FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2009, 07:00 AM   #71
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigart14 View Post
The Fundamentals are: the six-day Creation; the global flood; the virgin birth; the resurrection; the atoning death; Biblical inerrancy.

Most of these are claims of fact. Fundamentalists accept these claims as true, and there are millions of fundamentalists in the US, including the followers of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard (his replacement, actually), Jerry Falwell (his replacement), Ken Ham, Bob Jones, and a host of others.
If I recall correctly, I don't think that Dobson subscribes to the literal 6-day creation.
Citsonga is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 07:44 AM   #72
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
What exactly would have been so conspicuous about a worldwide flood in a dynamic system where volcanoes and earthquakes, among other things, have been distorting the evidence?
If you have to ask that question, then you are so scientifically illiterate that I cannot answer it in one post.

However, just for the record . . . A global flood would have left a uniquely identifiable global layer of mud, and in the few thousand years since it alleged occurred, there has not been enough volcanic or seismic activity to have made it go away.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 08:01 AM   #73
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
But, what does 'the word of God" really mean? If I carry my KJV Bible to certain countries, they would say I have the "words of the Devil".

The "words of God" is directly dependent on your geographical location.
God is that entity described in the Bible and given credit for speaking the words recorded or prompting men to write the words recorded. It is independent of geographical location.

Completely false.

You know the Christian Bible is not recognised as the word of God throughout the entire world.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 08:25 AM   #74
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
What exactly would have been so conspicuous about a worldwide flood in a dynamic system where volcanoes and earthquakes, among other things, have been distorting the evidence?
If you have to ask that question, then you are so scientifically illiterate that I cannot answer it in one post.

However, just for the record . . . A global flood would have left a uniquely identifiable global layer of mud, and in the few thousand years since it alleged occurred, there has not been enough volcanic or seismic activity to have made it go away.
I think he just wants to argue, Doug. He has produce no evidence that the Bible should be taken literally. Questions are not answers. In order to be a YEC in this modern world, you must ignore, refute, or disregard whole branches of science---biology, geology, anthropology, etc. Being willing to do this, while placing ones "faith" in a single literary reference from millenia before the advent of modern science, puts any logical discourse in doubt.

You're wasting your time. Even if you explained all of the science involved, rhutchin would still refuse to see the proof. My goodness, he has already called into question the reliability of observation as a means of detection.
NoMansLand is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 08:25 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Middle of an orange grove
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
I do believe in a literal six day creation of the universe some 15000 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
I'll repeat it here:
"When reality disagrees with you, who is correct? You or reality?"
Reality is always correct. I may (as can anyone else) misinterpret/misunderstand that which I think is reality.
Reality tells us the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.7 billion year, so why are you denying reality?

Or is it that you disagree with the methods used to determine the age? If so, please tell me what is wrong with all the various methods of radio-metric dating used and why your "method" is accurate.
Wooster is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 01:20 PM   #76
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
I do believe in a literal six day creation of the universe some 15000 years ago.

Reality is always correct. I may (as can anyone else) misinterpret/misunderstand that which I think is reality.
Reality tells us the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.7 billion year, so why are you denying reality?
I think it might be best to say that scientists develop models based on certain assumptions and then use these models to estimate the age of the universe. Reality is only telling us that which a very limited view of reality can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
Or is it that you disagree with the methods used to determine the age? If so, please tell me what is wrong with all the various methods of radio-metric dating used and why your "method" is accurate.
Everything depends on the assumptions that underlie the dating model. Those assumptions seem to take that which can be observed today and extrapolates them backwards in time. The Bible does not tell us the technical details of those events surrounding the creation of the universe and the physical laws we observe today may not have settled in until after that creation. From what I understand any model of the beginning of the universe has to allow for weirdness at the beginning. Maybe not. But, who really knows and how could we know? As some have opined, the universe could have been created yesterday and we would not be able to determine it.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 01:32 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
But, what does 'the word of God" really mean? If I carry my KJV Bible to certain countries, they would say I have the "words of the Devil".

The "words of God" is directly dependent on your geographical location.
God is that entity described in the Bible and given credit for speaking the words recorded or prompting men to write the words recorded. It is independent of geographical location.
Completely false.

You know the Christian Bible is not recognized as the word of God throughout the entire world.
Does not matter. We can have any number of documents purporting to be the "word of God." Within the context of each of those documents, it is the "word of God." The Bible is the "word of God." Your issue seems to be that people do not recognize the Biblical god as the true and living God. That's fine. People are free to think that way.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 01:46 PM   #78
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
What exactly would have been so conspicuous about a worldwide flood in a dynamic system where volcanoes and earthquakes, among other things, have been distorting the evidence?
If you have to ask that question, then you are so scientifically illiterate that I cannot answer it in one post.

However, just for the record . . . A global flood would have left a uniquely identifiable global layer of mud, and in the few thousand years since it alleged occurred, there has not been enough volcanic or seismic activity to have made it go away.
Scientifically illiterate! Perhaps, but I tend to doubt that you really know everything that has happened in the past.

The Bible refers to ...Eber ...in [whose] days was the earth divided. (Genesis 10) That would seem to be significant. Some people, for instance, seem to think that Europe was once joined to N America and other continents. That separation could have had traumatic impacts. So, I am not sure that we would easily find a "uniquely identifiable global layer of mud" or stone. So, what have geologists found? I am not a geologist and I don't know.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 04:54 PM   #79
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Completely false.

You know the Christian Bible is not recognized as the word of God throughout the entire world.
Does not matter. We can have any number of documents purporting to be the "word of God." Within the context of each of those documents, it is the "word of God." The Bible is the "word of God." Your issue seems to be that people do not recognize the Biblical god as the true and living God. That's fine. People are free to think that way.
Of course it matters. We have a number of documents saying different things about their Gods.

The word of God is entirely subjective.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-16-2009, 04:58 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Middle of an orange grove
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post

Reality tells us the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.7 billion year, so why are you denying reality?
I think it might be best to say that scientists develop models based on certain assumptions and then use these models to estimate the age of the universe. Reality is only telling us that which a very limited view of reality can do.
This is why you should NOT think about these things, but search out the information,. You are 100% incorrect of course.

You can not show any incorrect calculations based on the available data, you can't even tell me how the age is estimated. And you can also not tell me, using the scientific language, why the calculations are wrong.

But, you are free to impress me with your knowledge about cosmology. Go ahead! If you actually have anything at all, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
Or is it that you disagree with the methods used to determine the age? If so, please tell me what is wrong with all the various methods of radio-metric dating used and why your "method" is accurate.
Everything depends on the assumptions that underlie the dating model. Those assumptions seem to take that which can be observed today and extrapolates them backwards in time. The Bible does not tell us the technical details of those events surrounding the creation of the universe and the physical laws we observe today may not have settled in until after that creation. From what I understand any model of the beginning of the universe has to allow for weirdness at the beginning. Maybe not. But, who really knows and how could we know? As some have opined, the universe could have been created yesterday and we would not be able to determine it.

Now tell me WHY the methods are giving us the incorrect answer and then tell us how to correct it. If not, you should shut up! This looks like a plumber telling a neurosurgeon how to perform brain surgery and you are the plumber in this picture.

This is not even funny, just dumb!
Wooster is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.