On a Saturday afternoon, 1/29/11, I went to the Promenade to support a friend performing for the audience. During a break I decided to go book shopping for a while, but I stopped to interact with, what I thought was some form of test for a prize, but later discovered it was an evangelical billboard. I quickly recognized the style of questioning and knew exactly where these guys were going with this, so I decided to have a little fun.
I had a great chat with one of them, Jason Gallagher, who also posts blogs on this site as well. I responded to the questions on the billboard, Jason told me which ones I got right (I cannot remember how many I got correct). He next moved on too ask me a serious of questions, but I already knew before hand exactly what he was going to ask. It was a old common tactic popularized and frequently used by Ray Comfort and Way of the Master. I explained to Jason as best as I could why this line of thinking does not work. Here is a website I found that explains it and provides some counter examples
The topic moved into discussing the Ten Commandments (which ones?), the Bible, and religion overall. I shared with Jason my religious upbringing and my current skeptical mind towards all religions. I knew this guy got most of his material from Ray Comfort, I could have gone into detail of when and where he is completely wrong. I did briefly mention Ray Comfort's disappointing debate with the Rational Response Squad. I made an article about this debate a while back, which can be found here.
We had a meaningful exchange off words. Jason was not one of those Bible bashers who threaten hellfire against certain people (sports fans, Muslims, Jews, pot smokers, etc.), although he said the reason why he was there was because he was worried about other people's souls. He invited me to read some books by Lee Strobel and look at certain websites. I did not get the chance to recommend a book, but I did suggest he should check out Xenu.net. which I recommend everyone look at. I would ask Jason to please take action by handing out a few leaflets from Xenu.net and contribute to a great cause. I am not sure which book I would recommend, perhaps "Did Man Create God?" by David E. Comings M.D.
We did momentarily discuss science, once when he brought up Lee Strobel. I told him I am familiar with Strobel, and how he is a tool for the DI. A few of my friends and I made four YouTube videos refuting his attacks on science. It is sad when a few college students can disprove someone in a few minutes. This talk did lead to evolution (it always has to go there), the fossil record and transitional forms - bearing in mind, evolution does not rule out God. I tried to explain what a transitional form is, but one of Jasons friends came along and claimed there are zero transitional fossils. When I named one fossil, he never heard of it. Not surprising. I was going to name four others, but I knew it would be pointless. I had to explain what a transitional fossil is, all three types of them, because the only way anyone can say there is zero is to change the definition of it. Jason's friend said there should the millions of transitional fossils, I assured him there was but he denied it. Most people do not know how rich the fossil record is. I explained the process of fossilization, and we are lucky to have the ones we currently have, because many of the fossils are destroyed by erosion. Plus, (I did not get a chance to share this part) this request for evidence of thousands of intermediates will never satisfy creationists who simply do not want to believe. It is like discovering a letter between A and Z, and the creationist will immediately say "well, you have not found anything between C and P, therefore your argument is still invalid." They ignore the thousands of examples we can provide and dodge it by saying we still have gaps in between, and once we fill those gaps they immediately say "well, there is a gap between that fossil and the next one." This shows how honest the mindset of a creationist is.
It is common for a person to flat out say there is no evidence for evolution to be either not well educated in the field or deliberately mislead. Example, that Saturday night, I was supposed to be on Blogtv to witness a friend in England debate a creationist. The creationist knew almost absolutely nothing about biology, he actually thought a "family tree" was an actual tree.
I am not sure, but I had feeling that Jason and his mates were supporters of intelligent design. I am not sure if Jason thinks the earth is young, I hope not. I did ask Jason why does he think all the top academies around the world continue to teach evolution if there is no evidence? He wanted to be gentle, but he concluded they were being deceptive in a way. Intentionally? IDK.
However, the bulk of our discussion was aimed at the Bible and its history. Jason was sure the Bible was supported by history. I told him I am a history major, and explained how historians work and what evidence do we look for. When I brought forth the problem with historical evidence for Jesus, which I go into detail in one of my blogs, he came short off providing any evidence for him. He did bring up prophecies and Josephus. Again, not surprising. I explained why this piece is considered a forgery by the scholarly consensus. You can read my blog here.
Our conversation ended there, and we proposed to further keep in touch. I am sure he will also be commenting on my previous blog, so be sure to tune in.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteMy responses will be posted at my blog below.
Jason
http://letdownyournets.blogspot.com/
Well, Jason and I have decided that we will post our responses on our own blogs. So be sure to check out his blog to see his replies.
ReplyDeletehttp://letdownyournets.blogspot.com/2011/02/encounter-with-michael-at-3rd-street.html
Thank you for making a response. I am confused where we will continue this conversation, but I guess I will respond in the comments of this blog. I hope you will have the chance to comment on my history blog. Okay, now lets jump into it. I will be responding to every paragraph in order, occasionally addressing two or three at one time.
Not fruitful or productive? I think that something good can come forth from such discussions. Examining the credibility of all sides brings us closer to the truth, and that is a worthy goal. However, do you and I look at the same facts? No. First of all, facts are objectively verifiable -and thus indisputable- data that can be tested and repeated. But dogmatic religious beliefs depend instead on subjective impressions of personal preference, erroneous assumptions, and assertions of logical fallacies. We could rationalize a few of the facts differently. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate –or can be accounted for by- only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot imply two mutually-exclusive opposing positions.
Besides, we’re obviously not both looking at ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, or the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution.
