree with the abhorrent bit because you believe in salvation and life after death and all that but it is a fact that children dying, especially en masse, is counterproductive to community and society.

What is known of God? I know there's a lot of conjecture and stories, but logically reducing all of that and recognizing it for what it is (opinions from different people about God), what is known? Why should we consider John's opinion, or that of Samuel anymore seriously than we consider modern day theologians opinions? Why consider the author's currently listed in the Bible anymore seriously than we should consider my own opinion of God? Because Timothy says the Bible is absolutely true? How can we be sure that's not just his opinion? We know Matthew was wrong when he said that hundreds or thousands of dead people were resurrected at the time of Jesus' resurrection. Even you have to agree that that didn't happen. The other gospel author's didn't mention it, no other writer at the time mentions it, it's just one comment from one guy that describes an absolutely huge fantastic event which went unnoticed by everyone else.

So what do we know of God? What about what we know makes it probable that kids dying is a good thing?

Good excuse not to debate, though. His adoring fans loved it. I actually appreciated his humor. But it is an excuse nonetheless.[/qupte]

Of course it is, any reason provided to not do something is an excuse, that doesn't mean it is an unwarranted excuse. Why don't I go sell drugs? Because there is a risk of fine's and gaol, also, I don't want to sell drugs, they are devastating to the community at large and very capable of destroying lives. Here is where you could reply, "that's an excuse." Yeah it is, and a damn good one.

I could care less for Dawkins and why he does or doesn't debate people.

I will give you a couple of scientific discoveries to consider, FT, and you can tell me if they are scientific or not:

Turbidity Currents: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/turbidity.html

If you can tell me why I think this is relevant to a global flood we can discuss it in more detail. I would also like to know the general view of Geologists in regards to turbidity currents, which should be fairly easy for you, who also know all that creation science offers up, to do.

Then apply turbidity currents to polystrate fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Seems to me that these secular sources give a good reasdon to see evidence of a flood that was quite considerable.

But of course this is not a scientific position, right? No science involved here.

I don't debate links, quote the material you want me to consider, I'm not reading a whole web page to find out you only wanted me to consider 2 or 3 paragraph's.

In fact, I've never even heard of professionals in any field that actually agree with what creationist say about those respective fields. Biology, geology, astronomy, etc.

Perhaps your focus of inquiry is limited?

Could be, but it's a well known fact, creationism is held by most modern day scientists as primitive and false. People working within these professional fields have all of this evidence and experience that the world is 4 billion years old, etc. Creationists who mostly do not work in any scientific field and when they do it's not the appropriate scientific field (chemist says geologists have it wrong) come a long and tell them that the Bible says this and if we consider magic and a canopy of water and people living to be 1,000 and animals talking and fitting on a ridiculously small ship then God is real and all scientific fields are wrong about the way the world works and the entirety of their professional career(remember, this is coming from people who do not work in these fields). It's laughable.

Creationism used to be accepted scientifically and socially, our societies (England, America, Australia) were largely Christian, everyone believed it literally, there was no alternative, there was no real scientific information saying how everything came to be the way it is. Then as work in all of the scientific fields progressed, it was uncovered that the world is older than many people used to believe it to be. The old idea was gradually shown to be wrong. Creationists used to have the leading accepted theory, and now they don't. It wasn't even a large fight, many of the scientists who uncovered the evidence were creationists prior to learning that they were wrong about how they thought the world came to be the way it is. Christians were at the forefront of science in this time. Muslims were at the forefront during the dark ages. Atheism is new by comparison, atheists played no real part in throwing out creationism, Christians did.

Anyone who says "evolution is nothing more than a theory" clearly doesn't know what a theory in science is, if they did, they wouldn't use those words.

I am familiar with scientific theory, however, theory in regards to Evolution is reduced to the basest meaning of theory, in that it is a conclusion seeking out facts and interpreting the "evidence" as fitting the theory.

This is false.

What do you take theory to mean?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." [ref]

A scientific theory is an explanation. It explains the way something works.

"nothing more than a theory". Just like the theory of gravity is "nothing more than a theory".

Not exactly. THere is that which we can determine about gravity that is accepted by most. We give the term "law of gravity" which few will argue.

Gravitational Time Dilation is a theory associated with Gravitational Theory.

But theory when used in regards to Evolution takes on a base meaning which cannot, in the view of some, be viewed as an irrefutable fact. If you drop something, it will fall. If you change the conditions men live under...they will become a different animal.

Two entirely different things using the same word to describe something.

Kind of like "jealousy." Two kinds of jealousy, one good, one bad.

This is false, the law of gravity is different to the theory of gravity.

"In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream."

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."[ref]

And this is what I meant when I said you do not understand what the terms mean when you use them. Everything that is an accepted fact scientifically has a theory to explain it. To say something is "just a theory" does not make sense, it is an incorrect use of the term when considering science. Fact, law and theory each mean different things, and all accepted facts and laws have theories to explain them.

You've probably heard this response a hundred times, I've seen it posted a hundred times to creationists, if you have, what about scientific theories do you not understand?

Not a thing. It's promoting Evolution as a law that I disagree with. A theory is a theory until proven, correct? Show me proof that man was not created in the form he is in today regardless of his ability to adapt to external conditions and climates. You can't do it, but I am sure you will tell me how ignorant it is to blieve this.

If the theory of evolution were more than a theory, what would it be?

It would be law, FT.

It would be fact.

It is a fact, it is an accepted scientific fact. The theory of Evolution works to explain the fact of evolution. There is no scientific doubt that it happened, it is common knowledge that it happened, there is debate about specific details of it's happening, processes of how it happened, time frame's of when what happened and where. There is no debate about whether it happened, not in the scientific community at least.

If I theorize that sedimentary layering can be accomplished in minutes, hours, and days, instead of the necessity for millions of years, and then evidence of this taking place within the very conditions that would have existed in a flood, it may still leave me to theorize because I am not a witness, but it is as reasonable a belief as that it did not happen.

Not according to known science. It is not reasonable to believe it in the face of the entire professional fields that work in these environments and collect the data.

...I believe the reason we do not employ the full use of our brain to be a result of man having lesseened from what he was when originally created. But I cannot say that there are not those that even if by accident may be tapping into something that the rest of us cannot.

To keep the theme going, your belief's concerning brain usage are also ignorant. The reason not all of the brain is used at every given moment is because certain parts of the brain perform specific tasks and not all tasks need to be performed simultaneously, it would be wasting energy and generating excess heat in our skull if we were using all of our brain to complete something only 5% of our brain is useful for.

I have no problem being considered ignorant, FT, do you?

Yes, I generally do not ignore things, people that consider me ignorant and especially those that tell myself and others that I am ignorant kinda get's under my skin. What is it that I ignored? What is it that I should know but don't? I want to find out and fix it.

you propose (the Bible is true) the cause for our deteriorated abilities is that we are all the product of incest, massive amounts of incest.

Intermarrying at initial creation and after the flood would have been limited. It does not take long for a family to have an incredible number of descendants. This was something that was a necessity at the time but was not meant to be the norm, and it is likely that this practice is now limited because of issues that arise from intermarriage and breeding.

Indeed, two parents can have 20 kids and then all of those kids commit incest, and their kids, and their kids. 50 organisms is what is required to continue on a species. 50 organisms that are not closely related. The gene pool is too small if there are less organisms (its possible the species could get a way with 40 but you wouldn't want to go much smaller). On a short term scale, such as the lifetime of human generations, the gene pool will get smaller and smaller as more inbreeding occurs. Deformities will come about, genetic diseases and when more inbreeding occurs around that, it just gets worse. No. 2 people cannot procreate to repopulate a species, there needs to be a lot more.

I suggest that the cause for man's deterioration is SIN, and that he is under the same curse as the very world is under. Man was created quite the specimen, having a rule over creation, and now that rule is hard won. He is not at peace with nature, he has to work to survive, and he does not live as long as it is said that man once did in scripture.

That is my belief. part of it, anyway.

And you are welcome to it. If man was capable of more back in the day and he is not now and at some point, the human population was reduced to one family (or two, or ten), it would be a pretty safe bet that the reason we are not as capable today is due to the inbreeding that occurred then. Too much of the gene pool was lost when the rest of humanity perished and did not procreate, leaving a selective gene pool that deteriorated as inbreeding occurred every generation. That's the problem with inbreeding, the gene pool is too small, and there is no other genes to put in it because all of the genes in the new kids are the same genes in the parents, no new genes are added as no-one they have sex with came from a different family, a different set of parents.

Such abilities would invalidate much of what we know.

Bingo!

Hence, it is pseudoscience. It's just easier that way, right?

Easier or not, it's irrelevent. We know certain things about the way the world works and the way humans operate. "Moving things with your mind" is not among that knowledge and it invalidates everything known. Also there's the lack of evidence of such abilities. The power one would be able to command with such abilities is simply not present in society, if such powers existed, it would be present.

If ever a potential conclusion is "magic", it's probably not going to happen.

As far as magic goes, is it magic that those that are prayed for heal faster than those that are not? Even if we ascribed this to something as mundane as the power of positive thinking it still evidences results that fall closer to what I believe than what you have expressed.

How so?

There is nothing inconsistent with the proposition that God does not exist, in the exact same way that pixies don't exist, or some other supernatural proposition.

Would you die for science?

What does that even mean?

How invested are you in your belief system? If you knew that you could conduct research that would cure a disease, though you risked death...would you do it?

