Truth v. Fact

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 170
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    She's a Muslim - do they know that?



    I didn't know that, but I wasn't in that group. I know it wouldn't bother these folks in the slightest.



    When did she convert?
  • Reply 122 of 170
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Yeah, I think it's not true. She has written a number of book about Islam, and spoke out a lot after 9/11 against anti-Muslim prejudice, but as far as I know, after she left the RC Church, she hasn't gone to any other. I don't know for sure though.
  • Reply 123 of 170
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    The only one I've read is the History of God one. Her books aren't difficult by any means, but for BRussell's fun reading, they're a little more information-dense than, say, the Pagels books we were talking about in the other thread.
  • Reply 124 of 170
    Chris,



    you disappoint me! I (we) did the courtesy of reading the links you posted in support of the Ark, and yet it appears that you have not returned the favour by reading the counter-argument links.



    The technical arguments (or 'facts' as you refer) are fairly conclusive, to my eyes at least. It seems that one of the major Ark supporters in matters technical was a guy called Woodruffe (apologies for maybe spelling his name incorrectly - I am not going back to check). Many of his facts turn out to be either false or easily challenged that the whole argument he puts forward is seriously flawed.



    Still, as the writer puts it, God may well have organised a flood a multi-millenia ago, and then covered up all physical traces of it, as well as organising things so it looks like no such event took place. Would seem a bit pointless...........



    Regards,



    David
  • Reply 125 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Almost the weekend -- here's a quickie.



    On the flood, two points:



    It's 16,000 animals, and the numbers work for 16,000 animals. Also, since we can cross lions and tigers, camels and llamas, whales and dolphins, zebras and horses, the number of 'kinds' could begin to be reduced to a much smaller number.



    Second point: That this rigorous vetting of the flood account is coming from people who insist on an argument from ignorance to 'prove' the creation of things like the bacteria flagellum, I find this really intellectually dishonest. Once you run and hide to the extent that an evolutionist has to --- live without any proof whatsoever, can't even put genetic pathways on paper -- you couldn't possibly begin to wince about the possibilities of getting a guy on a boat for a year with 16,000 animals.



    Which goes back to a reoccurring theme: the Biblical account isn't lacking, except that is the only possibility that can't be true, because of certain 'authority issues', and not because you materialists can't handle perpetual impossibilities as the source of all order.



    Noah's a walk in the park, now get me a genetic pathway that definitively builds a bacteria flagellum. Ah, but that's really not the point, is it?
  • Reply 126 of 170
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Maybe I'm naive, but I simply can't believe that he and dmz believe in the literal truth of a deluge that killed everything on the planet except what Noah brought with him on a boat.



    OK, so I am naive.
  • Reply 127 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Ah, yes, the scathing 'argument by emoticon', technique.
  • Reply 128 of 170
    Quote:

    Orginally posted by dmz

    Which goes back to a reoccurring theme: the Biblical account isn't lacking, except that is the only possibility that can't be true, because of certain 'authority issues', and not because you materialists can't handle perpetual impossibilities as the source of all order.



    What?



    I'm struggling to uderstand what you mean - are you saying that I think the biblical account is wrong because I prefer to believe physical evidence? Did you read the link given by Shetline where fossil and rock geology evidence refutes the occurrance of a global flood?



    I ask again the same question that Chris hasn't answered - why, if you believe elements of the bible are meant to be figurative, have you chosen to believe the Ark is true?



    It isn't sensible to believe that even if God decided to do it, only, and only Noah (and a few relatives) was considered worthy of saving. Every goatherd in the middle of nowhere, tending two goats and an olive tree - pow - gone.



    It's truly bizarre thinking.



    David
  • Reply 129 of 170
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    Once you run and hide to the extent that an evolutionist has to --- live without any proof whatsoever, can't even put genetic pathways on paper -- you couldn't possibly begin to wince about the possibilities of getting a guy on a boat for a year with 16,000 animals.



