See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:EiraG

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

G'day EiraG, and welcome to aSK. We are glad to have you contribute. For more information about aSK, see our About statement. Please see the rules and regulations as soon as you can.
The following links are also useful.


Contents

Membership nomination

EiraG has been nominated for membership.

  • If you support this nomination, please add your vote below, on a new line (before the '}}' characters) in the form * '''Support''' ~~~~. If you would like to make further brief comment, you can add that on the same line. In addition, increase the votes parameter of this macro by one.
  • If you oppose this nomination, please indicate that in the same format, except use the word Oppose instead. In this case, do not alter the votes parameter.

Note: Before voting, familiarise yourself with the membership requirements. You must be a Member (or Senior member) in order to vote.

Falsifiability

I'm trying to stay away from here—can't believe I sucked myself in today—but if you want to read about Philip's views on falsifiability, I suggest here and here. He and to an extent Bradley have trouble not conflating falsifiable vs falsified vs updating a theory with evidence. (We discovered evidence against the Bohr model. All atomic theory is trash!) There's probably more around here, too. Good luck. Sterile 03:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... ? --Eira Geneth Talk 03:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
He'd say you're welcome if he bothered looking at this cesspit very frequently anymore. It's not really worth it, Eira. Philip will NEVER concede defeat in a discussion of any topic critical to his biblical worldview. I have never once seen him admit he was wrong about such a core fact. What I have seen is what you gotten involved in: endless splintering of discussions by nitpicking minutiae farther and farther and farther away from the point, goalpost moving, changing the subject, etc. I would suggest not wasting time engaging in any substantive discussion with the creationists here with any expectation that you're going to arrive at a sensible consensus on anything material, but simply use this website as a forum for exposing their methods so wiki-savvy people can make up their own minds about creationists, as this website has less to do with creationism than the behavior of creationists here defending it. It's certainly not an encyclopedia or a source of general information one can confidently rely on. And there are better, far more objective sources on creationism itself elsewhere. Teh Terrible Asp 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never once seen him admit he was wrong about such a core fact Therein lies the rub. Philip has concluded that certain core facts are true. Detractors claim otherwise and then question/attack Philip's integrity and sanity because he still disagrees with them (some RatWikians have themselves pointed this out).
this website has less to do with creationism A fundamental flaw in the RatWikian approach is to consider aSK as being about creationism. It's not.
far more objective sources on creationism itself Anti instead of pro is not more objective. LowKey 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Creationists can make honest and consistent arguments. The axiom that the Bible is Absolute Truth is not automatically wrong, or fallacious, regardless of my opinion on its truth value. While I understand that you don't find merit in the arguments that I've had, I am totally keen to do them... someone has to, right? But yeah, it would be totally cool, if we could argue one details that are more substantive, but creationists find it difficult to argue at such a level, because they would have to acknowledge being wrong occasionally. --Eira Geneth Talk 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I am certainly wrong occasionally (at least), and I am usually quick to acknowledge it when I am. From my experience, part of the focus on details has arisen because historically if a detail is not addressed then that detail is invoked as the substantive one that had to be addressed. LowKey 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Creationists certainly can make honest and consistent arguments. It's just not what I see from those who advocate "creation science," such as the CMI, AiG, and CRS crowd. The axiom that the bible is absolute truth is not automatically wrong - it's a testable proposition that's been shown to be false empiracally, sans the equivocation that these biblical literalists make about "worldview" and what they call "assumptions." So yeah, I already made my point about the only value I can spot in having a conversation with these creationists. They can't admit when they're wrong about matters central to their "biblical worldview." Teh Terrible Asp 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
[Creationists] can't admit when they're wrong about matters central to their "biblical worldview." Of course the flipside of this is that non-creationists can't admit that creationists are not wrong about these matters. Which is correct depends on one's own perspective. Particularly, it's a testable proposition that's been shown to be false empirically (which is foundational) is a false claim (at the very least it is here unsupported and unspecified).LowKey 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed (and you're welcome). Actually, I would read creation-evolution controversy and its talk page, which give you the biggest clue into Philip's mindset. It's really not worth it. Sterile 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not get all upset about a new article... I know PJR's argument style, I practice it well. --Eira Geneth Talk 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is an implicit assumption in science that the natural world and physical evidence is all that is reality. And this plays into a fundamental problem between creationists and evolutionists in their arguments. The creationist assumes as a first premise that the Bible is inerrant, and the evolutionist refuses to argue from this premise. On the other hand the evolutionist assumes as a first premise that we can experiment in the world, and establish valid fact through this method, and the creationist refuses to argue from this premise. So both sides end up arguing past each other, each saying that the other is "obviously flawed". I raised this point to PJR... that arguing that "The Bible says so" is an unconvincing argument to non-believers. --Eira Geneth Talk 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
there is an implicit assumption in science that the natural world and physical evidence is all that is reality. There is currently such an assumption in naturalistic science. The explicit assumption is that anything beyond "the natural world and physical evidence" is untestable and therefore scientifically void but philosophical materialism is implicit, as you indicate. LowKey 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well put. Since I'm on the side of naturalistic science, I can easily fail to miss the implicit parts in some of my definitions, e.g. "naturalistic science" vs. "science". My naturalistic worldview dictates this. --Eira Geneth Talk 02:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that those who are religious yet adhere scrupulously to knowledge gained from the scientific method adhere to the tradition of Einstein (after Spinoza):

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.

It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

[1]

Or maybe Sagan:

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

—Carl Sagan, "Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark

I think what challenges my belief that creationists are debating legitamitely is the denialistic aspect of creationism: the tenet that God created the universe 6000 years ago including the diversity of life, followed by a flood 4000 years ago, with a savior ark preserving kinds. That severely bothers me. But if you belief in God based on faith and faith alone (none of this "evidence" stuff) and do not impose it on others (The proselytizing nature of Christanity presents a problem), then I have no particular problem with it, nor can I say whether or not the supernatural had any role in the big bang, evolution, etc.

The other problem I have with creationism is the demonization of science and scientists as a means of denial, which I find repulsive.

As for Philip, he has systematic ways of avoiding his cognitive dissonance: applying the false dichotomy of creationism vs. evolution, not answering a question that is not his but complaining when his opponent does the same, pointing out the most minor quibbles with evolutionary theory while ignoring its overall structure, ignoring natural selection while focussing on mutations, redefining inconvenient terms (or just not defining them and then change meanings every other use), etc. (What Asp said.) Often times he's so butchered science and argument that it's difficult to separate the parts, and to be quite frank, it's no longer worth the time. It's difficult to discuss a concept on even ground with someone like that, which is why most have given up. Sterile 02:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip will NEVER concede defeat in a discussion of any topic critical to his biblical worldview. Unlike evolutionists who will readily concede defeat on topics critical to evolution, I suppose?
...creationists find it difficult to argue at such a level [more substantive], because they would have to acknowledge being wrong occasionally. Ummmm, yet you've admitted having this same propensity. So why is this a fault for creationists but not for non-creationists. Further, I have acknowledged being wrong occasionally.
Creationists certainly can make honest and consistent arguments. It's just not what I see from those who advocate "creation science," such as the CMI, AiG, and CRS crowd. I see. The only creationists who can make honest and consistent arguments are those that are not normally meant by "creationists".
The axiom that the bible is absolute truth is not automatically wrong - it's a testable proposition that's been shown to be false empiracally... EiraG has already claimed that creationism is not falsifiable, so how long will it take for him to take issue with this claim? I won't hold my breath.
On the other hand the evolutionist assumes as a first premise that we can experiment in the world, and establish valid fact through this method, and the creationist refuses to argue from this premise. It is false that a creationist refuses to argue from this premise. This premise is, historically, based on the premise that God has created a world that is amenable to being investigated in this way. See Science#Philosophy. What creationists reject is that this is the only way to establish valid facts.
I think what challenges my belief that creationists are debating legitamitely is the denialistic aspect of creationism: the tenet that God created the universe 6000 years ago including the diversity of life, followed by a flood 4000 years ago, with a savior ark preserving kinds. So what, in those examples, is being denied? And how is creationists denying evolution any more "denialistic" than evolutionists denying creation?
But if you belief in God based on faith and faith alone (none of this "evidence" stuff) and do not impose it on others (The proselytizing nature of Christanity presents a problem), then I have no particular problem with it... As an aside, this is something that creationists have long noticed and wish that compromising Christians would notice: that atheists try to marginalise "religion" to being something that has nothing to do with the real world, but strenuously objects to any form of non-atheistic religion (such as creationism) that claims that it has relevance to reality.
The other problem I have with creationism is the demonization of science and scientists as a means of denial, which I find repulsive. And one of the problems I have with anti-creationists is promulgation of this myth that we are demonising science and scientists. Creationists' many statements in support of science, plus that creation scientists are scientists, shows the utter falsity of this claim, but that doesn't stop anticreationists repeating this false claim ad nauseum.
As for Philip, he has systematic ways of avoiding his cognitive dissonance: applying the false dichotomy of creationism vs. evolution, not answering a question that is not his but complaining when his opponent does the same, pointing out the most minor quibbles with evolutionary theory while ignoring its overall structure, ignoring natural selection while focussing on mutations, redefining inconvenient terms (or just not defining them and then change meanings every other use), etc. Please provide evidence of each of these accusations.
Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
EiraG has already claimed that creationism is not falsifiable, so how long will it take for him to take issue with this claim? I won't hold my breath. PJR, I am a female. I'll just assume on good faith that you, like everyone else assume that there are no women on the internet. Next up a quote from a recent contribution by me: You're totally spot on that some aspects of creationism can be falsified. However, the apparent age of the Earth could simply be a misinterpretation of facts. (You would assert as much, correct?) The Christian god could totally make the Earth to look old, thus there is no falsification of creation under a Biblical worldview. This "falsification" is based entirely upon the assertion that the evidence we witness in the real world is inerrant, and unable to be misinterpreted.[2]
So, to reiterate to ensure better clarity: creationism is not falsifiable. The claim is that some parts of creationism can be disproven. Thus must fail as it begs the question. As the claims of falsification require the assumption of a 100% naturalistic view of the world, which automatically excludes an omnipotent creator.
It is false that a creationist refuses to argue from this premise. This premise is, historically, based on the premise that God has created a world that is amenable to being investigated in this way. See Science#Philosophy. What creationists reject is that this is the only way to establish valid facts. Fair point, I suppose I should explain that I was attempting to point out what held the specific trump card in the scientific philosophy of each side. To the naturalist, empirical evidence and our best interpretations of them dictate fact, to a creationist, the Biblical worldview provides the best interpretation (it's the literal words of the Christian god, of course it's the best interpretation), and thus any interpretation of empirical evidence that contradicts the explicit word of the Christian god is thus invalid.
And jumping into an argument that isn't mine: Unlike evolutionists who will readily concede defeat on topics critical to evolution, I suppose? Not all of them, but yes. Even though every group of people has people who do bad things, it doesn't mean "Evolutionists" as a whole are incapable of civil discourse. In fact, I've reworded a number of assertions to make stronger more valid arguments for your side. A true master of debate is able to argue his opponent's position, and offer critic and assistance in the development of that position. My personal beliefs are less important than ensuring that your arguments are consistent, valid, and honest.
--Eira Geneth Talk 15:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
PJR, I am a female. I'll just assume on good faith that you, like everyone else assume that there are no women on the internet. I do not assume that. Rather, the so-called "male" pronouns have traditionally been used in a gender-neutral way, so when I don't know the gender of someone, I use these gender-neutral terms. Note also that "God created man ...male and female" (Genesis 1:27).
So, to reiterate to ensure better clarity: creationism is not falsifiable. So you stand by your claim, contrary to Teh Terrible Asp's claim. Yet you seem to take issue with me, not him. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath.
...claims of falsification require the assumption of a 100% naturalistic view... Huh?
To the naturalist, empirical evidence and our best interpretations of them dictate fact... Well, that's what they say, but then that principle is cannot be derived from empirical evidence, which means that it is self-refuting.
Not all of them, but yes. Sorry? Are you saying that creationists are wrong for refusing to admit they are wrong, but evolutionists are okay because they do admit they are wrong?
...it doesn't mean "Evolutionists" as a whole are incapable of civil discourse. I've never claimed otherwise. I was highlighting how creationists are criticised for doing the exact same thing that evolutionists do—hold fast to their core beliefs.
I've reworded a number of assertions to make stronger more valid arguments for your side. Agreed (at least it was clear that this is what you were attempting; whether or not you succeeded is another matter). However, my comment was not about you personally.
Philip J. Rayment 09:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not assume that. Rather, the so-called "male" pronouns have traditionally been used in a gender-neutral way... Yes, I know all this. I study linguistics. However, I'm frustrated sometimes by the presumption of male gender inherent in English. I sometimes take this out inappropriately.
So you stand by your claim, contrary to Teh Terrible Asp's claim. Yet you seem to take issue with me, not him. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath. Well, if you're going to claim that creationism is falsifiable, then I will take issue with you. But I also take issue with Teh Terrible Asp, because he claims that it is falsifiable, and has been falsified. Such an assertion is demonstrably wrong.
Huh? The falsification of creationism requires the assumption that our interpretation of naturalistic evidence is correct. This requires the presumption that an omnipotent God has not "interfered" (intended use without negative connotation) with anything.
Why am I explaining the "Begging the Question" fallacy to you? It's one of the most basic fallacies. It is the situation where your argument requires the presumption of the initial premise to prove the argument. Example: "Creationism is false. I know it's false, because the world is older than 6,000 years old. That an omnipotent god could have manufactured the evidence is unavailing, because such a thing doesn't exist... Now, completely ignore that I just had to assert that Creationism is false to make such a claim."
Well, that's what they say, but then that principle is cannot be derived from empirical evidence, which means that it is self-refuting. Yes. My statement is "that's what they say". The principle is however not self-refuting. It's called an "axiom". An unprovable assertion taken as an apparent truth. (In Math "1+1=2" is an axiom. You can't prove that it's true, but it's true, because arguing it would make you look like a fool.)
This last statement kind of works better than I would imagine. Creationists assert that not holding the Bible to be inerrant truth makes you a fool. Evolutionists assert that doubting physical evidence suggesting evolution makes you a fool.
Sorry? Are you saying that creationists are wrong for refusing to admit they are wrong, but evolutionists are okay because they do admit they are wrong? As you argued in the "deception" thread... being honest about dishonesty is not dishonest. Admitting when you're wrong is a fundamentally necessary part of being honest. I believe Judeo-Christianity keeps a tenant of "Thou shalt not bear false witness", which demands honesty of followers. If you know you are wrong about something, then admit it openly, repent, and move on.
I've never claimed otherwise. I was highlighting how creationists are criticised for doing the exact same thing that evolutionists do—hold fast to their core beliefs. Evolutionists have already admitted that their view of evolution is wrong. Darwin was long about a lot of things with regards to evolution. We have however refined the errors that he made, and fixed things. Note: Newton was also wrong about a lot of things with regards to physics. So, when someone points out that evolution is falsifiable, and you admit evolution is hypothetically, and they points out that hypothetically falsifiable is falsifiable, then the proper response is "oh. I get it now. I was confused." Anything less is being dishonest. There's a difference between holding fast to one's belief, and denying falsification.
However, my comment was not about you personally. I started off the section by saying "I'm sticking my nose into a conversation not about me. I know it wasn't about me, but when you talk about "evolutionists" in the generic sense, then you do address me because I am an evolutionist. So you can't say that all evolutionists don't admit when they're wrong... which is what you implied with your statement.
--Eira Geneth Talk 05:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
But I also take issue with Teh Terrible Asp, because he claims that it is falsifiable, and has been falsified. The problem is that I haven't seen you "take issue with" him in any real sense of the phrase. You mention it here, but I've not seen you debate the point with him like you debate the point with me.
Why am I explaining the "Begging the Question" fallacy to you? I understand the fallacy; I just didn't understand what you were getting at in your earlier comment. It seemed like you were saying that you have to view things naturalistically in order to falsify creation; i.e. that falsification was not possible without assuming naturalism.
he principle is however not self-refuting. Your earlier comment was not totally clear, but it is self-refuting if by it you mean that anything that does not have empirical evidence is not taken as fact.
Creationists assert that not holding the Bible to be inerrant truth makes you a fool. I've not heard any claim that exactly.
Admitting when you're wrong is a fundamentally necessary part of being honest. Only if you are wrong. I know you know what question-begging is, so I won't explain it! :-)
Evolutionists have already admitted that their view of evolution is wrong. They haven't rejected evolution, nor the naturalism that it is based on. The criticism was about core beliefs, not peripheral points. Admittedly, what is "core" and what is not has not here been defined, but then that's the point; creationists were accused of not being willing to reject their core beliefs without that being defined. And for the record, creationists have rejected beliefs they once held that were considered to be pretty certain, such as the vapour canopy claim.
So, when someone points out that evolution is falsifiable, and you admit evolution is hypothetically, and they points out that hypothetically falsifiable is falsifiable, then the proper response is "oh. I get it now. I was confused." Anything less is being dishonest. It is not dishonest if that is not the proper response, and your assertion that "hypothetically falsifiable is falsifiable" is not self-evidently true, and is disputed. What is not honest is to accuse someone of dishonesty when they have an honest disagreement with you.
...when you talk about "evolutionists" in the generic sense, then you do address me because I am an evolutionist. A general statement does not exclude there being exceptions to the generalisation. If I say that "people have two legs", I'm not talking about you specifically, who may well only have one leg for all I know.
Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I've not heard any claim that exactly. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalms 14:1.
The problem is that I haven't seen you "take issue with" him in any real sense of the phrase. You mention it here, but I've not seen you debate the point with him like you debate the point with me. Is this better? If you wonder why I don't debate it with him, like I do with you, I don't have to be excruciatingly pedantic.
Your earlier comment was not totally clear, but it is self-refuting if by it you mean that anything that does not have empirical evidence is not taken as fact. No, that's not what I'm saying. "The natural world works through entirely natural means" is an axiom, and ascribes no level of proof necessary for statements to be true. It is a description of the fundamental axiom of naturalism. "The Bible is the inerrant Word of God" is not self-refuting either. Of course, it asserts its own truth, with makes the claim self-affirming (It Begs the Question), but this does not make it false. It simply makes that argument for its truth to be unavailing.
They haven't rejected evolution, nor the naturalism that it is based on. but wait, Only if you are wrong. I know you know what question-begging is, so I won't explain it! :-) Inconsistency is the sign of poor ad hoc reasoning.
And for the record, creationists have rejected beliefs they once held that were considered to be pretty certain, such as the vapour canopy claim. Awesome. So, both sides accept that the other side can admit error. Now, can we work on you admitting without equivocation when you have erred?
your assertion that "hypothetically falsifiable is falsifiable" is not self-evidently true, and is disputed. Ok, let me be exactly precise here. Falsifiable: adj. Something that can be falsified. If one can imagine some way that a theory could be falsified, then that theory is "hypothetically falsifiable". But if one can imagine how something can be falsified, then it can be falsified, and thus is falsifiable.
Example: our theory of gravity asserts broadly that objects of mass attract each other through the force of "gravitation". Such a theory could hypothetically be falsified if we observed an apple fall up into the sky. But our universe doesn't work that way, and we will never observe this phenomena. However, that we have a result that could prove the theory false makes it able to be falsified, thus falsifiable.
--Eira Geneth Talk 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit break

