General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

Hi Buz, I almost never debate flood geology, simply because I don't have the necessary geology background to make it stick (this does not hold true for some of the peripheral issues, such as biogeography, in which I do). However, I'd like to point out that you may be misunderstanding something here. Anyone will accept creo use of the Bible as a valid historical record IF and only IF there is corroborating external evidence to support that use. In other words, there has to be some physical evidence produced that indicates the historical reliability of the book. This works, btw, for any other document, paper or indeed book that anyone - creo or not - introduces as support for their respective positions. IOW, you can't enter into evidence something that is asserted to be factual without showing evidence that it really is. Regardless of whether you personally think the Bible is accurate, no one else will without some corroboration. Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated.

Hey Buz, Right. I understand how my opposite numbers attempt to use the Bible in this context. However, you neglected to address my main point, to wit: it is completely reasonable to use the Bible as a reference in any thread, as long as the claims are externally verifiable. IOW, you can't use the Bible (or your faith in same) to verify claims in the Bible. If, just as a for instance, you use the Bible as a reference for a global Flud, you must produce external evidence that there was such a Flud (for example, correlation between putative flood-type deposition from around the world - a "flood layer" that anyone can see). Other historical claims (such as whether or not there was an Exodus), would also need to be externally validated from non-Biblical records of the same time period. When such evidence is produced - depending on quality, of course - then I for one have absolutely no problem with someone using the Bible as an additional reference to support their claims.Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads. They (in general) seem to fail to realize that someone who does not take the Bible as infallible history won't accept claims contained therein without some solid external corroboration. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Hey Buz,As Purple has quite explicitly ruled any further discussion on this subject off-topic here, it might be interesting to spin off the idea of how Biblical references could conceivably be used to another thread. I know this has been discussed, at least peripherally, in the past, but it might be time to take another look. If the topic can be framed from a standpoint of "what would it take to allow Biblicalists (your term) to use the book as a valid reference?", perhaps this approach would shed a different light on things.Unfortunately, I don't have the time/resources to propose the new thread, but if you were to do so, I'd happily join you there.