RE: deception in perception

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 09:27:00 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: deception in perception"

    Jay, I would suggest that you get a new e-mail program as it is often not
    clear who said what in your posts.

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Jay Willingham
    >Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:42 PM
    >To: ASA
    >Subject: Re: deception in perception
    >Yes, I have studied logic and its limitations, Dr. Spock.
    >Logic must accept the existence of alternative explanations when there =
    >is no dispositive empirical proof. How does one prove that the ancient =
    >creatures classed as hominids were not merely men, or animals who failed =
    >to compete with man? We have gone around and around about the =
    >acceptable variation in the human genome.

    I don't recall going round and round about variation in human genome with
    you. Maybe that is another list and another person. How do we prove
    hominids were men? By first defining what a man is and then using that
    definition to define him. That forms the syllogism

    All societies made of men build altars
    The H. erectus society at Bilzingsleben Germany, 425,000 years ago built an
    Therefore the H. erectus society was made of men

    Doesn't seem too difficult to me.

    Only men make self-referential objects of art (i.e. portraits)
    The 1.6 myr phonolite pebble from Olduvai Gorge has a human face carved on
    Therefore a man lived 1.6 myr ago at Olduvai Gorge.

    I wrote:
    >Logic is not the sine qua non of all theological truth. It is of the =
    >scientific method. Logic includes the existence of mystery and the =
    >unexplained by concluding that some things cannot be logically explained =
    >within our frame of refernce. Logic in man's eyes is not the same as it =
    >is in God's eyes. Yes, I have already quoted the Bible for that premise =
    >in this line.

    Jay replied:
    >You have dispositive proof of natural selection/microevolution which you =
    >illogically allege is dispositive proof of macroevolution. As your =
    >arguments are not without basis in empirical fact, your conclusions are =
    >illogical when they categorically exclude alternative explanations.

    Jay, the discussion in this thread is about your argument that the Devil is
    deceiving me but God is guiding you. We have been discussing that and how
    we determine objective reality. Evolution has little impact on our deception
    in perception argument. Is the above an example of the logical fallacy of
    argumentum ad hominem?

    All evolutionists argue without empirical fact
    Glenn is an evolutionist
    Therefore whatever topic Glenn argues about is lacking empirical fact.

    The above is logically fallacious.

    >You are falling prey to the same tactic I have read being used against =
    >you, unless I can point to specific courses in logic I have taken at the =
    >post graduate level, you assume that my mind does not work logically.

    No one here has used that against me and no one is using it against you.
    The question was one of assessing your knowledge level.

    >Logic is our desperate effort to understand our existence, some aspects =
    >of which we will not understand this side of the veil, per, yes, another =
    >Bible verse already cited.

    Logic is a 'desperate effort'???? That wasn't what my text book defined it
    as. If I held a view of logic like that, I wouldn't use it either.

    >For instance, a philosophy course I took at Duke was on the structure of =
    >aesthetics. There is a subject amenable to only a very "soft" =
    >application of logic.
    >I have also previously pointed out to you how in your website you make =
    >educated guesses friendly to your pet hypothesis as to the cause of =
    >various geologic features or parts of the fossil record and then =
    >illogically conclude that those interpretations are proof positive of =
    >your hypothesis.

    Be specific. I am always interested in finding out where I am wrong. If you
    can actually cite where I am guessing I would be interested. Fuzzy broad
    brush charges are rather useless.

    One question though. Do you think all the facts of science are 'educated

    >When I assert that isotope decay rates may not be constant and that =
    >creation may have resulted in isotopes in various states of decay, the =
    >response is, if God did not create something a scientific, logical =
    >method can readily describe and and explain as truth then God is is =
    >deceiving me and must be Satan. =20

    No, that isn't the response. The response is, "What is your evidence for the
    variation of decay rates?" The theory I advocated as a YEC involved altered
    decay rates. The problem (among the many it had) was that there is NO
    evidence that the decay rates of C-14 or U238 can be altered by anything we
    know of. If you make the assumption that the decay rates changed without
    any evidence for such a change with the purpose of supporting your theory,
    it is an ad hoc theory. That is something not allowed in science.

    >Your logical syllogism seems to say "God's mind conceived and created =
    >the earth. My mind can understand all there is to know about the earth. =
    > I can understand the mind of God."

    No, my syllogism is this:

    God never lies
    God Created the Universe
    To believe God created the universe fully formed 5 minutes ago requires God
    to create false things and false history--i.e. God lies.
    Therefore, God didn't create the universe fully formed 5 minutes ago.

    It has nothing to do with my understanding other than my understanding of
    who and what God is. And I might point out that you have generalized. No
    where has any evolutionist (other than the occasional mad scientist) claimed
    that we can know ALL there is to know about the earth. Not being able to
    understand and know all things doesn't mean we know nothing either.

    >I am sure the old serpent fools me, too. I never said I was right and =
    >you were wrong. What I did say was we are probably arguing about =
    >endless genealogies.

    If the Devil fools you too, how can you be sure that he isn't deceiving you
    about what the Bible says is the age of the earth? He would do this for the
    purpose of driving the unsaved scientist away from Christianity. And his
    strategy works quite well.

    For the record, in our discussion I don't recall discussing genealogies and
    while I know you are alluding to the 1 Tim 1:4 I don't have an endless
    genealogy either. It has a starting point.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 25 2002 - 15:12:31 EDT