You are of course wrong on all the fallacies youJac3510 wrote:Yes, he said "all the evidence." Are you going to say that, for Wise, "all the evidence" means all evidence including Scripture? Obviously not, because if the Scriptural evidence did not indicate a global flood, then he would affirm that one really happened, now would he? Isn't it obvious, then, that he's referring to scientific evidence?
Again, Audie, the real point here is very basic: Wise regards the biblical data as evidence that ought to be factored in when making statements about the nature of reality. At worst, you don't think it is evidence at all; at best, you think it should be weighted very lightly. You and Wise disagree on that. All I'm wanting from you is to stop misrepresenting his position. I'm not asking you to AGREE. I'm asking you not to be dishonest. Because right now the only person putting the conclusion first is you. You are suggesting, whether you intend it or not, that the biblical evidence ought not be considered evidence because it does not comport with science. And that's a perfectly fine position to hold, but to accuse someone else of being dishonest because they disagree with that assessment is where the question gets begged; for the debate between you and Wise would be whether or not the biblical evidence ought to be regarded and if so how seriously. For you to conclude he is dishonest because he has not already accepted your conclusion on the matter is dishonest on your part, and then for you to interpret his words in the most uncharitable manner to fit with your preconceived notion of him beind intellectually dishonest is both dishonest in itself and beneath you.
And as to your hypothetical, if this were a trial in a third world country, then no, his honesty would not come into question. I would approach it exactly as I am asking you to approach it. I would get him to confirm that he regards the Bible as evidence. I would get him to confirm that he regards the scientific data as evidence. I would then get him to say publically how he weights the evidence. I would then ask how many other experts weighted the evidence as he does and I would present my case to the jury that, in light of other expert testimony, that they are under no obligation to weight the evidence as Wise does, and that they can disagree with him even though they do not have his professional expertise. And if you want to try to use this as evidence against God, then please feel free to do so. I don't see how such a connection could be made, but if you want to put it in a syllogism, then I'd love to evaluate it.
So, I'm sorry if you find it clinically interesting that we should insist on rigorous logic and denying that anyone one either side should overstate their case. Your conclusion can be right, Audie, while your reasoning can be all wrong. And putting words in people's mouths ("feeling") and misrepresenting their position ("all the evidence") to sustain a preconceived conclusion (question begging) is wrong reasoning. You rightly expect better of us, and I expect better from you.
feel you've detected, as well as, but never mind.
Fun talking, I'm off to Hong Kong tomorrow, getting excited about that like
I always do, so I'm not up to concentrating on this.
Thanks for your thoughts, not all of them are wrong!