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalms 14:1. That is God, not creationists, talking about people who reject the existence of God, not who reject the infallibility of the Bible.

Is this better? Yes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. So you accepting that there are things accepted as true that are not empirically verifiable; things that are accepted on faith?

Inconsistency is the sign of poor ad hoc reasoning. However, I was not inconsistent. My first comment was turning Teh Terrible Asp's comment back on him, to point out the bias. My second was to directly point out the fallacy of his comment.

Awesome. So, both sides accept that the other side can admit error. Well, you do, and I do, but I'm not so sure that Teh Terrible Asp does, and again, you took issue with me rather than him.

Now, can we work on you admitting without equivocation when you have erred? You're back to that question-begging.

But if one can imagine how something can be falsified, then it can be falsified, and thus is falsifiable. No, this does not follow. I can imagine how I could fly to the moon, but I can't fly to the moon. Just because something can be imagined doesn't make it possible.

Philip J. Rayment 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not follow. I can imagine how I could fly to the moon, but I can't fly to the moon. Just because something can be imagined doesn't make it possible. I've literally torn off keys from my keyboard from frustration in attempting to ascribe any good-faith justification at all for you making this statement. By making this argument against all definition and accepted discourse, you have lost all credibility in my mind of being capable of honest debate. You can only be arguing this absurd position either because you are too ignorant to understand this topic, or out of a malicious intent to abuse discourse and debate.
The people who started this whole debate made a falsifiable statement that you would never understand, or project understanding about "falsifiable" means. I had high hopes that I could falsify them, and show that you are indeed capable of understanding the meaning of "falsifiable".
However, I am now certain that such an understanding of the definition of a word is completely beyond the physical possibilities of this reality. This can only be explained by either to intellectual, or moral deficiency.
However, being that it is still logically possible that you could acknowledge the DEFINITION of a simple word... (hint it's: "logically possible to falsify", not "physically possible to falsify") I must invite you to falsify our assertion that you are incapable of honest debate. Good Day, Sir. --Eira Geneth Talk 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've literally torn off keys from my keyboard from frustration in attempting to ascribe any good-faith justification at all for you making this statement. I think that says more about you than about Philip. This is quite disturbing, particularly since although you apparently succumbed to a destructive rage over an inability to "ascribe a good faith justification" you listed one twice in that post.
EiraG you seem to have completely missed Philip's point. "Falsifiable" at its most basic simply means "able to be falsified". Imagining a falsifying scenario should mean that something is falsifiable, but only if the falsifying scenario is actually possible. If the falsifying scenario has also been defined as impossible by that which it falsifies, then we have something that is unfalsifiable. One of the problems with declaring evolution falsifiable is that it ignores the fact that none of the critical factors (i.e. those which when falsified falsify the theory as a whole) are objective facts, but subjective interpretations. From the examples discussed "Cambrian" is an interpreted conclusion, not an objective fact. It is possible to forever avoid your falsifying scenario, even though the scenario hypothetically exists. In the context of theories falsifiability is "the property of a theory to possibily be shown false". If that which would show it to be false is imaginable but impossible then the theory has zero possibility to be shown false, and is thus unfalsifiable. The flipside is that even a Cambrian dinosaur was actually accepted, the theory would be "updated". In other words, individual "tenets" may be falsifiable but the theory as a whole is not.
Actually, I think that really is the core of it. What has been hypothesised as falsifying evolution would actually only falsify some specific part, with the theory as a whole being modified but not abandoned. Thus evolution as a whole is not hypothetically justifiable.
I must invite you to falsify our assertion that you are incapable of honest debate. Your "invitation" goes against "accepted discourse" (as you put it) in that a) enlightened society requires accusations to be proven, and b) logically the burden of proof falls to the positive assertion. LowKey 02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Assertions must be proven: "Falsifiable" means "logically possible to be falsified". Therefore, if something, is hypothetically falsifiable, then it is falsifiable by definition. Since my assertion is true by definition, to argue otherwise is either dishonest, or ignorant. Looking through the various posts made by PJR, there is no doubt that he is intelligent and informed, thus only remaining: he must be dishonest. --Eira Geneth Talk 03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Your assertion is true by one definition. To accept that one definition but to argue against it would be dishonest (outside of a formal debate context). To argue against that one definition on the grounds of disagreement with it is not dishonest. I myself have mentioned two other definitions, which I did not make up myself. I have also mentioned that falsifying individual tenets does not falsify the theory. Your "dishonest" conclusion is not justified. LowKey 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
EiraG, you keep repeating your silly assertion that falsifability rests on hypothetical logic alone. It doesn't - falsifaction has to be done in the real world, just like everything else, and if it can't be done in reality, it can't be done. Hypothetically, I could make a number system where 2+2=5, but that isn't going to falsify modern mathematics.
I urge you to take up another line of argument, or better still, abandon all this unproductive talk and help to improve this growing resource, as others here are trying to do.--CPalmer 08:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not my assertion, it is the well-accepted definition in the philosophy of science. What you talk about is true, that falsification must be done in the real world. This is however falsification, and does not refer to the "ability" to falsify a theory. If a theory can be falsified in the real world, then the theory is already false. It's not "falsifiable" it's "falsified". Thus, your proposed fringe definition for "falsifiable" is a bad definition, as it describes nothing new or different from "falsified". It also has the interesting situation in that it makes all non-falsified theories, unfalsifiable. As if we are performing a test seeking to falsify a theory, if the test falsifies the theory, it is thus falsified, and falsifiable (by your definition), and if the test fails to falsify the theory, then the theory is not falsified, and as far as we know not able to be falsified in reality. Thus, the theory of gravity is unfalsifiable, the Germ theory is unfalsifiable, string theory is unfalsifiable (as it's not even logically falsifiable), the theory that there are are four lights, is unfalsifiable. At that point, the term is meaningless. We would then seek a new way to describe "logically possible to be falsified" in order to return to our proper discussion in the philosophy of science.
So, my "assertion" here, is one that your proposed definition not only contradicts the widely-accepted definition of those studying and debating these issues in the greater scientific community, but also is such a poor definition that it produces an identical synonym for a word we already have. --Eira Geneth Talk 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Eira, FYI. Aside: Are you sure that there are four lighs, instead of five?  :) LowKey 02:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
several examples have been given in the past which would effectively falsify the theory of evolution. Rabbit fossils in the precambrian strata (really any mammal), or an example of a crocoduck or other animal that crossed branches of the phylogenic tree. The second would break so much of the theory that it would have to be reformulated.
falsifying evolution does not prove biblical creation however. There are lots of other theories to be considered.
"imagining" falsification scenarios is simple thought experiments. So for the Theory of gravity I can imagine some experiments to test gravity. If I can think up something that falsifies gravity, then I can look at actually performing that experiment, or looking for evidence that some event occured. One test might be a change in orbit as a comet approaches a planet or the sun. If the comet does not alter its path as it passes a planet then what happened to the gravity interaction that theory says must exist ? If you imagine flying to the moon in a realistic , engineering sense, then you could start by mathematically modelling your craft, and determine if you are close in concept. If the statement was originally "man can never fly to the moon" then you have begun falsifying that statement. Hamster 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The platypus didn't seem to break much of the theory. LowKey 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
why would it ? its a monotreme mammal. Hamster 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It's an animal that crossed branches of the phylogenic tree, or at least it did until a new branch was made up for monotremes (even though they have features that must have suddenly disappeared without a trace and just as suddenly reappeared). Apparently the arguments continue about that, anyway. Monotremes have typically mammalian features like hair, lactation, their metabolic rate, their jawbones (although their jaw muscles are not typically mammalian), their inner ears. Unlike all other mammals they are oviparous. The platypus has a typically reptilian gait and an ankle spur (like a bird) that carries venom (completely unlike a bird). It has a typically bird-like bill which uses fish-like (and completely un-bird-like) electroreception. From cladistic point of view both monotremes are all over the map. LowKey 08:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
its bill is not really birdlike except maybe in general shape. It is not hard like a birds bill but rather an extended muzzle covered with a leathery skin. [3] There are also several Echidnas in the monotremes. Hamster 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There are also several Echidnas in the monotremes Actually they all are :) I wasn't excluding echidnae. Fair enough about the bill, but that doesn't nullify the rest. Both of the monotremes have features that amount to evolutionary discontinuities. LowKey 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"Discontinuity" is not an accurate term. The features you describe are not exclusive to their "typical" animals, and the development level of various features clearly fits into the model that suggests that monotremes split from the marsupial/placental animals early. Monotremes do not have nipples, they lactate into small pools, that their children then lap up. This divergent sophistication is indicative of an early divergence. I note that you didn't raise the claim of "bats have wings, but aren't birds" in this argument. Are you then clearly in agreement that it is a mammal, and its features are merely superficially similar to birds? --Eira Geneth Talk 02:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If the features were exclusive to their typical animals then the monotremes wouldn't have them. That has nothing to do discontinuity. Lack of continuity (in evolutionary development) has everyhting to do with discontinuity. Take electroreception (as an example within the example); it is taken to have developed among fish. It then disappeared from the genome of millions of generations and then reappeared in the monotremes (I am including extinct monotremes here). As a feature it is discontinuous (i.e. not continuous). It is wholly present, then wholly absent, then wholly present. Among vertebrates the feature is found in; fish, fish, fish, fish, and monotremes. LowKey 02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I get the argument, and definition that you're making here. Actually, to be truly discontinuous, electroreception would have had to have occurred in an actual ancestor of the platypus, and most fish are no longer very directly related to monotremes. However, even if true, it would be an unconvincing statement, as it would simply be a statement of fact, without implication. More like, "huh, weird, this feature disappeared, then reappeared later." But just like chickens with teeth, not something unexplainable by evolution. --Eira Geneth Talk 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But just like chickens with teeth, not something unexplainable by evolution. And that's one of the problems. Evolution can explain almost anything, and therefore explains nothing, and is therefore unscientific. See Origins science#Falsifiability. Philip J. Rayment 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TODO: Need to address

