|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Searching for Ancient Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
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: 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? 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. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I don't think it is possible to rank explanations on a scale of likelihood
So you think thata: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Who shot Kennedy:
1. Ruby2. Lee Harvey Oswald 3. The CIA 5. Me 6. A unicorn. I'd probably rank them 2,3,1,6,5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I would say that all five scenarios are equally likely. Mod is a young looking 50+
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
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...thenThat'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:
You can't even eliminate the idea of a unicorn killing Kennedy? Yes I suppose that's a similar situation since the truth apparently isn't definitively knowable.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Faith writes: 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?
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024