Last week I shared part of my recent Facebook discussion with a professor from Columbia University. The discussion lasted about a week but it is evident that the professor does not want to listen to arguments against his position. At this point we are just arguing with each other. I have shared the Gospel with him and his worldview has been challenged but he is not wanting to listen. So I am now leaving the discussion and leaving the results to God. Below is more of the discussion.
You will see mentions of Dr. Andrew Snelling throughout the discussion. Dr. Snelling is a geologist who works for Answers In Genesis. He has been denied a permit to take a rock sample for research purposes because of his beliefs. If you go to our Facebook page and read more or the comments you can get more context about Dr. Snelling. Professor Christie-Blick does not like him or his position on creation and part way into the discussion resorts to name calling. But let me stop talking and get to the discussion.
The professor said: "Ladies and gentlemen: I am going to shut down this particular conversation. My intended target – Jason Lisle – has chosen not to participate. I am not surprised. Standard practice among professional creationists is to refuse to engage, particularly in public. So let me end with a few general observations.
That was said on July 17. As evidenced by the rest of this post the professor continued to write. You can see the rest of the conversation on our Facebook page here. Here is where I started writing to him again. Again you can go back and read more of the thread for context but it would be very long to post it all here so this will have to do.
The professor said:Mark Sara Cowperthwaite First, I am pretty sure that is what Snelling is going to do, now that he has bludgeoned the NPS with a lawsuit. It is also almost certainly the case that he will magically discover what he is looking for, because that is how creationism works. There is no testing (science), just fitting observations to predetermined conclusions (not science). And he will be wrong because it is already established that he is wrong. [Download the articles yourself. They are merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of how badly he is wrong.] The world view business is a lie. There isn't a more delicate way of saying it. And, it seems, that no matter how many times I explain it, your response is always la la la. The difference between beliefs (not science) and science boils down to this exact issue. Science is about testing, NOT interpreting data in the context of some inviolable assumption. In the case of the East Kaibab monocline, the Cambrian sandstones were brittle (hard) when deformed, not soft. I have provided two independent sets of observations (of many). It also turns out that the fold has nothing to do with 'flooding'. We know from geological mapping (observation) that it is cored by a brittle fault with an offset of more than one mile in underlying crystalline rocks. And that brittle fault is part of a belt of deformation that extends from eastern Alaska to eastern Mexico, with cumulative displacements across that belt in excess of 100 km (60 miles). Peter DeCelles claims three times that figure. The style of deformation is EXACTLY the same as in contemporary equivalents. They have been documented in exquisite detail. Yet in the creationist world view, the rate of deformation has to be more than 7 orders of magnitude greater (10 to the power 7). Sorry. This is nuts! And of course, it's worse than nuts because I have repeatedly offered to visit outcrops with creationists to discuss readily made observations. They refuse to do that (Snelling included) because they are either not interested in facts or they are aware that what they are saying isn't true.
I wrote back: This is Virginia. You said " The world view business is a lie." But then later in your comment you said " Yet in the creationist world view," First you said that the worldview business is a lie and then you said that creationists have a worldview. But it can be expected that you would commit logical fallacies since your position is logically bankrupt. Because along with not being able to justify uniformity in your worldview you also cannot account for universal, invariant, immaterial laws, such as laws of logic. Also in your comments you keep mentioning science and evidence that prove creation to be false. Yet you have not provided the justification for uniformity in nature which is a necessary precondition for science. I can account for uniformity because God is the one who upholds the universe in a consistent fashion. But you do not believe in God therefore you cannot use that as your justification. You said " In the case of the East Kaibab monocline, the Cambrian sandstones were brittle (hard) when deformed, not soft." Um were you there when they were deformed? If not then how do you know how soft the rocks were when they were deformed? You also said " Sorry. This is nuts!" in regards to the rate of deformation you say we creationists have to have. But I would say that it is nuts that you keep trying to provide evidence to prove your position using science when you cannot account for the precondition necessary for that science, uniformity in nature. ~Virginia
The professor:Virginia: The world view rationale is a creationist construct. According to that construct, science and creationism deal with the same evidence. We merely interpret that evidence according to different world views. This claim is a lie. I have already explained why it is a lie, but let me try one more time. First, that isn't how science is done. Science depends on testing explanations against data under circumstances in which we are prepared to accept that the explanation might not be correct. Science is NOT about interpreting data according to inviolable assumptions. No such assumptions exist in science. We have no world view other than deference to evidence. All assumptions are themselves testable and falsifiable. This is in marked contrast to creationism. Creationism DOES depend on a world view, a set of beliefs that no creationist is prepared to abandon, no matter how much evidence is stacked up to the contrary. Take Andrew Snelling's project as an example: There are two possibilities. One is that the Cambrian sandstones were lithified (hard) at the time of deformation. The other is that they were unlithified (soft). Every last scrap of information that exists, more than a century of geological studies in the American West and beyond, demonstrate that the rocks were lithified hundreds of millions of years before they were folded in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary, and that the folding had nothing to do with a global flood. For Andrew Snelling to conclude otherwise, as he surely will, he must ignore ALL of that contrary evidence. A central claim of the world view construct – that we are dealing with the same evidence – is patently false.
You repeat another very common yet bogus creationist assertion: the idea that we cannot know about the past because we weren't there at the time. Very little of science depends on being there. MOST empirical data are instrumental or based upon proxies of one kind or another. And so it is with Earth science. The great antiquity of the Earth is established beyond any shadow of doubt by the vast array of geological events that have been documented in the crust. The order of those events is a matter of observation. A overlies B, and is cross-cut by C. We have at our disposal a great many independent geological clocks. Ordered events can now be calibrated in years with a confidence of better than a fraction of 1%. So we know, based upon those data, that the key assumption of Young Earth Creationism – that all of it happened in 6,000 years – is false. There is no possibility at all that it is true. Beliefs that depend upon a young Earth are themselves demonstrably not true.
Uniformity of nature: To the extent that nature is inferred to be uniform, and there are many ways in which it isn't, that is a matter of empirical observation, not assumption. Among the advantages of Earth science (and astrophysics) over science that deals primarily with contemporary phenomena is that we have a record of what happened over a long span of time and at a huge range of timescales. So for example, it is possible to study twice-daily tidal cycles (very short timescale) 650 million years in the geological past. (There are some very nice examples in South Australia.) While important changes have occurred over Earth's protracted history (in the evolution of life, ocean chemistry, climate, the distribution of continents and oceans, to take a few examples), it is remarkable how fundamental phenomena continued to operate in the same way. A world view in which that is explicitly not the case, and that involves departures by many orders of magnitude, is simply not borne out by the data.
Me: Nicholas Christie-Blick. This is Virginia. I see that you like ad hominem attacks. Could you please use a logical argument to explain why Dr. Snelling is a "doofus"? You are simply calling him names because you do not agree with his interpretation of the evidence. That is how children argue, they resort to name calling instead of providing a rational argument. Since we should both be acting as adults in this conversation I would appreciate some more grown up behavior. By the way ad hominem can by added to the list of logical fallacies that you have committed in this thread. I highly suggest Dr. Lisle's book Discerning Truth. It is an excellent summary on logical fallacies.
Also, you try to dismiss everything I say because it does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence. If that is how this discussion works could not I simply ignore everything you say because I do not agree with it? That my friend is ignoring the evidence simply because it challenges your worldview. It is strange, I seem to remember someone recently accusing creationists of cherry picking data and trying to force data into their predetermined conclusions.
I just have two questions I would like you to answer. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? and What is truth? I would really appreciate it if you could simply answer these questions. Thank you. ~Virginia
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Virginia: Yet another standard creationist tactic – to distract attention from the issue at hand with a red herring. At stake here is not Snelling's stupidity, but his refusal to consider evidence that contradicts his scripturally based beliefs. There is no his interpretation vs my interpretation. He ignores virtually all of the data that need to be accommodated! Jason Lisle does the same thing, by the way. Creationism is fundamentally dishonest. Turning such criticisms back on science doesn't work. There is no symmetry. Unlike creationism, science is inherently self-critical, and not monolithic. Science is careful to accommodate pertinent constraints, and to avoid cherry-picking evidence. Science has no world view other than deference to evidence. (Didn't I just explain this to you?)
In answer to your parting questions: Could I be wrong about everything I claim to know? Yes, I could. The essence of science is to be guided by evidence. If new evidence comes to light, interpretations commonly need to be adjusted. After a little over two centuries, however, Earth science has converged on an overarching understanding of phenomena and history that is now remarkably well established. Progress is reflected in the gradually increasing sophistication of the science, not in the overturning of core principals. So the probability of my being wrong at the level of the creation myth of Genesis is as close to zero as you can get. What is truth? Truth in a scientific context is an interpretation of the world around us that constitutes a good approximation of how it actually is or came to be. If you are searching for an absolute yardstick, none exists. And it isn't needed. Science works. Predictions are borne out by new observations. Creationism isn't a viable alternative.
