Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2015, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 11:25 AM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:00 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I would first mention secular historians during the time period such as Titus Flavius Josephus as a start. Although archeology can not prove that what Jesus said was true but it can however confirm that a lot of what is said that occurred does match up with the bible to enhance its credibility.

The Titus Flavius Josephus who wasn't even born until after the alleged events in the Gospels? That Josephus?

"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration."
A historian non the less. If a historian wrote a book on Egyptian pharaohs does it make him or her less credible because they never met a Pharaoh?

Other historians includes the Roman historian Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, and The Greek poet Lucian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 11:00 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 10:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Corinthians 11 is open to interpretation as is the entire bible. You say it refers to spiritual maturity, I say it refers to maturity in general.

I have no idea what you were referring to when you said that there are many examples of the secular confirming the Bible. I'm asking you to provide one or two.
I would first mention secular historians during the time period such as Titus Flavius Josephus as a start. Although archeology can not prove that what Jesus said was true but it can however confirm that a lot of what is said that occurred does match up with the bible to enhance its credibility.

First I am no Biblical historian nor will I profess to be but I have read enough from those who are to know that the Bible is factually wrong in much of its "history". (Take a look at goodwithoutgod's compendium thread if you haven't already).

I'm relieved that you didn't mention the Noahtic flood.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
12-11-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 11:16 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:00 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I would first mention secular historians during the time period such as Titus Flavius Josephus as a start. Although archeology can not prove that what Jesus said was true but it can however confirm that a lot of what is said that occurred does match up with the bible to enhance its credibility.

First I am no Biblical historian nor will I profess to be but I have read enough from those who are to know that the Bible is factually wrong in much of its "history". (Take a look at goodwithoutgod's compendium thread if you haven't already).

I'm relieved that you didn't mention the Noahtic flood.
Now, in all fairness, I have to admit that the great flood is one topic I don't know all the answers to. It does still puzzle me. That topic would be my weakest subject to defend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 11:50 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 11:54 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
What they're trying to tell you here, Jason, is that neither Tacitus, nor Josephus, nor Pliny actually provide any evidence of Jesus, only that there were early Christians who spoke of the man who was the origin of their beliefs. The interviews with early Christians (I'll call them "third generation", or 3G, Christians to clarify) recorded by Tacitus and Josephus do not indicate any historicity of the accounts they depict. The Josephus accounts are particularly suspect, as they were clearly edited by Christians over the years to make Josephus say things that aren't even in his "tone of voice", and that he would never have said, as a nonbeliever. Tacitus remains the best evidence, and there are those who claim he recorded his bit about Jesus' crucifixion from official Roman sources, yet it is clear from his passage that he is just passing on (wrong, by the way) information he received from the Believers, who were on trial for their practice of Christianity because of Nero's proclamation that they be wiped out, about "Procurator" Pilate crucifying Jesus. In reality, he was a Prefect, and actual Roman records written at the time of any such trial, even if lost to us now, would have indicated such. The 3G Christian information was simply wrong, and Tacitus faithfully records their error in his own work.

The Talmud does indicate that there was a Rabbi Yeshu, a "sorcerer" who heals and does other magic, but it is a common name and does not indicate many of the other things that would be required to confirm that this is the man who would come to be called Jesus in the Greek, an in many other ways is clearly NOT referring to Jesus the Crucified savior (the guy mentioned in the Talmud has only five disciples, and they are all hanged or stoned, and there is a place where the Talmud mentions a brick idol to which he pays worship).

Edit to Add: See also http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-11-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 10:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Corinthians 11 is open to interpretation as is the entire bible...
That's the part that has always concerned me, even when I was a Christian. That's what started me on my own path of research.

Let's say I was a wonderfully brilliant person who was so enlightened that people gave me a website, talk show, and books. And for some reason, I said, "Don't wear brown."

Upon my death, some say they never wear any shade of brown clothing. Others say if they have brown hair, they dye it or shave their heads. Others say tan and beige are OK, because I meant medium brown. Others say it was symbolic and those idiots should know clothing doesn't matter. Still others say I meant always wipe your ass well.

All interpretation, but who's right? I'm dead so I can't explain it. But they all know the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Clockwork's post
12-11-2015, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 01:26 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
I think the fundamental disconnect here is one that happens a lot between atheists and theists. It comes down to a difference of epistemology -- different methods (some more reliable than others) of determining what is or is not true. There's a core, unspoken, unaddressed, and unwarranted assumption that we approach the task of determining truth with the same method. We then criticize each other for doing it wrong when we're not actually doing the same thing. You are drawing criticism from us for holding a belief on the grounds that you have no reason to believe it false, rather than strong grounds for believing that is true, because the epistemology we employ considers that verboten. You clearly employ a different epistemology, one in which this is considered a reasonable way of discovering what is true.

