Page 10 of 10

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:54 am
by Mountaineer
moda0306 wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: More problems with the evolution hypothesis beginning with the "big bang hypothesis":

New observations of the star cluster Messier 54 show that it is just as deficient in lithium as our own galaxy, furthering a mystery about the element's big bang origins. "Most of the light chemical element lithium now present in the Universe was produced during the Big Bang, along with hydrogen and helium, but in much smaller quantities. Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe, and from this work out how much they should see in old stars. But the numbers don't match — there is about three times less lithium in stars than expected. This mystery remains unsolved, despite several decades of work."

... Mountaineer
Woah. An unsolved scientific mystery related to predictions about the Big Bang!?  Guess this debate is over.  ::)

Jk, Mountaineer.

But really, even if this were news in regards to the Big Bang  (I'm sure there are tons of mysteries about it), the Big Bang isn't evolution. Evolution is the study of how life progresses and progressed. The only thing they have in common is they drive religious folks nuts.
I'm confused.  If evolutionists do not want to connect with the big bang hypothesis for the source of where life had its beginnings, then where did it start?  Or as Aristotle (I think) said, what was the first thing and where did it originate?

... Mountaineer

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:30 pm
by Mountaineer
More "science can do anything" issues?  So, where does intelligence come from?  Oh, I get it, we just haven't figured that one out yet.  ;)

... Mountaineer

Slashdot
Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little

It's been taken for granted that science would, one day, figure out what parts of our DNA make us smart (or not). But a huge new study done by a group of almost 60 researchers using genome data on over 100,000 people has come up empty-handed. The scientists first looked for differences in the genome that correlated with academic achievement. After narrowing it down to 69 individual sites, they gave cognitive tests to separate group of 24,000 people and looked for evidence of difference at those same locations (abstract). Most of the sites weren't significantly different from chance — the (already weak) genetic influence of genes on height has an effect 20 times greater. On top of that, the three gene locations that did seem to have a stronger correlation weren't involved in development of the nervous system.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:38 pm
by moda0306
Evolution as a study does not concern itself with the beginnings of the universe. In fact evolution doesn't even concern itself with the first form of life. That's a different area of science. For all we know, God created all the physical and biological rules to follow, and maybe even created the first few species out of frustration with it not happening naturally, and everything was a natural domino from there.

The point is, always looking to observable evidence rather than arbitrary unprovable statements of some other person to take us to the next layer of evidence... The former is what got us to 2014 without still thinking that the universe revolved around the earth, and that God was simply playing pong pong against Peter using Jupiter as the ball.

Even if the "super-premise" is true (there is a God and he created us), it behooves us to find out where natural laws start breaking and divine intervention begins, and using SCIENCE rather than scripture.  Because if we prove that in spite of a God that humans did evolve from ape-like creatures (perfectly feasible even if only "micro-evolution" exists), we can pretty much throw out the Bible as a necessarily accurate reflector of literal truth. (I still don't think it does, but then we'd at least know for double-sure).

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:25 pm
by moda0306
Science may not be able to do "anything it wants," but I certainly trust science more than I do any religion to find (with difficulty, to be sure) the edge of the consistent, observable physical world.

And to the degree that "science" is taking certain liberties in this process, only BETTER "science" will find them out, using the scientific method, which we have yet to find a better one of developing knowledge about reality.

To the degree that we are supposed to accept and act on what could be completely arbitrary assertions by religious groups, this principle will lead to us simply accepting into the debate those that say ANYTHING about reality, no matter how ridiculous.  Think of how ridiculous of extremes this could take us. 





We have only two ways to discover reality, in my estimation:

1) Reason/Scientific-Method/Observation/Etc: The use of empirical evidence of consistency in nature, as well as consistently applied reason, to me, are our most useful tools of discovering reality.  They have a degree of objectivity to them that nothing else has.

The key here: Objectivity

2) Subjective Experience: If God visits your soul and communicates with it, you may have discovered a truth that science cannot.  Anything that hides itself from discoverable, testable reality but reveals itself to one person would qualify as this.

Even an atheist's moral code, if not developed by #1 (Like Kshartle) is developed by #2.  This is mostly how I've built my morality.

The key here: Subjectivity

One could also say "Faith" is a method.  But it is not.  It is a lack of a method.  It is accepting something based on limited evidence.  It applies somewhat to #1, and very often to #2, as #2, by its very nature, does not contain much evidence, if any.


There's nothing wrong with #2.  It could contain the most important existence in the world.  That of God.  I get REEEALLLY annoyed when people take #2 and start to refer to the realities they've developed via that method as universal fact, and ridicule others for NOT recognizing those aspects of reality.  It's not that you can't recognize it as reality. But don't get annoyed when others don't.  It hasn't been revealed to them.  They have their own #2 experiences going on, and yours tends to conflict with theirs.

For the vast majority of the population, #2 isn't "reality" but is instead an emotional reaction posing as reality.  "I get disgusted at women controlling me, so I'm going to build a false reality where God exists and claims I am morally superior to them."

#2 is inherently untestable, so even though it might contain the most IMPORTANT aspects of our reality for some, the VAST majority of the assertions of reality that fall into #2 are bullshit.  They have to be.  Because so much of it conflicts with the #2 of other people (#2... get it?  Bahaha).

So the rest of us are left trying to not only discover as much of #1 as we can, but also interpret our own #2.  A lot of this has to do with subjective preferences and moral dilemmas that come about every day.  We acknowledge these exist, but only certain people try to get their own subjective reality to not only supersede others' subjective reality, but ACTUAL OBJECTIVE reality... the stuff that is so testable!  This is when I get annoyed. 

So here's what I propose:

If you have an interpretation of reality that exists in the 2nd realm, please feel free to share it, but acknowledge that it is subjective, untestable, and that there's no reason we should listen to you vs anyone else.

If you want to challenge some aspect of #1-type reality, and want others to conclude the same, either use the tools of #1 to state your case, or humbly understand why very few people will follow your lead, and don't ridicule them with sarcasm because of the audacity of the idea that they would try to explain an aspect of reality with tools from #1 that you don't think are explainable, based on your subjective #2 experiences.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:07 pm
by hljockey
moda0306 wrote: If you have an interpretation of reality that exists in the 2nd realm, please feel free to share it, but acknowledge that it is subjective, untestable, and that there's no reason we should listen to you vs anyone else.
Made me think of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament who claimed to have been caught up into the 3rd heaven and heard inexpressible words that a man isn't permitted to speak.

I tend to think if he had ended up concluding that it was subjective, untestable, and that there was possibly no reason anybody should listen to him, Christianity would not exist today. Whether that would be a good or bad thing I suppose we could debate. I tend to think it was overall good for the human race myself.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:50 pm
by moda0306
Desert wrote: I think this article belongs in this thread. 

http://theweek.com/article/index/268360 ... everything
You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin. Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn't.
Annoying article. I read it a few days ago. I'll explain why when I get a minute.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:09 pm
by moda0306
Desert wrote: I think the author is correct that most people don't understand what science is.  Wild speculation, like that of DeGrasse Tyson, is not science.  He's the Cable News of science; lots of talk and little substance. 

But I'm not surprised you found it annoying.  How dare anyone question our culture's self-appointed voices of reason?  So-called science (and I love real science) is our age's religion dujour.  It's served up by pompous, self-important, lettered fools, for the consumption by the undereducated and uncritical.
Wild speculation?  That's quite the accusation to throw at people, even if they're not practicing the degree of scientific method you'd prefer.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:32 pm
by moda0306
Well certainly don't be quiet. But it's one thing to be skeptical of a scientific assertion. It's another to call it a "wild-ass assertion."  It's yet another altogether to call an advocate of it of being a force for evil.

I guess if evil is pre-defined as not believing in God, the only God, and no other God's besides him, then we're sort of begging the question of what evil is here.

Ridiculing God and ridiculing religious leaders are veeeeery different things, IMO... Or at least have a huge potential of being so.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:40 pm
by doodle
moda0306 wrote: Well certainly don't be quiet. But it's one thing to be skeptical of a scientific assertion. It's another to call it a "wild-ass assertion."  It's yet another altogether to call an advocate of it of being a force for evil.

I guess if evil is pre-defined as not believing in God, the only God, and no other God's besides him, then we're sort of begging the question of what evil is here.

Ridiculing God and ridiculing religious leaders are veeeeery different things, IMO... Or at least have a huge potential of being so.
I always wondered why God would care if your ridiculed him or not. Human beings that have achieved a higher level of consciousness don't have a problem with being ridiculed.....only people with inferiority complexes or petty, vindictive kings that are fearful of losing control of their position punish subjects who ridicule them. All mighty powerful kings or people who have obtained a higher level or self actualization don't worry about such matters.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a God. My problem is solely with the Christian idea of God because the depiction of him is so revolting. Sorry Desert, I hate to come across this way but I really think Thomas Paine hits the nail on the head in the Age of Reason when it comes to the Christian faith.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:18 am
by Mountaineer
moda0306 wrote: Well certainly don't be quiet. But it's one thing to be skeptical of a scientific assertion. It's another to call it a "wild-ass assertion."
In my humble opinion, there is a HUGE difference between a scientific assertion and an assertion based on "science" that is really, as Desert says, based on a supernatural or mystical view of science.  Tyson fits in the latter defintion for me (an engineer heavily trained in real science ... but that was many years ago; perhaps the current "science" curriculum has been rewritten like history has been rewritten since I studied it.)

... Mountaineer

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:26 am
by Mountaineer
doodle wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Well certainly don't be quiet. But it's one thing to be skeptical of a scientific assertion. It's another to call it a "wild-ass assertion."  It's yet another altogether to call an advocate of it of being a force for evil.

I guess if evil is pre-defined as not believing in God, the only God, and no other God's besides him, then we're sort of begging the question of what evil is here.

Ridiculing God and ridiculing religious leaders are veeeeery different things, IMO... Or at least have a huge potential of being so.
I always wondered why God would care if your ridiculed him or not. Human beings that have achieved a higher level of consciousness don't have a problem with being ridiculed.....only people with inferiority complexes or petty, vindictive kings that are fearful of losing control of their position punish subjects who ridicule them. All mighty powerful kings or people who have obtained a higher level or self actualization don't worry about such matters.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a God. My problem is solely with the Christian idea of God because the depiction of him is so revolting. Sorry Desert, I hate to come across this way but I really think Thomas Paine hits the nail on the head in the Age of Reason when it comes to the Christian faith.
I am mystified that you think a "forgiving of ALL your sins" God that promises you eternal life in a perfect body living in bliss is revolting; all you have to do is believe that Jesus came, lived, died and was resurrected.  Jesus' resurrection has never been disproved in 2000 years of trying by the skeptics.  Wow is all I can say to that idea that God is revolting!  That is an incredible statement by a creature who apparently wants to be more in charge than the Creator.  And some say there is no evil in the world?  I'm laughing at that statement.

... Mountaineer

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:51 am
by hljockey
Mountaineer wrote: why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.
I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design but if this means I have to believe that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days only 6000 years ago and that the loving and forgiving creator then destroyed all living things except for what could fit on an ark by flooding the whole planet some 4000 years ago then I'm not buying anything you or the author is selling.

But you said all I have to do is believe that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected and I'm okay so does this mean I'd be good to go without believing this? If so, then my only problem with that is if I start believing this other thing you're selling I might end up believing the total nonsense above as you seem to have done.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:39 am
by Mountaineer
hljockey wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.
I have no problem with the concept of intelligent design but if this means I have to believe that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days only 6000 years ago and that the loving and forgiving creator then destroyed all living things except for what could fit on an ark by flooding the whole planet some 4000 years ago then I'm not buying anything you or the author is selling.

But you said all I have to do is believe that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected and I'm okay so does this mean I'd be good to go without believing this? If so, then my only problem with that is if I start believing this other thing you're selling I might end up believing the total nonsense above as you seem to have done.
If you truly believe that Jesus came to earth, lived, died, and was resurrected for the forgiveness of your sins you are good.  A fuller statement of the Christian belief is in the Apostles Creed:

I? believe ?in? God, ?the? Father ?Almighty, ?maker ?of ?heaven? and ?earth.?
??
And ?in? Jesus ?Christ,? His ?only ?Son, ?our? Lord,? who? was? conceived ?by ?the? Holy ?Spirit,? born ?of ?the? virgin? Mary,? suffered ?under ?Pontius ?Pilate,? was? crucified,? died? and? was ?buried.?  He? descended ?into ?hell.?  The? third ?day? He ?rose? again? from ?the ?dead.?  He ?ascended ?into ?heaven? and ?sits? at ?the ?right? hand ?of? God ?the? Father? Almighty.?  From? thence? He ?will? come ?to? judge? the ?living ?and ?the ?dead.?
??
I? believe ?in ?the ?Holy ?Spirit,? the ?holy ?Christian? Church, ?the? communion ?of? saints,? the? forgiveness ?of? sins,? the?resurrection ?of? the ?body,? and ?the ?life? everlasting.  ?Amen.?


As a side note (my opinion) if you can believe God resurrected Jesus from the dead, it seems God can pretty much do anything He wants; i.e. all things are possible with God.  Lutherans believe that the Scriptures are the inspired inerrant Word of God (taken in context); other Christian denominations don't necessairly believe all of that.  It took me quite a while and much study to understand the LCMS worldview and why we hold it; I came from many, many years of a non-LCMS Christian (and lapsed Christian) background.  One more comment.  Before the "fall or curse" everything was as God intended and time did not exist.  Time and death and corruption began at the "fall/curse".  Thus, it is not possible for me, a sinful human, to know how long the world existed before the "fall/curse" - 5 minutes, or 50 quadzillion years - it does not matter in the least anyway, if your goal is salvation.  I hope that is not too confusing.

Sorry for all the ? in the Creed ... I can't get rid of them for some reason.

... Mountaineer

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:51 am
by hljockey
Mountaineer wrote: One more comment.  Before the "fall or curse" everything was as God intended and time did not exist.  Time and death and corruption began at the "fall/curse".
Sounds like standard boilerplate Biblical literalist/fundamentalist Christian doctrine to me. I've read the book of Genesis myself and I have never thought that anything about it was as plain and simple as the literalists make it out to be. The way I think it works is that somebody comes up with an interpretation of what the "inerrant word of God" says and this is actually what becomes the "inerrant word of God" because my denomination says it is.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:42 pm
by moda0306
Desert wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Desert wrote: I think the author is correct that most people don't understand what science is.  Wild speculation, like that of DeGrasse Tyson, is not science.  He's the Cable News of science; lots of talk and little substance. 

But I'm not surprised you found it annoying.  How dare anyone question our culture's self-appointed voices of reason?  So-called science (and I love real science) is our age's religion dujour.  It's served up by pompous, self-important, lettered fools, for the consumption by the undereducated and uncritical.
Wild speculation?  That's quite the accusation to throw at people, even if they're not practicing the degree of scientific method you'd prefer.
You're right, it is.  But from what I've seen from DeGrasse Tyson (can I call him DT?), I stand by that description.  Honestly, Moda, I see him as a force of evil on this planet.  I know that sounds crazy to an agnostic, but that's my view of the man.  You may not even believe in evil, but I do.  And when I listen to DT assert ideas that are NOT scientific, and ridicule the very God that created him, these are the only words I'm left with.  Again, I know that's nonsense to an agnostic, because I walked that road for 25 fucking years.  But that's how I see things today.  This little life we have here on this rock isn't a game, or a thought experiment, in my view.  I'm not posting here because I love my own text.  I see a battle raging around me, and to stay quiet is not responsible on my part.
Really, the reason I was annoyed with the article had little reason to do with the comments on NDT.  The entire article wishy washes around with the author trying to claim he knows what science is, and that other people don't.  So I'll go down my list point by point of why it was a garbage article.

