TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty PART 1/5 - A.E. #593

Matt Slicks Website - http://www.mattslick.com/

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. Every week we field live calls from atheists and believers alike, and you never know what you're going to get! Sometimes it can get quite feisty indeed! You don't want to miss it.

Episode: #593
22 February, 2009
Topic: Live Calls. Matt & Tracie take on live calls.

Atheistic Experience: http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Atheist Community of Austin: http://www.atheist-community.org/
AE Blog: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/
Non-Prophets Radio: http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[Gilbertus1986]

Thanks, and yes I agree with having points from both sides, as that is the only way we can critically evaluate anything :)

[Gilbertus1986]

Perhaps however they do not know the initial length (amount) that is the point. Nobody was there to measure it millions of years ago, however from the analogy we can instead measure the amount of melted wax and this is what some Creationists have done (measure the neutrons in zircon crystal as neutrons are a by product). The RATE team did this and got an age of 10,000 years (or around that number).

[Gilbertus1986]

Yes there is a difference, and there have been many occurences of both in terms of evolution :)

[SeaTacAtheist]

If through many methods of investigation it was discovered that all known candles have only ever been one particular length then it is reasonable to assume that your candle in the room started out at that same length. Until demonstrated otherwise of course.

I wouldn't say that assumption is based on a guess or idle speculation though.

[SeaTacAtheist]

I appreciate, respect AND expected such honesty from you. Can't ask for more than that.

If I were a lecturer I feel my approach would be quite different. Both sides should keep an open mind and evaluate all evidence with impartiality. A science lecture is no place to cuss out religion regardless of how strong ones views against it may be.

[SeaTacAtheist]

There is a difference between results not fitting exactly as predicted on one hand, and results directly contradicting current knowledge on the other.

[Gilbertus1986]

As I said Bill assumed more than what his observations could verify, this is why his conclusion is ultimately wrong.. It would be the same as if I observed a car and then claimed that based on my observation of a car that proved God... It is illogical to claim an observation evidence of something for which the observation cannot verify, its simply story telling with a big dose of imagination.

Science deals with the DATA not with a person's interpretation of what an observation may mean.

[Gilbertus1986]

He didn't open it up to criticism, when he automatically claims it is a theory rather than a hypothesis to be tested. Additionally after publication he argued for it and how it was truth...

I'd be happier if evolutionists were honest about the data, there is no fact of evolution... in fact, facts in science destroys the plasticity of science to incorporate new data.

[SeaTacAtheist]

By 'assuming' I mean that the current and most likely working model is the first model you apply the evidence to see if it fits. If it doesn't fit or can fit other models (of which there are none) then that will be noted. No conclusions are being assumed though.

[Gilbertus1986]

Nothing that is self-regulated is truly ever reliable... Perhaps consider that in the context of argumentum ad populum...

I wasn't arguing against science, only against the scientists who let their bias influence the data... Too many times I read a published article on evolution bring up some conflicting data and then hand waves it away with a lengthy hypothetical situation... as if by making up some imaginary scenario explains the contradictory data....