PDA

View Full Version : Can any "Old earth" Creationists (*cough 5StringJeff *cough*) Explain this one?



-Cp
06-01-2007, 11:20 AM
If the days in Genesis 1 were not 24hour periods than the same hebrew word for "day" here implies that we're all to work 6 days (could be 1000 years per day?) and then rest for how long?

8Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Gaffer
06-01-2007, 11:46 AM
Nothing to explain, your taking quotes from the bible trying to make a point about creationism. It proves nothing.

-Cp
06-01-2007, 12:12 PM
Nothing to explain, your taking quotes from the bible trying to make a point about creationism. It proves nothing.

Uh... thanks for offering NOTHING to the question.... you obviously missed the point..

The contention between old earth and young earth creationists comes down to the meaning of the word "day"....

Old Earth believes assert that the Genesis 1 account could mean a longer than 24 hour period for the word "day" which in the Hebrew text is "yom"...

Doniston
06-01-2007, 01:48 PM
Nothing to explain, your taking quotes from the bible trying to make a point about creationism. It proves nothing. I agree he said nothing, so there is nothing to explain.

Doniston
06-01-2007, 01:51 PM
Uh... thanks for offering NOTHING to the question.... you obviously missed the point..

The contention between old earth and young earth creationists comes down to the meaning of the word "day"....

Old Earth believes assert that the Genesis 1 account could mean a longer than 24 hour period for the word "day" which in the Hebrew text is "yom"... Oh yes, I recognized your missing point. I repeat. You said nothing.

JeffWartman
06-01-2007, 02:15 PM
He's trying to have an Old Earth Creationism vs. Young Earth Creationism discussion. If you're neither, of course it means nothing. But to creationists it means a lot.

-Cp
06-01-2007, 02:19 PM
He's trying to have an Old Earth Creationism vs. Young Earth Creationism discussion. If you're neither, of course it means nothing. But to creationists it means a lot.

You'll find here at DP that the libs can't help themselves but try and hi-jack every thread they really don't care about nor can offer valid input....

Most of them need to check into Hooked on Phonics (http://secure.hop.com/) - as the ninnies in this thread do.. The title was specifically directed to "old earth creationists"...

JeffWartman
06-01-2007, 02:22 PM
You'll find here at DP that the libs can't help themselves but try and hi-jack every thread they really don't care about nor can offer valid input....

Most of them need to check into Hooked on Phonics (http://secure.hop.com/) - as the ninnies in this thread do.. The title was specifically directed to "old earth creationists"...

:laugh2::laugh2:

Abbey Marie
06-01-2007, 02:51 PM
He's trying to have an Old Earth Creationism vs. Young Earth Creationism discussion. If you're neither, of course it means nothing. But to creationists it means a lot.

Hmm. That was clearly stated, logical, done without insult. Perhaps a fresh breeze just blew into DP? Welcome, Jeff.

JeffWartman
06-01-2007, 03:04 PM
Hmm. That was clearly stated, logical, done without insult. Perhaps a fresh breeze just blew into DP? Welcome, Jeff.

Thank you, glad to be here :)

Guernicaa
06-01-2007, 03:08 PM
Genesis is a lie.
A story that is no better than Greek Mythology.

Its not to say however, that a creator was not present in the making of everything....But Genesis was just basically folklore that the Jews used to explain what science could not tell them in their day.

JeffWartman
06-01-2007, 03:10 PM
Genesis is a lie.
A story that is no better than Greek Mythology.

Its not to say however, that a creator was not present in the making of everything....But Genesis was just basically folklore that the Jews used to explain what science could not tell them in their day.

But you do understand why your point is basically irrelevant to the point of the original post?

-Cp
06-01-2007, 03:12 PM
But you do understand why your point is basically irrelevant to the point of the original post?

Jeff - give up now bud.... reason and logic with libs is like Superman holding onto kryptonite...

eighballsidepocket
06-01-2007, 04:25 PM
Genesis is a lie.
A story that is no better than Greek Mythology.

Its not to say however, that a creator was not present in the making of everything....But Genesis was just basically folklore that the Jews used to explain what science could not tell them in their day.

Could you validate your above statement/s with some very good references or information so that the rest of us may see where you came up with your statement, and evaluate it's merit?

Gaffer
06-01-2007, 04:33 PM
As you know I'm as far from a lib as I can get. But the genisus book is just mythology. It's a way for ancients to explain something they had no clue about.

In order to have a day you need to have a time measurement. There was no one there to measure time. There was no earth there to measure time by. Therefore no "day" could exist. We could have a discussion about it if the first verse was "In the begin god created a time piece". Time is based on the revolution of the earth. And man's ability to observe that revolution.

A star that is 4 million light years away means the light we see from it started this way 4 million light years ago. If the earth was 6000 years old then that light would not even be close to getting here.

5stringJeff
06-01-2007, 04:47 PM
If the days in Genesis 1 were not 24hour periods than the same hebrew word for "day" here implies that we're all to work 6 days (could be 1000 years per day?) and then rest for how long?

8Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

First, your insinuation that man should work for thousands of years before resting ignores the fact that the Hebrew 'yom' can literally be translated both as "day" and as "age."

Second, the point of the Sabbath is that man is to rest for one day out of seven. Remember, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk 2:27, NASB) The pattern that was given was the pattern referenced in Genesis 1: God created for six 'yom' and rested for one.

But, the seventh day is not over. Read:


For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

We can ascertain from this passage that God is still at rest from His creative works; the seventh "day" is still ongoing. Therefore, if the seventh "day" has been ongoing for at least 6000 years (according to YEC timelines), it is not a 24-hour day.

Doniston
06-01-2007, 05:10 PM
First, your insinuation that man should work for thousands of years before resting ignores the fact that the Hebrew 'yom' can literally be translated both as "day" and as "age."

Second, the point of the Sabbath is that man is to rest for one day out of seven. Remember, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk 2:27, NASB) The pattern that was given was the pattern referenced in Genesis 1: God created for six 'yom' and rested for one.

But, the seventh day is not over. Read:



We can ascertain from this passage that God is still at rest from His creative works; the seventh "day" is still ongoing. Therefore, if the seventh "day" has been ongoing for at least 6000 years (according to YEC timelines), it is not a 24-hour day.I had good friend ( a now deceased Brethren-in Christ minister) who beleived that five of the six days were 24 Hrs long but the one which accounted for Dino Bones was Millions of years long. I guess that's one way of having your cake and eat it too.

-Cp
06-01-2007, 05:15 PM
First, your insinuation that man should work for thousands of years before resting ignores the fact that the Hebrew 'yom' can literally be translated both as "day" and as "age."

Second, the point of the Sabbath is that man is to rest for one day out of seven. Remember, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk 2:27, NASB) The pattern that was given was the pattern referenced in Genesis 1: God created for six 'yom' and rested for one.

But, the seventh day is not over. Read:



We can ascertain from this passage that God is still at rest from His creative works; the seventh "day" is still ongoing. Therefore, if the seventh "day" has been ongoing for at least 6000 years (according to YEC timelines), it is not a 24-hour day.


Huh? Now you're throwing in Greek text into the origins of yom?

5stringJeff
06-01-2007, 05:18 PM
Huh? Now you're throwing in Greek text into the origins of yom?

No, I'm reading the Bible holistically. Also, note that the seventh day in Genesis 1 doesn't contain "evening and morning."

Abbey Marie
06-01-2007, 08:44 PM
Off topic for a sec-

Doniston, your avatar shows a fun sense of humor. Cool! :thumb:

Doniston
06-01-2007, 09:23 PM
Off topic for a sec-

Doniston, your avatar shows a fun sense of humor. Cool! :thumb: I would say that we are a litle bit too stuffed shirt-like if we can't poke fun at ourselves now and then. Thanks for the comment.

Hobbit
06-04-2007, 12:25 PM
The six days of work plus a seventh of rest are symbolic and practical, not an exact transition from what God did to what man does. Otherwise, why the concept of the sabbath year, the year all slaves were freed, all debts forgiven, and all fields left untilled? Was each day both one day AND one year? If so, doesn't that mean that each of these days could also be 1000 years or even 1 billion?

LOki
06-04-2007, 01:17 PM
We can ascertain from this passage that God is still at rest from His creative works; the seventh "day" is still ongoing. Therefore, if the seventh "day" has been ongoing for at least 6000 years (according to YEC timelines), it is not a 24-hour day.
I see no point in assuming that God would choose to be ambiguous with His language. As long as there are perfectly good, and unambiguous terms for day and age, there's no point in being ambiguous about their use:

yom = day
'olam = age

God rested on the seventh day, He may still be resting, and a day still means 24 hours, just as it did when God created them.

Hobbit
06-04-2007, 01:44 PM
I see no point in assuming that God would choose to be ambiguous with His language. As long as there are perfectly good, and unambiguous terms for day and age, there's no point in being ambiguous about their use:

yom = day
'olam = age

God rested on the seventh day, He may still be resting, and a day still means 24 hours, just as it did when God created them.

What about being poetic? I don't know Hebrew, but I know in English, saying, "Back in the day when men were men," sounds a lot better than saying, "Back in the ambiguously defined period of an undetermined amount of years when men were men..."

LOki
06-04-2007, 03:11 PM
What about being poetic? I don't know Hebrew, but I know in English, saying, "Back in the day when men were men," sounds a lot better than saying, "Back in the ambiguously defined period of an undetermined amount of years when men were men..."I hear you Hobbit. The poetic, interperative, alternative means that one must accept that the Bible can only be authoritative for one's self, and grants no authority, or means, by which to judge others--and for those others, likewise. I could embrace that point of view.

I just prefer to argue that the Author of the Bible said what he meant, and did not choose style over substance.

eighballsidepocket
06-04-2007, 08:34 PM
Here's one Old Earth Christian's answer to this debate.

Regards, eightballsidepocket

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/wordstudies.shtml

Word Studies in Genesis One
by Hugh Ross, Ph. D.
Genesis One
1. In the beginning God1 created2 the heavens5 and the earth20. 2. Now the earth2O was formless and empty7, darkness was over the surface of the deep8, and the Spirit9 of God1 was hovering21 over the waters. 3. And God1 said, "Let there3 be light," and there was light. 4. God1 saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5. God1 called the light "day"19 and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening22, and there was morning23... the first day19. 6. And God1 said, "Let there3 be an expanse10 between the waters to separate water from water." 7. So God1 made4 the expanse10 and separated the water under the expanse10 from the water above it. And it was so. 8. God1 called the expanse10 "sky5." And there was evening22, and there was morning23... the second day19. 9. And God1 said, "Let3 the water under the sky5 be3 gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear24." And it was so. 10. God1 called the dry ground "land" and the gathered waters he called the "seas." And God1 saw that it was good. 11. Then God1 said, "Let the land produce25 vegetation26; seed11-bearing plants29 and trees12 on the land that bear fruit13 with seed11 in it, according to their various kinds27." And it was so. 12. The land produced28 vegetation26: plants29 bearing seed11 according to their kinds27 and trees12 bearing fruit13 with seed11 in it according to their kinds27. And God1 saw that it was good. 13. And there was evening22, and there was morning23... the third day19. 14. And God1 said, "Let there3 be lights30 in the expanse10 of the sky5 to separate the day19 from the night, and let them serve as signs31 to mark seasons and days19 and years. 15. And let there3 be lights30 in the expanse10 of the sky5 to give light on the earth20." And it was so. 16. God1 made4 two great lights30... the greater light30 to govern the day 19 and the lesser light30 to govern the night. He also made4 the stars. 17. God1 set14 them in the expanse10 of the sky5 to give light on the earth20, 18. to govern the day19 and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God1 saw that it was good. 19. And there was evening22, and there was morning23... the fourth day19. 20. And God1 said, "Let the water teem with living creatures15, and let birds fly above the earth20 across the expanse10 of the sky5." 21. So God1 created2 the great creatures16 of the sea and every livingl7 and moving thing17 with which the water teems, according to their kinds27, and every winged bird according to its kind27. And God1 saw that it was good. 22. God1 blessed them and said, "Be3 fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth20." 23. And there was the evening22, and there was morning23... the fifth day19. 24. And God1 said, "Let the land produce28 living creatures17 according to their kinds27: livestock32, creatures33 that move along the ground, and wild aniaals34, each according to its kind27." And it was so. 25. God1 made4 the wild animals34 according to their kinds27, the livestock32 according to their kinds27, and all the creatures33 that move along the ground according to their kinds27. And God1 saw that it was good. 26. Then God1 said, "Let us make4 man18 in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock32, over all the earth, and over all the creatures33 that move along the ground." 27. So God1 created2 man18 in his own image, in the image of God1 he created2 him; male and female he created them. 28. God1 blessed them and said to them, "Be3 fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth20 and subdue35 it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature34 that moves on the ground." 29. Then God1 said, "I give you every seed11-bearing plant29 on the face of the whole earth20 and every tree that has fruit with seed11 in it. They will be yours for food. 30. And to all the beasts34 of the earth20 and all the birds of the air and all the creatures33 that move on the ground... everything that has the breath of life in it ...I give every green29 plant for food." And it was so. 31. God1 saw all that He had made4, and it was very good. And there was evening22, and there was morning23... the sixth day19. Thus the heavens5 and the earth20 were completed in all their vast array.



Definitions

1. ELOHIYM (plural of Eloahh): the deity; the supreme Being; the true God

-a compound word composed of El (the strong one), and Alah (to bind oneself by an oath); hence, Elohim = the mighty and faithful one

-a uni-plural noun; thus, Elohiym latently implies the Trinity

-the only name used for God in Genesis One; this name is used about 2,500 times in the Old Testament

2. BARA: bring forth something that is radically new; produce that which is new, extraordinary, and/or epochal; produce through supernatural activity

3. HAYAH: become; cause to appear or arise; cause to be made or done; come into existence; come to pass; make into something

4. ASAH: produce; manufacture; fabricate

5. SHAMAYIM (p1.), shameh (sing.): visible dome of the sky above and in which the clouds move; the realm in which the celestial bodies move; the spiritual realm in which God and the angels dwell and operate

-with respect to the above definitions, the Hebrews referred to the three heavens (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2); whenever shamayim is used with the erets(earth), as in 1:1, the combination refers to the entire physical universe

6. TOHUW: desolated; worthless; wasteness; useless; incapable of being utilized

7. BOHUW: empty; void; devoid of existence

8. TEHOM: a great mass of water; the oceans and the seas

9. RUWACH: spirit; breath; wind.

- in conjunction with Elohiym refers to the Holy Spirit

10. RAQIYA: (apparently) visible dome of the sky; (technically, the atmosphere immediately above the surface of the earth)

11. ZERA: embryos of plants, trees, grasses, etc., i.e., the embryos of any plant species

12. ETS: any large plant containing woody fiber

13. PERIY: fod and/or embryos produced by any living thing

14. NATHAN: set; put; place; appoint; bring forth; apply; ascribe; set forth; send out; show; trust; bestow; cause to appear; charge; commit; deliver

15. SHERETS: swarm of small or minute animals

16. TANNIYM: great or large sea animal; monster

17. NEPHESH: vital animals, i.e., animals that clearly manifest the soulish attributes of mind, will, and emotion

18. ADAM: human being; the human race; i.e., animals that clearly manifest spirit attributes. NOTE: there is no evidence for a spirit dimension for the pre-Adamic hominids

19. YOWM: sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days)

20. ERETS: the planet Earth; a land, a country, or a continent; lands, countries, kingdoms or regions

21. RACHAPH: to brood over, cherishing and vivifying; to be tenderly affected; to be moved

22. EREB: the beginning of darkness; dusk, twilight, or nightfall; closing, ending or completion

23. BOCER: the breaking forth of light; dawn, daybreak or morning; dawning, beginning, or origin

24. RAAH: be seen; appear; show forth, cause one to see; to be perceived or beheld; to be considered

25. DASHA: to bring forth herbage; to sprout; to bring forth

26. DESHE: new vegetation; young plants

27. MIYN: species; life4orm

28. YATSA: germinate, bring forth; produce; spring forth; promulgate; to cause to come forth; issue out; proceed

29. ESEB: green plant(s)

30. MAOWR: a luminous body; brightness; light

31. OWTH: signal; sign, measuring mark; token, omen; evidence

32. BEHEMOWTH: large land quadrupeds

33. REMES: rapidly moving vertebrates; rodents and reptiles

34. CHAY: wild mammals; a multitude or mob; that which is lively or fresh

35. KABASH: subject; subdue; subjugate

Hobbit
06-04-2007, 10:20 PM
I hear you Hobbit. The poetic, interperative, alternative means that one must accept that the Bible can only be authoritative for one's self, and grants no authority, or means, by which to judge others--and for those others, likewise. I could embrace that point of view.

I just prefer to argue that the Author of the Bible said what he meant, and did not choose style over substance.

The Bible is quite poetic, and I see no reason to think that 'day' was meant to be literal.

LOki
06-05-2007, 07:30 AM
The Bible is quite poetic, and I see no reason to think that 'day' was meant to be literal.I can agree that the Bible is quite poetic; yet I still see no reason that the Bible should be cryptic, thus, I see no reason to assert that "day" was not meant to mean a "day" as we commonly understand it.

Hobbit
06-05-2007, 09:21 AM
I can agree that the Bible is quite poetic; yet I still see no reason that the Bible should be cryptic, thus, I see no reason to assert that "day" was not meant to mean a "day" as we commonly understand it.

You might not see a reason for it, but cryptic it is, especially in early Genesis, as it's the only record there is of that world according to Judaism. It isn't until the story of Abraham that the Bible gets specific and literal. I mean, look at the story of Noah. A boat that size couldn't hold every phylum on Earth, much less every species. It was likely a very terrible, very huge, regional event, rather than the whole world. Scientists have even found that conditions allowing such an event were present during that time. However, the Bible says 'the world.'

Then there's Revelation, one of the most cryptic texts of all time.

LOki
06-05-2007, 10:11 AM
You might not see a reason for it, but cryptic it is, especially in early Genesis, as it's the only record there is of that world according to Judaism. It isn't until the story of Abraham that the Bible gets specific and literal. I mean, look at the story of Noah. A boat that size couldn't hold every phylum on Earth, much less every species. It was likely a very terrible, very huge, regional event, rather than the whole world. Scientists have even found that conditions allowing such an event were present during that time. However, the Bible says 'the world.'

Then there's Revelation, one of the most cryptic texts of all time.I think the Bible must certainly appear cryptic to those who would assert that the Bible is inconsistent with reality.

You say that Noah's Ark couldn't hold every phylum on Earth, much less every species; setting aside that the Bible doesn't claim exactly that, I argue you're talking about God here, and He certainly is capable of making Noah's effort achievable, just as written. That's the premise in the subtext, Hobbit--God made this business happen; it was not a "natural" phenominon, and not subject to the rules of "nature." There's no reason to get cryptic, no reason to try to fit the Bible to our notions of the world, and no need to get apologetic about the findings of scientists; what was meant to be said is, is that it all just happened the way it was written.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 10:30 AM
I think the Bible must certainly appear cryptic to those who would assert that the Bible is inconsistent with reality.

You say that Noah's Ark couldn't hold every phylum on Earth, much less every species; setting aside that the Bible doesn't claim exactly that, I argue you're talking about God here, and He certainly is capable of making Noah's effort achievable, just as written. That's the premise in the subtext, Hobbit--God made this business happen; it was not a "natural" phenominon, and not subject to the rules of "nature." There's no reason to get cryptic, no reason to try to fit the Bible to our notions of the world, and no need to get apologetic about the findings of scientists; what was meant to be said is, is that it all just happened the way it was written.

It's a story that ranks right up there with the Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara. Magic and fantasy.

LOki
06-05-2007, 10:58 AM
It's a story that ranks right up there with the Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara. Magic and fantasy.The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 11:21 AM
The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction. Fiction, as opposed to fact? Then the Bible is also by and large "fictional".

Hobbit
06-05-2007, 11:30 AM
The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

That's pretty wrong. There's no such thing as Middle Earth at all, so Lord of the Rings is 100% fiction. However, the Bible is so historically accurate that archeologists who work in that part of the world often carry one as an aid.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 11:35 AM
The Lord of the Rings or the Sword of Shannara are certainly magical and fantastic, as the Bible is, but literary value is really not the point of the discussion; and they are irrelevent, as they are both unambiguously works of fiction.

There is as much fiction in those books as there is in the book of genisis. The book of genisis was written by a number of different authors. Kinda like a chain story.

LOki
06-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Fiction, as opposed to fact? Then the Bible is also by and large "fictional".

There is as much fiction in those books as there is in the book of genisis.What in Genesis, do you assert is fiction, and what evidence do you present in support your assertion?


The book of genisis was written by a number of different authors. Kinda like a chain story. Is that so? You'll present evidence to this effect?

LOki
06-05-2007, 11:50 AM
That's pretty wrong. There's no such thing as Middle Earth at all, so Lord of the Rings is 100% fiction. However, the Bible is so historically accurate that archeologists who work in that part of the world often carry one as an aid.You seem to be replying to someone else.

Hobbit
06-05-2007, 03:14 PM
You seem to be replying to someone else.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were agreeing that the Bible was 'completely fictional.' In any case, I disagree with that view.

LOki
06-05-2007, 03:41 PM
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were agreeing that the Bible was 'completely fictional.' In any case, I disagree with that view.I assert that The Lord of the Rings and the Sword of Shannara both are unambiguously works of fiction; thus irrelevent to subject at hand despite my acceptance that they certainly exhibit the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic, as the Bible does.

I still affirm, however, exhibiting the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic is no argument against taking the Bible literally.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 04:06 PM
What in Genesis, do you assert is fiction, and what evidence do you present in support your assertion?

Is that so? You'll present evidence to this effect?

All of genisis is fiction. It was nothing but an attempt to explain what couldn't be understood at the time. Everything must have a begining and a reason. You can check any legitimate theologian site and read about the various writers of genisis. They don't know the names, but they do know there were a number of contributors.

The bible, except for genisis, is historical and a great source for archeologists. But genisis is just mythology.

LOki
06-05-2007, 06:05 PM
All of genisis is fiction.Ok. Instead of "much fiction," Genesis is "all fiction" then. This assertion is just expressing your previous assertion more emphatically--but it's not evidence that Genesis is much, or all, fiction. Now I'm fully aware that you assert Genesis is fiction, and I won't be confused about your position should you supply evidence that Genesis is fiction. So, how about that evidence?


It was nothing but an attempt to explain what couldn't be understood at the time.Yes. That rationale is consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction, but it is not evidence that Genesis is fiction.


Everything must have a begining and a reason.Yes. Nothing in Genesis denies that--so perhaps that part of Genesis may not be fiction?


You can check any legitimate theologian site and read about the various writers of genisis. They don't know the names, but they do know there were a number of contributors.What is a legitimate theologian site, what make them legitimate, and what evidence do they supply to support the assertion that there were various writers of Genesis?


The bible, except for genisis, is historical and a great source for archeologists. But genisis is just mythology.Yes, I understand. This assertion is still not evidence that Genesis is fiction, it is just reasserting your previous assertion. I understand fully that you plan to be consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction. Fine. You'll present evidence that Genesis is fiction?

Doniston
06-05-2007, 06:58 PM
Ok. Instead of "much fiction," Genesis is "all fiction" then. This assertion is just expressing your previous assertion more emphatically--but it's not evidence that Genesis is much, or all, fiction. Now I'm fully aware that you assert Genesis is fiction, and I won't be confused about your position should you supply evidence that Genesis is fiction. So, how about that evidence?

Yes. That rationale is consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction, but it is not evidence that Genesis is fiction.

Yes. Nothing in Genesis denies that--so perhaps that part of Genesis may not be fiction?

What is a legitimate theologian site, what make them legitimate, and what evidence do they supply to support the assertion that there were various writers of Genesis?

Yes, I understand. This assertion is still not evidence that Genesis is fiction, it is just reasserting your previous assertion. I understand fully that you plan to be consistent with your assertion that Genesis is fiction. Fine. You'll present evidence that Genesis is fiction?

You continue stress the question about the fiction of Genesis. Since not s single portion of it can be proven to be anything but the opinions of the writers, it is simply a case of trying to prove a negative. If this is not so, kindly provide the slightest shread of evidence to the contrary, That would take some sort of physical proof. not theological.

LOki
06-05-2007, 07:37 PM
You continue stress the question about the fiction of Genesis.I may be questioning basis of, the so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, Doniston, but I'm not stressing the question of the fictional nature of the Genesis story--those who continue with the, so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, are. That would appear include you.


Since not s single portion of it can be proven to be anything but the opinions of the writers, it is simply a case of trying to prove a negative.Yes. But, Doniston, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking those who positively assert that the Genesis story is fiction to prove that the Genesis story is fiction. It's entirely different to assert there is no proof that the Genesis story has basis in verifiable evidence; and it's an entirely different challenge, than mine, to demand the submission of proof, of no proof.


