Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Avatar · 06-21-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

When I was around 18 or so, I saw a movie in the theatre where actual scientists went to the Mount Ararat region to find this ark. I believe it was called "In Search of Noah's Ark." They found the thing. They filmed it. I actually saw it. Whether or not it was actually Noah's Ark I can't possibly say. But there was a sea going vessel that was lodged there around the time they say Noah sailed his ark. So, it's scientifically documented that a sea going vessel which pretty much matches the description of Noah's Ark was found 15,000 feet above sea level.

Not this again.

Ever hear of Ron Wyatt? Obsessive pious fraud and paranoiac? The man claimed that he had found everything from Noah's Ark to the Ten Commandments to the Ark of the Covenant. All his "evidence" later turned out to be misinterpetations, distortions, outright lies, or deliberate forgeries.

I can't believe you could mistake a fictional film for reality....

True American · 06-21-2005, 10:39 AM

Still carrying on. LOL

Look!
I believe that Noah had a boat. I believe he had his family in it and I believe he may have had his dogs and cats.

I don't subscribe to the great flood theory. I do believe that this all took place after the Ice age. I do know that salt mines in Utah are created by ocean water that was there thousands of years ago. The ocean is now another 800 miles west of Utah, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in Utah at one point. Any idiot looking at the landscape can see this.

There was a link in the links I added that showed the plate CHIZELED by Noah.
Note: Maybe the lack of the documentation you seek is due to the fact that people had to chizel rather than use a pen & paper)
He claimed, 14 days of rain not 40. He described other things, which (of course) have been bent way out of shape. But, the tablet was found.

As for Moses, 3500 years ago... Freud and others have come to scientific theories on this matter. I consider this scientific proof. Science has read his work and agree that he was right on the money according to the timeline. Do I think he lived for 120 years and wondered in the desert for 40 years? HELL NO!

After all, isn't everything scientific, just a theory until it's proven as fact?

I already told you all, I couldn't care less about religion. I'm an American history buff. I've never even read the bible. You're talking to me like I'm your enemy who goes to church every sunday and votes solely upon what religion the candidates are. You'd be wrong. I vote on their positions which are closest to my own.

I have been here only a couple of days and I must say, I'm seeing very quickly why you all get such a bad rap. You're simply rude!

I already explained... I am not here to change your views, but I can see that you are most definitely out to change mine. That won't happen.

As for the existence of certain things, I already said, I will agree to disagree.

Amaleq13 · 06-21-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True American

After all, isn't everything scientific, just a theory until it's proven as fact?

The short answer is "No". A longer answer would involve a definition of the scientific method (which you can find online if you are truly interested) as well as an explanation of what the term "theory" means in science. Typically, the folks putting "just" in front of "theory" are creationists trying to create the illusion that evolution is not considered a fact by the scientific community. This is simply wrong and confuses the common use of the term with how it is used in science. That there is something called the "theory" of gravity does not suggest there are scientists who deny the existence of gravity. The force described by the term is accepted as a fact by all. The same, contrary to the beliefs of many creationists, is also true of evolution. If you are truly interested in obtaining a better understanding, feel free to visit the Evolution/Creation forum.

Quote:

I already told you all, I couldn't care less about religion. I'm an American history buff. I've never even read the bible. You're talking to me like I'm your enemy who goes to church every sunday and votes solely upon what religion the candidates are.

Thanks for the clarification but you should understand that your initial posts are virtually identical to those of many fundamentalist Christians who often visit here. As you appeared to do, they typically start off making bold assertions about the amount of "evidence" and "science" that supports their beliefs when a closer, critical examination of their claims reveals a distinct absence of reliable substance. IOW, it turns out that their claims rely primarily, if not entirely, on faith. Though you deny such a fundamentalist position, I have to warn you that, based on the websites you linked, you are relying on the same sort of faith-based scholarship and are being equally mislead into believing you have obtained relevant, reliable information.

Quote:

I have been here only a couple of days and I must say, I'm seeing very quickly why you all get such a bad rap. You're simply rude!

Apparent certainty based on an inadequate knowledge of the relevant facts tends to bring out the more...abrupt side of many posters. If, from the outset, it was made clear that you were not certain in your conclusions and that you were only marginally familiar with the relevant information, the reception would have been much different.

However, if you feel someone has been insulting or otherwise violated the rules, please report the post. (Use the white triangle icon on the bottom left of the post)

Quote:

I already explained... I am not here to change your views, but I can see that you are most definitely out to change mine. That won't happen.

This assertion that you have a closed mind seems to me at odds with your earlier observation that conclusions in either direction might be warranted. :huh:

If you are truly unwilling to have your views challenged, I suggest you post them somewhere else where people take a less critical approach to claims. Personally, I consider my conclusions provisional and, therefore, subject to change given sufficient reliable evidence.

Weltall · 06-21-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True American

=As for Moses, 3500 years ago... Freud and others have come to scientific theories on this matter. I consider this scientific proof.

You're taking Freud as proof?! First, he wasn't a historian. Second, he loved shoehorning things until they fit the interpretation he wanted. Third, no matter what he said, it doesn't make it true just because he said it. Ever hear of the logical fallacy 'Appeal to Authority'?

Quote:

Science has read his work and agree that he was right on the money according to the timeline. Do I think he lived for 120 years and wondered in the desert for 40 years? HELL NO!

Great, show me the peer-reviewed paper presenting evidence for anything close to the Exodus. I won't demand half a million wanderers or forty years, but I will demand some concrete evidence.

Quote:

After all, isn't everything scientific, just a theory until it's proven as fact?

No. You don't have a clue what 'theory' means in science do you? A scientific theory only gets the title when there are mountains of evidence supporting it, falsification tests have been performed numerous times and failed and to not believe it would be the scientific equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'La la la' to yourself as loud as you can. Please don't try using the 'It's just a theory' line, it only betrays a lack of understanding.

Quote:

I have been here only a couple of days and I must say, I'm seeing very quickly why you all get such a bad rap. You're simply rude!

Funny, that's what a lot of the people who get smacked down intelectually here for the first time say. We've been respectful, all we ask is that you be the same in return.

Quote:

I already explained... I am not here to change your views, but I can see that you are most definitely out to change mine. That won't happen.

So we should just let ignorance stand?

Quote:

As for the existence of certain things, I already said, I will agree to disagree.

Fair enough. Do hang around though, there's a lot to be learned here if you keep an open mind.

True American · 06-21-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The short answer is "No". A longer answer would involve a definition of the scientific method (which you can find online if you are truly interested) as well as an explanation of what the term "theory" means in science. Typically, the folks putting "just" in front of "theory" are creationists trying to create the illusion that evolution is not considered a fact by the scientific community. This is simply wrong and confuses the common use of the term with how it is used in science. That there is something called the "theory" of gravity does not suggest there are scientists who deny the existence of gravity. The force described by the term is accepted as a fact by all. The same, contrary to the beliefs of many creationists, is also true of evolution. If you are truly interested in obtaining a better understanding, feel free to visit the Evolution/Creation forum.

Thanks for the clarification but you should understand that your initial posts are virtually identical to those of many fundamentalist Christians who often visit here. As you appeared to do, they typically start off making bold assertions about the amount of "evidence" and "science" that supports their beliefs when a closer, critical examination of their claims reveals a distinct absence of reliable substance. IOW, it turns out that their claims rely primarily, if not entirely, on faith. Though you deny such a fundamentalist position, I have to warn you that, based on the websites you linked, you are relying on the same sort of faith-based scholarship and are being equally mislead into believing you have obtained relevant, reliable information.

Apparent certainty based on an inadequate knowledge of the relevant facts tends to bring out the more...abrupt side of many posters. If, from the outset, it was made clear that you were not certain in your conclusions and that you were only marginally familiar with the relevant information, the reception would have been much different.

However, if you feel someone has been insulting or otherwise violated the rules, please report the post. (Use the white triangle icon on the bottom left of the post)

This assertion that you have a closed mind seems to me at odds with your earlier observation that conclusions in either direction might be warranted. :huh:

If you are truly unwilling to have your views challenged, I suggest you post them somewhere else where people take a less critical approach to claims. Personally, I consider my conclusions provisional and, therefore, subject to change given sufficient reliable evidence.

Thank you for your kind words.

Truth be told, this is more a religious board than I would usually get involved with. My debating would come into play more with political opinion. Even then, my points of view would be more directed at my personal thinking and beliefs in what I feel is best suited for myself. This is, after all what we vote on when we enter the ballot box. I'm positive my political opinions would differ from yours, but at least, there I would have more data and facts to use for debate. I'm far from a religious right conservative. I'm simply a conservative.

I don't care much for getting into the religious aspect of things. All I know about religion, you could fit on the head of a pin. However, I do think certain people did exist. That was my sole point.

I don't see why I can't post here. I can see that there will be many places I can get into conversation, both heated and agreed. I said, in SOME cases, my mind is made up. There's no point in arguing. I am trying to avoid these areas, as there is no point in debating them.

True American · 06-21-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weltall

Funny, that's what a lot of the people who get smacked down intelectually here for the first time say. We've been respectful, all we ask is that you be the same in return.

So we should just let ignorance stand?

Fair enough. Do hang around though, there's a lot to be learned here if you keep an open mind.

You have been respectful. I'll grant you that.

I don't believe I've been smacked down at all. I believe that this is an Athiest site and you spend day & night debating the exact issues that were raised in my post. On the other hand, I do not! So, obviously, I'm out of my league on those issues. Personally, religion only means something to me when it involves politics.

Whether or not I believe that Noah, Jesus and Moses existed doesn't mean diddly. It's just my belief. I was raised in a Catholic Home and according to my parents, there is factual evidence backing this belief up. So, we get into that ground where the other thread mentioned parents saying the world was flat...

To see 15 responses come back at me which all say exactly the same thing says, I've been gang banged by a group who does the same thing daily. However, I have met Jimmy Higgins in other forums. I have met others in them as well. I have been very civil with these people. Though they keep pounding away at me with their rhetoric, I sometimes can't be moved on a position. In this case, I simply say it's time to move on.

As I said, my specialty is American Revolution. I'm extremely good at that. I do know that many of the people who drew up the United States Constitution were highly religious men. I also know that it wasn't religious beliefs which drew conclusions on the format of the document. I have my THEORIES about certain text in this document because it seems so perfectly written, there is little room for interpretation on it's contents.

Surely, you're welcome to debate me on my views in this subject and many others. I may learn much.

There are two types of people who read these boards. Those who think they know absolutely everything and are hell bent on showing everyone what a Smarty Pants they are, and there are those like me who like to venture out and see what the other half is doing. The best part about this is the learning process. Whether or not I agree with anyone here, I will certainly gain some knowledge in some form and any knowledge gained is good knowledge.

Amaleq13 · 06-21-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True American

Truth be told, this is more a religious board than I would usually get involved with.

Actually, this forum is supposed to have less to do with religion than it does with the Bible as a collection of texts. Others, GRD for example, are supposed to be more about the beliefs than the texts.

Quote:

I'm positive my political opinions would differ from yours, but at least, there I would have more data and facts to use for debate. I'm far from a religious right conservative. I'm simply a conservative.

I try to base my opinions on political subjects on rational thought and evidence rather than notions of "liberal" or "conservative". As a result, I've found myself in agreement with representatives of both sides on various issues. Since I don't tend to post in the political forum, it is unlikely we'll ever discover how divergent our views actually are.

Quote:

I don't care much for getting into the religious aspect of things. All I know about religion, you could fit on the head of a pin. However, I do think certain people did exist. That was my sole point.

OK but the point others have been trying to make is that you might want to reconsider the basis upon which those conclusions have apparently been formed assuming the links you provided are an example. It isn't clear, however, whether you mean that you think the people described in the Bible stories existed as they are described in the Bible stories or if you think there was probably some real person about which later myths developed.

I encourage you to run some searches on the Exodus and the existence of Jesus in this forum and read through some of the numerous discussions that have taken place throughout the years. There have been somewhere near a billion on each subject.

You might discover that what you thought was certain or generally accepted by scholars actually isn't. I also encourage you to run a search over at E/C on Noah's Ark for the same reason.

Quote:

I don't see why I can't post here.

Nobody said you couldn't. If you don't know much about a given subject, though, it is probably better to ask questions than to make assertions you can't defend. It is expected here that those who make claims know their subject quite well. They are also expected to be capable of and willing to defend their position with rational arguments and evidence.

And if nobody has done so already, welcome to IIDB. :wave:

True American · 06-21-2005, 07:25 PM

OK but the point others have been trying to make is that you might want to reconsider the basis upon which those conclusions have apparently been formed assuming the links you provided are an example. It isn't clear, however, whether you mean that you think the people described in the Bible stories existed as they are described in the Bible stories or if you think there was probably some real person about which later myths developed.

I encourage you to run some searches on the Exodus and the existence of Jesus in this forum and read through some of the numerous discussions that have taken place throughout the years. There have been somewhere near a billion on each subject. You might discover that what you thought was certain or generally accepted by scholars actually isn't. I also encourage you to run a search over at E/C on Noah's Ark for the same reason.

Quote:
I don't see why I can't post here.

Nobody said you couldn't. If you don't know much about a given subject, though, it is probably better to ask questions than to make assertions you can't defend. It is expected here that those who make claims know their subject quite well. They are also expected to be capable of and willing to defend their position with rational arguments and evidence.

And if nobody has done so already, welcome to IIDB.

I did a very quick search. I'm usually more thorough. What I came upon in a quick search was as much evidence against the existence of these entities as I found for the existence of them. I would say that my quick research left me very uninformed.

There didn't seem to be any more scientific evidence proving that they didn't exist. So, I'm afraid this is something I will have to delve into head on when I find some spare time.

What I meant by, "I don't see why I can't post here" was:
I see many areas where I can fit into the fold.

Thank you for your welcome. It's taken with confidence that this site isn't as bad as I have heard.

Amaleq13 · 06-21-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True American

I did a very quick search. I'm usually more thorough. What I came upon in a quick search was as much evidence against the existence of these entities as I found for the existence of them. I would say that my quick research left me very uninformed.

If you obtained more information than you started out with, I would disagree.

Quote:

There didn't seem to be any more scientific evidence proving that they didn't exist. So, I'm afraid this is something I will have to delve into head on when I find some spare time.

I've found critically examining the evidence for the existence of a given figure is a better approach than trying to "prove a negative" given all the logical problems the latter tends to involve. With regard to the claims of mythical figures, it has been my experience that a good place to critique them is in their ability to explain the existing evidence absent an historical figure.

Quote:

Thank you for your welcome. It's taken with confidence that this site isn't as bad as I have heard.

As I am not privy to what you've heard, I can make no promises except to do my best to ensure that the rules are followed.

True American · 06-21-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If you obtained more information than you started out with, I would disagree.

I've found critically examining the evidence for the existence of a given figure is a better approach than trying to "prove a negative" given all the logical problems the latter tends to involve. With regard to the claims of mythical figures, it has been my experience that a good place to critique them is in their ability to explain the existing evidence absent an historical figure.

I'm well aware of all this. You are assuming I'm new to the boards. I am not.
Surely, I gave you a few links which aren't really very good. But fact is: Everything I find says there is neither any proof for or against the existence of these entities. It does remind me that those who don't believe will stand their ground and those who do believe will also stand theirs. Here's a link from a friggin' dictionary. It doesn't give me any more insight than any other link I've found. You may want to actually read it. You'll begin to see my problem. I'm not religious. I have certain beliefs, but I'm interested in finding the TRUTH! I have yet to find it. Chances are, you don't have links to show actual proof either or I'd have seen them by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Moses_in_history

For a guy who never existed, a lot of people sure have wasted a lot of time telling tales about his life and studying him.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2005, 10:39 AM	#22
True American Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: texas Posts: 315	Still carrying on. LOL Look! I believe that Noah had a boat. I believe he had his family in it and I believe he may have had his dogs and cats. I don't subscribe to the great flood theory. I do believe that this all took place after the Ice age. I do know that salt mines in Utah are created by ocean water that was there thousands of years ago. The ocean is now another 800 miles west of Utah, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in Utah at one point. Any idiot looking at the landscape can see this. There was a link in the links I added that showed the plate CHIZELED by Noah. Note: Maybe the lack of the documentation you seek is due to the fact that people had to chizel rather than use a pen & paper) He claimed, 14 days of rain not 40. He described other things, which (of course) have been bent way out of shape. But, the tablet was found. As for Moses, 3500 years ago... Freud and others have come to scientific theories on this matter. I consider this scientific proof. Science has read his work and agree that he was right on the money according to the timeline. Do I think he lived for 120 years and wondered in the desert for 40 years? HELL NO! After all, isn't everything scientific, just a theory until it's proven as fact? I already told you all, I couldn't care less about religion. I'm an American history buff. I've never even read the bible. You're talking to me like I'm your enemy who goes to church every sunday and votes solely upon what religion the candidates are. You'd be wrong. I vote on their positions which are closest to my own. I have been here only a couple of days and I must say, I'm seeing very quickly why you all get such a bad rap. You're simply rude! I already explained... I am not here to change your views, but I can see that you are most definitely out to change mine. That won't happen. As for the existence of certain things, I already said, I will agree to disagree.

06-21-2005, 07:25 PM	#28
True American Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: texas Posts: 315	OK but the point others have been trying to make is that you might want to reconsider the basis upon which those conclusions have apparently been formed assuming the links you provided are an example. It isn't clear, however, whether you mean that you think the people described in the Bible stories existed as they are described in the Bible stories or if you think there was probably some real person about which later myths developed. I encourage you to run some searches on the Exodus and the existence of Jesus in this forum and read through some of the numerous discussions that have taken place throughout the years. There have been somewhere near a billion on each subject. You might discover that what you thought was certain or generally accepted by scholars actually isn't. I also encourage you to run a search over at E/C on Noah's Ark for the same reason. Quote: I don't see why I can't post here. Nobody said you couldn't. If you don't know much about a given subject, though, it is probably better to ask questions than to make assertions you can't defend. It is expected here that those who make claims know their subject quite well. They are also expected to be capable of and willing to defend their position with rational arguments and evidence. And if nobody has done so already, welcome to IIDB. I did a very quick search. I'm usually more thorough. What I came upon in a quick search was as much evidence against the existence of these entities as I found for the existence of them. I would say that my quick research left me very uninformed. There didn't seem to be any more scientific evidence proving that they didn't exist. So, I'm afraid this is something I will have to delve into head on when I find some spare time. What I meant by, "I don't see why I can't post here" was: I see many areas where I can fit into the fold. Thank you for your welcome. It's taken with confidence that this site isn't as bad as I have heard.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.