Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Searching for Ancient Truth
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 61 of 84 (294538)
03-12-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
03-12-2006 7:40 AM


The Flood.....Again!!???
I was not working toward the Flood or the debunking of it. My quest is a bit more generalized. I'm not trying to misdirect you, make you concede a particular point, and then go "Aha! Then how can you say the Flood happened!!". I'm not that sneaky and I don't think you're that dense. Some of the results of this thread should apply to the investigation of the Flood scenario, but that is not where I was headed.
Faith writes:
Although you all concede the point that there is no way to come to a final explanation of past phenomena, you are all pretty much arguing the idea that there are some explanations that can be ruled out as less reasonable.
Then you are saying that we can't rank explainations from most to least likely? Is this the point where we differ on the testability of past events?
If so, what is it that prevents us from being able to determine the relative likelyhood of explainations for past events?
As for the rest of what you wrote, as far as this topic is concerned...Frankly, Scarlett...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 7:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:14 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 84 (294605)
03-12-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LinearAq
03-12-2006 2:21 PM


Re: The Flood.....Again!!???
Yes, I don't think it is possible to rank explanations on a scale of likelihood and the example of the Flood and how evos dismiss it as unreasonable was my case in point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 2:21 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by DrJones*, posted 03-12-2006 5:16 PM Faith has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 63 of 84 (294606)
03-12-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
03-12-2006 5:14 PM


Re: The Flood.....Again!!???
I don't think it is possible to rank explanations on a scale of likelihood
So you think that
a: The Earth is 4+ Billion years old
b: The Earth is ~6000 years old
c: The Earth is 5 days 3 hours and 27 seconds old
Are all equally likely?
This message has been edited by DrJones*, 03-12-2006 03:16 PM

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:23 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 84 (294611)
03-12-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by DrJones*
03-12-2006 5:16 PM


Re: The Flood.....Again!!???
Even those are not easily rankable, no. Anything anyone said about how to rank them would take us right back into the evo-creo argument. That's what happens with untestable explanatory guesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by DrJones*, posted 03-12-2006 5:16 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 5:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 65 of 84 (294614)
03-12-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
03-12-2006 5:23 PM


just for fun
Who shot Kennedy:
1. Ruby
2. Lee Harvey Oswald
3. The CIA
5. Me
6. A unicorn.
I'd probably rank them 2,3,1,6,5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:33 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 5:33 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 84 (294615)
03-12-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
03-12-2006 5:28 PM


Re: just for fun
Yes I suppose that's a similar situation since the truth apparently isn't definitively knowable.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 5:28 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 7:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 84 (294616)
03-12-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
03-12-2006 5:28 PM


Re: just for fun
Hi, Modulous.
Since no one actually saw anyone pull the trigger, I would say that all five scenarios are equally likely.
Well, since (6) involves a supernatural entity for which there is no verifiable evidence (and unicorns make me feel good), I think that is the one to which we give a preference.
Edited to correct a couple of typos, one serious.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 12-Mar-2006 10:36 PM

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 5:28 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brian, posted 03-12-2006 5:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 68 of 84 (294624)
03-12-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 5:33 PM


Re: just for fun
I would say that all five scenarios are equally likely.
Mod is a young looking 50+

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 5:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 5:57 PM Brian has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 84 (294627)
03-12-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brian
03-12-2006 5:52 PM


Re: just for fun
Mod is a young looking 50+
Rumours that I was born under Thatcher's rule are merely wild speculation.
Sorry, I'm going to be the instigator of sending thread spiralling out of all sanity aren't I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brian, posted 03-12-2006 5:52 PM Brian has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 70 of 84 (294652)
03-12-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
03-12-2006 5:33 PM


Ranking of explanations
In post 62 you state:
Yes, I don't think it is possible to rank explanations on a scale of likelihood
Is this considered an absolute for you? or is there some wiggle room since from post 64, in response to DrJones' list of possible earth ages, you said:
Even those are not easily rankable, no.
....some blah-blah-blah about evo-creo...then
That's what happens with untestable explanatory guesses.
So, all explanations of past events are equally likely and there is now way to test them or is it that it is really difficult to test them?
I'm not sure I really need to ask that last question because you seem to support your nothing=from-the-past-is-knowable statement when you answered Modulus in post 66. See below:
Modulus writes:
Who shot Kennedy:
1. Ruby
2. Lee Harvey Oswald
3. The CIA
5. Me
6. A unicorn.
Faith in response writes:
Yes I suppose that's a similar situation since the truth apparently isn't definitively knowable.
You can't even eliminate the idea of a unicorn killing Kennedy?
So now you have changed from a Christian to Solipsist...well, maybe you can be both, and believe in unicorns too.
Just a fantasy example:
The Miami Dolphins are kicking the snot out of the Pittsburg Steelers (told you it was a fantasy!) when suddenly the 50,000 spectators see two men run onto the field and stab the Dolphins quarterback. The witnesses all state that the two men who are in custody were the ones who killed the quarterback and were captured by the rest of the team. Their lawyer puts forth this explaination.
"The real killer is a Dwarf with thick glasses who hypnotized the entire crowd and the home audience. Additionally, every time the video is played that same hypnotic effect causes us to see the events as the Dwarf wanted it. My clients were actually trying to capture the Dwarf because they weren't hypnotized. That is why they wound up in the custody of the team and the police."
The judge dismisses the case since that explaination is as likely as any other so we surely can't put innocent men in jail.
Do you have some reason why this would not be a consequence of operating the world under the premise that all explanations of past events are equally likely? I guess we don't need a justice system then because nothing in the past is knowable.
Please don't take offense but I have to ask this. Are you taking this stance because you don't like where it might lead if you agree that explanations for past events can be ranked through some form of testing?
BTW--Perhaps BuzzSaw and randman haven't seen this thread. I was hoping they could help flesh out the point of view of YEC's with respect to the testability of past events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 PM LinearAq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 84 (294653)
03-12-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by LinearAq
03-12-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Anything that involves witnesses can't be compared to the ancient past.
Yes, I've been consistent. I don't think explanations about the past are testable or provable.
I hope buzsaw and randman will come along and help you out. I really have nothing more to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 7:43 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ramoss, posted 03-12-2006 8:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 74 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 8:54 PM Faith has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 72 of 84 (294666)
03-12-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
03-12-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Yet, one of the items that get thrown up as 'evidence' of the New Testament is all the 'eye witnesses' to the cruxifiction and resurrection.
Why the double standard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:48 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 84 (294673)
03-12-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ramoss
03-12-2006 8:35 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Witnesses are GREAT evidence. But there are no witnesses to the events that geologists and evolutionists claim happened in the distant past, and that means it becomes nothing but a competition of explanatory systems in which there is no way to test it or prove any of it. Since witnesses ARE great evidence it didn't seem like a useful comparison with the problems we are discussing about ancient events.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 08:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ramoss, posted 03-12-2006 8:35 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:15 PM Faith has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 74 of 84 (294678)
03-12-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
03-12-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Faith writes:
Anything that involves witnesses can't be compared to the ancient past.
Why not? If there was a witness who said that she saw a unicorn shoot Kennedy would you believe her? Does her testamony now outweigh the forensic evidence that points to Oswald?
Yes, I've been consistent. I don't think explanations about the past are testable or provable.
Yes, you have. You have also been consistent in steadfastly refusing to provide any explanation as to what makes past events untestable. This is especially strange in light of the fact that you agreed with the example earlier that you could rank the likelyhood of particular events.
But I will take you at your word. You don't believe any past events are testable as to their likelyhood.
Because of your belief that events in the past cannot be testable, these are some of the things that you obviously can have no confidence in.
1. Who your mother is.
2. Who your father is.
3. Where you were born
4. Your birthdate
5. The outcome of WWII
6. If there were a WWII
7. The Flood
8. The sacrifice of Jesus
Just to name a few. In fact, you have given up knowing anything that you have not experienced yourself and can remember. If someone told you that they saw the President you could not believe it because the only thing you would know is that they told you they saw the President and you have no way of even verifying it. You would have to believe nothing or everything because all possibilities are equally likely.
I have a strange feeling that this is not how you live your life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:57 PM LinearAq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 84 (294683)
03-12-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by LinearAq
03-12-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
There are WITNESSES to the list of items you gave, Linear -- yes, to Jesus' sacrifice and also to the Flood -- although for purposes of discussion at EvC one is obligated to ignore the witness evidence for the Flood. But the point is that we have independent ways of checking the things on the list. You can't compare such things to the situation with the ancient past where there are no such independent means of checking any given interpretation. I don't know why this is so difficult to get across.
Really, it is a waste of time to keep bringing up examples from the present. To get this across better it would probably be best to stick to discussing the actual problems we deal with about the explanations for the ancient past.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 08:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 8:54 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 9:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 78 by LinearAq, posted 03-12-2006 9:37 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