|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth. What makes you think that the claim that there is a "well organized effort to alter the truth" isn't, in fact, itself an effort to alter the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Common sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The same "common sense" that causes you to believe crazy conspiracy theories ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
One and the same. I used to brush off conspiracy theories, but the evidence for some recently is awfully good.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
This Flood was huge. It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, the whole globe. A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, so multiply that effect appropriately. There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time. Indeed, this Flood is so incomparable to even large-scale "conventional" flooding that it seems to have magic properties. Apparently this magic Flood was capable of not only depositing the entire geological column in one go, not only turning sediment into rock at an impossible pace, it also managed to perfectly preserve nests of eggs without breaking or separating them, sorted the "Sediments" universally such that we never see human fossils below a certain level, preserved footprints in appropriate sediments again never displacing human footprints into levels associated with dinosaurs, and managed to separate completely layers of sand from layers of volcanic rock from layers of limestone containing oceanic fossils. It's almost as if you feel you can explain absolutely any configuration of the geological column with "the FLood did it." Even in the hypothetical, there is no scenario, no geological evidence that we could ever find to make you say anything other than "the Flood did it." Neither can you provide any mechanism by which the Flood would do these things - you just say it's a "special Flood." "Special," because it exists only within the human imagination. Like other magic. When you can equally predict any outcome, you have zero knowledge. An actual hypothesis explains a particular set of phenomenon...and cannot explain other sets. For example, the current theory that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the East - West traversal of the Sun through the sky is the result of the rotation of the Earth cannot explain an observation of the Sun rising in the West, or of the Earth ceasing its rotation for a time before resuming. Those are hypothetical observations of course, but if they were to occur, our current model of the solar system would need some revisions. Your "Flood" model, however, is just nonsense. You're using the word "Flood" as if it actually offers an explanation, but it does not; you've attributed to that word unknown mechanisms and seemingly magic powers that make absolutely no sense. How does a flood of any kind, moving the amount of material you're claiming it to have moved, manage to perfectly preserve egg nests without even separating or breaking them, and then turn the surrounding sediment into rock?The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I need to get back to studying the history of the Inquisition, but one thing I've been gathering is that you cannot trust any statistics or descriptions of it written since about 1920 because of a well organized effort to alter the truth. Internet sources are not going to be reliable at all. You have to dig for this information. I am trying to get hold of some old books, which I keep hearing quoted, but my finances aren't the greatest. This went on OFFICIALLY for 600 years, and unofficially a lot longer than that. At the number I gave that would be about 110,000 deaths a year. Why are you so willing, indeed eager, to believe things that are just demonstrably untrue? My training is as a scientist, and I hate being wrong! I go to great lengths in my professional writings to avoid making errors. What is your training or background that you embrace so many things are are demonstrably wrong, and are so reluctant to admit having made errors?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'd already heard everything you said, Coyote, it isn't new to me, it's you who need to find out more about these things. And I haven't claimed I don't make errors, I've only given generalizations that I'm sure are true in the main and I know you are wrong. I'm sorry I can't just produce the evidence for you, I do have some but the rest isn't all that available, and it's an overwhelming task to try to come up with all the proof that would be needed not just on this subject but the dozen others this thread has already covered. I'm not writing papers for a journal, here.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Funny how you haven't produced any evidence then. And pardon me if I suspect that your evaluation of the evidence has more to do with your prejudices than the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
faith writes: I'm sorry to hear that. You have no idea how good the King James translators were. Well, Forever, you've made your choice.By the way, maybe you should spend some time at the Biblical Geology site I linked upthread a ways. It really isn't necessary to give in to the unbelievers. Here is a portion of an article from a christian blogger. After reading it, you will realize that your interpretation of "whole world" in genesis is not the only possible interpretation and may in reality be the least likely interpretation. Why must you condemn sincere christians of not believing their bible when they have a different interpretation than you do? The following article is from the blog "Austin's Blog~ Washed and Waiting for the Resurrection. Blogging until that Day." It is written by Austin D who is a graduate of southeastern bible college.
austin.d writes: The account is from the viewpoint of the narrator, and from his perspective, it is total. All doesn’t always mean all (Gen. 41:57; Deut. 2:25; 1 Kings 18:10). The writer would then be seen as speaking phenomenologically (as he sees it from his own personal perspective). Furthermore, certain words do not have to be translated as they are within the passage. The word for earth (eretz) can mean and does mean just the land (ha eretz) in other parts of Genesis. The same word is used when Genesis 41:57 says all the land came to Egypt. The translation of this word as earth or world biases the reader to understand this as the globe or planet, but this meaning is not in the original text. Did everyone on the entire globe go to Egypt? The Hebrew phrase whole (kol) earth (eretz) does not mean the whole earth in other passages within the Hebrew bible (Gen. 13:9; Exo. 34:10; Lev. 25:9, 25:24; Jud. 6:37; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 18:8; 1 Kings 10:24, ect.) . Two examples would be Gen. 2:11 and 2:13. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Gen. 2:11) And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Cush. (Gen. 2:13) Obviously, the description of kol erezs is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erezs is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet. Furthermore, possible other translations of the phrases within the text exist (e.g. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep could be as the NIV says rose more than 20 feet, and the mountains/hills were covered). Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
hI Faith,
This Flood was huge. ... Which says nothing about the turbulence of the floodwater. Some floods are gentle.
... It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, ... It rained, yes, but rain doesn't always cause mudslides. Do you have a source for your use of the term "torrents"? -- there is a lot of variation in how much water rains down in any given storm. If you cannot provide a biblical reference for the use of "torrents" then you apparently are making up something that is not (strictly speaking) in the bible.
... A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, ... Can, but does not always -- it depends on the slope, saturation, and type of soil in each specific instance. We can look at the record of mudslides versus the record of rainfall, in which case I would suggest that mudslides are a rare, rather than a common, result of rain. In addition, mudslides that have been observed do not cover whole plains of land but peter out soon after the slope gets too flat. Again can you provide documentation that any mudslides occurred, or are you including pure supposition\imagination rather than anything specifically included in the bible?
... so multiply that effect appropriately. ... And what is appropriate? 0? How many mudslides are listed in the bible?
... There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" ... Which could be a gentle welling up of the oceans until the land was covered, a process that would cause little disturbance to any then existing land masses. This also reduces the theoretical amount of rainwater needed to cover the land. Again, I am unaware of any documented damage from such a source in the bible -- can you provide some?
... and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. ... Curiously, standing water is not known for causing any significant erosion or mudslides.
... This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time. Why? Why should we assume that there was any significant erosion when there is -- apparently -- no documentation of any erosion occurring? Can you provide a biblical reference to erosion occurring at all? Would you not agree that a literalist interpretation of the bible is limited to what is specifically mentioned in the bible? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: I'd already heard everything you said, Coyote, it isn't new to me, it's you who need to find out more about these things. And I haven't claimed I don't make errors, I've only given generalizations that I'm sure are true in the main and I know you are wrong. I'm sorry I can't just produce the evidence for you, I do have some but the rest isn't all that available, and it's an overwhelming task to try to come up with all the proof that would be needed not just on this subject but the dozen others this thread has already covered. I'm not writing papers for a journal, here. The thing here Faith, is that when people first started looking for evidence of this flood they were doing it to prove the bible right. The gentlemen geologists were pretty much all believing Christians but the more they searched the more problems they found. A couple of hundred years worth of objective science later and we have a vast quantity of properly published and peer reviewed science with the effect that ALL geolologists are certain that there was no world wide flood 4,300 years ago. Simultaneously they have found evidence of a local flood in the area that you'd expect it at about the time you'd expect it. The reason you can't answer the questions you are being asked here by reference to published science is because there is none that supports you. It really is as simple as that isn't it? If there was evidence you'd be showing it. So the only reasonable conclusion is that the story in the book is a story of a local flood, not a glbal one. Pretty much the entire religious community as well as the entire science community agree that the flood didn't happen the way you believe it to have, which makes you wrong I'm afraid. It's perfectly possible to maintain your belief without believing in the utterly stupid - why not give it a try?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's possible to nitpick about words to prove just about anything you want. I do doubt that it is true Christians who get engaged in that sort of thing.
The skills of the English Bible translators, of the KJV and the versions that preceded it, were excellent. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and others. Why do you think you can do better? If the Flood was merely local God would not have had Noah spend a hundred years building the ark, He would have had him and his family move to a place where they'd be out of the way of the Flood. The idea contradicts other things about the Flood:
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Looks like God had in mind destroying ALL men, ALL flesh. Would that have happened in a limited flood?
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. Don't fool around with alternative translations of words for the sake of believing what unbelievers tell you or arguments you think you understand through your own fallible mind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes the early geologists were "Christian" creationists, but their notions in those days were absurdly unbiblical so how Christian were they really? I've written about this at my blog. I think God allowed Hutton and Darwin to overthrow the idiotic unbiblical creationist ideas as judgment on the Church. Too bad, creationists today come up with just as unbiblical stuff.
Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it, and ultimately we'll see that to be the case. Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go. Uh, the Bible contradicts the Bible...
Yes the early geologists were "Christian" creationists, but their notions in those days were absurdly unbiblical so how Christian were they really? Well, considering that Christians are supposed to follow Christ we can see that you don't really have to follow 100% everything in the Bible.
Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it, You should change your description to a "Biblian", or something, to reflect the fact that you follow a book over Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Christ wrote the Book. To follow it is to follow Him.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024