Of course, there are ways of identifying what sort of epistemology is reliable and effective and what sort of epistemology is not. Full Circle's questions about ghosts and sasquatches highlights this. If the standard of believing things which you don't have good reason to disbelieve will tend to lead you to false beliefs, then it is an unreliable epistemology. And if you employ one standard for one subject of belief (ghosts and sasquatches) and another for another subject (a god), then those standards aren't really your epistemology. Your epistemology is whatever is beneath that, whatever is leading you to favor one proposition and criticize another and determining which half of your double standard is applied in any given instance.

We can get into a long, long discussion of which epistemological methods are reliable and which aren't. But here's why it matters. They are habits of thought and action. The more you practice one, the less you will use another, and cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to simply use one in one aspect of your life and another in another. If you employ faith as a way of knowing things in one part of your life, you will find yourself using it elsewhere. If you trust, for example, that God exists on the basis that you have no reason not to, then that same habit can lead (for example) to skipping steps on the preflight check on a helicopter, because you have no reason not to believe that it is in working order or because you have faith that God will take care of you. Or maybe you won't skip steps but think that it's a bunch of stupid make-work and grumble at whoever drew up the procedures list. On the other hand, if you see the value in the preflight check, in carefully and routinely going through the list of everything that might likely be wrong with the proposition that the helicopter is safe to fly and looking for indications of those problems, and if you practice that kind of skeptical, critical approach in other aspects of your life until it becomes a habit of thought, then it will eventually bleed over and you'll find yourself examining your belief in a god in a similar light.

This is a big issue in our society. While not all Christians have this problem, we can see it at work in climate change denial (where not acting can have huge consequences and all the science telling us so is being ignored in a faith-based manner), sex education (abstinence-only education and how adopting it for faith-based reasons results in worst outcomes by any measure than comprehensive education, a fact that gets ignored through faith), other education (evolution, as discussed in this thread, or revisionist history, or social studies)... the list goes on and on. That's why it's a big deal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
12-11-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
I had never thought about it, Reltzik, but you're right; the preflight check is one giant exercise in, "I don't care what you tell me, or how much I trust my A&P/crew, I'm still going to check it out for myself before I even tentatively believe the systems are in good working order."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-11-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 12:41 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 10:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Corinthians 11 is open to interpretation as is the entire bible...
That's the part that has always concerned me, even when I was a Christian. That's what started me on my own path of research.

Let's say I was a wonderfully brilliant person who was so enlightened that people gave me a website, talk show, and books. And for some reason, I said, "Don't wear brown."

Upon my death, some say they never wear any shade of brown clothing. Others say if they have brown hair, they dye it or shave their heads. Others say tan and beige are OK, because I meant medium brown. Others say it was symbolic and those idiots should know clothing doesn't matter. Still others say I meant always wipe your ass well.

All interpretation, but who's right? I'm dead so I can't explain it. But they all know the truth.
Nooooooo! Not brown! I love brown! Why? . I got your point just being silly. Like I said. I have asked myself the same questions you and almost everyone else have brought up and I have found answers that made sense to me but probably not everyone else. Like I said, I was just going to give an example of some secular sources that supports some of the claims of the bible. I am also very much aware that for every piece of evidence that supports the bible there are certainly evidence that opposes it. I don't want this to go down the rabbit trail to try to prove or disprove the bible. I just wanted to bring up one specific example of a secular source that I have seen to support my beliefs. Nothing more. I really appreciate RS for some of the insight. I will look more into it. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jason_delisle's post
12-11-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Now I have to go practice for the Marine Corps birthday ball. I am on the sword detail. 😐

The only lie that I am upset about is that there is no thunder and lightning when I draw my sword and I have yet to see any lava monsters. Very disappointing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jason_delisle's post
12-11-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(12-11-2015 11:15 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  The Titus Flavius Josephus who wasn't even born until after the alleged events in the Gospels? That Josephus?

"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration."
A historian non the less. If a historian wrote a book on Egyptian pharaohs does it make him or her less credible because they never met a Pharaoh?

Other historians includes the Roman historian Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, and The Greek poet Lucian.

The history is only as believable as the evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: