Why I almost quit doing this....
You know, I did quit blogging regularly for awhile and nearly quit altogether. It happens that a real-life situation caused us a great deal of grief and trouble. The old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished" applies. I think we would still do it over again because the cause was just and the need was great. I found myself stretched way too far for awhile, though.
I do get discouraged when I get comments back that indicate that the reader really didn't pay attention to the posts or else refuses to acknowledge them. Let's look at a response like that, from a commenter I enjoy hearing from but who seems stuck somehow:
I was beginning to think you were stuck under something heavy.
Yep, I was. Out now, though.
"I really don't remember what particular point we were stuck on in the Creation debate now. Perhaps commenters will remind me?"
Yeah, I asked for it, didn't I?
If by this you mean the number of points you've abandoned when you could no longer support your stance, the list is really quite long and it would take too much out of my day to compile them all. Your blog does have a good archiving feature in the left sidebar, where you can find all these.
Aha, I am charged with crimes! Let's examine some of them:
For the moment, here is a brief rundown of recent open questions:
1. You recently used evidence of ice cores going back something like 800,000 years and tree rings going back over 10,000 years in order to back up a certain position on global warming that would be insupportable given only the written records of the last two centuries that are available to us.
Not true. I used arguments about data from the last approximately 4500 years to make those points.
When I drew your attention to the fact that this was incompatible with your YEC beliefs, you pretended to misunderstand the problem for a while, but then endeavored to show how ice cores and tree rings actually indicate a young Earth.
So you posted an opening argument that did not show such a thing about ice cores. The "opening argument" was not followed by any subsequent argument.
It is you that has misunderstood. I didn't use data from beyond about 4500 years, as I have stated and shown several times. But go ahead and revisit the "opening argument" and you will see that the article was a firm statement that refutes the idea that ice cores "prove" an old age. I didn't follow up on the opening argument because 1) no one gave any evidence in response other than "is not!" and, 2) I was going to go on about tree rings once that happened. But it hasn't happened.
Are you going to finish this argument, or are you content to admit that ice cores and tree rings indicate a world older than 6,000 years?
I posted a nice, long post that blows holes in any 800,000 year conclusions and I will be content to say that ice cores can be shown to reflect a world that is 6,000 years old based on the evidence. No one has countered my post yet.
2. Your larger argument about global warming - that it doesn't matter because there have been climate cycles in the past (a position that by itself you cannot support with the amount of scientific evidence that your worldview requires you to ignore or refute) – doesn't add up, because it does not logically mean that these cycles will continue indefinitely into the future, certainly not if any factors affecting the climate change. It is like saying that a Tsunami could never happen because we see the tide go in and out every day.
Please....I used evidences from the last 4500 years and those evidences are pretty convincing. It is like saying that if the have gone in and out for the last 4500 years, then if the tide is in right now it will soon go out again....because the evidence indicates that it always does. Just as the evidence indicates that warming is followed by cooling is followed by warming is followed by cooling...
3. The folks at ICR debunked the argument you posted about the speed of light changing. I posted both an excerpt from and a link to their argument.
I posted links as well. "Debunked" is a strong word, since those who suspect a change in the speed of light are in the process of researching this. I said that the speed of light does change, demonstrably, in differing conditions and that it may have decayed from the time of Creation. I really cannot say whether anyone has come close to proving this, or that it is actually true and neither can you.
Do you think the ICR is part of a secular conspiracy?
No, I believe they are very conservative and won't consider this a topic of discussion without further data being presented that makes it more of a possibility.
Do you still maintain that the speed of light is changing, and if so, on what basis?
I merely presented it as a possibility to be considered. There is another good possibility that the Earth was created on the cusp of a relativistic event horizon associated with a White Hole. I will post on this particular matter soon. I am just saying, there are several ideas that are more plausible than, gee, there was this big bang and something came out of nothing....
There's probably more that are also recent, and a whole slew from last year, but this should serve for now to continue the conversation.
About the content of this particular post:
1. "I speak like I belong to God, act like it, vote like it, think like it."
