I get the impression that Emma's case is "experts say this, when Kent Hovid and Matt Powell disagree they pretend to be experts as they aren't so I can dismiss them" and when she's actually drawn into what they are arguing, she gives up and changes the subject. She also makes a point that the Bible depicts evil things.
Kent Hovind's "Whack an Atheist Wednesday" Continues! | Atheist response
Emma Thorne, 20 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNRnBVRnFE4
5:23 It is pretty clear that this is her opinion about it, but it does not follow they are arguing from faked observations in her findings, they may be arguing from the real observations by other principled premisses than the ones she's prepared to use.
I checked out on her and she was recently making some kind of research into showing how blood could have been preserved for that long, and it seems it was not necessarily very convincing.
5:30 No, thinking the finder INTERPRETS her finding wrong does not equate to pretending to have "more expertise" ...
Expertise is about facts and about things where interpretations get feedbacks from failure or success in practical pursuits. It's not about interpretation of things that are that much outside everyday experience, only about the description of what falls within her experience as looking at the find.
5:45 Why does Bart Ehrman think he has more expertise than the people writing the Gospels on what the Gospels were based on?
That's a point where the question of expertise actually can be relevant, as the Gospellers actually could be aware in an expert degree on basing the text on verified facts of real events.
5:52 We do NOT "convince ourselves that we have expertise in these fields" ... we simply do not believe expertise is everything that matters!
7:05 No even non-Christian expert on the NT books will believe this canard from Voltaire.
Bart Ehrman won't pretend any NT book was written "hundreds of years after the fact" ...
7:20 It's more like it says the earth is 7200 years old or 7500 years old, partly depending on what version of LXX you use for Genesis 11, partly on some other issues. George Syncellus saying Christ was born 5500 after Creation used a LXX with the second Cainan, and put King David further back in time, and extended the period Exodus to Temple more. St. Jerome, followed by Historia Scholastica and Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day says Christ was born 5199 after Creation, no second Cainan, King David a bit later, a bit less between Exodus and Temple.
Ussher used same method, except:
- he used a Masoretic / Vulgate text for Genesis 11 (automatically no second Cainan), which is centuries shorter, like for Genesis 5, than LXX
- he made the later positiion of King David and he made the 480 years from Exodus to Temple into full extent instead of a minimal count which was surpassed by bad record keeping of chronology in the Judges era.
7:35 We have no live tree which in its present trunk is older than 5000 years - which is how long ago the Flood was.
Old Tjikko in Lappland is alive, and has roots carbon dated to 9000 years ago, but that's a carbon date, not a tree ring count. And the older age concerns the root system, not the present trunk.
7:39 Adam was TWO hundred and thirty when Seth was born.
Pretty systematic difference between LXX and Masoretic for Genesis 5.
And no, this is not like taking 1260 days as "prophetic days, literal years" it is about direct statements.
Between end of Deuteronomy and King David, Biblical chronology is somewhat of a jumble, but for Creation to 40 years after Exodus and for King David up to Babylonian captivity, we have good record keeping of chronology, given in direct statements.
This could be complicated by people considering the Bible writers used a year of only 360 days, like Babylonians, but the Hebrew calendar we have is, on average, around the actual astronomic year, especially for Biblical times, as it was an empiric calendar, not a predetermined one. At a given time in Adar, you checked the wheat to see if next new moon would initiate Nisan or Second Adar. Since the agricultural cycle was always bound to the actual astronomic year (on average but with minor wiggles), the Biblical year count is compatible with the Gregorian year.
8:32 "that's the age of the dinosaurs" = meaning when they were dying
"Noah took them on the Ark, probably babies" = obviously he had no need to take dying dinosaurs on the Ark.
8:35 "Kent, are you OK?"
When I hear questions amounting basically to that after writing a YEC post, I find that offensive.
Sure, the guys who ask don't come and identify as readers of my blogs, but the coincidence between timing of posts and questions began to be conspicuous.
Kent can at least identify the fact that you posed the question in direct response to a specific statement, and he can explain it, probably like I did.
Not sure I'd agree the dinos on the Ark were actual babies, juveniles would be sufficiently small, but the point is, they did not need to be fullgrown.
11:30 "they've got NO awareness, they've got no self awareness"
Any expert you would trust is setting any self awareness aside in favour of his or her awareness of observed facts and of the arguments that can be made from them.
On your view of what it means to be man, is this the privilege of the sole experts and no one else?
12:19 You linked to Kevin R. Henke.
A nice man, but not my best star for grasping an argument.
I say that after extensively debating him, and realising he doesn't grasp when his point has already been answered + he is a total stickler for using the exact argument procedure developed by his confrères in agnosticism / anti-Biblicism, even when a certain criterium is very tactic against for instance historic miracles. For instance, he is prepared to accept historic miracles if they aren't really miracles, i e if they can be repeated like normal natural processes. If they can't (i e if they are miracles), he is ready to go to any lengths against witness testimony, requiring things no one would require for facts 2000 years old if they were not miraculous.
Still, if you want sympathy and kind comments, he is a go to.
13:10 So, you are prepared to:
- take SciMan Dan's word for a thing, as if he were responsible
- defend him against criticism, as if he were not responsible?
Come on. That's maybe how "science" works these days, but it's not how argument works.
If you express confidence in something, you take responsibility for the thought process and observations leading up to that confidence. Unless you explicitly say "this is above my paygrade, I refer to someone else" - as I do with concordia dating to Tas Walker. But that kind of referring to someone else had better not be the bulk of what you are offering, for if it is, you should leave the space and the time to the someone else who can take responsibility for your confidence.
17:00 "the top three evidences - some people call me professor Powell"
When you pretend he implied being a professor or equivalent, you yourself implied only professors have a right to say anything about evidences.
Not how argument works.
18:31 Sci Man Dan:
That's not how mountains are formed.
Hovind:
Yes it is (and the way it's described in science is compatible with what the Bible says about the Flood).
Is it somewhat clearer?
It is more like Sci Man Dan, when he said "that's not how mountains are formed" does not acknowledge they are formed in several ways.
20:08 Can you give Kent Hovind the bare minimum of confidence to speak of mountains formed by folding when the pictures he shows are in fact from that type of mountains?
In other words, even if he forgets the other types, to be talking of the type relevant to his picture material?
If I wanted to defend SciMan Dan, perhaps he was put off by a comment speaking of both folding and uplift from below, and wanted to make the point the processes are not the same and don't usually combine ... OK, a bit sloppy on the part of Powell, then.
20:36 Yeah, that one of five ways is precisely the way which actually fits the pictures he is showing.
The point would be, if the mountains were already solid rock before the folding began, the layers would crack instead of bend.
But the pictures show LOTS of layers that are bent, whether they are also cracked or not.
Therefore, they were arguably formed while the layers were still soft, i e sediment.
The answer I presume the Evolutionist side would give is on the lines of "solids are just liquids with very high viscosity" ... i e, solid rock could bend in a few million years.
- Alan Thompson
- @hglundahl Nah. It's the Geologist "side". Rocks aren't living organisms.
So that two scientific disciplines you need to research.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Evolutionist doesn't mean "evolution biologist" @alanthompson8515 .
It means "evolution believer" - and there are geologists who aren't, and who also don't believe the millions of years' story.
Tas Walker ring a bell?
21:56 Given what modern archaeology is unearthing about Nimrod's Babel, or pre-pottery Neolithic of Göbekli Tepe, and associated parts of the world and its timeline, I would say the Bible is very child friendly.
Like, the Bible doesn't actually describe Vlad's fetish for impaling people either. And that's about what Babel would have smelled like, and Nimrod was against shirkers on the Tower project a bit like Vlad was against work shirkers i e lazy people.
22:20 What it has to do with the formation of mountains?
For someone so much into visuals as you, the question is disingenious. The relevance is that both results are strikingly visually similar, in bent layers and all.
22:28 "I can't, I've got to ..."
Were you suffering from cognitive dissonance or something?
No comments:
Post a Comment