Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 166 (353573)
10-02-2006 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
10-02-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Illogical premise
"Nebraska Man" wasn't fabricated -it was a mistake, not a fraud.
Of the "Usual suspects":
Haeckel's Embryos may have been a fraud - but if so it was to advance Haeckel's "biogenetic law", not evolution as such.
"Piltdown Man" may have been fabricated for the reason you suggest, but nobody really knows. Another popular idea is that it was fabricated to embarrass Dawson, but the hoaxer got cold feet and never sprung the trap.
"Archaeoraptor" was fabricated for financial gain.
And that's about it for the "big" frauds (I'm sure that there are some minor ones, but they'd be even less significant).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 10-02-2006 9:22 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 10-02-2006 10:14 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 48 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-02-2006 10:25 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 166 (353592)
10-02-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
10-02-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Illogical premise
"Nebraska Man" wasn't fabricated -it was a mistake, not a fraud.
True, but Percy is correct that one of the reasons Osborn and Smith, for instance, waxed a bit over-enthusiastic about the find was the desire to "discover" hominids in North America - like the ones that had been found in Europe. Another bit of international "competition" and prestige briefly getting in the way of science. Of course, even almost at the moment it was announced by Osborn, there were scientists calling it into question (notably MacCurdy, Gregory, et al).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2006 9:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 48 of 166 (353596)
10-02-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
10-02-2006 9:35 AM


Glass houses
You'd think fraud would be the last subject a creationist would want to bring up...

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2006 9:35 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 49 of 166 (353640)
10-02-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
10-01-2006 6:57 AM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
holmes writes:
I'm going to address an earlier post as well as this latest post of yours in this one reply.
faith writes:
we simply start with some facts we have in the Bible. They are no less facts for their being in the Bible. There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts,
First of all you do not start with "facts" in the sense of looking at raw data. You are looking at someone's written interpretation of events... perhaps raw data. They are not even highly descriptive.
That is correct, we are looking at known facts that are not raw data. They are facts nonetheless, the way facts in accurate histories are facts. Napoleon was a real human being who headed real wars in the name of a real national entity. Alexander the Great was a real human being who made tremendous conquests of a huge swath of territory in the name of Greece. That sort of fact.
OFF TOPIC BELOW THE PURPLE BOX- Please Do Not Respond to the remainder of this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Second, you yourself admitted that initial "readings" of scripture may not be correct and that a person must come to understand what is actually meant, rather than just any possible interpretation. This raises the question of how you can call any of the interpretations of events in scripture as "facts"? In every case YOU (the reader) could end up being wrong.
There is nothing that requires interpretation in the facts given concerning the Flood. Noah was 600 years old when the Flood was upon the earth. Nothing to interpret there, it’s a statement of fact. It rained for forty days and forty night. Straight factual statement, no interpretation required.
Third, none of scripture is a direct communication from witnesses of an event.
This is simply false. Three of the gospels are predominantly direct witness reports, and Luke witnessed most of the events of the Book of Acts, Paul certainly witnessed events he speaks of in his various letters. In the Old Testament, Moses witnessed the events of Exodus, Nehemiah and Ezra witnessed the events they record in their books, and so on and so forth.
Scribes who copied or translated the original observations may have also been just as errant as any reader. This is not to mention that the creation stories were from oral traditions, making error more likely/probable.
There is a whole science devoted to the analysis of ancient texts, and there are thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible in many languages for these scientists to compare with one another. Nobody can get away with a sweeping assumption about errors when differences between the manuscripts have been investigated and compared to a microscopic degree by experts.
I wouldn’t be too hasty about judging an oral tradition in a time when there was no written tradition and accuracy would have been a strong concern, and there would have been many to correct each other. Their methods of memorization and transmission aren’t knowable. The whole history of Abraham was also transmitted orally. Even quite recently we’ve had oral testimonies of the life of slaves in America, or of the Civil War by oldtimers who lived through it. I believe for the most part their memories are trusted too.
Isn't modern science, by studying the raw materials and attempting to come to conclusions based on processes working on those materials, a valid way to double check the written interpretation of events found in scripture? Hasn't this already been proven in the past regarding other mistakes in reading scripture?
Sure, physical science has its role to play. Depends on the circumstances you have in mind.
wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity.
There is no basis for your claim .
This is a tangent I’m not going to pursue here, but I’ve defended it elsewhere.
Nobody is still alive who ever talked to Napoleon personally, and you expect us to believe mere witnesses? The mere written word? Don't you know that witnesses are notoriously unreliable?
