Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor


Guest Observer fan

Recommended Posts

How many times do you think General Washington called on "Divine Intervention" to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the British?

so God is always on the side of the Winners?

How many times do you think General Lee called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Union?

How many times do you think Saddam Hussein called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Americans?

How many times do you think Hitler called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Allies?

Just because a person is victorious doesn't mean they had divine inspiration and the losers didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bryan said: A global flood is not impossible.

Au contraire, buddy, it's factually and demonstrably impossible.

Bryan: You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption.

Nonsense. Nothing faith-based about it. Geologists have very good models of the kind of surface the earth has had during the historical time period in question.

Bryan: Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.

Ah, but we're talking about science, not faith.

Bryan, you talk a whole hell of a lot, and your patter is really smooth and self-confident. But there's NO CONTENT. You're saying inane things in flowing phrases. Your rhetoric is like a marshmallow, all big and fluffy and smooth, but mostly hot air, as this latest silliness demonstrates.

You've really gone to new heights (depths?) of apologetics absurdity with this defense of Paszkiewicz's letter, slicing and dicing and dancing madly,

But anyone familiar with David Barton's "scholarship" could have told you right away that the Paszkiewicz letter is straight from that playbook. Hell, my immediate assumption was that Barton wrote the thing, and frankly I'd be astonished to find out he didn't "help".

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so God is always on the side of the Winners?

How many times do you think General Lee called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Union?

How many times do you think Saddam Hussein called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Americans?

How many times do you think Hitler called on Divine Intervention to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the Allies?

Just because a person is victorious doesn't mean they had divine inspiration and the losers didn't.

Is that what I said? Please read it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said: A global flood is not impossible.

Au contraire, buddy, it's factually and demonstrably impossible.

Bryan:  You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption.

Nonsense.  Nothing faith-based about it.  Geologists have very good models of the kind of surface the earth has had during the historical time period in question.

Bryan:  Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.

Ah, but we're talking about science, not faith. 

Bryan, you talk a whole hell of a lot, and your patter is really smooth and self-confident.  But there's NO CONTENT.  You're saying inane things in flowing phrases.  Your rhetoric is like a marshmallow, all big and fluffy and smooth, but mostly hot air, as this latest silliness demonstrates.

You've really gone to new heights (depths?) of apologetics absurdity with this defense of Paszkiewicz's letter, slicing and dicing and dancing madly,

But anyone familiar with David Barton's "scholarship" could have told you right away that the Paszkiewicz letter is straight from that playbook.  Hell, my immediate assumption was that Barton wrote the thing, and frankly I'd be astonished to find out he didn't "help".

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Why is a global flood impossible? There was a time on earth when waves were ten times the height they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah...nothing short of "Thou shalt not preach thine religion in public schools" appearing in the Constitution would satisfy you, I'm sure. But the rest of us can see pretty clearly what the founders intended.

The founders' personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant.

Once is all you need--what difference would it make if it was repeated randomly all over the Constitution? That may be how things are structured in the Bible, but that doesn't mean much of anything.

You know...freedom of speech is only mentioned once too. So I'd like to see you explain how Mr. P.'s yammering about how his freedom of speech was violated makes any sense, by your logic. I mean, to only put a one line clause in the Constitution tells me they weren't as concerned with freedom of speech as you want us to believe.

See how stupid this argument is yet?

You're the one who quoted Jefferson's personal beleifs.

It doesn't have to be repeated all over The Constitution. There is nothing explicit except the Government not endorsing any one religion.

Your arguments just show how scared you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Dear Bryan,

You wrote: “A global flood is not impossible.You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption. Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.”

Are you suggesting that the Andes, the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, the European Alps, and the New Guinea Highlands were not there a few thousand years ago?

Sorry Bryan but you’ve really lost me on this one. I'm afraid you’ve slipped over the edge into ‘Kent Hovind Country’ now.

You wrote: “You had claimed that it was point of orthodoxy that belief in the inspiration of the Bible was required for salvation.”

Guess what's missing here:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/g...things-save.php

and here:

http://www.equip.org/free/JAE100-2.pdf

or any one of literally dozens of sites about salvation?"

Nothing you have said so far has gone any way towards refuting my claim. Did you actually read those articles through before you posted the links.

