Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 106 of 183 (241671)
09-09-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-09-2005 1:25 AM


It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is.
Actually this is not true. I served on a Grand Jury and the prosecutors were emphatic that they would rather have physical evidence than witness evidence. Witnesses forget, they "see" things in a biased way, they fail to see things, they make up stuff, they hear things and remember that they "saw" them. No, I will take physical evidence (such as rock layers) any time over witness evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 1:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:04 PM deerbreh has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 183 (241679)
09-09-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-09-2005 1:25 AM


quote:
It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is. All the speculations at thousands of years remove cannot be proved, but a witness from the time itself is worth gold. It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific."
In other words your argument is based in religious dogma. It is only religious dogma that says that you HAVE "witness evidence".
And even if you had "witness evidence" forensic evidence is generally better. Geology has a sounder basis than you are prepared to admit.
Finally it is not "unscientific" or even "rank prejudice" to prefer sceitific conclusions over religious dogma. It would, of course, be unscientific - and prejudiced - to reject solid scientific conclusions in favour of religious dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 108 of 183 (241682)
09-09-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-09-2005 1:25 AM


It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is.
Nonono, you need to qualify this (and you have in the past). It is based on what you believe to be eyewitness evidence of those who could overcome "darwin's telephone" and copying errors, such that they could overcome the fact that eyewitness evidence, and ESPECIALLY second-hand, third-hand, ... 50th-hand eyewitness evidence is not reliable.
See Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts.
Eyewitness testimony is NOT the best kind of evidence. And you've admitted yourself, you accept THIS eyewitness testimony to be "special" completely on faith (see the post (post 246) of the thread I linked above). So let's not go there.
And please see post 93 for a simple explanation of why you're not doing science.
Nobody says you have to do science. Just, you should understand what your own methodologies are, and you should understand the pros and cons of proceeding in that manner. The first step is figuring out that you're not doing science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 183 (241687)
09-09-2005 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
09-09-2005 1:12 AM


Re: World wide
quote:
1) that the strata were already in placewhen the uplift occurred that caused the hump and slope to the north of the Grand Canyon (otherwise they would not have been laid down in neat parallels as they are);
The flat nature of V to the left of the fault disproves this. It is so obviously NOT parallel that this assertion cannot be seriously entertained. It is entirely possible that some uplift as occurred to the right of the fault after V was laid down, but clearly the Vstratum to the left must have been laid down after the lower strata were tilted and eroded flat.
2 and 3 fall to the same problem.
quote:
4) the idea that erosion had to occur before the horizontal layer "V" was laid down is disproved by the fact that the same kind of shearing had to happen to the tilted strata at the vertical interface created by the fault line, where erosion could not have been a factor.
This is not true. The (near-)vertical contact line is the fault itself There is no need to invoke significant amounts of erosion there. What you must explain was how your proposed solution explains the fact that to the left of the fault line V is laid on a near-flat surface, while the strata beneath it are tilted at a very steep angle. If you can't do that then the conventional explanation which does not face any problems that serious must be considered more reaonable by far.t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 1:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:16 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:24 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 110 of 183 (241696)
09-09-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Ben!
09-09-2005 1:24 AM


Re: science wa?
There's nothing wrong with knowing there was a worldwide flood. I know there was a worldwide flood. You doubt it but I don't. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, or you more scientific, it simply makes those the questions being pursued.
"Was there a flood" may not be the question I'm asking, but the question -- or questions -- I am asking are nevertheless just as scientific as that one, and they go something like this:
Since there was a flood, how did it happen, is there physical evidence for it, what is it and if it's the geological column, how are evolutionist geology's explanations for the geological column wrong?
There's plenty of room for falsification of any given theory about *how* it happened, and what if any physical facts demonstrate it, just no room for denying that it happened altogether.
I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 1:24 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 9:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 117 by paisano, posted 09-09-2005 9:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 10:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 128 by jar, posted 09-09-2005 12:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2005 1:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 111 of 183 (241697)
09-09-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
09-09-2005 2:56 AM


Re: World wide
I explained all that. Rethink it. Reread at least a couple of my posts on the subject. It's been explained. You aren't following the argument. Rethink it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 04:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 4:49 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 183 (241701)
09-09-2005 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:16 AM


Re: World wide
quote:
I explained all that. Rethink it. Reread at least a couple of my posts on the subject. It's been explained. You aren't following the argument. Rethink it.
In Message 77 you stated that you didn't know how it happened. You have added nothing since to explain how it could happen. It has not been explained. I have followed your "argument". You are the one who needs to rethink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:16 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 AM PaulK has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 113 of 183 (241704)
09-09-2005 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
09-08-2005 7:11 PM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
Faith writes:
Blatant humility huh? Are you serious or being ironic? No POTMs for me in any case, please.
Neither I suppose. It had more to do with your prepardedness to approach the problem of blindness on any and all fronts. To stand toe to toe anywhere you find yourself. "If you want to misinterpret the Bible, I'll go there. If you want to spin some geologic column nonsense, I'll go there" Ecetera. All things to all men
For all the disadvantage a creationist would appear to be at: relative numbers, the use of creationist as a dirty word which is pulled rabbit-out-of-a-hat-like as if it is all the evidence anyone needs, that Evo science is seen as the be all and end all, we have in fact got an amazing advantage.
I'm reminded of David and Goliath. When you KNOW Godidit, it is relatively easy to find holes to pick in the 'oppositions' case. You know it's wrong from the get go. And you know that if you poke around a little you'll inevitably find that at the foundation of all the 'facts' lies mystery and uncertainty. Theory piled on theory, assumption on assumption. That folk, when pushed that far batten down the hatches and retreat behind "theories remain tentitive forever" and "we don't know now but there is no reason to suppose we won't find out" is their perogative. That some live to fight another day and then goldfish memory-like, reappear on another thread with more presumptions-masquerading-as-facts can be frustrating. But better that than nothing at all eh? Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to herd kittens. But maybe thats our role?
Being born again is a little like being born first time round: you don't really remember the occasion. I do remember that little things folk said stuck in my mind at that time. And they weren't the complete arguments - just small bits that wouldn't go away. I hope that's whats going to happen here. We throw enough mud as it were - God'll make sure some of it sticks. If the person wants to spray themselve with teflon so that nothing sticks then theres not much to be done. I argued vehemently against folk who said Goddidit but all the arguement dissolve like the morning mist when he steps in. (by having folk exercise themselves against Goddidit is no bad thing. It can become a positive later. Imagine if Chiroptera or someone like that becomes a Christian. Saul becoming Paul. Ain't God great!!
That's my take on it anyway
Onwards Christian Soldiers...
Glad to hear things are relaxing up your way

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 8:02 AM iano has not replied
 Message 115 by Nighttrain, posted 09-09-2005 8:50 AM iano has not replied
 Message 118 by deerbreh, posted 09-09-2005 9:44 AM iano has not replied
 Message 121 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 10:11 AM iano has not replied
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 2:08 PM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 183 (241722)
09-09-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by iano
09-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
Yes, you and Faith have the "advantage" that you assume that you are unquestionably right. This allows you to "win" arguments by citing non-existent "errors" or making groundless accusations.
That's not humility. That's Pride with a capital 'P'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM iano has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 115 of 183 (241734)
09-09-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by iano
09-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
I'm reminded of David and Goliath. When you KNOW Godidit, it is relatively easy to find holes to pick in the 'oppositions' case. You know it's wrong from the get go. And you know that if you poke around a little you'll inevitably find that at the foundation of all the 'facts' lies mystery and uncertainty. Theory piled on theory, assumption on assumption. That folk, when pushed that far batten down the hatches and retreat behind "theories remain tentitive forever" and "we don't know now but there is no reason to suppose we won't find out" is their perogative. That some live to fight another day and then goldfish memory-like, reappear on another thread with more presumptions-masquerading-as-facts can be frustrating. But better that than nothing at all eh? Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to herd kittens. But maybe thats our role?
And this from a guy who can`t even remember to put petrol in his tank?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM iano has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 116 of 183 (241740)
09-09-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: science wa?
Faith,
Please go back and read post 93. Every line in your post was a response to somebody else, not to me. I'd really appreciate if you address what I'm saying, not what you assume I'm saying.
I know taking on all these posts can be overwhelming, I know I was the 4th reply to the same post, and I know lumping me with other people makes things easier in responding. But I also know that when you take your time with a post, you are willing to address it directly. I'm asking you to do that with me. Are you willing?
In the meantime, there is one thing in your post that I can respond to, as it wasn't addressed in my previous post:
I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.
Faith, my point in post 93 was that YOUR methodology, no matter what you label it, has some advantages and disadvantages. They don't go away because you're doing empirical investigation (and I know you are). They don't go away because you allow your empirical investigation to be falsified (and I see that you do). They are there because your conclusion is not falsifiable.
I didn't say anything about whether that makes you right or wrong. "Right" or "wrong" rests wholly within the conclusion, not within the methodology. So I wouldn't say something so foolish. Like Crash often points out, you could be right.
But you're insisting on calling your methodology science and insisting that it has the same properties as science (i.e. same pros, same cons). THIS is what isn't correct, and THIS is the point I'm talking to you about. By knowing the differences between your methodology and what we call science, we can actually make some headway about why it is that your theories are not accepted within the scientific community. It's more than "evolutionist dogma." The dogma may or not be there, but there's more to it than that. And I find it critically important to understand.
My question is, why are you so stuck on calling your methodology science? The LABEL doesn't change anything for you; your methodology still has the same pros and cons. Redefining the word "science" does what for you?
I'd really love to move forward on this with you Faith. I have no interest in attacking your faith, or in talking about "who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'." I'm interested in discussing methdology with you. That's true whether you insist on redefining "science" or not. I'm a pragmatic, I'm pretty open to stuff like this even. There just has to be a valid pragmatic purpose behind it.
Thanks.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 11:57 AM Ben! has replied
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:38 PM Ben! has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 117 of 183 (241746)
09-09-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: science wa?
I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.
I'm afraid it is you who needs to do the rethinking.
You start with:
I know there was a worldwide flood.
Already you are out of the realm of science, and into the realm of ideology.
If you were thinking like a scientist, you would do the following:
Start with:
I hypothesize there was a worldwide flood
Then you would think of at least ten strong observations or lines of evidence that would falsify your hypothesis, and diligently investigate every one, before even beginning to look for evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You have absolutely no idea how science works, and until you at least attempt to correct this, you are likely to continue to experience frustration when discussing scientific issues with people who do science for a living.
You're like a person standing on the tarmac of a busy airport, talking to a group of aerospace engineers and pilots, and insisting that you just know human flight is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:15 AM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 118 of 183 (241748)
09-09-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by iano
09-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
Being born again doesn't mean one has to say "God did it" if one means by that a finger-snapping magical action. I get a little tired of the assumption that one has to be YEC if one is a Christian. Why would God step in to overrule what he has already given me a rational mind to figure out for myself? To think that God would give us a rational mind and then expect us to accept that he does things using magic rather than the laws of nature is a perverse diabolical view of God, imo. The collective rational mind of Science is just as much a part of creation as anything else and deserves just as much respect. It does not enhance the beauty of the Grand Canyon or the rest of the physical creation to deceive ourselves as to how it was formed just to make it fit into a model based on a literal reading of allegorical text. We know it is allegorical because a literal reading contradicts the revelation that is apparent in the physical creation. If one takes the witness analogy that Faith raised - We have the physical evidence and we have some text from unknown witnesses. I believe both are true but only the physical evidence is literally true. And when it comes to physical evidence in every other case we accept the testimony of experts in the field. In this case I choose to believe the testimony of the overwhelming majority of geology experts. We can argue the finer points of the layers of the GC until we are blue in the face and we have. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter. The impossibility of a global flood is settled geological science and those who say it isn't are deceiving themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:42 PM deerbreh has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 119 of 183 (241760)
09-09-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: science wa?
That doesn't make you right and me wrong, or you more scientific
Since there was a flood, how did it happen, is there physical evidence for it
Your second statement is what disproves your first.
Saying - "This happened, now is there evidence for it" is completely basakwards and therefore makes your entire perspective non-scientific, and be default makes everyone else's MORE scientific.
I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.
We don't change definitions just because someone doesn't like them. If you don't understand what science is, it doesn't mean the entire rest of the world has to dismantle it to fit around your lack of education.
If I decide the television is a type of fruit, it doesn't make it so. It doesn't mean that people should change the definitions of the word "television" or "fruit". It would mean that I am wrong about television and fruit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:15 AM Faith has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 120 of 183 (241761)
09-09-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
09-09-2005 4:49 AM


Re: World wide
Paul K writes:
You(Faith) are the one who needs to rethink.
I disagree Paul. She doesn't need to REthink her idea. That would imply that there was thought involved in the first place

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 4:49 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 11:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024