Presuppositionalism

[Krok]

Or it was passed down through oral tradition from the original tribes that were created after the global flood.

Any empirical, verifiable evidence for "original tribes" or did you make it up?

 

[Man of Faith]

Great! I'm a scientist (a geologist), so I'm one of those scientists who can and do debate geology.

In my lifetime I've debated lots of things relating to rocks with other geologists (they're scientists!), but not even one of them has ever hinted that their research indicate that the Cape Supergroup was deposited in a global flood less than 10 000 years ago. In fact, all the evidence, every single bit (we use rocks in geology), indicate that it was deposited by lots of various methods between around 320 and around 500 million years ago. Some quick. Some slow. Some in lakes. Some in rivers. Some on beaches. Some in the sea. Some by wind. Some by water. Some by volcanic action. That's fact. Some minor details being debated aree: was the Witteberg Group deposited between 320 to 350 million years ago or 325 to 350 million years ago (you get my drift). There's heated debate about that one!

Maybe you should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'll give you scientific links. You'll give religious links. Could you provide one scientific link? Stop telling untruths. Science is based on empirical, verifiable evidence. Nothing else. Not even one scientific link on "flood geology". Just religious ones. This was sorted more than 160 years ago. There was no global flood. There's no debate about it in scientific circles. Jhe "debate" is a figment of fundamentalist religious imaginations. And all they do is to tell untruths in those religious links.

What you are doing is using the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn to win an argument. Just because a scientist’s ideas and claims aren’t accepted by the mainstream scientific community doesn’t mean that they don’t have merit.

 

[Man of Faith]

The same Behe that testified in court that astrology is "science"? He's a liar. Why would anyone trust what he says?

Have you ever told a lie?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

:slap:

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look.

Please quote some of your favorite evidence regarding how the sorting of fossils and sediments indicates that a global flood occurred.

Argument #2

Geology, physics, and biology are often complex sciences. Do you really know enough about those sciences to claim that there is sufficient scientific evidence that a global flood occurred, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?

Argument #3

I assume that most inerrantists do not know a lot about geology, and physics, and biology. Don't you believe that it is reasonable for a person to be a biblical inerrantist even if they know very little about science?

Argument #4

Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonilities.

But you need for geology to back up the stories.

Who wrote the stories? According to your beliefs, the stories could only have been written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants since the flood killed everyone else in the world. Do you know of any non-Abrahamic religious documents that mention Noah, and the mountains of Ararat? I am not aware of any.

If all flood stories were written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants, there would probably be far more commonalities in the flood stories than there are. A very detailed list of global flood stories is at Flood Stories from Around the World. The great differences among them are much more obvious than the similarities.

Argument #5

Many of the flood myths might have been written as deliberate fiction, not as actual history. In addition, since localized floods have occurred in many places in the world, it is quite natural that many ancient writers would have embellished localized floods stories and made them global flood stories.

Argument #6

Research has shown that women, and people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes, tend to accept creationism more than other groups of people do. How do you account for that? Why do those groups of people tend to presuppose that creationism is true?

Argument #7

May I ask what you are mainly trying to accomplish at this forum? Are you implying that becoming a biblical literalist should be a prerequisite for conducting scientific research, and that the scientific research method should be changed?

It has become apparent that you are not able to discuss complex scientific topics that deal with geology, biology, and physics, so from a purely scientific, non-religious perspective, you are not able to provide reasonable proof that a global flood occurred, that creationism is true, and that the earth is young, reasonable proof that you understand, and can discuss in detail. So, what is left to discuss except for bibilical inerrancy? Would you like to discuss that topic at the General Religious Discussions Forum?

 

[secret2]

The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

1. In your opinion, do other branches of science also suffer from these defects?

2. Suppose that these accusations are justified. Then what?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Believers often try to drag science down to level the playing field. The irony that this demeans their own beliefs is always lost on them.