The first website you refer to, describes the gospels as “God's word”, the second is by Norman Geisler, who most certainly believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and as he describes in the first paragraph of that page, “the deity of Christ”.

Here’s what Norman Geisler says about Biblical inspiration in this article.

“Inspiration therefore is not a soteriological essential; rather it is an epistemological essential…. We never could be sure of the doctrines necessary for our salvation without a completely true, divinely authoritative revelation from God such as we have in the scriptures.”

Sorry Bryan, but these websites actually refute your thesis. Thanks for the links.

With reference to my friend, who I mentioned was heartbroken after having been driven from the Baptist ministry because of his theological disagreements with the Baptist authorities, you responded with; “Tell him to cheer up. The Reformed Baptists will take him in.”

That comment was perhaps one of the most crass and insensitive things I’ve seen you write on these message boards. Especially considering this man is supposed to be a ‘brother in Christ’ to you. Very ‘Christian’ of you to show such concern.

At any rate, the ‘Reformed Baptists’ believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity of Jesus. It says so right on their website.

Here’s what they say:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience”

and;

“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.”

Concerning the divinity of Jesus they wrote:

“The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety”

and;

“The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary”

Did you have any kind of point to make in referring me to these websites, apart from blowing your own argument out of the water?

You wrote: “All scientific claims are probabilistic.”

Yes of course they are. And the theory of evolution is probabilistically so likely to be true that for all intents and purposes scientists consider it to be a fact of nature, just like the germ theory of disease is considered to be so probabilistically likely to be true that it also is considered by scientists to be a fact of nature. What was your point again?

You wrote: “In epistemic terms, it (the theory of evolution) isn't a fact--and that's Paszkiewicz's point (and it's a good one). It may be suggested that teaching science as if it somehow bypasses its epistemic limitations constitutes an establishment of religion, BTW.”

In scientific terms it is a fact. That was the point I was making. Somehow you must have missed it, but I’ll be buggered if I know how. I thought I made the point plainly and simply.

You wrote: “Well, at least I don't need much to refute your pathetic arguments.”

Bryan, you haven’t refuted diddly-squat. All you’ve done is bloviate, create a lot of verbal flatulence, and perform a lot of frantic, but futile hand waving.

I thought that ‘an American in Texas’ described your recent debating tactics very succinctly when he wrote;

“Bryan, you talk a whole hell of a lot, and your patter is really smooth and self-confident. But there's NO CONTENT. You're saying inane things in flowing phrases. Your rhetoric is like a marshmallow, all big and fluffy and smooth, but mostly hot air, as this latest silliness demonstrates. You've really gone to new heights (depths?) of apologetics absurdity with this defense of Paszkiewicz's letter, slicing and dicing and dancing madly,”

Thomas Paine summed up our situation perfectly when he said; “To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”

I think that your arguments in defence of Mr. P. gave up the ghost quite some time ago, and now nothing will save them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said: A global flood is not impossible.

Au contraire, buddy, it's factually and demonstrably impossible.

Texas appears to get its debate team training here, judging from this entrant:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

Bryan:  You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption.

Nonsense.  Nothing faith-based about it.  Geologists have very good models of the kind of surface the earth has had during the historical time period in question.

Okay, and what scientific approach did they use to rule out miracles?

Bryan:  Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.

Ah, but we're talking about science, not faith.

You're talking about begging the question.

How many times to you have to assert that science has no faith component in order to make it true? Once? Twice?

Bryan, you talk a whole hell of a lot, and your patter is really smooth and self-confident.  But there's NO CONTENT.

In contrast to your current argument, you mean?

lol

You're saying inane things in flowing phrases.  Your rhetoric is like a marshmallow, all big and fluffy and smooth, but mostly hot air, as this latest silliness demonstrates.

I see.

And how many times are you required to make that assertion in order for it to take on the quality of truth? Once? Twice?

You've really gone to new heights (depths?) of apologetics absurdity with this defense of Paszkiewicz's letter, slicing and dicing and dancing madly,

I guess the jig is up, however, now that you have asserted that I am wrong and held my arguments up for ridicule.

http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fal...ltoridicule.htm

I'll grant a sole exception. Arguing that geologists have good models is not an appeal to ridicule. It's just a non sequitur when arguing that a global flood is impossible.

