Monday, 3 December 2012
I would define a fact as; something that for the present time can be shown to be incontrovertibly true or will always be true, to the point that reasoning it is not true is moot.. (i.e. Would anyone argue against the fact that the world is round or that you will not fall to the ground if you jump from a cliff-top?)
A fact can be true, and then change to be false, later on. It can also switch from being incontrovertibly true to incontrovertibly false. (i.e. Bob had hair, now Bob is bald).
So for example, it WAS a fact that there was an animal that existed called a T-Rex but it now does not exist. So a T-Rex WAS a fact but now it is a fact that there are no recorded living T-Rex's.
So for example if someone argued that there are no such things as mutations, then because mutations are an incontrovertible truth,(fact) then that person could never be taken seriously by anyone as his thinking would be severely and correctly undermined.
The point is, LOGICALLY you CAN'T argue that mountains do not exist, but you CAN argue that macro evolution does not happen. Nobody will argue with an incontrovertible truth because they know they can't logically. Some things are proven facts. The latter in this case, is a propositional inference.
A propositional inference, is something that is an argued implication rather than a certain implication.
Truth is greater than fact, even though scientists prefer facts over truth because truth does not have to be a proven fact but facts are always true. Also, facts do not necessarily remain true, so it seems the ultimate reason why facts interest us is because they hold truth. Without truth they would lose their power, but truth will not lose it's power if it is not factual.
For practical reasons, science is inherently concerned with fact rather than truth.
I suppose you could say; "Facts are truths we know to be true, practically and testably."
What is true, changes, but ultimate truth remains.
* There is always truth, but what is true changes, as can facts.
Therefore truth is always what matters most. Facts and true-elements are beneath Truth.
For example, Bob was bald but now he isn't. The facts have changed but the truth is still there. It WAS true that he had hair and now it is true that he does not, but all that matters is that truth remains.
So "truth" in this example, is that Bob was not bald and then bald. "Was" and "wasn't" come under "truth" because truth was present at all times. There was always truth. An element OF truth changed, but truth was always there.
X was true (This was truth)
X became false. (This was truth)
X may well become true again, (This will be truth)
What is true can change, but truth is always present. Even if nothing existed, that would then become Truth.
Why does truth matter so much? Why is it always there unless it fundamentally matters more than anything else?
" I am the way, the truth and the life". ."Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever"
The latter statement is a statement that relates directly to Truth. Because ultimate truth never changes, even though true things can change.
Friday, 30 November 2012
How do you qualify evidence for Biblical created kinds or Baramins, LOGICALLY when you look at direct evidence, and ask the question, is it consistent?
The only evidence you could expect is for animal kinds to shows signs of always being the same kinds. After all, that is the fundamental difference between special creation and evolution.
So if you find a fossil of a spider supposedly 300 million years old, that is confirmation evidence that such a creature has produced according to it's genetic make-up. (X=X) Law of Identity. Which is what the bible states. Think about it, the only alternative is to say, "This particular fossil should not look like a spider", which is a bit like saying; "If Tiger Woods is a top golfer we should expect him to not be able to correctly swing a golf club". That's actually OPPOSITE logic. (fallacious).
So when we ask, is there evidence for created kinds? The answer is yes (Generally no change in morphology) or no,(change).
Of course, evolutionists say there is no evidence of created kinds or God or Intelligent Design. But they have to then qualify what would be evidence of created kinds? The problem is, if morphological stability is not an example of evidence for kinds, what would be? Are they saying CHANGE would be evidence? There are only two options, an animal kind has fundamentally changed in some way or has remained the same, apart from superficial changes such as size.
Think about it- what are evolutionists then saying if it is not evidence? Would we expect fossilized Pine trees to NOT look like Pine trees if the bible is true? (If your answer is "no" then according to the excluded middle, the only option left is, "yes", which proves logically that a fossilized pine tree is confirmation evidence for biblical kinds.
According to the law of the excluded middle, either the evidence is consistent with animals kinds or it is not.
There are only two logically sound POSSIBLE answers;
1. It would look like a preserved Pine if the bible was right. (as is obvious)
2. It would NOT look like a Pine. (opposite logic, like saying a baseball should be cube-shaped)
(Anything beyond a "yes" or "no" answer is extraneous to logic and therefore invalid.)
Remember we are only determining if a specific fossil you find is either consistent or not consistent, as evidence is counted as confirmation evidence if it is expected to exist, according to your theory.
In regards to proposed histories, the name of the game is inductive reasoning because we can't repeat what truly happened, we can only join dots, clues from the evidence. There is plenty of evidence for biblical kinds because the induction of basically unchanged organisms, is vast, so the evidence is directly relevant to the claim.(Because we would expect to see this if the bible is right.)
Friday, 13 April 2012
"The greater the claim is, the evidence must also be correspondingly greater".
We can see why such an axiom holds truth, from the following examples.
1. (Grand claim) I can fly like superman, without wings. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me flying.
2. (Small claim)I can jump pretty high. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me jumping pretty high.
As you can see, for obvious reasons we would DEMAND quite logically, much more from the person claiming that they can fly, than from the person claiming that they can jump pretty high. We would expect evidence-demands to differ, logically because it is an established fact that men can't fly.
Only according to propositional or historical science do we allegedly change so much biologically as to become a different kind of animal.
Therefore the value of evidence for biological evolution is dependent upon Inductive Reasoning.
Induction is very weak. A simple example is this;
Pretend we had a claim that there are no mountains on earth, and the person claiming this, had an induction of evidence of 10, million pieces of evidence. He had 10 million photographs of the earth, wherein there were no mountains in the background, only flat plains.
Would 10 million pieces of evidence disprove there are mountains?
No. Because even 10 million pieces of evidence can't disprove a fact, as a fact is based on proven deduction.
It is very important to remember that when they PROPOSE that an ape-like creature slowly developed into humans over time, that this is only inductive proposition, it is by no means proof.
Many evolutionary "evidences" of the past that were used to "prove" evolution are not not even believed to be true to modern scientific evolutionists. Lineages that were supposed to prove evolution are now abandoned in favour of different lineages.
It is very important to remember that evolution as a claim, is a very large claims that goes against the facts. Not only this, but the falsification evidence for evolution is re-labelled, as "evolution evidence".
The evidence for evolution, in quality, is of a poor quality. The Theory itself, it's hypothetics, are very sophisticated and the Theory does contain factually proven elements such as natural selection and mutations and so forth. It is not the scientists that I am blaming, nor am I rejecting facts within the Theory, but of those aforementioned propositional elements there can be no question that a tally of consistencies can not be held as proof or fact pertaining to so grandiose a claim.
Monday, 30 January 2012
As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I define evidence as, That which should follow if a concept is true.
So, for example, if I were to believe that leaves fell from trees in Autumn/The Fall, then evidence for this would be lots of leaves on the ground during Autumn.
Of course, evolutionists don't want us to define evidence because if we define evidence then we then have the knowledge of what to look for if God exists.
Some examples of what evidence should exist if God exists, are as follows;
If God exists, then we should expect to see incredible, mind-blowingly intelligent design. (aerodynamics of birds)
If God exists, then we should expect to see a universe, with order, laws, and clear purpose and function. (function, such as reproduction, or photosynthesis)
If God exists, especially a personal God interested and responsible for making man-kind we should expect to see that humans would pursue God, perhaps in many forms of worship, if they are ignorant of what God wants from them.
If God exists, we should expect to see decay and degredation if God is lost from the system, OR, if God abandons the system to a degree.
My point is that we could posit many things that should follow if God exists, and those things do follow. Yes, to be fair we say these things posteriori, (after the fact), but that can't be helped.
Now I want to show how hard-atheists qualify evidence for God, so that we can see if they are fair in regards to qualifying evidence;
They might say;
If God exists then we should expect to see nothing that we do see, no matter what it is, everything we see should not be there if God exists, therefore everything shows that there is no evidence for God's existence.
So I will leave it to the readers to decide whether this is a fair way of defining evidence for God, because the atheists I have debated, were unable to state that ANYTHING that exists should evidence God, because they define evidence of God as, "nothing that exists".
As you can see, this is not rational behaviour, if anything it shows us a great denial of reality. For it is tautologous reasoning to say that, "everything you observe will disprove God".
Such reasoning guarantees that every piece of evidence ever found will favour Atheism.
If God exists then we would expect to reasonably see things that should follow, these things are evidence according to a fair qualification.