Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 09-14-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

They certainly do. On the other hand, I'm sure that many creationists feel the same way. It would be so easy for a creationist to point to Minimalist's earlier statement ("they ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood") as an example on how creationists' "scientific discoveries" are ignored.

Let's see....I've heard the canopy of vapors theory...the water under the earth theory and the god can make it rain as much as he wants to theory.

Which one did you have in mind, Don? Or is there a new wrinkle?

GakuseiDon · 09-15-2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

They certainly do. On the other hand, I'm sure that many creationists feel the same way. It would be so easy for a creationist to point to Minimalist's earlier statement ("they ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood") as an example on how creationists' "scientific discoveries" are ignored.

Let's see....I've heard the canopy of vapors theory...the water under the earth theory and the god can make it rain as much as he wants to theory.

Which one did you have in mind, Don? Or is there a new wrinkle?

Exactly. A good opportunity to expose creationists' weak science.

GakuseiDon · 09-15-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think then that you are misusing the word stereotype.

Note this is an engagement that Minimalist has said they will duck.

Yep. He wrote that they "ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood".

Do creationists ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood? No, they don't. They are very concerned about sounding "scientific", and that (IMO) is their Achilles heel.

mountainman · 09-15-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Do you understand that you have paraphrased the nature of the mainstream claim concening the (ahem) "historical" Jesus?

Best wishes,

Pete

Actually what I've done is summed up the nature of your claim concerning why no one buys into your thesis.

Jeffrey

Tithing is a characteristic feature of the mainstream tradition. You'll note that my alternative thesis concerning the first 500 years of the common era actually cites archaeological evidence on the monumental variety in addition to the only two NT related carbon dating claims on the planet.

We have no thesis for the historical jesus in the field of ancient history any more Jeffrey. This antiquated hypothesis of a century ago appears to be redundant.

Best wishes,

Pete

bacht · 09-15-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Sorry, Don, but most of the ones I've run into all have the same act. When confronted by science they simply declare that "god can do anything."

Magic is for six year-olds.

It comes back to the idea of "worshipping the Bible" vs "worshipping God". It's why the Catholic church focuses on dogma rather than scripture and why there was reluctance on the part of the church concerning printing/copying the Bible and making it available for anyone. Prior to the printing press, churches were in complete position to interpret the text for their congregations.

But now that anyone can pick up a copy at Walmart (and despite the efforts of the translators) the problems are available for anyone to see. And as modern understanding impassionately exposes issues with literal interpretation, those who use the Bible as their reason for believing have to be re-assured.

Yep. The term is "bibliolatry" I think. As you say, anyone can pick up a Bible and marvel at the inconsistencies and plain nonsense to be found there. Protestants have continued to affirm the sola scriptura idea, which they had to, since they dispensed with an established authority like the Vatican.

Toto · 09-15-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think then that you are misusing the word stereotype.

Note this is an engagement that Minimalist has said they will duck.

Yep. He wrote that they "ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood".

Do creationists ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood? No, they don't. They are very concerned about sounding "scientific", and that (IMO) is their Achilles heel.

You seem to be writing in English, but your replies are remarkably non-responsive.

Minimalist said that creationists ignore a certain fact. But it appears that they don't actually ignore it, they provide a bogus response and then ignore the scientific disproof of that bogus response.

So how is this "A good opportunity to expose creationists' weak science" as opposed to another opportunity to :banghead: ?

sschlichter · 09-15-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It appears you are assuming that the writers of the OT are a fraud since they intentionally set out to deceive us by writing an inaccurate portrayal of Israel's history. Most serious bible scholars certainly do not believe that the OT is a "fraud." For example, Thomas Tompson in his book The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel states "How the Bible is related to history has been badly misunderstood. As we have been reading the Bible within a context that is certainly wrong, and as we have misunderstood the Bible because of this, we need to seek a context more appropriate. As a result, we will begin to read the Bible in a new way." Due to it's tremendous impact on Western Civilization the OT/NT will continued to be studied by serious scholars long after you and I are gone.

Dear arnoldo.

See my thesis.
It is to the new testament that I refer when I stated fraud.

Best wishes

Pete

So, you are suggesting in your thesis that the Aryan controversy was over whether the man Jesus existed or not? do I understand correctly? I.e. You beleive that Arius was arguing that Jesus never existed?

~Steve

Toto · 09-15-2008, 01:29 PM

Arian, not Aryan !!

Pete's interpretation of Arius is unique, and OFF TOPIC HERE.

sschlichter · 09-15-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Arian, not Aryan !!

Pete's interpretation of Arius is unique, and OFF TOPIC HERE.

Was it off topic when it was presented or just when I ask for clarification?

my bad spelling aside, his interpretation of Arius sheds light on what he might consider a moot argument.

However, I will not address the topic anymore. My apologies for the distraction.

~Steve

GakuseiDon · 09-15-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yep. He wrote that they "ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood".

Do creationists ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood? No, they don't. They are very concerned about sounding "scientific", and that (IMO) is their Achilles heel.

You seem to be writing in English, but your replies are remarkably non-responsive.

Minimalist said that creationists ignore a certain fact. But it appears that they don't actually ignore it, they provide a bogus response and then ignore the scientific disproof of that bogus response.

Yes, I agree. Perfectly phrased, Toto. And that is what Minimalist should have written, IMO.

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

09-15-2008, 01:29 PM	#38
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Arian, not Aryan !! Pete's interpretation of Arius is unique, and OFF TOPIC HERE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.