It's still a fallacy, however, as AmTex will discover if he ever looks seriously at the ability of science to treat a miraculous claim.

But anyone familiar with David Barton's "scholarship" could have told you right away that the Paszkiewicz letter is straight from that playbook.  Hell, my immediate assumption was that Barton wrote the thing, and frankly I'd be astonished to find out he didn't "help".

I've made some strong arguments against Barton's involvement (causing some opponents to back off of the Barton connection). Apparently AmTex breezed past those just like he did the point about the global flood.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

You have a name!

Your argument is pathetic, Leigh. You've relied on fallacious argumentation throughout your post.

Better luck next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me see, you give us the website becasue you don't understand well enough to explain?

No, I give the URL because:

1. Why repeat what others have already stated quite thoroughly?

2. The original sources are the true experts in their fields--I wouldn't presume to be able to explain the things they've spent their lives researching better than they can.

That makes sense, it is quite impossible to understand what you guys believe in!

If you're uneducated and willfully ignorant, then yes, I'd concede that maybe it is impossible for you to understand. But just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one does--that's just that incredulity nonsense again: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

I mean, I know quite enough to recognize the absurdity of creationist arguments, like when Hovind suggested that there was an ice canopy floating above the Earth, suspended by the Earth's magnetic field. You don't need to be a physicist to know that magnets can't affect ice like that (not to mention that such a canopy would result in a lethal environment). What a doofus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that supposed to address my argument, please?  An explanation is due from you.

The claim was that science was dismissed, not that science was made into a "faith" in the sense you're using the term.

...I feel like I just got hit in the face with a baseball bat made of stupid. Calling evolution faith IS dismissing it, because faith is by definition taken...'on faith!' That is, without evidence, or a need for evidence. There is no faith involved in the theory of evolution at all, and to refer to evolution as mere faith is equivalent to dismissing it. Making such a claim is an insult to all of the time people have spent finding all that evidence that supports it. Calling evolution faith is like calling the space shuttle a toy. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

"evolution is based on faith" --David Pasckiewicz (see for yourself: http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html)

The rest of your post was covered adequately before I got to it, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. P is a complete and total idiot. There is no doubt that I will take my son out of his class if he ever becomes his teacher.

Remain silent next time.. OR JUST APOLOGIZE....

If he speaks one word to my son at CREW practice, I will complain to the board and have him removed as a coach and join the lawsuit!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. P is a complete and total idiot.  There is no doubt that I will take my son out of his class if he ever becomes his teacher.

Remain silent next time..  OR JUST APOLOGIZE....

If he speaks one word to my son at CREW practice, I will complain to the board and have him removed as a coach and join the lawsuit!!!

Mr. P is not the boys crew coach. Get a little more involved with your kid. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, and what scientific approach did they use to rule out miracles?

...The virtue of the fact that the concept of a miracle is not science, maybe? Duh!

Also, you seem to fail to realize that if you ignore science and try to explain something as a miracle, you will immediately be stymied by claims that a different God did it, or that aliens did it, or that ghosts did it, etc. etc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301_1.html

I'll grant a sole exception.  Arguing that geologists have good models is not an appeal to ridicule.  It's just a non sequitur when arguing that a global flood is impossible.

A global flood is scientifically impossible, and there is no objective evidence that supports it. That's the bottom line. In addition, to quote the above link:

"We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it."

I've made some strong arguments against Barton's involvement (causing some opponents to back off of the Barton connection).

The specific 'chain' doesn't matter. Pasckiewicz either plagiarized Barton, or he plagiarized someone that plagiarized Barton, or he plagiarized someone that Barton plagiarized. Those are the only possibilities given the verbatim/near-verbatim (depending on which particular quote of those found to be previously existed you look at) relation between the quotes he uses and the quotes on Barton's site. Bottom line is that Pasckiewicz plagiarized someone--that is something one can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the length of the quotes is more than a couple of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I feel like I just got hit in the face with a baseball bat made of stupid.

Perhaps recalling your infancy?

:)

Sorry. You set yourself up for that one.

Calling evolution faith IS dismissing it, because faith is by definition taken...'on faith!' That is, without evidence, or a need for evidence.

That doesn't work.

Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context), so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

There is no faith involved in the theory of evolution at all, and to refer to evolution as mere faith is equivalent to dismissing it.

I provided a string of good sources documenting the reverse.

You're ignoring them in favor of asserting (minus evidence) your position.

Making such a claim is an insult to all of the time people have spent finding all that evidence that supports it. Calling evolution faith is like calling the space shuttle a toy. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

You've demonstrated only the ability to make your argument rely on fallacious reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bryan,

You wrote: “A global flood is not impossible.You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption. Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.”

Are you suggesting that the Andes, the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, the European Alps, and the New Guinea Highlands were not there a few thousand years ago?

No.

Why do you have so much trouble sticking to the topic?

I'm suggesting that a global flood is possible, and that trusting to a constant height for mountains is a faith-based assumption (particularly in light of the findings of plate tectonics) Try to pay attention.

You wrote: “You had claimed that it was point of orthodoxy that belief in the inspiration of the Bible was required for salvation.”

Guess what's missing here:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/g...things-save.php

and here:

http://www.equip.org/free/JAE100-2.pdf

or any one of literally dozens of sites about salvation?"

Nothing you have said so far has gone any way towards refuting my claim.

lol

You're a waste of time.

I have provided evidence that refutes your claim. You're just too naive to have noticed.

Your comment reminds us of how much evidence you have provided in favor of your claim, BTW.

Zilch.

Did you actually read those articles through before you posted the links.

The first website you refer to, describes the gospels as “God's word”, the second is by Norman Geisler, who most certainly believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and as he describes in the first paragraph of that page, “the deity of Christ”.

Here’s what Norman Geisler says about Biblical inspiration in this article.

“Inspiration therefore is not a soteriological essential; rather it is an epistemological essential…. We never could be sure of the doctrines necessary for our salvation without a completely true, divinely authoritative revelation from God such as we have in the scriptures.”

Sorry Bryan, but these websites actually refute your thesis. Thanks for the links.

You're a waste of time.

I'll explain it to you this one last time, then you're on your own.

Geisler is saying that the doctrine of salvation would not be known with any epistemic certainty of the doctrines of salvation. That says absolutely nothing about the ability of any person to be saved based on an acceptance of those doctrines minus the epistemic foundation of the doctrines--and that's the importance of claiming that belief in inspiration is essential to salvation (not mere epistemic certainty of doctrines).

The links I provided wholly support my position.

I'll give you a shot at a different topic.

You wrote: “All scientific claims are probabilistic.”

Yes of course they are. And the theory of evolution is probabilistically so likely to be true that for all intents and purposes scientists consider it to be a fact of nature, just like the germ theory of disease is considered to be so probabilistically likely to be true that it also is considered by scientists to be a fact of nature. What was your point again?

To get you to think about epistemology. You're on the right path, but you're resisting the inevitable conclusion.

What does it mean when conclusion is probabilistically established? Does it mean that there is no chance that the conclusion is incorrect (for example)?

You wrote: “In epistemic terms, it (the theory of evolution) isn't a fact--and that's Paszkiewicz's point (and it's a good one). It may be suggested that teaching science as if it somehow bypasses its epistemic limitations constitutes an establishment of religion, BTW.”

In scientific terms it is a fact. That was the point I was making.

In epistemic terms it isn't a fact. That was the point I was making.

What good is it if science deems something a fact when it is not a fact in terms of epistemology?

Somehow you must have missed it, but I’ll be buggered if I know how. I thought I made the point plainly and simply.

Is it that you don't know what epistemology is, or what?

Can you explain how science exempts itself from the restrictions of epistemology?

You wrote: “Well, at least I don't need much to refute your pathetic arguments.”

Bryan, you haven’t refuted diddly-squat. All you’ve done is bloviate, create a lot of verbal flatulence, and perform a lot of frantic, but futile hand waving.

I thought that ‘an American in Texas’ described your recent debating tactics very succinctly when he wrote;

“Bryan, you talk a whole hell of a lot, and your patter is really smooth and self-confident. But there's NO CONTENT. You're saying inane things in flowing phrases. Your rhetoric is like a marshmallow, all big and fluffy and smooth, but mostly hot air, as this latest silliness demonstrates. You've really gone to new heights (depths?) of apologetics absurdity with this defense of Paszkiewicz's letter, slicing and dicing and dancing madly,”

You missed his unintended irony, then?

At least you tried to provide content, but you're so relatively ignorant of theology that it may be years before you see your mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't work.

Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context),

But he's wrong. There is no logic or reason in believing in any sort of god at all, and that's not even counting the hypocrisy of believing in one god without believing in all of them.

so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.

You can say it all you want, but there is no such fallacy in anything I said:

"Also known as ambiguity, Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.

For example:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."

The only thing arguable to be taken 'on faith' in science is assuming the absence of a solipsistic existence--that what we know as reality actually is reality and not a dream etc.

Please explain to me how I allegedly used the word "faith" with two different meanings in my argument, if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Dear Bryan,

Strife wrote: "There is no faith involved in the theory of evolution at all, and to refer to evolution as mere faith is equivalent to dismissing it."

You responded: “I provided a string of good sources documenting the reverse. You're ignoring them in favor of asserting (minus evidence) your position.”

Huh? If you did Bryan, then I must have missed them in amongst all of your other inane bloviations and semantic hair splitting. Can you point them out to me?

You wrote: “I've made some strong arguments against Barton's involvement”

You raised some legitimate questions as to whether the ‘WallBuilders’ website was the direct source of Mr. P’s quotations. Nothing more. You are starting to have delusions of grandeur Bryan.

You wrote: “I guess the jig is up, however, now that you have asserted that I am wrong and held my arguments up for ridicule.”

Ridiculous arguments such as some of yours deserve to be held up to ridicule. At least we wouldn’t consider burning you alive for them, unlike some religious organisations which we all know about.

Bryan wrote: “Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context), so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.”

Yeah right Bryan! Like the reasoning that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago which has mysteriously left absolutely no trace of itself in the geological record?

That there were dinosaurs on board Noah’s ark?

That the creator of the universe dictated a book of rules to a bunch of ancient desert nomads?

That donkeys can talk, and people can fly, and that a man named Jesus lives up in the sky?

With reasoning like that, who needs delusions.

Ha- Ha! you crack me up Bryan. You should have quit while you were behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bryan,

Strife wrote: "There is no faith involved in the theory of evolution at all, and to refer to evolution as mere faith is equivalent to dismissing it."

You responded: “I provided a string of good sources documenting the reverse. You're ignoring them in favor of asserting (minus evidence) your position.”

Huh? If you did Bryan, then I must have missed them in amongst all of your other inane bloviations and semantic hair splitting. Can you point them out to me? 

You wrote: “I've made some strong arguments against Barton's involvement”

You raised some legitimate questions as to whether the ‘WallBuilders’ website was the direct source of Mr. P’s quotations. Nothing more. You are starting to have delusions of grandeur Bryan.

You wrote: “I guess the jig is up, however, now that you have asserted that I am wrong and held my arguments up for ridicule.”

Ridiculous arguments such as some of yours deserve to be held up to ridicule. At least we wouldn’t consider burning you alive for them, unlike some religious organisations which we all know about.

Bryan wrote: “Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context), so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.”

Yeah right Bryan! Like the reasoning that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago which has mysteriously left absolutely no trace of itself in the geological record?

That there were dinosaurs on board Noah’s ark?

That the creator of the universe dictated a book of rules to a bunch of ancient desert nomads?

That donkeys can talk, and people can fly, and that a man named Jesus lives up in the sky?

With reasoning like that, who needs delusions.

Ha- Ha! you crack me up Bryan. You should have quit while you were behind.

"Dingo Dave" ??? What are you, half boy-half dog ?? LOL !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he's wrong. There is no logic or reason in believing in any sort of god at all, and that's not even counting the hypocrisy of believing in one god without believing in all

of them.

Is it that you are unfamiliar with C. S. Lewis' argument in "The Abolition of Man" or is it that you think you have refuted it?

You can say it all you want, but there is no such fallacy in anything I said:

"Also known as ambiguity, Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.

For example:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."

The only thing arguable to be taken 'on faith' in science is assuming the absence of a solipsistic existence--that what we know as reality actually is reality and not a dream etc.

Please explain to me how I allegedly used the word "faith" with two different meanings in my argument, if you can.

I have to point it out twice, eh? I guess I should spell it out letter by letter while I'm at it.

Calling evolution faith IS dismissing it, because faith is by definition taken...'on faith!' That is, without evidence, or a need for evidence.

That doesn't work.

Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context), so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.

