I tried to explain to you before how you misunderstand what evidence is and how to use it, but it didn't sink in. I don't care about any of the stuff you're calling the reasons that people are against you. You're just plain ol' wrong about what consititutes evidence and how it is supposed to be used. I'm just gonna repost what I said before, let me know what you're not getting:
how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.
You're doing it wrong, Buz.
Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.
You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.
Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event.Message 279
quote:Reading the Exodus, interpreting the story, guessing at the location, and then finding a wheel...
The wheel is not supportive evidence that the Exodus happened. Its a post-hoc rationalization of something neat that you found.
If you're not eliminating other possibilities for the wheel then you're not supporting anything.
This, corroborated by so much other evidence descriptive of the flood account is significant supportive scientific evidence of the Exodus event as described in the Biblical record.
No, this is where you're wrong. Its a common misunderstanding. You're assuming causation from the correlation. You have not eliminated any other possibilities. It is a post hoc rationalization of something neat that you've found.
It is not scientific.
For example: I thought I could control the weather with my dancing. I did a rain dance yesterday, and today it rained.
According to you, that would be supportive evidence of the legitimacy of my Rain Dance.
It is not.
I have not ruled out other possibilities as the cause of the rain.
Do you think that rain dancer would have corrobotive evidence that his Rain Dance works if it rains after he does the dance?
no, i don't think this is a particularly great way to run a debate board.
imagine, for a second, we had a thread that questioned, "creationists, why do you believe in a religion that tells you to eat puppies?" and then moderated all posts by creationists who argued that this is not what their religion says, because they were countering the conditional set in the OP? yeah, it'd be pretty silly.
exposing a flawed assumption is always a valid counterargument.
No, I feel you, but this was set-up as a special case. And a better analogy would be:
"Creationists, if your religion tells you to eat puppies, then is ketchup better than mustard?"
Or whatever, so long as its a conditional If-then. If you don't think your religions tells you to eat puppies, then the question doesn't apply to you.
In general you're right, but the mods specifically set this one so that it wouldn't get bogged down into that discusion.
so the question was aimed at people who think the bible does not contain the 100% inerrant truth. paulk qualifies. the question was what value it would have. paulk answered, from his position. it looks quite relevant to me.
Like I said, he was countering the condition of the If-Then. And I think that's exactly what was intended to be avoided. You know, for the sake of discussion.
How is it that Admin (you know the impartial referee guy, who also devises strategies to convince all the fence sitters lurking here) has allowed the the Origin of Novelty discussion (in which evolutionists seem incapable of describing any coherent theory from the onset) to spiral completely off topic for page after page after page?
Maybe he was busy doing something in real life rather than sitting around monitoring his forum all day?
Right, its no surprise that she get's the responses that she does when she behaves the way she does.
It doesn't surprise me that Faith sometimes gets cranky.
I'm not talking about her behaving crankily.
I'm talking about her drawing a lot of time and effort from others, who offer her detailed explanations of complicated scientific principles, only for her to turn it back around on them as some sort of support for her pre-conceived religious beliefs.
She's using people. People don't like being used. I understand why they get tired of her shit.
Imagine yourself (as in any of the evo side) being in a debate in a creationist dominated forum, and you are the one against the many. Even if "the many" go about it nicely (and here, the evo side sometimes does come up short on that), there is a substantial pressure on you, and you'd be liable to get cranky.
Been there, done that. Against both creationists and evolutionists. Hell, look at the gun control thread. I can't ask a question without being accused of denial. And the best is arguing with Catholics on their forums only to have them end the argument with: "You can't be a Catholic, then."
Sure, its annoying. But we're on the internet. If you can't maintain a level head, then you need to get offline.
One side of the argument being cranky doesn't justify the other side getting cranky. I don't care who started it, you should be nice to your opponent. If you can't be such, maybe you shouldn't be posting that reply.
Its not her crankiness that draws crankiness, its the horrible way she treats people, i.e. using them for her own purposes.
So no, people aren't "picking" on her. She's being a bitch and getting the responses we should expect.
On a side note, one thing I could try doing, is a hard core enforcement of the forum rules.