Thanks for this thorough debunking. I honestly don't know how you manage to keep your stomach while wading through such putrid argruments. I'm glad someone has the patience.
Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article
by AlanF 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
YECsy Rexy wrote:
:Let me narrow this down a little, Great Brain.
Oh help help! Moderators! I'm being called a nasty name!
: You said this:
:: Morris starts off with a logical red herring, setting the tone for the rest of his silly article:
::: Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true.
:: This is a logical red herring, because nothing can be proved by science to be true. Rather, all scientific theories are provisional, since new information might come to light that requires a theory to be revised or even scrapped. As Stephen Jay Gould said, with regard to theories that some people view as fact>
Readers will note how you completely ignore the issue, and bring up a red herring of your own.
: Where does logic come from, eh Alan? Where does your reasoning come from in the first place?
: How can you, with a naturalistic presupposition, account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are concepts of the mind and not physical, energy, or motion?"
You're getting into questions that no one can answer at present in a completely satisfactory way. I hope you understand that such "laws", being constructs of the mind, are like the "laws" and axioms of mathematics, and in fact are a subset of them.
: Did you get that last statement?
Sure. Now let me pose a couple of similar questions for you. I answered yours to the best of my ability, so you must answer mine according to your best ability:
Where did God get his reasoning ability? Note that saying that "God has always existed" is unacceptable, and if you say it, I will immediately demolish it.
Where do the absolutes in mathematics come from? Did God create them? Or do they exist independently of God?
What is the source of God's morality? Is it simply, "whatever God says is moral is moral"? Or do moral standards exist apart from God? If they exist apart from God, then he did not create them. If they are simply whatever he says, then how can it non-trivially be said that God is moral, that God is love, and so forth? How can one make any meaningful moral statements about God at all?
Next we find you making completely unsupported (outside of the myths of the Bible) assertions.
: Laws of logic come from God. God is outside of His creation, He is by very nature transcendent. He even gives us the name, "I am that I am". He is the only self-existent being. Logic is a reflection of God's nature, therefore the laws of logic are absolute! They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
I can't argue with completely unsupported assertions except to point out that that's what they are.
: Your atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes,
Your Christian worldview cannot account for God.
: and you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
What utter nonsense. People from cultures that have nothing to do with Christianity are quite able to argue rationally. I believe it was the ancient Greeks who first formalized many of what we today call "the laws of logic".
Your statement is extremely ironic, because here you and Morris are arguing completely irrationally, with Morris telling out and out lies to defend his God, and you have the gall to claim that Christianity is the very source of logic and reasoning.
: Furthermore, We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.
: You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
This is complete gobble-de-goop.
: The scientific method depends upon logic; because you are reasoning and observing.
: If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and you have nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. You can't use logic to try and disprove God’s existence, nor can you prove the naturalistic explanation for origins!
But I think that these "laws of logic" that you speak of are absolute, because they're a concept of the mind, just like mathematics. Remember my quotation from Stephen Jay Gould on this.
You're arguing with yourself here.
: If you are assuming the laws of logic are absolute, you are borrowing from the Christian worldview!
Nonsense. Who came first, the ancient Greeks or the Christians?
: Your 'evidence' is no better than Morris' as you would have us believe.
Your ridiculous argumentation is quite evident. Your complete lack of response to my criticisms is equally evident. Your failure to acknowledge that your hero Henry Morris is demonstrably scholastically dishonest is completely evident.
: Go away Alan, you are just as intellectually dishonest as you so often accuse others of being.
Your straw men are shouting at you, Rex.
: Anyone who makes a argument in conflict with your own PRESUPPOSITIONS is dishonest in your view. The blade cuts both ways.
My criticism of Morris' article, which is the subject of this thread, involves no presuppositions other than that logic and normal reasoning can be used to prove points. Would you accept the reasoning if a Christian wrote my criticism for me? Not likely; you'd try to find other excuses to excuse Morris' dishonesty.
In another post, YECxy Rexy wrote:
: Do you know the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution?
