« reTHINK Student Conference | Main | Inconsistent Law on the Unborn »

October 22, 2012

Comments

Funny place to address this question.

The AC in the tool shed must be broken?


The link here. is somewhat related perhaps. When dealing with raw evidence the Theist must be careful about his The-ISM, and of course the Naturalist must be careful about his Natural-ISM. Extrapolation gets muddy.


Maybe ask over here instead.

Or ask this guy.

Great links. The Theist really must guard against his The-ISM. The Naturalist really must guard against his Natural-ISM. Craig chastised his Christian questioner for allowing his theism to cloud his assumptions, and also for allowing his naturalistic tendencies to do the same.

Extrapolations beyond the evidence (in either direction) really does muddy the flowing waters.

Given that all the evidence ever collected, ever, refuses to testify of any possibility, anywhere, ever, of flowing water void of the immaterial, one could I suppose lean on such a mammoth collection of present, verifiable, physical evidence to support the grandiose conclusion of his theism. Or, one could argue that, given the fact that a 2010 Jeep Wrangler has the same grommet seals as does a 1965 Mustang, and even a 1995 Learjet, perhaps Agent trumps Mechanism in such circumstances and of course, given that we have observable data throughout the world, which is repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable, in regard to Agent and Mechanism, one could I suppose lean on such (actual) physical evidence in favor of his Theism and distrust unverifiable assumptions, extrapolations, and presuppositions of Natural-ism.


It’s all a matter of which ISM one holds to. The evidence is clearly there for whichever grandiose conclusion one wishes to make.


RonH wrote "Funny place to ask this question. "

Only if knowledge and wisdom are the same thing.

Actually Ron wrote "Funny place to address this question"

So I took him to be saying that Koukl should have addressed the question elsewhere.

I'm not sure where else he thought Greg should have addressed the question. I think LRRM was wondering whether Ron thought Koukl should have been speaking from his toolshed instead of his library.

The subsequent links Ron provided suggest that maybe Ron thought that Koukl should have addressed the question from the Cornell University Library's web site or the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's web site.

I'm not exactly sure how Ron though Greg could have done that. Does he believe that STR has a hacker on staff to help Greg break in to those sites and address that question there?

Of course, maybe Ron meant what you said John. If so, Ron's puzzlement is equally...puzzling. The questioner obviously wanted to ask Greg the question. I'm not sure how the question would have gotten to Greg through those other web sites.

Now, it's possible that Ron thought that the questioner would get answers that He, Ron, likes better from those other web sites. I think that's probably it.

But my guess is that the questioner would have gotten no answers at all, since there does not seem to be any structure in place for asking questions of that sort there.

But even if there were. Even if you ask the question at richarddawkins.net or icr.org, I think the answers would be the same: "Yes" and "Yes". As Greg notes, everyone agrees that dinosaurs and cavemen existed.

I'm still entertained by the various tool sheds, book cases, computer/offices, and other locations.......

I am a little confused as to why the question is asked though as it really is Yes and Yes.....

Actually Ron wrote "Funny place to address this question"

So I took him to be saying that Koukl should have addressed the question elsewhere.

I took this to mean that STR is a funny place to address this question, presumably because the folks at STR may not be as qualified as others to answer the question.

I could be wrong!

-------------------------

IMHO, it's troubling that we have Christians asking these types of questions. It seems to me that the only reason people would feel the need to ask this question of a source like STR is because of a deep distrust of science.

BG-

Yeah, I think I got to that near the end of my post. When I said this:

Now, it's possible that Ron thought that the questioner would get answers that he, Ron, likes better from those other web sites. I think that's probably it.
I was poking a little fun at Ron because he sometimes likes to mince words.

Of course, there are two points to be made here. First, The questioner obviously trusts Greg. So why should he/she ask someone else? Second, Since everyone agrees, I'm not sure why the "Yes"'s from Ron's sites would be better than the "Yes"s Greg gave above. In fact, they are probably worse, since, as already noted, the questioner probably asked Greg because he/she trusts Greg, so Greg's "Yes"s are more likely to be believed.

(I might also add that Ron did list sites where it might be difficult to have questions answered, at all.)

"Address" has both meanings.

At first, I meant: Why would you ask this person this question?

On reflection though, the really disturbing thing is that the answer was not something like Of course they did but why are you asking me?

John Willis,

Go to about 19 minutes into White's lecture.

You learn that stone tools go back at least 2-1/2 million years.

A little later (near 33 minutes) you see a hominid skull from 500 thousand years ago. Already this is not a modern human.

Compare to the off the cuff 'wisdom' you find here.