Please don't argue these points here, I'm putting them here so I remember them and don't forget to address them, like I promised.

Suppose the person who claimed that you were being deceptive had never actually seen a van Gogh? So what they are really saying is, "Your picture is what I think a van Gogh would look like, so you are being deceptive in (mis)leading me into believing that it is one (despite you making clear otherwise by your signature)". Now do you see how ludicrous the criticism is?

That depends on two unstated (but related) assumptions. One is that the examinations and testing are adequate to determine the genuineness with certainty (something that has not been demonstrated in the case of God's creation supposedly looking like evolution), and the other is that we have a genuine $100 bill to compare it against. (emphasis added to remind me of specific relevant assumption to address.)

--Eira Geneth Talk 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning regarding accusation

You have accused all creationists here of "openly dishonest discourse" at your userpage. Demonstrate support for this accusation, or remove it and apologise, or be blocked. We have a process of using 1 second blocks to record warnings, and I will be doing so to record this warning. LowKey 03:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear, really. Creationists deny all science since about 1600, and thus are dishonest. This is a factual statement. ħuman Number 19 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually human, it's not. They're not openly dishonest. LowKey is correct, my accusation is wrong. I have however amended it now, to simply state that they are dishonest. As per the logical argument set forth above, (recap: arguing against definitions is either dishonest or ignorant, and PJR certainly is not the later) I can unequivocal state that he is engaging in dishonest debate. --Eira Geneth Talk 03:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, arguing against a definition is disagreement, and may be perfectly honest. The argument above ignores this. You have not demonstrated dishonesty on the part on one creationist contributor, let alone all of them. I have blocked you for a day. LowKey 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't claim "all of them", I specifically said in the statement that I was blocked for, that "some" engage in this behavior. However, arguing against a well-defined definition that none of us are able to alter, is a tactic similar to "equivocation", where one uses a word, but with a different meaning. In science, "falsifiable" has a very strict definition, which is "logically possible to be falsified", thus intentionally using a different meaning of the word, knowing full well that the established definition is what will be assumed by the audience, is a form of deceptive speech. Deceptive speech is not honest debate.
As a similar example, critics of a Federal income tax, argue that the Constitution required that all direct taxes be apportioned amongst the states by population recorded in the census. Modern law considered income tax to be a direct tax, since it is levied directly upon the person it is taxing, and not indirectly (as as example sales tax). Thus, making the claim that Congress had to pass the 16th Amendment in order to allow them to collect income tax. However, the people making this argument are either not aware, or intentionally confuse the issue that in the constitution "direct tax" meant only one of two things, a tax per head (capitation) or a tax on property. The courts ruled that a tax on income from property was thus a "direct tax" as defined in the Constitutional context, and thus had to be apportioned, which prompted Congress to pass the 16th amendment allowing tax of any and all income regardless of source (yet still not touching the apportionment required in a capitation and tax of property). Another good example is that "Domestic violence" in Constitutional context has an entirely different meaning than it does today.
In the income tax case, the courts have heard this argument so much, that they actively notify people that it is a frivolous argument, and you will be assessed a fine of $500 for even attempting to make the argument.
In the later case, we would all object quite strenuously if the Federal government attempted to push into legislating against people injuring each other within households and families under the auspice that they have the Constitutional right to "protect the states from domestic violence". And any lawyer attempting to make such a claim would be fined and reprimanded for attempting to make such a frivolous argument.
So, again, to be clear: when science and the philosophy of science refer to "falsifiability" they refer to the logical possibility of a falsification. To use any other definition in a debate of the merits of creationism vs evolution is to make a dishonest claim, just as egregious as claiming that congress doesn't have the right to levy an income tax, or that the Federal government can interfere in domestic violence as we understand it today. --Eira Geneth Talk 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't claim "all of them", I specifically said in the statement that I was blocked for, that "some" engage in this behavior. No you claimed "The various creationists" (emphasis added) and then after I gave you the warning you made some changes. You removed "openly" with an edit summary concluding "because you don't admit to it." You later changed "The various creationists" to "Some creationists...may..." with an edit summary concluding "that's what the creationists are doing..." (emphasis added). LowKey 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I also openly admitted to being wrong about my original claim, and thus the reason for the later edit stating "some". As for the later edit summary, that is an entirely different claim... not a claim of dishonesty, but rather a claim of using lots of "weasel words" in order to make it difficult to prove one wrong. "Some evolutionists claim that evolution is a religion, here's an example of one!" I can't prove you wrong, because some evolutionists do place unreasonable if not religious merit to evolution. That doesn't make evolution itself a religion. "Weasel words" are called weasel words, because they make a very weak logical argument, that nonetheless allows another to imply a stronger statement than it actually supports. --Eira Geneth Talk 05:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This reminds me of a comment I saw once, that went along the lines of "everyone knows what a double entendre really means". So you admit to making a logically-weak argument that clearly implies something much stronger? And you expect that to get you off the hook? There's not many creationists here, and very few that you've been debating with, so the implication is very clear, despite your use of weasel words. Philip J. Rayment 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I were to post my true and honest personal belief, I would be blocked here for being uncivil as rightfully evidenced from the profanity-laced string of words that would amount to little more than a five-minute beep if TV censorship rules were to be followed. That said, it is however my personal belief that you, PJR, are a despicable person with morally deficient debate skills. I don't speak with direct evidence at hand, but as a former drug addict can so readily recognize a current drug addict even without evidence, I have formulated this opinion from my personal experience. I used to be just like you; I believed in YEC, the Bible, and the whole lot, and I defended it strongly and proudly with well-crafted, and eloquent apologetics. My intelligence and language skills allowed me to be very good at justifying my bigotry and hate. However, I have since acquired a personal sense of a absolute moral obligation to truth, and I cannot abide lying, and liars anymore. I have truly become saved, and I hope that one day, you as well can enjoy the peace and love that I experience in my life, after putting away the childish ways of pride. The first, and in fact every, step in the way towards becoming honest about the world, and with others, is admit with honesty, "I don't know." The position of YEC holds that one can know absolutely how the world was formed, despite having no better evidence for this belief than the tentative beliefs held by evolutionists. The dishonesty in your position comes from your unwillingness to admit when you do not know, and your absolute assertion of confidence of belief, when entirely unjustified.

