Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stp2007 · 07-08-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

HEAR HEAR! Finally ... a professional states very eloquently what should be obvious, but sadly is not to many modern minds.

As opposed to the geologists, biologists and other logical rational people who have been countering your arguments for months and years. You obviously haven't been listening to them. I pledge £5 towards getting EricMurphy a membership, maybe you will start listening to him.

"Look Mah. A purfessional. Glad one shewed up soon to do my thinkin' for me."

Faid · 07-08-2007, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Faid ...

Quote:

You see, many decades ago, paleontologists would also think the idea of "feathered dinosaurs" would be an absurd one...

...Until they started discovering them.

Except that you are wrong. They haven't discovered any real feathers at all ... Also, I think someone complained about my analogy ...

Quote:

The odd thing is that most people who claim that 1000 year old patriarchs are a myth turn right around and buy into many stories which could be equally mythical ...

1) DNA self-organized from pond scum chemicals in a warm pond
2) Dinosaurs evolved feathers and became birds
3) Flagella magically built themselves

etc. etc.

There. Is that better?

Except you are wrong, as a simple google search on feathered dinasaurs can show. Unless you want to call "feathers" only the ones used for flight, with the exact aerodynamic properties, and ignore the ones common in both birds and feathered dinos. Feathered dinos EXISTED, dave, and show the evolutionary relation between them and birds. And your new implications of the scientists fudging data, in that quote you posted, is proof of nothing but your lack of arguments.
Do your homework, dave.

Faid · 07-08-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faid

I think the Evil One summed it up quite nicely, dave. We've had this conversation before, though, and I'm afraid you will ignore his valid points the same way you did back then. But one can only hope.

Anyway, I think that this is as good an opportunity as any, to clarify your stance once and for all.

Dave,
What is your own, personal criteria to distinguish between "accurate historical records" and myths?

You do believe myths exist, right?

Please answer this simple question.

Of course I believe that myths exist. It is often quite an easy decision. "Alice in Wonderland" for example was never intended by the author to be anything other than a work of fantasy. But Genesis, on the other hand, is a different story. Genesis bears many marks of being intended by the authors to be sober history. INTENT of the author is therefore important. Steven Boyd of the ICR RATE Team wrote a "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3" in 2005 and came to the overwhelming conclusion that this portion, at least, was intended to be historical. There are also evidences of historical intent throughout the rest of Genesis. See my book review of “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis.”

It seems that the primary objection to believing the pre-Flood men lived ~1000 years is nothing more than Personal Incredulity and Narrowmindedness. You see that man does not live this long NOW, therefore you say that they NEVER could have EVER.

Bah humbug. End of story. Inquiry is stifled.

On the other hand, if you have a high view of Genesis, you are a bit more thoughtful than this. You say "Hmmm ... what if it's true? What could possibly make man live so long? Could we discover something new here? Was it the pre-Flood environment? High atmospheric pressure? What they ate? Genetics? What could it be? Could we find the key to the aging process? If we could, think how that would sell !!"

So, irrelevant quotings aside, lemme get this straight: The method of distinguishing between myths and "accurate historical records" is, in your opinion, the INTENT of the author?

Do you always accept the veracity of a claim, unless the author himself steps up and says "nah, I'm just messin' wit' ya"?

Wow.

As for trying to find which element in the "pre-flood enviroment" made us live 1000 years, well... Good luck with that. Maybe, when you're done, you can calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.

The Evil One · 07-08-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stp2007

As opposed to the geologists, biologists and other logical rational people who have been countering your arguments for months and years.

But this is the thing -- for afdave, written historical tradition trumps the physical evidence, so of course a historian is a professional whose opinion should be respected, whereas with biologists and geologists afdave is quite happy to claim, as a rank amateur, to understand "origins" better than the pros, as he has in E/C more than once.

(Not that Roger Pearse was actually claiming to be a professional historian, as far as I can tell -- that is afdave's misreading.)

Faid · 07-08-2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I'm going to see if I can hire some Chinese scam artists to build some 900 year old human skeletons for me ... evidently they are pretty good ... then we can settle this debate once and for all.

Maybe they'll give me a two-fer-one special and throw in some giant skeletons.

WHoooo boy, here we go with the conspiracies again.

Pathetic, dave. Pathetic.