 

[Krok]

Maybe you should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

Never found any geologist who's studied any rocks in the Cape Supergroup who disgaree about the age of those rocks. And there have been hundreds specializing on that Supergroup!

 

[Krok]

What you are doing is using the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn to win an argument. Just because a scientist’s ideas and claims aren’t accepted by the mainstream scientific community doesn’t mean that they don’t have merit.

Actually, lying does not have any merit. Creationists always lie in every "article" they write. Even in courts, too. That's all they have, together with people not versed in science believing their untruths. If you want specific examples, I've got plenty of creationist lies I can specifically refer to.

 

[Matthew78]

Maybe you should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

Why don't you want to debate a scientist? Come on, show us your stuff! If Krok is a secular geologist with weak arguments and you have better arguments, you should be able to embarrass him by making mince meat of his arguments.

I so dare you to debate him!

 

[Agnostic75]

Maybe you [Matthew78] should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

Maybe you should debate some of the over 99% of experts who accept naturalisitic or theistic evolution.

Is "go debate an expert who disagrees with you" one of your approaches to trying to win debates?

 

[Man of Faith]

Why don't you want to debate a scientist? Come on, show us your stuff! If Krok is a secular geologist with weak arguments and you have better arguments, you should be able to embarrass him by making mince meat of his arguments.

I so dare you to debate him!

I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with. Everything that is observed, duplicated and tested by scientists is allowed in the creation model. So I have no problem with what the scientists uncover, or the data they present.

Here is what the debate is really about. If everything that is observed is allowed in both the evolution and creation models, why do mainstreams scientists say that the data fits only one of the models? It is because of the presuppositions that are in science that says evolution is a fact so let’s see how it was done. And nobody would dare challenge those presuppositions if they want to pay their bills.

 

[Man of Faith]

Never found any geologist who's studied any rocks in the Cape Supergroup who disgaree about the age of those rocks. And there have been hundreds specializing on that Supergroup!

That's not surprising giving your attitude that anybody that doesn't accept evolution and an old earth age is simply reduced to "religious" and should be discounted.

 

[secret2]

I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with.

There you go again. For the sake of discussion let's pretend that the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct and exact (we could have picked GR or quantum loop gravity but let's not get distracted). The scaling law of gravitation goes as (1/r)^2. Now, there are many phenomena that to this date still remain mysteries (e.g. protostar formation). Suppose some calculation finds that the problems of protostar formation can be resolved if many many years ago the scaling law of gravitation goes as (1/r)^2.7385. Does it count as a piece of strong evidence for temporal non-uniformity of physical laws? Which brings us to the second point...

If everything that is observed is allowed in both the evolution and creation models, why do mainstreams scientists say that the data fits only one of the models? It is because of the presuppositions that are in science that says evolution is a fact so let’s see how it was done.

I am not sure whom of the "mainstreams scientists" you are referring to, but the answer to your "why" is simply: fitting to data is cheap. Whatever you see that is going on in the universe, we can always come up with a 'model' that fits the data perfectly. If fitness to data is the only way to judge a model, we are in deep trouble. There are so many hypotheses that we have no way to reject. Can we be 100% sure that the universe did not pop up 5 seconds ago all in a sudden with everything (fossils, our memories, fake histories) properly installed? No, but so what?

And nobody would dare challenge those presuppositions if they want to pay their bills.

No comment.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look.

Please quote some of your favorite evidence regarding how the sorting of fossils and sediments indicates that a global flood occurred.

Argument #2

Geology, physics, and biology are often complex sciences. Do you really know enough about those sciences to claim that there is sufficient scientific evidence that a global flood occurred, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?

Argument #3

I assume that most inerrantists do not know a lot about geology, and physics, and biology. Don't you believe that it is reasonable for a person to be a biblical inerrantist even if they know very little about science?

Argument #4

Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonilities.

But you need for geology to back up the stories.

