This is a response to your message #54 although I hit the reply button on your latest.
I think the attempt to argue for creationism at this site is hopeless no matter how much knowledge the person might have, but I wanted to post this last message to you. I have no interest in returning to any of the ongoing arguments. It is as hopeless as anything could possibly be and I don't need the constant attack on my character and intelligence.
What I meant was that the Bible appears to be treated as fiction, not even as a historical record here, same as it is among most academics and scientists and even, sad to say, some people who consider themselves Christians.
=====
The guidelines make very clear that you're expected to support your positions with evidence and reasoned argument.
Once again, I am not USING the Bible in argument, but I do believe it IS evidence for CERTAIN things and the a priori dismissal of its evidentiary role on this site is wrong
Nothing at EvC Forum from either side is a given. If you can't support your position that the Bible is an accurate historical record with evidence and reasoned argument then you must drop it.
I have never brought it up as evidence. I am making an academic point unrelated to the science debates. And another academic point is that until a couple hundred years ago or so the Bible was respected as at LEAST a valid history by the leaders of Western civilization. For it NOW to require evidence is sad testimony to the deterioration of civilization. Again, this is a side point, not being used in any "science" discussion.
Nothing obligates anyone here to accept anything as axiomatic. There are many religions in the world, and your wish that people defer to the specifics of your interpretation of your religion's holy book will not be granted.
Western civilization and science itself would never have happened without my religion's holy book as you so dismissively put it, and the fact that it is now relegated to a place among the false religions of the world that it originally overcame by truth is a very sad harbinger of the death of civilization, and I believe the dogmatic attitudes on this website which supposedly serve science unfortunately serve barbarism more than science.
Faith writes:
Percy writes:
One of the key requirements of science is replicability. A single observation by an expert scientist means little by itself. It is only after the observation has been repeated by many other scientists that it becomes accepted. And a single observation by a layperson with no scientific training a couple thousand years ago in a religious book carries no weight as scientific evidence at all.
You describe it as if Moses had picked up a stone and declared it Kryptonite.
I think you may be glossing over a key component of science: replicability. Please don't ignore the definition of science. This is a science site intended to debate Creationism's claim to be science. The definition of science is important here, and replicability is part of science.
I glossed over nothing. I pointed out that replicability is not possible with the theory of evolution. You cannot replicate a supposed historical event and both the geological time table and the ToE are all about supposed historical events.
I'm not precisely sure how to interpret the part about Moses and Kryptonite, but I think you're saying your religious myths should be given the same weight as the observations of trained scientists. Why? Do you think knowledge, training and experience make no difference?
I haven't argued FOR using the Bible at all in the science discussions nor argued any scientific position FROM it. Since the Bible is challenged by the ToE and the Geo Time Table I get into discussions about it but I don't use it in the arguments. Also, while believing the Bible is the truth, I nevertheless ALREADY had objections to the ideas of evolution and Geo Time Table BEFORE I became a Christian.
An academic point again: You beg the question by referring to the Bible as "myths." Western civilization was built from ideas generated by those "myths" that were in fact believed to be the absolute truth by the leaders of Western progress. This was a long progress out of original European heathen barbarism to the world standard for science and humane government. It would not have happened without the widespread belief in the truth of the Bible.
The Kryptonite remark was to characterize your contemptuous view of the "myths" of the Bible.
Scientific replicability can't possibly apply to ancient historical events...Do you really mean that they tried to REPLICATE the Flood? Don't you mean they looked for EVIDENCE of the Flood?
I was speaking of observations.
Fine. Observations aren't replicability.
Each observation is unique. Some come during an event, some after. Noah observed the flood first hand, but as you correctly note, modern geologists can only observe the evidence left behind by the flood. Still, modern geologists have a huge advantage over Noah. Noah's small group was confined to the ark and could only observe the flood in a tiny part of the world. But modern geologists can go everywhere, and so they are able to find the erosive and sedimentation events that marked the floods progress over the land, and they can find the massive scars in the earth where torrents of water escaped from the depths and where it descended after the flood.
Such as the enormous piles of layered sediments found all over the world? Such as the prodigious quantities of fossils demonstrating sudden massive death by burial or at least the burial of massive numbers of corpses that had died by drowning? Such as the many beds of dinosaurs and other creatures which demonstrate no normal way dinosaurs would die and be buried, in bunches like that, but certainly are consistent with their having been washed there by torrents of water? Such as the deep canyons at the bottom of the oceans perhaps, or the volcanoes which were released after the release of the "fountains of the deep" opened up channels to the molten areas of the earth?
How would geologists recognize such evidence given the presuppositions they take with them on their exploratory treks?
Biologists also have an advantage over Noah. Even Noah couldn't observe the migration paths of all the animals to and from their home regions, but biologists can make observations of the existing evidence to find and track these migration routes and tell us how long it took after the flood for marsupials to find their way back to Australia and what routes they took, even dating the flood by analyzing Australia to detect the period before the return of its native species when there was no animal life in Australia at all. They can determine which species returned first and which returned last. They can also detect and track the return of plant life to the denuded landscape.
And all those methods are of course absolutely 100% infallible for determining the truth or falseness of historical reports.
Some of the people you want to study are Georges Buffon, James Hutton, William Buckland and Charles Lyell. If you want specific references to some rather brief material on the web that can fill you in then just say so.
Yes, please. Though I'd rather the material were not so brief. I'm not opposed to studying anything. I'm simply pessimistic that it will be particularly relevant, as I've found so much material to be when I've taken the time to track it down. Unless they are extremely clear about their reasons for their beliefs it won't be of much use to find out that they had come to such and such a conclusion. Their simply believing that the order of fossils in the Geo Column proves that they represent different time periods would just be evidence of their credulity. But if their reasons are detailed and various, it would be interesting to know it.
I believe that there are many supporting facts but evolutionists dismiss them on the basis of apparent contradictory facts and scenarios of their own imagination.
This is a simple dismissal with no engagement of the issues whatsoever. You must engage the discussion on the evidence. I encourage you to stay focused on the facts supporting your case.
It is not the case that there are NO supporting facts for creationist views.
If we're talking about a young earth and a global flood, then it would be incorrect to state that the evidence supports such views.
But even for those things there is evidence. Not proof but evidence and I've given some above. Much of the data used in support of the Geo Time Table fits a Flood just as well. The discontinuities of the Geo Column overall for instance can be explained in some fashion to fit the Geo Time Table, though the explanations I gather are mostly speculative and not themselves supported by much in the way of evidence, while the discontinuities as found ARE evidence in support of the FLood, which is in turn evidence in support of a young earth. Again, not proof, but evidence. Just because you can interpret the evidence in a different direction by adding in speculations does not put that evidence on the side of supporting evolutionism or great ages theory.
If you accept the established principles of how the universe behaves, then the deductions from those principles are valid conclusions, not ephemeral imaginings. We know the limestone layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down over millions of years because it takes a long time for that many tiny ocean-dwelling creatures to die and sink to the bottom.
Not if they were suffocated by the bazillions by the thick sediments carried in a massive flood.
Radiometric dating confirms the timescale. We observe the same thing happening in shallow seas today.
You observe the stacking of deep layers of entirely different sediments in shallow seas today, with fossils in the making consistent with those in the Geo Column layers?
I know you'd like to accept the obvious successes of efforts like finding oil in the ground and using genetic engineering to develop new medicines, and at the same time reject other very closely related efforts that don't have so direct an impact on our lives like dating geological layers and tracing evolutionary descent through DNA analysis, but you can't do that. If geologists aren't really able to date geological layers then they can't really find oil.
I don't see why not. By flood theory they would just as certainly know that certain layers and depths and configurations would be the place to look without reference to any kind of dating arrangement. Fossil disposition is the necessary index, not age.
And if biologists can't derive evolutionary histories then they don't really know enough to discover new medicines through genetic engineering.
Genetic inheritance histories don't require evolutionary theory, as supposed descent from another species has no part in such thinking. Knowledge of genetic variation and inheritance factors within species is all that is needed.
What is a "religious argument?" This notion all hinges on whether or not the events recorded in the Bible are historically true, and that's not a "religious" argument, it's an argument about FACT.
====
True, debating the validity of some Biblical accounts is not religious. But if you want the Bible a priori accepted as reliable, then that is a religious position.
Nobody in their right mind would DARE suggest such a thing in this context. However, your statement is factually wrong. It is not a religious position as you use the term, having decided for yourself that it's myth and not true. If it's true it's true and reliable for all kinds of objective positions. But again, nobody in their right mind would try to prove this to you.
I know you understand the difference and are attempting to keep the latter opinion, which you obviously firmly hold, out of your arguments, but you're not succeeding very well in this effort.
Actually I am succeeding 100%. The fault is with those who don't follow what I'm saying carefully.
This very message that I'm replying to is ample evidence of you confounding the two viewpoints.
Not at all.
If you were truly keeping your acceptance of Biblical inerrancy aside then you wouldn't be raising it with such consistent frequency. I'll believe you've finally left this argument aside only after a couple months go by during which you never raise it in any science thread.
Excuse me, but I haven't raised it myself in any science thread that I'm aware of. It has always come up in answer to somebody else's remarks, and in any case I am not confounding anything. I insist on the distinctions because I am making those distinctions.
You simply deny that the report is true. You really HAVEN'T proven that it isn't true, though you believe you have.
If we're talking about a young earth and a global flood, then the account in the Bible is very strongly contradicted by the physical evidence.
No, it is contradicted by the interpretations of the evidence. not by the evidence. I've given some examples above.
This is true whether you as an individual ever accept it. Your views on the age of the earth and the flood stem from your religious views, not from scientific evidence. You would find it as difficult to convince a Hindu of your views of creation as of your views of Jesus Christ. I wonder if you grant the Koran and the Bhagavad-gita the same stipulations about historical accuracy that you demand for the Bible.
Of course not. They aren't narrative histories at all. They are teachings. They may contain some factual historical references, but the Bible is predominantly narrative history, both Old and New Testaments and its teachings proceed from its narration of events just as much as from strictly didactic passages and illustrative parables and other nonhistorical passages.
This is your problem in a nutshell. I raise the issue of whether you believe the Bible contains scientific evidence, and you reply that the Bile is "known by believers throughout time as the revelation of the nature of God by His own direct intervention and inspiration, which we have no other means of knowing because of the spiritual death we inherit from the Fall." I'm talking science, and you're answering with Christian apologetics.
If you would stick to the context you would realize that I'm answering over and over again your own personal prejudice that denigrates the Bible as myth. It is not myth, it is objectively true history and revelation. That does not mean it is science and it does not mean I am using it to argue any scientific point. This is the logic problem I keep running into here. Not all truth is science and when one tries to point out that the Bible is true you think I'm proposing it as scientific argument.
If the world is young and there was a recent global flood then the evidence for it will be apparent to everyone, Christian and Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu, agnostic and atheist.
Not at all. As with all other scientific discoveries the evidence has to be recognized and discovered. One normally simply lives in the world as is and takes it for granted as is and does not use its elements to prove anything, may appreciate them but mostly simply uses them. Science begins the process of thinking about their causes. Science of that kind did not develop fully anywhere but in the West and there is plenty of reason to credit it to the view of God and nature given in the Bible that is not available anywhere else. Note: Please note again that my defense here of the Bible as truth and as inspiration for science is not an argument for the Bible itself as a scientific manual in any sense whatever. It is true history and it can be a takeoff point for scientific discovery for that reason, but in itself it is not science and does not pretend to be and creationists don't pretend it is either.
You seem to think the views of conservative Christianity are entitled to special treatment and consideration from everyone else, and you seem supremely unaware of the colossal conceit that this appears to be to others.
Not unaware at all. It's the epitome of political correctness these days and one encounters it everywhere. I just find it very depressing that the true God's word is so badly dealt with in the very part of the world where it inspired the greatest achievements in every human endeavor. Special treatment and consideration? Haven't been arguing for that, have no hope of that ever occurring in the West again unfortunately. But do I think it deserves it? Absolutely because I think it is the only view that is faithful to the true God's own revelation.
You qualify this somewhat by going on to say:
BUT fear not. I have not claimed that the Bible contains "scientific evidence" only historical fact, AND I am careful to avoid arguing from it even about historical fact. I may argue FOR it from time to time but I know better than to argue FROM it in such a hostile environment.
Qualify it somewhat? My problem is understanding how it gets so completely overlooked that I have been doing nothing else but this all along.
I'm quite sure the Bible contains historical fact. It also contains historical fiction and much else.
Beg to differ. It contains no historical fiction. All the historical passages are true history. You are dogmatic that it's myth. I'm just as dogmatic that it's truth.
It is reasonable to request that the Bible be given the same consideration as other historical sources, but it is a religious position that the Bible be granted some special dispensation from such requirements, and you consistently confound the two.
I confound nothing. I am not even requesting that the Bible be given consideration as other historical sources, I am simply arguing that it is true history for anybody who might conceivably begin to wake up and consider that it might be true history. You insist on the above belief that it is "a religious position" and I deny that. It is not mythical "religion" it is truth. It presents itself as truth and it is truth. I am not asking you to do anything whatever, to believe it or accommodate it or anything. I'm simply saying it is true. You can take it or leave it. {Edit to add: Again, it has nothing to do with the science debates I have been engaging in and I have not used it for that purpose though you find that very hard to believe based on your own notions.
You insist on the above belief you express of the equivalence of all religions as if it were fact and I dispute that but I am not asking anybody to do anything about it whatever in this website. I request nothing.
You all here are having a massive breakdown in logical thinking.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-21-2005 04:00 PM
™ Version 4.2