Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Darwinists and Creationists need to get it in gear!


COMIC LINK

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick

One more thing before the next Genesis post -

It is alarming to me that so many commenters do not even have a fundamental grasp of reasoning. Our schools are not teaching young men and women how to think. Let me use a simple analogy.

The Automatic Transmission: Most cars made in the last quarter century have come equipped with an automatic transmission and most drivers habitually use only three gear settings. Those settings are Park, Drive and Reverse. For the sake of this analogy, we will assume that these three settings are the only three available.

The normal vehicle will not start in either Drive or Reverse, it must start in Park. So it is with our intellect. We start with the ability to think and that thought begins undirected and uninformed. We apparently begin learning things while within the womb and hopefully keep learning until we die. So as thinking beings we begin in Park.

Now our car has a drive shaft or shafts that transfer power from the engine by way of our transmission to the wheels that will then turn and move our vehicle. The same engine and the same drive shaft and the same wheels will take us either forward or backwards.

Whether we move forwards or backwards depends upon whether we choose Drive or Reverse. Same steering wheel will turn the vehicle, same accelerator pedal will accelerate and the same brake pedal will operate the brakes for stopping. Whether you move forward or backward depends on what gear you shift into at the beginning.

So it is with world views. You have a set of presuppositions and they act like the gear that takes the information available to you and moves with it intellectually. If you allow for the possibility of God or in fact believe in God, you are free to allow for both natural and supernatural evidence and explanations for what you perceive of the Universe. If you allow for natural evidence and explanations only, then you cannot allow for the supernatural.

These distinctions, these "gears" are choices you make before you even consider evidence. If you cannot allow yourself to even consider the idea of God, you are stuck in Reverse (it is my analogy so I put you guys in that one) and no evidence no matter how powerful will allow you to move forward.

The naturalistic materialistic view of the world is not the only or normal viewpoint. It is not a given, even if it has become the orthodox paradigm. Your world view is one that you take on by choice and it is not the only valid way to perceive the world, it just happens to be your way.

So please, if you have shifted into Reverse don't try to pretend there is no Drive. If you are in Drive you should not pretend that there is no Reverse. Have the intellectual honesty to admit and understand that world views are like noses, everybody has one and they are not necessarily the same. The good news is that we all have the ability to shift gears and switch from one gear to another. Those of you who cannot understand this need to stop, put it in Park and be honest with yourself. Choose to incorporate God into your world view or choose to exclude Him but be real and admit it to yourself and others. It is not a given, it is a choice.

It would be truly refreshing to meet more Darwinists that at least comprehend this very basic understanding of the reasoning process. Admit you have a world view, it is okay, we all do. Maybe we need a World View Anonymous:

"Hi, my name is Fred and I am a naturalistic materialist." "Hi, Fred!

"I have been a naturalistic materialist since sixth grade. The last time I considered the possibility of God was seventeen years ago."

Anyway, try to at least grasp this point and then I will go one with the planned postings. Try? I know you can do it. Now I present some brain candy for all of your trouble...

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
"Few things are harder to put up with than a good example."
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour, catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)


"A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there."
Charles R. Darwin

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert Einstein





We are all trying to be more specific in step number two. Whether God or Chance fits into that spot best is fundamental to all other discussion here.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. Define what you mean by "supernatural evidence".

2. Name an instance in which "supernatural evidence" was used successfully in any scientific explanation, ever.

You've been asked this question many times and with great consistency failed to ever provide an answer. I suspect that's not about to change.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper,

That you do not like or accept my answers doesn't change the fact that I have answered this many times.

How many times must I explain this? Maybe if I just make it very simple and not so wordy?

Supernatural evidence is evidence of supernatural activity. If there is no natural cause or coherent natural explanation and there is a supernatural explanation we have come to Occam's Razor.

Here are five examples of supernatural evidence:

Information

Life

Design

Existence

A Bible that explains how and where and by Who the first four happened to be.

Now five examples of falsifiable creationist suppositions shown to be true:

Magnetic field rate of decay shows Earth must be less than 20,000 years and likely around six thousand asserted Dr. Russell Humphreys in 1984.

(Confirmed by Voyager II measurements of Neptune and Uranus fields that echo those of Earth)

RATE conference asserted that too much Helium would be found in rocks for an old earth.

(Fenton Hill, NM drill site into crystal agreed with the theory)

Polonium radiohalos will be found in sedimentary rocks since they were formed by the massive Noahic Flood.

(Confirmed by Dr. Andrew Snelling's study of Smoky Mountain sandstone.)

John Baumgartner proposed the subduction theory of tectonic plate movements during the Flood, which would result in the cold surface of the crust being completely subducted.

(Recent technological advances have allowed scientists to "see" the edge of the Earth's mantle and detect the presence of relatively cold former crust as predicted by an event less than 4500 years ago.)

Noahic Flood turmoil would have caused Earth's magnetic field to reverse, probably several times.

(Steen's Mountain 1988 basaltic flows were first confirmation of this anamoly.)

There are more and an longtime reader of this blog have seen them. But there you go in a quick answer. Kaboom.

Anonymous said...

Radar said:

Supernatural evidence is evidence of supernatural activity. If there is no natural cause or coherent natural explanation and there is a supernatural explanation we have come to Occam's Razor.

So during the Middle Ages the Vikings could irrefutably prove that Thor existed. After all, they didn't have a coherent natural explanation for thunder and lightning, did they?

Come to think of it: correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there some verses in the Bible which say that God takes lightning bolts in his hands and commmands them to strike a target?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

"That you do not like or accept my answers doesn't change the fact that I have answered this many times."

I can't recall where you previously defined "supernatural evidence", let alone where you defined it as the slightly less intuitive "evidence of supernatural activity" as opposed to "evidence that is supernatural in nature".

But as for the second question - "Name an instance in which "supernatural evidence" was used successfully in any scientific explanation, ever" - you have never been able to answer this question.

Since you (predictably and falsely) claim that you've answered this many times, a single link to a single time you've answered this question should do the trick. Unfortunately, since you actually haven't answered this question before, you can't provide such a link.

Which you will now prove to us all by evading or ignoring this request and not posting a link.

-- creeper