Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Autodidact]

I have a very good understanding of the interpretation of scripture.

*sigh* You missed my point. I'm not saying that your interpretation is a wrong interpretation, I'm saying that it is factually false.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

*sigh* You missed my point. I'm not saying that your interpretation is a wrong interpretation, I'm saying that it is factually false.

Perhaps the interpretation of your facts are wrong. Still this contradiction you speak of causes me no consternation. By the way, say what you mean and save a "sigh."

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps the interpretation of your facts are wrong. Still this contradiction you speak of causes me no consternation. By the way, say what you mean and save a "sigh."

Well, yes, it's possible that all of modern science is wrong and the Bible is right, that all the geologists, even those who discover the oil that you use to drive your car, are wrong, and all the physicists, including the ones who figured out nuclear power, are wrong, and all the biologists are wrong, and all the paleontologists, not to mention all the archeologists, all the metereologists, all the cosmologists, all the astronomers. It's possible that they're all wrong, and the Bible is right. It's possible that it would be better to reverse the enlightenment and go back to getting all of our knowledge directly from the Bible, but it seems odd to me that you advance this position on a computer. Shouldn't you be using vellum and a quill pen?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, yes, it's possible that all of modern science is wrong and the Bible is right...

I suppose I'll find out one day as you will. Whether or not i accept scripture or science has to do with the beneficial impact on my life. I've chosen scripture. This causes me no consternation nor disruption of my life because of it's conflict with the views of science, but thanks for the impugning of my intellect. I now can go on with my life.

And you?

 

[SoyLeche]

Well, yes, it's possible that all of modern science is wrong and the Bible is right, that all the geologists, even those who discover the oil that you use to drive your car, are wrong, and all the physicists, including the ones who figured out nuclear power, are wrong, and all the biologists are wrong, and all the paleontologists, not to mention all the archeologists, all the metereologists, all the cosmologists, all the astronomers. It's possible that they're all wrong, and the Bible is right. It's possible that it would be better to reverse the enlightenment and go back to getting all of our knowledge directly from the Bible, but it seems odd to me that you advance this position on a computer. Shouldn't you be using vellum and a quill pen?

So many red herrings, so little time.

 

[Autodidact]

I suppose I'll find out one day as you will. Whether or not i accept scripture or science has to do with the beneficial impact on my life. I've chosen scripture. This causes me no consternation nor disruption of my life because of it's conflict with the views of science, but thanks for the impugning of my intellect. I now can go on with my life.

And you?

It's not about your intellect, sandy, but about what you think is a good way to learn about the natural world. I find that science is a good way to do this. You reject science in favor of a more Medieval approach, reading and applying the Bible. Do you do this in all areas, or only the age and origin of the earth and its creatures. For example, would you use a Biblical cure for leprosy rather than a medical one?

 

[Autodidact]

So many red herrings, so little time.

Which of these is a red herring? We were talking about how science disagrees with a literal Genesis account. I listed a few of the major fields of science that would have to be wrong for literal Genesis to be right. Please explain how this is not relevant.

 

[SoyLeche]

Well, yes, it's possible that all of modern science is wrong and the Bible is right, that all the geologists, even those who discover the oil that you use to drive your car, are wrong, and all the physicists, including the ones who figured out nuclear power, are wrong, and all the biologists are wrong, and all the paleontologists, not to mention all the archeologists, all the metereologists, all the cosmologists, all the astronomers. It's possible that they're all wrong, and the Bible is right. It's possible that it would be better to reverse the enlightenment and go back to getting all of our knowledge directly from the Bible, but it seems odd to me that you advance this position on a computer. Shouldn't you be using vellum and a quill pen?

Ok, time for a semi-serious answer.

It's not only possible that they are all wrong - it is almost a certainty. That's how science works. In a few years we'll know a lot more and a lot of the current science will be as quaint as the theory that everything revolves around the Earth.

Now, whether the ways they are wrong are the same way that people that take the Bible literally think they are wrong is another question. But, then again, it's almost certain that those people are wrong in their interpretations as well.

The red herrings are there: "Geologists can find oil, so therefore the geologists are right about everything". Sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. I'm not sure where "nuclear power" comes into the argument. And the fact that he is using a computer is a complete red herring.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, time for a semi-serious answer.

It's not only possible that they are all wrong - it is almost a certainty. That's how science works. In a few years we'll know a lot more and a lot of the current science will be as quaint as the theory that everything revolves around the Earth.

Now, whether the ways they are wrong are the same way that people that take the Bible literally think they are wrong is another question. But, then again, it's almost certain that those people are wrong in their interpretations as well.

The red herrings are there: "Geologists can find oil, so therefore the geologists are right about everything". Sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. I'm not sure where "nuclear power" comes into the argument. And the fact that he is using a computer is a complete red herring.

Yes, you're quite right, they are all wrong in that sense. However, in that sense, they are also more right than any other method or approach. They are also more right than they were a few years ago. And yes, in another few years they'll be more right still. So, to abbreviate, I'm calling "As right as we know about right now," "Right."

As Asimov says, the world is not round. It's obloid. But it was much more right to say that it's round than to say that it's flat. So the scientists of their day who figured out that it's round were much more right than the Biblicalists who asserted that it was flat. Now we know that it's slightly pear-shaped, with a small bulge just south of the Equator. And I suppose in the future we'll know even better than that. But it would have been foolish to reject the advance in knowledge represented by the discovery that it is round.

In the same way, it would be equally foolish to reject our current knowledge that the world is approximately 4.56 billion years old. It may be that next year we will learn that it is in fact 4.57392 years old, and in that sense only is the current state of knowledge on the subject wrong.

And no, the computer is not a red herring. If you reject science as a way of learning about the world, then you reject science. My point is that like most modern YECs he does not reject science when it is convenient to him to benefit from it, only when he thinks it violates his interpretation of his holy book. And, of course, the most basic tenet of science is that you follow the evidence where it leads, regardless. Without that, no science...and no computer!

 

[joeboonda]

From my observations, science and Genesis are complementary while science and evolution are not.

 

[Autodidact]

From my observations, science and Genesis are complementary while science and evolution are not.

And yet, oddly, all the scientists disagree with you. Who is right, the entire field of Biology, every Biology department at every college and university in the world, or joeboonda?

 

[SoyLeche]

And yet, oddly, all the scientists disagree with you. Who is right, the entire field of Biology, every Biology department at every college and university in the world, or joeboonda?

Ooo, ooo - pick me! I know!

Neither.

 

[Autodidact]

Ooo, ooo - pick me! I know!

Neither.

Pray enlighten us, Soy, how old is planet earth, and how do you know?

 

[SoyLeche]

Pray enlighten us, Soy, how old is planet earth, and how do you know?

I don't know. I'd say that the evidence suggests that it is quite old. I could be interpreting that evidence wrong though.

I think that most scientists probably avoid declaring things to be "absolutely true". After all, the scientific method can't prove something to be true.

And, you seem to like to exagerate. I can pretty much guarantee that "the entire field of Biology, every Biology department at every college and university in the world" are not all in 100% agreement on much of anything, and that there is a significant number of these people who would side with Joe in this debate. You would probably discount their work, and that's your perogagive (sp?), but your exagerations don't really help anyone.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know. I'd say that the evidence suggests that it is quite old. I could be interpreting that evidence wrong though.

It's not your practice to accept the consensus of experts working in the field, who say that it is approximately 4.56 billion years old?

I think that most scientists probably avoid declaring things to be "absolutely true". After all, the scientific method can't prove something to be true.

And, you seem to like to exagerate. I can pretty much guarantee that "the entire field of Biology, every Biology department at every college and university in the world" are not all in 100% agreement on much of anything, and that there is a significant number of these people who would side with Joe in this debate. You would probably discount their work, and that's your perogagive (sp?), but your exagerations don't really help anyone.

No, other than say Bob Jones university, there is virtual consensus on acceptance of the theory of evolution within the field of biology. Other than Jonathan Wells, who only went into the field to fight it, there are few or no biologists who do not accept it. I stand by what I said, unless you want to name a biology department somewhere other than a fundamentalist Christian college that does not teach ToE. It is NOT the case that a significant number of them side with Joe.

It is not that it is "absolutely true," but that nothing in science is. It is as well established as any theory in any field of science, such as for example the Round Earth theory. Not absolutely true, but as close as we know how to get. It's in that category.

Or again, I don't think you could find a geology department outside of a fundamentalist Christian institution that would not teach that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old.

My main point is that there is no controversy about these questions within science itself--they are well settled, and science is moving on to build on existing knowledge. (bearing in mind that no scientific knowledge is absolute.) The only controversy is between science and anti-science.

And a little hyperbole is sometimes helpful to drive a point home.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, other than say Bob Jones university, there is virtual consensus on acceptance of the theory of evolution within the field of biology. Other than Jonathan Wells, who only went into the field to fight it, there are few or no biologists who do not accept it. I stand by what I said, unless you want to name a biology department somewhere other than a fundamentalist Christian college that does not teach ToE. It is NOT the case that a significant number of them side with Joe.

It is not that it is "absolutely true," but that nothing in science is. It is as well established as any theory in any field of science, such as for example the Round Earth theory. Not absolutely true, but as close as we know how to get. It's in that category.

Or again, I don't think you could find a geology department outside of a fundamentalist Christian institution that would not teach that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old.

My main point is that there is no controversy about these questions within science itself--they are well settled, and science is moving on to build on existing knowledge. (bearing in mind that no scientific knowledge is absolute.) The only controversy is between science and anti-science.

And a little hyperbole is sometimes helpful to drive a point home.

There, see those bolded words. Make sure you use them.

That's all.

 

[SoyLeche]

It's not your practice to accept the consensus of experts working in the field, who say that it is approximately 4.56 billion years old?

No, other than say Bob Jones university, there is virtual consensus on acceptance of the theory of evolution within the field of biology. Other than Jonathan Wells, who only went into the field to fight it, there are few or no biologists who do not accept it. I stand by what I said, unless you want to name a biology department somewhere other than a fundamentalist Christian college that does not teach ToE. It is NOT the case that a significant number of them side with Joe.

It is not that it is "absolutely true," but that nothing in science is. It is as well established as any theory in any field of science, such as for example the Round Earth theory. Not absolutely true, but as close as we know how to get. It's in that category.

Or again, I don't think you could find a geology department outside of a fundamentalist Christian institution that would not teach that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old.

My main point is that there is no controversy about these questions within science itself--they are well settled, and science is moving on to build on existing knowledge. (bearing in mind that no scientific knowledge is absolute.) The only controversy is between science and anti-science.

And a little hyperbole is sometimes helpful to drive a point home.

Maybe you missed the part where I said "You would probably discount their work". I didn't doubt for a minute that you wouldn't view anyone who disagreed with you as a valid scientist. And, like I said, that's your perogative (probably still misspelled).

 

[SoyLeche]

Whether or not there is a consensus doesn't really matter all that much to me. I prefer to look at the work, evaluate it myself and draw a conclusion.

 

[camanintx]

From my observations, science and Genesis are complementary while science and evolution are not.

But I thought you said science proves you cannot create something from nothing?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If God did not create the heavens and the earth from nothing then something besides God must have existed before creation.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe you missed the part where I said "You would probably discount their work". I didn't doubt for a minute that you wouldn't view anyone who disagreed with you as a valid scientist. And, like I said, that's your perogative (probably still misspelled).

What work? There is no scientific work to the contrary; that's my point. There are not two kinds of scientists: pro-evolution scientists and pro-creation scientists. There is the scientific view--evolution, and the anti-scientific view--YEC. There is no such thing as scientific creationism, and YEC attempts to call what they do science are dishonest.

Or maybe you want to cite me a scientific article, published in a peer-reviewed journal of science, not a creationist propaganda screed, that sets forth evidence for a young earth? Or a Noachian flood? Or Biblical creation?