I honestly wish that there were a god in existence, that I might pray to him, to ask him to deliver you from the evil that you have fallen in with. Alas, finding no such deity justified, I can only but wish you well, and that you yourself will take an honest look at your behavior, and life, and come to recognize and admit the wrongs you have committed in your life, and atone for misleading mankind away from knowledge and truth. Goatspeed, I shall not be returning. --Eira Geneth Talk 03:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If I were to post my true and honest personal belief, I would be blocked here for being uncivil as rightfully evidenced from the profanity-laced string of words that would amount to little more than a five-minute beep if TV censorship rules were to be followed. You're not the first to make comments like this, but it leaves me wondering. Do I commend your honesty in admitting your inability to control your anger (if not for the consequences of being blocked), or highlight the fact that you admit to preferring to abuse than debate?
I don't speak with direct evidence at hand, but as a former drug addict can so readily recognize a current drug addict even without evidence, I have formulated this opinion from my personal experience. Are you suggesting that I'm addicted to taking harmful chemicals, or are you analogously accusing me of being "addicted" to something else, like debating? If the former, then you are so, so, wrong. I have never once smoked a cigarette nor had an alcoholic drink, let alone anything worse or illegal.
I used to be just like you; I believed in YEC, the Bible, and the whole lot, and I defended it strongly and proudly with well-crafted, and eloquent apologetics. So what happened? You succumbed to the false information of atheists?
My intelligence and language skills allowed me to be very good at justifying my bigotry and hate. So you were bigoted and hateful as well as believing the Bible? There's a bit of inconsistency there.
However, I have since acquired a personal sense of a absolute moral obligation to truth... What is your source of those absolute morals? Surely not the God who said that He created in six days, which you don't believe? Yet without Him, you have no basis for absolute morals.
... you as well can enjoy the peace and love that I experience in my life, ... What makes you think I don't know? I have always experience both of those.
...after putting away the childish ways of pride. There's nothing wrong with having pride in what God has done. The problem with pride is with pride in one's own abilities, which, according to evolution and atheism, must be the source of anything we achieve.
The first, and in fact every, step in the way towards becoming honest about the world, and with others, is admit with honesty, "I don't know." Logically, that's a non-sequitur. How is it "honest" to admit that I don't know, if in fact I do know?
The position of YEC holds that one can know absolutely how the world was formed, despite having no better evidence for this belief than the tentative beliefs held by evolutionists. Absolutely false. The position of YECs is that one can know absolutely how the world was formed because we know the One who did it. This is evidence of a totally different order than that of evolutionists, who invent stories to explain things they didn't observe and don't have any witnesses to.
The dishonesty in your position comes from your unwillingness to admit when you do not know,... Again, logically false, as it begs the question that I don't know.
...and your absolute assertion of confidence of belief, when entirely unjustified. Yet your absolute assertion that my confidence is unjustified is itself without foundation. Why don't you admit that you "don't know" that my confidence is unjustified? Or is it okay for you to assert things with confidence but not for me?
I can only but wish you well, and that you yourself will ... come to recognize and admit the wrongs you have committed in your life... Thanks for the wishes, but it would be nicer if it didn't come tied to an accusation that you have provided no evidence of whatsoever, and from someone who admits to preferring to verbally abuse me than to mount a civil debate.
...I shall not be returning. It won't stop me posting my half-prepared reply to your most massive missive.
Philip J. Rayment 13:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The dishonesty in your position comes from your unwillingness to admit when you do not know,... Again, logically false, as it begs the question that I don't know. actually Phillip it is self evident fact that you dont know or understand and are simply picking bits from articles that seem to support your view. Its the sort of thing that everyone you "debate" has noticed. Your comment in our discussion about the definition of DNA showed you really dont have a clue.
science enourages people to say "we dont know" and "we are not certain" rather than becoming fixed on an idea. Science is always about evaluating the evidence and following where it leads, even if that means publishing a "Gee we got that one way wrong , sorry about that" in the journals. Any individual doing science who always seems to have the answer is suspect because there is just too much that must be reconciled. Science also questions when people become fixed on a theory like the dates of the last ice age. If evidence suggests that it was 12,000 years ago rather than 8,000 years then after discussion the daye gets changed. For creation science the 8,000 year date is set and cant be changed , so the evidence needs to be interpreted to fit the conclusion , and inconveniant facts ignored. This leads to abysmal science which ignores physics and chemistry and substitutes acts of God to make things work.
The vedas of India are far more extensive than the Bible, so if we were to concede supernatural events there is more to support Vishnu and Shiva. The African vomit God Bumba is more logically consistant, perhaps you would convert to Bumbaism ?
It won't stop me posting my half-prepared reply to your most massive missive. Of course not Philip, it would be too much to expect you to carefully consider his comments and seek within yourself any indication they might be valid, rather than toss out some rejection that you might in any way be wrong. Do you know the term Hubris ?
I too am not bothering with your site any more, you have provided what I was after in large piles, so thanks for that.
you might quit using "begging the question " so often. A lot of times you use it wrongly. Just a thought cause it makes you look weak.
have a nice day , I hope your onference thing went ok, your in Christendom the inedible inexpliable Hamster Hamster 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The position of YECs is that one can know absolutely how the world was formed because we know the One who did it. This is evidence of a totally different order than that of evolutionists, who invent stories to explain things they didn't observe and don't have any witnesses to. I'm sorry, but your own Bible disagrees with you. Paul himself admits the ignorance of all mankind, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1st Corinthians 13:12 Are you suggesting that I'm addicted to taking harmful chemicals, or are you analogously accusing me of being "addicted" to something else, like debating? If the former, then you are so, so, wrong. I have never once smoked a cigarette nor had an alcoholic drink, let alone anything worse or illegal. This is all the evidence necessary to demonstrate dishonest argument. You have intentionally discarded the metaphorical nature of an analogy, and decry my claims as being factually false. I thank you for providing the proof so concisely and well packaged, it is most certainly the best parting gift you could give. --Eira Geneth Talk 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

actually Phillip it is self evident fact that you dont know or understand... Yet you fail to demonstrate that I don't know.
...and are simply picking bits from articles that seem to support your view. The point I was replying to was in connection with what I know from the Bible.
Your comment in our discussion about the definition of DNA showed you really dont have a clue. I'll get back to that in that discussion.
science enourages people to say "we dont know" and "we are not certain" rather than becoming fixed on an idea. First, we are talking here about history, not repeatable, observable, science. Second, this claim is laughably hypocritical given the claims to know that evolution occurred, and the fixation on the idea of evolution.
Science is always about evaluating the evidence and following where it leads, even if that means publishing a "Gee we got that one way wrong , sorry about that"... Yeah, sure. That's why, when evolutionary scientists find something that doesn't fit the theory, they reject the science and invent new claims to avoid admitting that they are wrong.
If evidence suggests that it was 12,000 years ago rather than 8,000 years then after discussion the daye gets changed. Sometimes. Sometimes it's more of a case of two or more different parties doggedly sticking to their own incompatible dates and trying to find more evidence to support their respective views.
For creation science the 8,000 year date is set and cant be changed ... 6,000 years actually. And why not, given that we have a reliable eye-witness account of when it happened? That's far better evidence than those "scientific" dates that you admit can keep changing depending on what evidence one has available.
This leads to abysmal science which ignores physics and chemistry and substitutes acts of God to make things work. Evolution is full of abysmal science, per my first link of this post, and it was the creationist view that gave rise to science, so your argument seems contrary to the evidence. Are you therefore willing to admit that you are wrong, like you expect me to?
The vedas of India are far more extensive than the Bible, so if we were to concede supernatural events there is more to support Vishnu and Shiva. Quantity equals quality?
...it would be too much to expect you to carefully consider his comments and seek within yourself any indication they might be valid, rather than toss out some rejection that you might in any way be wrong. Apart from the fact that you are commenting on something you've not seen, you are confusing disagreement with willingness to consider. Why not realise that I might indeed do all that you say, but then still disagree?
you might quit using "begging the question " so often. A lot of times you use it wrongly. Just a thought cause it makes you look weak. An example of a weak argument is one that makes accusations without anything backing them up. In what way do I use it wrongly? You don't say; you just accuse.
I'm sorry, but your own Bible disagrees with you. Paul himself admits the ignorance of all mankind, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1st Corinthians 13:12 No, Paul does not disagree. First, in case there is any confusion here, I'm not claiming to know everything, or that everything I think I know I know with certainty. Second, Paul also says in that quote that "I know in part". To stress the point, there are some things that he does know. Another example is in 2 Timothy 8:12: "...I know whom I have believed...". Then there's verses like "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2) and "He [the LORD] will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure." (Isaiah 33:6). For that matter, see the list of verses that appear on the main page of this site about knowledge. They all speak of knowledge—not uncertainty or ignorance—as being something good, desirable, and achievable.
This is all the evidence necessary to demonstrate dishonest argument. You have intentionally discarded the metaphorical nature of an analogy, and decry my claims as being factually false. I think I should thank you for demonstrating dishonest argument. I did not intentionally discard the metaphorical; I canvassed two options, one being the metaphorical. I said that if you were talking about the non-metaphorical, in that case your claim was factually false.
Philip J. Rayment 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
so your position Philip is that the Indian vedas were faked by descendants of Noah, who built many very large settlements but faked them up as old and buried them to give the appearance of vast age and population, and wrote stories of Gods not their own for fun. ? please feel free to explain how they managed to fake the cess pits. That these could be pre-flood settlements doesnt fit any of the proposed flood geology models. Hamster 00:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
so your position Philip is that the Indian vedas were faked... Huh? Where in your imagination did you pluck that one from? I said nothing even implying that, let alone claiming it. The rest of your post makes no more sense.
Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
the indian vedas and indus vally society Phillip. You claim it was within the framework of a 6000 year Earth with a global flood at 2,200 BC or thereabouts. Since the vedas describe events that happened before that and the indus vally civilisation is far older than that , it must by your reasoning have been formed by Noahs descendants, the extra ages added by intent , and some cities built, ruined and buried complete with middens to fit the historical timeline. 3500 -1500 BCE and at 3500 BCE was a city of 40,000 people. Hamster 03:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
given that we have a reliable eye-witness account of when it happened? what reliable eye witness ? Since it seems to have been written in the 10th, 9th and 5th centuries BC. Since Moses was raised Egyptian and the hebrews were slaves who gave him pre-flood documents that he could read ? Hamster 03:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't know how you get from The vedas of India are far more extensive than the Bible to all that, nor what the fact (assuming it is) that they are "more extensive than" the Bible has to do with anything. It sounds like we were talking about firetrucks, firetrucks are red, so are tomatoes, so now we are talking about tomatoes! That is, you appear to be leaping from one barely-related point to another, with no coherent argument.
...the indus vally civilisation is far older than that... According to what system of reckoning? That is, you are trying to say that because the history in the Bible doesn't fit with secular dating, the Indian societies faked the age of things! That's a massive non-sequitur.