    Did you mean 'Life' above? Scientists, to the best of my knowledge, have always conceded that their knowledge on how inert chemicals came to have 'life' is incomplete. I'll even concede the possibility that there is a God that said 'let there be life'.



    But now our pathways diverge big time. Humans did not start out as we are now - plenty of evidence to suggest how we developed - so I ignore the Adam and Eve story from a literal perspective and accept it as an image.



    I thought scientists HAVE put genetic pathways on paper, showing similarities between members of the same species.



    For your Ark story to be true, and to have worked, God had to work on so many levels, ranging from keeping the thing afloat, getting the animals on board from across the globe, feeding the animals, cleaning them, stopping them fighting.......endless list.



    And not an emoticon in sight.



    David
  • Reply 130 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    What?



    I'm struggling to uderstand what you mean - are you saying that I think the biblical account is wrong because I prefer to believe physical evidence? Did you read the link given by Shetline where fossil and rock geology evidence refutes the occurrance of a global flood?



    I ask again the same question that Chris hasn't answered - why, if you believe elements of the bible are meant to be figurative, have you chosen to believe the Ark is true?



    It isn't sensible to believe that even if God decided to do it, only, and only Noah (and a few relatives) was considered worthy of saving. Every goatherd in the middle of nowhere, tending two goats and an olive tree - pow - gone.



    It's truly bizarre thinking.



    David




    The arguments on 'evidence' can be argued indefinitely. For every argument, there is a counter argument. The evidence for a worldwide catastrophe is overwhelming. This isn't about evidence. There are case studies that have been done that make a very solid case for the feasibility of the Ark. There is no denying this fact.



    I'll make this even clearer for you: you can't apply the same standards you would apply to Noah, to the origins of life -- or my example of the flagellum. People who intellectually live and die by appeals to an argument from ignorance, expose their inconsistencies of thought, and with it the irrational desire to make universal negative statements about what may or may not exist.



    This has nothing to do with evidence. That has everything to do with what you idealistically wish to be possible.
  • Reply 131 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    For your Ark story to be true, and to have worked, God had to work on so many levels, ranging from keeping the thing afloat, getting the animals on board from across the globe, feeding the animals, cleaning them, stopping them fighting.......endless list.





    The feasibility studies handle most of this. Also, you're running a little shallow on -- "across the globe", that assumes that you know what the globe looked like at that time.

  • Reply 132 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Well we do....it was less than 4000 years ago remember?







    No, you really don't -- plate shift, even small changes in the atmosphere, could have made things quite different.
  • Reply 133 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Uhh...ok......yes, I see exactly what you mean..........(backs away slowly......)



    you forgot the emoticon
  • Reply 134 of 170
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Uhh...ok......yes, I see exactly what you mean..........(backs away slowly......)



    Oh...dmz...that is segovius' clever way of saying that you are a "nut job loonie"...because trying to actually prove that it wasn't as you say is too difficult.



    P.S. If i wasn't already too old and, well, if I had shred of musical talent, I think I would start a rock band called the "Nut Job Loonies"...just for fun.

  • Reply 135 of 170
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Well, it is too difficult - nothing could prove it to him, he;s too far gone.



    Besides, I know nothing of science so in a way you're right. I prefer theology - speaking of which, could you please explain the following Genesis contradictions to me and how they can possibly be indicative of a literal Biblical truth:



    Genesis 8:4 states the following: "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."



    But this is contradicted by the very next verse, Genesis 8:5 which says: "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."



    So how could the Ark rest on the mountaintops on the seventh month when the mountaintops were not visible until the tenth month?



    Likewise Genesis 8:13 has it that: "And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry."



    Ie, that the ground was dry on the first day of the first month. But again, the very next verse blatantly contradicts this - Genesis 8:14 says "And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried".



    So which is it? How is it possible to maintain a belief in the literal nature of Scripture when these blatant contradictions point to the fact that it is not and cannot be a document intended to be taken in a literal sense.



    To refuse to acknowledge this AND to twist facts from science that we know are non-contradictory is a form of intellectual dishonesty imo.




    This may help -- you may consider investing in a set of Calvin's Commentaries.



