Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-26-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

I'm abhored with how you go about these things.

You have to understand that RBH and many others here have had repeated experiences with individuals who, sharing your beliefs, claim to be open to the possibility of error but actually are not. This is revealed when they state the conditions for establishing that error and they are seen to be logically impossible. If you are truly open to the possibility of error in your current conclusions, you need to recognize that you are in the minority of those sharing your beliefs. At least based on the ones who visit IIDB.

If you are truly open to the possibility, I applaud you but must warn you, at the same time, that your honesty might lead you to discover that many of the sources you've previously considered reliable will be revealed to be entirely deceptive in their presentation of the evidence. I've known a few truly open-minded believers in my time and they have been greatly troubled by the duplicity involved once they've accepted the actual state of the evidence.

Sparrow · 02-27-2005, 06:32 AM

Amaleq13 and RBH bring up great points about whether Lysimachus is truly open to revisiting the assumptions he has regarding the reliability of Genesis as fact. Part of what I think Lysimachus misses is the distinction between how theists and atheists hold their views. Theists of all stripes generally believe there is some absolute, universal, eternal TRUTH, and that said TRUTH has been revealed to them in some manner. While it varies among theists as to exactly what is contained in that TRUTH, there is some core which is held to be immutable.

Atheists, from my observation and speaking specifically of and for myself, hold virtually every scrap of knowledge provisionally. Everything we think we know is subject to being abandoned or changed if new information becomes available. While I know it might not appear that way at times, the atheists I know from here seem to crave new information to test their assumptions against. Theists seeking to discover the revealed TRUTH of atheism seem shocked to discover there is no holy writ of foundational doctrine, that we reach our conclusions solely through the application of reason to evidence.

If the requirement that the discourse be based on reason and evidence is too restricting for you, theist or no, then go in peace, for we have no way to communicate and exchange ideas effectively otherwise. If you truly have evidence that contradicts my knowledge, then bring it on; perhaps we’ll both learn something.

Lysimachus · 02-27-2005, 06:43 AM

RBH, whatever, whatever, suit yourself. I still think you looked too deeply into my sentence. You're applying more meaning behind it than I intended...

Coragyps · 02-27-2005, 07:15 AM

Lys, how does one prove that something may be fictional? It's already been shown many times on this thread that the Noah story could easily be fictional, but how can "prove" and "may" cohabit in that one sentence?

Dhaeron · 02-27-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

I'm abhored with how you go about these things.

I think this is a misunderstanding. You might consider proof something different than RBH.
The problem with proof is, that there exists none in the real world. I can not prove my existence to you. Since we here at iidb are somewhat used to "proof" being demanded as a kind of cop-out, there might be some over-sensitiveness here when hearing someone asking for proof.

God's Will Hunting · 02-27-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

The signs of a global deluge is everywhere. Over 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water. This is the remains of the global flood. Sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest and Mt. Ararat...and many of the tallest mountains on earth. Evidence of water erosion is everwhere, and the evidence for a global flood is absolutely overwhelming. Sound too simple and unscientific? Of course it is. Sound very unsubstantiated? Of course it does.

I assume then, that you are proposing that this global flood covered all the mountains of the earth, hence the seashells found up there.

If the the seashells washed up there, I assume you believe that seas were present at the time of Noah? Or did seashells evolve just during the flood? Now assuming that seas existed, how do you come to the conclusion that todays oceans are just the remains of the flood?

This brings up a GLARING flaw in flood proponents arguments: where did all the water come from and where did it recede to? The earth's surface area is 197,000,000 sq miles. You seem to think Everest was covered in water as well. Everest is 29,000 ft tall. The Amount of water needed to fill in the ocean basins and cover Everest far exceeds the amount of water present. Rough calculations show that around 1,000,000,000 cubic miles of water in addition to the 326 million cubic miles that exist would be needed. Any ideas?

Unless god has got a billion cubic mile bladder full of seawater and pissed all over the earth, I don't see where the water came from.

For a good laugh at attempted explanation, it's from the asthenosphere!:
Just squeeze every drop of water from all the rocks on earth and there you have it!

http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html

Per Ahlberg · 02-27-2005, 11:30 AM

Hi Lysimachus,

I'll be interested to hear your response to my "evidence criteria" post when you have time. Meanwhile, in relation to your statement about geological evidence for the Flood, quoted by God's Will Hunting (above), I thought it might be useful to copy here my recent reply to a somewhat similar post by Elindie.

Quote:

Hi again Elindie,

Quote:

explain to me how seashells are able to be found in mass quanities in the mountians of colorado, and dont say they dont exist becuase I lived there and saw them on many occasions.

Just to add a little to RBH's, PLP's and Coragyps's replies to this point, there are a couple of observations that explain why shells like this are not evidence of the Genesis flood, but rather of something quite different:

1) They are not on the mountain, but in it. That is to say, the ones you find exposed on the surface are just that, weathering out on the surface; in principle you could carry on digging into the mountain, just like miners would do when following a coal seam or whatever, and you would find more and more of them - possibly until you emerged on another flank of the same mountain. So it's not like the mountain stood there, was covered with water by a flood, and had shells deposited on its flanks: rather the mountain is composed of layer after layer of sea-floor sediment and the fossils are in these sediments.

2) Now here comes the really interesting bit: when we examine these sediments in detail we find that most of them were deposited in reasonably quiet water, and usually quite slowly. We can tell this from the sediments themselves, as there is an extensive research literature on the kinds of environmental conditions different sands, muds and so forth are deposited today. Sometimes the fossils also demonstrate the point quite forcefully - we find thick shell beds with the shells in life position, substantial buried coral reefs that must have taken thousands of years to grow, and so forth. In many areas you will also find thick alternating sequences of marine and terrestrial deposits, the latter sometimes containing drying cracks, raindrop prints, plant root casts, animal trackways (for example from dinosaurs) and the like. Clearly this kind of sediment sequence is a record of fluctuating sea levels over long periods of time.

It should be evident that these kinds of depositional features and fossils are incompatible with the hypothesis that all the sediments were deposited by a single cataclysmic flood. Among geologists (who at that time were almost all Christians, as I remarked earlier), the idea of a real, global Genesis flood had been completely abandoned by about 1830.

There is a lot more to say than this, of course; let me know if you would like to chew over the evidence in more detail.

Cheers, Per

RBH · 02-28-2005, 08:30 PM

Willowtree's Biblical Flood myths sidetrack split to BC&H.

RBH
E/C Moderator

Lysimachus · 03-02-2005, 06:13 PM

My POST is UP! As a NEW THREAD:

Noah's Ark site at Dogubayazit - Shedding New Light

Continue all conversation regarding Noah's Ark and the site there!

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

02-27-2005, 06:32 AM	#222
Sparrow Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,077	Amaleq13 and RBH bring up great points about whether Lysimachus is truly open to revisiting the assumptions he has regarding the reliability of Genesis as fact. Part of what I think Lysimachus misses is the distinction between how theists and atheists hold their views. Theists of all stripes generally believe there is some absolute, universal, eternal TRUTH, and that said TRUTH has been revealed to them in some manner. While it varies among theists as to exactly what is contained in that TRUTH, there is some core which is held to be immutable. Atheists, from my observation and speaking specifically of and for myself, hold virtually every scrap of knowledge provisionally. Everything we think we know is subject to being abandoned or changed if new information becomes available. While I know it might not appear that way at times, the atheists I know from here seem to crave new information to test their assumptions against. Theists seeking to discover the revealed TRUTH of atheism seem shocked to discover there is no holy writ of foundational doctrine, that we reach our conclusions solely through the application of reason to evidence. If the requirement that the discourse be based on reason and evidence is too restricting for you, theist or no, then go in peace, for we have no way to communicate and exchange ideas effectively otherwise. If you truly have evidence that contradicts my knowledge, then bring it on; perhaps we’ll both learn something.

02-27-2005, 06:43 AM	#223
Lysimachus Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 148	RBH, whatever, whatever, suit yourself. I still think you looked too deeply into my sentence. You're applying more meaning behind it than I intended...

02-27-2005, 07:15 AM	#224
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Lys, how does one prove that something may be fictional? It's already been shown many times on this thread that the Noah story could easily be fictional, but how can "prove" and "may" cohabit in that one sentence?

02-28-2005, 08:30 PM	#228
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Willowtree's Biblical Flood myths sidetrack split to BC&H. RBH E/C Moderator

03-02-2005, 06:13 PM	#229
Lysimachus Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 148	My POST is UP! As a NEW THREAD: Noah's Ark site at Dogubayazit - Shedding New Light Continue all conversation regarding Noah's Ark and the site there!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.