End of Year

How do you know?

Uncommon Sense

Presuppositional Apologetics: It’s an area of thought I’ve been studying and am thinking of calling it uncommon sense from now on. The more I study it, the more I realize that it is just that—uncommon sense!

The basic question it asks is: What would have to be true in order for us to have intelligence?  The fancy way of saying it is, “What are the preconditions of intelligibility?” Think about it: In order for us to understand things from the world around us, what would have to be true? We take for granted the fact that we know things and never ask this basic question—”How do we know what we know?” The first thought that comes into my mind when I hear that question is, well we have five senses, don’t we!  We learn through our senses.  The problem is: “How do you know that your senses are valid”? Perhaps your senses are not reliable. How would you know that your senses are not malfunctioning and giving you false information?

Knowledge Comes From God

Many people claim that all knowledge is gained through the senses. However, logic, or “uncommon sense,” if you will, would force us to ask: How do we know that?  Did we ever see, smell, taste, hear or touch all knowledge? To say that all knowledge is gained through the senses and then say you know this because of your senses is a circular argument.  It can’t hold water. Think about it: If our universe evolved over 14 billion years and is made up strictly of matter, how would matter develop intelligence?  Where would intelligence come from?  How smart is a rock? According to evolution, rocks are our origins!  How do you get intelligence out of that? You see God is the necessary starting point because everything else is foolishness.That is a form of what is known as the “Transcendental Argument,” but we will discuss that another time.

The only way to have true knowledge is if it is revealed to us.  And that is exactly what God did. He gave us His word—the Bible—to reveal truth to us. (Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3). You see, without the God of the Bible, we could not know anything!  Powerful thought.

Further Study

If you want to learn with me, I would recommend two books to start with: Ask them Why by Jay Lucus, and The Ultimate Proof by Dr. Jason Lisle.

A great website to see this played out is www.proofthatgodexists.org.

,

Leave23 Responses to testHow do you know?

  1. mike Last July 24, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    An argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises is most often called begging the question or circular reasoning. This classic case of circular reasoning has been used as an example for so long that we find only a few theists still using this fallacy: [48]

    Is there a God?
    Yes.
    How do you know?
    Because the Bible says so.
    How do you know the Bible is correct?
    Because it was inspired by God.

    In this fallacy, the premise, the Bible’s statement that God exists, derives its authority from the attempted conclusion, the existence of the God who allegedly wrote the Bible.

    response?

  2. Eric Hovind July 24, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Mike,

    Thanks for your comment. Rather than get into your (or was it wiki’s) misinterpretation of the argument, let’s address your (mis)understanding of circularity. It is your claim that circularity is a logical fallacy, but let me ask you this; How do you justify the laws of logic which you claim are violated? You would necessarily have to use logic to justify the laws of logic. Furthermore, if I were to ask you how you know that your human reasoning by which you examine ANY claim is valid, you would necessarily have to use your human reasoning. Circularity is unavoidable in some arguments, but indeed it is not always valid.

    Greg Bahnsen writes:
    “In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible. The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious “circularity” of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.

    Surely though you would have to concede that God could reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain? My question to you is, how do YOU know anything for certain? See if you can answer that question, without being viciously circular.

  3. Robert Baty July 25, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    Since you are talking a little “logic” here, and uncommon sense, I would like for you to consider the following argument, its basic stipulations, and get your fundamental rebutttal on the evidence of age issue:

    Major premise:

    > If (A) God’s word (the text) says
    > everything began over a period
    > of six days, and

    > if (B) God’s word is interpreted by
    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
    > days occurring a few thousand
    > years ago, and

    > if (C) there is empirical
    > evidence that some thing is
    > actually much older than a
    > few thousand years,

    > then (D) the interpretation of
    > the text by some is wrong.

    Minor premise:

    > (A) God’s word (the text) says
    > everything began over a period
    > of six days, and

    > (B) God’s word is interpreted by
    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
    > days occurring a few thousand
    > years ago, and

    > (C) there is empirical
    > evidence that some thing is
    > actually much older than a few
    > thousand years.

    Conclusion:

    > (D) The interpretation of the
    > text by some is wrong.

    Stipulations:

    God’s word – special revelation from God in words
    that are not wrong.

    Interpreted by some – what some think that might
    be wrong.