Who wrote the stories? According to your beliefs, the stories could only have been written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants since the flood killed everyone else in the world. Do you know of any non-Abrahamic religious documents that mention Noah, and the mountains of Ararat? I am not aware of any.

If all flood stories were written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants, there would probably be far more commonalities in the flood stories than there are. A very detailed list of global flood stories is at Flood Stories from Around the World.

The great differences among them are much more obvious than the similarities.

Argument #5

Many of the flood myths might have been written as deliberate fiction, not as actual history. In addition, since localized floods have occurred in many places in the world, it is quite natural that many ancient writers would have embellished localized floods stories and made them global flood stories.

Argument #6

Research has shown that women, and people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes, tend to accept creationism more than other groups of people do. How do you account for that? Why do those groups of people tend to presuppose that creationism is true?

Argument #7

May I ask what you are mainly trying to accomplish at this forum? Are you implying that becoming a biblical literalist should be a prerequisite for conducting scientific research, and that the scientific research method should be changed?

It has become apparent that you are not able to discuss complex scientific topics that deal with geology, biology, and physics, so from a purely scientific, non-religious perspective, you are not able to provide reasonable proof that a global flood occurred, that creationism is true, and that the earth is young, reasonable proof that you understand, and can discuss in detail. So, what is left to discuss except for bibilical inerrancy? Would you like to discuss that topic at the General Religious Discussions Forum?

Argument #8

Maybe you [Matthew78] should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

Maybe you should debate some of the over 99% of experts who accept naturalisitic or theistic evolution.

Is "go debate an expert who disagrees with you" one of your approaches to trying to win debates? Even if the relative handful of Christian experts are right, you do not have enough knowledge about science to understand why they are right.

 

[Agnostic75]

I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with.

The vast majority of geologists do not believe that a global flood occurred. How can you possibly know how many, and which, of that group, presupposed that uniformitarnism is true before they conducted their geological research?

Do you object when inerrantist experts presuppose their conclusions before they get degrees in science?

 

[fantome profane]

I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with.

But that is what science is! Science is based on the working assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These assumptions are key to all scientific endeavors, not just the theory of evolution. When an astronomer makes observations of a distant star and concludes that there are planets in orbit around that star that astronomer is making the assumption that the same laws of physics that apply in the observatory today also apply thousands of light-years away and thousands of years ago. That astronomer also makes the assumption that the observations are not the result of magical trickster deities. This is the way science works.


If you are not employing the working hypothesis of naturalism you are not doing science. You can’t tell me that you have no problem with science but you have a problem with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. All scientific conclusions are based on the assumption of naturalism, and virtually all are based on the assumption of uniformitarianism.

If you choose to reject science because of the assumption of naturalism, fine. Just be honest about it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: Consider the following:

Consider the following:

http://www.reasons.org/deep-core-tests-age-earth

Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., astronomy

The clash between young-earth and old-earth creationists can seem bewilderingly technical at times. Is there any easy-to-understand scientific data for determining whether Earth is young or old?

In recent months, new evidence has emerged that may be simple enough for everyone to understand, regardless of science background-as simple as counting tree rings.

Scientists are learning much about Earth's past by drilling deep into its surface-both ice and rock-with specialized instruments to remove long cylinders, or "core" samples. Six deep ice cores and one sediment core now provide a clear and continuous record of Earth's history. The ice cores reveal hundreds of thousands of ice layers laid down on top of one another year by year, just as a tree adds one new growth ring per year. Three deep ice cores pulled from Greenland record the past 120,000 years. Three deep cores in Antarctica-Dome Fuji, Vostok, and Dome C-allow researchers to look back 340,000, 420,000, and 740,000 years, respectively.

