Sunday, November 07, 2004
Flores Man update...
Reasons to Believe has broadcast a report on the recent story of the Flores Man discovery. You can access their Creation Update webpage here, and the specific broadcast here. It's a very good summary of the discovery, as well as some of the extrapolations made by the scientific community. They also discuss how it is similar, and not similar, to Homo erectus, including some of the reasons why the scientific community uses evolutionary thinking to drive the conclusion that Flores Man is related to erectus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What is it you hope to accomplish by throwing science back into the dark ages of superstition? When have I advocated that?
I have no problem with the laws of physics... it's naturalism as a philosophy that I disagree with.
BTW, I welcome (and so does RTB) continuing scientific research.
And why hold something against people who find it impossible to believe ridiculous bible stories? What does that have to do with my post on Homo floresiesnis?
Interesting concept - this intelligent grappling.
I'm not aware of ever advocating intelligent grappling, as Elf describes it, anywhere on my blog site.
So... what does it have to do with either my post on Flores man or my stance on M/PN?
(Do you understand when you're being ridiculed Rusty?)I understand that a scarecrow is stuffed with straw. I'll address yours and 386's comments during lunch.
386,
Why do people like you hold something against people who find it impossible to believe in invisible gods and the ridiculous stories of your myth book?
Okay, I think I understand your question a little better.
First off, I don’t hold anything against you… I simply think you are incorrect in your interpretation of the scientific data. I also think that your philosophical commitment to naturalism clouds your interpretive skills. If you’ve read even a small sampling of my posts, then you should see that I attempt to take the data and demonstrate how it is just as easily, if not better, explained by the design argument.
Secondly, I have never advocated that we throw science out the door. Quite the contrary, my stance is that we continue scientific research.
Lastly, to imply that if it weren’t for my myths then I wouldn’t believe in, for example, Adam and Eve, is circular reasoning. It appears that you don’t believe in the supernatural, yet it is impossible for you to present the empirical data which demonstrates that the supernatural does not occur. What’s more, the entire base of your methodology rests on the assumption that we can rely on the empirical results of empirical testing. Yet where is the empirical data which demonstrates that using empirical data is valid? Ultimately, you must accept the methodology on faith (ouch!). You already, by the way, believe in things that aren’t physically real: i.e., that numbers exist, that scientists should follow ethical principles (as in should you or shouldn’t you publish fabricated data?), that the laws of logic are valid, the love one has for their child, etc.
The Bible posits that Adam and Eve were specially created by God, and that mankind is unique from the rest of the animal kingdom (the qualities of the Imago Dei). Further Biblical investigation shows that these two initial humans would have been created between 6,000 and 50,000 years ago. Put into just a few scientifically testable terms, we should see that the human race came from two individuals, a relatively short time ago, and that only humans demonstrate the qualities inherent in the Imago Dei.
Consider this: If science were to show that the modern human race really did come from just two individuals, about 40,000 years ago, and that all archaeological data showing advanced cultural expression was from the modern human race, would you concede that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve not only did not contradict the scientific findings, but was supported by them? Or would your disbelief of the serpent story cause you to discredit the Adam and Eve account as well?
Dark,
ID is testable. Otherwise we wouldn’t find a mafia boss putting out a hit on one of his enemies, and telling his hit-man to “make it look like an accident.” Or compare Mt. Rushmore with Thor’s Hammer in Bryce Canyon, and the Washington Monument with Devil’s Postpile. In terms of the scientific testability of life’s origins, check Origins of Life by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.
IG is hardly as valid as ID. IG is simply a caricature of ID intended to denigrate ID by means of copious amounts of straw. That’s the thing about caricatures… not only is it easy to spot them, but it’s easy to understand their purpose. Go ahead and propose Intelligent Blowers, Intelligent Cryers, and the like. Comparing them to ID is like comparing Hogan’s Heroes to Saving Private Ryan.
If you’ve read my blog then you must know that I do not adhere to the concept which some ID proponents refer to as, the Big Tent. I am not about positing that while we can determine there is an Intelligent Designer, we can’t determine who it is. I posit that the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible. This may come as a surprise to you, but I do not think that Creation should be taught in public science classrooms. I do think that what should be taught are the shortcomings of evolutionary theory as well as how the concept of ID addresses the same data that evolutionists have claimed as their own. Whether that becomes public policy is ultimately irrelevant, though, thanks to the web and our freedom to publish / purchase books of our choosing (e.g., Darwin's Black Box, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, The Privileged Planet, etc.).
You’re a bit late in advocating that prayers be supplicated on behalf of our troops, their wounds, their families, and their equipment. There have been, and continue to be, many Christians daily lifting them up in prayer.
I've read every major book put out by creationists as well as the relevant websites, message baords, articles, and tracts. They're invalid.
No, they're not... but I guess that's part of why we debate each other isn't it?
So again, why are you so focused on destroying mdoern science and replacing it with your supertitious paradigms?
Please stop accusing me of that (or, at least, provide evidence of where I propose such actions).
In the world today there is a direct correlation between the health and welfare of the members within a given culture and the degree of religious freedom they enjoy.
So why are you opposed to allowing me my religious freedom to promulgate the tenets of my faith?
Of course it can fill any 'gaps' that evolution hasn't yet filled, because the whole theory is based on hand-waving Jedi mind tricks, and the really cool thing about hand-waving is that it can do *absolutely anything*.
And, of course, you have examples of such hand-waving Jedi mind tricks from, say, the Origins of Life book?
Further Biblical investigation shows that God cursed the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days because the serpent beguiled eve - and it wasn't even really a serpent.
And how does that negate whether the human race came from two individuals?
People who don't believe the nonsense dogma but who want to have morals are hypocrites? Makes sense...
Actually, I've stated that people who believe that nature is all there is have no logical basis for believing in an abstract, transcendent moral law.
Paul,
Of course I should have asked you if you had read Origins of Life first. So I suppose you could take that as a challenge: read Origins of Life, by Ross & Rana, and then provide examples of their performing of hand-waving Jedi mind tricks.
386,
Please re-read my question(s) to you. I'm asking you that, if science was to determine that the physical evidence supported the Biblical claims that the human race came from two individuals, approximately 6,000 - 50,000 years ago, and that cultural expression is limited to humanity only, then how would the account of the serpent negate the veracity of those claims? (hint: this has to do with how you justify your belief that the supernatural does not occur)
Paul,
Please read the book before you make a claim that it incorporates hand-waving Jedi mind tricks.
386,
One point in my highlighting specific aspects of the start of the human race is to juxtapose the evolutionary model with the Biblical model. If it is shown that the data supports the Biblical model (on this point), then we an instance of an ancient document being corroborated by modern analysis. If it is correct on those points, are they other it is also correct on?
Another point is to illustrate the apparent reason you continue to evade my question, namely – your aversion to belief in the supernatural. While it is obvious you consider various accounts in the Bible to be nonsense, you provide no rational response as to why, other than – because. Tell me, since you rely on the scientific method, what empirical data conclusively demonstrates that the supernatural does not occur?
At the very least, you should admit that your aversion to the supernatural is a response based on emotion rather than data.
386,
The point of this is to illustrate the true basis for your aversion to belief in the supernatural. Do you believe in the supernatural or not? If not, why? And if not, then why should it matter that you consider the God of the Bible to be unmerciful? Are you implying that if you came across a deity who appeared to be wholly benevolent, then you would accept any supernatural events attributed to such a being?
Paul,
The issue isn't that I'm reducing it down to a single book. Naturalists have claimed that, among other things, ID is untestable and that its proponents resort to using hand-waving Jedi mind tricks to explain the natural realm. All I'm doing is presenting a very recent book in which two Old-Earth creationists have posited a testable creation model with regards to the origin of life.
In other words, I'm calling the naturalist's bluff.
386,
I understand your question. What I don’t understand is why you refuse to explain why you don’t believe in the supernatural. When I attempt to discuss a particular portion of the Biblical account (e.g., the historicity of Adam and Eve) you bring up the account of the serpent. I respond by stating that, 1) the veracity of the account of the serpent does not determine the veracity of the account of Adam and Eve, and by asking, 2) what is it about the account of the serpent that causes you not to believe in it? You respond that supernatural accounts are unbelievable and that the God of the Bible is cruel. So, do you not believe in the supernatural because it is inherently ridiculous? Or, do you not believe in the supernatural because you perceive God to be cruel? Yet, how could you demonstrate, solely through the scientific method, that belief in the supernatural is inherently ridiculous? Further, what would God’s cruelty have to do with whether the supernatural occurs or not?
As to your lack of a clear response I come to two potential conclusions:
1) you believe that it is rational to not believe in the supernatural, but you have no way of explaining such rationale through empirical means, or
2) you believe that it is rational to not believe in the supernatural, and that the rationale is, somehow, self-evident.
I’m not going through these motions for no reason. Whether or not the supernatural occurs is the issue for critics of ID. Virtually all such critics believe that the supernatural does not occur, yet virtually all are at a loss to give an empirically based argument to support their belief.
Paul,
Oh no. You don’t get off that easy buddy. From the debates we’ve had I think it reasonable of me to conclude that you can read the English language. Go ahead and order a copy of Origins of Life to read for yourself (or, better yet, put it on your CHRISTmas list!).
Post a Comment