I don't do hypotheticals, they're silly

So would you risk your life for the benefit of scientific progress?

Depends on the benefits.

[Ooberman]

Even if he could show by science there was a global flood, it doesn't prove his God. It's a red herring.

Besides, he is not qualified to make connections between certain things (like turbidity) and the Global Flood.

He's like a child trying to tell you why the computer network is down at IBM.

[S.T. Ranger]

I supplied a few links which I think evidence a flood, would you care to respond to that part of my post?

Are you talking about the stuff about turbidity and polystrate fossils? Can you explain how you've combined those two things? "Apply turbidity currents to polystrate fossils" isn't going to cut it.

And why is that?

God bless.

[S.T. Ranger]

Even if he could show by science there was a global flood, it doesn't prove his God. It's a red herring.

Besides, he is not qualified to make connections between certain things (like turbidity) and the Global Flood.

He's like a child trying to tell you why the computer network is down at IBM.

This coming from someone with an apparent affection for Spinal Tap. By the way, you know they are not a real band, right? lol

Just kidding.

You seem to miss the point. And you make the point while doing this: it wouldn't matter if there were absolute proof that there was a Global Flood, or even if proof of God existed, you, like many in the "scientific" community...just do not want to believe. And this is human nature, not to want to be subject to anyone but self.

The "evidence" is interpreted to be what one wants it to be. Right now, those that are held to be authorities in the scientific community declare what the evidence means. Just like the Catholic Church declared what scripture meant for so many years. The parallel is there, but it is not understood.

Besides, he is not qualified to make connections between certain things (like turbidity) and the Global Flood.

I agree with this for the most part. However, for someone to say that momentous water events cannot explain sedimentary layering is just ridiculous. However, while your faith may rely on the apologetics of the scientific community, mine does not. I have no desire to prove there is a God...not my Job. And if you want to ignore the fact that the scientific community wields it's power to restrain and bury research that might call both their understanding and tactics into question...jolly good for you. Have at it.

All I suggest is that perhaps you consider the possibility that the whole truth is not being given attention.

God bless.

[Ooberman]

You seem to miss the point. And you make the point while doing this: it wouldn't matter if there were absolute proof that there was a Global Flood, or even if proof of God existed, you, like many in the "scientific" community...just do not want to believe. And this is human nature, not to want to be subject to anyone but self.

The "evidence" is interpreted to be what one wants it to be. Right now, those that are held to be authorities in the scientific community declare what the evidence means. Just like the Catholic Church declared what scripture meant for so many years. The parallel is there, but it is not understood.

The evidence I have, personally, is that an ancient book claims there was a global flood (written during a time when they couldn't have known if it was truly global), and the vast weight of the scientific community that disagrees.

Many of the scientific community are Christian. There are a few Christians who believe there was a flood based on that ancient book, and 99% are not scientists.

I like my odds of being right.

But even if I'm not, a Global flood doesn't prove your God.

If you have other evidence, bring it on.

Besides, he is not qualified to make connections between certain things (like turbidity) and the Global Flood.

I agree with this for the most part. However, for someone to say that momentous water events cannot explain sedimentary layering is just ridiculous. However, while your faith may rely on the apologetics of the scientific community, mine does not. I have no desire to prove there is a God...not my Job. And if you want to ignore the fact that the scientific community wields it's power to restrain and bury research that might call both their understanding and tactics into question...jolly good for you. Have at it.

All I suggest is that perhaps you consider the possibility that the whole truth is not being given attention.

God bless.

I agree with my comment completely. This has nothing to do with "faith" or anything else.

It has to do with areas of expertise you and I simply do not have.

Didn't your father tell you to only talk about things you know about? I was always told that if I don't know something, don't pretend I do.

You are pretending to know more than the vast majority of scientists who need to do a good job in order to feed their family. If you don't think this is, at last, a base level for accepting scientists know what they are doing, I don't know what standard you use.

Why, if scientists are so wrong on this, why do they continue to thrive in the profession - including making new discoveries based on their knowledge (knowledge that doesn't include a global flood)?


The problem, Ranger, is that you are taking a wildly unpopular and unscientific position and you are only offering a few anomalies that don't prove your case, but would only be somewhat consistent if your view was correct. However, it represents such a minor amount of the available data.

I will no longer discuss this with you, any more than I would discuss a flat Earth with someone.

If you are right, good for you, but you aren't.

[S.T. Ranger]

You seem to miss the point. And you make the point while doing this: it wouldn't matter if there were absolute proof that there was a Global Flood, or even if proof of God existed, you, like many in the "scientific" community...just do not want to believe. And this is human nature, not to want to be subject to anyone but self.

The "evidence" is interpreted to be what one wants it to be. Right now, those that are held to be authorities in the scientific community declare what the evidence means. Just like the Catholic Church declared what scripture meant for so many years. The parallel is there, but it is not understood.

