nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 351:
Line 351: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me: A more detailed look at circular reasoning, and other problems
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of [[circular reasoning]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of [[circular reasoning]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)
:That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would go like this:
:# The Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old.
:# The evidence (e.g. rock layers) is explained ''on that basis''.
:# The explanation is offered as proof that the Bible is correct.
: Just the first two points by themselves (i.e. your 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory') is not circular reasoning, and there's nothing wrong with the first two points. It's only when you go to the third point that you have a circle, and that's where the argument becomes invalid.
: But creationists don't do that. They do argue that the evidence ''fits better'' with a 6,000-year model, but they don't offer the explanation as proof of the presumption.
: Evolutionists, on the other hand, ''do'' use this circular reasoning:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilisations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).
: "''One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book.''": This is (a) misleading, and (b) misrepresenting what creationists claim. It's misleading because the "interpretation" is (i) the way it's been understood by almost every reader until prior to about 200 years ago (and many readers within the last 200 years), and (ii) the way that the experts in Hebrew and the Old Testament say that it was meant to be understood. It's misrepresenting what creationists claim because they claim it to be not just "a particular book", but the infallible revelation of the omniscient God. So what is wrong with trying to see how the evidence fits with what is (supposed to be) ''accurate history''? Answer: There's nothing wrong with that. The only valid question is whether or not it ''is'' accurate history, but you're not (directly) questioning that. Rather, you're trying to avoid that question by questioning the veracity of the source.
: "''The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results.''": Which might tend to suggest that they really can't be certain they've yet got it right, which means that they can't be certain that the biblical account is wrong.
: "''Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised.''": Er, I think a lot of people would be surprised, actually.
: "''There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago.''": Being pedantic, and ignoring that the age is actually believed to be 4.5 billion years, lots of books ''do'' say that. But your point is that the age is not an underlying presumption. True, but instead there is the underlying presumption ''that the cause was naturalistic'', rather than it being created. That makes the secular view no better than the biblical view.
: "''Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same.''": You say that as though there is something wrong with that. But if they are correct, ''there is nothing wrong with that''! So your argument is circular, because ''it presumes what you are trying to prove'': that the Bible and therefore the creationists are wrong.
: "''... no matter what evidence is presented ...''": The problem is not the evidence, but the explanation of the evidence. A rock is evidence. The isotope ratios are evidence. A date is not evidence, but part of the explanation of the evidence.
: "''Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?''": No, because you have not demonstrated a circle.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:23, 30 January 2008 (EST)