Friday, May 28, 2021

Marc and Alex between them

Incredulity on Literal Adam and Eve, a Tracing Problem (Quora) · Tracing Efforts Continue : Given that Trent Session V treats Adam as an individual man, when did modernist Catholics start treating him as just an allegory? · Continuing Sci Debate with Marc Robidoux · Marc and Alex between them · My answer to Marc Robidoux' long comment · Answering Pismenny, More Than One Comment

May be updated when I get time to answer them, but is now first published with their thing only:

Marc Robidoux
Tue, May 25
“it is not hearsay.“ As you have not provided a single bit or citation for any verifiable evidence for your claim that there was ever a global flood, it is hearsay defined as ‘an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: ‘

“Exactly. Your considering my evidence from debates as "hearsay" is not evidence of evidence from my debates being hearsay. For instance”, - I am not making any claim so I have no need to present evidence. YOU, on the other hand, claim there was a global flood, and provide no evidence to support this at all.

"citing his screen name” - does not make someone un-anonymous. What is his real name? Is he actually a real person? What are his credentials to be making the claims he makes? - Anonymous.

"So, what kind of evidence do you want? I have more than one.” Oh, do tell.

"Glenn Morton is claiming it” - and provides over 50 points of reference to the evidence backing his claim.

"Are you asking me to prove it could?” - I’m asking you to provide a shred of verifiable evidence that counters the loads of evidence that show it does no such thing.

"Arguments are what evaluates evidence as proof or non-proof” - Science is not about “proof”, it is about evidence, and if you provide an argument without evidence, that is not counter-evidence to arguments made under verifiable evidence.

""But if you volunteer to dispute them” - I do indeed dispute them, but the burden of evidence is on you, as it is YOUR claim that there was ever a global flood.

"In fact, it didn't include one when I read it years ago”. - - Oh gee, well sorry for not having read something you posted yesterday as it existed years ago when you read it...

"A citation is neither a good nor a bad argument” - correct, however if you make an argument and base it on citable evidence, you can be reasonably sure that this evidence has been verified by other experts in the process of peer review.

"Which exact reference did he give for a year long flood” - He provides 50+ references which refute the notion that year long flood could possibly produce the observed layered strata. Again “proof” is not a scientific pursuit. Evidence is the goal, and all evidence shows that the strata were laid down over millions of years. You claim it was all done in a single global flood, but provide no evidence for your claim.

"As said, it was years since I read it, and I did not find any such proof back then. You read him more recently.” - YOU posted this link, The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota, YOU are claiming it is a reference of something TODAY.

"How about learning to parse instead of citing a half sentence?” Well, sorry, I’m not a blogger, I’m just commenting against direct quotes from you one Quora, so if that causes you to have to go back over what you said, boo hoo.

" I claim that strata lower than Younger Dryas strata are the material evidence of a Flood, except some for an Ice age between the Flood and Younger Dryas. If you had paid any attention to the discussion of historic science, it so happens, it can't be checked against achievements. You have material pieces of evidence. You have stories that compete about fitting the material evidence best. My claim is, the layers lower than Ice Age and Younger Dryas are material evidence left from the Flood.” - Let me restate this so an average person can understand: So HGL is claiming that some sedimentary rock formations are evidence of a global flood, but this “can’t be checked” despite the fact that there are innumerable references for geological science that directly contradict this “uncheckable” bit of his claim.

"My point is, Jurassic and Permian remains are material evidence of the Flood. “ - nope, it (they are/is) no such thing, all the scientifically verified evidence from geological science point to an earth 4–4.5Billion years old, and the evidence supporting this claim also support mechanisms that have been verified with evidence in keeping with scientific theories of geology, plate tectonics etc.

“Proof?” - Your word, not mine, not a scientific term at all.

"If you are suggesting there is citable evidence of something here, then 1. Please cite it, and 2. Please clarify what claim this citation supports?"

You proceed to quote verbatim a bunch of stuff from Wikipedia that mostly contradicts your claim that there was a global flood within the last 10000 years, so not sure what that “proves” for you, but for me, ‘meh’.

"At the academia I am from, no one was required to cite for "bonis" being dative/ablative plural of all three genders of I-II declinsion adjective "bonus". I was however required to cite Maius having a side form Madius in the Middle Ages, and found the citation in Habel-Gröbel.” -Congratulations! Did that earn you a PhD (perhaps in Human Biology like Dr. Bergman?)

"Now, for Neanderthals I know (Pääbo, El Sidrón, look it up) that the mitochondria and the Y-chromosomes are not found in modern man. Flood is among other things a genetic bottleneck and if a daughter in law of Noah had a Neanderthal father and a Cro Magnon mother, she would have handed on neither. Though to be fair, I may have overdone the case as some Neanderthal / Sapiens hybrid in Italy seems to have had Neanderthal like mitochondriae.” - I think you over-estimate your knowledge of genetics….

"Sounds like initiation and metadiscussion, not my cup of tea.” - Evidence for claims, not your cup of tea?

"Like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun e.g."Is supposed to ... how do you check that? “ - Lol, Jeez, NASA, they just sent men to the moon and the voyager probes to the outer Solar system and beyond, that’s the APPLICATION of helio centrism, , but you don’t have to wait for them to figure it out in THEORY, Galileo did it way back, does that name evoke anything with you...

“ I am in fact claiming the 5000 BP {blah-di-blah} Genesis 14 c. 1935 BC.” Claiming with no evidence - I add.

"That the people in the pre-Flood world or early post-Flood one would reduce to goat herders is your claim “ - Nope, it is a supposition {I have not made any claims, remember?}, but if you have evidence they were otherwise employed, go ahead and cite the evidence, can’t hurt your claim to the global flood, though it also wouldn’t be evidence for that claim …

{A lot of stuff ... }"No, you didn't, but AronRa did, citing some Nelson or sn. I took this as an example.” Why are you ascribing statements by others to me in this debate?

“I'll be happy to take them one by one ..." - Go ahead - “You may mean there is a palaeontological record, that is something else.” - and I also mean there is a geological record, and astro-physics, and chemistry and on and on, there are oodles of evidence based science which you deny.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence (verifiable and testable against known facts) that there ever was a global flood.

"On the contrary, lots collapsed. Hence lots of sediments.” - Citation for evidence to this claim?

"the flatter and less deep pre-Flood lands and depths, the water we now have would have been adequate.” - Citation? Evidence? Or maybe this is your ‘common sense’ emerging again?

“” - quotes from the Bible not considered evidence’ " They should, they are prima facie evidence of history, same as other stories from old days - even before being admitted as Word of God.” - Your ‘common sense’ may tell you that but The Bible is a collection of myths and fables and fiction and half truths and verifiably false content, so anything within it can’t be tested and so fails test #1 to be considered evidence of anything.

"But the problem “ is a problem for you and your blog - for me, I’m just responding to comments in a Quora answer, not a problem at all.

{quoting accurately} " I have consistently done so” - great, carry on.

“some in Atheist community seem to have consistently given me the opposite reputation (if not, why the demand? It would be obvious, right? I am not the one making a truncated quote like "involves a calculation of what heat would have been generated” without citing the initial "So, if your argument" making the following hypothetical).” - I don’t know who you are suggesting is attacking your reputation this way, it wasn’t me, my “demand” is simply a standard request for use of my name and statements - those comments you cite are not from me.

I had to hack this out quickly (I do actually have a day job - so can’t dedicate all my time to debunking wild claims), sorry for any formatting errors. In re-reading I see that you have a problem with your reputation. Do note, I have not made any claims or ad-hominem attacks on you, but I’d just point out again that you have a habit of inserting ‘if you said’ type of quotes, this could very easily lead you to post erroneous quotes in your blog which would annoy most anyone victim of such misquotes, just some friendly advice but you should try to curb that, it may benefit your reputation you value so highly.

Alex Pismenny
Tue, May 25
I share your concern that the simple literal faith is eclipsed by the intellectualization of biblical inerrancy into some high calculus. In that sense I miss the Orthodox lack of equivocation.

Marc Robidoux
Wed, May 26
Do you have any concern for those whose faith is so literal that they don’t believe in the heliocentric reality of our solar system? I thought The RCC officially gave up such delusions way back in the days of Galileo. Having avowed Catholics today disputing it seems not the best for the RCC’s reputation, I was thinking until recently that settled matters such as that we’re off limits for Catholics until you clarified that Genesis 1 & 2 are fine for literal interpretation. Yes, ok, beliefs are beliefs, no evidence or lack thereof will change that, but man, here I am in Catholic Apologetics having to defend heliocentrism? My nominally catholic friends and family will be flabbergasted.

Alex Pismenny
Thu, May 27
Yes. I do: I think they are robbing themselves of the real and full spectrum of the Faith, as Benedict XVI explained in his document. Especially if they, in Protestant style, use the Bible to fight off reality.

What I find admirable though is a simple intuitive faith that is not worried about proofs. That is because in the end, we believe in a miracle — at least one, and events of 2000 years ago will never have proofs beyond dispute.

Marc Robidoux
Thu, May 27
LOL, so you must find it equally admirable how atheists believe in scientific theories and laws without proof. As I am always pointing out to theists all over the place, evidence .ne. proof, science has no need for proof, proof is for booze and maths basically. Believing in absence of evidence is one thing, but I really can’t say there is anything admirable about denying evidence, such as being anti-vacc, which has detrimental effects on fellow humans. Also not admirable to deny demonstrable facts, no noble reason to do that, it’s shake-your-head incredible, the certifiable wingnuttery of creationism that is taught as science in some places, ugh. Forming an entire cohort of citizens who believe dinos and humans co-existed, just like in the Flintstones. Here I was thinking that was just for Protestant fringes…

Alex Pismenny
Thu, May 27
The difference is that a scientist (theist or Atheist) took upon himself to follow certain rules known as scientific method; lawyers and cops have somewhat similar rules. A Christian has belief in one central historical fact, the Resurrection of Christ, and from that and from plain logic follows the rest of his beliefs. We Christians understand that a miracle cannot follow scientific method by definition, so when a naïve Atheist says something like “dead people stay dead, it’s science, so your faith is wrong” we laugh.

At the same time I agree that no one should “deny demonstrable facts”, — that is equally silly.

Marc Robidoux
Thu, May 27
Ah yes, there it emerges again, the capitalized ‘A’ misspelling for atheist, strange that. It’s almost like you think atheists are a defined organized group who all believe the same things for which they have no evidence, or get together in congregations, or diligently march to such congregations on set days, or have revivals, or go on pilgrimage, or indoctrinate their children through rites of passage, or bow to a guy with a funny hat or to a pastor or an ayatollah, or confess to men in boxes, or worry about heaven or hell or angels or demons, or condemn (or even put to death) others who don’t follow their delusions, or talk to imaginary spirits or put any stock into activities scientifically shown to be less effective than placebos or have any need for a whole field named “apologetics” or any such things. Yet you persist, so there must be a reason. Is it because when I cross your thoughts, you think of cultural decay perhaps?

And yet, through our disagreements, we have found yet another point of agreement with our common aversion to denial of demonstrable facts, yay, well done!

Turning to un-demonstrable facts though:

The central ‘fact’ you quote here as central to Christianity, is identically parallel and akin to the central ‘fact’ of Islam, namely that Angel Gabriel delivered the ideas in the Quran to Muhammad. There is an equal amount of evidence in support of both these ‘facts’.

My scruples, as an atheist, don’t allow me to laugh at people who believe such ‘facts’. Hell, who am I to question or laugh at anyone's deeply held beliefs, no matter how irrational or deluded they may be? This atheist would be more likely to say things like “there’s plenty of evidence that dead people stay dead, but you’re totally entitled to believe whatever natural laws were suspended once or many times to counter known reality. You can also justify your beliefs with whatever means you see fit, just don’t expect me to be convinced by non-evidence” - Would you (the royal ‘you’ I mean here) laugh at that?

{Meme insertion withheld - out of respect for your sensitivities}

Alex Pismenny
Thu, May 27
I capitalize Atheism because it is a belief system just like Catholicism or Islam.

Speaking of Islam, the difference is that there were no witnesses of Archangel Gabriel delivering anything to Mohammed. It is an empty assertion by Mohammed. There were witnesses of the Resurrection and they left testimonies, first oral and later written down.

Marc Robidoux
Thu, May 27
What exactly and precisely is this belief you believe atheists believe anyway? You keep saying this but can’t seem to pinpoint it, please clarify.

Ah right, ‘no witnesses’ is the issue, unlike for Christianity where anonymous witnesses for which there are no verified or verifiable evidence of their existence were the witnesses, ahh ok. Much higher level of evidence on your scale, I understand.

Once again {There’s a Meme for this but insertion withheld - out of respect for your sensitivities}

Alex Pismenny
Thu, May 27
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. No reasonable evidence has ever been provided for this belief.

in Paris TZ, not for them.

Marc Robidoux
Fri, May 28
It’s so nice that your delusion of grandeur includes a deep knowledge of everyone's thoughts, so deep that you know definition of what others think and believe.

As I am an atheist, I think I am qualified to speak for my own thoughts (though other atheists may think differently, we’re not like anything I described above after alll…) to say you are flat wrong, at least about me. My atheism is simply a rejection of the existence of any god. As you can’t even define this ‘God’ you think I ‘believe doesn’t exist’, you’re nitpicking with hubris in the extreme with your claim to know what I think.

If anyone ever presented any shred of evidence for a deity, I’d be lined up to ask pointed questions of this entity, like ‘why did you deceive everyone by remaining as non-existent as possible until now?’

You also have to ignore the dictionary definition: -atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. ... In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. -

It’s kind of like if I was constantly haranguing you about what a Catholic is. ‘You don’t believe the flood story is literally true? You’re not a Catholic!’ e.g. How would I know what a Catholic is supposed to be? Another thing atheists don’t do is go on missions to convert anyone to atheism against their will, or fly aircraft into buildings to terrorize non atheists, you need belief for that.

You’re still walking around a meme field btw, you should give me credit for my withholding fire…

No comments: