Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 226 of 380 (712884)
12-07-2013 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
12-07-2013 2:19 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead.
No, that would be evidence. Science relies on evidence to determine if there was a worldwide flood at the appointed time, ca. 4350 years ago. So far, the evidence shows there was no such flood at that date, or any other date within historic times.
It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same.
No, the idea that conditions in the distant past can be extrapolated from the evidence is based on the evidence. However, if one believes a priori in dogma and scripture and other old myths, then one can be so blinded by that belief that the evidence is ignored, denied, misinterpreted, or otherwise hand-waved away.
Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.
In spite of what creationists believe, there is no evidence for drastic changes ca. 6000 years ago (the mythical fall), nor about 4,350 years ago (the mythical flood). And no, science relies on evidence from the past, not some overriding dogma. Dogma is your field. Unfortunately for believers in your particular dogma, the evidence disproves the beliefs in a fall with drastically changing conditions about 6000 years ago and a global flood about 4350 years ago.
So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.
That's because the evidence shows billions of years, not a couple of thousand years followed by a catastrophic flood event during historic times. Believers can't see that because they are so blinded by belief that they have to ignore evidence the contradicts that belief.
With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.
Did you not see the evidence that RAZD presented in the Great Debate thread? Are you really going to try to hand-wave away all of those posts loaded with evidence with this simple sentence lacking any kind of evidence? And if you are going to try and pretend that he didn't present all of that evidence, why do you imagine that we will pretend that we never saw it? Mindspawn has been sent reeling by the evidence, and you're not going to just dismiss it all with a simple wave of the hand. That's both dishonest and typical of creation "science."
Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.
You keep claiming that we can't look into the past with any reliability, but you have yet to present any evidence of that claim.
I've spent over 40 years doing archaeology, and I'm an expert at looking into the seni-recent past. I know what we can reliably determine, and what we can't yet determine within my particular discipline. There are tens of thousands of other scientists whose expertise lets them look at various aspects of the past. They too can tell a lot about what has happened in the past, ranging from fairly recent human history to determination of physical constants and details of the formation of our solar system and beyond--going back billions of years.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that things such as decay constants changed wildly in the past.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a "fall" some 6000 years ago that changed Earth's history and conditions drastically.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a global flood some 4,350 years ago.
You are letting your belief substitute for evidence, and your belief is so fixed that it requires you to ignore or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary. In any group of scientists, dismissing all of the massive amounts of verified evidence that disproves your claims is not going to impress anyone. Better you should stick to your own "kind."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:22 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 227 of 380 (712885)
12-07-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Coyote
12-07-2013 10:17 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
As I keep arguing, your "evidence" concerning the ancient past, the unwitnessed past, is interpreted through sheer imaginative speculations from the standpoint of the present, which is a very iffy and fallible perspective that no true science would ever countenance because there is no way to test it. And I can keep saying this if necessary. I get my evidence from witness testimony, not a lack of evidence, but very good evidence indeed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2013 10:17 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2013 10:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2013 11:06 PM Faith has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 380 (712886)
12-07-2013 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:22 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
As I keep arguing, your "evidence" concerning the ancient past, the unwitnessed past, is interpreted through sheer imaginative speculations from the standpoint of the present, which is a very iffy and fallible perspective that no true science would ever countenance because there is no way to test it. And I can keep saying this if necessary. I get my evidence from witness testimony, not a lack of evidence, but very good evidence indeed.
That's pure BS.
Where I grew up we put that stuff out in the fields to grow crops.
If you have any evidence, let's have it. Otherwise, no hand-waving is going to be of any use.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:53 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 229 of 380 (712887)
12-07-2013 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Coyote
12-07-2013 10:46 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
We've been here a bazillion times before and I'm already arguing other topics on this thread.
Witness evidence of the Flood IS evidence, a lot better evidence than pure speculation which is all you have though you delude yourself that your interpretations are facts.
The strata are also evidence of the Flood since nothing else but waves and currents of water could have laid them down all over the earth in such flat horizontality, or produced the strangely familial groupings of the fossils therein, including some catastrophically tossed and tumbled dinosaur burial sites, and so on.
No point in repeating all that, there are half a dozen or more threads that have already covered it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2013 10:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2013 11:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 234 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-07-2013 11:54 PM Faith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 230 of 380 (712888)
12-07-2013 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:22 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith, I still do fear for you.
You seem so swept up by your conversion away from evidenced science that some day, when your fairytale world comes crashing down on your head, you may have a problem beyond just dealing with accepting each new day. You have made your choice and now you must totally reject every objective piece of evidence that would reveal that you just may have made a bad choice. You must expunge it and shout it screaming out of your head, like a puff of smoke in the distance.
Sorry for intruding. I hope for the best in your continued participation here. You do show a certain resilience despite all the evidence against you
And thank you for your posts on the RCC atrocities, as I wasn't familiar with some of the details.
One thing - I bet scienceishonesty didn't expect this thread to get this far.....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by dwise1, posted 12-07-2013 11:48 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:14 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 231 of 380 (712890)
12-07-2013 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
12-07-2013 2:08 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
The Bible is about God acting in history before witnesses who tell us what they saw and why they believed in the God who did what they saw. There is nothing like that in the other religions
I think I misinterpreted this statement. I took "before witnesses" to mean "before there were witnesses" whereas I think now that you meant "in front of witnesses". In any case you are begging the question with the premise that eyewitness accounts as recorded in the Bible are proof of the authenticity of its contents. Using the Bible as an authority to prove that the Bible is true may be sufficient to convince you, but it is fundamentally no different from any other holy text that claims its contents are the true word of God. You have your silly myth about how man was made of mud and woman from his rib, Norse mythology tells of how Odin created the first man and woman out of a pair of trees. You're trying to say that your myth is more credible because the source of that myth also purports to contain eyewitness accounts of other magical feats. Are you saying that if Norse mythology also purported to have eyewitness accounts of supernatural doings it would be on equal footing with Christian mythology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2013 12:08 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:27 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 232 of 380 (712891)
12-07-2013 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:53 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Witness evidence of the Flood IS evidence, a lot better evidence than pure speculation which is all you have though you delude yourself that your interpretations are facts.
Witness evidence? Do you not know how unreliable witnesses really are? And you're going back several thousand years, to what amounts to tribal myths, with no opportunity (as you would have in a court of law) for cross-examination. Witnesses are far less reliable in those circumstances than evidence from the real world--evidence that can be cross-checked by scientists around the world and verified to be accurate.
And you think you can really place that kind of "witness evidence" against evidence from the real world? About 200 years ago believers who were trying to prove the flood convinced themselves that the flood never happened, and they did so based on real world evidence. And for the past 200 years, that evidence showing the flood never happened has only become stronger and overwhelming stronger! To everyone but the true believers.
Even my own archaeological research disproves the global flood at ca. 4350 years ago. And if I can do this, so can tens of thousands of other archaeologists and other -ologists all over the world.
You are just deluding yourself--if you're even doing that.
The strata are also evidence of the Flood since nothing else but waves and currents of water could have laid them down all over the earth in such flat horizontality, or produced the strangely familial groupings of the fossils therein, including some catastrophically tossed and tumbled dinosaur burial sites, and so on.
When we are dealing with the time period of about 4350 years ago we are dealing with soils, not geological strata, and with cultural and faunal materials, not fossils.
These are the time periods archaeologists deal with every day. Geological strata are much older and you don't see those in recent times, no matter what creationists think. So forget fossils and geological strata and get real.
And dinosaurs? You're off by some 65 million years. Nice try, but no cigar. If you believe dinosaurs and humans overlapped in time you are delusional. Let's just forget that silly notion.
That you are unaware of this, or unwilling to accept the massive evidence, shows that you are trying to delude yourself. You certainly are not fooling any of us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:36 AM Coyote has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 233 of 380 (712893)
12-07-2013 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by xongsmith
12-07-2013 11:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
One thing - I bet scienceishonesty didn't expect this thread to get this far.....