RonH


We mustn’t allow our *ism* to direct our extrapolations. Agent. Mechanism. Those two have more present, verifiable, observable, physical evidence than certain other presuppositions, assumptions, and extrapolations. And, of course, there is the problem of Everything, that immaterial eternal uncaused cause, which *also* has more present, verifiable, observable, physical evidence than certain other presuppositions, assumptions, and extrapolations.


To paraphrase: “[The] Thesis of Common Ancestry is really the less important of the two claims of the neo-Darwinian paradigm: far more important is the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. [Many] theorists like…..embrace the Thesis of Common Ancestry. [Their issue] is with the postulated explanatory mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Here you had nothing to say to show that the staggering biological complexity which our world exhibits could have been created by such mechanisms in the span of four billion years. Recall Barrow and Tipler’s claim that there are at least ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth. Here …….hesitation about the neo-Darwinian paradigm lodges. I haven’t seen any evidence that the hypothesis of random mutation and natural selection has the sort of explanatory power which the neo-Darwinian paradigm attributes to it…….” (Craig)


The solution here, in naturalism, is, most likely, its solution of Everything:


[Time] + [Even More Time] + [Material-Eternal Uncaused-Cause For Which We Have Zero Physical, Philosophical, Empirical, or Logical Evidence] = [Anything].


I have no doubt that what was once, as I recall 2 billion, which morphed to 4 billion, will morph to 8 billion; it’s only a matter of, well, Time.


Given that all our Pre-Everything data on that Uncaused Cause supports, hands down, a construct that is comprised of a flavor tasting of Immaterial Agent/Mechanism which comes to rest inside of Will’s Volition, and, also, given that all our Now-Everything data echoes that same footprint both in time’s constraint and in irresistible cause-effect within even a kindergartener’s pathetic chicken-scratch, all of this is, given the very palpable mammoth, genus Mammuthus, anthology of raw physical, logical, philosophical, and empirical evidence, but one more path by which our Logic and our Love lead us into the lap of that Hard Stop that just is the Uncaused Whom we call Love Himself and against Whom all truth-claims ultimately collide.

"the really disturbing thing is that the answer was not something like Of course they did but why are you asking me?"

Because they didn't know the answer.
Isn't that why most questions are asked?

"Compare to the off the cuff 'wisdom' you find here."

Are you referring to Greg or RonH?

RonH wrote: "Go to about 19 minutes into White's lecture.

You learn (....)Compare to the off the cuff 'wisdom' you find here."

Ron, If we define wisdom as the correct application of knowledge, then the information in the video is knowledge, not wisdom - agreed?

Further, what is it about Greg's answer to this question, (or any of his work for that matter) that you find to be "off the cuff"? He could be wrong, but wouldn't you agree there is nothing cavalier or reckless with Greg's method?

I'm asking because certainly you are familiar with Haeckel's embryos?.... and the problems with those darned spray painted moths made to look like they were changing color from generation to generation?.... the countless fossils over the years that are held up as "transitional" only to be later discounted as frauds, or found to be dated wrong?

I'm just saying you seem to have knowledge of what "off the cuff" looks like, so one would think you would know it when you see it. Can you give me an example of what you mean by "off the cuff" with respect to Greg's scholarship?

Thanks,
John

Did you watch the videos John?
What I meant should be clear.

RonH,

Given that all the physical evidence refuses to testify, ever, not even once, (and that's a ton of data) of your posited flowing river void of Agent & Mechanism, why do you believe it exists?

RonH,

Given that subjective fairy tales about a tree's good & evil do not magically create real good or real evil in this real world, why do atheist's posit they are fighting against, and even dying to stop, real evils in this real world? Real lives are sacrificed for fairy tales. This is, like your posited flowing river, not simply inexplicable, but bizarre.

Hi Ron,

You complain about giving five minutes to read a lhrm post, yet you expect others to watch a 33 minute video instead of just stating your point?

I'm seriously asking.

John

John,

At around 2 minutes, Koukl says he doesn't have any reason to believe there were 'half-human' creatures who lived in caves.

At around 30 minutes, White talks about Herto Man who lived 160,000 years ago.

Is Herto man human? White asks and seems to answer Maybe. It's hard to say.

Next, White introduces Bodo man from 500,000 years ago. Bodo man used stone tools too. But, White says, Bodo man is NOT human.

Now it doesn't matter if either of these creatures lived in a cave. And you can decide for yourself whether you want to call one of them 'half-human'.

But, I think this the sort of sequence that Koukl says he has 'no reason' to believe exists.

That's my point.

