Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-scientific evidence
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 98 (564524)
06-10-2010 8:08 PM


No McDowell Citations
Surprisingly, nobody has yet brought up Josh McDowell's fantastic book, 'More Than a Carpenter', which in chapter 4 addresses this. The book is online here
McDowell though, makes the case that historical events are themselves unprovable by the scientific method, and that historians themselves must of necessity go outside the scientific method to evaluate the accuracy of historical documents just as lawyers must to evaluate the accuracy of events which have occurred.
As quoted from the book, pp. 38-39.
quote:
Testing the truth of a hypothesis by the use of controlled experiments is one of the key techniques of the modern scientific method. For example, someone claims that Ivory soap doesn't float. I claim it does float, so to prove my point, I take the doubter to the kitchen, put eight inches of water in the sink at 82.7 degrees, and drop in the soap. Plunk! We make observations, we draw data, and we verify my hypothesis empirically: Ivory soap floats.
If the scientific method were the only method we had for proving facts, you couldn't prove that you watched television last night or that you had lunch today. There is no way you could repeat those events in a controlled situation.
The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we reach a verdict on the weight of the evidence and have no rational basis for doubting the decision. Legal-historical proof depends on three kinds of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as a gun, a bullet, or a notebook). Using the legal-historical method to determine the facts, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the waiter remembers seeing you, and you have the restaurant receipt.
The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn't adequate for proving or disproving questions about persons or events in history. The scientific method isn't appropriate for answering such questions as: Did George Washington live? Was Martin Luther King Jr. as civil rights leader? Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Does Barry Bonds hold major league baseball's one-season home run record? Was Jesus Christ raised from the dead? These questions are outside the realm of scientific proof, and we must place them in the realm of legal-historical proof. In other words, the scientific method--which is based on observation, information gathering, hypothesizing, deduction, and experimental verification to find and explain empirical regularities in nature--cannot uncover the final answers to such questions as: Can you prove the Resurrection? Is science at war with religion? Has science somehow disproved the existence of God? When men and women rely upon the legal-historical method, they need to check out the reliability of the testimonies.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fix tags
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fix typos, add last sentence
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : removed bolding
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 8:50 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 75 of 98 (564548)
06-10-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 8:50 PM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
But he's wrong.
He equivocates. He starts off with:
Testing the truth of a hypothesis by the use of controlled experiments is one of the key techniques of the modern scientific method.
... which is true. (The bold font is mine.) But then he starts talking as though that's the only thing scientists could do. Now, if that was so, then the scientific method would have nothing to tell us about, for example, whether giraffes exist. Or the rings of Saturn. (Indeed, astronomy as a whole would not be a science, much to the surprise of astronomers.)
He then specifically goes on to say:
The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn't adequate for proving or disproving questions about persons or events in history.
This is absurd. A forensic scientist can determine whether John Smith was killed by being shot in the head without repeating the event.
But does that scientist truly use the scientific method to do so? McDowell's point is that to do so, repeating it in a controlled environment, would allow you to show it COULD HAVE happened - it can prove possibility - but it can not go back in time and repeat the event itself. Therefore, the scientific method is often ineffective for evaluating past events - particularly those in the very distant past.
History is by nature not something you can repeat in a controlled environment. Too many variables. Controlled environments try to minimize variables for isolated differentiation of what caused a given results. But with any historical event, there are many factors in play, and often limited ability to catalogue or track them afterward even if you wanted to try and perfectly repeat the event later in a controlled environment. Thus by the strict definition of the scientific method, repeating results via a controlled environment, it's tough to replicate historical events using solely the scientific method. After all, 'observation' is a key element of the scientific method, but without time travel, how can one do that for past historical events unless they were videotaped somehow?
No one is saying the scientific method is useless. McDowell's point in the chapter is that it is merely not the method of choice when it comes to evaluating historical documents, and that historians rely on other methods for doing so. Though the online book I linked stopped at page 44, there is more info on this immediately after. McDowell in chapter 4, pp. 46-47, states:
quote:
... I believe that the historical reliability of the Scripture should be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested by. Military historian C. Sanders lists and explains the three basic principles of histiography. They are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
McDowell on pages 47-57 then details in depth how the Bible measures up to each of these tests for historicity. Some key points include:
* Bibliographical test: According to McDowell, "The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?" (p. 47) To paraphrase, McDowell then points out that the History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) relies on just 8 MSS from about 900 A.D., 1,300 years after the writing of the original document. And yet, scholar F.F. Bruce states "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals." Aristotle's poetics were written 343 B.C. is dated A.D. 1100, a 1400 year gap, with just 5 MSS existing. Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars, written 58-50 B.C., depend on 9 or 10 copies dating a milennia after he died. McDowell states, "When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament." (p. 48) At any rate, McDowell's point is that the Bible is foremost in the world when it comes to existence of reliable manuscripts, and that the accuracy of the earliest in comparison to those now in existence shows they were as reliably transmitted over a period of at least 1900 years as for any historical document ever examined.
* Internal Evidence Test: According to McDowell, "At this point the literary critic still follows Aristotle's dictum: 'The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.' In other words, as John W. Montgomery summarrizes: 'One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.'" (pp 49-50) McDowell afterwards references the known closeness to the events by the writers, citing Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, John 19:35, and Luke 3:1. He then makes the point, based off earlier points (p. 44) that recent discoveries of accurate early N.T documents have since proved the New Testament's early date (e.g. John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130), that "The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, 'Look, we saw this' or 'We heard that...' but they turned the tables around and right in front of adverse critics said, 'You also know about these things... You saw them; you yourselves know about it.' One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, 'You know this also,' because if he isn't right in the details, it will be shoved right back down his throat." (pp. 51-52) McDowell cites Acts 2:22 and Acts 26:24-28, and cites scholars who make the point of hostile opponents serving as a corrective to potential inaccuracies.
* External Evidence Test: According to McDowell, "The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves. In other words, what sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis, that substantiate its accuracy, reliability, and authenticity?" (pp. 54-55) Without going in depth, the sources referenced by McDowell as corroboration of the New Testament events include Eusebius, Irenaeus, while citing numerous scholars (Joseph Free, William Ramsey, F.F. Bruce, A.N. Sherwin-White, and Clark Pinnock) in making the case that archeology decisively supports the Biblical records and has even vindicated it against accusations of historical inaccuracy by skeptics.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 8:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 11:28 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 77 of 98 (564555)
06-10-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 11:28 PM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
But scientists can show what has happened. They can show that John Smith was shot in the head. And they can do it without "repeating it in a controlled environment".
Yes, they can. But do they do so with the scientific method? I am suggesting they use other methods to prove this, per McDowell's point:
"The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we reach a verdict on the weight of the evidence and have no rational basis for doubting the decision. Legal-historical proof depends on three kinds of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as a gun, a bullet, or a notebook). Using the legal-historical method to determine the facts, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the waiter remembers seeing you, and you have the restaurant receipt."
quote:
And guess what, time travel is not part of the scientific method.
Hence my point. If we don't have time travel, then the 'observation' part of the scientific method is tough to apply to historical events, right? And you'd have to use the legal-historical method McDowell refers to based on oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits - correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 11:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 11:40 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 79 of 98 (564558)
06-10-2010 11:41 PM


My Main Point
All I am saying is that I agree with McDowell. The scientific method needs observation and repeated results, yet this doesn't apply well to events in the distant past, since you can't repeat historical events perfectly under normal circumstances.
My point is that we should be using different criteria, namely the legal-historical method historians use when determining the accuracy of historical documents, for evaluating the accuracy of the Bible. The scientific method won't work for proving whether the events happened or whether they didn't; and thus can't evaluate the historicity or document reliability of a historical document, aka the Bible.
Oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits. Is the evidence there? That's a whole other debate - all I was doing was making the point that that's the evidence we should be evaluating the Bible by, and whether events written about by it occurred, not the scientific method.

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 80 of 98 (564559)
06-10-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 11:40 PM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
We observe the evidence. Which is what scientists always do.
Of course. Not debating that. Just quibbling I guess on what that involves. McDowell's point is just that rather than trying to decide in a controlled environment whether Jesus could turn water into wine, we should be looking at the manuscript evidence for the New Testament, the internal consistency for the Bible (does it contradict itself, and are the witnesses reliable?), and whether there are corroborating external sources supporting what it says, such as archeology or mentions in ancient literature.
One way is to look at repeating results in a laboratory setting. Another way is to take the court room approach, and evaluate probable cause for doubt, giving benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty), and looking at witnesses and exhibits to evaluate probability. McDowell would make the point that for such a court room approach you do not need 100% certainty, rather simply a weighing of likelihood and reasonable certainty.
It's just different perspectives, and depends on what one's evaluating. If the likelihood of miracles, one might focus on the former - although if miracles are supernatural, one might question whether they can occur naturally merely by human effort. And if the accuracy of a document, probably the latter.
I suppose different people might hone in on different approaches even. Whereas a scientist might demand convincing via the former, a lawyer or historian might well get convinced via the latter. Simply trying to evaluate perspectives.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 11:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2010 11:51 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 82 of 98 (564563)
06-11-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
06-10-2010 11:51 PM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
When it comes to religious belief, evidence plays no role. Contrary evidence is either ignored, denied, or misrepresented.
Perhaps, but if so then Biblical belief is not by your definition 'religious belief' since evidence does indeed play some role. To prove my point, what better source than the Bible itself?
quote:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
The Bible calls 'noble' those who questioned the Scriptures and examined them firsthand to decide for themselves whether they were accurate. Evidence and a thought process is indeed Biblical, so long as done with "all readiness of mind" and given it a fair shot to prove itself.