    Quote:

    3. And after the end of the hundred and fifty days. Some think that the whole time, from the beginning of the deluge to the abatement of the waters, is bere noted ; and thus they include the forty days in which Moses relates that there was continued rain. But I make this distinction, that until the fortieth day, the waters rose gradually by fresh additions; then that they remained nearly in the same state for one hundred and fifty days; for both computations make the period a little more than six months and a half. And Moses says, that about the end of the seventh month, the diminution of the waters appeared to be such that the ark settled upon the highest summit of a mountain, or touched some ground. And by this lengthened space of time, the Lord would show the more plainly, that the dreadful desolation of the world had not fallen upon it accidentally, but was a remarkable proof of his judgment; while the deliverance of Noah was a magnificent work of his grace, and worthy of everlasting remembrance. If, however, we number the seventh month from the beginning of the year, (as some do,) and not from the time that Noah entered the ark, the subsidence of which Moses speaks, took place earlier, namely, as soon as the ark had floated five months. If this second opinion is received, there will be the same reckoning of ten months ; for the sense will be, that in the eighth month after the commencement of the deluge, the tops of the mountains appeared. Concerning the name Ararat, I follow the opinion most received. And I do not see why some should deny it to be Armenia, the mountains of which are declared, by ancient authors, almost with one consent, to be the highest.1 The Chaldean paraphrast also points out the particular part, which he calls mountains of Cardu,2 which others call Cardueni. But whether that be true, which Josephus has handed down respecting the fragments of the ark found there in his time; remnants of which, Jerome says, remained to his own age, I leave undecided.



    One more point, and then I need to let it go until later today -- this Karen Armstrong who was quoted earlier... how it is possible that she could make the airhead statement....



    "belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. "



    ....when I am sitting here a reading a mid-16th Century commentary that is anything but an allegorical joy ride?



    more later.
  • Reply 136 of 170
    dmz,



    please direct me to a single feasibility study that shows how the ark could have happened.



    The ones Chris pointed out distorted facts when needed, and ignored others that made it inconvenient.



    Fact postulated by Chris: all religeons have a global flood somewhere in their history.

    Actual fact: no, some do, and those that do tend to talk of localised floods.



    And you want us to accept whales and dolphins, horses and zebras mating to create the diversified animal landscape we see to day to help get your numbers down!



    You start from the point that God is omnipotent so all the impossibilities in the story are explained by His powers. Fine. God arranged it. he also allowed man to remember the flood, by getting it written in the Bible.



    But the God also arranged it so that there is NO physical evidence of such a flood.



    Why?



    David



    PS I note that both you and Chris still won't answer my question as to WHY you belive this story to be true. Would I be right is saying over 95% of mainstream Christians don't believe this to be a true story?
  • Reply 137 of 170
    Chris,



    about plate shifts.



    I suppose God could have moved tectonic plates around the world at a rate of knots, and not at the current rate of centimertres per decade, without leaving any evidence of that.



    But that isn't a good enough answer for you.



    David
  • Reply 138 of 170
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    Fact postulated by Chris: all religeons have a global flood somewhere in their history.



    Actually I don't think I ever offered that. Maybe someone else did.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    Would I be right is saying over 95% of mainstream Christians don't believe this to be a true story?



    I have no idea. I'd guess no. But just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true either so not even sure what point you'd be trying to make.
  • Reply 139 of 170
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    WHY you belive this story to be true.



    Oh, sorry. Well, because it has the form and structure of historical narrative. So I begin with a presumption that it was intended as a historical story. From there, the questions of reasonableness to believe support it. I don't start from the presumption that it must be a lie and it must prove itself. In other words I allow benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
  • Reply 140 of 170
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMac David

    Would I be right is saying over 95% of mainstream Christians don't believe this to be a true story?



    No you would be wrong. Chris and dmz are fairly typical American Christians. link



    Quote:

    An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."

    Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah's ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.



    Quote:

    The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark.

    Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent.



Sign In or Register to comment.