1) You used "faith" to mean belief without evidence. Take a wild guess how I know.

2) Paszkiewicz used "faith" to mean trusting in the truth of something without absolute proof. Clearly, he sees an evidential basis for faith that you do not recognize in your presentation of the argument:

"Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a [...? gracian based update?] but the idea of faith is much different that what you're taught faith is in school."

"But um, my assertion to you is that evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what Christians call faith."

(Paszkiewicz went on to describe one of the evidences a believer might use for trusting the Bible)

In short, you completely abandoned Paszkiewicz's described understanding of faith and substituted your own.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

And that is exactly the fallacy of equivocation. Changing the meaning of the key term in mid-argument.

You can't address Paszkiewicz's argument concerning faith without using his definition. Do without his definition and you will consistently end up with a fallacy.

Your argument depends on a statement made by Paszkiewicz. Paszkiewicz used "faith" to mean one thing, and you used it to mean something else. By using Paszkiewicz's term but giving it your own meaning, you commit the fallacy of equivocation.

According to my watch, it's about time for the chorus to accuse me of not having content in my arguments ...

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Dear Bryan,

Why do you repeatedly accuse me of ‘changing the topic’?

I thought that the topics we were discussing included the theory of evolution, and the Christian doctrine that it is necessary to believe in the Deity of Jesus the Nazarene, and the divine inspiration of the Bible in order to describe yourself as an orthodox, mainstream Christian.

Is this the case, or have I misunderstood what it is that we are supposed to be discussing?

You wrote: “I'm suggesting that a global flood is possible, and that trusting to a constant height for mountains is a faith-based assumption (particularly in light of the findings of plate tectonics) Try to pay attention."

Plate tectonics? Are you seriously invoking the theory of plate tectonics to support the story of Noah’s flood? Please tell me that you're joking.

Are you aware that the theory of plate tectonics requires millions of years to produce mountain ranges such as the Himalayas and the Rocky Mountains, not the measly few thousand years that are required if the story of Noah’s flood is true.

You wrote: “Geisler is saying that the doctrine of salvation would not be known with any epistemic certainty of the doctrines of salvation. That says absolutely nothing about the ability of any person to be saved based on an acceptance of those doctrines minus the epistemic foundation of the doctrines--and that's the importance of claiming that belief in inspiration is essential to salvation (not mere epistemic certainty of doctrines). The links I provided wholly support my position.”

Did you miss the part of Norman Geisler’s article where he argues why he feels that it is absolutely essential for Christians to hold on to the doctrine of the ‘divine inspiration’ of the Bible?

Whilst I personally believe that Geisler is deluded, the epistemological argument which he makes for holding this doctrine makes perfect sense within the greater context of the ‘Christian hypothesis’.

Allow me to re-quote what he said in that article. Please read it carefully.

“Inspiration (of the Bible) therefore is not a soteriological essential; rather it is an epistemological essential… We never could be sure of the doctrines necessary for our salvation without a completely true, divinely authoritative revelation from God such as we have in the scriptures.”

What Geisler is saying here, in the simplest possible terms, is that unless a person believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible, then they have no good reason to believe that the Biblical doctrine of salvation is true, therefore, they would have no reason to become a Christian and be ‘saved’.

He is saying exactly the opposite of what you want him to say! Can’t you see that?

It is for this very reason that I personally don’t know one ‘orthodox’ Christian who denies the divine inspiration of the Bible. Do you?

Your argument appears to have been reduced to ridiculous semantic hair splitting.

Concerning the theory of evolution you wrote:

”What does it mean when conclusion is probabilistically established? Does it mean that there is no chance that the conclusion is incorrect (for example)?”

“In epistemic terms it isn't a fact. That was the point I was making. What good is it if science deems something a fact when it is not a fact in terms of epistemology?”

“Is it that you don't know what epistemology is, or what? Can you explain how science exempts itself from the restrictions of epistemology?”

Science never claims ‘absolute’ certainty about anything; Surely you know that Bryan? And the scientific method certainly doesn’t exempt itself from the ‘restrictions of epistemology’. What a ridiculous thing to suggest!

In fact the scientific method requires that scientists show the utmost respect for epistemology, in that scientists are expected to give other scientists, and the general public, very good reasons for believing the results of their research, and for believing that their conclusions are soundly based on fact, not fantasy.