The evidence I have, personally, is that an ancient book claims there was a global flood (written during a time when they couldn't have known if it was truly global), and the vast weight of the scientific community that disagrees.

Many of the scientific community are Christian. There are a few Christians who believe there was a flood based on that ancient book, and 99% are not scientists.

I like my odds of being right.

But even if I'm not, a Global flood doesn't prove your God.

If you have other evidence, bring it on.

Besides, he is not qualified to make connections between certain things (like turbidity) and the Global Flood.

I agree with this for the most part. However, for someone to say that momentous water events cannot explain sedimentary layering is just ridiculous. However, while your faith may rely on the apologetics of the scientific community, mine does not. I have no desire to prove there is a God...not my Job. And if you want to ignore the fact that the scientific community wields it's power to restrain and bury research that might call both their understanding and tactics into question...jolly good for you. Have at it.

All I suggest is that perhaps you consider the possibility that the whole truth is not being given attention.

God bless.

I agree with my comment completely. This has nothing to do with "faith" or anything else.

It has to do with areas of expertise you and I simply do not have.

Didn't your father tell you to only talk about things you know about? I was always told that if I don't know something, don't pretend I do.

You are pretending to know more than the vast majority of scientists who need to do a good job in order to feed their family. If you don't think this is, at last, a base level for accepting scientists know what they are doing, I don't know what standard you use.

Why, if scientists are so wrong on this, why do they continue to thrive in the profession - including making new discoveries based on their knowledge (knowledge that doesn't include a global flood)?


The problem, Ranger, is that you are taking a wildly unpopular and unscientific position and you are only offering a few anomalies that don't prove your case, but would only be somewhat consistent if your view was correct. However, it represents such a minor amount of the available data.

I will no longer discuss this with you, any more than I would discuss a flat Earth with someone.

If you are right, good for you, but you aren't.

Fair enough, Ooberman. I have no intention of trying to prove God's existence to anyone, nor do I think, as I said, that any evidence can do that. Scripture is clear that faith comes through the word of God through the convicting ministry of the Comforter, and that is His job, not mine.

As far as the scientific angle goes, just as in theological circles popularity and power of particular doctrine makes it no more true than swimming makes one a fish. It is a matter of advertising. I wonder how many anomalies might arise should the bias of the scientific community be lessened and the abilities of scientific research be invested in examining areas that are, according to some in the scientific community...shut out.

Nice talking with you, though.

God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

Ranger, if you'd read up on the history of modern geology (starting with, say, Nicolas Steno), you'd find your implication that old-Earth gradualism is a contemporary invention of god-hating atheist usurpers to be wholly without foundation. The very observations and conclusions that refute catastrophism owe much to the principles outlined by Hutton and Lyell, Christians both (although Hutton is best described as unorthodox).

Frankly, you seem to be a religious science-denier of the rather predictable ilk: Only those ideas which conflict with the Biblical principles in which you're emotionally invested deserve extreme scrutiny and backhanded conspiracy theorizing.

[S.T. Ranger]

Ranger, if you'd read up on the history of modern geology (starting with, say, Nicolas Steno), you'd find your implication that old-Earth gradualism is a contemporary invention of god-hating atheist usurpers to be wholly without foundation. The very observations and conclusions that refute catastrophism owe much to the principles outlined by Hutton and Lyell, Christians both (although Hutton is best described as unorthodox).

Frankly, you seem to be a religious science-denier of the rather predictable ilk: Only those ideas which conflict with the Biblical principles in which you're emotionally invested deserve extreme scrutiny and backhanded conspiracy theorizing.

The problem with that, Philo, is that I have not focused on how the popular opinion has arrived, but where it is at today. Another would be that I am not a "science-denier," nor am I religious in the sense you use the word.

I have, however, pointed out on a number of occasions the religiosity of many that consider science to be their god.

You point me to literature that in your mind should clear up my ignorance, yet I wonder if you can embrace the science of these guys, why not their faith? I have noted before myself that science owes a great debt to a great many Christians that paved the way for technological advance. SO the charge that I deny or hate science is simply not valid. As a matter of fact, I deal with with technology every day...that is how I earn a living.

You denied turbidity and polystrate fossils as relevant to the Flood. Again, I ask you...why? Can you deny the possibility that sedimentary layers are a result of cataclysmic flooding? Rather than a gradual accumulation? How would you explain fully formed trees within those layers?

But, as I said, while it is interesting, it does not play a key role, or really, even a nominal role, in my faith. I believed in Christ long before the evolution/creation debate was considered. And as fascinating as it all is, I can at least be honest enough to recognize that just as in my study of scripture, mankind has a long way to go concerning explaining this universe.

That is just the sort of ilk I am.

You guys have fun discussing the whingdingdilly.

God bless.