Facts we see know not just exist in the present, but also the past. It is a fact that gravity currently works, and it has always been so. History and science use different methods to discovering what happened in the past. Historians search for sources, whereas science uses repeatable tests and predictions. How do we know what happened? There are many methods, such as the mapping the genome between all animals. Try this, neither you or I were at a crime scene that happened many years ago, but we can use science to find clues of what happened in the past. After evaluating all the clues we can figure out how the crime took place, when, where, and come to a conclusion. If our conclusion is right, the criminal is busted and the case is solved. We do the same thing when determining the age of the earth or our evolutionary past. We can even see evolution occurring now, and we can test it to confirm it. But you know what we’ve never seen? We’ve never seen anything “created”. No one has ever seen a complex life-form (or anything else) magically pop out of thin air. But that’s what creationists are arguing for! Talismans, incantations, elemental component spells, enchantments, clairvoyance and prophesies all consistently fail every test.
As many professors I have talked with, the Bible is not a “time machine” or a historical document. It cannot take you back in time, the writers of the book were not even alive during those events. You are presuming that God wrote the bible and was always there and recorded everything into a book on the sole basis that is what the book says and provides nothing whatsoever to support that claim. You said earlier that we are two opposing camps presenting evidence for our sides, but what you misunderstand the following: Evidence is something we can observe and test beyond a shadow of doubt. Since you cannot test God, what you rely on is not evidence but a belief, and beliefs are not knowledge nor do they change reality (as we agreed at the Promenade). You have a belief that God wrote a book, but this is just a mere belief, not a fact.
As I already explain in my blog, evolution does not rule out God. I am skeptical of God or any other god for other reasons that do not include science, as I pointed out to you and your mate at the Promenade. I must repeat myself regarding interpretation: facts are objectively verifiable -and thus indisputable- data that can be tested and repeated.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, you admitted you have presuppositions. What you have is a preset conclusion and try to find facts that fit it. This is completely backwards of how science works. The hypocrisy of this “interpretation” charge you make cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept ONLY what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.).
When you tell me to put on biblical glasses, basically looking through a bias, will not help your case. If you can prove your evidence independent of the bible, your argument holds more weight. But once you invoke religion, you lose it, because religion is a bias by definition. That’s why it relies on propaganda. But science dispels propaganda because it eliminates bias by design; it has to because it’s an investigation, not a predetermined conclusion like religion is. So every proposition must be requisitely evidential and potentially falsifiable, and must be subjected to a perpetual battery of independent and unrestricted tests wherein anyone and everyone who thinks they can is welcome to try and find and expose from flaw in it –to correct it.
Throughout this post you elaborate on the word “kind.” Please define “kinds.” Go ahead.
When you claim that we do not see horses giving birth to elephants, Jason this shows how little you understand evolution. If we did see this happen it would disprove evolution on the spot.
Evolution is not change among current living species.
Have you ever seen an Aardwolf? It looks like a wolf, but it is more related to cats.
Plus, every living thing (plant and animal) is a eukaryote, and they reproduce eukaryotes, but can vary over time. This fits well with evolution. (Also, your quote does not leave an external link, but how does that help your case? We know dogs are descendants from wolves, and this quote seems to confirm that.)
As for the Ark, it is an impossible scenario. Since you have not defined “kind” I will assume you mean species. How did Noah get the penguins, American bison, kiwis, etc. to the Ark?
ReplyDeleteFor the record, foxes, dogs, wolves, and hyenas are distinctly different species, even the raccoon-dogs are not dogs. You at least acknowledge natural selection does occur, and also speciation but I doubt you know what speciation is. It is the rise of new species, what we call macroevolution. Change of hair length is not speciation, speciation is evolution above the species level, that is when two species become so genetically different that they can no longer reproduce.
Define “information.”
Please provide proof that loss of hair requires less genetic information. And how is loss of hair contradict evolution, which says that which is best adapted to its environment survives. So if less hair is better than long hair, then it is no surprise selection would choose less hair.
Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “new”. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away. But as to whether “information” has been added as opposed to lost, we can’t really tell because creationists won’t tell us what they think “information” is or how to measure it. They’ll readily state (as if it had somehow been confirmed) that it takes more "information" to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, but if you ask them how much more, they’ll shut right up. And if you demand to see the data that justifies how they could even make that claim in the first place, they change the subject.
I have no presuppositions, I only go where the evidence takes me. As the evidence says is that humans are apes, confirmed by genetics, taxonomy, and ontogeny.
I pointed out you have not been using science, since you already have a conclusion and work to find things that fit your view.
Your last couple of paragraphs is just “preachy.” I already made a blog on the historicity of Jesus (and by the looks of it he is just a fictional character) and concluded that the Bible is not a reliable document, so thanks for your concern, but if you want to help me you need to make a better effort and provide actual proof. Believing in faith alone is weak and irrational. I can believe an invisible gnome is floating above my head right no, but that does not make it true.
What I would ask of Jason: prove to me that everything we created in six days. Please provide all your data. If, however, all you have is bible quotes, you are in trouble. Or if you cannot provide that, please comment and provide proof on my history blog.
Remember, see his responses here:
http://letdownyournets.blogspot.com/2011/02/encounter-with-michael-at-3rd-street.html
Hey Michael, I have posted a response to your comments.
ReplyDeletehttp://letdownyournets.blogspot.com/2011/02/follow-up-with-michael.html