False evidence of age or mature creation?


#21

I feel like we’re in Inception… what if it’s really a presupposition of a presupposition of a presupposition…?


#22

If you read the statement in its context, his meaning is plain and accessible.

For the record, every inference anyone makes about anything whatsoever is based on some previously existing assumptions (presuppositions), so it renders frivolous that line of argumentation.


(James McKay) #23

Not quite. I mean that when a young-earther says “presupposition” like that it’s just noise and can be disregarded as a non-answer.

That’s your magic shibboleth again.

It wasn’t just Hugh Ross who pointed that one out. It was the young-earth RATE project scientists themselves. On page 183 of the RATE technical report to be precise.


(Wookin Panub) #24

I never said that I did not have presuppositions, my friend. The question is, whose presupposition is the correct one to have. I hold a biblical presupposition.


(Wookin Panub) #25

Sorry my friend, say what you want, but you cannot get around your presuppositions. They are there and they shape how you see the world around you.


(James McKay) #26

And I’ve also explained to you in detail why that argument doesn’t work Wookin. We’re not talking about seeing the world around you, we’re talking about measuring the world around you. And when you measure the world around you, presuppositions have nothing to do with it.

Of course, you’ll just dismiss that as a presupposition. But that would just prove my point, that you’re using “presuppositions” as a magic shibboleth again. And the argument will go round and round in circles until the moderators close it off.


(Wookin Panub) #27

Well Mr. Bourne is inferring that Calvin is telling astronomers etc… that there is nothing in Genesis; therefore go elsewhere, But if you really look at the what Calvin said i.e. “visible world” meaning observational/operational science, which requires little interpretation of the evidence as oppose to views of the age of the earth or evolution, which requires a lot of interpretation, because they have never been observed. They do not qualify as “the visible world”


(Wookin Panub) #28

What you are basically saying is that you dismiss my presuppositions, and that I should accept yours?


(James McKay) #29

Given that your use of the word “presupposition” is essentially meaningless, yes. If you want to make a case, Wookin, you need to actually say something of substance.


(Wookin Panub) #30

Is it not evident? We are stuck in a circular logic world. Presuppositional apologetics exposes human fallen logic when taken to it’s end as “reductio ad absurdum” that without the bible, no one can know anything, because only a biblical worldview can account for logic, reason, evidence etc…


(James McKay) #31

A Biblical worldview tells us that we must respect the rules and principles of mathematics and measurement. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 again.


(Wookin Panub) #32

And yet, you are connecting something as basic math with evolution or the age of the earth. One cannot measure the age of the earth like I measure my desk without a lot of p------------s :slight_smile:


(James McKay) #33

You know fine that that is simply not true Wookin.


(Wookin Panub) #34

LOL…Really? There are scientists who do not agree with your findings. Why are they wrong and you are right? They can’t count?


#35

You have misrepresented what I said about Calvin. He did not say, “there is nothing in Genesis; therefore go elsewhere.” He is saying that it is outside the scope of Genesis to address our scientific curiosities about the cosmos.


(Wookin Panub) #36

I did not mean you said Calvin was talking about Genesis…sorry. Calvin was talking about Genesis, but Calvin was talking about the “VISIBLE WORLD” (observation/operational) not just our curiosities in general.


(James McKay) #37

Exactly which scientists, and exactly which findings, Wookin?

As I said, if you want to make a case for your position, you need to say something of substance.


(Wookin Panub) #38

Doesn’t matter what scientist? There are scientist with science credentials who do not agree with you. Why are they wrong and you are right? They can’t count?


(James McKay) #39

Of course it matters Wookin. I can’t give a meaningful response if you aren’t prepared to tell me who exactly I’m supposedly disagreeing with and what about.

As I said, Wookin, if you want to make a case, you need to say something of substance. Until and unless you’re prepared to do so, further discussion is pointless. Stop wasting everybody’s time.


(Wookin Panub) #40

There are scientists with science credentials who say that the world is much younger than billions of years. There are scientists who say there is no evidence for evolution. Why are they wrong and you are right?