what reliable eye witness ? God. And you can't get any more reliable than that. Of course you don't believe that He exists, but that's not the point. The point is that I'm claiming to have good, solid, evidence. You can disagree that my source exists, but without doing that, you can't argue that my evidence is not good enough. That is, your argument is not with the reliability of my evidence, but with the existence of God.
Philip J. Rayment 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
do try to stay with it, I mentioned that creationists were locked into a conclusion because of the bible and so had to reject any evidence that didnt fit, reject outright or attempt to make it fit by saying God fixed thephysics, to make decay rates, sedimentation rates etc fit. I used an example of 8,000 and 12,000 years which you assumed meant something about age of the earth, it wasnt, just some example figures. Your age of the earth and the flood though, allowed me to ask the question , what of the indian vedas and civilization ? by your reasoning these could not be anything other than decendants of Noah after the Tower of Babel, so the entire Indus vally archeology has to be fit into a much much shorter time period than conventional archeology suggests. Since we know the time span that the cities were occupied, the populations and the time they were abandoned the conflict with biblical flood has to be explained. The simple explanation is that Noahs decendants deliberately faked a much greater population and a greater age than actually existed. This is a simple case of if A then B. Events dont happen generally in isolation.
wether God exists or not is not the question since no one I am aware of claims that God himself penned the Bible. The customery answer is that God inspired the writers. Custom says Moses wrote Genesis. Linguistic analysis of the text suggests three writers from 10, 9 and 5th centuries BC. The fairly massive differences in copies of the source texts , and the differences in versions of the same stories in different Bible books seems to make the Bible less reliable as a source, particularly since there are few supporting texts from other extant civilizations.
with the vedas themselves there are many of them , they tell some of the ame events, are internally consustant, that is there are not conflicting versions of the same event. If the vedas were inspired by an Indian God then he did a great job Hamster 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned that creationists were locked into a conclusion because of the bible and so had to reject any evidence that didnt fit... You mean like this quote: "I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.'"? Oh hang on, that was an evolutionist.
Since we know the time span that the cities were occupied, ... and the time they were abandoned... You know these? How? I would suggest rather that you deduce these in accordance with your worldview. Which means that you are judging biblical history not by how accurate it is, but by how well it fits with an anti-biblical view!
...the conflict with biblical flood has to be explained. Granted. But the onus might be on those making the claims of ages that don't fit with the Bible to justify them, rather than on Christians.
The simple explanation is that Noahs decendants deliberately faked a much greater population and a greater age than actually existed. No; what motive would they have to fake these? Rather, the simple explanation is that the secular dates are wrong.
wether God exists or not is not the question since no one I am aware of claims that God himself penned the Bible. The customery answer is that God inspired the writers. How does that make a difference? In both cases, it still comes ultimately from God.
Linguistic analysis of the text suggests three writers from 10, 9 and 5th centuries BC. According to a view which a priori rejects that it was eye-witness testimony, among numerous other problems.
The fairly massive differences in copies of the source texts... No, very minor differences, actually.
...the differences in versions of the same stories in different Bible books seems to make the Bible less reliable as a source... No, the differences indicate that they were not copies of each other, but the differences are also compatible. So the differences actually attest to authenticity.
...particularly since there are few supporting texts from other extant civilizations. On the contrary, there are extensive legends of pre-Israelite events that, to a greater or lesser degree, support the biblical accounts of creation, the flood, and the confusion of languages. As for later periods, there are supporting texts from neighbouring countries to Israel when they interacted, but other than that, you wouldn't expect neighbouring countries to record much about Israel's history.
with the vedas themselves there are many of them , they tell some of the ame events, are internally consustant, that is there are not conflicting versions of the same event. Are you sure? My understanding is different. Not that they are necessarily inconsistent, but that they speak very little of "events". This source says that the vedas comprise a mantra or hymn section, ritualistic teachings, and theological and philosophical sections. The Bible, in contrast, includes a lot of history, and it is internally consistent, with differing, but not conflicting, versions of the same event.
Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
archeologists know from historic documents the years that people moved into the Indus vally and found remnants of cities. That places the end of the occupation of those cities. They can then excavate and determine how many people and for how long they occupied the cities. Rhat date is earlier than that of the Noahic flood. Moses was not an eyewitness to anything that happened pre Moses. Its doubtful that he was told by oral history sources since only Noah and family survived and language was garbled at Babel. The differnces of which I am aware are very large and conflicting rather than compatible. I would expect Egypt to have recorded to flood, and moses , the plagues , and the destruction of its army. I would have expected Rome to have documented Jesus. Hamster 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
They can then excavate and determine how many people and for how long they occupied the cities. How is the "how long" determined?
Its doubtful that he was told by oral history sources since only Noah and family survived and language was garbled at Babel. Neither fact makes it unlikely that Moses was informed by oral history, nor by written history.
The differnces of which I am aware are very large and conflicting rather than compatible. Specifics?
I would expect... Most of what follows is an argument from silence, which is usually not much of an argument.
... Egypt to have recorded to flood... What makes you think it doesn't?
... and moses , the plagues , and the destruction of its army. You'd expect Egypt to have stories of its defeats? That was not typical of the ancient near east.
I would have expected Rome to have documented Jesus. Why? See here.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox