Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[whirlingmerc]

another assumption of many atheists is equating possibilities with fact

An interesting case if Steven Hawkins who would often speculate on something, see a hypothetical way it might happen, then declare the matter proved

 

[Subduction Zone]

depends on what you mean by faith

The people of Jericho had a form of faith that God was powerful and were afraid, but they mostly did;t trust in Him and they mainly opposed him down to the end

The people of Nineveh, Babylon and Jericho 'trusted' in their walls... and that is more like trusting in themselves

Not necessarily so. I linked an article that shows the dates for Jericho do not match well with the Biblical account. The story in the Bible may be a gross distortion of what happened. It appears to be not a reliable story. Just because their is a Jericho does not mean that the story is true. For example:

New York City is a real city. That does not mean that Spiderman is real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am still waiting for an example. Your unsupported fantasy with no sources given, can be dismissed as written. Try again with links, and try to use the quote function properly.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Of course faith is often caricatured... Obama and Biden for example spoke of people clinging to guns and religion... that seemed to be part of a larger downward slide of the Democratic party being less and less respectful of religious liberty and views

Totally ad hominem

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not necessarily so. I linked an article that shows the dates for Jericho do not match well with the Biblical account. The story in the Bible may be a gross distortion of what happened. It appears to be not a reliable story. Just because their is a Jericho does not mean that the story is true. For example:

New York City is a real city. That does not mean that Spiderman is real.

The Harvard professor I cited admitted his a prior [faith] commitments
'we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

I see that you cleaned up this post somewhat. first off what follows appears to be a quote mine. Without a link to an original source it is worthless in a debate.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. [Emphasis in original.]


would you like more?
The atheistt professor of Harard is admitting in his own words ' our a priori adherence to material causes'

Actually he didn't. I am still waiting for "one".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course faith is often caricatured... Obama and Biden for example spoke of people clinging to guns and religion... that seemed to be part of a larger downward slide of the Democratic party being less and less respectful of religious liberty and views

Totally ad hominem

Why did you do the ad hominmem attack? Or don't you understand that concept either?

Creationists should avoid using terms that they do not understand. They tend to be rather poor at proper uses of logical fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

another assumption of many atheists is equating possibilities with fact

An interesting case if Steven Hawkins who would often speculate on something, see a hypothetical way it might happen, then declare the matter proved

Wrong. What are you basing this bogus claim upon? And please, don't conflate the findings of scientists with atheism. There are many scientists that are also theists. Many of them are in fact Christians. They merely reject the myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Harvard professor I cited admitted his a prior [faith] commitments
'we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.'

No, you have a quote mine. Probably from a dishonest source.

Here is helpful tip. When quoting someone that you oppose the original source of the quote should always be included. The reasonable conclusion when such a quote is posted, especially without any sources at all, is that it was a quote mine.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, you have a quote mine. Probably from a dishonest source.

Here is helpful tip. When quoting someone that you oppose the original source of the quote should always be included. The reasonable conclusion when such a quote is posted, especially without any sources at all, is that it was a quote mine.

Hmmm... when you hear something you don't like it's 'probably from a dishonest course'

Original source, the Harvard professor was reviewing a book of Carl Sagan
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's another assumption. When you hear something you don't like it's 'probably from a dishonest course'
actually its a famous classical quote

Nope, it is a reasonable conclusion drawn from experience. There is a simple solution. Quote him properly. If you can't your quote is worthless.

 

[blü 2]

It is my conclusion that objective truth escapes us in many many cases. We think we are rational, logical and unbiased, but really we aren't. We get blinded by our own desires, and other things also such as pride, or national pride where if we make a change, our prestige suffers, and so forth.

But unlike religion, science at least tries to maximize objectivity. That means the age of the sphinx will have a well-founded answer, the best at the time, but it won't exclude a better-founded answer should one be found. And so on across all questions about reality.

The power of science is its method, which includes constantly revisiting and retesting past conclusions.

If it is a matter of being blinded, how can you test for it! I don't think you can since it would be a chosen form of blindness.

It's true that we're born with instinctive ways of seeing and judging. But since we can reason, we have grounds for optimism. I know from your previous posts that you have a deeply pessimistic side; I have the ordinary frustrations and occasional despairs that watchers of human affairs have always had, but I have a basic optimism too.

 

[blü 2]

You may react as you will but one's reactions do not make for truth

Neither do tales of prophecy, whether by prophets, fortunetellers, Tarot readers, 'psychics' or astrologers.

 

[QuestioningMind]

To be clear, you don't assert that the bible is inerrant?

You do assert that the bible is inerrant but can't demonstrate the correctness of the claim?

Or other, in which case what?

To be clear, I do NOT assert that the bible is inerrant. In MY post I was attempting to demonstrate that the bible no more inerrant than the Harry Potter books.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm... when you hear something you don't like it's 'probably from a dishonest course'

Original source, the Harvard professor was reviewing a book of Carl Sagan
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/

No, you got it from a dishonest source:

Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote - creation.com

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology."

Does that sound familiar?


Worse yet you plagiarized that source. You quoted them word for word but did not give them credit.

So now you have been caught in a lie. Are you going to apologize for not being honest in your response?

But now that you have supplied the original source would you like to discuss that quote out of context? To properly understand it you need to read the article. It does not say what you claimed that it said.

 

[blü 2]

another assumption of many atheists is equating possibilities with fact

An interesting case if Steven Hawkins who would often speculate on something, see a hypothetical way it might happen, then declare the matter proved

You'll now set out a good clear example of this, quoting the words Hawkins used, I take it?

 

[Just Truth]

It really all depends on where you find TRUTH lies... If it's the Bible then TRUTH needs proof... Of its within yourself or others then look around and see if mankind can rule themselves... It just really depends where YOU feel where TRUTH lies.

 

[Just Truth]

The Bible was inspired of God (2Timothy 3:16,17) different men wrote the 66 different books.. Just as a secretary writes for a boss, his words not hers, but she writes it, God's word was penned by men as secretary's of God by inspiration by his Holy Spirit (1Peter 2:21) but in order to know 100% sure it is God's word We MUST have proof and then and only then can you find the truth. And the truth will set you free (John 8:32) God wants us to know the truth about everything He hides nothing..
He gives us answers to to Life's most important questions for instance, what is God's purpose for mankind?why do we grow old and die what is the future going to hold for mankind?
These questions should not be answered for ourselves they should all be found in the Bible and they are very plain and simple and that's how you find the truth but only if you believe that God's word is the Bible But first you have to have proof and there are many many proofs in the Bible to prove that it is God's word.

 

[blü 2]

there are many many proofs in the Bible to prove that it is God's word.

Like what? (A nice tight specific example, please.)

 

[Just Truth]

The Bible book of Daniel in Chapter 2 the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, brings his dream when Daniel interpreted his dream, down to our day, that image at the feet is the last Government standing till God's kingdom comes to reality (Daniel 2:44) we are at the feet of that image. And there is so much more proof.