Daddy said: But you could be wrong about that.
The professor:Mark Sara Cowperthwaite My answer was scrupulously honest. That said, evidence for a protracted planetary history is overwhelming, and evidence for anything remotely like the creation myth and global flood of Genesis, non-existent. That mismatch is reflected in my willingness to meet with anyone, anywhere to examine and discuss the evidence and the refusal of every single YEC I have invited to join me.
The professor again: Humans first arrived in Australia 65,000 years ago, 59,000 years before the universe was created. http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sci.../21_july_2017...
I think this was Daddy writing:You also could be wrong about what you think I know. This is why any world view except the biblical world view implodes when taken to it's a logical conclusion or rather illogical conclusion.
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Given the option of making choices based upon evidence, and making choices based upon the hope that all of the evidence that exists turns out to be wrong, there is only one rational way forward. Insisting upon beliefs that are demonstrably not true strikes me as not especially 'logical', especially when other people of faith defend different evidence-defying beliefs just as vigorously. But hey, I'm new to this world view business.
Me: Nicholas Christie-Blick. This is Virginia. You said you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. But later you said " So the probability of my being wrong at the level of the creation myth of Genesis is as close to zero as you can get." You said that you could be wrong but you probably are not. But the problem is you could be wrong about that too. If you could be wrong and there is no absolute truth I could dismiss this entire discussion because you could be wrong. And even if you were right what difference does that make? If there is no absolute truth what is true for you may not be true for me.
The problem with saying that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know is that you have given up knowledge and turned to absurdity. You try to make knowledge claims about how creation is false but you admitted that you could be wrong. And you know what, you could be wrong, that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. When you could be wrong about everything you claim to know it follows that you could know nothing. I like the example that Sye Ten Bruggencate uses, if I told you the speed of the road outside this building is 45 miles an hour, but I could be wrong do I really know it? The answer is no. If you could be wrong you do not not actually know it. Also in a world without God you could not know anything unless you knew everything. I will explain. Let's take the letter "A" to represent a truth claim, when asked how you know "A" you would say because of "B" how do you know "B" because of "C" how do you know "C" because of "D" and so on. This example does not end at the end of the alphabet it never ends. It is an infinite regress. So to know anything you would have to have all knowledge, OR, have a revelation from someone who does. That person is God Almighty.
But you see Nicholas you do now things to be true. You know that God exists because he has revealed himself to everyone so that they are without excuse for denying it. But when you deny that God exists you are suppressing the truth that you know about God. You have been shown that without God you could know nothing and that is absurd. But with God you can actually know things to be true since you have a revelation from someone who does know all things. The purpose of my continuing to talk with you is to show the truth of the biblical worldview and the most important part of my worldview is the Gospel of Christ. I know you do not agree with me but I am going to tell you anyway. Everyone on this earth is a sinner. We have all sinned against a holy and righteous and just God and for that we deserve an eternity in Hell under the wrath of Almighty God. But 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ came to earth as a man. He lived a perfect life before God His Father. He was crucified not for His own sins, since he had no sins of His own, but for the sins of all who will turn to him in repentance and faith. He was buried and 3 days later rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in Heaven. He is King over all. One day he will come again and take His children home with Him to heaven. My prayer for you is that the Holy Spirit would convict you of your sins. Repent, turn away from your sins, turn to Christ in faith, trusting in Him alone for salvation! Do not wait another day, today is the day of salvation! When you are saved God no longer sees you as a guilty sinner but He sees you as one who is clothed in Christ's righteousness. Jesus Christ died to save sinners! Stop trusting in yourself, you could be wrong, and trust only Jesus Christ who alone is able to save you! Please think about these words and then act, fall on your face and ask God to grant you repentance, to change the way you think about Him and to open your eyes to the truth! ~Virginia
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Virginia: Among the most glaring differences between science and religion is that scientists actively seek flaws in reasoning in order to improve understanding, whereas people of faith refuse to consider even the most clear-cut evidence that their beliefs are false. So the honest answer to the question “Could I be wrong?” is Yes. But consider the context. In order for the Book of Genesis to be literally true, it is necessary for more than two centuries of research to be wrong in its entirety, in spite of repeated confirmation that it is on the right track. As one who is intimately familiar with the evidence, let me rephrase my carefully calibrated statement in plain English: There is no possibility at all that the creation narrative of Genesis is true.
With regard to ‘absolute truth’, that is of course a standard religious trap. Fundamentally at stake is not the functioning of nature or the history of events, but whether we as observers possess an absolute standard. We don’t. Nor in reality is there absolute truth in nature itself. Check Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or Einstein’s special relativity. However, the absence of complete understanding doesn’t mean that we know nothing, and it provides no justification for discarding inconvenient results. I note here the irony of claiming an absolute standard (God’s Word) that is contradicted by readily made observations. The obvious flaws in Sye Ten Bruggencate’s brand of unreason are circularity and willful misrepresentation. (You may find the following summary helpful.)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sye_Ten_Bruggencate
Your example of infinite regression misrepresents science at a fundamental level. The essence of science is testing explanations against evidence under circumstances in which we might conclude that the idea being evaluated isn’t correct. It is commonly the case that an incorrect explanation fails right away. So, when Andrew Snelling tells me that rocks in the walls of the Grand Canyon are the product of a global flood, I can go to the fine details of the sedimentology (my field of expertise), stratigraphy, fossil succession, chronology and so forth, and demonstrate that he is wrong. The flood idea fails every imaginable test. In marked contrast, the theory of evolution has survived more than 150 years of testing, and the emergence of entirely new disciplines of science (genetics, for example). No contrary evidence has come to light. Indeed, the theory has advanced far beyond anything Charles Darwin could have imagined in terms of the sophistication with which we now understand the history and diversity of life.
‘God’ is an elaborate human invention. There is not one scintilla of evidence for any god, and much of what people believe today about their dozens of mutually incompatible versions of god is demonstrably not true. Example: The god whose primary role it was to create the universe and humans 6,000 years ago doesn’t exist because we now know, based upon mountains of empirical data, that no such act occurred. It is not possible to have a personal relationship with an imaginary being or for such a being to reveal anything. (Google confirmation bias.) The denial of well established evidence is a much better example of suppressing the truth than doubting claims for which there is no evidence at all.
Much has been written on whether Christ even existed, let alone acted in the ways described by those who penned conflicting reports decades after the fact. The central problem for Christianity, however, is that it is based upon an asserted need for redemption that depends critically on an event (Adam’s sin) that never occurred. That Christ himself appears to have bought into the creation myth suggests that he was ignorant, deluded, a charlatan or misrepresented by those who came later. Perhaps some combination. Parroting dogma doesn’t make it true. Instead, demonstrably false beliefs strike me as a questionable foundation for life choices.
Me: Sye Ten Bruggencate This is the conversation with the professor I was telling you about last night. Check out the professor's response. I am sure you will like the website link. I will take a more in depth look at it sometime. Maybe a good blog post for me to write would be refuting the false claims. What do you think?
Nicholas Christie-Blick, If you want me to check out your links why not check out this site from Sye Ten Bruggencate.http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
Sye Ten Bruggencate: I remember when they first posted that "Rationalwiki" page and I pointed out a glaring contradiction, which they ended up changing. 'nuff said
The professor: Sye Ten Bruggencate Your own website confirms my statement. The brand of unreason that you promote depends upon circularity and misrepresentation. Well played, my friend. I already explained to Virginia why no yardstick exists by which absolute truth can be ascertained. And I understand why she might be distracted by your sophomoric juggling of words. The difficulty that both of you miss is that when beliefs are contradicted by all available evidence, we can be very confident that those beliefs aren't true. Referring once again to the work of Andrew Snelling, there is nothing that he can do to rescue his global flood hypothesis in light of everything we have learned about how the Earth functions and has functioned for more than 4 billion years. It isn't necessary to possess absolute knowledge to demonstrate that nonsense claims are nonsense.
Me: Sye Ten Bruggencate This is Virginia. I agree that is a ridiculous contradiction. Let me guess, they did not ask you what you believed before they wrote the article? It should be fun to read the whole article since I know what you believe. I wonder just how many things they said about you that are not true. I should keep count as I read through it!
Nicholas Christie-Blick. You said you could be wrong about everything you claim to know but you know that Genesis is false. My answer is, but you could be wrong. You have given up knowledge. Until you justify how you can know anything without God you may as well stop making knowledge claims because you could be wrong.~Virginia
Me again: Nicholas Christie-Blick This is Virginia. But you could be wrong. Please stop making knowledge claims about me and Sye. You said "The difficulty that both of you miss is that when beliefs are contradicted by all available evidence, we can be very confident that those beliefs aren't true." Exactly that is why I reject evolution. You have been shown that without God you cannot know anything I think that showing that your worldview cannot account for knowledge is a good start to showing why your worldview is false. A true worldview must provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Your worldview does not provide these. And the yardstick by which absolute truth exists, is God. ~Virginia
The professor:Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Virginia: You employ Mr Bruggencate's brand of non sequiturs. The reason science works is because we are forever testing explanations against evidence, setting aside ideas that fail to withstand scrutiny, and further developing ideas that account for new observations. So, when you ask whether it is possible that I am wrong, the correct answer is that it is possible – on a case by case basis. The non sequitur here is your willful misrepresentation of the scientific method as justification for rejecting all science. We know, based upon mountains of independent evidence, that Andrew Snelling is wrong about the global flood. No amount of special pleading about absolute truth will transform nonsense claims into reality.
You reject evolution because it is incompatible with what you believe (or rather what you have been indoctrinated into believing). You know nothing about the evidence that leads to the theory's universal acceptance by academic scientists, and you have no intention of ever finding out. That again is an essential characteristic of science denial. You have asserted that nothing can be known without God. And I have explained to you more than once why that assertion is false. That you continue to refer to science as a worldview after I have explained why that too is a misrepresentation of science draws attention to the fundamental problem with your own world view: dishonesty.
Me: Nicholas Christie-Blick Virginia here. You reject creation because it is incompatible with what you believe (or rather what you have been indoctrinated into believing). You know nothing about the evidence that leads to creation's acceptance by academic scientists, and you have no intention of ever finding out. That again is an essential characteristic of science denial. I have asserted that nothing can be known without God. And you have failed to explain to me logically why that assertion is false. You continue to say that science is not a worldview after I have explained why that is a misrepresentation of reality which draws attention to the fundamental problem with your own world view: dishonesty. Thank you for framing my response I did not actually have to change a lot of your comment. ~Virginia
Me again:Nicholas Christie-Blick By the way you could be wrong.~Virginia
The professor:Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Virginia: Let's try this one last time. Please read what I am saying carefully. Attempting to claim symmetry between creationism and science by turning every line of my response on its head is another very common, yet fundamentally dishonest strategy of creationists. Creationism is based upon beliefs rooted in a specific interpretation of scripture. Science involves the testing of ideas against empirical evidence. There is no evidence in creationism, and no belief in science. You believe very much that what you are saying is true. I know, based upon overwhelming evidence that you choose to ignore, that it isn't. Misrepresenting and lying about science don't change the science, no matter how many times you reproduce the same non sequiturs. And so long as you and your parents remain in the thrall of charlatans like Bruggencate, Lisle and Snelling, you will never learn the truth.
Daddy: Lying is evil in the Biblical worldview because it does in the face of the God who is truth.
Given your interpretation of the beginning of all things without a moral agent, is lying wrong? If so, why?
Mark
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Lying is antisocial, discriminatory and contrary to what is required for a smoothly-running society. The prohibition against lying is precisely among rules that you would expect to emerge with civilization. It has nothing to do with imaginary gods, though it is hardly a surprise that organized religion has co-opted the taboo. Morality more generally has the same utilitarian origin. And that is why a sense of justice can be observed in a great many social species. Ultimately, all of it is of evolutionary origin. It is nonetheless intriguing that a fellow as attuned as you are to the value of telling the truth lies freely to preserve beliefs that are so thoroughly contradicted by data.
Me: Nicholas Christie-Blick This is Virginia. My friends have a radio show and they are willing to have you on as a special guest. I will be on as a guest as well as yourself. We can do video and audio or just audio if you like.
I would like to formally invite you to join us for a fun and friendly discussion about science, reason, and whatever else comes up. We all love to have a good time politely discussing our beliefs even when we do not agree. Not a debate, just welcoming you to talk with us. You can join us by phone from Australia we can figure out a time that works for you. Are you willing? ~Virginia
Daddy also said:Andrew March, Brian Ingalls, meet Nicolas Christie- Blick, a geologist and professor at Columbia University. Cell Mates (Cell53 Radio), I think we would have a good time on this topic with an esteemed guest. Nicholas, these guys had Seth Andrews on and it was a pretty popular show!
