Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity
onifre
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 271 of 306 (485574)
10-09-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by olletrap
10-09-2008 4:34 PM


Re: The Bible's veracity
olletrap writes:
I think most scientists place the flood at at least 8000 years ago and there is evidence of such an event in sediment from around the globe which all contains volcanic ash from around the same time period.
You need to select words a bit more cautiously. 'Most scientist' have absolutely no opinion on the floods validity, from a scientific perspective. The only scientist that may have an opinion would be geologist.
Your statement should read, 'Some geologist have claimed there is evidence for a global flood'.
Now your next step is to show evidence for this claim.
Show enough evidence, or at least cite a paper, that shows the sediment throughout the Earth shows equal signs of a global flood, and at equal time frames. That way you are not thought to be making assertions about geological events that may or may not have occured.
* See that would be 1 way the Biblical story of a global flood can be disproven, give Coyote a bit to respond and he'll point out a few other reasons which he has shown before in this forum.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by olletrap, posted 10-09-2008 4:34 PM olletrap has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by olletrap, posted 10-10-2008 5:34 AM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 276 of 306 (485587)
10-09-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Coyote
10-09-2008 6:24 PM


Re: The Bible's veracity
Hi Coyote,
I certainly do not wish to challenge the knowledge of someone working as an archaeologist for 40 years but...
Coyote writes:
It was mentioned by another poster that "most scientists" shouldn't be considered here, only geologists. I disagree. The scientists who should have the opinion here are archaeologists and sedimentologists (soils experts).
Since im not an expert in the field I went with the wiki definition of geologist which included sedimentologists and other fields which I deemed important to.
Geologist - Wikipedia,
quote:
Their undergraduate training typically includes significant coursework in physics, mathematics, chemistry and possibly biology, in addition to classes offered through the geology department; historical and physical geology, igneous and metamorphic petrology and petrography, hydrogeology, sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, palaeontology, physical geography and structural geology are among the many required areas of study. Most geologists also need skills in GIS and other mapping techniques. Geology students may spend portion of summers living and working under field conditions with faculty members (often referred to as "field camp"). Geology courses are also highly valuable to students of geography, engineering, chemistry, urban planning, environmental studies, and other fields.
Without having to name all of the above mentioned fields, I went with geology.
How bout it, do I get a pass on this one?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2008 6:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2008 7:06 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 306 of 306 (485700)
10-10-2008 6:19 PM


What should be realized though is that we must recognize the ease by which subjective experiences are believed to be true, before objective facts are.
Religion and faith are simple to digest because they depend on a persons own subjective interpretation of reality. If one feels that God is the most plausable answer, then no amount of evidence from the objective PoV will sway them, at least not fully IMO.
But we must press on though, continuing the work of studying nature using the only true un-bias method, the scientific method. If enough people are educated then rather than stuggling to convince someone that their own personal subjective experiences don't counter what the laws of physics and nature say about our universe and planet, they'll just be able to understand it on their own...subjectively.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024