If this is not so, kindly provide the slightest shread of evidence to the contrary, That would take some sort of physical proof. not theological.It does not take physical proof, Doniston, it takes only the proof you have already provided--I don't have to submit non-existent physical proof that the Genesis story not fiction. For the argument I am making, I am fully comfortable with the assertion that there is no physical proof that the Genesis story is valid in fact of reality. I'm just not going to go further past my argument, to say that such lack of physical proof, is proof that the Genesis story is not valid in fact of reality, as others, including you, seem to assert.

Gunny
06-05-2007, 10:29 PM
Genesis is a lie.
A story that is no better than Greek Mythology.

Its not to say however, that a creator was not present in the making of everything....But Genesis was just basically folklore that the Jews used to explain what science could not tell them in their day.

Guess you just proved CP's point.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 10:33 PM
I may be questioning basis of, the so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, Doniston, but I'm not stressing the question of the fictional nature of the Genesis story--those who continue with the, so far unsupported, assertion that Genesis is fiction, are. That would appear include you.

Yes. But, Doniston, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking those who positively assert that the Genesis story is fiction to prove that the Genesis story is fiction. It's entirely different to assert there is no proof that the Genesis story has basis in verifiable evidence; and it's an entirely different challenge, than mine, to demand the submission of proof, of no proof.

It does not take physical proof, Doniston, it takes only the proof you have already provided--I don't have to submit non-existent physical proof that the Genesis story not fiction. For the argument I am making, I am fully comfortable with the assertion that there is no physical proof that the Genesis story is valid in fact of reality. I'm just not going to go further past my argument, to say that such lack of physical proof, is proof that the Genesis story is not valid in fact of reality, as others, including you, seem to assert. This whole response is a collection of controdictory statements, and as such, makes absolutely no sense.

Hobbit
06-05-2007, 10:54 PM
I assert that The Lord of the Rings and the Sword of Shannara both are unambiguously works of fiction; thus irrelevent to subject at hand despite my acceptance that they certainly exhibit the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic, as the Bible does.

I still affirm, however, exhibiting the literary qualities of the magical and fantastic is no argument against taking the Bible literally.

Agreed. I'll let you get back to your discussion.

Genesis is at least partly literally true. Abraham was supposedly from Ur, a real city from that time (also known as Uruk), and while Sarah's age at the time of conception cannot be confirmed, the Jews keep very good geneologies, and it's not only possible, but quite likely that Abraham truly did father their entire race. It is also confirmed true that the Jews were non-Egyptians living in Egypt until the Exodus, which has been proven scientifically plausible, given the time of the Exodus in relation to the Santorini eruption which ended the Minoan civilization. Given that, the story of Joseph (and his colorful coat) and how the original Hebrews ended up in Egypt is also very likely to be true, even if you see fit to omit or explain away Joseph's dream interpretations.

Also, given the propensity of flood myths in ancient civilizations, a catastrophic flood of some kind probably occurred, and one of the survivors was probably named Noah.

LOki
06-06-2007, 04:27 AM
This whole response is a collection of controdictory statements, and as such, makes absolutely no sense.I thought for a moment there you had lost track of your MO--nice save!

Doniston
06-06-2007, 11:26 AM
I thought for a moment there you had lost track of your MO--nice save! Yup, that's correct I don't usually get into prolonged discussions of your nonsense.:salute:

-Cp
06-06-2007, 11:38 AM
Boy did this thread ever get bastardized... jeesh...

LOki
06-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Yup, that's correct I don't usually get into prolonged discussions of your nonsense.:salute:Translation:<blockquote><b>Doniston:</b>
"Ding! Fries are done!"</blockquote>

Doniston
06-06-2007, 01:49 PM
Translation:<blockquote><b>Doniston:</b>
"Ding! Fries are done!"</blockquote> HEH HEH, that makes about as little sense as most of your posts. I don't understand such garbage, and I am not a mind-readed. (Course you would need to have a mind for me to read anyhow)

Hobbit
06-06-2007, 02:05 PM
HEH HEH, that makes about as little sense as most of your posts. I don't understand such garbage, and I am not a mind-readed. (Course you would need to have a mind for me to read anyhow)

You need to get out more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQyib5ZQZY

Doniston
06-06-2007, 03:29 PM
You need to get out more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQyib5ZQZY No, if that is what I get by getting out more, I will abstain and I have no Idea why you included that YouTUBE

Hobbit
06-06-2007, 10:36 PM
No, if that is what I get by getting out more, I will abstain and I have no Idea why you included that YouTUBE

Uh, ding, fries are done?! You continue to prove Loki's point with every post.

Doniston
06-07-2007, 11:28 AM
Uh, ding, fries are done?! You continue to prove Loki's point with every post. Again, that is a stupid remark. If you really wanted to make sense you would be willing to explain both the remark and the You tube. But apparently all you want is to make silent noise.

LOki
06-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Again, that is a stupid remark. If you really wanted to make sense you would be willing to explain both the remark and the You tube. But apparently all you want is to make silent noise.Translation:<blockquote><b>Doniston:</b>
<i>"Do you want an apple pie with that?
Do you want an apple pie with that?"</i></blockquote>

Doniston
06-07-2007, 01:49 PM
Translation:<blockquote><b>Doniston:</b>
<i>"Do you want an apple pie with that?
Do you want an apple pie with that?"</i></blockquote> I suggest you look up the word stupiity in the dictionary, both you and that statement fits it to a "T" You are just not worth further response on this thread.

Hobbit
06-07-2007, 01:50 PM
I suggest you look up the word stupiity in the dictionary, both you and that statement fits it to a "T"

First, you need to look at both 'clueless' and 'spelling,' then 'stupidity again.

LOki
06-07-2007, 02:40 PM
First, you need to look at both 'clueless' and 'spelling,' then 'stupidity again.
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2289/hobbitreplj4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Genesis is at least partly literally true. Abraham was supposedly from Ur, a real city from that time (also known as Uruk), and while Sarah's age at the time of conception cannot be confirmed, the Jews keep very good geneologies, and it's not only possible, but quite likely that Abraham truly did father their entire race. It is also confirmed true that the Jews were non-Egyptians living in Egypt until the Exodus, which has been proven scientifically plausible, given the time of the Exodus in relation to the Santorini eruption which ended the Minoan civilization. Given that, the story of Joseph (and his colorful coat) and how the original Hebrews ended up in Egypt is also very likely to be true, even if you see fit to omit or explain away Joseph's dream interpretations.

Also, given the propensity of flood myths in ancient civilizations, a catastrophic flood of some kind probably occurred, and one of the survivors was probably named Noah.Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?

Gaffer
06-07-2007, 03:19 PM
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2289/hobbitreplj4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?

NO

LOki
06-07-2007, 04:18 PM
NOOh?

Lightning Waltz
06-07-2007, 04:46 PM
Oh?

I'm sure you can find things in the book, Gone With the Wind, that are litterally true. People that existed, places, some events, etc. Does that mean that the whole of the story is true?

Doniston
06-07-2007, 04:49 PM
I'm sure you can find things in the book, Gone With the Wind, that are litterally true. People that existed, places, some events, etc. Does that mean that the whole of the story is true? But I doubt he will get it (if he is a he, I haven't checked )

LOki
06-07-2007, 05:46 PM
I'm sure you can find things in the book, Gone With the Wind, that are litterally true. People that existed, places, some events, etc. Does that mean that the whole of the story is true?I did not assert that the verifiable facts in the Bible make the whole of the Bible verifaible in fact. I asked a question:<blockquote>"Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?"</blockquote>The answer from Gaffer was "NO." Which sets me to wondering if verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what then does lend credibility to the argument--ANY argument for that matter?

I certainly hope it's not the brainless conjectures and unsupported opinions of the delusional water-park doot surprise below:
But I doubt he will get it (if he is a he, I haven't checked )

Doniston
06-07-2007, 06:17 PM
I did not assert that the verifiable facts in the Bible make the whole of the Bible verifaible in fact. I asked a question:<blockquote>"Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?"</blockquote>The answer from Gaffer was "NO." Which sets me to wondering if verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what then does lend credibility to the argument--ANY argument for that matter?

I certainly hope it's not the brainless conjectures and unsupported opinions of the delusional water-park doot surprise below: out of curiosity, I did check and from what he/she/it has in it's op, it could be LOCO or from star wars. tho I think THAT was male.

Hobbit
06-07-2007, 10:26 PM
I'd say it lends some credibility to taking the Bible literally, but not enough for me to take EVERYTHING it says literally, just most of it.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 06:57 AM
I did not assert that the verifiable facts in the Bible make the whole of the Bible verifaible in fact. I asked a question:<blockquote>"Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?"</blockquote>The answer from Gaffer was "NO." Which sets me to wondering if verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what then does lend credibility to the argument--ANY argument for that matter?

I certainly hope it's not the brainless conjectures and unsupported opinions of the delusional water-park doot surprise below:

To your original question, I was answering it. I was showing why "all of the above" doesn't "lend credibility to the argument that the bible should be taken literally".

As to your "Oh?" question (and you do seem to want to infer a lot by those two little letters), I think the answer to that one, especially given the fantastic (read unbelieveable) nature of the Bible, is that we are going to have to take it one story at a time.

Obviously, there is going to be a different standard of proof for an ancient city existing than that someone was able to walk on water, make the blind see, arise from the dead, be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, world-wide floods, etc, etc, etc...

LOki
06-08-2007, 09:28 AM
out of curiosity, I did chack and from what he/she/it has in it's op, it could be LOCO or from star wars. tho I think THAT was male.I won't ask, so please don't tell me wether it's his gay, or his bi, curiosity he's talking about. And getting "checked out" by Doniston? ...creepy.

As for the rest of his post, I offer a translation:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEmajoCiow">Doniston</a>:</b>
<i>"<a href="http://getretardedwithbus.ytmnd.com/">When we ride the special bus</a> to see <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qkOCB9IJo4">Star Wars</a>, I don't like to sit in the middle because licking the window tastes like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54mf61KN7wA">sweet victory.</a>"</i></blockquote>
I'd say it lends some credibility to taking the Bible literally, but not enough for me to take EVERYTHING it says literally, just most of it.What criteria do you use to establish what is to be taken literally, and what is not?


To your original question, I was answering it. I was showing why "all of the above" doesn't "lend credibility to the argument that the bible should be taken literally".You showed nothing new. You disagreed that verifiable facts lend credibility. You still seem to wish to hold this position--which is fine--but what then (when verifiable fact has be dismissed as a valid means of lending credibility) do you use to lend credibility to the (an) argument?


As to your "Oh?" question (and you do seem to want to infer a lot by those two little letters), I think the answer to that one, especially given the fantastic (read unbelieveable) nature of the Bible, is that we are going to have to take it one story at a time.First, that unqualifed "NO" asserts quite a bit; my "two little letters" only illuminated that fact, and inferred nothing. Secondly, I think it's a little presumptuous to assert that the Bible is unbelievable, considering the number of folks who find it so sincerely believable. Thirdly, I'm not sure of the point in taking the Bible one story at a time, except perhaps, to pull them out of the context that allows each story to be taken literally.


Obviously, there is going to be a different standard of proof for an ancient city existing than that someone was able to walk on water, make the blind see, arise from the dead, be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, world-wide floods, etc, etc, etc...I don't think it is at all that obvious that there should be a different standard of proof for an ancient city existing than that someone was able to walk on water, make the blind see, arise from the dead, be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, world-wide floods, etc, etc, etc...

But if there is to be a different (than verifiable fact) standard of proof, and it is not verifiable evidence, what is it?

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 09:55 AM
You showed nothing new. You disagreed that verifiable facts lend credibility. You still seem to wish to hold this position--which is fine--but what then (when verifiable fact has be dismissed as a valid means of lending credibility) do you use to lend credibility to the (an) argument?

"Lend credibility"? Again, you seem to ignore the fact that a book doesn't need to be completely true or completely false. That something is true in a book does not, in fact, mean that everything in that book is more likely to be true. Each claim must be proven reasonable on their own merit.


First, that unqualifed "NO" asserts quite a bit; my "two little letters" only illuminated that fact, and inferred nothing. Secondly, I think it's a little presumptuous to assert that the Bible is unbelievable, considering the number of folks who find it so sincerely believable. Thirdly, I'm not sure of the point in taking the Bible one story at a time, except perhaps, to pull them out of the context that allows each story to be taken literally.

First, the "no" was a direct answer to your question. Granted, it wasn't a spelled out answer. But your retort of "Oh?", could have been interpreted in many different ways. You took it to mean a very different thing than I did. I got from your two letter response, "please go into detail about why you say, 'no'."

Second, that a lot of people believe something means absolutely nothing. See the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Just as most people believed that the earth was flat at one time (and were wrong), many people can believe in the bible (and be wrong).

Third, the point of judging each story on it's own merit is because they are saying different things. They are making different claims. If I were to tell you 5 things, would you believe all 5 if you found the first 3 to be true? Regardless of what the 4th and 5th things that I claimed were?


I don't think it is at all that obvious that there should be a different standard of proof for an ancient city existing than that someone was able to walk on water, make the blind see, arise from the dead, be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, world-wide floods, etc, etc, etc...

One is known to happen. There have been ancient cities that have existed.
On the other hand, walking on water, for instance, is beyond the laws of physics as we understand them.

If I were to say to you these two things, the standard of proof would be the same?
"I ate at a fancy dinner last night at a friend's house, but the fork she handed me was dirty"
"Yesterday, I took a ride on a purple dragon to the top of Mount Rainier and back (both the dragon and I were shielded from prying eyes by an invisibility spell the dragon cast)"


But if there is to be a different (than verifiable fact) standard of proof, and it is not verifiable evidence, what is it?

If there is no verifiable evidence, and we are talking about something incredible (such as something beyond the laws of physics as we understand them), I think the most reasonable thing to do is to not believe it...

For every true thing, there are an infinite number of false things that could be true, but aren't. Therefore, if there is something incredible (unbelieveable) and we have no reason to believe it, it's much more likely to be not true than true.

Doniston
06-08-2007, 11:02 AM
I won't ask, so please don't tell me wether it's his gay, or his bi, curiosity he's talking about. And getting "checked out" by Doniston? ...creepy.

As for the rest of his post, I offer a translation:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEmajoCiow">Doniston</a>:</b>
<i>"<a href="http://getretardedwithbus.ytmnd.com/">When we ride the special bus</a> to see <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qkOCB9IJo4">Star Wars</a>, I don't like to sit in the middle because licking the window tastes like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54mf61KN7wA">sweet victory


I'm going to answer anyway. what it is--- is that when I speak of a person, I like to say he, or she, rather than the generic him/her/it that is required when the person is apparently to ashamed or shy to admit their gender (or anything else that might make conversation easier) You may be all three as far as I care.

The rest of the above make no sense. What does sitting on a bus have to do with anything that had been posted? DUMB

LOki
06-08-2007, 11:29 AM
"Lend credibility"? Again, you seem to ignore the fact that a book doesn't need to be completely true or completely false.I have no idea where you're getting this notion that I'm ignoring the fact that a book doesn't need to be completely true or completely false--unless that's how you interperet me not jumping to your own foregone conclusions.


That something is true in a book does not, in fact, mean that everything in that book is more likely to be true.Does it mean it's less likely to be true? I think not. If verifiale facts in a book do not lend credibility to the factuall accuracy of the book as a whole, what does?


Each claim must be proven reasonable on their own merit.Or what? They're untrue? or just unproven?


First, the "no" was a direct answer to your question. Granted, it wasn't a spelled out answer. But your retort of "Oh?", could have been interpreted in many different ways. You took it to mean a very different thing than I did. I got from your two letter response, "please go into detail about why you say, 'no'."Well, if "please go into detail about why you say, 'NO'" was what you thought I meant, then it's not such a very different thing as you wish it to be now. You have yet to go into any detail as to why the verifiable facts in the Bible do not lend credibility to it being taken literally.


Second, that a lot of people believe something means absolutely nothing. See the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Just as most people believed that the earth was flat at one time (and were wrong), many people can believe in the bible (and be wrong).Since we're looking up logical fallacies, why don't you look into the fallacy of the undistributed middle? I did not assert the Bible was right or wrong because people believed in it. You, however, plainly asserted that the Bible was unbelievable, and I said that assertion was a little presumptuous in light of the fact that people believe it.


Third, the point of judging each story on it's own merit is because they are saying different things. They are making different claims. If I were to tell you 5 things, would you believe all 5 if you found the first 3 to be true? Regardless of what the 4th and 5th things that I claimed were?I just might. I don't think I would if verifiable facts were contradictory to your 4th and 5th claims, but then again, verifiable facts lend credibility to arguments IMO--even counter-arguments. My question to you still remains: If verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument, what then does?


One is known to happen. There have been ancient cities that have existed.
On the other hand, walking on water, for instance, is beyond the laws of physics as we understand them.

If I were to say to you these two things, the standard of proof would be the same?Yes, the standard of proof would be the same. At least for me, but then again I don't have much experience with standards of proof that are not verifiable facts. I'm trying to get you to tell me what these "other" or "different" standards of proof might be, and if they are better than verifiable facts at lending credibility, I think I might like to use them instead. So please tell me, if the verifiable facts in the Bible do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what are these "other" or "different" standards of proof that would?


"I ate at a fancy dinner last night at a friend's house, but the fork she handed me was dirty"
"Yesterday, I took a ride on a purple dragon to the top of Mount Rainier and back (both the dragon and I were shielded from prying eyes by an invisibility spell the dragon cast)"



If there is no verifiable evidence, and we are talking about something incredible (such as something beyond the laws of physics as we understand them), I think the most reasonable thing to do is to not believe it...

For every true thing, there are an infinite number of false things that could be true, but aren't. Therefore, if there is something incredible (unbelieveable) and we have no reason to believe it, it's much more likely to be not true than true.Ah, the argument from lack of imagination. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there is no verifiable evidence that a statement is true or false, you have no business demanding it is false (or true.)

Gaffer
06-08-2007, 11:58 AM
LW covered my thoughts very well. Believing in the impossible with no actual proof other than someone's word is not something I can do. It doesn't matter how many people believe it.

Telling me I'm doomed to hell because I don't believe also means nothing to me. Again its just someone's word on it.

There are sites described in the bible that have been located, so certain places are known to have existed. But in most cases they were known under different names. Archeologists have found what they believe to be Troy. Does that mean the Greek myths are true? The finding of ancient cities does not validate the bible other than as an historical document.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 12:18 PM
Does it mean it's less likely to be true? I think not. If verifiale facts in a book do not lend credibility to the factuall accuracy of the book as a whole, what does?

Only the proof of each and every individual claim within a book.


Or what? They're untrue? or just unproven?

Unproven, no reason to believe them, and if they are outrageous claims, shouldn't be believed.


Well, if "please go into detail about why you say, 'NO'" was what you thought I meant, then it's not such a very different thing as you wish it to be now. You have yet to go into any detail as to why the verifiable facts in the Bible do not lend credibility to it being taken literally.

I have explained it several times. You just don't like my answer.


Since we're looking up logical fallacies, why don't you look into the fallacy of the undistributed middle? I did not assert the Bible was right or wrong because people believed in it. You, however, plainly asserted that the Bible was unbelievable, and I said that assertion was a little presumptuous in light of the fact that people believe it.

Ah, I see... You were wanting to take things literally. I wasn't using the term "unbelieveable" in the sense that no one could believe in it. I was using it in the sense of "fatastic", "incredible", "hard to believe". That was why, when I originally said, "(read unbelieveable)" it was in parenthensis as an alternative to "fantastic"...


I just might. I don't think I would if verifiable facts were contradictory to your 4th and 5th claims, but then again, verifiable facts lend credibility to arguments IMO--even counter-arguments. My question to you still remains: If verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument, what then does?

Okay, here are my 5 claims:
1. George Bush is president of the United States
2. You are reading this message on a computer or some other electronic device (or as the output of such a device).
3. The moon is not made out of green cheese.
4. There is no Christian god.
5. Zeus is the true god.

The first 3 are true. So, I suppose you accpet the last 2, right?


Yes, the standard of proof would be the same. At least for me, but then again I don't have much experience with standards of proof that are not verifiable facts. I'm trying to get you to tell me what these "other" or "different" standards of proof might be, and if they are better than verifiable facts at lending credibility, I think I might like to use them instead. So please tell me, if the verifiable facts in the Bible do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what are these "other" or "different" standards of proof that would?

You didn't get my meaning.
I'm saying that there are different standards of proof for different kinds of facts (based on how likely that fact is to be true from what we already know of the world)...not different standards of proof for those facts that have been proven in the Bible and those that have not been proven.

An incredible claim is going to take more evidence to believe than a mundane one. See above. I already went over this in detail.


Ah, the argument from lack of imagination. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there is no verifiable evidence that a statement is true or false, you have no business demanding it is false (or true.)

I never said that absence of evidence was evidence of absence. You are confusing "not having a specific belief that something exists" with "believing that something can't exist".

One, you just withhold belief in something. The other you actively believe that something can't exist.

If there is no verifiable evidence that a statement is true or false, then you have no reason to believe that statement....and therefore SHOULDN'T believe it. Again, as I detailed above.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 12:22 PM
Archeologists have found what they believe to be Troy. Does that mean the Greek myths are true? The finding of ancient cities does not validate the bible other than as an historical document.

Great exmaple. Exactly what I'm talking about.

Now that Troy has been found, does that "lend credibility" to Zeus being true, Loki?

LOki
06-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Only the proof of each and every individual claim within a book.And what is this proof you speak of if it is NOT verifiable facts?


Unproven, no reason to believe them, and if they are outrageous claims, shouldn't be believed."Outrage" then is this high standard that trumps verifiable facts? I can present verifiable facts regarding the existence of micro-organisms, that the earth oribs the sun, or that human beings have been to the moon, but if you assert that those claims are "outrageuous" then, fuck it, those claims are not to be believed?

Fine. Tell me how this "outrage" trumps facts.


I have explained it several times. You just don't like my answer.Explain it again. How is it that verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument?


Okay, here are my 5 claims:
1. George Bush is president of the United States
2. You are reading this message on a computer or some other electronic device (or as the output of such a device).
3. The moon is not made out of green cheese.
4. There is no Christian god.
5. Zeus is the true god.

The first 3 are true. So, I suppose you accpet the last 2, right?No. The first three lend credibility (by virtue of being verifiable in fact) to you, the source of these five assertions, leaving the last two unproven (for the purposes of this argument) assertions to enjoy your credibility established by your assertions being factually verifiable.


You didn't get my meaning.
I'm saying that there are different standards of proof for different kinds of facts (based on how likely that fact is to be true from what we already know of the world)...not different standards of proof for those facts that have been proven in the Bible and those that have not been proven.

An incredible claim is going to take more evidence to believe than a mundane one. See above. I already went over this in detail.I got your meaning. So long as I claim that your claims are outrageous, then your claims are rendered unbelievable, regardless of ANY relationship your claims have with verifiable facts.

This claim of yours that verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument is outrageuous. Don't hope to present verifiable facts, Lightning Waltz, I've got "OUTRAGE" on my side now!:dance:

I never said that absence of evidence was evidence of absence. You are confusing "not having a specific belief that something exists" with "believing that something can't exist".

One, you just withhold belief in something. The other you actively believe that something can't exist.Despite not having said so, "absence of evience is evidence of absence" is the argument you were making, and I am certainly not the one being confused by this. Remember, you're the one asserting that one's own personal impressions of outrageous, or unbelievability, or incredibility, or fantastic, are the criteria that trump everything, including verifiable fact.


If there is no verifiable evidence that a statement is true or false, then you have no reason to believe that statement....and therefore SHOULDN'T believe it. Again, as I detailed above.There's no reason, literally no reason if theres no evidence, to disbelieve it either.


Archeologists have found what they believe to be Troy. Does that mean the Greek myths are true? The finding of ancient cities does not validate the bible other than as an historical document.Great exmaple. Exactly what I'm talking about.

Now that Troy has been found, does that "lend credibility" to Zeus being true, Loki?YES! I admit to not knowing exactly what role Zeus was claimed to have had in the existence of the city of Troy, but that the city of Troy is verifiably an actual place, rather than a fictional place, lends credibility (rather than removes it) that Zeus is not fictional as well.

No amount of bullshit outrage, wether it's that Allah is the the only real god, God is the only real god, or that there's just no such thing as gods, will actually trump verifiable facts in the support of arguments....EVER.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 02:18 PM
And what is this proof you speak of if it is NOT verifiable facts?

Then, obviously, it's unsubstantiated claims that we have no reason to believe... And, considering the outrageous nature of many of these claims...


"Outrage" then is this high standard that trumps verifiable facts?

You don't have verifiable facts...except for some names and places...


I can present verifiable facts regarding the existence of micro-organisms, that the earth oribs the sun, or that human beings have been to the moon, but if you assert that those claims are "outrageuous" then, fuck it, those claims are not to be believed?

Straw man.
You can present verifiable facts regarding the existence of micro-organisms, that the earth orbits the sun and that human beings have been to the moon. You cannot present verifiable facts regarding someone walking on water, being swallowed by a giant fish and living to tell the tale, etc, etc, etc.


Fine. Tell me how this "outrage" trumps facts.

Again, you have no facts regarding outrageous claims. You only have facts regarding mundane ones.


Explain it again. How is it that verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument?

Okay, one more time. Very clearly laid out:
1. If you can validate claims within a book, you have valid claims within a book.
2. If you have valid claims within a book, that doesn't make the whole book reasonable to believe.
3. To make a whole book reasonable to believe, you must validate all of the claims within that book.


No. The first three lend credibility (by virtue of being verifiable in fact) to you, the source of these five assertions, leaving the last two unproven (for the purposes of this argument) assertions to enjoy your credibility established by your assertions being factually verifiable.

Add this to your list of "facts" in your computation of the data: A BOOK OR LIST OF CLAIMS OFTEN ISN'T COMPLETELY TRUE OR COMPLETELY FALSE

The fact that I said 3 things that are true does not mean that the rest of the things that I say are going to be true...


I got your meaning. So long as I claim that your claims are outrageous, then your claims are rendered unbelievable, regardless of ANY relationship your claims have with verifiable facts.

Again, you have no verifiable facts about the outrageous claims.


This claim of yours that verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument is outrageuous. Don't hope to present verifiable facts, Lightning Waltz, I've got "OUTRAGE" on my side now!

Actually, it's not an outrageous claim. Go to the fiction section of any bookstore... Those fiction books may have many true facts within them. That doesn't make those books any less fiction.

And that someone may spout off "2 + 2 = 4", "the sky is blue" and "water is wet" before making the claim, "there are intelligent mushrooms living in a cave somewhere on Mars", doesn't make his fourth claim any less outrageous.


Despite not having said so, "absence of evience is evidence of absence" is the argument you were making, and I am certainly not the one being confused by this. Remember, you're the one asserting that one's own personal impressions of outrageous, or unbelievability, or incredibility, or fantastic, are the criteria that trump everything, including verifiable fact.

No where did I make that argument. My argument was about what is reasonable to believe. That doesn't state anything about the possibility of existance.

And, your argument that because I put value statements on claims based on what we know about the world as to how plausible those claims may be...entails that I WAS making statements of "absence of evidence is evidence of absense" is complete and total horse-hockey.


There's no reason, literally no reason if theres no evidence, to disbelieve it either.

Where did I talk about stating the negative other than to explain that's not what I was doing?


YES! I admit to not knowing exactly what role Zeus was claimed to have had in the existence of the city of Troy, but that the city of Troy is verifiably an actual place, rather than a fictional place, lends credibility (rather than removes it) that Zeus is not fictional as well.

:rolleyes:

Well, even if I completely disagree with you, I'll give you props for at least being consistent.

In Harry Potter, the author mention London, which actually exists. More believeable because of it, right? Let's see...The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe also mentions it. Point of credibility, I suppose.

The Stand mentions many places in the United States...which are actual places. Makes it easier to believe.

Etc, etc, etc...


No amount of bullshit outrage, wether it's that Allah is the the only real god, God is the only real god, or that there's just no such thing as gods, will actually trump verifiable facts in the support of arguments....EVER.

Heh, now you've latched onto the word "outrageous" like you did "unbelieveable". I have a hard time believing that you don't understand how I'm using the term, but are just playing games of semantics. Bad form.

But, again, you have no verifiable facts of there being a "God", "Allah" or whatever...you have verifiable facts of places in a book being real...but there's quite a difference between a place being real and a "God" being real.

LOki
06-08-2007, 02:35 PM
Then, obviously, it's unsubstantiated claims that we have no reason to believe... And, considering the outrageous nature of many of these claims...



You don't have verifiable facts...except for some names and places...



Straw man.
You can present verifiable facts regarding the existence of micro-organisms, that the earth orbits the sun and that human beings have been to the moon. You cannot present verifiable facts regarding someone walking on water, being swallowed by a giant fish and living to tell the tale, etc, etc, etc.



Again, you have no facts regarding outrageous claims. You only have facts regarding mundane ones.



Okay, one more time. Very clearly laid out:
1. If you can validate claims within a book, you have valid claims within a book.
2. If you have valid claims within a book, that doesn't make the whole book reasonable to believe.
3. To make a whole book reasonable to believe, you must validate all of the claims within that book.



Add this to your list of "facts" in your computation of the data: A BOOK OR LIST OF CLAIMS OFTEN ISN'T COMPLETELY TRUE OR COMPLETELY FALSE

The fact that I said 3 things that are true does not mean that the rest of the things that I say are going to be true...



Again, you have no verifiable facts about the outrageous claims.



Actually, it's not an outrageous claim. Go to the fiction section of any bookstore... Those fiction books may have many true facts within them. That doesn't make those books any less fiction.

And that someone may spout off "2 + 2 = 4", "the sky is blue" and "water is wet" before making the claim, "there are intelligent mushrooms living in a cave somewhere on Mars", doesn't make his fourth claim any less outrageous.



No where did I make that argument. My argument was about what is reasonable to believe. That doesn't state anything about the possibility of existance.

And, your argument that because I put value statements on claims based on what we know about the world as to how plausible those claims may be...entails that I WAS making statements of "absence of evidence is evidence of absense" is complete and total horse-hockey.



Where did I talk about stating the negative other than to explain that's not what I was doing?



:rolleyes:

Well, even if I completely disagree with you, I'll give you props for at least being consistent.

In Harry Potter, the author mention London, which actually exists. More believeable because of it, right? Let's see...The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe also mentions it. Point of credibility, I suppose.

The Stand mentions many places in the United States...which are actual places. Makes it easier to believe.

Etc, etc, etc...



Heh, now you've latched onto the word "outrageous" like you did "unbelieveable". I have a hard time believing that you don't understand how I'm using the term, but are just playing games of semantics. Bad form.

But, again, you have no verifiable facts of there being a "God", "Allah" or whatever...you have verifiable facts of places in a book being real...but there's quite a difference between a place being real and a "God" being real.~99% of the above is fallacy of the undistributed middle, ~1% argument from lack of imagination, and not yet one single reason why verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 02:41 PM
~99%, is fallacy of the undistributed middle, ~1% argument from lack of imagination, and not yet one single reason why verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument.

:lol:
You should believe what I say. I already told you that Bush is the president of the United States!

LOki
06-08-2007, 02:59 PM
:lol:
You should believe what I say. I already told you that Bush is the president of the United States!And still, not yet one single reason why verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument.

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 03:07 PM
And still, not yet one single reason why verifiable facts do not lend credibility to an argument.

And still, no verifiable facts that have anything to do with the argument.

LOki
06-08-2007, 03:35 PM
And still, no verifiable facts that have anything to do with the argument.I know, you have established in no uncertain terms that verifable facts, for you, are irelevent to the credibilty of any arguement. I understand that. I am fucking crystal clear on that. Please then, tell me what, if not verifiable facts, lends credibility to an argument. Is it outrage?

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 03:45 PM
I know, you have established in no uncertain terms that verifable facts, for you, are irelevent to the credibilty of any arguement. I understand that. I am fucking crystal clear on that. Please then, tell me what, if not verifiable facts, lends credibility to an argument. Is it outrage?

First, there is a difference between "outrage" and "outrageous" in the sense that I'm using that term. There are many dictionaries on the net. I suggest that you use one. Buy a clue if you have to...whatever it takes.

Second, I have only established that verifiable facts that are irrelevant to the credibility of an argument are irrelevant to the credibility of an argument. Your attempts at straw men are getting more and more pathetic.

Third, you haven't presented any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc... You've only presented verifiable facts that some of the names or places listed in the Bible are true. That has NOTHING to do with the other claims that the Bible makes.

Fourth, verifiable facts that are relevant to an argument, are relevant to an argument. Find some, and then we'll talk.

LOki
06-08-2007, 03:59 PM
First, there is a difference between "outrage" and "outrageous" in the sense that I'm using that term. There are many dictionaries on the net. I suggest that you use one. Buy a clue if you have to...whatever it takes.I am fully aware of what outrage means, and the entire while I have been using it precisely the way you're using it--reread my posts with that clearly in mind.


Second, I have only established that verifiable facts that are irrelevant to the credibility of an argument are irrelevant to the credibility of an argument. Your attempts at straw men are getting more and more pathetic.This entire exchange, you have either flatly denied that verifiable facts lend credibility to arguments, or avoided admitting that verifiable facts lend credibilty by engaging in farce.


Third, you haven't presented any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc...I have not suggsted that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc... Until I do, I don't have to present any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc...


You've only presented verifiable facts that some of the names or places listed in the Bible are true. That has NOTHING to do with the other claims that the Bible makes.I have not begun to address (with you) ANY claims the Bible makes, because I have yet to determine what (for you) would lend credibilty to any argument if its not verifiable facts.


Fourth, verifiable facts that are relevant to an argument, are relevant to an argument. Find some, and then we'll talk.Do verifable facts, that are relevent to an argument lend credibility to that argument?

Lightning Waltz
06-08-2007, 04:23 PM
This entire exchange, you have either flatly denied that verifiable facts lend credibility to arguments, or avoided admitting that verifiable facts lend credibilty by engaging in farce.

No, I have pointed out that your "verifiable facts" have nothing to do with the arguments. They are irrelevant.


I have not suggsted that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc... Until I do, I don't have to present any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc...

You have suggested that we take the bible literally. That includes people walking on water, being swallowed by a giant fish and living to tell the tale, etc...


I have not begun to address (with you) ANY claims the Bible makes, because I have yet to determine what (for you) would lend credibilty to any argument if its not verifiable facts.

I don't dispute the varifiable facts that you have brought up if you were to claim things like, "we shouldn't claim that the Bible is total bunk", or "the Bible is historically accurate on some names and places", etc. But, that's not claiming much.


Do verifable facts, that are relevent to an argument lend credibility to that argument?

Of course.

Doniston
06-08-2007, 04:29 PM
I am fully aware of what outrage means, and the entire while I have been using it precisely the way you're using it--reread my posts with that clearly in mind.

This entire exchange, you have either flatly denied that verifiable facts lend credibility to arguments, or avoided admitting that verifiable facts lend credibilty by engaging in farce.

I have not suggsted that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc... Until I do, I don't have to present any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc...

I have not begun to address (with you) ANY claims the Bible makes, because I have yet to determine what (for you) would lend credibilty to any argument if its not verifiable facts.

Do verifable facts, that are relevent to an argument lend credibility to that argument?

Not necessarily,---Try this: I can walk on water when it is frozen. You may state that it is no longer water, and you would have a point, However it is still relevant to the arguement. tho it has no value to the arguement.

For verified facts to lend credibility to a position, they must also be "OF" relevance, and on the right side. just being relevant rmeans nothing if they don't add to the discussion. regarding this particular issue, stating that water is wet is also relevant.

LOki
06-08-2007, 04:56 PM
No, I have pointed out that your "verifiable facts" have nothing to do with the arguments. They are irrelevant.No. The argument presented was that the verifiable facts contained in the Bible lend credibilty to the argument that it is to be taken literally. Your retort was that verifable facts DO NOT lend credibilty to an argument, least of all an argument that should posit that the Bible should be taken literally. This was not you objecting to any specific facts presented, Lighning Waltz, you objected to ANY verifable fact, no matter how it's prestented that supports an argument that posits that the Bible should be taken literally; so much so you will deny that ANY verifable facts associated with the document lend any credibilty what-so-ever to any notion that the Bible is to be taken literally as it is written.


You have suggested that we take the bible literally. That includes people walking on water, being swallowed by a giant fish and living to tell the tale, etc...That is my argument. We are not to conjecture that there were some fancy sandbars to walk on, or fish-looking submarines from Atlantis to catch Jonah--when we read the Bible to say something, we are to read it to mean literally what it says.


I don't dispute the varifiable facts that you have brought up if you were to claim things like, "we shouldn't claim that the Bible is total bunk", or "the Bible is historically accurate on some names and places", etc. But, that's not claiming much.All this means is that you simply dispute the use of verifiable facts if they are supporting an argument inconsistent with your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions.


Of course.This is a welcome change of pace.

Let's procede then:

Knowing nothing else of a book about American history (for instance) than that it asserts that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States, would that verifiable fact lend any credibilty to the argument that the book should be taken literally when read?

If not, why not? Specifically, why does this fact NOT lend credibilty to the argument that this book should not be taken literally?

But if it does, do the verifiable facts in the Bible lend any credibilty to the agument that it should be taken literally when read?

LOki
06-08-2007, 05:09 PM
Let me say that the following is also awelcome change of pace.
Not necessarily,---Try this: I can walk on water when it is frozen. You may state that it is no longer water, and you would have a point, However it is still relevant to the arguement. tho it has no value to the arguement.Let me remind you of the point, which is not whether anyone walked on water, it's wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally.

I am not arguing he point that Jesus kept on trucking over the surf, I'm arguing that when we read the assertion from the Bible that Jesus strode the ocean blue, we take it exactly that way and not make up extra special circumstances to explain why no one else ever has done the same.

.
For verified facts to lend credibility to a position, they must also be "OF" relevance, and on the right side. just being relevant rmeans nothing if they don't add to the discussion. regarding this particular issue, stating that water is wet is also relevant.I agree, at least for the part of Jesus walking on water, I think it's understood that we're not talking ice. But even that loses it's relevency if we consider the point of the tale, which is that a miracle happened--ice on a sea in the middle of the Mediterranean would be miracle as well.

Doniston
06-08-2007, 05:31 PM
Let me say that the following is also awelcome change of pace.Let me remind you of the point, which is not whether anyone walked on water, it's wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally.

I am not arguing he point that Jesus kept on trucking over the surf, I'm arguing that when we read the assertion from the Bible that Jesus strode the ocean blue, we take it exactly that way and not make up extra special circumstances to explain why no one else ever has done the same.

.I agree, at least for the part of Jesus walking on water, I think it's understood that we're not talking ice. But even that loses it's relevency if we consider the point of the tale, which is that a miracle happened--ice on a sea in the middle of the Mediterranean would be miracle as well.

Once more,I was speaking generically, I could have used any number of examples such as Christ rising again, or the Virgin birth. I just thought the Ice water thing was the simplest to explain.

Please note your words here:(quote)

it's wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally. (unquote)

But you see, that isn't what you asked, and Not what I responded to. Kindly go back and check what you DID actually ask. That is your problem, You say one thing, and then change it and assume that you can use the same response for the new question. IT DON"T WORK THAT WAY -----------YOU CHANGED THE QUESTION.

Missileman
06-08-2007, 05:34 PM
I am not arguing he point that Jesus kept on trucking over the surf, I'm arguing that when we read the assertion from the Bible that Jesus strode the ocean blue, we take it exactly that way and not make up extra special circumstances to explain why no one else ever has done the same.

And then believe it or not based on one's own rationale?

Doniston
06-08-2007, 06:06 PM
And then believe it or not based on one's own rationale? Strange, I don't remember any assertion that Jesus strode the ocean blue--- I think that was Columbus, The Bible says he walked on water. That would not have been any ocean.

Missileman
06-08-2007, 06:27 PM
Strange, I don't remember any assertion that Jesus strode the ocean blue--- I think that was Columbus, The Bible says he walked on water. That would not have been any ocean.

Last I knew, oceans are made up of water.

LOki
06-08-2007, 07:24 PM
And then believe it or not based on one's own rationale?I'd say belief is always going happen, and it's always going to be according to one's rationale. The intersting question there is the basis of that rationale, but it's a separate issue. I think it's best now to first establish what you're looking at, decide the criteria for validating your perceptions, then decide the nature of it.

LOki
06-08-2007, 07:39 PM
Once more,I was speaking generically, I could have used any number of examples such as Christ rising again, or the Virgin birth. I just thought the Ice water thing was the simplest to explain.

Please note your words here:(quote)

it's wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally. (unquote)

But you see, that isn't what you asked, and Not what I responded to. Kindly go back and check what you DID actually ask. That is your problem, You say one thing, and then change it and assume that you can use the same response for the new question. IT DON"T WORK THAT WAY -----------YOU CHANGED THE QUESTION.Doniston, I presumed that a stickler for context, such as yourself, would not demand that the question you responded to be taken from its context so that your reponse might be validated. The question you responded to is properly meaningful in the context of the broader question of wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally. I did not change the question--you did.

Doniston
06-08-2007, 08:37 PM
Doniston, I presumed that a stickler for context, such as yourself, would not demand that the question you responded to be taken from its context so that your reponse might be validated. [b]The question you responded to is properly meaningful in the context of the broader question of wether or not verifable facts in the Bible support an argument that the Bible is to be taken literally.[/B} I did not change the question--you did. You are full of crap. you have just admitted it was a different question, just within the context. Flat doubletalk.

Hobbit
06-08-2007, 10:36 PM
Last I knew, oceans are made up of water.

It was the Sea of Galilee. Not exactly the ocean, but close enough.

Lightning Waltz
06-09-2007, 02:33 AM
No. The argument presented was that the verifiable facts contained in the Bible lend credibilty to the argument that it is to be taken literally. Your retort was that verifable facts DO NOT lend credibilty to an argument, least of all an argument that should posit that the Bible should be taken literally. This was not you objecting to any specific facts presented, Lighning Waltz, you objected to ANY verifable fact, no matter how it's prestented that supports an argument that posits that the Bible should be taken literally; so much so you will deny that ANY verifable facts associated with the document lend any credibilty what-so-ever to any notion that the Bible is to be taken literally as it is written.

Let's be clear...
Your argument is that because some facts from the bible are verifiable (like that places it mentions exists), other claims from the bible should be taken litterally (like that people are able to walk on water, or be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, etc).

So, again, you have posted a straw man. My argument is agianst irrelevant facts...like the ones that you presented.


That is my argument. We are not to conjecture that there were some fancy sandbars to walk on, or fish-looking submarines from Atlantis to catch Jonah--when we read the Bible to say something, we are to read it to mean literally what it says.

Exactly. So then you have to back up specific silly claims in the Bible like people walking on water, or being swallowed by a fish and living to tell the tale...


All this means is that you simply dispute the use of verifiable facts if they are supporting an argument inconsistent with your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions.

No, all this means is that I'm not going to accept irrelevant facts just because you want them to support your outrageous, and silly, presumptions.


Let's procede then:

Knowing nothing else of a book about American history (for instance) than that it asserts that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States, would that verifiable fact lend any credibilty to the argument that the book should be taken literally when read?

If not, why not? Specifically, why does this fact NOT lend credibilty to the argument that this book should not be taken literally?

But if it does, do the verifiable facts in the Bible lend any credibilty to the agument that it should be taken literally when read?

Again, no. Just because a book contains 1 fact doesn't make that book non-fiction.

See the Harry Potter mentions an actual place, analogy.

Each claim must be taken on its own credibility.

LOki
06-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Let's be clear...
Your argument is that because some facts from the bible are verifiable (like that places it mentions exists), other claims from the bible should be taken litterally (like that people are able to walk on water, or be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, etc).

So, again, you have posted a straw man. My argument is agianst irrelevant facts...like the ones that you presented.The actual persistent straw-man argument, Lightning Waltz, is your obtuse demand that EVERY assertion in a document needs to be verifiable in fact for all of the assertions in it to be taken literally. Every single scientific hypothesis EVER written was full of unverifed assertions, yet each assertion was to be taken literally, the whole fucking document was to be read and taken literally.


Exactly. So then you have to back up specific silly claims in the Bible like people walking on water, or being swallowed by a fish and living to tell the tale...Nope. Not at all. I have to back them up to assert they are true, but not to assert that we are to take those assertions literally.


No, all this means is that I'm not going to accept irrelevant facts just because you want them to support your outrageous, and silly, presumptions.No. It means that you are shitting-your-drawers afraid that any line of inquiry might actually challenge your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions. You wish to fall back on the argumentative tools of the irrational by demanding that you own unsupported notions of what is "outrageuous" and "silly" are valid reasons for dismissing an argument. I'll point out to you that there were once a bunch of retards, dismissing Copernicus, that considered the notion that the earth rotates, and orbits the sun to be "outrageous"; similar retards, dismissing Pasteur, considered the bacteria model of infection to be "silly"; there are retards on this planet right now, that consider the whole notion that human beings have visited the moon to be both "silly" AND "outrageuos." It turns out that their unsupported notions of what is "outrageuous" and "silly" are no less bullshit than yours.


Again, no. Just because a book contains 1 fact doesn't make that book non-fiction.Talk about fucking staw-man argument--before you attempt tossing around such accusations, you should see if you can lift them first. I didn't ask you if knowledge of the existence of one fact in a book made the book non-fiction or not, I asked if that one fact lent credibility to the argument that the book should be taken literally.


See the Harry Potter mentions an actual place, analogy.And Harry Potter is unambiguously fiction. False analogy.


Each claim must be taken on its own credibility.Are you backing out of your agreement that verifable facts, that are relevent to an argument lend credibility to that argument? If not, then do the verifiable facts in the Bible lend ANY credibilty to the agument that it should be taken literally when read? If you are backing out of it, then please tell me what it is that lends credibility to an argument if it is not facts?

Lightning Waltz
06-09-2007, 09:11 AM
The actual persistent straw-man argument, Lightning Waltz, is your obtuse demand that EVERY assertion in a document needs to be verifiable in fact for all of the assertions in it to be taken literally. Every single scientific hypothesis EVER written was full of unverifed assertions, yet each assertion was to be taken literally, the whole fucking document was to be read and taken literally.

That's not a straw man. Nowhere did I state your position in a weak way such that it makes my position look better. That's exactly what you did to me...which is why it is a Straw Man.

However, yes...each and everything that a person, book or whatever states, MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERIT.

To not do so is to fall into some horrible logical fallacies. Look up the Appeal to Authority fallacy, for example.


Nope. Not at all. I have to back them up to assert they are true, but not to assert that we are to take those assertions literally.

Once again, in English, please?


It means that you are shitting-your-drawers afraid that any line of inquiry might actually challenge your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions.

Ad Hominem fallacy. For the record, I am in no way "afraid" of your fairie tale.


You wish to fall back on the argumentative tools of the irrational by demanding that you own unsupported notions of what is "outrageuous" and "silly" are valid reasons for dismissing an argument.

No, I simply realize that one claim is going to take more reason to believe than another.

The claim, "I took a walk down Mainstreet" is going to take less evidence to prove than the calim, "I took a ride on an alien space ship".

You want to ignore the fact that there are outrageous claims compared to mundane ones, because it doesn't help you make your arguments. That's called, "Intellectual Dishonesty". And, it's not my problem, it is yours.


I'll point out to you that there were once a bunch of retards, dismissing Copernicus, that considered the notion that the earth rotates, and orbits the sun to be "outrageous"; similar retards, dismissing Pasteur, considered the bacteria model of infection to be "silly"; there are retards on this planet right now, that consider the whole notion that human beings have visited the moon to be both "silly" AND "outrageuos." It turns out that their unsupported notions of what is "outrageuous" and "silly" are no less bullshit than yours.

I already dismissed these silly arguments. Try again.


Talk about fucking staw-man argument--before you attempt tossing around such accusations, you should see if you can lift them first. I didn't ask you if knowledge of the existence of one fact in a book made the book non-fiction or not, I asked if that one fact lent credibility to the argument that the book should be taken literally.

Er...how do you know whether it is "fiction" or "non-fiction"? The one fact that you verified in the book?

You didn't understand what I wrote. You want to assume that we are talking about a non-fiction book in the first place... I'm stating, no...we can't do that. You are testing whether or not the book IS fiction or non-fiction.


And Harry Potter is unambiguously fiction. False analogy.

No, it's a very good analogy. It's just not one you like because it proves my point. There is a book that is obviously false. We know that ahead of time...but if we used your measurement for the book, "are there true facts within it?", we, by YOUR standards, would come to the conclusion that we should take the book literally.


Are you backing out of your agreement that verifable facts, that are relevent to an argument lend credibility to that argument?

Nope.


If not, then do the verifiable facts in the Bible lend ANY credibilty to the agument that it should be taken literally when read?

No. The "facts" that you point to aren't relevent to proving the argument that the Bible should be taken litterally.

LOki
06-10-2007, 12:41 PM
That's not a straw man. Nowhere did I state your position in a weak way such that it makes my position look better. That's exactly what you did to me...which is why it is a Straw Man.