If anything, I would think that he's pleasantly surprised that Faith has jumped in and provided a living example of the mental pathologies that can be caused by religion in general and "creation science" in particular. Kind of like when Faith jumped right into that thread several months back about whether it's worth it to try to reason with a crazy person.
I wonder if we could add a third category to the Cheers/Jeers, something like a rolling-the-eyes emoticon. ( but a serious one, not the cutesy one in the table )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2013 11:06 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 234 of 380 (712894)
12-07-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:53 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
The strata are also evidence of the Flood since nothing else but waves and currents of water could have laid them down all over the earth in such flat horizontality, or produced the strangely familial groupings of the fossils therein
Nope. If the rock record is the product of the flood, explain the existence of unequivocal desert deposits. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the assertion that the rock record was produce by the Flood with the existence of desert strata unless you're prepared to get completely extra-biblical. That would of course be hypocrisy as you believe the Bible to be the only reliable record with which to explain geology. I sense you're trying to avoid having to support your assertions about the Flood now that you've blurted them out without a shred of substantiation. Nice integrity there.
And what do you mean when you say that only water could cause "strangely familial groupings of fossils"? It sounds very much like nonsense.
I see others have dealt with your mischaracterization of uniformitarianism. You can try to redefine the principle but that is dishonest. But I suppose you must realize that it is easier to make uniformitarianism mean something different than to explain why all available observations of physical law in action are unreliable for inferring its action in the past. I see you have already been referred to RAZD's thoroughly researched and supported posts on the reliability of dendrochronology. Ignore them if you want, but your lack of intellectual integrity will not alter the reality that all our observations point to the conclusion that tree rings formed annually in the past as they do now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:59 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 235 of 380 (712895)
12-08-2013 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Atheos canadensis
12-07-2013 11:26 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
Are you saying that if Norse mythology also purported to have eyewitness accounts of supernatural doings it would be on equal footing with Christian mythology?
What about the Battle at Helm's Deep? Or the defense of Minas Tirith? Or the battle before the very Gates of Mordor? There were quite literally armies of eyewitnesses to those events, so surely them must also be true!
And what about Edgar Rice Burroughs' eyewitness account of seeing his uncle, John Carter, back off to Mars (AKA "Barsoom")? Or his receiving a middle-of-the-night communique from Napier on Venus via his typewriter that started working itself? As Burroughs personally attested to, he submitted the resultant manuscript directly to his publisher exactly as he had received it; any changes made to it since then would be done by the editor "who would even change the Word of God."
More along the lines of the witnesses in the Bible, at one Navy school I met a Master Chief reservist whose civilian job was as a court bailiff. He told us something that he had personally witnessed. To put it overly delicately, in a sexual assault case an expert witness presented information about a bodily fluid that had a bearing on the case. When he asked the jury if they had any questions, one female juror asked a irrelevant question regarding her own experience with such fluid. No idea what the answer to her question was, because Master Chief had to quickly duck out the door to keep from laughing out loud.
Now, you had better believe that there is no better and reliable eyewitness than a Master Chief Petty Officer and you know that he would not have led us astray about anything. But the same story reappeared elsewhere a few more times. It's even on snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/college/risque/salty.asp), for those who what to find out what I trying to be so euphemistic about. So why did Master Chief tell the story as if he had witnessed it himself? To make the story better! Sound familiar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-07-2013 11:26 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

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


(1)
Message 236 of 380 (712896)
12-08-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by xongsmith
12-07-2013 11:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Thank you for your concern but this has just become tedious for me rather than any kind of threat. I'd like to take a break and give the thread back to SIH but it wouldn't be right to abandon the arguments.
But I can say it again, the evidence you have is really just interpretation that feeds on other interpretations from a present-tense perspective. Your view of the past can only remain a mental construct since the past as such, unless there are witnesses, is not testable, not verifiable, etc etc. Sigh. It's SO obvious. Doesn't matter how fancy your theories get, how many actual facts you can cram into them, they remain theories, i.e., purely mental constructs, without testability. Science requires testability, replicability, and the past isn't replicable so you need witnesses, which you don't have if you're talking about prehistory. Sigh.
I'm truly glad if my posts on the RCC have been informative.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2013 11:06 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2013 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 237 of 380 (712897)
12-08-2013 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Atheos canadensis
12-07-2013 11:26 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
Yes, I meant "in front of witnesses," I'm glad that got cleared up. A miscommunication like that can skew a discussion for days.
Yes I know you think of the Bible, as so many do, as if it were just one person talking to himself rather than a collection of testimonies by independent witnesses over fifteen centuries. "Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true" etc etc etc. Funny how people will accept Mohammed's single-person report of the supposed revelations of the "angel Gabriel" plus weirdly distorted passages of the Old Testament, but will talk about the Bible with its multiple writers over 1500 years as if it were on the same level and yet somehow inferior.
It's a history, it is a history that covers all those 1500 years and more, back to the Creation.
As a history it reports on events that took place that were witnessed by many besides the writers of the texts. NORMALLY such a collection of eyewitness reports would be recognized as EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION, even good enough for the exceptional claims it aims to document, that is, the amazing miracles used to prove the existence and character of God. And that is in fact what we believers find it in, extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.
But some kind of bias blinds people so that they cannot see this basic characteristic of the Bible and you blur it all into one book as if it was on a par with Norse mythology, the Book of Mormon and the vaporings of Mohammed. There is no fair comparison here at all. You aren't thinking. I'm sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-07-2013 11:26 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 12:52 AM Faith has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 238 of 380 (712898)
12-08-2013 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:14 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Your view of the past can only remain a mental construct since the past as such, unless there are witnesses, is not testable, not verifiable, etc etc. Sigh. It's SO obvious. Doesn't matter how fancy your theories get, how many actual facts you can cram into them, they remain theories, i.e., purely mental constructs, without testability. Science requires testability, replicability, and the past isn't replicable so you need witnesses, which you don't have if you're talking about prehistory.
You have a very mistaken idea of what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean wild ass guess, or assumption, or any of the other things creationists think.
To be a theory in science an idea which explains a given set of facts must explain all those of facts and survive testing. And it must also provide predictions which are verified. So your idea of what a "theory" consists of is completely wrong. There is no higher degree of explanation in science than a theory. But this is a standard creationist mistake, all in an effort to denigrate science and the scientific method.
Your instance on witnesses is ridiculous. Probably a result of your belief in creation "science."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:14 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 239 of 380 (712899)
12-08-2013 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Coyote
12-07-2013 11:28 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
The Bible reports that God requires two or three witnesses BECAUSE witnesses are unreliable, and the Bible itself provides hundreds, thousands of witnesses to the events that prove the existence of God for that reason.
One witness certainly wouldn't do it for your scientific theories about the past, you need lots of witnesses. But witnesses who live in the present and have only human speculation and imagination to go by in interpreting the evidence that comes to hand about the ancient past, is a true case of the unreliability of witnesses. Your dating methods are the same thing, as I've already said. These are witnesses who have witnessed nothing whatever, but just let their imaginations reconstruct the unknowable past, even calling their theory "fact," and you call that science and have no feeling for how absurd that is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2013 11:28 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2013 1:02 AM Faith has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 240 of 380 (712900)
12-08-2013 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:27 AM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
Yes I know you think of the Bible, as so many do, as if it were just one person talking to himself rather than a collection of testimonies by independent witnesses over fifteen centuries. "Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true" etc etc etc. Funny how people will accept Mohammed's single-person report of the supposed revelations of the "angel Gabriel" plus weirdly distorted passages of the Old Testament, but will talk about the Bible with its multiple writers over 1500 years as if it were on the same level and yet somehow inferior.
I'm not trying to say Islam is the one true religion, I'm saying that your myth and the Islamic myth are on equal (shaky) footing. And saying that the Bible has many authors doesn't resolve the circularity of using the bible to support the truth of the bible. I don't really see the point of debating this with you if your position boils down to "the Bible is true because it says so". But I'm still interested in seeing how you reconcile the existence of desert-deposited strata with the story that the Flood produced the rock record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 1:05 AM Atheos canadensis 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