I get what you are saying, and it makes sense as a logical possibility. Essentially you seem to be saying that everyone has to rely on books for statements about the past and so gain knowledge about it. Okay that's true.
Thank you.
But there is a difference between historical books regarding figures like Napoleon and scientific theories about geological/biological processes, versus religious texts.
They each have their strengths and weaknesses. The physical sciences are far from infallible, though you’d never know it to hear some talk.
The first two cases are not treated as full truth, but caveated based on level of corroborating evidence. While it would seem odd to doubt Napoleon existed given the amount of corroborating evidence, people can and many do doubt events or statements ascribed to Napoleon... even things written about him at that time. Same goes for scientific theories. In my life many concepts of geologic and biological development have changed.
Yes, both have strengths and weaknesses.
Evolutionary theory itself has changed based on level of evidence for specific processes, though nothing so far has emerged to challenge (indeed much has come to support) its basic principles.
This I would argue, but again it is a tangent.
In contrast, scripture does not have much corroboration. I'm not going to get into the "did Jesus exist" thing, because I think there is some evidence which suggests such a person could have. What I would doubt is actions and statements ascribed to him. There is essentially no corroborating evidence for it.
This is ridiculous really. The reports in the Bible were written by many different authors, most of them witnesses, who corroborate each other’s reports in their own. There were others who did not write reports who could have if there was something to dispute in these.
This is even worse for Creationist theories. There is nothing but the written translation/interpretation of an oral tradition handed down by generations of people which relate to events no individual human could have been party to. Even if we say God told somebody, the question is when, and how did that person and everyone else manage to get it right as they passed it down.
If God told it, He certainly would have made sure it got passed down accurately. But the veracity of the stories of creation and the flood is buttressed by the many factual reference points: who begat whom and how long he lived, and what age Noah was when the flood was on the earth, and who begat whom after the flood and so on, facts which were probably rehearsed regularly in that ancient oral tradition. There is nothing general or vague about the telling. The exact dimensions of the ark are given. There is an unusual degree of specificity in this story as compared to other ancient stories. And the others may likely have some truth in them too, but it is drowned in vagueness and embellishments by comparison with the Genesis accounts.
Even the Flood suffers from this problem. There is no real corroboration outside the text on a global scale.
Actually, the amazing fact that there are so many ancient stories of a gigantic flood is unbelievably strong corroboration. The attempts to reduce them all to local floods, as if they all just happened to experience these memorable local floods about the same time that made this huge impact on their consciousness, apart from all the OTHER big floods they must also have experienced over the millennia, is really laughable.
And even if we assume the authors were telling the truth as they saw it, couldn't they have been errant, or translations errant? Maybe Noah only meant that the whole of HIS world flooded, meaning the region in which he lived. Maybe two of every animal meant only domesticated animals for food and service, and descendants expanded it using dramatic license.
It doesn’t read that way, holmes, its specificity and exactitude are really remarkable for an ancient text. Certainly it leaves a lot of questions, but the facts that are given can hardly be disputed. As for translations, it was written in Hebrew and handed down in Hebrew for 1500 years before it was translated into the Greek by Jewish scholars, and it continued in Hebrew to the present, and for a test of the accuracy of transmission, the degree of correspondence between our current Hebrew Old Testament and that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is nearly perfect, certainly perfect in meaning.
Hey, millions upon millions have believed in Jesus Christ
Unlike Napoleon, not at the time that he is claimed to have lived.
Well, there were thousands then, but it shouldn’t be hard to find other historical personages who were only known in their small circles, not known by millions, whose fame spread beyond their own circles only after their death, people we have no problem believing existed. Probably even Napoleon himself wasn’t known as widely during his life as he was later.
In any case, the actual INFLUENCE of Jesus Christ on millions since his time is astronomically far beyond that of any other historical figure.
And not nearly with the vast amounts of corroborating material Napoleon has to support that he interacted with the people of the time in the way that he is said to have done.
Oh, but plenty nevertheless.
PORTIONS OF THIS MSG ARE OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to the off topic portions or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2006 6:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 10-02-2006 5:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 51 by ReverendDG, posted 10-03-2006 4:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2006 6:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 166 (353700)
10-02-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
10-02-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
faith writes:
holmes writes:
faith writes:
we simply start with some facts we have in the Bible. They are no less facts for their being in the Bible. There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts,
First of all you do not start with "facts" in the sense of looking at raw data. You are looking at someone's written interpretation of events... perhaps raw data. They are not even highly descriptive.
That is correct, we are looking at known facts that are not raw data.
Unless you're analyzing penmanship or writing style or font types or spelling, written words are not facts. Written words may or may not be an accurate representation of reality. The written word encompasses many types of statements, from facts to fictions to lies. The only way to establish the accuracy of a written statement is by corroboration with other evidence. The more corroboration, the more likely the statement is accurate.
There is nothing that requires interpretation in the facts given concerning the Flood. Noah was 600 years old when the Flood was upon the earth. Nothing to interpret there, it’s a statement of fact.
It's a statement, but it's not a statement of fact because there is no corroborating evidence, and all available evidence contradicts it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 2:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 12:04 PM Percy has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 51 of 166 (353811)
10-03-2006 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
10-02-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
That is correct, we are looking at known facts that are not raw data. They are facts nonetheless, the way facts in accurate histories are facts. Napoleon was a real human being who headed real wars in the name of a real national entity. Alexander the Great was a real human being who made tremendous conquests of a huge swath of territory in the name of Greece. That sort of fact.
yes but we have evidence other than just the written word, we have artifacts and bones as well and buildings
OFF TOPIC BELOW THE PURPLE BOX - Please Do Not Respond to the remainder of this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
here is nothing that requires interpretation in the facts given concerning the Flood. Noah was 600 years old when the Flood was upon the earth. Nothing to interpret there, it’s a statement of fact. It rained for forty days and forty night. Straight factual statement, no interpretation required.
how is a fact? you have nothing showing this as true, its a myth to teach people about things. its not factual, how do you verify this?
This is ridiculous really. The reports in the Bible were written by many different authors, most of them witnesses, who corroborate each other’s reports in their own. There were others who did not write reports who could have if there was something to dispute in these.
this is not true, mark wasn't a witness, neither was luke or matthew,nether was john, the gospels haven't been shown to be written by the people who they claimed they were.
nore has moses been shown to have written any part of the torah, this is just a belief, the text doesn't even show this, it talks about his death even, but of course..it was written by someone else, apologetics are so much fun
If God told it, He certainly would have made sure it got passed down accurately. But the veracity of the stories of creation and the flood is buttressed by the many factual reference points: who begat whom and how long he lived, and what age Noah was when the flood was on the earth, and who begat whom after the flood and so on, facts which were probably rehearsed regularly in that ancient oral tradition. There is nothing general or vague about the telling. The exact dimensions of the ark are given. There is an unusual degree of specificity in this story as compared to other ancient stories. And the others may likely have some truth in them too, but it is drowned in vagueness and embellishments by comparison with the Genesis accounts.
yes and i could show you the linage of other religions that show the same thing. vaguemess? embellishments? genesis has a guy kill a thousand people with a jaw bone and you call other myths embellished?
you shouldn't throw stones in a glass house faith.
you just think yours is somehow special but i've read plenty of myths that are just as factual seeming. if you want i can find some, that is if you care about being truthful
Actually, the amazing fact that there are so many ancient stories of a gigantic flood is unbelievably strong corroboration. The attempts to reduce them all to local floods, as if they all just happened to experience these memorable local floods about the same time that made this huge impact on their consciousness, apart from all the OTHER big floods they must also have experienced over the millennia, is really laughable.
see this is the thing, the only myths that agree or relate to the genesis flood is ones in the area of israel, and the hebrews wrote about the same flood that happened locally
if you read any other flood myths, they are nothing like the hebrew one, unless missionaries effected them
Oden, Vili, and Ve fought and slew the great ice giant Ymir, and icy water from his wounds drowned most of the Rime Giants. The giant Bergelmir escaped, with his wife and children, on a boat made from a hollowed tree trunk. From them rose the race of frost ogres. Ymir's body became the world we live on. His blood became the oceans.
from T.O.
Flood Stories from Around the World
does that resemble the genesis flood? if you think so i'm going to start thinking you are insane
he ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.
how about this one?
the fact is people fear water since they can die in it, but people need water to survive, if you live near an area with a large flooding source of water, you will most likely make up a story about water or rain
In any case, the actual INFLUENCE of Jesus Christ on millions since his time is astronomically far beyond that of any other historical figure.
which is an argument from majority and meaningless, since just to tell you if it wasn't for the roman empire inforcing belief after constitine converted i doubt it would have taken hold, even with people going out to pagan areas
Well, there were thousands then, but it shouldn’t be hard to find other historical personages who were only known in their small circles, not known by millions, whose fame spread beyond their own circles only after their death, people we have no problem believing existed. Probably even Napoleon himself wasn’t known as widely during his life as he was later.
umm no napoleon would have been well known considering what he did, he freed france then fought a majority of european powers
"The Napoleonic Code was adopted throughout much of Europe and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat. Professor Dieter Langewiesche of the University of Tbingen describes the code as a "revolutionary project" which spurred the development of bourgeois society in Germany by expanding the right to own property and breaking the back of feudalism
so yes he had a huge influence during his lifetime, he didn't die before they changed how warfare was fought
sorry if this is OT, but i wanted to point-out that claiming this is silly when you have no evidence
PORTIONS OF THIS MSG ARE OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to the off topic portions of this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 166 (353823)
10-03-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
10-02-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
Others have already adequately replied but I'll give it a go as well.
1) Any writing is simply a personal interpretation of events. Given your own argument we cannot know anything is true simply because we see it written. There may have been errors, intentional or unintentional by the author, OR there may be errors in comprehension by the reader.
2) We check the veracity of claims by looking outside texts. Sometimes it involves looking at other texts, but more important is to look at other physical evidence which should be there if the claims are true.
3) The reality of historical figures such as Napoleon have vast amounts of corroborating evidence, both textual and physical. That said there are disputes regarding claims of what he did or said. This is something you did not deal with in your reply to me. UNLIKE THE BIBLE, disputes based on evidence are brought to bear on such figures as well as claims in science regarding entities and processes.
4) Most of the Bible is not written by direct eye witnesses. Particularly when we are discussing creation and the flood, which is usually where most scientific disputes occur. Those that involve direct observation are often by the participants themselves, with no outside corroborating testimony, which makes their testimony less than certain.
5) The entirety of the Old and New Testaments is a mix of oral traditions and later texts, brought together on more than one occassion to create unified textual traditions. And the copies we have today have gone through many generations of writers and translaters. This presents many opportunities for error. None of it intentional.
6) Your assertion that modern translations are close to previous texts is without any foundation. Indeed it is undercut by the fact that there are so many different translations and denominations with different interpretations of those translations. If the details were clear and uniform in meaning, then we'd have one book, or one meaning from that book.
7) Other statements in the Bible regarding "facts" were also clear. Eventually they were shown inconsistent with reality and so the "facts" were considered figurative or allegorical accounts. If that happened with other clear factual statements, why could the same not be true for creation and the flood?
On a side note, if you are going to make claims in your posts, don't dismiss my refutations of them as tangential and, worse still, go on to claim that you've defended your case elsewhere. We can all play that game, and it's not cool.
As a statement of historical fact, Xianity was neither the founder nor supporter of modern empirical science. No one in science owes Xianity any debt of gratitude. Indeed we are still fighting factional Xian elements on many issues regarding scientific progress. I know I have defended that position elsewhere, and knocked your rather questionable position elsewhere.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by holmes, : explaining the game
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 166 (353837)
10-03-2006 8:51 AM


Keeping the thread on-topic...
AdminPD thinks the last couple posts were drifting off-topic, and maybe they are, I"m not sure myself, but this from the OP seems central to the topic:
Straggler writes:
Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.
So I think that as long as the discussion focuses on how faith-based interpretations are subjective and unaligned with evidence, then it should be on-topic. I think simply declaring the words of the Bible to be fact is a good example of the faith-based approach, and that a critical examination of it should be on-topic. Just my opinion, I'm not operating here in admin mode.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AdminPD, posted 10-03-2006 9:41 AM Percy has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 54 of 166 (353845)
10-03-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
10-03-2006 8:51 AM


Re: Keeping the thread on-topic...
quote:
I think simply declaring the words of the Bible to be fact is a good example of the faith-based approach, and that a critical examination of it should be on-topic.
Yes, critical analysis of the approach would be on topic. But I feel that discussing whether the words of the Bible are or are not fact would not be on topic.
Just a reminder to all that this is a science forum. Debate accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 8:51 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2006 3:05 PM AdminPD has replied

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


Message 55 of 166 (353892)
10-03-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
10-02-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
There is nothing that requires interpretation in the facts given concerning the Flood. Noah was 600 years old when the Flood was upon the earth. Nothing to interpret there, it’s a statement of fact.
It's a statement, but it's not a statement of fact because there is no corroborating evidence, and all available evidence contradicts it.
What I'm saying, in the context of this discussion, is that the Bible is unusual in that it gives factual statements that place events in time and space, in relation to other real events such as genealogies which trace the origins of real historical people, as opposed to vague statements that tell a story but do not place it in an identifiable historical context.
Percy, the Bible does not have external corroboration of the sort you want. That's the way it is. The Bible stands on its own as a unique collection of testimonies about the past. I believe the physical world is replete with evidence of the worldwide flood and I argue for that as well, and I deny the supposed evidence against it, and there is quite a bit of other written material in support of a worldwide flood that is being discussed on another thread. That's the way it is, Percy. These are the creationist premises. If you simply insist on excluding them from the debate there is no debate.
Sure I don't have to argue it here or anywhere, Percy. You don't want the creationist view at this site. That's the way it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 10-02-2006 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kuresu, posted 10-03-2006 12:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 1:17 PM Faith has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 56 of 166 (353902)
10-03-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
10-03-2006 12:04 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
and I deny the supposed evidence against it
well, gee, that's the problem isn't. Apparently, you believe that only your beliefs are fact, and anything that might even hint at the contrary is denied.
belief in 2 + 2 = 5
evidence 2 + 2 + 4
no it doesn't, no it doesn't, no it doesn't, 2 and 2 really do make 5, you just can't see cause you're not using 1984 as your starting point.
and you wonder why no one takes you seriously (or rather, takes what you say to be true to actually be true, aside from those who already agreed with you).
You just proved the OP--faith based position are incapable of logically defending itself. you have to resort to willful ignorance or outright denial in defence of the argument.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 12:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 57 of 166 (353907)
10-03-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-30-2006 8:40 PM


Faith wrote:
quote:
There is a TON of evidence for the Flood, ... the physical evidence is so obvious it takes some kind of genius to ignore it. It's been covered a zillion times at EvC.
You've got to be kidding me. The fact that there is no evidence of such a worldwide flood became obvious to Christians over 150 years ago. Note that the geologists at the time were nearly all 100% bible-believing Christians who fully believed the flood, and in light of the evidence, had to conclude that the flood of Noah must not have left any evidence. Perhaps the most famous realization was that of Sedgewick, who some consider the greatest geologist of all time, who was a solid Christian who finally stopped denying the evidence that no such flood ever happened.
Since then, literally mountains of evidence have confirmed that Noah's flood never literally happened.
An extensive look at this time, when geologists realized that the flood didn't happen, is here:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002
From that:
quote:
By 1840, however, no respected geologist continued to propose that the flood was a major factor in the history of the earth.
Oh, and for the main topic - this quote from the very person who started the protestant reformation says a lot:
quote:
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding... know nothing but the word of God."- Martin Luther
Have a fun day-

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 8:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 2:04 PM Equinox has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 166 (353911)
10-03-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
10-03-2006 12:04 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
Faith writes:
What I'm saying, in the context of this discussion, is that the Bible is unusual in that it gives factual statements that place events in time and space, in relation to other real events such as genealogies which trace the origins of real historical people...
We can contrast your faith-based approach with a scientific approach based upon evidence and analysis. For example, is Job a real historical person? Is Jonah? If your answer is yes, then where is your corroborating evidence? There isn't any, as you concede:
Percy, the Bible does not have external corroboration of the sort you want.
I'm not the one who accepts the Bible stories as literally true, and so external corroboration isn't something *I* want. Rather, it is something *you* need in order to support your position that the evidence supports what you believe on faith.
I believe the physical world is replete with evidence of the worldwide flood and I argue for that as well, and I deny the supposed evidence against it...
Yes, of course you do, because it contradicts beliefs you hold on faith. That's the whole premise of this thread, that faith-based beliefs cause people to deny evidence. As the OP says, "Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position."
...there is quite a bit of other written material in support of a worldwide flood that is being discussed on another thread. That's the way it is, Percy. These are the creationist premises.
We're all aware that there is enormous amount of creationist material on the worldwide flood, and it highlights yet another aspect of faith-based belief. Not only does it compromise people's ability to assess and analyze evidence, it even colors their ability to assess the realities of religious views. They ignore the reality of the many differing religious beliefs and declare their own to be the one, right and true faith. They ignore the reality that their interpretation of the evidence is only accepted by believers like themselves and declare their position to be the one, right and true interpretation.
If you simply insist on excluding them from the debate there is no debate.
Sure I don't have to argue it here or anywhere, Percy. You don't want the creationist view at this site. That's the way it is.
The goal is excluding unconstructive discussion, not specific viewpoints. Your last two posts were constructive and on-topic, so keep up the good work.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 12:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 1:24 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 59 of 166 (353914)
10-03-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
10-03-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
Just so I know for sure, which last two posts were "constructive?" On this thread or some other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 1:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 166 (353916)
10-03-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
10-03-2006 1:24 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
This thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 1:24 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