Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Autodidact]

Wow, you are in an debate forum called "Science vs. Religion" and your whole debate tactic is to dismiss the opposing view as irrelevant. Again a marvelous technique. Vapid, but marvelous nontheless.

It's not irrelevant, it's just not science. I don't make the rules, sandy, I just report them. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. Science requires specific, testable predictions. Got any?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's not irrelevant, it's just not science. I don't make the rules, sandy, I just report them. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. Science requires specific, testable predictions. Got any?

Basically what your saying is that the whole concept of a debate of science vs. religion is a non-starter. Another great debate technique; use the rules that apply to one side to totally disregard the other side.

One point for science. Game over.

 

[Autodidact]

Basically what your saying is that the whole concept of a debate of science vs. religion is a non-starter. Another great debate technique; use the rules that apply to one side to totally disregard the other side.

One point for science. Game over.

No, I didn't say anything of the kind. What I'm saying is, science is science and religion is religion. Religion is not science, the Bible is not a science book, and creationism, which is religion, should not be taught or presented as science. You could say, if you wanted, that science is not religion, a science textbook is not a Bible, and science should not be taught or presented as religion, but no one is advocating that they do. Creationists, on the other hand, are advocating that their particular brand of religious beliefs be taught as science, even though they clearly are not.

So, if you choose to believe that a magic being molded the first person out of clay, that his wife talked to a snake and earned the magic being's curse, and so forth, go for it. Just don't try to masquerade it as any kind of science.

Now if YOU believe that science has all the answers, and unless religion passes itself off as science, it has no credibility, that's YOUR belief. I'm not saying (at least, not in this post ) which one does a better job of describing reality. I'm just saying that they're two different things, that's all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, I didn't say anything of the kind. What I'm saying is, science is science and religion is religion. Religion is not science, the Bible is not a science book, and creationism, which is religion, should not be taught or presented as science. You could say, if you wanted, that science is not religion, a science textbook is not a Bible, and science should not be taught or presented as religion, but no one is advocating that they do. Creationists, on the other hand, are advocating that their particular brand of religious beliefs be taught as science, even though they clearly are not.

So, if you choose to believe that a magic being molded the first person out of clay, that his wife talked to a snake and earned the magic being's curse, and so forth, go for it. Just don't try to masquerade it as any kind of science.

Now if YOU believe that science has all the answers, and unless religion passes itself off as science, that's YOUR belief. I'm not saying (at least, not in this post which one does a better job of describing reality. I'm just saying that they're two different things, that's all.

Yet science takes many things by faith. For example that because a slight change in a gene can be observable that evolution of a pantheon of life must have occured.

Hmmm...maybe science is a religion.

Debate over.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question...how old was Adam when he was created? You've gone to great lengths to avoid that.

Now there's a debate technique I have heard of, deflection.

 

[Hope]

Now there's a debate technique I have heard of, deflection.

Yeah, I notice it's been used a lot in this thread. :sarcastic

 

[Autodidact]

Yet science takes many things by faith. For example that because a slight change in a gene can be observable that evolution of a pantheon of life must have occured.

Science takes nothing on faith except that empiricism works. If you want to review the extensive, lengthy, voluminous, weighty, redundant, conclusive evidence in favor of the the theory of evolution, I would be happy to do so. Perhaps another thread might be appropriate, though.

Hmmm...maybe science is a religion.

No, it's not. Or perhaps you could provide a definition of religion that includes science?

By the way, you still haven't answered the question...how old was Adam when he was created? You've gone to great lengths to avoid that.

I answered it. There was never any such person. How tall is Bilbo Baggins?
As you said, (I think, hope I'm not confusing you with someone else) there's not a lot of point in discussing scripture with me, an atheist. This thread is about archeological evidence. Got any archaeological evidence for Adam? If not, I suggest a separate thread for your interesting theological question.

Now there's a debate technique I have heard of, deflection.

What have I deflected? I try to respond to everything that's addressed to me.

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, I notice it's been used a lot in this thread. :sarcastic

Not very nice, Hope, after I spent rather a lot of time assembling a lot of evidence for you to review, and to which you have not yet responded. Would you, please?
If you are alleging that I have deflected something, please bring it to my attention and I will try to respond.

 

[Autodidact]

Debate over.

Generally speaking, for a debate to be over, it is necessary to demonstrate the truth of your statement, not merely assert it.

 

[Hope]

Not very nice, Hope, after I spent rather a lot of time assembling a lot of evidence for you to review, and to which you have not yet responded. Would you, please?

I'm reviewing everything you've posted, and considering everything you've said. It's a lot to reply to, so be patient.

If you are alleging that I have deflected something, please bring it to my attention and I will try to respond.

I was referring to your specific deflection of sandy's question about Adam. But don't take such a charge of deflection too personally.....there are others who've posted in this thread besides yourself, and I was pointing out the use of deflection by others as well. Overall, you've done a good job of deflecting far less than most, so I applaud you for that.

 

[Autodidact]

There was never any such person and he was not created.

Wow, just flat out refusal to accept a premise. Just dismiss the point out of hand. Now there's a debate technique I haven't considered.

I don't believe in you so you must not exist either.
Or could it be that if you answered the question you might have to consider a point outside of your accepted precondition?

So what you're asking is, if there really was a Biblical Adam, how old was he when the mythical God mythically created him? I don't believe the book specifies, except that he was a man, so, an adult then. What is your point?

 

[Autodidact]

Hope:
It's a lot easier to examine a claim if it is specific. Do you have a date-range for this purported flood?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What have I deflected? I try to respond to everything that's addressed to me.

A response is not an answer.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So what you're asking is, if there really was a Biblical Adam, how old was he when the mythical God mythically created him? I don't believe the book specifies, except that he was a man, so, an adult then. What is your point?

So he was created with the appearance of age then?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, I didn't say anything of the kind. What I'm saying is, science is science and religion is religion. Religion is not science, the Bible is not a science book, and creationism, which is religion, should not be taught or presented as science. You could say, if you wanted, that science is not religion, a science textbook is not a Bible, and science should not be taught or presented as religion, but no one is advocating that they do. Creationists, on the other hand, are advocating that their particular brand of religious beliefs be taught as science, even though they clearly are not.

So, if you choose to believe that a magic being molded the first person out of clay, that his wife talked to a snake and earned the magic being's curse, and so forth, go for it. Just don't try to masquerade it as any kind of science.

Now if YOU believe that science has all the answers, and unless religion passes itself off as science, it has no credibility, that's YOUR belief. I'm not saying (at least, not in this post ) which one does a better job of describing reality. I'm just saying that they're two different things, that's all.

You're really confused. Also obstinatly ignorant. Have a 'gday mate.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious. How tall does one have to be in order to be a giant?

No takers?

 

[Autodidact]

So he was created with the appearance of age then?

According to your holy book of myths, yes.

 

[Autodidact]

You're really confused. Also obstinatly ignorant. Have a 'gday mate.

Nice to meet you as well. I take it you have no substantive response then?

On second thought, I'm offended. What is it you think I lack knowledge of? If I am lacking in knowledge of something, I would like to acquire it. Maybe you can help.

 

[Autodidact]

A response is not an answer.

What question do you allege that I am evading. My reputation here at RF is important to me, so I am anxious to remedy any perceived evasion.

 

[camanintx]

So he was created with the appearance of age then?

Other than in renaissance paintings, where is the idea that Adam created with the appearance of age supported?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

According to your holy book of myths, yes.

I don't have a Holy Book of myths.