These terms are ill defined and therefore not used much by competent biologists. The basic idea is that macro evolution produces new species, while micro evolution produces variation within species. The problem is that exactly what a species is, is not well defined. Creationists certainly have no clear definition. If you think they do, then please provide it.
The best working definition of species appears to be something like this: when an ancestor population splits into two slightly different daughter populations, the point where speciation occurs is when individuals in the populations no longer breed across population lines. That's certainly the case with the 800 species of fruit flies in Hawaii, the hundreds of species of cichlid fish in Africa, and plenty of other creatures.
One thing is sure: no one knows what the limit, if any, on variation is. But it's quite wide, as is shown by the macro evolution of fruit flies, cichlid fishes, and a number of other genera.
: I smell fish here! What is it that creatinists admit happens but do not hold to the other?
There's a smelly fish alright, but it's in the YEC camp, since they have no idea what they're talking about.
:: Demonstrably false. Evolution has demonstrably occurred in the very recent past. When Europeans began to colonize the Americas, a certain species of fruit fly that lives and mates exclusively on the fruit of mulberry trees hitched a ride to North America. Over the next several hundred years, this fruit fly split into two species, one continuing to live on mulberries, and the other on apple trees. That this is a new species is proved by the fact that the two species do not interbreed in the wild, breed at different times of the year, and keep to their respective fruit trees even in areas where plenty of mulberry and apple trees exist in the same place.
: What type of evolution is that, Great Brain, 'macro' or 'micro'
By the above definition of "species", macro.
You've painted yourself into a corner here, Rex, because to answer this you're going to have to provide a precise definition of species, which as a YEC, you simply can't do. You can't, because you won't find one in any YEC book, or on any YEC website. I've amusedly watched YECs paint themselves into this corner for nearly 15 years, and it's always the same sad end: they either run away without answering, or spout some irrelevant words about why they don't need to answer.
: and which is admitted by creationists?
Micro is, but not macro. But in this, they're completely inconsistent.
: Why did you waste so much time and brainpower 'reinventing the wheel', just to show your 'intellectual superiority'? LOL Methinks it is smarter to post a link and let people figure it out on their own!
I admit that showing that Henry Morris is intellectually dishonest is reinventing the wheel, since it has been done by people far more capable than I. But I thought I'd try my hand at it, since you posted a link, and it suits my purposes to show why honest people should give no credence to anything a YEC claims.
Readers will note that you gave no defense whatsoever against my proofs that Morris misrepresented some of his source references. This is pretty ironic, really, since the JW leadership has been borrowing from Morris and his ilk since about 1965, and they all show the same sort of gross scholastic dishonesty.
Readers will note that you gave no valid explanation for the logical trap that you stepped into....you are putting out so much smoke that you think no one will see the basic issue. The issue is that your reasoning is never going to prove or disprove anything. Do you think this one is on Anthony Flue's mind?
ANTHONY FLUE IS NOW A DEIST.
You just can't wish God away using logic. God is absolutely above logic. God is absolutely above all characteristics of the physical world. He is transcendant. You have a philosophy, a religion and it is called 'naturalism'. It is based on your own presuppositions. It is not necessary for me to answer your arguments. They are taken from a philosophy that you happen to agree with and I disagree with. You don't have enough data, Alan. The question is open until the data is in. Until then your argument makes no more sense than you say mine does.
Those who put their trust in science as the key to understanding the universe are embarrassed by the fact that science never discovers truth.
One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of induction; induction, in fact is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not colorblind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not and cannot see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always a fallacy.
There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way:
"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing,." If I were to advance such an argument I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."
Recognizing that induction is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. Here is a big problem: when they find data that is out of the range they expect and predict they toss it! But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers of science, wrote:
"First although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it... we know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement...our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths."
Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all. It is self-refuting.
So you see, Alan. You have really discovered nothing at all. You have simply exchanged one belief system for another that is just as flawed. The same corruption exists in the halls of science as exists within the Kingdom Halls! You are a fallen being in a universe that is winding down after the First Cause. This world is decaying, in entropy.