    Empirical evidence that… – some things are
    more than a few thousand years old and we
    can so determine from evidence independent
    of the text.

    Few thousand years – 100,000

    From what I have read on your website, your fundamental rebuttal to the evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old is briefly stated as “God just made them look older than they are”.

  4. Terry Benton July 26, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    Note: As Robert Baty’s argument is presently worded, he claims the word of God can’t be wrong about a 6 day creation of everything. But those interpreting the so-called “empirical evidence” deny that everything (including life, and human life in particular) came into existence over a period of six days. They say the empirical evidence is that man came into existence after (not six days) but after billions of years from the Big Bang.

    Robert’s GRAS argument does not merely indict “interpretation of God’s word”, but actually indicts the word of God itself. He is in self-contradiction about what “can’t be wrong”. He relies on a source that tells that, in their estimation, the word of God IS wrong if it states what Robert’s argument says it says.

    Now, if Robert makes the proper adjustment to his argument (perhaps saying something like: “If some young-earth-creationist say…” instead If the text of God’s word says”….), he may be more successful with his argument. He would have to offer some of their quotes to prove it. On the (B) part he may get into a little more trouble, because he would have to be prepared to show how and why his interpretation of the empirical evidence is “undeniable”. But, at least his argument would not stand against itself as it does in its’ present erroneous form.

    Robert knows that his present form is actually erroneous and self-defeating. He simply has too much pride to admit it and start over with a sound argument.

    RB: Those fellows are already on record stipulating to:

    (A)

    > God’s word saying everything began
    > over a period of six days, and

    TB: That is not what your GRAS reflects. Your GRAS argument does not reflect that it is “these fellows” that interpret the word this way. Your GRAS argument says that this is actually what the text of God’s word says. So, you are not reflecting on “those fellows”. You are reflecting on the word of GOD.

    (B)

    > some interpret God’s word to mean
    > that those six days were within
    > the last few thousand years, and

    TB: Now, here you move to a further “interpretation” from what you claim it actually said. So, A is what the text of the word of God actually says (a six day creation of all things), and B says how long ago that six day creation of all things is “interpreted” to have occurred. So, when we move to C, we have Robert relying on a source (empirical evidence interpreted by naturalists) to not only deny the B (interpretation about how long ago the actual six day creation of all things occurred) but also denies the A (that there ever was a 6 day creation of all things). Thus, Robert starts with what “can’t be wrong” and then relies on a source that says it not only can be wrong, but IS wrong. Thus, his present GRAS argument is self-defeating and unsound.

    (C)

    > there is empirical evidence that
    > some things are more than a few
    > thousand years old.

    TB: This part is actually stated unfairly. It should read: “there is interpretation of empirical evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old”. It is faulty from that standpoint AND from the standpoint that that source also denies (A), the part Robert stipulates as “can’t be wrong”. So, Robert needs to correct his unsound and phony GRAS argument from start to finish.

    I have exposed his silly GRAS on such sites as:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAG2discussion/
    and
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAGdebate/

    Feel free to review this debate with Robert as you have time or interest.

    Terry W. Benton
    http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

  5. Robert Baty July 26, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    Poor Terry!

    Who would have thought he was so fascinated with promoting his “Get Baty Ministry” that he would follow me all the way over here to post his false and misleading claims.

    Terry, to date, has been unable to bring himself to unequivocally admit that the argument is such that its conclusion will follow from the premises if its premises are true and that, based on the stipulations, the major premise is true.

    Terry’s indicated reply to the only real issue involved with the minor premise, is, as I previously noted from this website and as documented in the discussions with Terry and his NI tag-team partner, is simply that “God made things look older than they are”.

    As for a history of the discussions with Terry, his referenced links are not the best place to go for a complete, open, honest history of what has been going on.

  6. Robert Baty July 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    Eric Leslie,

    You wrote:

    > I understand age to be a measurement
    > of time.

    Sounds good to me, and I think that is what Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, et al, have reference to when they say that “nothing is more than a few thousand years old”.

    My question, before the NI Pine Lane church preacher interloped, was whether I am correct in proposing that the best rebuttal to the admitted empirical evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old, is, briefly stated:

    > “God just made it look old”?

    Looks like I am correct in proposing that’s really the best the young-earth creation-science promoters have; no rebuttals have been proposed here.

