Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(4)
Message 226 of 409 (680415)
11-19-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:49 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth.
What makes you think that the claim that there is a "well organized effort to alter the truth" isn't, in fact, itself an effort to alter the truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:09 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 409 (680416)
11-19-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Genomicus
11-19-2012 2:05 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Common sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Genomicus, posted 11-19-2012 2:05 PM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2012 2:12 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 228 of 409 (680417)
11-19-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
11-19-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
The same "common sense" that causes you to believe crazy conspiracy theories ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 409 (680419)
11-19-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
11-19-2012 2:12 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
One and the same. I used to brush off conspiracy theories, but the evidence for some recently is awfully good.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2012 2:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 230 of 409 (680421)
11-19-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Getting to the details.
This Flood was huge. It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, the whole globe. A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, so multiply that effect appropriately. There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.
Indeed, this Flood is so incomparable to even large-scale "conventional" flooding that it seems to have magic properties.
Apparently this magic Flood was capable of not only depositing the entire geological column in one go, not only turning sediment into rock at an impossible pace, it also managed to perfectly preserve nests of eggs without breaking or separating them, sorted the "Sediments" universally such that we never see human fossils below a certain level, preserved footprints in appropriate sediments again never displacing human footprints into levels associated with dinosaurs, and managed to separate completely layers of sand from layers of volcanic rock from layers of limestone containing oceanic fossils.
It's almost as if you feel you can explain absolutely any configuration of the geological column with "the FLood did it." Even in the hypothetical, there is no scenario, no geological evidence that we could ever find to make you say anything other than "the Flood did it." Neither can you provide any mechanism by which the Flood would do these things - you just say it's a "special Flood."
"Special," because it exists only within the human imagination. Like other magic.
When you can equally predict any outcome, you have zero knowledge. An actual hypothesis explains a particular set of phenomenon...and cannot explain other sets. For example, the current theory that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the East - West traversal of the Sun through the sky is the result of the rotation of the Earth cannot explain an observation of the Sun rising in the West, or of the Earth ceasing its rotation for a time before resuming. Those are hypothetical observations of course, but if they were to occur, our current model of the solar system would need some revisions.
Your "Flood" model, however, is just nonsense. You're using the word "Flood" as if it actually offers an explanation, but it does not; you've attributed to that word unknown mechanisms and seemingly magic powers that make absolutely no sense.
How does a flood of any kind, moving the amount of material you're claiming it to have moved, manage to perfectly preserve egg nests without even separating or breaking them, and then turn the surrounding sediment into rock?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by xongsmith, posted 11-20-2012 11:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 231 of 409 (680422)
11-19-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:49 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth. Internet sources are not going to be reliable at all. You have to dig for this information. I am trying to get hold of some old books, which I keep hearing quoted, but my finances aren't the greatest. This went on OFFICIALLY for 600 years, and unofficially a lot longer than that. At the number I gave that would be about 110,000 deaths a year.
Why are you so willing, indeed eager, to believe things that are just demonstrably untrue?
My training is as a scientist, and I hate being wrong! I go to great lengths in my professional writings to avoid making errors.
What is your training or background that you embrace so many things are are demonstrably wrong, and are so reluctant to admit having made errors?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 409 (680426)
11-19-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Coyote
11-19-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
I'd already heard everything you said, Coyote, it isn't new to me, it's you who need to find out more about these things. And I haven't claimed I don't make errors, I've only given generalizations that I'm sure are true in the main and I know you are wrong. I'm sorry I can't just produce the evidence for you, I do have some but the rest isn't all that available, and it's an overwhelming task to try to come up with all the proof that would be needed not just on this subject but the dozen others this thread has already covered. I'm not writing papers for a journal, here.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2012 2:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2012 3:27 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 233 of 409 (680428)
11-19-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
11-19-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Funny how you haven't produced any evidence then. And pardon me if I suspect that your evaluation of the evidence has more to do with your prejudices than the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 234 of 409 (680446)
11-19-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:59 PM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
faith writes:
I'm sorry to hear that. You have no idea how good the King James translators were. Well, Forever, you've made your choice.
By the way, maybe you should spend some time at the Biblical Geology site I linked upthread a ways. It really isn't necessary to give in to the unbelievers.
Here is a portion of an article from a christian blogger. After reading it, you will realize that your interpretation of "whole world" in genesis is not the only possible interpretation and may in reality be the least likely interpretation. Why must you condemn sincere christians of not believing their bible when they have a different interpretation than you do? The following article is from the blog "Austin's Blog~ Washed and Waiting for the Resurrection. Blogging until that Day." It is written by Austin D who is a graduate of southeastern bible college.
austin.d writes:
The account is from the viewpoint of the narrator, and from his perspective, it is total. All doesn’t always mean all (Gen. 41:57; Deut. 2:25; 1 Kings 18:10). The writer would then be seen as speaking phenomenologically (as he sees it from his own personal perspective). Furthermore, certain words do not have to be translated as they are within the passage. The word for earth (eretz) can mean and does mean just the land (ha eretz) in other parts of Genesis. The same word is used when Genesis 41:57 says all the land came to Egypt. The translation of this word as earth or world biases the reader to understand this as the globe or planet, but this meaning is not in the original text. Did everyone on the entire globe go to Egypt? The Hebrew phrase whole (kol) earth (eretz) does not mean the whole earth in other passages within the Hebrew bible (Gen. 13:9; Exo. 34:10; Lev. 25:9, 25:24; Jud. 6:37; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 18:8; 1 Kings 10:24, ect.) . Two examples would be Gen. 2:11 and 2:13. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Gen. 2:11) And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Cush. (Gen. 2:13) Obviously, the description of kol erezs is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erezs is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet. Furthermore, possible other translations of the phrases within the text exist (e.g. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep could be as the NIV says rose more than 20 feet, and the mountains/hills were covered).
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:39 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 235 of 409 (680447)
11-19-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
hI Faith,
This Flood was huge. ...
Which says nothing about the turbulence of the floodwater. Some floods are gentle.
... It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, ...
It rained, yes, but rain doesn't always cause mudslides.
Do you have a source for your use of the term "torrents"? -- there is a lot of variation in how much water rains down in any given storm.
If you cannot provide a biblical reference for the use of "torrents" then you apparently are making up something that is not (strictly speaking) in the bible.
... A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, ...
Can, but does not always -- it depends on the slope, saturation, and type of soil in each specific instance. We can look at the record of mudslides versus the record of rainfall, in which case I would suggest that mudslides are a rare, rather than a common, result of rain.
In addition, mudslides that have been observed do not cover whole plains of land but peter out soon after the slope gets too flat.
Again can you provide documentation that any mudslides occurred, or are you including pure supposition\imagination rather than anything specifically included in the bible?
... so multiply that effect appropriately. ...
And what is appropriate? 0? How many mudslides are listed in the bible?
... There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" ...
Which could be a gentle welling up of the oceans until the land was covered, a process that would cause little disturbance to any then existing land masses. This also reduces the theoretical amount of rainwater needed to cover the land.
Again, I am unaware of any documented damage from such a source in the bible -- can you provide some?
... and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. ...
Curiously, standing water is not known for causing any significant erosion or mudslides.
... This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.
Why?
Why should we assume that there was any significant erosion when there is -- apparently -- no documentation of any erosion occurring?
Can you provide a biblical reference to erosion occurring at all?
Would you not agree that a literalist interpretation of the bible is limited to what is specifically mentioned in the bible?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:50 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 236 of 409 (680448)
11-19-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
11-19-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Faith writes:
I'd already heard everything you said, Coyote, it isn't new to me, it's you who need to find out more about these things. And I haven't claimed I don't make errors, I've only given generalizations that I'm sure are true in the main and I know you are wrong. I'm sorry I can't just produce the evidence for you, I do have some but the rest isn't all that available, and it's an overwhelming task to try to come up with all the proof that would be needed not just on this subject but the dozen others this thread has already covered. I'm not writing papers for a journal, here.
The thing here Faith, is that when people first started looking for evidence of this flood they were doing it to prove the bible right. The gentlemen geologists were pretty much all believing Christians but the more they searched the more problems they found.
A couple of hundred years worth of objective science later and we have a vast quantity of properly published and peer reviewed science with the effect that ALL geolologists are certain that there was no world wide flood 4,300 years ago.
Simultaneously they have found evidence of a local flood in the area that you'd expect it at about the time you'd expect it.
The reason you can't answer the questions you are being asked here by reference to published science is because there is none that supports you. It really is as simple as that isn't it? If there was evidence you'd be showing it.
So the only reasonable conclusion is that the story in the book is a story of a local flood, not a glbal one.
Pretty much the entire religious community as well as the entire science community agree that the flood didn't happen the way you believe it to have, which makes you wrong I'm afraid.
It's perfectly possible to maintain your belief without believing in the utterly stupid - why not give it a try?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:43 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 409 (680452)
11-19-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by foreveryoung
11-19-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Local fllood?
It's possible to nitpick about words to prove just about anything you want. I do doubt that it is true Christians who get engaged in that sort of thing.
The skills of the English Bible translators, of the KJV and the versions that preceded it, were excellent. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and others. Why do you think you can do better?
If the Flood was merely local God would not have had Noah spend a hundred years building the ark, He would have had him and his family move to a place where they'd be out of the way of the Flood.
The idea contradicts other things about the Flood:
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Looks like God had in mind destroying ALL men, ALL flesh. Would that have happened in a limited flood?
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
Don't fool around with alternative translations of words for the sake of believing what unbelievers tell you or arguments you think you understand through your own fallible mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by foreveryoung, posted 11-19-2012 3:15 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by foreveryoung, posted 11-19-2012 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 409 (680453)
11-19-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Tangle
11-19-2012 3:27 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Yes the early geologists were "Christian" creationists, but their notions in those days were absurdly unbiblical so how Christian were they really? I've written about this at my blog. I think God allowed Hutton and Darwin to overthrow the idiotic unbiblical creationist ideas as judgment on the Church. Too bad, creationists today come up with just as unbiblical stuff.
Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it, and ultimately we'll see that to be the case. Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2012 3:27 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2012 3:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 246 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2012 4:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 253 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2012 4:16 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 239 of 409 (680454)
11-19-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
11-19-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go.
Uh, the Bible contradicts the Bible...
Yes the early geologists were "Christian" creationists, but their notions in those days were absurdly unbiblical so how Christian were they really?
Well, considering that Christians are supposed to follow Christ we can see that you don't really have to follow 100% everything in the Bible.
Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it,
You should change your description to a "Biblian", or something, to reflect the fact that you follow a book over Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 240 of 409 (680455)
11-19-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Christ wrote the Book. To follow it is to follow Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2012 3:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2012 3:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 242 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2012 3:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 244 by kjsimons, posted 11-19-2012 3:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 272 by jar, posted 11-19-2012 5:29 PM Faith 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