Honesty would be your admission that you have a belief system that works for you but it is no better than anyone elses.
>Thanks for this thorough debunking. I honestly don't know how you manage to keep your stomach while wading through such putrid argruments. I'm glad someone has the patience.
Debunking of what, Runningboy? It seems to me your atheist bible stories is rather foolish in light of the lack of valid argumentation in it. You don't know how to interpret scripture, yet you are arrogant enough to critisize it. I also see that you resort to the final tactic of the fool: you make light of the fact that a valid argument has appeared that disputes your own assertions.
Now if you contend your intent was to write a witty parody of scripture then I can go with that.
>What utter nonsense. People from cultures that have nothing to do with Christianity are quite able to argue rationally. I believe it was the ancient Greeks who first formalized many of what we today call "the laws of logic".
Your statement is extremely ironic, because here you and Morris are arguing completely irrationally, with Morris telling out and out lies to defend his God, and you have the gall to claim that Christianity is the very source of logic and reasoning.>
Morris is not 'telling lies' at all. He sees the data through his own presuppositions, just like you and the rest of us! Where does logic come from? Can you measure, observe what belongs in the metaphysical realm? You don't like 'Christianity' yet logical argumentation is part of the theology in Romans. You can discount that too and just say Deism. It will also suffice because it defeats your philosophy just as well.....
Don't you have the humility to admit that science is nowhere close to solving the origins question? You are misleading a lot of people when you pretend that the belief in God is a fantasy.
How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in God’s image (Biblical definition!), is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. (important!!!!)
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory (see your assertion about Morris above).
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe. Are you doing this, Alan?
As you know we discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. Now pay attention to this:
We do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought. Thought is purely metaphysical and so is God!
Where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? First Cause is the end of any idea that naturalists can debunk Deism. Observe the intricate laws and realities that make up the universe we live in. Science cannot answer the origins question: it is beyond the scope of what we can observe.
Rex: Amazing. You actually have the ability to create your own reality, and then live in it. (bonus points if you know where I got that line.)
Hi Alan, thanks for the article.
But this only applies to those who have not experienced "holy spirit" or other miracles from God (or that believe comes from God) or spoke with God personally as I have. Or seen angels, which I have. In which case, "science" would not apply since since doesn't have a test for angels or the spirit realm. Meaning what?
Meaning it's a straw man's argument anyway. God is perceived on both sides of the brain, both the logical and artistic sides. Science can't probe "art perception". So it's limited. We can all accept accidents, but accidents that end up in absolute and profuse order that we see in the universe isn't scientific.
If you wan't prove there is a God, instead of trying to calculate the half-life of a rock...go out and smell a rose.
Science is so busy analyzing the paint and trying to find anatomic traces of what brushes the artist used, it's lost track of the beautify of the painting. It's not about the pain, Alan, but the painting and the painter.
But have no fear. God will demonstrate his existence soon in a big way that will be perceptible to the most crude scientific monitoring devices.
Poor Alan. He probably spent 2-3 hours on that post to Rex merely for the benefit of lurkers and casual readers. 6 months from now it will be long forgotten and Rex/Shiny will still be offering up his grey matter on the altar of H. Morris and other YECs.
I should have given him a buzz and talked his ear off for those 2-3 hours instead.
You're quite right, Cygnus, and at this point I think that all readers can see the ridiculous and head-in-the-sand nature of pretty much everything Rex writes. Pretty standard for YEC Fundies. You can lead a Fundy to the waters of reason but you can't make him think. I'll waste no more time with him.
Cyg, wrong about one thing... there are people who look for Alan's stuff. My husband, for instance. He says that reading Alan's arguments, (and a few other posters,) helped him figure things out, and helped him with his sources and information.
He doens't come on this board very often anymore, but when he does, he goes right to the topics started by Alan and a few of his favorites to see if there are some new exchanges and arguments.
IMO, it is time well spent. We are out of that organization, AND we are comfortable with the decision. Knowledge is Power.