How do scientists confirm that these ice layers correspond to years of Earth's past history? They can check for telltale markers, such as volcanic ash signatures. The Krakatoa eruption of 1883 and the Vesuvius eruption that wiped out Pompeii and Herculaneum in AD 79 left their specific marks in exactly the annual layers anticipated. Climatic cycles also allow for testing. As it turns out, these cycles-caused by regular variations in the eccentricity or ellipticity of Earth's orbit (period = 100,000 years) and the tilt of Earth's orbit (period = 41,000 years)-correspond perfectly with what's seen in those core layers. Finally, researchers have performed radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice to make sure their age corresponds with their annual layer, and in each case it does. Further corroboration comes from a sediment core drilled off shore from New Zealand's Southern Alps. It reveals the past 3.9 million years of Earth's crustal history. Though each layer in this core represents a few centuries rather than a single year, the climatic cycles and events in this core for the past 740,000 years match perfectly with corresponding layers in the Dome C ice core. Such a calibration builds confidence that these cores yield a continuous climatic, geological, and astronomical record for the past few million years at least.

Proponents of young-earth creationism respond to this compelling evidence by pointing to possible problems at the tops and/or bottoms of the core samples as if such anomalies render the entire dating analysis unreliable. For example, the bottom 15,000 layers in two of the three Greenland cores are disturbed by ice folding close to the bedrock. Such disturbance (caused by extreme pressure conditions), however, in no way invalidates the 105,000 layers above or the 123,000 layers in the third core (the NGRIP core). The burial of the "lost squadron" of World War II under 250 feet of Greenland ice and snow in only 50 years has been offered as proof that the 10,000-foot-long Greenland ice cores cannot represent 100,000+ years of history. However, intrusions into the layers by localized forces and events does not invalidate them. In this case, the lost squadron crashed in a relatively warm area of southern Greenland where, unlike the sites of the three deep ice cores, several melts and refreezings per year can occur and seven times as much snow falls per year.

According to Psalm 19:1-4, God speaks not only through the words of the Bible but also through the record of nature. Since God speaks truth and chooses to reveal Himself, nature's record and the Bible's words can be expected to agree. The ice and sediment cores provide compelling extrabiblical evidence that the earth is indeed ancient. This evidence supports the literal interpretation of creation days in Genesis 1 as six long epochs.

References

K. K. Andersen et al., "High-Resolution Record of Northern Hemisphere Climate Extending into the Last Interglacial Period," Nature 431 (2004): 147-51.

Laurent Augustin et al., "Eight Glacial Cycles from an Antarctic Ice Core," Nature 429 (2004): 623-28; Jerry F. McManus, "A Great Grand-Daddy of Ice Cores," Nature 429 (2004): 611-12; Gabrielle Walker, "Frozen Time," Nature 429 (2004): 596-97.

Robert M. Carter and Paul Gammon, "New Zealand Maritime Glaciation: Millennial-Scale Southern Climate Change Since 3.9 Ma," Science 304 (2004): 1659-62.

Larry Vardiman, "Rapid Changes in Oxygen Isotope Content of Ice Cores Caused by Fractionation and Trajectory Dispersion Near the Edge of an Ice Shelf," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, vol. 11, no. 1 (1997): 52-60:

Michael Oard, "Do Greenland Ice Cores Show Over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, vol. 15, no. 3 (2001): 39-42.

Carl Wieland, "The Lost Squadron," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 19, no. 3 (1997): 10-14.

Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 51-148.

At Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation, there is a list of 100 notable Christians who believe that the earth is old. The prestigious list includes Michael Behe, William Dembski, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Graham.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: Please read an article by Glenn Morton at Glenn Morton's story. Morton is a Christian, a geophysicist, and a former YEC. In the article, he tells why he gave up being a YEC.

You can't complain about Morton's objectivity since originally, he presupposed your way. Morton has studied the global flood theory extensively, and has written many articles about it.

Maybe you [Matthew78] should debate a scientist whose presuppositions are different than yours.

Glenn Morton already did that on many occasions after he gave up young earth creationism, and as the article says, he got a lot of evasiveness from YEC's.

Have you debated a scientist who presuppositions are different than yours? How can a layman debate a scientist?