Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Specifically, that the Bible's tale of the origin of humans is a fiction.

Science helps confirm the Biblical account. Science helps disprove many of the evolutionary just so stories.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Ok... so lets go with Stripes suggestion. Its was a red herring fallacy.

Actually, it was a counter example. If one of the metrics you use is archaeology accuracy then by that standard the Koran is accurate history. He didn't suggest you examine the Koran.

By a similar standard any novel by James Michener is accurate history.

We can take a look at your red herring claim after you agree that archaeology helps to confirm the Biblical account is accurate.

What archaeological evidence confirms your version of deity?

What archaeological evidence confirms a miracle?

Does geographical accuracy confirm the account in James Michener's "Hawaii" is accurate history??

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Mark M]

Not fiction. Myth.

What is your religion?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Science helps confirm the Biblical account.

What science confirms the supernatural? What science confirms creation?

Archaeology seems to suggest "The Exodus" didn't happen... http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html

... among many biblical fables.

Science helps disprove many of the evolutionary just so stories.

Science corrects science. Wow! What a novel concept!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually, it was a counter example. If one of the metrics you use is archaeology accuracy then by that standard the Koran is accurate history. He didn't suggest you examine the Koran.

It's just a deflection/avoidance technique for dodging a problem they can't resolve. The Bible is true because it includes names of places that actually exist? Then by that same standard the Koran is equally true.

6days' response....Moving goalposts! Red herring! Something! Anything! So long as I don't have to actually address the problem!!

If you pay close attention to these discussions you'll see two main themes from the creationists. First is argument via assertion (thinking their mere say-so is sufficient to establish something as true) and the second is avoidance.

From a psychological standpoint, it's very interesting to watch.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's just a deflection/avoidance technique for dodging a problem they can't resolve. The Bible is true because it includes names of places that actually exist? Then by that same standard the Koran is equally true.

6days' response....Moving goalposts! Red herring! Something! Anything! So long as I don't have to actually address the problem!!

If you pay close attention to these discussions you'll see two main themes from the creationists. First is argument via assertion (thinking their mere say-so is sufficient to establish something as true) and the second is avoidance.

I'm guessing he's reached the end of his list of nonsense and is about to start all over again, again.

From a psychological standpoint, it's very interesting to watch.

It's sad, really, really sad.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Not fiction. Myth.

Agreed, but I didn't say the biblical accounts were fiction, but a fiction.

(I used the indefinite article, so 'a fiction' just means an untrue belief, not an intentionally untrue story.)

 

[chair]

What is your religion?

I'm an observant Jew. "Fiction" implies somebody deliberately made up a story. "Myth"- you had better look it up in a dictionary before getting excited about the term.

 

[chair]

Ok...after you agree that archaeology helps to confirm the Biblical account is accurate...

I have a close relative who started studying archaeology specifically to prove that the Bible is accurate. That idea lasted for about a month or two, once he started his studies. The Bible is not 100% historically accurate. It is not even 100% consistent. And it does not need to be.

The Bible is a religious text. It is not a history book in the modern sense. Nor is it a biology text. It is a holy religious book.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm guessing he's reached the end of his list of nonsense and is about to start all over again, again.

Probably so. In creationist world persistence is valued more than accuracy.

It's sad, really, really sad.

Maybe, but I don't see too much sadness in it. After all they probably think the same about us.

It really comes down to what each of of values. Obviously to the creationist things like loyalty to scripture, the sanctity of scripture, persistence, being unwavering in the face of opposition, and such are very highly valued...so much so that they are far more important than being accurate, consistent, or objective. That explains the behavior I noted earlier from 6days, where it seems he has neither morals nor shame (as evidenced by all the times he's been busted quote mining and misrepresenting scientific papers). As long as it's all done for the cause of defending scripture against non-believers, it's acceptable. "By whatever means necessary" as I noted at the time.

 

[6days]

Actually, it was a counter example. If one of the metrics you use is archaeology accuracy then by that standard the Koran is accurate history.

Archaeology is one metric that helps determine the the accuracy of the Bible. We understand why you don't want to acknowlege that. If you care to admit that, then we can move on to your red herring.

By a similar standard any novel by James Michener is accurate history.

Duh!
What archaeologists suggest Michener provides accurate or an inerrant historical account? However, archaeology, does help confirm the accuracy of God's Word.

What archaeological evidence confirms your version of deity?

Double DUH! I don't think I have ever told someone they are stupid before... and i won't say it now. But your statement is dumb..... and another red herring. Archaeology is one metric that helps prove the accuracy of the Biblical account. Many archaeologists have made statements such as "archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.” Millar Burrows, Yale Professor of Archaeology

 

[6days]

I have a close relative who started studying archaeology specifically to prove that the Bible is accurate. That idea lasted for about a month or two, once he started his studies. The Bible is not 100% historically accurate. It is not even 100% consistent. And it does not need to be.

The Bible is a religious text. It is not a history book in the modern sense. Nor is it a biology text. It is a holy religious book.

Your close relative may not have been very bright? Ask him or her for just one example of archaeology proving something in the Bible wrong..... They are unable.

 

[Jose Fly]

Many archaeologists have made statements such as "archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.” Millar Burrows, Yale Professor of Archaeology

Any time 6days posts a quote, it's always an interesting exercise to look into it. Let's look at Millar Burrows. Born in 1889, retired in 1958, and spent most of the earlier part of his career in divinity school and the latter part translating the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Always interesting.....:chuckle:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Archaeology is one metric that helps determine the the accuracy of the Bible.

Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Rome (among other cities/locations) confirm the accuracy of the bible? How quaint. By the same reasoning Honolulu, Hilo, and Kahului confirm the accuracy of James Michener's "Hawaii". That place names, coins, and other artefacts are found do not in any way confirm the stories in the bible any more than pineapples confirm the story in "Hawaii".

We understand why you don't want to acknowlege that.

Yeah, I admit that Jerusalem is a real place. I hope you can get around to explaining how archaeology proves your version of deity exists and the STORIES in the bible are factual.

If you care to admit that, then we can move on to your red herring.

I've used examples to counter your assertion. If you care to admit the comparison is valid we can move on to you providing archaeological support for the STORIES in the bible.

Duh!
What archaeologists suggest Michener provides accurate or an inerrant historical account?

The analogy went WAAAY over your head, didn't it? I don't think I have ever told someone they are a stupid moronic idiot before... and I won't say it now. But your statement was dumb...

However, archaeology, does help confirm the accuracy of God's Word.

Is that the same archaeology that suggests "The Exodus" (among other fabled events) never happened? http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html ::think:

Double DUH! I don't think I have ever told someone they are stupid before... and i won't say it now. But your statement is dumb..... and another red herring.

How is archaeological evidence supporting your version of deity a red herring? It sure would go a long way in support of your creation myth.

Archaeology is one metric that helps prove the accuracy of the Biblical account. Many archaeologists have made statements such as "archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.” Millar Burrows, Yale Professor of Archaeology

This is no more convincing now than the other thousand times you said it. :yawn:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Any time 6days posts a quote, it's always an interesting exercise to look into it. Let's look at Millar Burrows. Born in 1889, retired in 1958, and spent most of the earlier part of his career in divinity school and the latter part translating the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Always interesting.....:chuckle:

That one was especially funny. Burrows was commenting on the "literary" accuracy of the Dead Sea Scrolls, not how they confirmed "historical" accuracy.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Let's look at Millar Burrows. Born in 1889, retired in 1958, and spent most of the earlier part of his career in divinity school and the latter part translating the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Always interesting.

Indeed interesting. But it is even more interesting what he said, "archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.”

I also thought it was interesting what archaeologist Ramsey said. He set out to prove the Bible was inaccurate, but instead became convinced the Bible is true and accurate.

 

[6days]

Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Rome (among other cities/locations) confirm the accuracy of the bible?

Haha..... you need to do some research. Are you interested in examples of things naysayers such as yourself once claimed to be false in the Bible.... that archaeology proved was true and accurate?

 

[Jose Fly]

Indeed interesting. But it is even more interesting what he said, "archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.”

I'm sure that was somewhat relevant in the 1940's. So I guess if I found a more current archaeologist outlining all the ways in which archaeological data doesn't support the Bible, you would find that just as compelling, right?

Or is this another one of your heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setups? You know, where if you find a quote from an archaeologist supporting you, it's valid and compelling, whereas quotes from archaeologists saying the opposite can be waved away as arguing from authority?

 

[Jose Fly]

That one was especially funny. Burrows was commenting on the "literary" accuracy of the Dead Sea Scrolls, not how they confirmed "historical" accuracy.

Yup. Like I said, any time 6days quotes someone it's best to go look it up, since he operates under the "by any means necessary" framework of apologetics.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Haha..... you need to do some research.

You went out of your way to avoid this one. Did The Exodus REALLY happen? Archaeologists say, "No". http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html

Are you interested in examples of things naysayers such as yourself once claimed to be false in the Bible.... that archaeology proved was true and accurate?

Yeah, so? Are you interested in examples of things in the bible that archaeologist say didn't exist and are flat-out made up?

I hope you can get around to explaining how archaeology proves your version of deity exists and the STORIES in the bible are factual.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk