Religion or Science - How do they compare?

quote:

---

You may of course prefer to believe the denials in the same article, since as I said No Christian truth goes unpunished at EvC

---

The fact that you see doubting questionable claims as a punishment - rather than simple honesty - speaks volumes.

quote:

---

It only speaks volumes to those with a an ingrained prejudice against everything I say.

---

The fact that you see a truthful and honest assessment as ingrained prejudice also speaks volumes.Honestly assessing the evidence is not punishment. That you say otherwise does say a lot about you. That’s not prejudice, that’s just fact.

In no way is it punishing your belief to point out that by your own source: Since Rabbi Akiva was born in 50 AD, it is rather unlikely that he would have spoken to Jesus’ stepfather and the name Pappos ben Yehuda does not seem to match that of Joseph - even the father’s name doesn’t match either of the Gospel genealogies.In short, the identification of the Talmud’s Yeshu ben Pantera with the Biblical Jesus is uncertain.That you would object to anyone pointing this out is bad enough. That you would laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong with such an attitude is even worse.

quote:

---

Golly gosh, you mean the Jews objected to Ben Kokhba who as I understand it had gathered quite a large following of Jews in his day,

---

No, and obviously so since I said nothing about bar Kochkba.What I said is that the information on Yeshu ben Pantera’s stepfather indicates that he was not the Joseph named in the Gospels as Jesus’ father. He had a different name, a different father and seems to have lived decades later - likely not even born before Jesus’ death.But thanks for the examples of anti-semitism.

quote:

---

Revisionism reigns when fear of retribution is likely.

---

Regardless of your opinion the facts are not clear enough to make a certain identification.

quote:

---

And there is probably the whitehot core of Liberal Nazism, smearing a parson who has described simple facts as if I'd advocated some kind of violence

---

And there we have your evil exposed. I didn’t say anything about advocating violence. I said that you provided examples of anti-semitism. And you did.Moreover you only call them facts because they come from the Bible. The Barabbas story in particular is almost certainly a fiction. So we have anti-semitism in the Bible.Calling me a Nazi - when you are defending genocide - is just a typical example of your vile and hypocritical lying.So much for the benefit of the doubt!

quote:

---

Anti Semitism requires 1) lying and 2) some implied or direct threat harm.

---

Stop making things up.

quote:

---

I gave true facts

---

That you think they are true does not make them true.

quote:

---

And you do not get to say something in the Bible is a fiction, or call it genocide. That does make you a Liberal Nazi

---

Faith I understand that you are an evil lying slanderer. But contrary to your silly opinion that does not give you the right or the power to silence the truth.

quote:

---

Just because you don't believe them doesn't make them false.

---

The fact that their truth is very much in question should prevent any honest person from relying on them as facts. If you want to establish that they are facts, I am willing to discuss the evidence. Are you ?

quote:

---

They are established Biblical facts and facts are not anti-Semitism. It takes at least a lie and a threat of harm to be anti-Semitism.

---

They aren’t established as facts. It neither requires a lie or a threat of harm to be anti-semitism. Prejudice against or hostility to Jews is quite adequate and you are expressing both. And let us not forget that you are raising these facts as excuses for Luther’s anti-semitism which did indeed encourage harm to the Jews.

quote:

---

You are the one silencing the truth. Just another Liberal Nazi.

---

Yes, we know that you are a raging hypocrite as well as a liar and a slanderer.

quote:

---

Their truth has not been questioned by millennia of people who believe them. Only by Liberal Nazis in recent times.

---

In other words your sole argument is to say that people believed it - and call anyone who disagrees a Liberal NaziBecause viciously and falsely smearing anyone who disagrees is such a good argument.

quote:

---

Perhaps the peanut gallery can throw their shells in that direction.

​

Faith Facts:

---

Unsurprisingly it is not good. Faith will, of course accuse me of prejudice but the facts speak for themselves.Most of the citations are Bible verses with no indication that they played a role in the Founder’s thinking.I looked at the sole exception:It claimed that Judicial, legislative, and executive branches was based on Isaiah 33:22 claiming to cite Madison.Isaiah 33:22 says: I will note that this doesn’t appear to have any separation of powers, and that England already had a King, a Parliament (a two-chamber Parliament at that) and a judiciary. The role of the Bible seems somewhat superfluous.The citation is worse. It refers to a website which offers as it’s only source the Wallbuilder’s website. Which is of course David Barton’s organisation.Citing a source that quotes only an unreliable secondary source is hardly good scholarship.

Here is one of the dictionary.com definitions dictionary.com also allows that: may be considered a lie.

quote:

---

I've answered the forensics claim many times. It only works for the historical or witnessed past, where you actually have information from that past but for the prehistoric past all you have is today's observations, a few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past, but no way to verify anything from that actual past.

---

If it can work for unwitnessed events in historical times, why should it not work for unwitnessed events in prehistoric times ? And why do the various cross-checks, using independent methods fail to qualify as verification? Radiometric dating methods, for instance rely on well-established physics and chemistry. Unless you are going to say that those operated differently in the prehistoric past it seems that you don’t really have a point here.

quote:

---

You interpret the geologic column as representing periods in that past but you can't prove that, you can only assume it. If in fact it's only the result of the Flood which killed all the dead things contained in the rocks you misinterpret as representing time periods, there is no way to prove it one way or the other

---

We can however note that the evidence is very strongly in favour of our interpretation - to the point that there is no reason why it should not be considered settled science.

quote:

---

There is no way to prove that evolution occurred from one species to another because the only thing you can actually observe is variation within a Kind, it is merely assumed.

---

The idea that there are Kinds which impose a limit on variation is merely an assumption, without any real evidence. The evidence, notably including transitional fossils but also including genetic analyses and the distribution of species in time and space is consistent with large scale evolutionary change.

quote:

---

Fear not, I think all this assumption and speculation will soon be tumbling down as there will be proof of the Flood.

---

You have assumption and speculation. We have the evidence. It is not at all likely that there will be any proof of Flood geology. Even restricting ourselves to the modern version you’ve had a hundred years and it still isn’t close to explaining the evidence.

quote:

---

Mostly because there would be people who were around at the time of the crime that you can interview about it, but there would also be familiar objects that can be tracked, written documents and so on and so forth.

---

Does any of that actually matter for the sorts of cases we are considering ? In terms of getting a date for when a rock cooled from lava or magma it doesn’t seem terribly relevant.

quote:

---

Now they have DNA which has revolutionized forensics, identified the real criminals and set free some innocents.

---

And supports evolution, too.

quote:

---

You've got radiometric dating which is really the only solid evidence you have for the timing factor. But if other evidence contradicts that, as I believe it does, it remains to be seen how well that method will stand up

---

There is no valid evidence that contradicts it. And plenty that supports it. You can argue over exact dates but the difference between YEC time frames and those accepted by science is night and day and the evidence rules out the possibility of YEC dates being even in the right order of magnitude.

quote:

---

Otherwise you have nothing at all like the evidence for the kind of criminal case I describe above, nobody still living from the time of the event, no documents from that time (we have the Bible, though you've thrown that important piece of evidence out), dinosaurs didn't carry cell phones or use credit cards etc. You DO have artifacts from archaeological digs which can contribute to dating.

---

Even YECs put the writing of the Bible after the Flood, so you don’t have documents from the timeunless you want to argue that the Book Of Enoch really was written by the Biblical Enoch. And if you can tell me what use cell phones or credit cards would be in in dating a rock please do.

quote:

---

But if you are expecting to find evidence of the Flood in a single layer of the geo column when it actually built the entire column you're so far off the track you'll never get there anyway.

---

It’s pretty obvious that the Flood didn’t build the whole geological column so you’d be pretty off track trying to find it there, too.

quote:

---

I think today's evidence by creationists happens to be very good, and in fact I think they've proven the Flood

---

That seems to be an example of your fantasies. They have no reasonable explanation for the geological or fossil records and they can’t even agree on which rocks were due to the Flood (I think most put the end of the Flood at the end of the Cretaceous, disagreeing with your idea that the Flood accounts for all of it).

quote:

---

ALL YOU'VE GOT IS DATING.

---

And the fossils, and the strata. There’s a whole lot more evidence out there.

quote:

---

If other evidence conclusively shows a young earth there is something wrong with the dating methods no matter how convincing they seem. I think other evidence will eventually conclusively show a young earth.

---

The evidence we have is so strong I think we can rightly dismiss that possibility. The idea that there is something incredibly wrong with so many different dating methods - and they still produce strongly consistent results itself isn’t worth considering. When you add in the other evidence, you might as well hope for proof that the Earth is flat.Why not accept the truth? The evidence says that the Earth is undeniably far, far older than the mere 10,000 years or less than YEC claims. There is no real evidence to the contrary worth considering.