Is it considered a Christian virtue to continue to spread fallacies even after they are pointed out to you?
Well, what fallacies? I've refuted your charges above and seem to be fallacy-free at the moment.
2. "They often talk a good game, yet they live by a hodge-podge of both humanistic and Christian rules."
There is significant overlap between how a good Christian and a good humanist conduct their lives (indeed, there are both Christian and secular humanists). Unfortunately, you don't seem to know what 'humanism' is and you leap to some rash conclusions because of it. It would be very helpful if you could read up on the subject, of course with the proper degree of tolerance that one would expect from an observing Christian.
I've "read up" as you would say on the subject of Humanism. The modern Humanist draws from the Renaissance and the Darwin-Nietzsche schools of thought. I have no doubt whatever that there are many Humanists who are "good people" as men judge goodness. A Humanist doesn't have to be a detriment to his community and in fact may be a great asset to it! He is, however, certainly a great danger to himself, for if he successfully deludes himself into believing his own philosophy he will be subject to harsh judgement by his Maker later on. All Humanists believe that it is mankind that is responsible for its own salvation and moral standards and so on...it is man-centric rather than God-centric.
The Christian point of view is to say that no one is good enough to meet the standard of "good" and that right and wrong are absolutes determined by the Creator of us all. A Christian must acknowledge his inability to be his own salvation and submit to God by admittance and repentance. If we humble ourselves before God and accept salvation through Christ, we are then changed and are better able to live Godly lives because of the Spirit of God that then lives within us. Being human, we will still fail at times. But a Christian acknowledges his Maker, the rules of his Maker and seeks to please his Maker while he lives on this earth.
My posts on the EAE have been meant to highlight the fringe, the absurd and the remarkably evil in order to point out that the basis for Humanist thought comes from the desire to eliminate God from all consideration. I have also reasonably pointed out that, whereas a sociopath may be a menace to society, he is in perfect harmony with a pure atheistic and evolutionist viewpoint, for he sees no intrinsic value in others and acknowledges no absolute standards of right and wrong. In fact, the EAE can argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong.
I almost quit blogging because I was tired and unsure if it did even one bit of good. But I am refreshed and ready to continue on! I will keep shouting from ethernet rooftops!
I do get discouraged when I get comments back that indicate that the reader really didn't pay attention to the posts or else refuses to acknowledge them. Let's look at a response like that, from a commenter I enjoy hearing from but who seems stuck somehow:
I was beginning to think you were stuck under something heavy.
Yep, I was. Out now, though.
"I really don't remember what particular point we were stuck on in the Creation debate now. Perhaps commenters will remind me?"
Yeah, I asked for it, didn't I?
If by this you mean the number of points you've abandoned when you could no longer support your stance, the list is really quite long and it would take too much out of my day to compile them all. Your blog does have a good archiving feature in the left sidebar, where you can find all these.
Aha, I am charged with crimes! Let's examine some of them:
For the moment, here is a brief rundown of recent open questions:
1. You recently used evidence of ice cores going back something like 800,000 years and tree rings going back over 10,000 years in order to back up a certain position on global warming that would be insupportable given only the written records of the last two centuries that are available to us.
Not true. I used arguments about data from the last approximately 4500 years to make those points.
When I drew your attention to the fact that this was incompatible with your YEC beliefs, you pretended to misunderstand the problem for a while, but then endeavored to show how ice cores and tree rings actually indicate a young Earth.
So you posted an opening argument that did not show such a thing about ice cores. The "opening argument" was not followed by any subsequent argument.
It is you that has misunderstood. I didn't use data from beyond about 4500 years, as I have stated and shown several times. But go ahead and revisit the "opening argument" and you will see that the article was a firm statement that refutes the idea that ice cores "prove" an old age. I didn't follow up on the opening argument because 1) no one gave any evidence in response other than "is not!" and, 2) I was going to go on about tree rings once that happened. But it hasn't happened.
Are you going to finish this argument, or are you content to admit that ice cores and tree rings indicate a world older than 6,000 years?
