Re: Harshman implies that wild ass atheist guesses are easier to "know"; can he demonstrate that?
- From: "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:32:08 -0700
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:40:09 -0400, T Pagano <not.valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:05:46 -0700, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
T Pagano wrote:snip
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
<EliasRK@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 6, 6:47 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<Elia...@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Sep 5, 7:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:47:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx>:
1. Scripture does indeed report the occurrence of a world wide,
catastrophic flood event. It is akin to a newspaper report not a
science text. It offers no mechanisms or models. It reports history.
The Noahic Flood event did occur.
How do we know that?
1. I think we can know it the same way that atheists "know" that the
stratigraphic layers were layed down in time order in accordance with
the Principle of Superposition.
It should go without saying that they were deposited in time order but
not necessarily in relationship to the layers they ultimately end up
being aligned with. As far as verifying the relationship between
adjacent sedimentary layers at a given location there are a number of
different ways to determine whether or not they were laid down in some
sort of regular sequence or whether or not long periods of time, and
perhaps erosion or other modifications of the underlying stratum
occurred between layers.
The difference between knowing about stratification and 'knowing'
about Noachian deluge is that one is evidence based and one is a
religious fairytale. It is also important to note that the religious
fairytale is contradicted in a number of different ways by the
scientific record.
I think we can know it the same way
that atheists "know" that fossils "necessarily" appear in strata in a
definite and determinable order according to the Principle of Faunal
Succession.
But they do not necessarily appear in order. There are a number of
geological forces at work which is why it is also necessary to be able
to independently verify such things.
2. So fallible human atheists establish and accept apparently
infallible guides (Principle of Superposition, Principle of Faunal
Succession)
Funny how these two 'guides' not only support each other but are also
supported by a number of other independent lines of evidence as well.
And the key here isn't whether or not these or any other such guides
are 'infallible' (whatever that means in this context) but whether or
not they can stand up to honest and vigorous scrutiny, something your
own quaint little religious fairytale cannot do.
about unique geologic events in a 4 billion year global
history without ever having made a single observation during that
prehistory and Harshman is questioning why I accept some historical
insight from Scripture? The irony is overwhelming.
Do you think that it would be necessary to see a real live dinosaur
before coming to the conclusion that dinosaurs actually once existed?
Would it be fair to say that science cannot prove that dinosaurs ever
existed because the never made a single observation of a living
dinosaur? Or are we allowed to draw conclusions based on the evidence
that we do have at our disposal?
3. How do "I" know the Noahic Flood occurred? I take it on blind
faith just like atheists accept on blind faith that the Principle of
Superposition and Faunal Succession are accurate guides in
reconstructing 4 billion years of earth history even though not a
single observation was made during that 4 billion year prehistory.
Actually, the reliability of superposition, as far as it goes, is
based on numerous observations and methods of testing. In so doing,
scientists (atheists and non-atheists alike) are *not* accepting it on
blind faith. Nor would they need to anyway since there are so many
other lines of enquiry that give us good look at both the geological
and biological history of the earth.
4. How can we "try" to know with our scientific tools that it
happened? I suspect even Harshman can answer that question.
I suspect that he can too.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Harshman implies that wild ass atheist guesses are easier to
- From: Rupert Morrish
- Re: Harshman implies that wild ass atheist guesses are easier to
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Difference between humans and apes, a question for creationists.
- Next by Date: Re: Difference between humans and apes, a question for creationists.
- Previous by thread: Re: Harshman implies that wild ass atheist guesses are easier to
- Next by thread: Re: Harshman implies that wild ass atheist guesses are easier to
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
