General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

quote:

---

Yes, there are times when Biblical authority is applied such as the Exodus account, but when I brought forth the work of Swedish scientist Moller, marine biologist citing his marine photography, exploration, and archeological data as evidence, it was put forth as additional corroborative evidence to support the historical aspects of the Biblical record. Don't forget, one of the properties of the Biblical record is history, whether you admit it or not. history has little to do with emotion and much to do with interpretation of archeological observations etc.

---

Thanks for proving the falsity of your allegations.For the record, Moeller is not an archaeologist or a historian.Moeller IS a believer in the discredited fraud Ron Wyatt.Moeller produced NO significant archareological evidence.The threads about the views of Moeller and Wyatt DID produce misrepresentations of the archaeological and historical evidence - from the creationist side.These are the facts.If you've got good exampes of arguing with the facts and evidence why not produce them ? Let's face it - the only reason for believing Moeller is an emotional attachment to the idea that he and Wyatt "proved" the Exodus. It's certainly nothing to do with the evidence which only shows incompetence and fraud.

quote:

---

Paulk, this thread is not the place to extend old debates. Imo, it leads off topic. Nobody has soundly debunked anything on that issue.

---

By which you mean that nobody should expose the falsity of your assertions.In fact several things were debunked;Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history, apparently repeated by Moeller. Evidence oof misues of archaeological and historical data was shown.Evidence that Wyatt is a fraud has been produced.It has been shown that Wyatt has a history of making sensationalist claims without sound evidence.Wyatt's use of dowsing has been exposed. And the assertiosn of the Wyatt camp to the contrary were debunked.Wyatt's "land bridge" claims were debunked.But no significant evidence - nothing that would convince a reasonable person - was produced to support Wyatt's Exodus views.Now obviously you don't like these facts. You want to present Moeller's claims as a sterling example of creationists producing substantive arguments. But that wasn't the case. It's not a matter of differing interprretations. It is a matter of creationists distorting, misrepresenting and it appears even fabricating evidence.

quote:

---

My point for the purpose of this discussion was to show that the primary methodology of that debate of creationists was not emotion and Biblical authority but archeological discovery and exploration.

---

And MY point is that you are wrong. It's an example of reliance on Biblical authority and emotion.

Maybe it's because they don't see anything wrong with IamJoseph's evasions or CTDs constant stream of slander.Iano's reaction when Jar dared say that Hovind should actually suffer the penalty of law for his crimes suggests that he, at least, doesn't care about justice. It's all about who's on "his side". Maybe the others feel in much the same way. People on "their side" should be allowed to do whatever they want - the rules should not be applied to them. Buzsaw's insistence that criticism of creationists should not be allowed may be an example of that sort of thinking.Or maybe not. But it still seems that some sort of explanation is in order.

Hovind's got away with a lot for a long time. He's got a record of fancying himself above the law, and there was a rather unpleasant assault case he was involved in, too. I'm glad that he has finally paid the penalty for something. It needed to be done.And what you actually said was: and more in the same vein. Quite frankly I have to say that my judgement stands. Especially coming from someone who believes in a literal Hell. Even if the court gave Hovind the maximum sentence - which he would never serve anyway - it would be nothing compared to Hell.And quite frankly if Dawkins is the closest you can find on the evolutionist side to Hovind then evolution is in great shape. Because there really is no comparison.

This point is off-topic so I will simply comment that your response completely ignores my case.

quote:

---

My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record.

---

Or to sum up you don't have logic or reason on your side. You don't have evidence. All you have is a faith in Biblical authority and your own emotional reactions. Yes, this would make it impossible for your side to usefully participate in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.Accordingly it seems that your whole post amounts to an admission of defeat. And a vindication of Jar.

quote:

---

1. Paul, the moderation forum is not for debating who's logic, reason and evidence is credible. In order to determine that conclusively one must address the specific evidence, science, logic and reason in question posted within the debate thread itself as to who has substantially refuted who.

---

I'm not debating it. I'm agreeing with you. The case for the Flood depends on a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, just as you said.

quote:

---

2. If the side of the debate which espouses the Biblical record regarding the flood is disallowed from debate on the Biblical flood, who's to be debated in the thread?

---

You're not "disallowed". You're admitting defeat and running away from the science fora, being unable to support your views without relying on Biblical authority.

quote:

---

3. What do you propose, one sided discussion in the geology/flood science thread, moving the thread to Faith and Belief or some other solution to the problem at hand?

---

I didn't oppose that. Although any creationists who want to claim that the Flood is scientifically supportable ought to. I simply point out your admission of defeat, the tension between it and your statements of only a few days ago - and a warning that moving to Faith and Belief will be less help than you might think.

So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ?I think that is a bit dubious - but so long as you don't mind it ALSO being referred to as a myth and you DON'T try to use the alleged historicity of it as an argument even implicitly it should be OK. Provided of course you get it right and don't, for instance, try to pretend that the YEC "vapor canopy" is in the Bible - as you have done.

It's what you said. Message 145
And you repeated it in Message 149
So tell me, why is it "demeaning" to suggest that you actually meant what you said ?

But Buz, you DO misrepresent the Bible. Frequently. If you're upset about begin caught doing that the only cure is to stop doing it.

According to the purpose of this group, progress would be encouraging understanding and getting to the truth - where the truth is whatever really IS the case and not what ideology would say. Are you admitting that creationism is opposed to this ?And lets take an example of dishonesty. Beretta is currently boasting of having lots of evidence for creationism. Evidence he wants taught in schools. He says that he wants everyone to know the evidence for both sides and weight it up. Yet - while the evolution side was happy to discuss the evidence Beretta is not. He steadfastly refuses to reveal any of it. Is there anything ideological in considering this behaviour dishonest ? If he really has the evidence he claims and if he really wants everyone to know about then why not tell us what it is ? That would produce progress - as I describe it above - and would be in keeping with his stated goals. But he doesn't do it. Can you offer an honest reason why he might want to hide this great evidence which he wants everyone to know ?

quote:

---

.......Or like some secularists who allege that the Bible contains no fulfilled prophecies.

---

That's not a matter of ideology - at least not on the secularist side. The repeated failure of "Biblicists" to offer anything of significance speaks for itself.