Paul himself stated he used different approaches based on his audience.
quote:
1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
This is seen from the book of Acts. Whereas Paul quotes scripture to make his points from prophecy to the Jews, he quotes philosophers, making points from reason and examination of the universe when talking to the Greeks.
quote:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
This is to be contrasted with Acts 13 or 26-27, where when speaking to those who believe the Scriptures, Paul quotes the Scripture and prophesy as well as Jewish history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2010 11:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 12:29 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 06-11-2010 12:45 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 83 of 98 (564567)
06-11-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
06-10-2010 11:51 PM


Re: No McDowell Citations
I think this is actually a matter of faith built up over time. Christians tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible. They've seen God work in their lives and in their hearts, and how often the Bible is right about major truths of how the universe works. Thus when encountering a controversy surrounding the Bible, their inclination is to give it the benefit of the doubt unless all alternatives are exhausted, and even then to ascertain whether this is just an isolated case whereby they may not fully understand the whole picture and all alternatives.
Evolutionists give the benefit of the doubt to Darwin. He was indeed right about natural selection and adaptation to the environment in his book 'On the Origin of Species'. However, whether these alone are indeed reason to accept his admitted theorizings in the book about whether all species had a common ancestor (he himself admitted evidence for parent species - though he doesn't believe in them - can at times even be strong, and if shown true would render his theory wrong), or all life came about from a purely naturalistic basis (Lyell, who invented uniformitarianism and strongly influenced Darwin, the belief that the past was the same as the present and the basis for believing carbon 14 levels were the same then as now, did so to find an alternative to catastrophism and Noah's flood to deny that world-changing catastrophes occurred and suggesting long-term, purely naturalistic change over a long time period).
Darwin himself stated, "Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc., as the only possible cause of variation". In doing so as a naturalist, he excluded from the beginning the possibility of anything but external conditions resulting in his observations, and thus was engaging in circular reasoning, seeking to prove a naturalistic basis while excluding all possible alternatives.
But I digress. Point is, Darwin related not only his findings, but also his personal theorizing in the book: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."
His theories were picked up as fact. While we can observe natural selection and adaptation to the environment, this theory, that all species had a common ancestor, or that a cosmic collision of particles created, via a purely naturalistic basis all that now is, rely on circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. Darwin's credited co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, was even blackballed by the scientific community later for his publicly stated views that a spiritual entity was responsible for the inbreathing of life and creation of spirit in human beings. While Wallace was certainly no Christian and believed in mediums, it showed the clear agenda in the scientific community to exclude all non-naturalistic alternatives from even being considered, and to discriminate against even the most qualified proponents of such beliefs.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed broken link
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo fixing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2010 11:51 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:03 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 86 of 98 (564570)
06-11-2010 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
06-11-2010 12:29 AM


Re: No McDowell Citations
I would be interested in hearing what this contrary evidence involves. As someone who follows recent scientific discoveries, I see this pointing the other way. For example, discoveries in recent years have shown that:
A) The world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by an underwater volcanic eruption near China. This is interesting since in Genesis it talks about 'the fountains of the deep breaking up' which to me has always been suggestive of underwater volcanic activity. Such a flood has always seemed to me a plausible possibility for the breaking up of Pangaea, and it's a shame scientists have refused to consider that or even mention its possibility.
Sources: New York Times, Bloomberg.com
B) The inner earth may hold more water than the seas.
Source: National Geographic
C) Huge ocean discovered inside the earth recently.
Source: LiveScience, PhysOrg
Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this. And how do you fossilize footprints if not covering them rapidly from above? Josh McDowell in his book 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' addressed these points as well as others, including the mixing of fossil deposits worldwide from different strata (one example given is a quote by Wilfred Francis about the Amber beds of East Prussia, "Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America...").
I personally have also found interesting the similarities in flood legends worldwide, particularly those in North America compared to the Middle East. Often there are doves or ravens mentioned, extinction of the human race, survival in an ark-like object, a giant deluge, and few survivors. Particularly with the book of Genesis, the events are world history, so one would expect to see them mentioned elsewhere in ancient cultures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 12:29 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:21 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 1:35 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 88 of 98 (564572)
06-11-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2010 1:03 AM


Re: No McDowell Citations
I really don't know of any evidence contrary to the Biblical basis for a flood. The only lines of reasoning I can ever recall even hearing were along the lines of "there couldn't be that much water" or "there couldn't be that many animals on the ark" or "the earth couldn't repopulate that fast".
With the first, new discoveries are of course removing basis for such doubts. Not to mention the growth of mountains in recent years. Land would've been flatter then, right? So, less water height needed. Given no ice caps, an atmosphere disposing itself fully, and lower mountains, I could see this being explained readily.
With the second, I believe in microevolution, the idea Darwin ponders on pages 16-17 of 'On the Origin of Species', and parent species being the reality, as opposed to all species having a common ancestor. As Darwin there states,
quote:
"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural speciesfor instance, of the many foxesinhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."
Therefore, with these original parent species, you would not need many animals on the ark. You would need just these core parent species which then branch out into all the known varieties seen today, following the flood. Perhaps continental drift even occurred following the flood, so that animals went onto land masses as they were separating during that time after the flood.
And thirdly, population growth occurs much faster when there is more land and room to grow. For example, large families were more common in America's early days, with many having 10 or more children. I'd read before on how different factors affect this, but don't recall that well what all went into it. By all means feel free to elaborate on this.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:03 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 91 of 98 (564575)
06-11-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2010 1:21 AM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
Your sources make it clear that the volcano was not underwater and that this happened a quarter of a billion years before the supposed flood.
Both clearly state it was 'marine life'.
quote:
Why?
The Aramaic translated 'fountains of the great deep broken up' in Genesis 7:11 has following definitions according to Strong's Greek Dictionary (these can be seen readily by downloading a demo of PowerBible which has an interlinear tool showing the original Greek/Hebrew):
quote:
* Fountains: Nyem ma`yan, mah-yawn' or ma ynow (Psa. 114:8) {mah-yen-o'}; or (feminine) ma yanah {mah-yaw-naw'}; from 5869 (as a denominative in the sense of a spring); a fountain (also collectively), figuratively, a source (of satisfaction):--fountain, spring, well.
* Great: rab, rab by contracted from 7231; abundant (in quantity, size, age, number, rank, quality):--(in) abound(-undance, -ant, -antly), captain, elder, enough, exceedingly, full, great(-ly, man, one), increase, long (enough, (time)), (do, have) many(-ifold, things, a time), ((ship-))master, mighty, more, (too, very) much, multiply(-tude), officer, often(-times), plenteous, populous, prince, process (of time), suffice(-lent).
* Deep: Mwht t@howm, teh-home' thom {teh-home'}; (usually feminine) from 1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply):--deep (place), depth.
* Broken Up: eqb baqa`, baw-kah' a primitive root; to cleave; generally, to rend, break, rip or open:--make a breach, break forth (into, out, in pieces, through, up), be ready to burst, cleave (asunder), cut out, divide, hatch, rend (asunder), rip up, tear, win.
So basically you're talking about big fountains surging out of the subterranean. It's even possible to search the Bible for each root Hebrew word individually to see how it's used in each sentence in the Bible, a tactic I've used on occasion when really confused about meaning.
While I suppose it could mean just a rip in the ocean floor, I think it logical that big fountains erupting brings to mind volcanoes. It could go either way though, but it's a reasonable alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:48 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2010 2:35 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 92 of 98 (564576)
06-11-2010 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
06-11-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Scientific evidence
The problem is, this is differing about the age of the earth, not probability of a flood. And archeology does acknowledge a flood, correct? You would just say it's around several million years ago I believe (another news discovery I read about somewhere - need to dig it up).
While I don't think the earth 6000 years old, neither do I consider life billions of years old either. We are relying on the assumption that carbon 14 aged at the same rate, again off of Lyell's concept of Uniformitarianism and "the present is the key to the past", which originally rejected catastrophism - even though even Evolutionists now believe world-changing catastrophes altered the global environment. Furthermore, why could the speed with which carbon 14 decays have been affected by such things as a global flood, meteor shower-induced dust storms blotting out the sun, or an ice age(s)? One would think such atmosphere-affecting catastrophes might affect carbon decay rates and possibly tree ring growth levels, yet we are assuming they stayed the same. Why?
I did google channeled scablands. I get the idea. It would leave behind structures like the Grand Canyon, right? Or mass fossilization? Some of this McDowell addressed, such as the Hamilton Sandstone at Mount Marion, NY, which preserved casts of over 400 starfish, some of which died hovering over clams they were in the act of devouring. (p. 206, 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity').
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 1:35 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:52 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 95 of 98 (564580)
06-11-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2010 1:48 AM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote:
"And neither of them clearly state that it was underwater; and Bloomberg says that it wasn't."
Please state where in the article you've decided the Bloomberg article says it wasn't underwater. These articles by ScienceDaily and Discover Magazine specifically state the eruptions occurred in a 'shallow sea'. Here's another by National Geographic.
I believe it's referenced on Wikipedia as the 'Permian-Triassic extinction event', in which case they have another 100 sources related to this. In the Volcanism section there, it also mentions other news about the flood basalt events (has also been in the news lately) and below that, drops in the C12/C13 levels due to a massive release of methane documented. Interestingly, I haven't seen mention of C14 yet, which makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid examining that particular minefield. Oh well.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 2:32 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024