Creationism/Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
Of course, it's unfalsifiable because you want it to be. That's the point of the exercise, no?
"How can I make this be true in such a way as to avoid denying scientific reality"?

But to elaborate:
The Genesis creation account(s), in describing creation of eg specific types of animals (which includes humans), cannot apply to the outside world - that would contradict every scientific result ever. However - it then necessarily follows that for the duration of your "indefinite period" there was no interaction with "Eden" (which is itself an incoherent prospect), or at least there was none in such a way as to leave any evidence behind inconsistent with any scientific discovery. One is left with an account which relates purely to individual humans at a historical point in time (~4000 BC) for which there is, nonetheless, no extra-Biblical evidence, and which proceeds to get subsequent history wrong.

We are left with a story (contained in a flawed and unreliable narrative) for which there is no supporting evidence (besides that narrative) which is then also irrelevant (because it changes nothing about the human condition even were it true).

It appears to be an attempt to maintain as much as possible of a literal account for its own sake.

If you are rational enough to recognize the conflict between literalist interpretations and, y'know, reality, then I simply find it confusing as to why you would endeavour to maintain some shreds of literalism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-02-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 09:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You... literally just said it was:
Laugh out load I litter my threads with stuff like this. These little easter eggs are left openended. Meaning they often times have a duel meaning. I just explained in one of the posts above the other interpretation. the reason? To catch lazy atheist. (In this case) ones who do not know how to identify an unfalsifiable proposition. So do you want to try again or shall I dismiss this along with your mislabeled logical fallacies?


Quote:Basically everything related to the patriarchs and exodus and so on. It's what we might call not true.
Do you have proof or am I to take a Atheist on his word? Are you a man of faith? then why are you asking me to extend faith to you?

Quote:So the relevance is that there are necessarily parts of the Biblical narrative that cannot be upheld without a hefty dose of the ol' reality denial.
says.... You?!? maybe you can get me some supporting documentation (not conjecture or speculation, but reference material that supports your claims.)

Quote:Your theory is that an unspecified interval of time passed between the creation as per the genesis narrative and the expulsion from eden as per the genesis narrative.
My theory is sound and is indeed falsifiable with in the prameters in which it speaks. You are attempting to apply a scientific methodology to a historical context. This is an intellectualy dishonest attempt to win a silly argument. You are looking for historical falsifiability in a pre-historical text, when the oldest recordings we(man) have date back to around 3500 bc.. A very long time after the time period in which we are speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet


Quote:There is still no evidence for this other than the bible (which is not a reliable source) and there is much evidence to the contrary.

But regardless, I don't see how it affects anything.
Then please show me this evidence. (again conjecture and speculation is not evidence.. It's just opinion and commentary.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But to elaborate:
The Genesis creation account(s), in describing creation of eg specific types of animals (which includes humans), cannot apply to the outside world - that would contradict every scientific result ever. However - it then necessarily follows that for the duration of your "indefinite period" there was no interaction with "Eden"
Exactly!
Quote:(which is itself an incoherent prospect),
Why?

Quote: or at least there was none in such a way as to leave any evidence behind inconsistent with any scientific discovery.
What evidence should be left?
The lack of fossilized records in the approximate location of eden?

Quote:One is left with an account which relates purely to individual humans at a historical point in time (~4000 BC) for which there is, nonetheless, no extra-Biblical evidence, and which proceeds to get subsequent history wrong.
I think your confusing yourself here. I looks like you assume I am using this theory to replace yours. I'm not. I'm looking to augment someone of faith so they may accept yours.

Quote:We are left with a story (contained in a flawed and unreliable narrative) for which there is no supporting evidence (besides that narrative) which is then also irrelevant (because it changes nothing about the human condition even were it true).
which is par for the course of the History of man concerning this time period.

Quote:It appears to be an attempt to maintain as much as possible of a literal account for its own sake.

If you are rational enough to recognize the conflict between literalist interpretations and, y'know, reality, then I simply find it confusing as to why you would endeavour to maintain some shreds of literalism.
So that Christianity be ready to finally enter the 19th century. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 10:15 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Creationism/Evolution
Edit:

Drich Wrote:
Quote: or at least there was none in such a way as to leave any evidence behind inconsistent with any scientific discovery.

What evidence should be left?
The lack of fossilized records in the approximate location of eden?

Well...yes, The lack of ANY evidence, fossil, archeological or other wise. Unless.. a certain deity deliberately hid said evidence deliberately so no one could find it?


Well...there's the complete lack of corroborating archeological evidence to support any large group of people's wandering out of the area known as Egypt and into the 'promised land'?

There's also no evidence collected by those studying the ancient history of said Egypt which supports the keeping of slaves of a certain ethnic back ground? So...is that a support of lack of evidence or...

Now I'm getting my positives and negatives confused. Blush

As for actual pointers to references? I'm not that well educated and will have to let some one who is come along... Smile

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 09:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You... literally just said it was:
Laugh out load I litter my threads with stuff like this. These little easter eggs are left openended. Meaning they often times have a duel meaning. I just explained in one of the posts above the other interpretation. the reason? To catch lazy atheist. (In this case) ones who do not know how to identify an unfalsifiable proposition. So do you want to try again or shall I dismiss this along with your mislabeled logical fallacies?

Let me get this straight.

You call it unfalsifiable. I grant this for the sake of argument, since you just said it. This is a trap, according to you?

I think you need to look up what 'trap' means.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:Basically everything related to the patriarchs and exodus and so on. It's what we might call not true.
Do you have proof or am I to take a Atheist on his word? Are you a man of faith? then why are you asking me to extend faith to you?

Are you delusional?

The Biblical Exodus did not happen. The Flood story did not happen ten thousand times over.

Moreover, it is not my job to demonstrate that to you. If you are claiming that the Biblical narratives are true, it is up to you to substantiate that claim.

And if you use the Bible to prove the Bible says what the Bible says, then may God have mercy on your intellect.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:So the relevance is that there are necessarily parts of the Biblical narrative that cannot be upheld without a hefty dose of the ol' reality denial.
says.... You?!? maybe you can get me some supporting documentation (not conjecture or speculation, but reference material that supports your claims.)

The Flood. Abraham's camels. Bats are not birds. I've never found pretended ignorance an attractive posture.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  My theory is sound and is indeed falsifiable with in the prameters in which it speaks.

Okay.

What would falsify it?

Since you are proposing this theory, you must present your falsifiability criteria. That is how legitimate inquiry works.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  You are attempting to apply a scientific methodology to a historical context. This is an intellectualy dishonest attempt to win a silly argument.

Rather, it's an entirely warranted methodology, since that is how we determine whether things are true.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  You are looking for historical falsifiability in a pre-historical text, when the oldest recordings we(man) have date back to around 3500 bc.. A very long time after the time period in which we are speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet

Irrelevant.

If Adam lived 900 years he died around 3000 BC. There are furthermore dozens of other people who lived extraordinarily long lifespans.

Notwithstanding what I have already stated, that since subsequent events from the same narrative (the Flood, the Exodus) are not true, what possible reason is there to grant any credence to parts which are not as immediately falsifiable?

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  Then please show me this evidence. (again conjecture and speculation is not evidence.. It's just opinion and commentary.)

You first, champ.

You first.

(please tell me I don't have to explain 'burden of proof' to you?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-02-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 10:09 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Well...there's the complete lack of corroborating archeological evidence to support any large group of people's wandering out of the are known as Egypt and into the 'promised land'?
these jews went on a 40 year camping trip.. Meaning no perment structures in the friggen desert! Whole cities have been consumed by the sands of that desert heck at one point the sphinx was almost completely covered over.. What 'evidence' should their be after 4000 years? tent poles camp fire rings? OT Jew trail mix?

Quote:There's also no evidence collected by those studying the ancient history of said Egypt which supports the keeping of slaves of a certain ethnic back ground? So..is that a support of lack of evidence or...
That's funny, because 25 years ago whan I was in grade school they did say that the Jews were Secifically named as slaves of eygpt.. but now one man (Dr.Hawass) had singlehandly rewritten Egyptian History.. Look into Him. Literally This one guy has been given complete authority and autonomy over Egyptian history. Not saying his is on the take or has an axe to grind, but if he were then no one could say boo about it. till he died and the current regeim was replaced.

Quote:Now I'm getting my positives and negatives confused. Blush

As for actual pointers to references? I'm not that well educated and will have to let some one who is come along... Smile
Neither am I. That is why I ask a lot of questions and demand reference material for points made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 09:14 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 09:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Except for the part where that is demonstrably false so far as evolution is concerned...

did you not read the thread or did you not understand it? would you like me to walk you through it? This is an honest offer to anyone who may be having trouble understanding what was said here.

Oh we understood the entire waste of time crap you posted. It's all entirely, completely, BULLSHIT. Attempted proof by assertion, and all circular, (proving the Babble by quoting the Babble). It's a fucking MYTH. Get over it, and take a course on ancient Near Eastern literature, and stop making a complete fool of yourself. Obviously you have no education in Biblical Studies. It's the same as talking about the details of Jason and the Argonauts.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:21 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 10:07 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But to elaborate:
The Genesis creation account(s), in describing creation of eg specific types of animals (which includes humans), cannot apply to the outside world - that would contradict every scientific result ever. However - it then necessarily follows that for the duration of your "indefinite period" there was no interaction with "Eden"
Exactly!
Quote:(which is itself an incoherent prospect),
Why?

Because you are then construing a lack of evidence as evidence. Which is nonsensical.

(03-02-2014 10:07 PM)Drich Wrote:  What evidence should be left?
The lack of fossilized records in the approximate location of eden?

Yes. Good example!

Why isn't there any such evidence?

(03-02-2014 10:07 PM)Drich Wrote:  I think your confusing yourself here. I looks like you assume I am using this theory to replace yours. I'm not. I'm looking to augment someone of faith so they may accept yours.

Then you are doing exactly as I supposed - attempting to cling to whatever shreds of literalism aren't immediately falsifiable.

Of course, I still have to ask you: why?

(03-02-2014 10:07 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:We are left with a story (contained in a flawed and unreliable narrative) for which there is no supporting evidence (besides that narrative) which is then also irrelevant (because it changes nothing about the human condition even were it true).
which is par for the course of the History of man concerning this time period.

On the contrary. 3rd millennium BC writings contain all kinds of supernatural references. We treat them as not true, for precisely the same reasons.

(03-02-2014 10:07 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:It appears to be an attempt to maintain as much as possible of a literal account for its own sake.

If you are rational enough to recognize the conflict between literalist interpretations and, y'know, reality, then I simply find it confusing as to why you would endeavour to maintain some shreds of literalism.
So that Christianity be ready to finally enter the 19th century. Smile

Too bad it's the 21st.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-02-2014, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 10:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  I litter my threads with stuff like this.

Your posts are litter alright. Complete crap. You think you are SO fucking clever.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-02-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Creationism/Evolution
(03-02-2014 10:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  Laugh out load I litter my threads with stuff like this. These little easter eggs are left openended. Meaning they often times have a duel meaning. I just explained in one of the posts above the other interpretation. the reason? To catch lazy atheist. (In this case) ones who do not know how to identify an unfalsifiable proposition. So do you want to try again or shall I dismiss this along with your mislabeled logical fallacies?

Let me get this straight.

You call it unfalsifiable. I grant this for the sake of argument, since you just said it. This is a trap, according to you?

I think you need to look up what 'trap' means.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  Do you have proof or am I to take a Atheist on his word? Are you a man of faith? then why are you asking me to extend faith to you?

Are you delusional?

The Biblical Exodus did not happen. The Flood story did not happen ten thousand times over.

Moreover, it is not my job to demonstrate that to you. If you are claiming that the Biblical narratives are true, it is up to you to substantiate that claim.

And if you use the Bible to prove the Bible says what the Bible says, then may God have mercy on your intellect.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  says.... You?!? maybe you can get me some supporting documentation (not conjecture or speculation, but reference material that supports your claims.)

The Flood. Abraham's camels. Bats are not birds. I've never found pretended ignorance an attractive posture.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  My theory is sound and is indeed falsifiable with in the prameters in which it speaks.

Okay.

What would falsify it?

Since you are proposing this theory, you must present your falsifiability criteria. That is how legitimate inquiry works.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  You are attempting to apply a scientific methodology to a historical context. This is an intellectualy dishonest attempt to win a silly argument.

Rather, it's an entirely warranted methodology, since that is how we determine whether things are true.

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  You are looking for historical falsifiability in a pre-historical text, when the oldest recordings we(man) have date back to around 3500 bc.. A very long time after the time period in which we are speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet

Irrelevant.

If Adam lived 900 years he died around 3000 BC. There are furthermore dozens of other people who lived extraordinarily long lifespans.

Notwithstanding what I have already stated, that since subsequent events from the same narrative (the Flood, the Exodus) are not true, what possible reason is there to grant any credence to parts which are not as immediately falsifiable?

(03-02-2014 09:59 PM)Drich Wrote:  Then please show me this evidence. (again conjecture and speculation is not evidence.. It's just opinion and commentary.)

You first, champ.

You first.

(please tell me I don't have to explain 'burden of proof' to you?)

....and it looks like the 'thinking mind' has closed for business. If your not willing to participate in the thread and answer the points and questions I asked FIRST then there is nothing more I am willing to say. If and when you wish to continue this conversation simply pick up and answer the questions I asked. Provide the proof I requested and address the point I have made. otherwise maybe you'll have better luck the next time around. hey, maybe start an ark thread with some of your points that might be fun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: