Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 1 of 76 (242128)
09-10-2005 8:48 PM


Hey all,
In my usual lurker mode, I've been reading through the thread "Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?" and noting in particular Faith's posts on geology.
Well, as a geologist, I find Flood hypotheses fascinating. So, I would like to present Faith with a golden opportunity to begin the long process of verification that a hypothesis must undergo to become a theory; starting of course, with raw data. (A hypothesis is formed; data is collected regarding it; the data is examined based on the predictions of the hypothesis; the hypothesis is modified or rejected as a result.)
Geology cannot be conducted from photos or the like - it starts with fieldwork, period. So, I am offering Faith my own field research, taken from an area in the west of Ireland called Ballyferriter. I have the geological maps I compiled myself, as well as my own descriptions of every rock formation, fault, and other features. I also have digital photos and diagrams for illustration if needed.
Now, I obviously drew my own conclusions when I did this research - and yes, they were in line with conventional geology. But I am not doing so here; I will merely provide the field evidence I collected, and Faith can argue the Flood hypothesis using it. I will, of course, be explaining as much as possible in laymen's terms for non-geologists. This is crucial - regardless of the scale of the proposed Flood event, if it is unworkable on the most basic level of geology then it will have failed.
Discussion of areas other than Ballyferriter are outside the scope of this thread, and I ask that they not be introduced. I also ask that AT MOST 3 evolutionist and 3 creationist posters be involved besides myself and Faith, to avoid the thread becoming swamped.
My role here is to provide the necessary information to anyone who asks it - I will not be involved in the debate myself. If there are no objections, I will also use my Admin mode to keep the thread on topic and civil. (By "civil", I mean that derogatory comments will not be tolerated.)
So, if one of the other admins will promote this and Faith is willing to join the thread, we can get started and I will post a brief summary of the geology of Ballyferriter.
The Rock Hound
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-11-2005 07:15 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 09-10-2005 8:54 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 4 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-10-2005 9:20 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 11:13 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 29 by paisano, posted 09-12-2005 9:40 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 76 (242131)
09-10-2005 8:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 76 (242132)
09-10-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
09-10-2005 8:48 PM


Faith permission to post granted
Permission for Geology and the Great Food granted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-10-2005 8:48 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 4 of 76 (242137)
09-10-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
09-10-2005 8:48 PM


Time difference
Much as I'd like to get started straight away, it's 2:15 in the morning here and I need to get to bed.
If I don't respond all that fast, just remember there's a massive time difference between Ireland and the US. I'll check back in the morning and see how people feel about this topic.
'Night
The Rock Hound

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-10-2005 8:48 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 5 of 76 (242139)
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


I think its a great topic but im afraid it appears its gonna go ignored

Viva Puerto Rico Libre. Colonialism is an international crime

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


Message 6 of 76 (242159)
09-10-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
09-10-2005 8:48 PM


Conditions
After my recent experience here of going to great lengths to make a decent case for my position that was trashed, mocked, question-begged and otherwise unacknowledged, as usual, then to have the thread simply closed in my face, I'm not very open to ANYTHING at the moment, so I'm promising nothing but go ahead, give it a try and we can see where it goes. I'd recommend that you put something in the title to indicate that you want to limit this thread to only a few, if there's any way to do that.
HOWEVER, having said that, there is a very big IF I'm going to throw into this, and it may in fact make this thread impossible:
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I've been here long enough to understand how these things play out and I'm at a point where I'm going to absolutely refuse to go along with this, which is just a variation on the usual #1 problem for YECs at this site. If you can't see things from my point of view on this, then this thread is not going to happen. Here's the nitty gritty:
This is crucial - regardless of the scale of the proposed Flood event, if it is unworkable on the most basic level of geology then it will have failed.
If that is indeed crucial, all bets are off. This is where the deck is stacked against YECs at this site. As for your particular part of the world that is to be the subject of this thread I have no idea what might be discovered there pro or con the Flood or the OE/YE controversy, but as a YEC my job is to see if I can find the holes in OE theory about everything geological, and also to see if I can come up with alternative explanations that support the YE view, and maybe the Flood as well. This is my JOB. This is my whole reason for being here.
Some things are simply non-negotiable and nondebatable from my side of this. God's word says there WAS a worldwide Flood, it is not a hypothesis. I take back anything I ever said along those lines. It is not a hypothesis, it is a given, a presupposition, an assumption. It is non-negotiable. While any number of ideas about how it might have happened are in principle falsifiable, the fact itself of a worldwide Flood is not falsifiable. It cannot fail, and it is not even potentially "unworkable."
Again, any particular hypotheses about *how* it might have occurred are open to dispute and falsification -- but since OErs have a high threshold for YE thinking, don't count on my giving in on any of these things either. The Flood itself is not negotiable no matter what. The Bible as a whole is not negotiable. A straight reading of Genesis, which is clearly not allegorical, is not negotiable.
I would expect the discussion not even to get into such questions, but my opponents usually make them part of the argument one way or another even if I don't, so if they come up, this is my position, they are not falsifiable. Everything else is. If you can go with this, then put out your information and let's see what happens.
I am going to include in this post my answer to a post by deerbreh from the rudely aborted thread about the Southwest, that I didn't get to answer there, because it is relevant to this topic:
http://EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? -->EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
But they may be sure of this because the mechanics of how it could have happened otherwise seem impossible...
This is the kind of statement that illustrates the problem in trying to discuss geology with you Faith. You presume to have more knowledge based on looking at a few diagrams and pictures then an army of geologists who have spent lifetimes studying the ACTUAL ROCKS, the interfaces, chemical composition, radionucleotide content, etc. Yes they are sure of this because the mechanics are impossible.
This is typical question-begging, as the mechanics of it is exactly what I am trying to account for in post after post on this thread. Simply declaring all my efforts invalid because I dare to dispute the accepted geological position is to declare this entire EvC pretense to debate such questions with YECs a sham. What I am here FOR is to dispute the accepted geological positions.
There is no "otherwise" about it. ....You have incredible chutzpa thinking you can second guess field geologists using a diagram from your wannabe geologist armchair perch.
Of COURSE that puts me in the position of appearing arrogant, but as long as I'm humble toward God and am true to His word I don't care how arrogant I seem toward geologists.
I have faith in the word of God, not "incredible chutzpa." I enjoy trying to figure out where geology is wrong ACCORDING TO GOD, but it's not enjoyable when the opposition is simply rude about it. The endless antagonism at this site comes from this fundamental difference in our basic assumptions. YECs are invited in as if the playing field were level but soon find out that we are supposed to bow before science, the idol here.
Sorry, where science contradicts God we don't bow, and this is the source of all the friction. You can argue all you want, as people do here, about how the Bible is to be interpreted, how much of it should be taken as true, you can ridicule it and claim we "fundies" are all irrational and worse, etc., but in the end a YEC takes all of it as true as written and when we argue science that is our rock-bottom non-negotiable.
On top of all that you have a completely unrealistic notion of geological time that no competent geologist accepts - that is refuted with multiple dating techniques including tree ring data.
I don't listen to geologists when they contradict God, I don't care how solid they think their evidence is (or how much of the Bible they accept if they reject any of it either). My "unrealistic notion of geological time" of course contradicts what a "competent geologist accepts." My view is based on my straight reading of Genesis, which I regard as God's revelation. If there is no way for this standard YEC position to be respected within the debate terms here, then I don't belong here, and neither does any YEC. There is no way for a genuine debate to occur when one side of the debate insists on terms that a priori rule out the assumptions of their opponents.
Ok. Rant finished and so am I with you as far as geology discussions go. We are getting nowhere.
Of course not because the only place you would consider it acceptable to *get* is to prove to me that my Biblical presuppositions are false. This isn't going to happen any more than I'm likely to prove to you that your science-based presuppositions are false.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-10-2005 11:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-10-2005 8:48 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-11-2005 5:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by edge, posted 09-11-2005 9:43 AM Faith has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 76 (242160)
09-10-2005 11:19 PM


closing this temporarily.
I'm closing this until tomorrow when IrishRockHound can check back in to respond to Faith's Conditions.
Will everyone please be patient and wait for these issues to be resolved.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

AdminIRH
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 76 (242213)
09-11-2005 5:08 AM


I'm back
Opening topic again...

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 9 of 76 (242214)
09-11-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-10-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Conditions
Well, let's see...
quote:
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I used the term 'hypothesis' out of a lack of anything else to use. If you prefer a different term, then please suggest one - I'll change the thread title immediately.
I've already stated I will only allow a few posters to get involved here. I would also ask that any posters that have had problems debating with Faith previously to stay out of this.
quote:
quote:
This is crucial - regardless of the scale of the proposed Flood event, if it is unworkable on the most basic level of geology then it will have failed.
If that is indeed crucial, all bets are off.
I apologise; I should have put this in context. I accept that for you, and other YEC's, the Flood is a given due to your literal reading of Genesis. I did not wish to imply otherwise for you in particular. However, it is crucial in the conext of convincing others of your ideas and claims. I simply assumed that this was part of your purpose in posting here, as it seems to be for every poster that comes to EvCForum.
I merely wish to give you the opportunity to develop your ideas using actual geological data. I am not asking anything of you with regards to science or the Bible. What you do with it, and what discussion follows as a result, will be out of my hands. My only conditions on the debate is that it remains on topic and civil, and I will be using my Admin mode to enforce these.
The tone of your post is very defensive; there's no need for that here. I want to give you a fair chance above all else to try to develop your ideas without being hit over the head with conventional geology at every turn.
The Rock Hound

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 11:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-11-2005 9:56 AM IrishRockhound has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 76 (242226)
09-11-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-10-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Conditions
[/lurk mode]
You are serious about these conditions? Do you really expect YEC to be taken seriously by science if you want to throw out scientific convention? If IR wants to take this on, fine, but it all seems kind of unrealistic to me. This will be my last post on this thread unless asked for an opinion. But I do have a question or two regarding the some of the statements you make:
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I've been here long enough to understand how these things play out and I'm at a point where I'm going to absolutely refuse to go along with this, which is just a variation on the usual #1 problem for YECs at this site. If you can't see things from my point of view on this, then this thread is not going to happen.
Some things are simply non-negotiable and nondebatable from my side of this. God's word says there WAS a worldwide Flood, it is not a hypothesis.
I take back anything I ever said along those lines. It is not a hypothesis, it is a given, a presupposition, an assumption. It is non-negotiable. While any number of ideas about how it might have happened are in principle falsifiable, the fact itself of a worldwide Flood is not falsifiable. It cannot fail, and it is not even potentially "unworkable."
... A straight reading of Genesis, which is clearly not allegorical, is not negotiable.
I was just wondering if the next time a YEC complains about evolutionists being dogmatic, I can quote you for them. Would this be okay with you?
And, is this what YECs call 'good science'? Is this how science would be taught if YECs were in charge?
My apologies if this is too far off topic, but the opportunity to ask might slip away.
[lurk mode]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 11:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-11-2005 10:43 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 11 of 76 (242231)
09-11-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by IrishRockhound
09-11-2005 5:34 AM