First off, though, what he got right... The author rightly points out that certain areas of "study" (to avoid calling it (gasp) science), are inherantly difficult to do controlled experiments on.  He points out a few.... economics... psychology... climatology... education. 

To this I say "YES!"  Somethings are inherantly much more difficult to do controlled experiments on, or the moral ramifications of doing so are distasteful.  He claims controlled experimentation is the backbone of science, essentially.  The scientific method, however, is a lot more than people trying to test something that can be done in a well-controlled lab environment.  Beyond that, he loses it in a sea of his own partisan "truths" that he's developed in his mind.



1) He mis-defines science.  Science is "the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation," he says.  He also calls it a form of "engineering."

Nope.

The ability to predict an outcome is a trait of good science (think Haley's comet, something he probably wouldn't consider science because controlled experiments on comets in labs can't be performed), but not what we are trying to derive.  Experimentation is one aspect of it... control is a preference and a matter of degree, but sometimes we have to rely on natural experiments... We can't build a Jupiter in a lab!!

He claims that society is mis-defining it as the pursuit of "truth."  Well, the most simple definitions of science are just that, while the more detailed ones read more like... "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,"  or "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

These defintions contain the words "testable" and "experiment," but nowhere do they define science as engineering.  Nowhere do they dictate that the scientific method has to rely on intricately controlled experiments.

2) He babbles about capital S Science and capital T Truth, vs science and truth in amazingly nonsensical and condescending ways.

So he thinks he knows exactly where the line between science and Science are?  Please, enlighten me.  Astronomy?  Astrophysics?  Quantum Physics?  Any aspect of evolution (micro-evolution?)?

Is everyone who doesn't believe in the same science/non-science line that you do part of some wacked out religion that believes in "magic," as you say?

3) He gives too much credit to Bacon, and too much weight to the "experiment" aspect of the scientific method.

Bacon was obsessed with controlled expermentation.  He advanced the scientific method, but wasn't the father of it.  Bad experimental proceedures can be weeded out by the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the scientific method.... Publishing and Peer Review.  This is really where things get hashed out.  Even if an experiment isn't as controlled as we might like (such as observing a comet in space, and reviewing historical data as to how it appeared to others in the past), the important part isn't the perfection of the control of the experiment, but the method of having your hypothesis, data, observations, methods and conclusions posted for all to see.

If your experimental proceedures are bunk, this latter process will be the best chance of revealing that, whether controlled or natural.


4) He's essentially laying out a poorly-veiled blame piece against liberals using bad information to affect public policy.

The underlying problem is not whether something that's technically not science is called science and then acted upon.  There are Austrian economists and Keynesian/MR economists coming up with different conclusions about policy preferences (and guess who's winning the prediction part of the game)... To the degree that someone is incorrect about which set of policies will perform better for us, THAT is the problem.  Not whether people consider their side "science" or not.  People are simply too confident in the assertions that they deem to be true.  This has little-to-no coordination with those who use the word "science" to back up their assertions.

If economics isn't a science, then NEITHER side gets to claim it as a science.  Some liberal economist advocating for a minimum wage hike might be full of it with his economic analysis.  So might his laissez-faire counterpart.  Whether economics is a science or not, due to having to rely on natural experiments rather than controlled experiments, is almost irrelevent.  What's relevent is that even though the answers may not be as reliably verifiable by a group of thier peers, one of the guys is right, and the other is wrong, and FAR too many people have picked their teams because they think they understand "The Truth"  with a capital T :).

To me, all science is is a very systematic form of inductive reasoning.  It's all a bunch of observations & likelihoods, very systematically put together and published for all to see, that lead to some likely, but never 100% proven, conclusion.  Controlled experiments put a very organized set of inputs into this equation to help lend inductive validity to a conclusion.  Non-controlled experiments don't have that luxury, but we can measure other variables and ether try to account for them, or eliminate them as variables by collecting more statistical data.  They have to build a longer inductive path to a conclusion.  They have a higher likelihood of being incorrect.  But this is not a binary trait.  An experiment is NOT either controlled or natural.  It's always a mix of both.  It is a matter of degree.  And this pompous author thinks he knows exactly where the line between science and non-science is, but doesn't really tell us, because he's too busy trashing liberal assertions (whether we want to call them "science" or not).

But as long as these people are publishing their hypotheses, experimental processes, data, observations, and conclusions for all to see, you have the ingredients for having bull$hit called.  The problem is NOT believing one of these conclusions as "scientific" or "unscientific," overtly, it's simply beliving poorly-laid-out arguments as being true.  Whether it is "science" is just semantics.

I see $hitty policy prescription conclusions from conservatives (and liberals) all the time.  Methinks this author just wants to silence the evolution & global warming crowd with intelligent design and laissez-fair capitalism that HIS "unscientific" analysis has Concluded is True.  Rather than giving us shitty definitions of science, poor historical perspective, and a few hit-pieces on public policy items he disagrees with, I would have loved for the author to actually lay out how to tell the difference between science and non-science, and some examples of things NOT existing in public policy that would help us understand the difference.  Because if he'd take his logic far enough, a lot of astronomy is not science, because Isaac Newton couldn't build Jupiter in his lab.

To me, someone who uses every possible aspect of the scientific method to study something that can't have super-controlled experiments done on it (say, economics), and publishes that information, is 100x the scientist that the person who is a chemist testing polyurethane  for his day-job, then goes home to brow-beat his made-up religion (assuming they just believe what they do out of social/familial convenience) and laissez-faire economics into his kid like they are Truths (or truths... or TRUTHS... however that works).  Your ability to do controlled experiments in a lab does NOT all of a sudden put you above people that can't do so for their field of study, IMO.  There's FAR more to the scientific method than perfect control over an experiment (which is impossible anyway).

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:50 pm
by moda0306
hljockey wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: One more comment.  Before the "fall or curse" everything was as God intended and time did not exist.  Time and death and corruption began at the "fall/curse".
Sounds like standard boilerplate Biblical literalist/fundamentalist Christian doctrine to me. I've read the book of Genesis myself and I have never thought that anything about it was as plain and simple as the literalists make it out to be. The way I think it works is that somebody comes up with an interpretation of what the "inerrant word of God" says and this is actually what becomes the "inerrant word of God" because my denomination says it is.
Circular Logic.  Begging the question.  Assuming your conclusion.  Whatever you wish to call it.

I can only take so much of it in any 24 hour period.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:55 pm
by moda0306
If Neil DeGrasse Tyson is truly a force of evil, and he's going to spend eternity in damnation anyway, perhaps we should form a public-private partnership between the Catholic church and the DHS (Department of Heretic Security), and go round up NDT and his ilk, try them for crimes against God, and sentence them to the gallows, or death, or whatever else the Bible says we can do to heretics in the OT.

To be fair to the tried "scientists," we could make sure to ask them a lot of questions over a long period of time... an Inquisition, if you will.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:15 pm
by hljockey
moda0306 wrote: Circular Logic.  Begging the question.  Assuming your conclusion.  Whatever you wish to call it.
I can only take so much of it in any 24 hour period.
Speaking of 24 hour periods I once asked one of the prominent creationists on the internet to explain this verse to me about the 4th day of creation....

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


So what I wanted to know was how were the previous 3 days of creation timed to make sure God got it all done within a literal 24 hour period.  Shouldn't it actually say "In the Beginning God created a watch to time himself"?

His response was classic and I wish I had saved it.

Basically he explained to me that the Hebrew word "yom" ALWAYS means a literal 24 hour time period and so it can be no other way.

In other words, what he was saying, as far as I can tell, is that this is the box we have to think in whether it makes any sense or not. There is no possibility of escape from this box that we God has created.

I felt kind of sorry for him as I do everyone else who has to think like this including the Moslem fundamentalists.