quote:
So...the evidence found regarding dinosaurs existing millions of years ago shows that the Bible is accurate when it shows through geneologies that the Earth is around 6000 years old?
Of course there is no evidence that directly says that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Rather, that is an interpretation of the evidence. In fact there is evidence that suggests that dinosaurs existed thousand, instead of millions of years ago.
Mummified Brachylophosaurus Holds Secrets Millions Of Years Old
quote:
And of course the evidence found regardign the formation of stars, planets, and cosmology in general showed that the Bible was accurate in a literal 6-day Creation week, right?
Just what evidence has been
found that shows the Bible is inaccurate regarding the stars and planets. In fact accourding to the big bang theory, the further out you go, the older the stars should be, yet we find the opposite to be true according to evolutionary assumptions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp
quote:
Modern geology showing that the Earth has never had a global Flood (not an absence of evidence, but mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) surely showed that the Biblical deluge story was accurate, right?
There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there could have been a global flood some time in the past.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
quote:
And the lack of a genetic bottleneck at the same time for all species on Earth as would be required by that level of mass-dieoff (again, not an absence of evidence, but rather mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) showed that the Flood happened as told in the Bible, right?
Genetics is a complex field of study and we are still a long way away from mastering it, however, there is evidence out there that shows that we can
trace back ancestors of some animals to just a couple or maybe three individuals.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Origin of dogs traced
quote:
Right
Of course nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt from either side, but yes there is evidence that suggests it.
quote:
And absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
An absence of evidence only proves that there is an absence of evidence. The absence of evidence does not prove that something did or did not happen. Ask any law inforcement official. It is still an argument from silence.
quote:
If I don't see a fly on my monitor, that is evidence that there is no fly on my monitor.
That is true, however, it does not prove that there has never been a fly on your monitor some time in the past. That is difference between
origins science and
imperical science.
quote:
It's simply not proof of absence...but then, actual proof is difficult to come by for just about everything.
Absolutely, which is what we are dealing with when it comes to origins science or historical science. Anything that deals with the past where no one living today actually witnessed the event.
quote:
When evidence should be present if an event occurred (ie, a dead body must exist for a murder to have occurred), the absence of that evidence (in this case the "victim" walking around alive) is evidence of falsification.
That is a logical
assumption but an assumption all the same. Not always the case. For instance Natalie Holloway did exist. She did go to the island of Aruba. She cannot be found. While murder cannot be proved, because of lack of body, it does not prove that she wasn't murdered.
quote:
Not all evidence is like a fingerprint, where the presence or absence alone means little. Some evidence ismutually exclusive.
That is true, however evidence does
not speak for it self. It has to be interpreted. Even in a murder trial, the lawyers will argue over what the evidence means, and then the jury has to decide. Sometimes the jury decides correctly and sometimes it does not.
quote:
You're approaching this like a gullible fool. You assume that the Bible is accurate until it's proven otherwise (and apparently even then), instead of approaching all claims with skepticism until they are supported by evidence.
We all start off with assumptions. You start off with the assumptions of naturalism. I start off with the assumption that the Bible is true. So with your line of logic, we are both gullible fools. You assume from the beginning that evolution is true. You base all your interpretation of the evidenc based on that assumption, and then you are skeptical of any evidence that may suggest otherwise. You and are alike.
quote:
By that standard, Harry Potter should be regarded as true - all of the evidence that has been found (ie, the existence of London) demonstrates the accuracy of the book, and the abence of any evidence surrounding magic is not actually evidence of its absence.
There are many people who do believe in magic. However, you err in your logic. Harry Potter does not claim to be true. The author is with us today, and can be questioned. It is not the same as a historical piece written long ago.
quote:
So do you treat all historical claims and myths this way, or only the Bible?
You place the Bible in the same catagory as myth. I do not. I pick up the Bible with the same attitude that I pick up the newspaper. However, I do have a certain amount of skepticim about the newspaper. What about you, do you approach all historical documents with the same attitude that you do the Bible?
Edited by Creationist, : Had to get the codes right.
™ Version 4.2