How does that compare with the epistemological basis of believing that the Bible is accurate about what it reports?

A global Flood?

Talking animals?

Men magically flying through the air?

Dead people coming back to life?

Give me a break!

I have just about convinced myself that you are a raving lunatic.

A wise man once said, “Never argue with a fool. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

In this instance, I think I’ll take his advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it that you are unfamiliar with C. S. Lewis' argument in "The Abolition of Man" or is it that you think you have refuted it?

I have to point it out twice, eh?  I guess I should spell it out letter by letter while I'm at it.

Calling evolution faith IS dismissing it, because faith is by definition taken...'on faith!' That is, without evidence, or a need for evidence.

That doesn't work.

Paszkiewicz specifically stated that faith has a basis in reason (check the context), so you're guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.

1)  You used "faith" to mean belief without evidence.  Take a wild guess how I know.

2)  Paszkiewicz used "faith" to mean trusting in the truth of something without absolute proof.

...okay. Now, tell me in no uncertain terms what the difference is between "belief without evidence" and "trusting in the truth of...without absolute proof." :blink: You've got to be kidding me, man. That is not equivocation--that's paraphrasing at best. Same meaning, different words.

Clearly, he sees an evidential basis for faith that you do not recognize in your presentation of the argument:

Clearly not, since he believes in lots of stuff that has no evidence supporting it. At best he is contradicting himself.

"Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a [...? gracian based update?] but the idea of faith is much different that what you're taught faith is in school."

Just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. Also, the stuff he believes in according to his faith directly contradicts any idea of faith with "evidential basis."

"But um, my assertion to you is that evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what Christians call faith."

(Paszkiewicz went on to describe one of the evidences a believer might use for trusting the Bible)

In short, you completely abandoned Paszkiewicz's described understanding of faith and substituted your own.

No, I used the correct definition of "faith" and ignored Paszkiewicz's delusion that any of his "faith" as described during the class is supported by any kind of real evidence.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

And that is exactly the fallacy of equivocation.  Changing the meaning of the key term in mid-argument.

You can't address Paszkiewicz's argument concerning faith without using his definition.

Neither can he! All you have to do is look at the context (something you like claiming that people don't do, ironically enough) to see what faith is to him. But no, you'll split semantic hairs all day while ignoring something that obvious. He himself contradicts the definition you are assigning him. Nice job there, Bryan. :lol::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said: “I'm suggesting that a global flood is possible, and that trusting to a constant height for mountains is a faith-based assumption (particularly in light of the findings of plate tectonics) Try to pay attention."

Plate tectonics? PLATE TECTONICS? You are either absymally ignorant or delusional. No reputable geologist in the world would support that lunacy.

Given this level of scientific understanding, it's no wonder you confuse faith and science. Magical thinking tends to make for poor comprehension.

Come on over to Beliefnet/Origins of Life discussion. I'd like to see some of my geologist friends beat up on you for a while.

By the way, I'm a woman. And I've signed my full name to every post I've ever made in this forum.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bryan,

Why do you repeatedly accuse me of ‘changing the topic’?

Because you repeatedly try to change the topic. Behold:

I thought that the topics we were discussing included the theory of evolution, and the Christian doctrine that it is necessary to believe in the Deity of Jesus the Nazarene, and the divine inspiration of the Bible in order to describe yourself as an orthodox, mainstream Christian.

Is this the case, or have I misunderstood what it is that we are supposed to be discussing?

You offered that acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible was a requirement for avoiding the flames of hell, o ye of limited memory.

Note that the idea is missing from your summary above.

("That doubting the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene, means that you’ll be condemned to God’s Gulag for all eternity?")

You provided revisionist history.

Once you recover your memory, maybe we can have a conversation.

Until then, you are a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. P is a complete and total idiot.  There is no doubt that I will take my son out of his class if he ever becomes his teacher.

Remain silent next time..  OR JUST APOLOGIZE....

If he speaks one word to my son at CREW practice, I will complain to the board and have him removed as a coach and join the lawsuit!!!

lol! You idiot! Mr. P doesn't coach the boys, but the girls! Get to know your son's coach before you send him to practice! Have fun and join the lawsuit, but learn the fact's first. Talk more to your son, I think he needs more attention from his parents! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...