You surprise me, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I have a good friend from high school who believes wholeheartedly in astrology... I’ve lived in Cameroon and known people who would not shake other’s hands in the market for fear they may have a magic potion on their hand which could remove their penis... people believe men can change into animals... You oughtn’t try pulling the flat earth card, Pericles<<

Given that it sounds very much as though you treat all beliefs equally, what do you have against flat-earthism? After all, according to you, all you need to do is see the world from the flat-earther's perspective, and it will all suddenly make sense.

As you earlier pointed out to me...

>>Any argument must be evaluated within its own points of reference and parameters. I don’t think you are willing to go onto the other person’s turf and measure the evidence from another perspective.<<

I bet you're glad that you wore gloves when you went to the market in Cameroon.

Saltpetre,
You say my views are immoveable. In this I don’t see how I’m much different to just about anyone else who discusses things on the forum. I said fairly early on that I wanted to give an opinion from a particular perspective.

You say I glide over the historical data. I would say I was willing to question your alleged data. It may be more a question of definition. As I said very early on, it’s important to try and get the definitions correct. What you call data, I might see as purely interpretation. I know when they dig up fossils, they don’t have little labels attached (carbon dates) that say how old they are. That’s an interpretation that is put onto the data.

However, I have enjoyed your interaction. And if you’re inclined to give up, then I’m likely to be inclined that way too.

But you’ve asked me some specific questions, so I’ll try and respond.

Were there dinosaurs on the Ark?
I don’t see why not. There are many legends and reports up until fairly recent times through every continent of large dinosaur like creatures (or dragons). I think the Chinese name one of their regular calendar years after the dragon. All of their other years are named after pretty regular ordinary animals. Some fairly good (perhaps eye witness) descriptions of dinosaurs are found towards the end of the book of Job (look towards chapters 39-40.) That’s just two of many possible examples. For size constraints, Noah didn’t have to take the biggest examples when the teenagers or adolescent would suffice.

On what basis do I accept creation?
When there are minds much greater than mine, then like yourself, I’m likely to accept certain things on the authority of others. It’s pretty clear what Jesus and the Bible writers thought of Genesis, as straight forward history. And I believe the scientific research clearly favours the creation view over evolution in terms of certain reason and logic I’ve touched on above. But I hardly think the issue “proven”. Ultimately, it’s probably unprovable one way or the other.

One thing evidenced in this long debate is the degree to which various people want to engage with the creationist position. This shows how Dawkins is presently ignoring the creationist position only for tactical reasons. Dawkins must give account to all reasonable alternatives and challenges if his view can have a chance of ultimately prevailing.

Pericles,
To you I’ve made my position fairly clear, although from your last comment it seems that you would prefer to not understand or deliberately misinterpret.

I clearly do not hold that all beliefs are equal. I said, “So the issue is with which set of assumptions, A or B, does the entire body of evidence make most reasoned sense.” (14/1/2001) Yet, “Each set must be investigated within its own parameters” (14/1/2001), meaning that beliefs are to be investigated for their validity or internal consistency as well as how well they align with empirical data.

Sarfati (from the link above) gives an example of where materialism (or evolutionary philosophy) lacks internal consistency, “If materialism were true, then ‘thought’ is just an epiphenomenon of the brain, and the results of the laws of chemistry. Thus, given their own presuppositions, materialists have not freely arrived at their conclusion that materialism is true, because their conclusion was predetermined by brain chemistry. But then, why should their brain chemistry be trusted over mine, since both obey the same infallible laws of chemistry? So in reality, if materialists were right, then they can’t even help what they believe (including their belief in materialism!). Yet they often call themselves ‘freethinkers’, overlooking the glaring irony. Genuine initiation of thought is an insuperable problem for materialism, as is consciousness itself.”

So materialists must first borrow from Christian philosophy before they can adequately do science. “Man can initiate thoughts and actions; they are not fully determined by deterministic laws of brain chemistry. This is a deduction from the biblical teaching that man has both a material and immaterial aspect.” (Matt 10:28)

But if I start to repeat myself, we must have done the full circle and it’s therefore time to let things rest.

Dan,

I have a few questions aimed at better understanding your position, if you would be so kind. (I may not get another chance.)

How old do you hold the Earth and Universe to be?
How long has mankind existed on the Earth?
Was there any other life on Earth before mankind? (And if so what and when? - considering Garden of Eden and such.)
How long ago was Noah's flood?
Am I correct in thinking that Christianity is approx 2,000 years young (commencing with the life and teaching of Jesus)?
Am I right that Jesus was not only a prophet but also the Son of God made man?
Why do some say Jesus was Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
Are all Creationists of similar thinking, or are there separate 'schools' of thought?
Why such an immense Universe? To accommodate other 'life'?

On some separate beliefs:
Is the One True God also known by some as Allah? (Or is Allah alternatively a fiction, Devil, or demon?)
Could Mohammed and/or Buddha have been prophets? Or could they alternatively have been demons?

Why are there so many divisions in the Christian Church?

A puzzlement. You posted to Pericles: "So materialists must first borrow from Christian philosophy before they can adequately do science."
What does this mean, since in one form or another both science and philosophy preceded Chrisianity? (Mind you, I personally don't care for materialists, in any guise.)

Life is a puzzlement.

Saltpetre,
I’m not sure why you would come to me to ask such a diverse range of questions. Life’s deep puzzlements won’t be sufficiently answered in 350 words. Yet I believe that all wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3). As such, the foundational starting place would be the reading of Holy Scripture, that which was endorsed by Christ.

If you are looking for the standard views of Biblical (young-earth) creationists, then I would recommend the website http://creation.com This website attempts to answer the most-asked questions about God and the Bible. It’s not a one man show but is run as a Christian ministry, staffed by highly qualified researchers. They claim currently to attract more visitors than does Richard Dawkins’ official website.

Given a plain historical reading of Genesis, people and all other life on earth were made in the week of creation, around 4000 B.C. The flood was something in the order of 2500 B.C. Although many historians would doubt this date as it clashes with the supposed dates of Egyptian or other established civilisations. Modern YE creationists tend to believe that an ice age began as a result of the flood, which lasted several hundred years.

The first Christians thought of themselves as Jews or those entering into the fulfillment of the Jewish (Abrahamic) faith, which is, of course, older than 2000 years.

In the village where I lived in Cameroon, the Christians prayed to ‘Allah’ (the Creator God) when praying in the language influenced by Arabic. They used other names for God when using other languages. You would know the saying, ‘a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.’

Science as a methodology is not restricted to Christians, but Christian thought significantly helped in its modern development in the West. You could perhaps read further in the link I was quoting from- http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth-chapter-17

In my article I wrote for OLO last time Dawkins came to our city for the atheist convention,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9980&page=0

I quoted Governor Latrobe’s family motto: “He who seeks finds.” I hope you find the answers to your questions.

Possibly not, Dan S de Merengue.

>>But if I start to repeat myself, we must have done the full circle and it’s therefore time to let things rest<<

This is new.

>>So materialists must first borrow from Christian philosophy before they can adequately do science. “Man can initiate thoughts and actions; they are not fully determined by deterministic laws of brain chemistry. This is a deduction from the biblical teaching that man has both a material and immaterial aspect.” (Matt 10:28)<<

Matthew actually reads as follows:

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Let's just make the assumption for the moment that - inter alia - a) the words were reliably reported, b) Jesus was in fact God, c) we therefore have this thing called a "soul", and d) the soul continues to live after the body is dead. Only then can you assert "that man has both a material and immaterial aspect"

But even if you accept all that, you still have a problem with brain chemistry, terrestrially speaking.

To make the bald claim that "materialists have not freely arrived at their conclusion that materialism is true, because their conclusion was predetermined by brain chemistry", is pure sophistry. It relies, for a start, on an entirely distorted view of how materialism views "the laws of chemistry". No materialist I know suggests that all brains act identically, or that this is due to "the laws of chemistry", which is the conclusion Sarfati suggests.

It is becoming increasingly clear that chemistry is at the heart of all brain activity, as research continues to illuminate. In order for Sarfati's accusation to hold water, every child born will have to handle exactly the same sensory inputs from the moment of birth, in order for them to think in an identical fashion. That is not only impossible, but is also not the materialist position.

As I suspect you well know.