Re: Conditions
This thread COULD be great fun and very informative, but yes, I am most definitely on the defensive and not ready to dive right in. Some reconnoitering first.
Well, let's see...
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I used the term 'hypothesis' out of a lack of anything else to use. If you prefer a different term, then please suggest one - I'll change the thread title immediately.
Simply "Geological data and the Flood" would be a start. But there is more to this than changing the terminology. From your first post:
Well, as a geologist, I find Flood hypotheses fascinating. So, I would like to present Faith with a golden opportunity to begin the long process of verification that a hypothesis must undergo to become a theory; starting of course, with raw data. (A hypothesis is formed; data is collected regarding it; the data is examined based on the predictions of the hypothesis; the hypothesis is modified or rejected as a result.)
If the Flood is not a hypothesis, but a given, then it cannot be rejected as a result of the data. Ideas about how it occurred, as I have said, can be modified or rejected, but the Flood description as given in Genesis cannot be. I don't think any actual DATA could possibly falsify it anyway. It is only the conventional geological interpretations or explanations of the data that ever falsify it. But I am saying this because I want it to be clear that *rejecting* the Flood is not a possibility, and that when at some point I will not reject it no matter how the conversation goes, I expect that that position will be understood and respected and that nobody is going to start berating me for not being scientific.
I've already stated I will only allow a few posters to get involved here. I would also ask that any posters that have had problems debating with Faith previously to stay out of this.
The problem is that people often encounter a thread after it has gone for a few pages, don't read it from the beginning but only the last few posts, and figure it's fair game. Simply stating your intention at the beginning won't prevent that. This is why I suggested putting something in the title to make it clear that the number of participants is to be limited. I'm not sure how that might be worded, though. Maybe it isn't all that crucial, however, as long as we know it will happen. I suppose people can be told at the point they enter the thread.
This is crucial - regardless of the scale of the proposed Flood event, if it is unworkable on the most basic level of geology then it will have failed.
If that is indeed crucial, all bets are off.
I apologise; I should have put this in context. I accept that for you, and other YEC's, the Flood is a given due to your literal reading of Genesis. I did not wish to imply otherwise for you in particular. However, it is crucial in the conext of convincing others of your ideas and claims. I simply assumed that this was part of your purpose in posting here, as it seems to be for every poster that comes to EvCForum.
Yes, and at first one tries to fit into the standard scientific assumptions for that reason. I've simply realized it can't be done, because for conventional science the word of God is subject to science (which is rationalized in all kinds of ways, such as by denying that the Bible IS the word of God, or that God exists or whatever); but for me science is subject to the word of God. To my mind the idea that anything the Creator God says could possibly be "falsified" by science, which is conducted by the fallen mind of fallen humanity, is ludicrous in the extreme, and to disqualify the study of the natural world that works from this kind of faith as non-science is equally ludicrous, but this appears to be the guiding view at EvC and in fact in science in general.
(Note: As I am in the middle of writing this I see that an EvC notification has come in that someone has posted to this thread in response to me already, and it is someone who is normally unpleasantly antagonistic to my views. Did this person read your intention to limit participants on this thread? I guess I will find out after I finish writing this post)
I merely wish to give you the opportunity to develop your ideas using actual geological data. I am not asking anything of you with regards to science or the Bible. What you do with it, and what discussion follows as a result, will be out of my hands. My only conditions on the debate is that it remains on topic and civil, and I will be using my Admin mode to enforce these.
The problem is that this sounds too good to be true. I'm amazed, frankly, that my post here didn't get me summarily suspended, certainly from this Science forum thread, as that is what has happened every time I have dared to say anything along these lines, and although you are being quite accommodating, I am certain that other admins, NosyNed in particular, are agonizingly sure that giving me so much room is contrary to the entire purpose of EvC. And I can't disagree with them. I've learned that Science rules here, and my assumptions are not welcome. It has happened over and over that I am upbraided or suspended or both for doing nothing more than affirming these assumptions. It just happened on the Southwest thread, in that case by the method of simply closing the thread on me. So I have to assume that it is because you are an admin on the science side in good standing, or something along these lines, that this is being tolerated even this far.
The tone of your post is very defensive; there's no need for that here. I want to give you a fair chance above all else to try to develop your ideas without being hit over the head with conventional geology at every turn.
Very interesting idea. Wonder what can possibly come of it.
I have some more thinking to do, so I'm not sure I'm quite ready for you to start putting out your field notes.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-11-2005 10:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-11-2005 5:34 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 09-11-2005 11:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 15 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-11-2005 1:58 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 12 of 76 (242244)
09-11-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by edge
09-11-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Conditions
You are serious about these conditions? Do you really expect YEC to be taken seriously by science if you want to throw out scientific convention?
It isn't taken seriously anyway because these ARE the conditions YEC works from whether they are spelled out or not, so why should spelling them out make the situation any worse? After all, the claim is merely that God has the right to say what happened in His universe, and it is those who deny Him that right who are in the wrong.
If IR wants to take this on, fine, but it all seems kind of unrealistic to me. This will be my last post on this thread unless asked for an opinion. But I do have a question or two regarding the some of the statements you make:
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I've been here long enough to understand how these things play out and I'm at a point where I'm going to absolutely refuse to go along with this, which is just a variation on the usual #1 problem for YECs at this site. If you can't see things from my point of view on this, then this thread is not going to happen.
Some things are simply non-negotiable and nondebatable from my side of this. God's word says there WAS a worldwide Flood, it is not a hypothesis.
I take back anything I ever said along those lines. It is not a hypothesis, it is a given, a presupposition, an assumption. It is non-negotiable. While any number of ideas about how it might have happened are in principle falsifiable, the fact itself of a worldwide Flood is not falsifiable. It cannot fail, and it is not even potentially "unworkable."
... A straight reading of Genesis, which is clearly not allegorical, is not negotiable.
.
I was just wondering if the next time a YEC complains about evolutionists being dogmatic, I can quote you for them. Would this be okay with you?
Fine with me, but you'd have to ask them when it comes up, and I'd remind you that YECs' being dogmatic does not mean evolutionism is NOT dogmatic. What we have is two dogmas butting heads.
And, is this what YECs call 'good science'? Is this how science would be taught if YECs were in charge?
This is how it IS taught in Bible-based science classes, and there's no reason to think it compromises the study of any actual scientific facts -- it only challenges the theories, explanations, interpretations. If you want the public schools to continue being taught that God's views of His own Creation are irrelevant to science, that's on your head, not mine, but I'm for having Christians leave the public schools for this reason among many others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 09-11-2005 9:43 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by deerbreh, posted 09-12-2005 9:14 AM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 13 of 76 (242253)
09-11-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
09-11-2005 9:56 AM


Re: Conditions
Note: I don't intend posting much to this thread, and I certainly won't be attempting to scientifically refute Faith on the geology issues.
Faith writes:
..., because for conventional science the word of God is subject to science ...
I'll suggest that this is wrong. Conventional science simply deals with observed reality.
Sure, there are some people who attack the Bible, and some of those are scientists. But science, as an institution, is not involved in these individual actions.
Many scientists consider themselves to be studying God's creation, and learning how to interpret what God himself carved into the rock, the mountains, the fossil beds. They see nature itself as the word of God, as written by His own hand.
For myself, I see the Bible as the word of man. It was written by man. Only a relatively small portion claims to speak directly of the words and actions of God, but even in those parts it reads as a narrative written by men. But men are fallible, and some of what was attributed to God in the Bible might be mistaken, much as some people today are mistaken in what they attribute to God.
As I recall from my youth in Australia, and as a member of an evangelical congregation there, people at that time were attempting to reconcile the Biblical account with science. Thus there was day-age theory of the creation. There was the theory that the flood story reported a regional flood (the then known world). I'm not sure where the conflict between religion and science started, but it is my impression that it is a mainly American phenomenon, and that it is certain religion groups who chose to attack science rather than the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-11-2005 9:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2005 12:07 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 09-11-2005 4:20 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 8:11 AM nwr has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 76 (242263)
09-11-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
09-11-2005 11:29 AM


Fallen humanity.
Disclaimer: Currently there are three evolutionists involved in this thread: Edge, nwr, and myself (correct me if I am wrong), and some of those may not be getting any more involved.
I really only wanted to comment on this:
nwr writes:
For myself, I see the Bible as the word of man. It was written by man. Only a relatively small portion claims to speak directly of the words and actions of God, but even in those parts it reads as a narrative written by men. But men are fallible, and some of what was attributed to God in the Bible might be mistaken, much as some people today are mistaken in what they attribute to God.
To which I agree. What is written by God Himself into the very rocks which He created, the very universe He crafted with means that would no doubt be incomprehensible to many men. However, since we ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus became as God in this respect, I believe we are capable of learning how God created the universe by doing what comes natural to us...investigating the world and coming to conclusions...something which has been formulated into science...which is fallible, but coming ever closer to truths.
The Bible on the other hand is not the word of God, nor ever claims to be (though some parts do). The books are written by sinners and fallible men (and the writers will even admit this, on occasion, within the Bible). As Faith put it:
conducted by the fallen mind of fallen humanity
They are often Holy Men and prophets, inspired by God but themselves not divine and not perfect.
Not only that, but much (indeed perhaps all) of the original writings by the prophets or their aides are long lost. As such we have only the copies of copies of these documents, which were not necessarily copied by holy men and we have no way to know how these men were affected by the fall and what evil ideas they may have sewn into documents the transcribed. I doubt there are many actual evil ideas of course, but it's accuracy and inerrency cannot be assured.
So rather than looking at the fallible writings and copying of a fallen mind of men, inspired by God as they may be, we should look to that which God himself wrote for us.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 11-September-2005 05:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 09-11-2005 11:29 AM nwr has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 15 of 76 (242270)
09-11-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
09-11-2005 9:56 AM


Re: Conditions
quote:
If the Flood is not a hypothesis, but a given, then it cannot be rejected as a result of the data. Ideas about how it occurred, as I have said, can be modified or rejected, but the Flood description as given in Genesis cannot be. I don't think any actual DATA could possibly falsify it anyway. It is only the conventional geological interpretations or explanations of the data that ever falsify it. But I am saying this because I want it to be clear that *rejecting* the Flood is not a possibility, and that when at some point I will not reject it no matter how the conversation goes, I expect that that position will be understood and respected and that nobody is going to start berating me for not being scientific.
As you wish. It will not be my concern once the thread starts. I will not be participating except as an information provider.
However, if the point you mention is reached, I as an Admin can act to prevent such berating. It essentially comes under the heading of off-topic discussion.
quote:
The problem is that people often encounter a thread after it has gone for a few pages, don't read it from the beginning but only the last few posts, and figure it's fair game. Simply stating your intention at the beginning won't prevent that. This is why I suggested putting something in the title to make it clear that the number of participants is to be limited. I'm not sure how that might be worded, though. Maybe it isn't all that crucial, however, as long as we know it will happen. I suppose people can be told at the point they enter the thread.
I intend to watch for the number of participants, and instruct any extra posters to refrain from commenting further if it seems there are enough to adequately cover all points. Simple enough. I will be posting reminders as well as the thread continues.
quote:
The problem is that this sounds too good to be true. I'm amazed, frankly, that my post here didn't get me summarily suspended, certainly from this Science forum thread, as that is what has happened every time I have dared to say anything along these lines, and although you are being quite accommodating, I am certain that other admins, NosyNed in particular, are agonizingly sure that giving me so much room is contrary to the entire purpose of EvC.
The purpose of EvC, as far as I am concerned, is constructive debate concerning evolutionism-creationism. Giving you this room will encourage a constructive debate, which I thought was rather lacking in the other thread. As always the choice is yours whether or not to participate.
Take your time in deciding, I will be participating slowly myself. I have other concerns that take up a large chunk of my time.
The Rock Hound
{edited out of admin mode}
This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 09-11-2005 01:58 PM

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-11-2005 9:56 AM Faith 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