A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

The Evidence is not open to "Interpretation" the way the Bible is

Sure it is. All interpertation means is the act of explaining the meaning of something.

Just last night on a CNN show concering the death of the first-born of egypt, several archaeologists were trying to determine whether or not a skull was of of the son of Ramses, and trying to explain whether or not a hole on the side of the skull was the "kill shot" delivered by God's angel.

If that's not an act of interpretation, I don't know what is.

There's no conspiracy against attempts to prove the Biblical accounts.

Strawman. I simply stated that no ones doing the research. How is that inferring a "conspiracy"? I know there isn't a conspiracy, just non-belief...duh...

 

[sandorski]

Sure it is. All interpertation means is the act of explaining the meaning of something.

Just last night on a CNN show concering the death of the first-born of egypt, several archaeologists were trying to determine whether or not a skull was of of the son of Ramses, and trying to explain whether or not a hole on the side of the skull was the "kill shot" delivered by God's angel.

If that's not an act of interpretation, I don't know what is.




Strawman. I simply stated that no ones doing the research. How is that inferring a "conspiracy"? I know there isn't a conspiracy, just non-belief...duh...

Ok, as I said though, there's nothing stopping anyone. So if no one is doing it, it's because no one feels like wasting their time on it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok, as I said though, there's nothing stopping anyone. So if no one is doing it, it's because no one feels like wasting their time on it.

Ok so modern science determines what they'll investigate depending on whether or not its worth the time.

Gotcha...

 

[sandorski]

Ok so modern science determines what they'll investigate depending on whether or not its worth the time.

Gotcha...

That's not what I said. You could do it, no one is stopping anyone. Why is no one doing it? Because no one actually thinks it's worth the effort.

 

[soulcougher73]

Please, scientists sometimes disagree on the details of evolution and how those details are/should be interpreted. That doesn't mean evolution didn't take place.

The reason why you have disagreement among religion is because people are deciding to interpret the Bible. It doesn't discredit the alleged 'source' of the book.

What do you expect, though? People are free to believe what they want. That belief is often reflected in their interpretations.

Well concidering scientists are not an all powerful or all knowing gods, your responce doesnt mean much. A god should be able to get his message across for all time with clear concise words that leave zero room for interpretation. Why would god want his own people to be so scattered on what he meant to say (especially if he is all knowing, he would know that would happen)? That makes no sense what so ever.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well concidering scientists are not an all powerful or all knowing gods, your responce doesnt mean much.

Of course it doesn't mean much, you're an unbeliever. I don't expect it to, either.

A god should be able to get his message across for all time with clear concise words that leave zero room for interpretation.

You don't understand. We're human beings, and we have the ability to think how we want to as well. Here's a great example. I will grant you that evolution is supported by evidence that is "clear and concise", yet, how many people reject it? I count about 150 million people in the US.

Also, in 2014, we have people that believe the Sun revolves around the earth. Can't you see how people can reject "clear and concise" information?

My point is that no matter how clear something is, we can simply decide whether we listen to it or not, or how we interpret it.

Nice false dichotomy, though.

 

[DrPizza]

Rob, you apparently don't understand science at all. To say "no one is looking for it" is disingenuous. There are many geologists the world over. We have a HUGE fossil record. There are layers of rock all over the place - and these layers are compared from location to location. You're also, apparently, not understanding the term "global," nor have a clue what kind of research goes on. You're treating it as if scientists are covering their eyes while doing current research. They're not. If there's evidence of a flood, they say, "hey, look! Evidence of a flood!" I'm quite aware of the local geography and layers of rock/fossil record. (I had the great fortune to have to teach an Earth Science lab for the teacher who had gone home sick.) There are outcroppings of rock all over the place - I can drive a couple hundred miles from here and by comparing the types of rock, and order of layers, find the exact same layers that exist here.

To say "they're not still looking for it" is about the equivalent of me saying, "I'm not looking for a brown bear in my living room." I've been sitting in my living room for a few hours. There wasn't a brown bear in here when I got to the living room. If there was, I'd have seen it. I'm not still looking for one, because though I may have looked earlier, I didn't find one. There's absolutely no reason to think I might find one now. However, if in the unlikely event a brown bear shows up in my living room, I can assure you, I'll notice it. Likewise, if any evidence of a "global" flood were to show up, it would be noticed, not ignored. Whoever noticed it/published info on it would become incredibly famous.

 

[PingviN]

You don't understand. We're human beings, and we have the ability to think how we want to as well. Here's a great example. I will grant you that evolution is supported by evidence that is "clear and concise", yet, how many people reject it? I count about 150 million people in the US.

Also, in 2014, we have people that believe the Sun revolves around the earth. Can't you see how people can reject "clear and concise" information?

My point is that no matter how clear something is, we can simply decide whether we listen to it or not, or how we interpret it.

Being unaware of scientific facts is ignorance and ignorant people can be educated. Rejecting scientific facts (such as evolution or how old the planet is) in favor of religious dogma is something else.
You can't educate someone who is unwilling to change his point of view.

Don't confuse the two.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, you apparently don't understand science at all. To say "no one is looking for it" is disingenuous. There are many geologists the world over. We have a HUGE fossil record. There are layers of rock all over the place - and these layers are compared from location to location. You're also, apparently, not understanding the term "global," nor have a clue what kind of research goes on. You're treating it as if scientists are covering their eyes while doing current research. They're not. If there's evidence of a flood, they say, "hey, look! Evidence of a flood!" I'm quite aware of the local geography and layers of rock/fossil record. (I had the great fortune to have to teach an Earth Science lab for the teacher who had gone home sick.) There are outcroppings of rock all over the place - I can drive a couple hundred miles from here and by comparing the types of rock, and order of layers, find the exact same layers that exist here.

To say "they're not still looking for it" is about the equivalent of me saying, "I'm not looking for a brown bear in my living room." I've been sitting in my living room for a few hours. There wasn't a brown bear in here when I got to the living room. If there was, I'd have seen it. I'm not still looking for one, because though I may have looked earlier, I didn't find one. There's absolutely no reason to think I might find one now. However, if in the unlikely event a brown bear shows up in my living room, I can assure you, I'll notice it. Likewise, if any evidence of a "global" flood were to show up, it would be noticed, not ignored. Whoever noticed it/published info on it would become incredibly famous.

I guess you missed the posts by someone who claims to understand science affirming my statements...that scientific research on the subject hasn't been seriously conducted in well over 100 years:

This post is utter BS.

In the early times, Science presumed Creation and the Flood. Scientists purposely went out looking for the Evidence of these events. They didn't find it though, what they found was the basis to what we understand today about these subjects.

16th- 19th centuries

...and that it would apparently be a "waste of time".

 

[sandorski]

I guess you missed the posts by someone who claims to understand science affirming my statements...that scientific research on the subject hasn't been seriously conducted in well over 100 years:






...and that it would apparently be a "waste of time".

Like I said, no one stops anyone from doing it. No one bothers, cause it's a waste. If you disagree, go out and do it yourself.

 

[Retro Rob]

Like I said, no one stops anyone from doing it. No one bothers, cause it's a waste. If you disagree, go out and do it yourself.

I would if I had the education, but I don't have the formal training. But my point wasn't to draw you into our exchange, however, I don't appreciate how DrPizza is seemingly apologizing for the sheer lack of interest and somewhat incredulity concerning a global flood, and how he wants to argue semantics over what "global" means.

But...whatever...

 

[Retro Rob]

Being unaware of scientific facts is ignorance and ignorant people can be educated. Rejecting scientific facts (such as evolution or how old the planet is) in favor of religious dogma is something else.
You can't educate someone who is unwilling to change his point of view.

Don't confuse the two.

What? I wasn't even comparing the two. I was showing how people can ignore "clear and concise" information.

He was really trying to argue that if the Bible isn't "clear and concise", it isn't from God...that implication was glaring obvious in his post.

I countered by showing that its not so much of the information not being "clear and concise", but how willful ignorance plays a huge role in this.

 

[DrPizza]

I guess you missed the posts by someone who claims to understand science affirming my statements...that scientific research on the subject hasn't been seriously conducted in well over 100 years:

...and that it would apparently be a "waste of time".

No one has searched for fire breathing dragons in well over 100 years either. Do you think that such a search would NOT be a waste of time? Several hundred years ago, there was plenty of lore about fire breathing dragons. I'm sure there were people who may have believed that they existed. So, why aren't people looking for them today?

You want them to continue looking for evidence of a Biblical flood? WHERE? Where do you want them to look for such evidence, since they have geological evidence that goes back tens and hundreds of millions of years with zero evidence of such a global flood in, literally and figuratively, mountains of data.

 

[Exophase]

I guess you missed the posts by someone who claims to understand science affirming my statements...that scientific research on the subject hasn't been seriously conducted in well over 100 years

There hadn't been serious scientific research on the shape of the earth in much longer than that. In the mid 19th century someone who thought the earth was flat actually did some experiments and used the results, which poorly accounted for some variables, to justify his beliefs. Now would you think this should have sparked an effort to revisit a ton of already established experimental data, or perhaps just

This is more or less what has happened with the anti-evolutionists or those purporting a worldwide flood 4000 years ago. They have yet to come up with an argument that couldn't easily be explained as a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the data.

You act like modern geology set out with the initial prerequisite that nothing could be interpreted in light of the Biblical account. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most early geologists in Europe assumed that there was a global flood because the Bible said so, and they tried to interpret their findings in the context of this flood. In fact, some of these early geologists were outright looking to prove the flood to dispel any doubt that the Bible was authentic. It was only after looking at the evidence did they find that it overwhelmingly disagreed with the flood.

By the way, the flood had been rejected by geologists long before the theory of evolution rolled around.

 

[PowerEngineer]

thank god it is not up to me to convince you of anything!! I will let the Holy Spirit do the convincing!!

For that I am equally thankful!! I'll let you know when (if) the shaft of light finds me.

Please, scientists sometimes disagree on the details of evolution and how those details are/should be interpreted. That doesn't mean evolution didn't take place.

The reason why you have disagreement among religion is because people are deciding to interpret the Bible. It doesn't discredit the alleged 'source' of the book.

What do you expect, though? People are free to believe what they want. That belief is often reflected in their interpretations.

It's fair to say that scientist continually squabble over the details (big and small) of evolution as they try to adjust the theory to better fit new facts.

But I think the bible is more logically compared with a text book that aims to describe the current theory of evolution. If readers of the text book come away with divergent understandings of what the theory is, then we'd conclude that the book's authors did a poor job of clearly communicating the theory (and we should get a better text book). The same can really be said about any text book on any subject.

It seems reasonable to expect that a book written by authors (and translators?) inspired by god should clearly communicate his truths without leaving so much room for interpretation. (snake-handling )

 

[sandorski]

For that I am equally thankful!! I'll let you know when (if) the shaft of light finds me.



It's fair to say that scientist continually squabble over the details (big and small) of evolution as they try to adjust the theory to better fit new facts.

But I think the bible is more logically compared with a text book that aims to describe the current theory of evolution. If readers of the text book come away with divergent understandings of what the theory is, then we'd conclude that the book's authors did a poor job of clearly communicating the theory (and we should get a better text book). The same can really be said about any text book on any subject.

It seems reasonable to expect that a book written by authors (and translators?) inspired by god should clearly communicate his truths without leaving so much room for interpretation. (snake-handling )

On that subject, the verse in the New Testament that inspires Snake Handlers doesn't appear in any of the early manuscripts. It was, ironically, clearly added in later.

 

[Retro Rob]

For that I am equally thankful!! I'll let you know when (if) the shaft of light finds me.



It's fair to say that scientist continually squabble over the details (big and small) of evolution as they try to adjust the theory to better fit new facts.

But I think the bible is more logically compared with a text book that aims to describe the current theory of evolution. If readers of the text book come away with divergent understandings of what the theory is, then we'd conclude that the book's authors did a poor job of clearly communicating the theory (and we should get a better text book). The same can really be said about any text book on any subject.

It seems reasonable to expect that a book written by authors (and translators?) inspired by god should clearly communicate his truths without leaving so much room for interpretation. (snake-handling )

I would agree, but counter with the fact that the book (Bible) covers about 4000 years, and having to fit that into a readable piece of literature without having to span several volumes would require some details to be omitted.

On the other hand, if the details were all there, then the Bible would be a volume set and not likely to be read by ordinary people in its entirety.

I'd say a wonderful job was done in condensing the information.

 

[Exophase]

I would agree, but counter with the fact that the book (Bible) covers about 4000 years, and having to fit that into a readable piece of literature without having to span several volumes would require some details to be omitted.

On the other hand, if the details were all there, then the Bible would be a volume set and not likely to be read by ordinary people in its entirety.

I'd say a wonderful job was done in condensing the information.

How can you consider a work composed of several books written by many authors over many years to be a single volume? It took quite a while for the church to even agree on which books made up the Bible, much less produce copies that included all of them in one physical book.

Of the books that could even be considered an attempt at history, only Genesis, the very first part of Exodus, Judges, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, and Daniel even really cover more than a few decades. With a good 2200 of those years in the first book the Bible isn't exactly filled to the brim with historical account.

 

[PingviN]

What? I wasn't even comparing the two. I was showing how people can ignore "clear and concise" information.

He was really trying to argue that if the Bible isn't "clear and concise", it isn't from God...that implication was glaring obvious in his post.

I countered by showing that its not so much of the information not being "clear and concise", but how willful ignorance plays a huge role in this.

No, the word you used was "reject". Being ignorant of facts, like Earth's orbit around the sun, isn't [necessarily] a result of rejecting the facts, but ignorance. People simply have not learned that the sun is the center of our solar system around which the other planets orbits.

On evolution, which seems like a ridiculously popular topic in the States, people reject the theory, because their religious dogma states God created man in his image, we did not evolve. Any evidence to support evolution gets rejected. Not because the evidence or the method used is flawed, but because it does not fit in with their religious beliefs. I don't really care if people believe in a God, personal or not, but religion goes far beyond faith, crippling peoples ability to think for themselves.

 

[AViking]

I would agree, but counter with the fact that the book (Bible) covers about 4000 years, and having to fit that into a readable piece of literature without having to span several volumes would require some details to be omitted.

On the other hand, if the details were all there, then the Bible would be a volume set and not likely to be read by ordinary people in its entirety.

I'd say a wonderful job was done in condensing the information.

Either you don't know what the bible is or you haven't read it. Master troll. Congratulations. You had me fooled. I should have spotted you earlier when we have literally spent thread after thread trying to explain basic things like the scientific method to you but you still don't get it. Brilliant. Bravo!

 

[DrPizza]

Either you don't know what the bible is or you haven't read it. Master troll. Congratulations. You had me fooled. I should have spotted you earlier when we have literally spent thread after thread trying to explain basic things like the scientific method to you but you still don't get it. Brilliant. Bravo!

I think you're right. I remember seeing that quote yesterday and just leaning back with a "okay, I'm confused" look on my face. It didn't make sense, so I ignored it. Nice catch.

 

[Exophase]

I wonder how many Christians actually read the whole Bible. I know I never did when I was one. And of those who force themselves through it, how many really retain all of the salient information? I personally think Genesis was one of the most interesting and easy to read books of the Old Testament, if it gave 10 times more detail about the early history of the earth you'd probably still get people more likely to read it than Leviticus or most of the minor prophets.

If the point was to make sure a person could manage reading the Bible God kind of dropped the ball on more fundamental problems, like making sure Bibles were actually accessible to people and that people could actually read.

 

[Retro Rob]

How can you consider a work composed of several books written by many authors over many years to be a single volume? It took quite a while for the church to even agree on which books made up the Bible, much less produce copies that included all of them in one physical book.

Of the books that could even be considered an attempt at history, only Genesis, the very first part of Exodus, Judges, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, and Daniel even really cover more than a few decades. With a good 2200 of those years in the first book the Bible isn't exactly filled to the brim with historical account.

I think we're misunderstanding each other, or I, you.

What I am saying is the book covers, and I am just summing things up, Adam to Abraham (2000 years), and from Abraham to Jesus (2000 years), which amounts to roughly 4000 years...give or take me being off a decade of two.

Adhereing closely to Bible Chronology only, Adam was created some time in 4000 BC, Abraham...after the Flood, which took place sometime during 2000 BC (don't remember the exact date), Jesus was born around 1 C.E, died in 33 CE.

From 4000 BC to 1 CE is 4000 years.

 

[Retro Rob]

Either you don't know what the bible is or you haven't read it. Master troll. Congratulations. You had me fooled. I should have spotted you earlier when we have literally spent thread after thread trying to explain basic things like the scientific method to you but you still don't get it. Brilliant. Bravo!

Tell me about it. Telling me I don't what the Bible is, and not offering a single rebuttal about what you think it is, just demonstrates the lack of susbtance to your post and shows you only want to criticise, not discuss.

Please, educate me on what it is.

 

[soulcougher73]

Please, educate me on what it is.

I got this guys.