Sye Ten Bruggencate: I'm game too
Daddy: Sye Ten Bruggencate You are always welcome. Virginia has been handling this on her own for quite some time.
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite I appreciate the thought, but of course your suggestion falls into the same category as a debate. Debates are useful on matters of, say philosophy, the law, and social policy – subjects on which there is no clear-cut right answer, and that depend on judgment and cultural context. They are not very useful when the facts are well established, when points are awarded largely on style rather than content, and when the audience's opinion is already set in stone. And that is precisely why for several years I have sought to find a creationist who is prepared to confront the facts rather than dodge them. When such a person takes the trouble to become informed, the basis for a conversation will exist. As noted already, not one of you has the courage of your convictions.
Me: Nicholas Christie-Blick Virginia here. The show would not be anymore of a debate than this entire thread has been. I promise you. My friends thought I wanted a debate and I already told them no. No debate we are welcoming you as an esteemed professor so that we can we talk in a respectful way. All my friends and I want is a friendly discussion. It will be much like this thread except we can actually talk and we will not have to write everything out. We can ask for clarification of anything we do not understand and we can have a genuine discussion. Please will you do it? We want to be able to talk through our disagreements. Would you be willing to be on the show if I talked to Dr. Jason Lisle and got him to be on the show as well? Then you could engage him which was what you wanted to do and you would not have to debate him. Again not a debate, a friendly discussion. I really want to do this. I think it would be one of the best Cell53 radio shows that they have done. Please rethink your last comment. If nothing else join us and tell us what you think we are wrong on. None of us mind being challenged. But we all really want to do this. I know you will find that my friends are very willing to talk to you. They just may not want to do it on Facebook. If you are to scared to do it I would encourage you to face your fears. We really do not bite. ~Virginia
The professor: Mark Sara Cowperthwaite Again, Virginia, you miss the point. The essence of presuppositional apologetics is to assert that the answer is known (It's God! The Bible is true!), and to disregard all evidence to the contrary as self-evidently false and not worth examining, or re-interpretable in a different 'world view' (Andrew Snelling). So long as a discussion occurs in a vacuum, the status quo will be maintained. Jason Lisle's 2008 conversation with Colin Blakemore at the Creation Museum is an excellent example. My objective is to move the needle. Earth science works for this purpose not just because it is my own field of expertise, but because it is at least in part accessible to those with limited prior experience. The rocks supply different answers. God isn't the source of knowledge. There is such a thing as independently established evidence. That evidence is incompatible with the biblical world view. Few if any of the hundreds of students I have taken to the desert over the years embarked on the excursion with the mindset that you and your friends represent. Several Orthodox Jews may have been close. For many the experience was nonetheless transformative, and for one very simple reason. They were able to see for themselves. For the first time in their lives, science made sense. I am happy to talk with anyone at any time. The place to have this particular conversation is on a geological outcrop.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1010/
The professor again:After six hours, nothing. I understand that your beliefs are deeply held. They also depend on certain assumptions, as you freely admit. That's what 'presuppositional' means. Assumptions, however, are not necessarily true. Yours are explicitly testable. So given that it makes a great deal of difference whether your beliefs are or are not true, why are none of you prepared to put them to the test? An obvious place to begin: You insist that the Book of Genesis is literally true. OK. Let's take a look at the geology, and discover together whether that expectation is borne out by Earth's geological record. What is Jason Lisle hiding? Why is Sye Ten Bruggencate full of bluster, but silent when challenged with contradictory evidence. Why does Andrew Snelling refuse to interact with professional scientists? Do you think perhaps that their livelihoods depend on preventing followers from learning the truth?
The professor: A characteristic of scientists is that they jump at the opportunity to test ideas because getting to the right answer is way more important than being right.
Well that is more of the discussion with the professor. Please pray for his salvation! Pray that God would give him a knowledge of he truth.
Brian Ingalls is still okay with doing a radio show on Cell53 radio about epistemology and presuppositional apologetics even without the professor. I will post a link to the podcast after we record it and it is posted.
By the way I highly recommend Sye Ten Bruggencate's film, How to Answer the Fool. It is an amazing film. I thank Sye for all that he has taught me about presuppositional apologetics! I would encourage everyone to watch this film.
With love in the Lord,
Virginia
No comments:
Post a Comment