|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Evidence is something that can be shown to exist.For example Bible stories are evidence that at some time in the past someone collected, recorded and complied those stories. Bible stories are NOT evidence that they are true, reflect reality or are historical. Some of the Pastors that I know would likely claim that since the Bible is true, God by definition through Jesus is evident. They would then probably quote Romans. quote:Now I don't want to get too far off topic here...our discussion is on evidence, the definition of evidence and the Biblical Flood. If we can agree on what evidence is, maybe we can wrap this thread up. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Yup, some would. But when they say silly stuff like that and fall back on quote mining and proof texts it is time to chuckle, pat them on the head, tell them that is interesting and send them back to the kiddie table. keep in mind the possible audience that this thread attracts. If a young student who leaned towards creationism were to see that you insult their pastor, they might take offense. Perhaps my question is this: Is there more than one definition of evidence, and is it possible that reality is not what it seems? I may have mentioned my facebook exchange with one of my friends here in town. He says: quote:My approach to him is not to insult him nor disparage his belief. (though it is tempting) There are some people who actually believe what Faith and my friend believe. In addition, they likely conflate belief as evidence. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I was always taught that in a debate, one must learn and at least understand how the other side thinks. So my question to you is why their continued presentation of evidence does not meet your qualifications for evidence.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: Is the evidence different in each paradigm? If so, how could this be possible? Paradigm clash turns out to mean basically that nobody can ever argue from a different paradigm because the established paradigm is treated as sacrosanct and there is no tolerance for the other.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
In regards to my request for evidence and the definition of evidence, I find that I cannot make heads nor tails of some of these arguments. I am not a far left liberal nor do I even claim to have any scientific knowledge beyond a layman's level.
What I do appreciate is a participant who explains the thought process which leads to their conclusion. Conclusions that are shoehorned into a discussion only to support a premise don't help me understand anything. DWise1 has hit the nail on the head in the Lucy thread.
DWise1 writes: The purpose of creationist claims and arguments is to persuade, therefore the most important test of any creationist claim or argument is in how persuasive it sounds. If a claim sounds persuasive, then it will be used regardless of how utterly false it is. But any that does not sound persuasive will go unnoticed regardless of how true it is. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy,to Faith writes: No one misrepresents what you say, particularly Percy. We compose detailed rebuttals of your ideas which you then ignore. You just responded to a 300 word message of rebuttal with a one liner. How do you expect to overcome any rebuttals with rubbish like that? You're in essence just letting the rebuttals stand, and then you have the chutzpah to complain about how no one gives your ideas any credence. You have to defend your ideas, not repeat them from scratch over and over again like a parrot. Percy does have a point. The effort by many members to get you to discus your evidence with them is a lot of work on their part. Your explanations differ from their explanations, but unlike traditional scientists, you dont provide the same type of evidence that they do. Many laymen would be impressed with your ability to provide explanations that are not simply copy pasted from a book, but then again most laymen are in no need of evidence but only of persuasion from a person whom they can trust. To its credit, EvC has stated why it is that they dont trust you. I am not at the point that I dont trust you but I am again going to ask how you arrive at the conclusions that you do. Is it because you believe that a global flood must have happened and are attempting to provide an explanation why it must have happened? Does it frustrate you that nobody considers the premise as a valid approach to science?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: I respect the passion that you put into the argument, but I don't see why its obvious and don't know enough to consider it true. I've been honing this particular argument for a long long time by now...It's a complete model unto itself and it works. But why is your method of evidence incomprehensible to most of EvC? Have you somehow tapped into the creative mind of an intelligent designer? Were you cosmically blessed? (I'm not being facetious...this is a valid question)
I know it's a paradigm clash but people who have some pretense to scientific thinking should recognize that I'm making sense at least. And yet for some reason they don't get it. I see nothing evil or warped about them (EvC peanut gallery) apart from they get snarky occasionally. So why don't they get it? One more question, if you would. Is there any group of people..perhaps at church or in your community...who have heard your presentation and given you compliments on it?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
What does everyone think of this comic? Does it realistically portray the basic difference between Creationism and ToE Science?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I shared this comic earlier and wanted to see your response.
Is that similar to what you do? See something obvious and then attempt to build facts to support it? I concluded as such because of your quotes over at the topic of presuppositionalism. faith writes: Also what you said in reply to one of my other questions: I'm against the specific sciences of the past, Old Earth Geology and evolution from species to species. I consider these bogus sciences, but all other sciences are legitimate and valuable because they are testable. EvC won't let anyone be a presuppositionalist, they demand we prove everything.Faith writes: I've been honing this particular argument for a long long time by now, sometimes I get a new lead and incorporate it, or drop something else that doesn't work as well, but I'm totally devoted to it (...)It's a complete model unto itself and it works. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps the issue is that there is a conflation of belief and science.
Faith writes: In your defense, Percy...I could imagine you having a deficiency in Belief were I qualified to judge...but never a deficiency in science. It's a complete model unto itself and it works. When Percy says it violates physical laws that's because he's the one with the deficiency in that area, which goes back years here, not I, and having to tolerate that level of ignorance when I'm the only one defending my position is very hard to take. I know prayer would at least calm me down but when people say stupid things and accuse me falsely I can practically feel my blood pressure rise and I impulsively react. He has the power, he does not have the understanding. My theory is that Faith assumes that because the Bible is true that there must be an alternative hypothesis within science...whereas you come at it from the angle that there is basically but one way to do science. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Aussie writes: I believe that she sees the pattern, Aussie---she just chooses to ignore the argument that her opponents attempt to frame.
Are you really the only one who can't see this sad pattern, Faith? These are all from the same six sentence post!Please find the humility to learn something from someone who knows more than you. She likely believes that God knows more than secular science and certainly more than any atheist or leftist. She likely knows that her knowledge is limited, though growing and that it comes from a belief paradigm versus secular scientific methods. She is only attempting to frame Gods master plan and method and feels(she would say knows)...that the majority of secular science is deceived and even clueless of her assumptions. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Faith writes: God inspired the written Word because we haven't the ability-- or the willingness --to understand the meaning of His Creation, which points to Him. DWise1 writes: So just what did GOD HIMSELF say?What did Man say? This frames the whole controversy over God lying versus mans recording of scripture. jar seems to always claim that God lied and the serpent told the truth, which in my mind is arguably blasphemous. Many obvious questions arise between Biblical Literalists and scholarly (secular) literalists over this. The first question would be whether God exists apart from being a character in a story. Faith and I believe that he does. jar is a Creedal Christian who reads the stories as written, with a bit of Jewish Chutspah from his upbringing as an Episcopal student taught to always question everything and to separate belief from fact and reality. Ringo claims to be an atheist with no axes to grind, Assuming that GOD does in fact exist, the next question would be Gods relationship with human critters throughout History. In a topic titled Evidence Of The Flood the initial premise was that Harvey the Hawk was a bit of evidence of probable interaction and cooperation of animals and humans. Reality suggests that it would be quite a chore to gather up two of every animal from all corners of the planet...unless they plodded, crawled, and flew down to the middle east to get on the boat! The argument can be made that a supernatural God can do anything he wants in any way that He chooses, but the response would be "well then why a flood"? Sounds a bit unnecessary and simplistic for an omnipotent Creator. And why punish the animals for human rebellion and self-will?
jar,to Faith writes: Which again brings up the question as to Who actually said it and what it meant. This is where faith and I differ...I'm not as liberal as jar nor as conservative as Faith. I can acknowledge the arguments that humans wrote the Bible...but I would likely believe that God inspired it. My jury is still out on how to reconcile apparent contradictions---such as jars point that God lied, according to the stories. Some say God cannot lie, for what He says is always truth and what possible need would God have for lying? It's only Biblical Christians like you that disagree with what God said and blaspheme the Holy Ghost. Also, I challenge the accusation that Faith is blaspheming the Holy Ghost.
Faith,replying to Dr.A writes: If common sense were truly common, everyone would see the reasoning. The fact that they don't is not because they are against religion...it is because they have been trained to read and interpret evidence. I'm not sure why you see it a different way unless you assume that the Flood MUST have happened and then try and construct evidence which supports it. Sorry, strata and fossils are THE evidence for the Flood, despite EvCers' insistence on the utterly ridiculous delusional time period argument. Common sense ought to be enough to show both the impossibility of that explanation and the obvious reasonableness of the Flood explanation.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024