    You also wrote:

    > Unless you’re there to see something’s
    > creation, it’s age is merely a guess
    > and far from empirical.

    Not so, but in any case, my question and my argument is not about seeing something created.

  7. Eric Leslie July 26, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Robert,
    Your argument is hinged on so-called empirical evidence of the Earth’s age. I would ask what is age? Is age as simple as having a measurable amount of a certain isotope? Is age the color of light measured from a star? Is age the layer of strata that a fossil is found?

    I understand age to be a measurement of time. Unless you’re there to see something’s creation, it’s age is merely a guess and far from empirical.

    -Eric Leslie

  8. Robert Baty July 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    Here’s just one example, quickly found, of what I have reference to:

    http://www.drdino.com/starlight/

    > (excerpts)

    > There are three things to consider
    > when answering the “evidence of age”
    > question:

    > 3. The creation was finished or
    > mature when God made it. Adam
    > was full-grown, the trees had
    > fruit on them, the starlight
    > was visible, etc.

    In other words, “God just made things look old”!

  9. Terry Benton July 27, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    My Valid Argument and True Premises

    Robert Baty writes on at least a couple of sites:

    The form of my argument is such that if its premises are true the conclusion
    will follow as true from the truth of the premises.

    TB: Nobody argues with the form. We argue with the content. The following is also a form of argument that is such that if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises:

    Major Premise:
    >If (A)Robert Baty believes that the text of God’s word
    > says “everything began over a period of six days”,
    > and(B) he believes God’s word can’t be wrong, but
    > (C) believes that naturalistic science is also true in
    >saying that “everything did NOT begin over a period
    > of six days”,
    >then(D) Robert Baty is confused about what he really believes.

    Minor Premise:
    >Robert Baty (A) believes that the text of God’s word says
    > “everything began over a period of six days”, and he believes
    > (B) God’s word can’t be wrong,
    > (C) but believes that naturalistic science is also true in saying
    > that “everything did NOT begin over a period of six days”,

    Conclusion:
    Then (D) Robert Baty is confused about what he really believes.

    The form my argument is such that if its premises are true the conclusion
    will follow as true from the truth of the premises.

    RB: Given the stipulations, the major premise of my argument is true.

    Terry can’t stand it.

    TB: Given the stipulations, the major premise of my argument is true.

    Robert can’t stand it.

    RB: I propose that God’s word can’t be wrong.

    TB: Well then you will have to make up your mind that you believe it regardless of what “scientific” evidence says to the contrary, which puts you in the same boat with those you criticize, the YEC, and your own words will characterize you as well:

    >I, Robert Baty, have my interpretation of the
    >text regarding the origin of man and the resurrection of Jesus,
    > and that trumps any empirical evidence to the contrary.

    What is good for the goose….etc.

    RB: I propose that God’s word says everything began over a period of six days.

    TB: It should be easy for Robert to produce the passage that says this, but we will grant that he actually believes what he says here. Here are the consequences:

    1) Empirical evidence does not support his belief here any more than it does the belief that these six days occurred a “few thousand years ago”. So, Robert cannot believe that empirical evidence trumps the view of a few thousand years ago creation in six days, while NOT believing those same interpretations of empirical evidence can trump his belief in “everything began over a period of six days”. Robert cannot be consistent with his own position, so he loses credibility in using empirical evidence to trump how long ago that Adam (one of the items of the six day creation) was created (which cannot be more than 6,000 -10,000 years ago by genealogical evidence of the “text of God’s word” that Robert admits “can’t be wrong”.

    2) Robert must explain how he can harmonize his own view of the scripture with the empirical evidence or we are forced to believe that he is reckless and hypocritical in his use of “empirical evidence” and his faith in the men who are interpreting it contrary to the divine testimony.

    RB: I propose that there is evidence independent of the text that some things are
    more than a few thousand years old.

    TB: I propose that Robert cannot prove it, and I propose that if he can prove it, then he cannot harmonize his view of the scriptures about a six day creation of all things with his view of empirical evidence. Therefore, I believe Robert should solve his own problems rather than argue hypocritically toward YEC who believe that the divine testimony gives the proper foundation for examining empirical evidence. What Robert does is allow the naturalists to interpret empirical evidence, claim their interpretations are correct, and then criticize those interpretations of the empirical evidence that start with a conviction that God’s word does not allow a creation of all things to have occurred over 10,000 years ago. So, Robert will need to do the following:

    1) Prove there is something much older than a few thousand years old.

    a) Show that there is no error in his assumptions and premises.
    b) Demonstrate that there is a fool-proof way of determining age without starting assumptions.
    c) Demonstrate that a YEC explanation cannot be right.

    2) Show how this so-called “empirical evidence” can be made to harmonize with his view that “everything began over a period of six days”.

    RB: I propose that the only substantive rebuttal to the evidence of age is briefly
    stated as “God just made it look old”.

    TB: We are fine with this belief inasmuch as Adam was made in a full-grown state and one can truthfully say that “God made him look older than he would look naturally at one day old”. Is Robert happy with his belief? Is he willing to live with it? Does he see anything wrong with someone believing that “God just made it look old”?

    RB: Terry can’t stand it and so, I propose, he is the one guilty of knowingly making
    false and misleading statements regarding me, my argument, and the claims I make
    for the argument in the promotion of his “Get Baty Ministry”.

    TB: I have no problem with the argument of appearance of age . My problem is with Baty’s hypocrisy in criticizing such an outlook when it is his own outlook as well as anyone else’s. He has said above that the Bible “can’t be wrong”, that it says “everything began over a period of six days”. Scientists who look at empirical evidence through naturalistic lenses would say that Robert is wrong about his belief that “everything began over a period of six days”. They would look at Robert and summarize his belief as follows:

    > I, Robert Baty, have my interpretation
    > of the text about “everything beginning over a period
    > of six days”, and that trumps any and all
    > empirical evidence to the contrary.

    If that is how Robert wants to be characterized, then he should say so clearly.

    I, on the other hand would state my own position thusly:

    >I, Terry Benton, have my convictions of proper exegesis
    > of the text of God’s word (the Bible), and that trumps
    > any naturalistic interpretation of empirical evidence to
    > the contrary.

    Is this is where Robert Baty stands rather than the former, then let him clearly say so.

    All evidence I have seen from Robert Baty points to the former way of thinking.

    I think Robert has some serious problems that he must overcome, and his GRAS argument is more of a problem for his own position than it is for YEC people.

    Terry W. Benton

  10. Robert Baty July 27, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    Well, I guess readers of this blog are getting some real insight into how the “Get Baty Ministry” and its machine works.

    The NI Pine Lane church stalker, Terry W. Benton, and his “Get Baty Ministry” have some serious problems and it is most unfortunate that he’s chosen such a forum as this for his unseemly display.

    Did Terry actually, unequivocally, agree with me that my argument is such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises, if they be true?

    In days gone by he has tried to make like he agreed with that only to turn around and deny it.

    Now he is cleverly trying to evade an unequivocal admission by changing the subject to another irrelevant argument of his own craftiness.

    Did Terry actually, unequivocally, agree with me that the major premise of my argument is true, based on the stipulations and the simple, force and effect of sound, biblical, common sense reasoning?

    Did Terry deny, or repudicate, the doctrine of apparent/mature age?

    That’s really the substance of where he’s at as I proposed in my first posting here.

    Terry knows there is evidence independent of the text that indicates some things are more than a few thousand years old.

    Watch closely how he tries to deal with that.

    As previously documented, the substantive response has been briefly summarized as “God just made it look older than it is”.

    Terry has offered nothing of substance to that question which I brought to this blog; he has brought his “Get Baty Ministry” and his false and/or misleading claims about me and my argument.

    Matthew 7:1,2
    James 3:1

  11. Robert Baty July 27, 2010 at 11:06 am #

    For those without the interest and/or time to try and figure out all the problems the NI Pine Lane church stalker is having with these matters, it might help to simplify things by simply referencing the recent admission made by one of his NI preaching fellows.

    See:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693
    (Discussion group owned/controlled by Benton)

    > I’ve got my interpretation
    > of the text regarding the
    > real world and that trumps
    > any real world evidence
    > to the contrary; the
    > contrary evidence simply
    > indicating God can make
    > things look older than
    > they are.

    >> I would affirm that!

    >> DBWillis, NI preacher

  12. Robert Baty July 27, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Here’s another simple example of the sort of problems the NI Pine Lane church stalker is exhibiting here:

    In his earlier message the stalker wrote, in relevant part:

    > Robert knows that his present form
    > is actually erroneous…

    Then in his later message he proposes that:

    > Nobody argues with the form…

    So, you’ll just have to pardon me if I emphasize the necessity, if the stalker wants to seriously engage in a discussion of my argument, that he accepts the proposition that, in substance, it is such that its conclusion will follow as true from its premises, if the premises are true and that he can demonstrate he understands why that is the case.

    Similarly, the stalker needs to accept the truth of the major premise and demonstrate he understands why that it is true.

    To date, he has chosen rather to prosecute the aims of his “Get Baty Ministry” and evade acknowledging what his NI tag-team partner, DBWillis, affirmed and its relevance to this discussion.

  13. Terry Benton July 27, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Robert Baty http://www.drdino.com/how-do-you-know/
    July 27th at 10:16 am wrote on his Maury and Baty site:

    Well, I guess readers of this blog are getting some real insight into how the
    “Get Baty Ministry” and its machine works.

    TB: Robert flatters himself. He has been at a “get YEC ministry” for over 15 years. He doesn’t like the fact that I keep exposing his “get-YEC ministry” as a phony ministry. He further says:

    RB: The NI Pine Lane church stalker, Terry W. Benton, and his “Get Baty Ministry”
    have some serious problems and it is most unfortunate that he’s chosen such a
    forum as this for his unseemly display.

    TB: I think that when Robert advertizes on his site (Maury and Baty) that he is spreading his “get YEC ministry” somewhere else, like Hovind’s site and other places, it provides me the incentive to warn such sites about Robert’s “get YEC ministry”. It has been his “unfortunate and unseemly” behavior for 15 years. It is time that Robert be exposed everywhere he goes with his junk argument he calls “Goliath of GAS” and I call his DAGON of GRAS.

    RB: Did Terry actually, unequivocally, agree with me that my argument is such that
    if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth
    of the premises, if they be true?

    TB: I did agree with the form. I clearly did not agree with the content. Did Robert agree with my argument? Did he agree that my argument was valid? If not, why not?

    RB: In days gone by he has tried to make like he agreed with that only to turn
    around and deny it.

    TB: I have agreed with the form, and I have always disagreed with the content. At times Robert appears to equate validity of form with validity of content. His confusing presentations have made it difficult to determine which way he is using his terms. Therefore, I have made it clear that I agree that his argument is in valid modus ponens form, and I have been clear that the content is not correct.

    RB: Now he is cleverly trying to evade an unequivocal admission by changing the
    subject to another irrelevant argument of his own craftiness.

    TB: When Robert can’t answer an argument, he flips it off as “irrelevent”. That has been his standard practice for 15 years. The fact of the matter is that my counter argument is most relevant and gets to the heart of the issue between us. Robert evades his responsibility to discuss such problems as he has with his own GRAS argument. He is very crafty in his evasions, but we will keep showing his problems whether he wants to face them and deal with them or not.

    RB: Did Terry actually, unequivocally, agree with me that the major premise of my
    argument is true, based on the stipulations and the simple, force and effect of
    sound, biblical, common sense reasoning?

    TB: Again, I have been clear that I agree with the form, not the content of your argument.

    RB: Did Terry deny, or repudicate, the doctrine of apparent/mature age?

    TB: Why would I deny what God’s word that “can’t be wrong” (even according to Robert) clearly affirms. For example, God had no problem creating man in a form that was older than a one day old looks under natural conditions. Further, there is no deception when God tells us what he did. Further, it was not deception for eternal God to come in the form of youth as a newborn babe. Is that the “appearance of youth”? Is there something wrong with that?

    RB: That’s really the substance of where he’s at as I proposed in my first posting
    here.

    TB: That also seems to be Robert position as well. He proposed it as a proposition he believes, and further, if he agrees with the Big BANG then he agrees that God did it and made everything over a period of six days. Thus the earth is just as old as the Big Bang, and the fish is just a day or two after the Big Bang, and the monkey is within a few days of the Big Bang, and the man is just a few days of the Big Bang. So, Robert believes in a form of “appearance of age”. He believes in God just making some things “appear” younger than they are. I don’t find anything compelling about Robert’s position that is even as good as YEC. Robert is taking a position that no naturalistic scientist will agree with, no YEC can agree with, and has no position that harmonizes science and scripture.

    RB: Terry knows there is evidence independent of the text that indicates some things
    are more than a few thousand years old.

    TB: Sorry, I don’t look at anything “independent of the text”. I’m a believer in the text, and I believe that the only way to look at something “independent of the text” is to look at that something through the eyes of Philosophical Naturalism. Obviously, I do that I would judge items according to the philosophy and everything would look older than it is because we cannot see humans popping into existence.

    RB: Watch closely how he tries to deal with that.

    TB: I would encourage folks to watch closely how Robert evades dealing with the things he is asked to deal with.

    RB: As previously documented, the substantive response has been briefly summarized
    as “God just made it look older than it is”.

    TB: Again, Robert did not show that there is anything wrong with that viewpoint, and he managed again to avoid dealing with the point I made about his own position which means that he takes a view which can be summarized as “God just made some things look younger than it is”.

    How is his position better?

    RB: Terry has offered nothing of substance to that question which I brought to this
    blog; he has brought his “Get Baty Ministry” and his false and/or misleading
    claims about me and my argument.

    Matthew 7:1,2
    James 3:1

    TB: Robert is quick to call my efforts “false and misleading” without ever showing HOW they are false and misleading, and in his own “get YEC ministry” (now 15 years old) he resents any efforts that show the fallacy of his arguments. Therefore, he calls my counter arguments a “get-Baty ministry”. I prefer to view my efforts as a “counter the get YEC ministry” or rather a “contend earnestly for the faith” ministry. At any rate, if Robert feels that I am getting him, he would better prevent such by answering the questions he always avoids answering. Wouldn’t that be better than pretending I am after Baty? What he should see is the positive side. It is not a “get Baty” ministry (as if I am merely getting him told), but rather it is a “get-Baty-saved” ministry and save those who are similarly deceived. I appreciate the passages. Matt.7:1,2 is about unfair and hypocritical judging, and James 3:1 is warning people not to be teachers when they are not carefully in charge of their tongue and know how to properly use it. It is my judgment that Robert is hypocritically judging YEC and he is using his tongue without being in charge of his tongue and knowing what to say with it to others.

    But, that can only be judged properly when Robert shows he can answer questions regarding his own position rather than just administer his “get YEC ministry” without dealing with substantive objections to his thought patters and expressions.

    Terry W. Benton
    http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

    ——————-

  14. John DeVilbiss July 27, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    Hello Mr. Hovind

    Thanks for your straight talk on central issues (e.g., logic)

    Somehow, the line of thought has gotten from “logic” to “the age of the Earth”…

    I am a Christian geologist, with an undergraduate thesis in geochronology; The logic behind rock dating methods is public info. What is not public info is the data that is thrown away when measuring critical parameters in the age dating of rocks (applicable to dating “strata”).

    Is it logical to think that a researcher dating rocks via geochemistry, upon getting some “anomalous” values in measurement, would simply throw those out (keeping the “good ones”)? After all, research prestige is often measured by the NUMBER of publications.

    //////////

    But, if the topic is still logic (and thanks for the topic)…. then:

    It is NOT logical to think the “days” of creation in the book of Genesis (part of the Torah and Bible, etc.) were 24 hour “days” in the modern, English, sense of the word, because the Sun and Moon were created on the 4th “day.” Our modern definition of an actual day (and lunar month) implies a rotation of the Earth with respect to a luminous body. It is NOT logical to equate a modern 24 hour day to a “day” before the Sun and Moon (and stars, including Venus, Mars) were “made” (pardon my Hebrew). In the same manner, it is NOT logical to equate the translated words “evening” and “morning” with their modern day English meanings.

    Therefore, there’s no logical need to question the reliability of geochronological methods, in general, except on the merits of each individual rock age determination (e.g., coal is a rock).

    Hope this helps. Logic is not a matter of preference, and that’s good.

  15. Robert Baty July 27, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    I guess readers are getting some real insight into how NI stalkers/preachers deal with those who dare to take them to task for their false and misleading ways and beat them at their own game.

    Terry and I have been at this for a long time and he always loses; most recently pledging that he was “through with me and my argument” only to reappear in stalking mode on this blog.

    Go figure.

    I do give Terry credit for being able to out-keyboard me. I’ll let him have that award. No substance to his verbose, rambling, false and misleading postings, but he can sure produce the stuff.

    Terry’s false and misleading claims have been documented over and over and over again throughout our discussions. Terry doesn’t handle his problems very well, as should be evident in the very tone of his discourses above.

    Didn’t Terry say here that I had a problem with the form of my argument and then turn around and say there was no problem with the form of my argument! And Terry supposes I am the one with the mental problems!

    I’m interested though, if there are any interested folk around here who having something substantive to offer regarding my original inquiry, I would like to know.

  16. Eric Leslie July 28, 2010 at 8:11 am #

    Robert Baty,

    In a way you’re proving my point. Just because God made Adam fully grown and created the earth with trees bearing fruit and visible star light doesn’t mean “it looks old”. You’re making the assumption that age is hinged on the maturity level of a man or a fruit tree. A “mature” creation does not imply any age.

    I still contend age is merely a measurement of time. Creationists use genealogy to to come up with approximate dates. Genealogy is a measurement of time. We use history/genealogy elsewhere, in an empirical fashion, stating dates and ages. Evolutionists will often give greater credibility to documents that date ancient Babylonian civilization. Why is that trusted over the Bible?

    Best,
    Eric

  17. Robert Baty July 28, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    Eric Leslie,

    I rather think you are the one proving my point in trying to deny the evidence of age, contrary to what Hovind, Ham and other prominent young-earth creation-science promoters concede and then propose to rebut by, briefly stated, invoking “God just made it look older than it is”.

    You wrote, in part:

    > Just because God made Adam fully
    > grown…doesn’t mean “(he looked) old”.

    You’ll have to take your complaint up with Ham, Hovind and the others. From what I have read from them, they propose that a one day old Adam did actually “look” to be about “30 something”. He might have even had a scar on his left knee from an old childhood injury that never happened and…………………a belly button!

    And many other such examples could be given.

    You also wrote, in part:

    > I still contend age is merely
    > a measurement of time.

    Yeah, me to!

    You added, in part:

    > Genealogy is a measurement of time.

    I don’t think so!

    In any case, relevant to this discussion is time measured in years.

    By the way, I don’t think you said, explicitly.

    Do you accept the fact that my argument is such that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises?

    Do you accept that, given the stipulated definitions, that the major premise of my argument is true?

    Those two matters are fundamental to understanding the issue and the reasoning involved before proposing to fuss about what to do about the evidence of age contrary to the interpretation of the text by some.

  18. Doktor Benway July 28, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    I love it when you pre-sup Christians get your sewing circle going round and round. Keeps you off the streets, out of the schools and basically out of the way. Keep up the good work…

  19. Robert Baty July 28, 2010 at 9:54 am #

    Aside:

    Someone needs to do something about the blog posting false dates for the messages.

  20. Nigel McNaughton July 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    Frankly to me Presup is a non-starter until you can show how you know your own mind is working without error and how you distinguish truth from deception from a all powerful being who can lie to you can make you think it’s the truth.

  21. Alan Cass July 30, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    One can test a proposition to see if its results repeat. You can put the Bible to the test against the real world, true science, history, logic, repeatability, prophecy, and anything you want. I have and it works better than the shifting sands of wishy washy paganinzed science. And the Bible says God exists, and that he created the world in six days.

    The true Bible, that is, the Authorized Version, like Kent Hovind always taught. Don’t let any infiltrators or doubters like Paul warned against an inch inside your camel tent, Eric. Don’t be like the Israelites in the desert who forgot the miracles so quickly. Kent was thrown into the dungeon, betrayed by the same Pharisees as before, but there are tokens for entry to mansions there. He has fruits nobody ever heard of here, far and away above what we know about.

    Despise not thy birthright, Eric..

    –trutherator

  22. Stuart Mitchell August 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Have any of you red Bart Erhman or understand that the Gospels were written anonymously? The discussion of “logic” in regards to the book of Genesis is a non-starter. The book is a myth and a morality tale that does not reflect well on it’s writer(s) whom did not record anything until 800 years after the alleged events occurred. You are not allowed to use logic and reason in reading or interpreting the bible. “Reason is the Devils harlot” – Martin Luther

  23. Nigel McNaughton August 3, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    The True/Authorized Bible? Authorized by whom?