Jack the Bodiless

Hydarnes:

This Flood derailment occurred because you made an inappropriate appeal to authority: you believe the Bible is literlly true, except for "minor" scientific errors.

...Whereas the actual situation is that the Bible is so horrendously inaccurate, and the errors so major, that your faith requires to isolate and dismiss the most serious errors. You're attempting to say, in effect, "the Bible is inerrant because I will ignore any error that is too big for me to cope with". And you're then attempting to pass this off as a respectable, "scholarly" position. That simply won't fly.

It is precisely because the Bible is KNOWN to contain serious errors that no scholar can simply assume that any Biblical claim is true without independent support.
I would just like to point out that the problem isn't simply that the Flood COULDN'T happen: if miracles are permitted, it obviously could.

The problem is that it DIDN'T happen. This thread discusses archaeology: and archaeology shows that there was no worldwide Flood in the Genesis timeframe.
That is precisely what YOU are doing, Hydarnes.

We are under no obligation to carry out a serious discussion with those who assert such absurd beliefs as if they might be true, in defiance of all evidence, informed scholarly opinion, and common sense. You might as well proceed on the basis that the Earth is flat and ridicule the "postured authority" of round-Earthism. Or we could proceed on the assumption that the characters on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents are merely random beetle droppings, and ridicule the "postured authority" of those who believe the Hebrews actually had a written language at all.

funinspace

It was in reference to your statement of "the Bible is inerrant in its spiritual message". But since this is supposed to be about archeology and not the dichotomy of canon understanding , I'll let your diversions from this thread's topic drop. Hum, "poor taste", "pretensions", "arrogance", "your imagination"...I'll let your words speak for themselves.

As for the rest I'll not bother to restate what Jack the Bodiless said so well. But yes I'm sure it's all my fault, being a heathen.

Hydarnes

Jack,


Incorrect again (should we be alarmed? ). I originally stated my philosophical adherance to Scripture in the context of the Bible/archaeology dialogue I was having with Brian, if you want to somehow hold me responsible for the intimation of the "Flood" topic against forum policy, then I'm afraid you are quite deceitful.

Again, you're merely appealing to the dictates of your philosophical status. Has it ever occured to you that perhaps your "obvious" accusations are actually gross misconceptions and fautly interpretation? We're not interested in routinely reviewing this affected "scientific" bluff of yours, because obviously the data is neutral before it is interpreted by either those who espouse an intelligent design or the lack thereof. Your secular religion has (pitifully) taught you that only those who embrace the latter are scientifically legitimate. You have a lot of learning to do my friend.

These "errors" are known to you simply because that is the position you hold. Incessantly repeating the error of your premise will not render it it any less false.

And because you don't subscribe to the existence of a higher power it "oviously didn't happen".

Au contraire. You and your secularist friends are arbitrarily equating your secularist position/religion as somehow being synonymous with being transparently correct in matters of scientific standing. Again, this has little to do with reality. We disagree on how the data is to be interpreted.

Without further attention to the change of topic, allow me to ask you a few questions for the sake of weighing the truthfulness of the above assertion:

Do you believe in abiogenesis? Do you believe in macroevolution? Do you believe in a naturalisitic big bang?

Jack the Bodiless

On the contrary: my learning evidently greatly exceeds your own. The data cannot be interpreted as supporting creationism: all attempts at doing so have failed. This was noted by creationists, who abandoned creationism because the evidence was utterly incompatible with it.

You have a lot of learning to do my friend.
Again, this is your religious fanaticism speaking. No amount of bleating about the "error of my premise" will ever make it erroneous. Only DATA could do that: and DATA isn't on your side.
And because of your wilful blindness, you seek to ignore the rest of my argument. Regardless of whether it "could" have happened, the data clearly shows that it did NOT, in fact, happen.

You are evidently unaccustomed to the habit of deducing conclusions from evidence.
No, YOU are not interested in "data" at all. Your position is not derived from any "interpretation of data": you will discard all data that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Science doesn't do that. This is a standard of integrity that you will probably never understand: you are doomed to judge others by your own standards.
None of these "defy the evidence".

For abiogenesis: many of the necessary steps are already understood, but there are still some unanswered questions.

For macroevolution: of course. It is an ongoing process which can be directly observed (including the parts creationists like to deny: speciation and information-increase), and the fossil record and DNA analysis has established common descent as fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. The only "theoretical" aspect is whether the fact of evolution alone entirely accounts for the fact of "microbe to man" common descent: this is probably inherently unverifiable, but there is currently no reason to assume otherwise.

For the Big Bang: there has quite clearly been a Big Bang of some sort. I don't pretend to understand what caused it.

However, the Bible's account is clearly bunk. This would be true even if God caused the Big Bang, created the first microbe eh nihilo, and guided evolution. It is a fairytale, incompatible with the available data.

Jack the Bodiless

...Ah

Hydarnes, I note that you have already admitted that you don't actually base your position on studying all the available evidence (as a scholar would):
But you still don't seem to realize that there ARE people who simply follow all the evidence wherever it may lead, and try to fit it into a consistent overall picture.

Hydarnes

NOTE: THIS IS MY LAST EXTRANEOUS CONTRIBUTION, I WILL IGNORE ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS WHICH CONTINUE TO STRAY OFF-TOPIC

blah blah blah...Ipse dixit

You're wrong, what can I say?

Ooooh, so that's why there's no more adherents to the creationary paradigm! You know, I was wondering why, thanks for answering my question!

I suppose I do. Perhaps one day in the future I will be able to obtain a scintilla of the consummate knowledge that you now possess.

More verbal diarrhea reciting the superiority of your philosophical belief which delusively strives to convince you that it is solely predicated on objective “scientific� data rather than an interpretive religious belief. The very tone of your statement readily betrays the fact that you in fact adhere to some sort of secularist dogma. You might find it comforting to know that nobody is entirely free from bias and predispositions, and therefore, trying to deny it only makes you appear exceedingly gullible.

The “rest� of your “argument� merely asserted that the data is in support of your position which firmly denies the Biblical Flood story. This has no bearing on the fact that there is an equally large body of data which has been interpreted in support of the Flood. The sooner you put aside these sophomoric elephant-hurling tactics, the quicker we’ll be able to discuss things on a more intelligent basis.

You are referring to “data� yielded by methodologies that have been seriously questioned for accuracy. Again, you are so zealous in your religious belief that you cannot see alternative data beyond your self-induced myopia.

Oh, I’m very interested in all data.

And you score wrong again!!

As do you.

And don’t fool yourself into thinking that you are free from the same biases.

But they do. They are metaphysical beliefs that have not been supported by scientific evidence.

But you wish to completely overlook the fact that your materialistic mind has forced you to accept the “truth� of abiogenesis, even though it DEFIES scientific tenability.

And we again return to a common evolutionary ruse—the desperate attempt to equate microevolution (genetic variation) with macroevolution—the emergence of completely new and continually advancing genetic information (amoeba to man). The difference between the two is that the former is scientifically observable, the latter is a metaphysical, philosophical belief that requires measures not supported by science.

Baloney. You simply extrapolate a “big bang� on the notion of an “expanding� universe. Personally, I have no problem with a big bang (expanding universe) under supernatural circumstances, but I don't need to speculate the exact nature of this "beginning" because nobody really knows.


Another ipse dixit. You keep going around and circles telling me that I’m wrong—but your assertions are based on nothing more than your own misconceptions and unwillingness to see how you have mistaken the truth of Scripture for error.

I personally believe an Intelligent Designer caused the “Big Bang� (since it is impossible for it to be otherwise), although the notion of a big bang is nowhere near on a basis to be considered “science�. The evolution postulate on the other hand only cooperates with scientifically validated principles, but extrapolates them into unscientific proportions.

[quote]Hydarnes, I note that you have already admitted that you don't actually base your position on studying all the available evidence (as a scholar would):

But I do base my position on evidence. But all available evidence is conflicting, and therefore I decide to take a position that is both grounded upon a large body of substantiating physical as well as faith-based evidence. My position doesn’t require me to be hypocritical (ala yours) by pretending that ALL apparent data supports my philosophical belief.

But there is no such thing, so get over it and get back to reality.

gregor

Your condescension and inflated ego do not help the flaccidity of your blather. Please start a new thread in the EvC forum listing any data supporting a global flood.

Come on, put up or shut up.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, that is essentially correct. There are still religious fundamentalists, of course: but "creation science" has no remaining scientific content.
My opinion is shared by pretty much all of the world's CHRISTIAN scientists. You have absolutely no clue.
You seem to have forgotten your earlier admission.
Factually incorrect.
...Or so you prefer to believe.
Factually incorrect (again).
..."Truth of scripture"?

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. The whole scientific community, and most Biblical scholars (of ALL religions) are fundamentally wrong, because... they disagree with the primitive superstitions of a small tribe of Bronze Age goat-herders?

...Or is everyone wrong because they disagree with YOU, Hydarnes?

When attempting an "Argument from Authority", it helps if you can establish some sort of credibility for that authority.

I'd like to see you have a crack at that. "I, Hydarnes, am right because..."? Or maybe "The goat-herders are right because..."?

WILLOWTREE

Absolutely false and untrue.

Secularists only entertain evidence which supports their worldview.

All evidence which supports theism isn't even considered. It is shouted down and branded pseudo because it supports the claims.

Therefore, when secularists claim, "we would consider God if their was evidence", they are rhetorically declaring there is no evidence.

The Great Pyramid proves that secularists are not loyal to evidence where ever it may lead.

The GP proves the Biblical claim that when God removes God-sense nothing can override.

WT

WILLOWTREE

The single greatest body of evidence proving the Flood is the worldwide accounts from hundreds of civilizations.

The atheist "explanation" of "local flood tales" is proof that evidence is irrelevant and philosophy is king.

All those civilizations are not lying or confused - YOU are.

All the accounts have an origin: the protected version of events as described in Genesis.

The above evidence is first-hand and proves geological interpretations denying the Flood are tainted with anti Biblical bias.

WT