AJ Philips,

<<But even if the Bible were historically reliable, one cannot therefore be justified in believing that any of the reported miracles happened, which is what I’m primarily concerned with.>>

Here is one of your major presuppositional problems: You doubt miracles can happen. Why could that be? When you deny the existence of the Almighty God of creation,Sustainer of the universe, and the One who can perform miracles such as with the Exodus, you will join the company of Hermann Reimarus and David Strauss who denied miracles.

I said that your denigration of the Bible was related to your anti-Bible presuppositions. You called that "rather preposterous" of me to make that claim. I hope I've shown some of your anti-biblical worldview presuppositions in these two posts.

When I asked you where the "elements" came from, your response was:

<<I don’t know. They may be eternal. ‘Nothing’ may be impossible. What I do know, however, is that it is irrational to assume that a god must’ve done it.>>

To the contrary, the God who made rational human beings who can interact on this forum is not into being irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes your idea of the "elements" being eternal.

Yes, I’ve heard that from creationists many times before, OzSpen.

<<Interpretation of these facts is based on the presuppositions of our worldviews.>>

That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review: to eliminate as much bias as possible. We are not hopelessly trapped by our worldview.

<<My presuppositions are based on [Ps 111:10 and 1 Cor 2:14].>>

But before that, your presupposition is that the Bible is the word of a god.

<<There is evidence for creation ...>>

Well, I can hardly address everything Gish said here, so how about you give me what you think is his most convincing argument, and we’ll go from there?

<<As for Noah's flood ...>>

As above. What do you think is their most convincing argument?

Do you realise that I was a Christian for twenty-something years, and immersed myself in Christian/creationist apologetics? I can assure you that there is nothing from Gish et al. you can cite that I haven’t already heard.

<<Archaeologist, William Albright, has refuted your view of no evidence for the Exodus:>>

And how exactly is this evidence for the exodus? How do these findings “seem to support” the Exodus?

Contrary to your claims, archaeological findings refute the Exodus:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus#Archeological_digs_dispute_Exodus

That many people wandering the desert for 40 years would have left an abundance of evidence lying around.

<<Here is one of your major presuppositional problems: You doubt miracles can happen.>>

That’s not a presuppositional problem. That’s a healthy scepticism. The burden of proof there still lies with theists.

<<When you deny the existence of the Almighty God …>>

Until you can point to reliable evidence for your god, you don’t get to claim that I am “denying” anything.

<<I hope I've shown some of your anti-biblical worldview presuppositions in these two posts.>>

I’m afraid not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided virtually nothing.

<<… the God who made rational human beings who can interact on this forum is not into being irrational.>>

I didn’t say anything about God’s rationality.

<<The Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes your idea of the "elements" being eternal.>>

Really? Do tell.

Oh, one point of clarification, OzSpen.

When I said, “They may be eternal.”, in my post a couple of days ago, I was more referring to matter, not elements specifically. The form always changes, but it is impossible to destroy matter. So, the idea that matter could be eternal is not all that far fetched.

That being said, you have still demonstrated that you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Creationists never do. They’ve usually just read about it in a church pamphlet or something else equally unreliable.

AJ Philips,

<<You have still demonstrated that you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Creationists never do. They’ve usually just read about it in a church pamphlet or something else equally unreliable.>>

Again you have used an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning as you've not given evidence to support your claims, but have resorted to ridicule to replace evidence.

A Hyperphysics website gives this explanation of entropy associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html:

Second Law: Entropy

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
Entropy: a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed.
Entropy: a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy: a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy: a measure of the multiplicity of a system.

"Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state".

While entropy (amount of disorder) can be increased or remain the same, it cannot be decreased, according to the Second Law. It applies to the entire universe, i.e. disorder in the universe is increasing. Since the universe is increasing in entropy, it seems to point to the universe not being eternal. Surely the universe has had ample time to run down completely (maximum entropy). It is not at that state, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to a universe that was created (had a beginning) and is not eternal.

AJ Philips,

<<That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review: to eliminate as much bias as possible. We are not hopelessly trapped by our worldview. >>

What a joke! When I pursued my PhD dissertation on the historical Jesus in historical science, there was no empirical scientific method ( except testing hypotheses) and there were 3 peer reviewers of the dissertation and 3 different verbal examiners. Then articles for academic journals in NT and theology require peer review. So it's not restricted to the empirical sciences.

<<But before that, your presupposition is that the Bible is the word of a god.>>

That's because it's historically reliable, trustworthy (demonstrated by research) and one of the tests of reliability for any book is internal consistency.

<<Well, I can hardly address everything Gish said here, so how about you give me what you think is his most convincing argument, and we’ll go from there?>>

You really know how to use logical fallacies to divert attention from the topic. Here you've used a Red Herring.

<< What do you think is their most convincing argument? [for Noah's Flood]>>

There's not just one, the evidence from the Grand Canyon fossils is significant to confirm a world wide flood.

<<Do you realise that I was a Christian for twenty-something years, and immersed myself in Christian/creationist apologetics? I can assure you that there is nothing from Gish et al. you can cite that I haven’t already heard.>>

Another red herring, without evidence. So have you committed apostasy?

<<Contrary to your claims, archaeological findings refute the Exodus:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus#Archeological_digs_dispute_Exodus>>

You go to rationalwiki for your evidence to refute the Exodus and I referred you to one of the greatest archaeologists, William Albright, who confirmed the Exodus through evidence.

<<That many people wandering the desert for 40 years would have left an abundance of evidence lying around.>>

Argument from Silence is another logical fallacy you use here.

Your extensive use of logical fallacies, which demonstrate erroneous reasoning, detract from your arguments and my having a rational conversation with you.

This is my first post ever so a little introduction before I make any comments. I'm a follower of Jesus and have taught for over 28 years. I'm recently retired. I'll make some brief comments as I wade into the discussion.

Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus? Students should be able to discuss matters of faith with other willing participants.

Education should be in the business not to teach students what to think, but how to think. Since the culture at large does engage in religious activities and matters of faith, such conversations in schools, where appropriate (not during math!) should be encouraged.

I wouldn't go so far as to initiate such discussion as there are many other things important to learn and discuss in the classroom and that's not my role as a teacher. But where such discussions happened on their own initiative.

IF the government is actually forbidding such discussion, then I think they do violate the following:

"Article 19 goes even further. It states: "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.""

It's funny that the government takes the position that such conversations lead to discrimination so their response is to silence speech. This fits the very definition of discrimination.

The world has gone mad with concerns over political correctness. You have to watch what you say and how you say it. If you say something innocently that offends someone, you are the one at fault. People who are easily offended are called snowflakes by some. I think it's fitting. We can't have honest discussions if we have to watch our every word.

If you favor the government controlling some unwanted speech, because what you wish for. Should the opposing party get into power, they will impose on you things you find you can't live with. Better for a free society to learn to get along with our differences.

I live in the USA and we have similar problems here. I'll go take a look now at the 45 plus comments and make further comments if necessary. PZ