Oh. So you remain doubtful regarding the Earth's 4.5+ billion year age?
No. Nothing I said remotely implied that. You're not very bright. I simply recognize the possibility that our best guesses based on well-developed science may be incorrect.
In other words: You are irrational by choice.
I am no more irrational than any human, and far less so than most (such as yourself).
Do you also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?
It depends on what you mean by that loaded phrase. I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, and that the Bible in its original form says exactly what God intended it to say, but that through the filter and perceptions of the people writing it, that it might not be entirely scientifically accurate, for example.
So you do agree that Genesis 1-2 are errant.
Predictably, you do not understand what Genesis 1-2 actually says. The Hebrew word most often translated "day" is actually an indeterminate time period; further, even if "day" was intended, it could be intentionally symbolic.
The conversation began with an agreement between myself and pudge that Genesis 1-2 is mythology which science has refuted to a sufficient degree ...
That is a lie. I never agreed to any such thing, and continued lies will result in me ignoring you henceforth.
Do you also reject all of the other absurd bunk taught by your religion?
There is no such thing to reject. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean, come on, do you really believe that you are going to spend eternity in a city paved with gold and live in a mansion with God providing all of the light?
The Bible teaches that I will spend eternity with God, and yes, I believe that, of course.
I suppose that this also means that you really don't know whether your religion is true nor can you say for certain that any other religion (such as Hinduism or Islam) is false.
That's poor logic. I am just saying science doesn't do things that science doesn't do. It does not come to conclusions. You can't possibly disagree with this basic fact, nor can you logically carry through what I said to refer to other unrelated epistemological questions.
Shouldn't somebody ask her?
Shouldn't you not be so dishonest to assume the answer before it's asked?
And no, I don't think anyone should ask her. I can't see how it is the least bit relevant to anything. Even if she were a young earth creationist, it is irrelevant to anything I care about my elected officials doing.
Great, so I think young earth creationism is silly. But even if she does believe that, it's far less silly, and far less important to me, than what Obama believes, which is that all property belongs foremost to government; that the rule of man is superior to the rule of law, and that the Constitution does not need to be followed; and so on.
As an American Pluralist, I don't care if my elected officials believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as they believe in fundamental principles of liberty. Palin does, Obama does not.
Don't interfere with this most interesting subject matter. I'm prepared to prove both scientifically and Biblically that pudge's fundamentalist faith is inherently and irredeemably flawed.
No, you're not. You are not even close to being prepared. You could study for a lifetime and you couldn't even approach it.
Posted by pudge at September 28, 2008 02:50 PM | Email This> "I simply recognize the possibility that our best guesses ... "
Science does not regard its measurements of the age of the Earth as guesses. Reading the Bible, though, does require an awful lot of guesswork.
> "I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, and that the Bible in its original form says exactly what God intended it to say, but that through the filter and perceptions of the people writing it, that it might not be entirely scientifically accurate, for example."
You believe the Bible infallible ... except for Genesis 1-2, right?
God really didn't create Eve from Adam's rib, did He?
> "Predictably, you do not understand what Genesis 1-2 actually says. The Hebrew word most often translated "day" is actually an indeterminate time period; further, even if "day" was intended, it could be intentionally symbolic."
Excellent. You do not object to evolution, either, do you?
> "That is a lie."
You don't agree that Genesis 1-2 are a myth? Would you say that these two chapters are history?
> "The Bible teaches that I will spend eternity with God, and yes, I believe that, of course."
This is a rather desperate hope, isn't it?
> "That's poor logic. I am just saying science doesn't do things that science doesn't do. It does not come to conclusions. You can't possibly disagree with this basic fact, nor can you logically carry through what I said to refer to other unrelated epistemological questions."
Okay ... let's see ... are you suggesting that religion is more certain than science?
> "And no, I don't think anyone should ask her."
You better hope that no one does ... she might make a fool of herself (oops, she already has!).
Posted by: David Mathews on September 28, 2008 03:37 PMShrug. Use the word you want. Science certainly doesn't regard them as "facts," either, since science cannot regard anything as fact. This is fundamental to the nature of science.
You diminish science by trying to make it into something it is not. Why are you anti-science?
You believe the Bible infallible ... except for Genesis 1-2, right?
No.
You do not object to evolution, either, do you?
I do not.
You don't agree that Genesis 1-2 are a myth?
No, I do not.
Would you say that these two chapters are history?
Yes, they obviously are.
This is a rather desperate hope, isn't it?
Not at all.
Okay ... let's see ... are you suggesting that religion is more certain than science?
That doesn't make any sense. Science is never certain about anything, so for something to be "more certain" than something that has nothing to do with certainty is a nonsensical idea. It's like asking what the color "blue" sounds like.
You're letting me down. I was waiting for you to actually say something interesting or insightful.
> "Science certainly doesn't regard them as "facts," either, since science cannot regard anything as fact."
Eh ... it appears that you are extraordinarily ignorant about science, pudge. It is simply a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is 13+ billion years old.
> "Yes, they obviously are."
Eh ... Genesis 1-2 are not obviously history because history is a modern concept alien to the ancient people who originated the myths which are found in the Biblical text.
The author(s) of the Bible borrowed the creation account of Genesis 1 from a more ancient, pagan Babylonian myth. Do you belive that Yahweh inspired the Babylonians to create this myth so that the Israelites could incorporate it into the Bible?
> "That doesn't make any sense. Science is never certain about anything, so for something to be "more certain" than something that has nothing to do with certainty is a nonsensical idea. It's like asking what the color "blue" sounds like."
Science is certain about a great many things, pudge. You are approaching science in an irrational manner ... which is, incidentally, the same manner in which you approach religion.
Schiolars have demonstrated conclusively that the Bible is in error about a great many things. Judging science by the Bible makes about as much sense as interpreting Hubble Space Telescope images by consulting the daily astrology table in your newspaper.
Posted by: David Mathews on September 28, 2008 05:03 PMFalse. Science NEVER deals in fact. You lose. All science can say is that given our understanding, the evidence shows that those things are true, but science cannot prove that our understanding is correct. You cannot win this argument, your case is simply false.
This is fundamental to epistemology. Science cannot prove *anything at all.* Period.
Eh ... Genesis 1-2 are not obviously history because history is a modern concept alien to the ancient people who originated the myths which are found in the Biblical text.
False. You may be referring to the fact that most peoples' modern conception of history is different from theirs was. Duh. But no, this absolutely was history to them. They just saw history differently than most people do today.
The author(s) of the Bible borrowed the creation account of Genesis 1 from a more ancient, pagan Babylonian myth.
Heh. You're pretty pathetic. Many people believe that, but it's certainly never been remotely substantiated, and your stating this unsubstabtiated opinion as fact shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Science is certain about a great many things, pudge.
Incorrect. There is not a single thing science has ever been, or could ever be, certain about.
You are approaching science in an irrational manner
Incorrect.
... which is, incidentally, the same manner in which you approach religion.
Incorrect.
Schiolars have demonstrated conclusively that the Bible is in error about a great many things.
Incorrect.
Judging science by the Bible ...
I never did that, nor defended doing that.
You're REALLY disappointing me.
> "Science NEVER deals in fact. You lose. All science can say is that given our understanding, the evidence shows that those things are true, but science cannot prove that our understanding is correct."
I don't know where you get the above ideas from, pudge. Would you care to provide a source for the above claim ... a source, that is, other than your own extremely confused fundamentalist intellect?
> "You may be referring to the fact that most peoples' modern conception of history is different from theirs was. Duh. But no, this absolutely was history to them. They just saw history differently than most people do today."
This is a perfectly senseless and also uninformed response. The ancient people had no concept of history whatsoever. This is the reason why all of their descriptions of the past are mythological. The modern concept of history was not invented by the Israelites but instead by the Greeks.
> "Many people believe that, but it's certainly never been remotely substantiated, and your stating this unsubstabtiated opinion as fact shows you don't know what you're talking about."
I did not invent the idea on my own, pudge. I am merely stating what the scholars have discovered.
See:
Comparing two creation stories:
Genesis 1 vs. Babylonian creation stories
As it turns out, this is not the only Biblical concept which the Israelites borrowed from their pagan neighbors. Fundamentalists might imagine otherwise but this is a fact.
> "There is not a single thing science has ever been, or could ever be, certain about."
Don't be silly, pudge. You are coming across as an irrational, anti-scientific creationist loon in saying the above.
Otherwise, you will need to provide some sort of scientific source to back up the above claim. I don't imagine that you can find one, though, because you are repeating a misconception of the fundamentalists about science.
***
Do you claim that the Bible is inerrant, pudge?
Posted by: David Mathews on September 28, 2008 05:50 PMI support portions of both creationism and scientific evidence. Scientific conclusions are continuously evolving and changing as more evidence is accumulated, which can affect scientific hypotheses. God is omnipotent and has control over the
scientific evidence that humans are able to find.
"The ancient people had no concept of history whatsoever. This is the reason why all of their descriptions of the past are mythological. The modern concept of history was not invented by the Israelites but instead by the Greeks."
The Greeks may have been the first civilization to call history what it was, but to say that ancient people had no concept of history whatsoever without a shred of evidence is pompous to say the least. The only thing this establishes is that you are an absolutist and being an extremist comes with the territory.
There were cultures before the Greeks that had concepts of history.
> " he uses the word NEVER and is once again, as he loves to do - put words in your mouth."
Eh ... the quote was taken directly from pudge's post. "NEVER" was the word which pudge used ... you can verify that easily enough.
> "I support portions of both creationism and scientific evidence. Scientific conclusions are continuously evolving and changing as more evidence is accumulated, which can affect scientific hypotheses. God is omnipotent and has control over the
scientific evidence that humans are able to find."
Huh? What you are saying sounds senseless.
> "The Greeks may have been the first civilization to call history what it was, but to say that ancient people had no concept of history whatsoever without a shred of evidence is pompous to say the least."
The scholars have thousands of pages of evidence indicating exactly when the concept of "history" appeared.
It is easy enough to verify that "history" (in the modern sense) did not exist as a concept for the ancient Hebrews ... simply by reading the Bible. The bible is filled with mythology, scientific absurdities, historical errors and contradictions.
The ancient authors of the Bible took great liberties with their source material, too. That's what the scholars say ... though it might offend the fundamentalists.
Posted by: David Mathews on September 28, 2008 06:30 PMIt's self-evident. Science can only deal within the confines of the scientific method, which itself is an unprovable epistemological method. If you can't prove your method is true, then how can you prove anything at all is true by using that method?
... you will need to provide some sort of scientific source to back up the above claim.
If you knew anything about science you would know how stupid that claim is. Science cannot justify itself. Science requires philosophy to justify itself.
The ancient people had no concept of history whatsoever.
False. You're just making that up.
I did not invent the idea on my own, pudge. I am merely stating what the scholars have discovered.
False. You are stating what people with an anti-Christian agenda have claimed. No one has "discovered" this because it isn't true.
Comparing two creation stories ...
What's sad is that you don't see how obviously fallacious this claim is. If the creation story in Genesis is correct, then why would it not have shown up in the writings of different cultures? As that page says, "The many points of similarity between the two traditions is conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original)."
I wouldn't call it conclusive proof, because I have a strongly scientific mind that rejects such absolutism when it is not warranted, but it is very convincing evidence. And there is no evidence that one or the other came first, or that both are not derived from an older original ... which certainly may have happened if the story is true.
So no, what you are saying, that it is fact that the Genesis story was borrowed, is not even backed up by your own evidence.
Predictably.
Do you claim that the Bible is inerrant, pudge?
Did you miss where I already answered that question directly?
The scholars have thousands of pages of evidence indicating exactly when the concept of "history" appeared.
False. You are just making that up.
It is easy enough to verify that "history" (in the modern sense) did not exist as a concept for the ancient Hebrews
Ummmmmmmmm. "(in the modern sense)"? You never used that qualifier before. And indeed, my response to you said, "You may be referring to the fact that most peoples' modern conception of history is different from theirs was. Duh." So I had already agreed that if you're talking about the modern sense of history, that this was true, but your original question didn't say "modern sense," so I answered it based on what you actually asked, and then you disagreed with me even though I made an exception for "modern conception" ... ?
Are you taking any illegal or prescription drugs?
The bible is filled with mythology, scientific absurdities, historical errors and contradictions.
False.
The ancient authors of the Bible took great liberties with their source material, too. That's what the scholars say
False.
And I am just about done with you. You've proven you have no point, that you don't care what I say, you'll misconstrue it and lie about it, and that you don't even understand the fundamentals of either science or Christianity.
You better come to a legitimate point quick, because you've become completely tiresome.
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2008 07:09 PMEvidently, you have a problem with reading comprehension - it makes perfect sense to me - I thought that you claimed that you believed in God. You have just demonstrated that your purported intelligence is essentially flatulence. You are incredibly boring.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2008 08:07 PM> "It's self-evident. Science can only deal within the confines of the scientific method, which itself is an unprovable epistemological method. If you can't prove your method is true, then how can you prove anything at all is true by using that method?"
You are making a claim against science which reflects a stupid misunderstanding common among the anti-scientific fundamentalists. Science does know, for example, that an asteroid impacted the Earth approximately 65 million years ago and that the dinosaurs were wiped out as a result and that this provided an opportunity for the mammals to evolve, ultimately leading to the evolution of the Homo sapiens.
> "Science cannot justify itself. Science requires philosophy to justify itself."
This is simply false, pudge, and it is also an extremely stupid thing for you to see. Science can justify itself ... the principles of science are validated by investigation and experimentation.
> "You are stating what people with an anti-Christian agenda have claimed. No one has "discovered" this because it isn't true."
Oh ... the scholars are anti-Christian, science is also anti-Christian ... I guess that this means that reality is anti-Christian. No wonder why fundamentalists retreat from reality in order to maintain their religious fantasies.
> "What's sad is that you don't see how obviously fallacious this claim is. If the creation story in Genesis is correct, then why would it not have shown up in the writings of different cultures? As that page says, "The many points of similarity between the two traditions is conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original)."
What you failed to notice is that the Babylonian creation account is much older than the Bible. The Babylonian creation myth, in other words, preceded the Biblical creation myth.
Since the Babylonians did not engage in time travel it is impossible for them to have borrowed the creation myth from the Hebrews. In this case, the Israelites borrowed the myth from the Babylonians.
> "I wouldn't call it conclusive proof, because I have a strongly scientific mind that rejects such absolutism when it is not warranted, but it is very convincing evidence. And there is no evidence that one or the other came first, or that both are not derived from an older original ... which certainly may have happened if the story is true."
You don't have a scientific mind at all, pudge. You are a fundamentalist. You are an irrational person who believes absurd things and therefore cannot handle scientific and scholarly conclusions about evolution, religion and the Bible.
> "False. You are just making that up."
Pudge, the more you talk the more uneducated you appear. Scholars have investigated the origin and history of History for thousands of years. This is the scholarly work of the Historian. They have written thousands of pages about this very subject.
Get educated.
> "Ummmmmmmmm. "(in the modern sense)"? You never used that qualifier before. And indeed, my response to you said, "You may be referring to the fact that most peoples' modern conception of history is different from theirs was. Duh." So I had already agreed that if you're talking about the modern sense of history, that this was true, but your original question didn't say "modern sense," so I answered it based on what you actually asked, and then you disagreed with me even though I made an exception for "modern conception" ... ?"
The ancients had no concept of history whatsoever, pudge. The ancients were myth-makers. Hence the Bible is filled with numerous myths and other absurdities consistent with non-historical thinking.
> "And I am just about done with you. You've proven you have no point, that you don't care what I say, you'll misconstrue it and lie about it, and that you don't even understand the fundamentals of either science or Christianity."
Look, pudge, I am about to prove to you that the Bible is filled with myths, historical errors, contradictions, scientific errors and other absurdities of the ancient mind.
This is a difficult message for an uneducated fundamentalist to hear, though. You won't enjoy hearing it. But there is an abundance of proof assembled by the Bible scholars who have devoted their careers to the investigation of such matters.
Fundamentalism survives only because fundamentalists reject reality in order to protect their preferred fantasies. But you cannot run away from science and scholarship forever, pudge.
Posted by: David Mathews on September 29, 2008 03:33 AM> "it makes perfect sense to me"
That's a revealing statement, KS. Uneducated fundamentalist idiots consider a lot of absurd thins sensible. This is why religion and astrology and ghost-hunting are so popular among the uneducated.
What you said was absurd, irrational and stupid. It might make sense to you but only to you.
Posted by: David Mathews on September 29, 2008 03:36 AMFalse. I've never made a claim against science.
Science does know, for example, that an asteroid impacted the Earth approximately 65 million years ago and that the dinosaurs were wiped out as a result and that this provided an opportunity for the mammals to evolve, ultimately leading to the evolution of the Homo sapiens.
False. Science believes this is likely. It does not know it, because it is incapable of knowing it.
Why do you hate science so much that you are trying to make it into something it's not?
Science can justify itself ... the principles of science are validated by investigation and experimentation.
This is, of course, and obviously, false. Science cannot show that investigation and experimentation are valid methods for discovery. It can only use those methods, not verify them. They must be verified epistemologically.
the scholars are anti-Christian
Anyone who claims against the evidence that Christianity was descended from other religions -- and yes, there is no evidence showing it -- surely has some motivation other than science, and calling them anti-Christian is a rational conclusion.
science is also anti-Christian
No. YOU are anti-SCIENCE (and anti-Christian). There is nothing remotely incompatible between science and Christianity.
What you failed to notice is that the Babylonian creation account is much older than the Bible.
False. That is, in fact, unknown, and even if it were known -- and it is not -- you still couldn't know if both the Babylonian story and the Genesis story came from the same place: the truth of the actual stories.
Remember, you said the Genesis account was "borrowed" from the Babylonian account. You don't need to just show that the Babylonian account is older, you need to show that it came from that account, and not somewhere else, such as the actual event as it happened, passed down verbally. You cannot do that, of course.
You don't have a scientific mind at all
Since you don't know what science is, I won't care what you think.
You are an irrational person who believes absurd things
Name one absurd thing I believe. Prove it is absurd.
and therefore cannot handle scientific and scholarly conclusions about evolution, religion and the Bible.
If that's true, then why have you been incapable of giving an example of me "not handling" such conclusions?
False. You're just making that up. They had a different concept of history, but a very strong one.
I am about to prove to you that the Bible is filled with myths, historical errors, contradictions, scientific errors and other absurdities of the ancient mind.
No, you're not.
But there is an abundance of proof assembled by the Bible scholars who have devoted their careers to the investigation of such matters.
No, there is not.
But you cannot run away from science and scholarship forever
Yawn. You have proven that you do not understand science (believing science can verify itself, which is impossible), and that you pretend "scholarship" says something it doesn't say (that the Genesis story was taken from the Babylonian story).
So you are an extremely poor judge.
In fact, you have not backed up a single point of contention here. Not one.
As expected.
Because you really suck at this.
> "Science believes this is likely. It does not know it, because it is incapable of knowing it."
Are you suggesting that an asteroid did not impact the Earth 65 million years ago, pudge ... ?
You are a Young Earth Creationist, pudge. You must believe that Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur.
> "Science cannot show that investigation and experimentation are valid methods for discovery. It can only use those methods, not verify them."
You are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist, pudge, and I don't mean that in a complimentary sense.
If one were to follow the above principle to its logical conclusion it leads inevitably to doubting whether Jesus Himself actually existed. What sort of evidence could exist which would serve to historically verify the existence of such a man?
> "Anyone who claims against the evidence that Christianity was descended from other religions -- and yes, there is no evidence showing it -- surely has some motivation other than science, and calling them anti-Christian is a rational conclusion."
Devout Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars have concluded, objectively, that there authors of the Bible borrowed heavily from their pagan neighbors. You can call all of these people anti-Christian if you like, but the fact remains that the Bible has distinctly pagan components.
> "False. That is, in fact, unknown, and even if it were known -- and it is not -- you still couldn't know if both the Babylonian story and the Genesis story came from the same place: the truth of the actual stories.
> "Remember, you said the Genesis account was "borrowed" from the Babylonian account. You don't need to just show that the Babylonian account is older, you need to show that it came from that account, and not somewhere else, such as the actual event as it happened, passed down verbally. You cannot do that, of course."
I find it amusing that you are forced to engage in these irrational, absurd intellectual gyrations in order to avoid the conclusion of the evidence that Genesis' creation account is derived from pagan predecessors.
You are approaching the Bible with an irrational fundamentalist mindset and this is the reason why you refuse to accept the conclusions based upon evidence.
> "Since you don't know what science is, I won't care what you think."
As a fundamentalist, it is evident that you are dogmatically anti-scientific and irrational in your treatment of the evidence and that your motive for behaving in such an absurd manner is your desperate wish to spend eternity in Heaven, possessing a mansion and driving your heavenly SUV on those streets made of gold.
> "Name one absurd thing I believe. Prove it is absurd."
You believe in a talking snake, demon possession and heaven ... three absurd myths of the Bible.
> "If that's true, then why have you been incapable of giving an example of me "not handling" such conclusions?"
You simply have failed to listen to your own self, pudge. From an intellectual standpoint, you have thoroughly rejected science and scholarship on behalf of Biblical mysticism and religious lies.
> "In fact, you have not backed up a single point of contention here. Not one.
> "As expected.
> "Because you really suck at this."
No ... fundamentalists are fundamentally dishonest in their treatment of science, history and scholarship because of the demands of their religion.
Astrologers won't hear any evidence against astrology ... so it makes sense that fundamentalists won't hear any evidence against fundamentalism.
Pudge, have you considered the possibility that your religion is wrong?
Posted by: David Mathews on September 29, 2008 09:41 AMUm. So when I said it is "likely," you took that as a suggestion that it didn't happen?
Are you really that stupid?
You are a Young Earth Creationist, pudge.
You're a liar, David. I specifically denied the claims of Young Earth Creationism, and you know it.
I won't even read the rest of your post. These first two sentences of your last comment, that I quoted above, that are both obvious misrepresntations of what I've said, are more than sufficient cause to finally give up on you.
I refuse to have discussions with people who are fundamentally dishonest.
It's a shame because I still held out hope that you might have a point. But given that you are either completely stupid or completely dishonest, I'll have to stop waiting to find out.
You had your chance and you blew it.
This discussion is closed, as I will no longer tend to it.
(You may think I am having the last word, but really, since I didn't read the rest of your post, let alone respond to it, you get to include it without rebuttal, so you got your last word in, too.)