Faid · 07-08-2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

I already gave you a list of 15 genera. But you have already decided that they weren't feathered dinosaurs, no matter the evidence, so what's the point?

I've never seen the evidence. I'm from Missouri. Show me. Like I said, you could start a new thread in EvC, then post some pictures and some analysis of why you think there were ever any feathered dinos.

I think dave wants you to take him to China and show him the fossils themselves in the excavation sites. Yup, a totally logical demand.

Faid · 07-08-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Oh and by the way ... that coin you mentioned is a written record.

It is also Physical evidence. We've been through that at RDnet, remember?

Also: If that coin had a picture of Athena on its one side, would that be proof for the existence of Athena, dave?

Mike PSS · 07-08-2007, 06:11 AM

I too enjoyed the side-show named Elijah.

Flashbacks of the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" come to mind with Elijah playing the ever lovable Spicoli and (here's the insult) mung bean standing in for Mr. Hand.

Too funny.

The Evil One · 07-08-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faid

What is your own, personal criteria to distinguish between "accurate historical records" and myths?

You do believe myths exist, right?

Of course I believe that myths exist. It is often quite an easy decision. "Alice in Wonderland" for example was never intended by the author to be anything other than a work of fantasy. But Genesis, on the other hand, is a different story. Genesis bears many marks of being intended by the authors to be sober history. INTENT of the author is therefore important. Steven Boyd of the ICR RATE Team wrote a "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3" in 2005 and came to the overwhelming conclusion that this portion, at least, was intended to be historical. There are also evidences of historical intent throughout the rest of Genesis. See my book review of “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis.”

It seems that the primary objection to believing the pre-Flood men lived ~1000 years is nothing more than Personal Incredulity and Narrowmindedness. You see that man does not live this long NOW, therefore you say that they NEVER could have EVER.

Bah humbug. End of story. Inquiry is stifled.

On the other hand, if you have a high view of Genesis, you are a bit more thoughtful than this. You say "Hmmm ... what if it's true? What could possibly make man live so long? Could we discover something new here? Was it the pre-Flood environment? High atmospheric pressure? What they ate? Genetics? What could it be? Could we find the key to the aging process? If we could, think how that would sell !!"

Since Herodotus also intended to write sober history, Sauron's post (which was lost in last night's melee) becomes apposite:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

I just thought it might be useful to present afdave and Roger with a point-blank example of the flaw in their reasoning, with regards to the value of ancient texts.

Herodotus is an ancient historian. He has been referred to as the "father of ancient history", or even "the father of history". Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say about the value of his contribution:

Herodotus was a great traveler with an eye for detail, a good geographer, a man with an indefatigable interest in the customs and past history of his fellowmen, and a man of the widest tolerance, with no bias for the Greeks and against the barbarians. He was neither naive nor easily credulous. It is this which makes the first half of his work not only so readable but of such historical importance.

Yet Herodotus occasionally went off the rails with a clearly bogus claim:

Quote:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.

So afdave / Roger: here we have an ancient text (At this point, I assume you'll genuflect or something).

1. How do you process this claim of flying serpents?
2. If you accept it, why?
3. If you reject it, upon what basis do you reject this claim, but accept the claim of 1,000 year lifespans in Genesis?

It seems clear that the "intent" criterion is insufficient to distinguish between Herodotus's flying serpents and the longlived patriarchs of Genesis.

Faid · 07-08-2007, 06:21 AM

And yet, from dave's latest (relevant) post on the subject, it seems that he does, in fact, think the author's intent is the sole criteria to tell between fact and fiction. If they tells you it's true, it is.

It seems funny that the likes of people Lucian made fun of in his work "A True Story", still exist, after two millenia. What can you do.

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

07-08-2007, 06:11 AM	#208
Mike PSS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 656	I too enjoyed the side-show named Elijah. Flashbacks of the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" come to mind with Elijah playing the ever lovable Spicoli and (here's the insult) mung bean standing in for Mr. Hand. Too funny.

07-08-2007, 06:21 AM	#210
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	And yet, from dave's latest (relevant) post on the subject, it seems that he does, in fact, think the author's intent is the sole criteria to tell between fact and fiction. If they tells you it's true, it is. It seems funny that the likes of people Lucian made fun of in his work "A True Story", still exist, after two millenia. What can you do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.