You really should watch the lecture - at least that little part of it. It's a very good lecture.

RonH


500,000 years? Tiss not-enough: To paraphrase: “[The] Thesis of Common Ancestry is really the less important of the two claims of the neo-Darwinian paradigm: far more important is the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. [Many] theorists like…..embrace the Thesis of Common Ancestry. [Their issue] is with the postulated explanatory mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Here you had nothing to say to show that the staggering biological complexity which our world exhibits could have been created by such mechanisms in the span of four billion years. Recall Barrow and Tipler’s claim that there are at least ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth. Here …….hesitation about the neo-Darwinian paradigm lodges. I haven’t seen any evidence that the hypothesis of random mutation and natural selection has the sort of explanatory power which the neo-Darwinian paradigm attributes to it…….” (Craig)

A little more Time perhaps? Ahh but the Material Eternal Uncaused Cause remains a Fairy Tale per every last bit of our whole anthology of evidence.

Given that we've yet to discover an atheist who, upon feeling anger at, or upon striving to stop, evil, really believes, really knows, that such evil is not real evil in the real world but is (and he actually believes it) just a fairy tale made up in this real world, we may wonder if the species called atheist ever really existed.

scblhrm,

You say 500,000 years is not enough time to go from Bodo man to us.

Why not?

Try to focus on this one thing. OK?

RonH

If you care to answer mine I'll answer yours.

In other words, 4 billion years fails the whole show, and, the whole show fails that uncaused cause, and, agent-mechanism has actual evidence whereas blind evolution is all presuppositions and assumptions. You focus on a what amounts to a fly & leave out Everything & feel we ought to be impressed.

RonH somehow an extra "a" got in there. And of course "you" ought to be something like 'naturalism' or 'materialism' instead. Etc....

scblhrm,

If your question (What is it?) is not a change of topic, I'll take your deal.

(No deal if your question broadens the topic so far as to look like a change of topic.)

I offer to answer your question first.

What do you say?

(Don't forget to point out the question. I could not find it.)

RonH

The question broadens the particular window here. Quite a lot in fact and I suppose it does not therefore merit a reply. Although, it is actually a question originally raised by you (RonH) in another post/topic speaking of a flowing river void of the immaterial and which you’ve yet to answer regarding your own particular grandiose conclusion which is based on a bedrock void of physical, philosophical, logical, and empirical evidence (assuming Materialism/Naturalism etc.) It’s off topic, although, really, it is about the only thing all of this is ever really about.


Regarding 500K years, we wrestle here with an engine’s grommet seals, as if it matters in a way which voids the ultimate necessity of the engine, the Learjet in which it sits, and the jet’s pilot. That will explain itself shortly, as the initial tangent here strays off of the grommet seals and then, at the end, returns to them again in their proper context. So, really, this is perfectly off topic, and, finally, perfectly on topic.


As it turns out, there is a Flowing River passing beneath a certain Tree. Only, it is not the River and the Tree you (Materialism) describe which bears fairy tale fruit of make-believe good and pretend evil despite the fact that not even one piece of data in our entire compilation of evidence runs to the defense of your (Materialism’s) necessary eternal material uncaused cause.


The materialist runs to his 500K years and that sounds, in this arena, something like this:


It seems we wrestle with the nature and shape of a particular grommet seal, and refuse to see, to address, the piston, and the engine block, and the Learjet in which it sits, and the runway on which the Learjet sits, and the whole airport, and the whole city in which the airport resides, and the continent on what that rests, and the planet, and the universe, and on and on and on. And the odd thing is that one seems wholly unaware that, should the grommet seal in question be square, round, or twenty days old or twenty centuries old is simply irrelevant to the topic we are all *actually discussing here*. We are not discussing grommet seals, really. Though some avoid the pathetic chicken-scratch of a kindergartener as they know they must back-track it, ultimately, to agent and mechanism, as (and they are well aware of this) the chicken-scratches are unable to account for even the page on which they sit nor even their own presence in the room at all, nor the room, nor, well, simply put, Every-Thing and Any-Thing whatsoever. We really are not discussing the chicken-scratch: we are discussing something else which is right under our noses. All the little skirmishes over little grommet seals and pathetic chicken-scratches are an attempt to ignore the topic we are *actually discussing here*. But instead we obfuscate and focus on the pathetic chicken-scratches all the while avoiding the unavoidable: The kindergartener. “This little dash over here angles upward, and joins this line. Oh, and look how these two lines are joined. What a mess. Lucky for us it works. Yes, yes, how lucky for us it all works. What a mess.”


The time allotted for the enormous exhibit of life forms in Naturalism cannot account for the Whole Show that is that exhibit we find before us. And, even worse, the Whole Show cannot account for itself. At all. And, even worse than that, the Whole Show that is Every-Thing and Any-Thing cannot self account. The particular shape of a particular grommet, or, the particular angle which a certain line takes are all a confused approach to a question of great clarity which we all know we are asking. The conversation must always be redirected to what matters least: this little bulge over here on this little grommet seal: “Do you see? How impressive. Clearly your Learjet is a Fairy Tale. Lucky for us it all works. Yes, yes, how lucky four us that it all works. What a mess.”


But this is what the Materialist, the Naturalist *must* do. He can do nothing else with the problem of Every-Thing, nor with the problem of Any-Thing, nor with the problem of Evil, nor with the problem of Good. He must, for example, use (when asked) his off-topic essay on how Evil is all a fairy tale, at bottom, all the while getting angry at evil, all the while sacrificing (at times) his very real life in this very real world for what he, in his off-topic focus-groups out on the side lines, claims is all a fairy tale “in here” and not a real evil out there in the real world. This maneuver is repeated when it comes to the problem of Every-Thing and is an odd one for we find Materialism/Naturalism arguing one thing in the tiny, small, side-skirmishes all the while avoiding the inevitable back-tracking he knows he must do with Evil, with Good, with Every-Thing, with Any-Thing as all Truth Claims ultimately reach a Hard-Stop beyond which there is no further appeal.


The evidence on Wave, on Particle, on Flux, on Vacuum is not only a gargantuan pile, but, in that whole pile there is not even one physical piece of data which defends the necessary eternal uncaused cause of a material sort. And what of that? “Well, but notice how this little edge on this grommet angels up and out; clearly your Learjet is a fairy tale. And regarding this chicken-scratch, notice how this line shoots up and out rather than down and in. Clearly your Kindergartener is a Fairy Tale. Luck for us it all works. Yes, yes, lucky for us. What a mess.”


And then the fight is on for the Materialist feels he must fight to stop the evil of deception caused by fairy tales, those very real evils out there in the very real world, all the while labeling all truth claims on objective good and evil as fairy tales. He must always take this confused approach to what are always questions of great clarity. He says he knows his evil is a fairy tale, but he does not believe it, just as he knows his Eternal Material Uncaused Cause is without any hope, yet he hopes in it, just as he knows kindergartener’s chicken-scratch, no matter how messy, testifies of agent, yet he cries self-written. And so we see that the Materialist really does believe in fairy tales, not only the fairy tale of actual evil in the actual world, but also in Eternal Material Uncaused Causes, and in pages full of a kindergartener’s chicken-scratch which write themselves, and, worst of all, in a fairy tale called love, which his confusion insists lives only to self-perpetuate.


And when asked to explain any part of this, even one lone part of this? “Well, since you asked, notice this little grommet seal over here, and pay particular attention to how it angles up and out right here. Do you see THAT? Now please, how can you see THAT and still believe in your fairy tales? Lucky for us it all works. Yes, yes, lucky for us. What a mess.”


The towering mountains of external evidence and interior awareness found in the mystery of Good and the mystery of Evil, and of that Flowing River which runs beneath a particular Tree in a particular Garden, which all men’s interior testifies of, whether atheist, agnostic, or theist, and which all the external evidence ever collected, ever, yes, every bit of our exhaustive anthologies on wave, on particle, on flux, and on vacuum affirms must find the birthplace of its eternal uncaused cause in the ‘Other and Outer’ of the Immaterial so completely overshadows and so totally eclipses, ultimately, all the little seashells along the river’s shoreline which seem to lay lifeless and unaccounted for that we must wonder at, and pity, the one who, in front of such an ocean of life, would settle for a seashell or two, or three, or three thousand, or three million, which, at the end of the day, not only came out of that very same ocean, but, ultimately, one day, will be consumed yet again by it. “Notice the little curve on the edge here. How odd. Clearly your ocean is a fairy tale. Lucky for us it all works. Yes, yes, lucky for us. What a mess.”

RonH Wrote: "But, I think this the sort of sequence (from hominid to human beings) that Koukl says he has 'no reason' to believe exists.

That's my point." emphasis mine.

Hi Ron,

Thank you for that reply, it clarifies your point perfectly.

Your view is that homo sapiens evolved from these hominid creatures, so that at some point in the evolutionary past they became less hominid and more human.

Two questions present themselves;
1. Why do we not see this "sequence" (from hominid to human) in the fossil record? The fossil record is composed entirely of gaps. We have Herto, Bodo, and many other hominid creatures and then all of a sudden - human beings appear on the stage. Music, language & art clearly separate us from hominids. Beside the obvious physiological differences, why don't we see the kind of incremental evolution in these things that would be necessary if the macro-theory is true?

2. The fundamental assumption of science is that reality is rational. Any theory of origins that attempts to explain the fossil data is in some way an imposition on the data itself. Therefore the theory that best accounts for the data (we do have) with the least amount of speculation is preferred. Your view requires that we interpolate known data points (the current fossil record) to include data points (fossils of half-human creatures) that don't exist. How is your view less of an imposition on the fossil record then ID theory or creationism?

Thanks,
John

scbrownlhrm,

TLDR (at all).

John,

We do see the sequence. We don't see humans suddenly appear. Nor do we see anything else suddenly appear. Don't let gaps in the fossil record be a stumbling block for you. Almost all animals and plants are not fossilized. Almost all fossils are destroyed within a few years after erosion first exposes them and are, therefore, never found. We don't spend much time looking for fossils. And, we haven't been looking for very long.

Half-human is a silly term. Just observe that distinguishing human from non-human becomes hard 150,000 years ago, give or take. The Bible does not speak of anything like the folk we dig up in Africa (and elsewhere). Instead, the Bible has a fable: Adam is made from dirt and Eve is made from Adams rib. On top of that old earthers sprinkle 'creation events' of their very own to taste.

Regards,

RonH

Evil, is, just like one's Material, Eternal, Uncaused Cause, but a fairy tale it seems.

“Notice the little curve on the edge here. How odd. Clearly your ocean is a fairy tale. Lucky for us it all works. Yes, yes, lucky for us. What a mess.”

The towering mountains of external evidence and interior awareness found in the mystery of Good and the mystery of Evil, and of that Flowing River which runs beneath a particular Tree in a particular Garden, which all men’s interior testifies of, whether atheist, agnostic, or theist, and which all the external evidence ever collected, ever, yes, every bit of our exhaustive anthologies on wave, on particle, on flux, and on vacuum affirms must find the birthplace of its eternal uncaused cause in the ‘Other and Outer’ of the Immaterial so completely overshadows and so totally eclipses, ultimately, all the little seashells along the river’s shoreline which seem to lay lifeless and unaccounted for that we must wonder at, and pity, the one who, in front of such an ocean of life, would settle for a seashell or two, or three, or three thousand, or three million, which, at the end of the day, not only came out of that very same ocean, but, ultimately, one day, will be consumed yet again by it. “Notice the little curve on the edge here. How odd. Clearly your ocean is a fairy tale. Lucky for us it all works. Yes, yes, lucky for us. What a mess.”

Ron,

Regarding my second question, do you or do you not see that the creationist/ID model accounts for the fossil record we do have in a way the macro-evolutionary model does not? Not asking you to agree with the ID/creation model, just can you see this point?

Let's keep our eye on the scientific method. Observation (first step of the scientific method) is not the same thing as hypothesis development.

The observation is of the fossil record. It is composed entirely of gaps and also shows us that creatures similar to human beings existed in the not so recent past.

The hypothesis you are arguing for is that we evolved from these hominid creatures.

The hypothesis can't be that the gaps in the fossil record don't really exist, (which is what you've stated) because they clearly do.

Now it may be that all of these billions and billions of transitional forms (and the trillions upon trillions of transitional fossils produced from these forms) that take us from hominid to human being did exist once upon a time and they don't now due to the nature of fossilization.

But if we follow the scientific method, the physical evidence has to do the work - not an explanation for the lack of evidence. Otherwise we're not doing science. Our hypothesis has to be proven by experiment and further observation not explanation.

Now, in the two hundred plus years since Darwin first proposed this hypothesis what has occurred? There has been more digging, more construction and human development then ever recorded in human history. And the more fossils we find the wider the gaps get. The fossils that are held up as transitional, rarely pan out as such and the gaps only get wider and wider, suggesting the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is false.

Now if we're just following the scientific method, we have to go back and revise our hypothesis to account for these new observations before moving forward. Some have tried to preserve the general thrust of the hypothesis, but we end up with really ridiculous stuff like Gould's explanation that one day for no reason at all a chicken hatched from a dinosaur egg. (Punctuated equilibrium)

One hypothesis that explains the fossil data perfectly is the ID/creation model. Now, you reject this model, but it can't be because the fossil data doesn't fit the model. So I'm really curious then why you reject the more elegant explanation of the fossil data in exchange for a clumsy one?

Regards,
John

The comments to this entry are closed.