I posted a nice, long post that blows holes in any 800,000 year conclusions and I will be content to say that ice cores can be shown to reflect a world that is 6,000 years old based on the evidence. No one has countered my post yet.
2. Your larger argument about global warming - that it doesn't matter because there have been climate cycles in the past (a position that by itself you cannot support with the amount of scientific evidence that your worldview requires you to ignore or refute) – doesn't add up, because it does not logically mean that these cycles will continue indefinitely into the future, certainly not if any factors affecting the climate change. It is like saying that a Tsunami could never happen because we see the tide go in and out every day.
Please....I used evidences from the last 4500 years and those evidences are pretty convincing. It is like saying that if the have gone in and out for the last 4500 years, then if the tide is in right now it will soon go out again....because the evidence indicates that it always does. Just as the evidence indicates that warming is followed by cooling is followed by warming is followed by cooling...
3. The folks at ICR debunked the argument you posted about the speed of light changing. I posted both an excerpt from and a link to their argument.
I posted links as well. "Debunked" is a strong word, since those who suspect a change in the speed of light are in the process of researching this. I said that the speed of light does change, demonstrably, in differing conditions and that it may have decayed from the time of Creation. I really cannot say whether anyone has come close to proving this, or that it is actually true and neither can you.
Do you think the ICR is part of a secular conspiracy?
No, I believe they are very conservative and won't consider this a topic of discussion without further data being presented that makes it more of a possibility.
Do you still maintain that the speed of light is changing, and if so, on what basis?
I merely presented it as a possibility to be considered. There is another good possibility that the Earth was created on the cusp of a relativistic event horizon associated with a White Hole. I will post on this particular matter soon. I am just saying, there are several ideas that are more plausible than, gee, there was this big bang and something came out of nothing....
There's probably more that are also recent, and a whole slew from last year, but this should serve for now to continue the conversation.
About the content of this particular post:
1. "I speak like I belong to God, act like it, vote like it, think like it."
Is it considered a Christian virtue to continue to spread fallacies even after they are pointed out to you?
Well, what fallacies? I've refuted your charges above and seem to be fallacy-free at the moment.
2. "They often talk a good game, yet they live by a hodge-podge of both humanistic and Christian rules."
There is significant overlap between how a good Christian and a good humanist conduct their lives (indeed, there are both Christian and secular humanists). Unfortunately, you don't seem to know what 'humanism' is and you leap to some rash conclusions because of it. It would be very helpful if you could read up on the subject, of course with the proper degree of tolerance that one would expect from an observing Christian.
I've "read up" as you would say on the subject of Humanism. The modern Humanist draws from the Renaissance and the Darwin-Nietzsche schools of thought. I have no doubt whatever that there are many Humanists who are "good people" as men judge goodness. A Humanist doesn't have to be a detriment to his community and in fact may be a great asset to it! He is, however, certainly a great danger to himself, for if he successfully deludes himself into believing his own philosophy he will be subject to harsh judgement by his Maker later on. All Humanists believe that it is mankind that is responsible for its own salvation and moral standards and so on...it is man-centric rather than God-centric.
The Christian point of view is to say that no one is good enough to meet the standard of "good" and that right and wrong are absolutes determined by the Creator of us all. A Christian must acknowledge his inability to be his own salvation and submit to God by admittance and repentance. If we humble ourselves before God and accept salvation through Christ, we are then changed and are better able to live Godly lives because of the Spirit of God that then lives within us. Being human, we will still fail at times. But a Christian acknowledges his Maker, the rules of his Maker and seeks to please his Maker while he lives on this earth.
My posts on the EAE have been meant to highlight the fringe, the absurd and the remarkably evil in order to point out that the basis for Humanist thought comes from the desire to eliminate God from all consideration. I have also reasonably pointed out that, whereas a sociopath may be a menace to society, he is in perfect harmony with a pure atheistic and evolutionist viewpoint, for he sees no intrinsic value in others and acknowledges no absolute standards of right and wrong. In fact, the EAE can argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong.
I almost quit blogging because I was tired and unsure if it did even one bit of good. But I am refreshed and ready to continue on! I will keep shouting from ethernet rooftops!