However, yes...each and everything that a person, book or whatever states, MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERIT.

To not do so is to fall into some horrible logical fallacies. Look up the Appeal to Authority fallacy, for example.No straw-man at all on my part, I have not ignored your assertion, nor distorted it, I have been true to it; furthermore, no appeal to authority either--if you are going to continue to accuse me of logical fallacies, Lightnng Waltz, you had better understand them yourself--you clearly don't, and those accusations might work on retards, but they don't work on someone who knows what they are.

And for your information, the straw man fallacy is commited when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Ignoring my actual position is what you are doing, and you are replacing it with a misrepresentation that you feel more comfortable refuting.

So here now, according to your own position which was stated clearly, every scientific hypothesis ever written is nothing but fiction--and more to the actual point, the assertions in a scientific hypothesis are to be taken as metaphors, or hyperbole, or sarcasm, or pun, but certainly not literally--because they they haven't been judged accurate in fact.


Once again, in English, please?I do not have to back up any assertion I make to demand that assertion to be taken literally--nor does the Author of the Bible. Once taken literally, however, I would agree that assertions to the factual accuracy and validity of those assertions must be established by evidence, valid logic, and verifiable facts, rather than my (or your) sense of what is outrageuous or silly, or not, as you would have it.


Ad Hominem fallacy. For the record, I am in no way "afraid" of your fairie tale.For the record, I'm telling no fairy tale, and more to the point, I'm not attacking your argument by asserting you're afraid--thus not ad-hominem. Asserting you're afraid is just a new assertion--one we can address separately if you wish. You again, should refrain from flinging accusations of logical fallacy, when you clearly have no idea what you're doing.


No, I simply realize that one claim is going to take more reason to believe than another.

The claim, "I took a walk down Mainstreet" is going to take less evidence to prove than the calim, "I took a ride on an alien space ship".Despite that fact that I don't agree, so what?


You want to ignore the fact that there are outrageous claims compared to mundane ones, because it doesn't help you make your arguments. That's called, "Intellectual Dishonesty". And, it's not my problem, it is yours.I do not want to ignore facts--I DEFY you to show ONE instance where I want to ignore facts--my entire argument is about RECOGNIZING facts. Yours, however is all about actively DIMISSING FACTS based NOTHING but your sense of outrageuos.

What is intellectually dishonest, Lightning Waltz, is avoiding the argument that is uncomfortable to you by attacking the strawman you created, and claiming arguments are dismissed based soley on your notions of outrageous, silly, and some bullshit high-handed declaration of "argument dismissed." It is this avoidance that lead me to the conclusion that you are shit-your-pants afraid of an argument that posits that the Bible should be taken literally.


I already dismissed these silly arguments. Try again.You most certainly did not--not even remotely close, except to simply declare them "dismissed". But feel free to try again.


Er...how do you know whether it is "fiction" or "non-fiction"? The one fact that you verified in the book?That is not actually the question--it's just yet another version of your straw man, but it's close enough.

Take an encyclopedia that asserts within it bounds that the atom is the smallest undivisible unit of matter. An assertion that is not true in fact, and never was. Do you still demand that this encyclopedia is a work of fiction? According to you so far, if you're intellectually honest, you do. Do you not take assertions in that encyclopedia literally now? If you're to maintain any intellectual honestesty, you will not.

Let's return to the example provided earlier:<blockquote><i>"Knowing nothing else of a book about American history (for instance) than that it asserts that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States, would that verifiable fact lend any credibilty to the argument that the book should be taken literally when read?"</i></blockquote>Consistent with my argument, I assert that, without other knowledge of the book, the verifable nature of the one assertion lends credibilty to the assertion that the entire book should be taken literally, rather than metaphoically, or sarcasticly, for instance.

You seem to be adamant in your demand that we should not consider this verifable fact all relevent to taking the work literally. You seem to be asserting categorically that a verifable fact lends no credibilty to at all to taking the rest of the work literally. I'd just like to know why, which requires you to stop talking about Harry Potter, and start adressing your problem with verifable facts lending credibilty to an argument that posits taking the work literally.


You didn't understand what I wrote. You want to assume that we are talking about a non-fiction book in the first place... I'm stating, no...we can't do that. You are testing whether or not the book IS fiction or non-fiction.No, show me one instance, only one, where I want to assume that we are talking about a non-fiction book in the first place--because I'm going to show you exacly where you demand that we first take the Bible as fiction--a "fairy tale" as you put it, in order for you to avoid the uncomfortable notion (for you) that the Bible should be taken literally.


No, it's a very good analogy. It's just not one you like because it proves my point. There is a book that is obviously false. We know that ahead of time...but if we used your measurement for the book, "are there true facts within it?", we, by YOUR standards, would come to the conclusion that we should take the book literally.It's a bullshit analogy, because the fictional nature of Harry Potter is not in question; and secondly, if we weren't aware ahead of time that it was fictional, the question of taking the book literally, or not, would be valid in order to establish what the author was trying to say. And I'll tell you this much; Harry Potter books, as I understand them, are meant to be read literally: If the author wrote, "Harry hopped on his broom to fight the Dragon in mid-air," I assert that is exactly what the author meant to say.


Nope.You seem to have done so without reservation, and have refused to come proper, by refusing to abandon your straw man attack, and refusing to tell me how verifable facts do not lend credibilty to the assertion that the Bible should be taken literally.


No. The "facts" that you point to aren't relevent to proving the argument that the Bible should be taken litterally.Every fact submitted, does indeed, lend credibilty to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally--you simply continue to dismiss that it is possible that any verifiable facts, presented in any manner, lend any credibilty to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally. You furthermore have presented no argument to support this dismissal of yours, and in place of one, presented your narrow, and prejudiced, presumption that the Bible is nothing but fiction--a fairy tale. Since you're all about logical fallacy now, Lightning Waltz, check your premise, and then look into the favorite logical fallacy of the faithies (theist and atheist alike)--petitio principii.

Lightning Waltz
06-10-2007, 06:08 PM
No straw-man at all on my part, I have not ignored your assertion, nor distorted it, I have been true to it; furthermore, no appeal to authority either--if you are going to continue to accuse me of logical fallacies, Lightnng Waltz, you had better understand them yourself--you clearly don't, and those accusations might work on retards, but they don't work on someone who knows what they are.

First, yes, you have distorted my arguments to try to make your own look better. That is a straw man.

Second, I didn't say that you did commit an appeal to authority fallacy, I said that your reasoning is getting close to that.


So here now, according to your own position which was stated clearly, every scientific hypothesis ever written is nothing but fiction--and more to the actual point, the assertions in a scientific hypothesis are to be taken as metaphors, or hyperbole, or sarcasm, or pun, but certainly not literally--because they they haven't been judged accurate in fact.

Wrong. Again, another straw man. I don't claim that an unproven hypothosis is fiction...

Again, you are confusing taking the position that something shouldn't be believed, from believing in the negative.

A scientific hypothesis isn't necessarily fiction...but we shouldn't believe it without good reason. That's WHY IT IS A HYPOTHOSIS rather than a theory or law... That's the very definition of WHAT A HYPOTHOSIS IS...


I do not have to back up any assertion I make to demand that assertion to be taken literally--nor does the Author of the Bible. Once taken literally, however, I would agree that assertions to the factual accuracy and validity of those assertions must be established by evidence, valid logic, and verifiable facts, rather than my (or your) sense of what is outrageuous or silly, or not, as you would have it.

If you don't back up your assertions, then they are just unproven assertions that no one has any reason to believe...fine by me...<shrug>


For the record, I'm telling no fairy tale, and more to the point, I'm not attacking your argument by asserting you're afraid--thus not ad-hominem. Asserting you're afraid is just a new assertion--one we can address separately if you wish. You again, should refrain from flinging accusations of logical fallacy, when you clearly have no idea what you're doing.

Oh, then what were you saying when you said: "It means that you are shitting-your-drawers afraid that any line of inquiry might actually challenge your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions."

You weren't asserting that I was afraid? What funny language you use, then...


Despite that fact that I don't agree, so what?

<shrug>...your problem if you think it's just as likely that someone take a ride on an alien spaceship than walk down mainstreet...


I do not want to ignore facts--I DEFY you to show ONE instance where I want to ignore facts--my entire argument is about RECOGNIZING facts. Yours, however is all about actively DIMISSING FACTS based NOTHING but your sense of outrageuos.

No, I haven't ignored the facts...I just have pointed out that your facts are irrelevant to the discussion of taking the whole of the bible litterally.


What is intellectually dishonest, Lightning Waltz, is avoiding the argument that is uncomfortable to you by attacking the strawman you created

More Ad Hominem.


It is this avoidance that lead me to the conclusion that you are shit-your-pants afraid of an argument that posits that the Bible should be taken literally.

And, yet more Ad Hominem.

Again, for the record, I am in no way afraid of your fairie tale.


You most certainly did not--not even remotely close, except to simply declare them "dismissed". But feel free to try again.

Sure I did. Doesn't matter to me that your reading comprehension skills suck...either that or decided lack of intellectual honesty.


Take an encyclopedia that asserts within it bounds that the atom is the smallest undivisible unit of matter. An assertion that is not true in fact, and never was. Do you still demand that this encyclopedia is a work of fiction? According to you so far, if you're intellectually honest, you do. Do you not take assertions in that encyclopedia literally now? If you're to maintain any intellectual honestesty, you will not.

And, yet again, you are confusing what is unproveable...and therefore should be treated as such, and what is false.


Let's return to the example provided earlier:<blockquote><i>"Knowing nothing else of a book about American history (for instance) than that it asserts that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States, would that verifiable fact lend any credibilty to the argument that the book should be taken literally when read?"</i></blockquote>Consistent with my argument, I assert that, without other knowledge of the book, the verifable nature of the one assertion lends credibilty to the assertion that the entire book should be taken literally, rather than metaphoically, or sarcasticly, for instance.

Yes, and given that a book mentions the city of London, without anything else known of that book, by your standard, we should then take that book litterally. So, tell me, how's your Qudditch team coming along?


You seem to be adamant in your demand that we should not consider this verifable fact all relevent to taking the work literally. You seem to be asserting categorically that a verifable fact lends no credibilty to at all to taking the rest of the work literally. I'd just like to know why, which requires you to stop talking about Harry Potter, and start adressing your problem with verifable facts lending credibilty to an argument that posits taking the work literally.

You were talking about science earlier. Look up what a control is in an experiment. See if you can figure out the logical connection between a control in an experiment, and my reference to Harry Potter.


No, show me one instance, only one, where I want to assume that we are talking about a non-fiction book in the first place--because I'm going to show you exacly where you demand that we first take the Bible as fiction--a "fairy tale" as you put it, in order for you to avoid the uncomfortable notion (for you) that the Bible should be taken literally.

Because every analogous situation you want to bring up is either a "history book" an encyclopedia and you completely reject a control such as a book that we already know to be false to be put to your "test".


You seem to have done so without reservation, and have refused to come proper, by refusing to abandon your straw man attack, and refusing to tell me how verifable facts do not lend credibilty to the assertion that the Bible should be taken literally.

No where did I misrepresent your arguments. I've tried to be as fair to them as possible. It's not my problem that they just don't work...


Every fact submitted, does indeed, lend credibilty to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally--you simply continue to dismiss that it is possible that any verifiable facts, presented in any manner, lend any credibilty to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally. You furthermore have presented no argument to support this dismissal of yours, and in place of one, presented your narrow, and prejudiced, presumption that the Bible is nothing but fiction--a fairy tale. Since you're all about logical fallacy now, Lightning Waltz, check your premise, and then look into the favorite logical fallacy of the faithies (theist and atheist alike)--petitio principii.

Not agreeing with your conclusion is NOT a Straw Man. Try to learn what a Straw Man actually is...

And the only circles that we've followed in this conversation are the ones that you've created and I've followed you on...

LOki
06-11-2007, 11:40 AM
First, yes, you have distorted my arguments to try to make your own look better. That is a straw man.Demonstrate that I have distorted your argument.

You have been desperately flinging accusations of logical fallacy at me much of this discussion. Despite having corrected you on your misuse, you continue to misuse the accusation. So let's get the record clear:

I argue that the Bible is to be taken literally; verifiable facts in the Bible lend credibilty to that argument.

You, have created a straw man to attack, by distorting my argument to say,"I argue the Bible should be believed as verifable fact; the verifable facts in the Bible lend credibility to that argument."

And since fair is fair, I will show you your staw man in your own words:<blockquote>
I'm sure you can find things in the book, Gone With the Wind, that are litterally true. People that existed, places, some events, etc. Does that mean that the whole of the story is true?
I did not assert that the verifiable facts in the Bible make the whole of the Bible verifaible in fact. I asked a question:<blockquote>"Doesn't all the above lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally?"</blockquote>The answer from Gaffer was "NO." Which sets me to wondering if verifiable facts do not lend credibility to the argument that the Bible should be taken literally, what then does lend credibility to the argument--ANY argument for that matter?
To your original question, I was answering it. I was showing why "all of the above" doesn't "lend credibility to the argument that the bible should be taken literally".

As to your "Oh?" question (and you do seem to want to infer a lot by those two little letters), I think the answer to that one, especially given the fantastic (read unbelieveable) nature of the Bible, is that we are going to have to take it one story at a time.

Obviously, there is going to be a different standard of proof for an ancient city existing than that someone was able to walk on water, make the blind see, arise from the dead, be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, world-wide floods, etc, etc, etc...
You continue to work that straw man some more:

"Lend credibility"? Again, you seem to ignore the fact that a book doesn't need to be completely true or completely false. That something is true in a book does not, in fact, mean that everything in that book is more likely to be true. Each claim must be proven reasonable on their own merit.
And you work it some more:


Second, that a lot of people believe something means absolutely nothing. See the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Just as most people believed that the earth was flat at one time (and were wrong), many people can believe in the bible (and be wrong).
And you work it some more:

If there is no verifiable evidence, and we are talking about something incredible (such as something beyond the laws of physics as we understand them), I think the most reasonable thing to do is to not believe it...

For every true thing, there are an infinite number of false things that could be true, but aren't. Therefore, if there is something incredible (unbelieveable) and we have no reason to believe it, it's much more likely to be not true than true.
And you work it some more:

Unproven, no reason to believe them, and if they are outrageous claims, shouldn't be believed.
And you work it some more:

Ah, I see... You were wanting to take things literally. I wasn't using the term "unbelieveable" in the sense that no one could believe in it. I was using it in the sense of "fatastic", "incredible", "hard to believe". That was why, when I originally said, "(read unbelieveable)" it was in parenthensis as an alternative to "fantastic"...
And you work it some more:

Then, obviously, it's unsubstantiated claims that we have no reason to believe... And, considering the outrageous nature of many of these claims...
And you work it vividly here:

1. If you can validate claims within a book, you have valid claims within a book.
2. If you have valid claims within a book, that doesn't make the whole book reasonable to believe.
3. To make a whole book reasonable to believe, you must validate all of the claims within that book.
And you work it some more:

The fact that I said 3 things that are true does not mean that the rest of the things that I say are going to be true...
And you work it some more:

But, again, you have no verifiable facts of there being a "God", "Allah" or whatever...you have verifiable facts of places in a book being real...but there's quite a difference between a place being real and a "God" being real.
And you work it some more:

Third, you haven't presented any verifiable facts that suggest that someone walked on water, was swallowed by a giant fish and lived to tell the tale, etc... You've only presented verifiable facts that some of the names or places listed in the Bible are true. That has NOTHING to do with the other claims that the Bible makes.
I clear it up for you, yet you keep beating your straw man with retarded persistence:
That is my argument. We are not to conjecture that there were some fancy sandbars to walk on, or fish-looking submarines from Atlantis to catch Jonah--when we read the Bible to say something, we are to read it to mean literally what it says.
Exactly. So then you have to back up specific silly claims in the Bible like people walking on water, or being swallowed by a fish and living to tell the tale...
And you persist some more, event after having it spelled out to you again:
Let's be clear...
Your argument is that because some facts from the bible are verifiable (like that places it mentions exists), other claims from the bible should be taken litterally (like that people are able to walk on water, or be swallowed by a giant fish and live to tell the tale, etc).

So, again, you have posted a straw man. My argument is agianst irrelevant facts...like the ones that you presented.
The actual persistent straw-man argument, Lightning Waltz, is your obtuse demand that EVERY assertion in a document needs to be verifiable in fact for all of the assertions in it to be taken literally. Every single scientific hypothesis EVER written was full of unverifed assertions, yet each assertion was to be taken literally, the whole fucking document was to be read and taken literally.
That's not a straw man. Nowhere did I state your position in a weak way such that it makes my position look better. That's exactly what you did to me...which is why it is a Straw Man.

However, yes...each and everything that a person, book or whatever states, MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERIT.</blockquote>Bear in mind, Lightning Waltz, that I am fully aware that the straw man fallacy is commited when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Ignoring my actual position is what you are doing, and you are replacing it with a misrepresentation that you feel more comfortable refuting.

With the exceptions of your other logical fallacies, the Straw Man fallacy is all you've been using.


Second, I didn't say that you did commit an appeal to authority fallacy, I said that your reasoning is getting close to that.Correct, only so far as you didn't say that I committed an appeal to authority--the rest is some kind of appeal to the slippery slope fallacy.


Wrong. Again, another straw man. I don't claim that an unproven hypothosis is fiction...

Again, you are confusing taking the position that something shouldn't be believed, from believing in the negative.

A scientific hypothesis isn't necessarily fiction...but we shouldn't believe it without good reason. That's WHY IT IS A HYPOTHOSIS rather than a theory or law... That's the very definition of WHAT A HYPOTHOSIS IS...Not straw man, Lightning Waltz, you have been on and on about how fiction is all about the unproven--the "outrageuos" or "silly" is to not be believed, which you have suggested, more than once, is to declare such unproven work to be fiction. Much more importantly though--and completely telling of your intellectual dishonesty--your response also conveniently avoids the actual point being made (depite the fact that I pointed it out to you) that according to your standard of "unproven," the assertions in a scientific hypothesis are to be taken as metaphors, or hyperbole, or sarcasm, or pun, but certainly not literally--because they they haven't been judged accurate in fact.


If you don't back up your assertions, then they are just unproven assertions that no one has any reason to believe...fine by me...<shrug>Again, shitting-your-drawers afraid to address the actual point while enveigling your straw man (again) to distance yourself from it further.


Oh, then what were you saying when you said: "It means that you are shitting-your-drawers afraid that any line of inquiry might actually challenge your narrow, and prejudiced, presumptions."

You weren't asserting that I was afraid? What funny language you use, then...I did not say that I wasn't asserting you were afraid, I assert that you are ("shitting-your-pants" is to be taken as hyperbole--not literally--in case you're still obtusely in denial that "literal" does not mean "proven by facts."). I submit that when you used the term "fairy tale" I took it that you were referring to the Bible. If I was wrong: My bad. Regardless, none of that changes the verifable fact that you are persistent in the use of the straw-man fallacy to avoid the actual argument made, and you being shitting-your-drawers-afraid is a valid reason for doing so.


<shrug>...your problem if you think it's just as likely that someone take a ride on an alien spaceship than walk down mainstreet...Look! Another straw man! I do not think it's as likely that someone take a ride on an alien spaceship than walk down mainstreet, nor do I assert that the standard for belief is the same for both, I assert that the standard of proof is the same for both.


No, I haven't ignored the facts...I just have pointed out that your facts are irrelevant to the discussion of taking the whole of the bible litterally.What the fuck do you know? ANOTHER straw man introduced while you continue to beat the old one! I did not say you are ignoring facts; I said you are DIMISSING facts based on nothing but your sense of what's outrageuos.


More Ad Hominem.This is clearly, and patently not so. Let's have another lesson in logical fallacy: The ad-hominem fallacy is committed when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

You have been enthusiasticly beating the straw man you created in complete avoidance of the actual argument I'm making. The repeated, and persistent return to your staw man, even after it has been pointed out to you, is evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.


And, yet more Ad Hominem.

Again, for the record, I am in no way afraid of your fairie tale.A personal attack, may be called ad-hominem attack to the person, but this is no ad-hominem attack on your bullshit assertions. The ad-hominem argument would be; Lightning Waltz is shitting-his-pants afraid that an argument might validly assert that the Bible should be taken literally; therefore, Lightning Waltz avoids the actual argument. This is entirely different than: Those who are shitting-their-pants afraid, desperately avoid that which they are shitting-their-pants afraid of; Lightning Waltz is desperately avoiding an argument might validly assert that the Bible should be taken literally; Lightning Waltz is shitting-his-pants afraid of an argument might validly assert that the Bible should be taken literally.


Sure I did. Doesn't matter to me that your reading comprehension skills suck...either that or decided lack of intellectual honesty.NOW THAT'S an example of the ad-hominem fallacy. My refusal to accept your straw man retort is not a reading comprehension problem, nor is it indicative of any lack in intellectual honesty on my part.


And, yet again, you are confusing what is unproveable...and therefore should be treated as such, and what is false.I am not, and you continue to beat your straw man in your avoidance of the actual argument.


Yes, and given that a book mentions the city of London, without anything else known of that book, by your standard, we should then take that book litterally.Consistent with my argument, I assert it lends credibility to the argument, because I think that when JK Rowling writes "Harry lives near london," it is to help suspend disbelief in the reader so that when he writes "Harry conjured a dragon with his wand" we are not to take it sarcasticly (for instance), but rather just as he wrote it--that is literally.


So, tell me, how's your Qudditch team coming along?I suspect this should be taken sarcastically rather than literally. To answer: it's beating your ass. ;)


You were talking about science earlier. Look up what a control is in an experiment. See if you can figure out the logical connection between a control in an experiment, and my reference to Harry Potter.AND
Because every analogous situation you want to bring up is either a "history book" an encyclopedia and you completely reject a control such as a book that we already know to be false to be put to your "test".Oh really? Lte's look back and see...<blockquote>
And I'll tell you this much; Harry Potter books, as I understand them, are meant to be read literally: If the author wrote, "Harry hopped on his broom to fight the Dragon in mid-air," I assert that is exactly what the author meant to say.</blockquote>I suppose this was an "honest" oversight, and not just you avoiding the point being made, ... again.


No where did I misrepresent your arguments. I've tried to be as fair to them as possible. It's not my problem that they just don't work...Well, I think the well established evidence refuting this speaks for itself.


Not agreeing with your conclusion is NOT a Straw Man. Try to learn what a Straw Man actually is...

And the only circles that we've followed in this conversation are the ones that you've created and I've followed you on...All right, another lesson in logical fallacy for the dim-wit that insists on not understanding them.

Since you still have no idea what the straw man fallacy is; the Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.<blockquote>Example:

The argument presented:
"The Bible is to be taken literally; verifiable facts in the Bible lend credibilty to that argument.

The (straw man) argument attacked as if it was the actual argument:
"The Bible should be believed as verifable fact; the verifable facts in the Bible lend credibility to that argument."</blockquote>Petitio principii is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.<blockquote>Example:

"The accounts in the Bible are fictional, because the Bible is a work of fiction."</blockquote>You have been relying upon a combination of begging the question, and <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/undismid.html">the fallacy of the undistributed middle</a> to create your straw man. I predict, now that it has all been spelled out for you clearly, that you will demonstrate your very own persistent lack of intellectual honesty by continuing on with your patently bullshit argumentative tactics.

Lightning Waltz
06-11-2007, 11:57 AM
The cornerstone of good persuasive arguing is stubbornness. You must never, under any circumstances, concede that your opponent might ever possibly be right. Openmindedness has led to the downfall of many great debaters. If you find yourself doubting the correctness of your position, don't let it show. Repeat to yourself, "I am right. I am right." If you can't convince yourself that you're right, you'll never convince others that they're wrong. Here is an example of the use of stubbornness in a debate:

You: "The moon is made of cheese."
Opponent: "Umm. It's a proven fact that the moon is NOT made of cheese."
You: "The moon is made of cheese."
Opponent: "Ok, look, I have a piece of moon ROCK at my house. It is not made of cheese. It is made of ROCK."
You: "The moon is made of cheese."
Opponent: "No, it isn't. We've sent ships to the moon. People landed on it. They looked at it. They said it was made of ROCK. They brought back ROCK. It is made out of ROCK."
You: "The moon is made of cheese."

You win, Loki...

The moon IS made of cheese.

Hagbard Celine
06-11-2007, 12:12 PM
You win, Loki...

The moon IS made of cheese.

Jesus rode a pterodactyl to the moon. It's in the Bible.

LOki
06-11-2007, 12:50 PM
You win, Loki...

The moon IS made of cheese.:lol:Irony LOLz. Tired of being outmaneuvered by superior debaters? I'm not surpised considering your source for argumentative success.

I win because the moon is actually not made of cheese--in defiance of your own stubborness.

Lightning Waltz
06-11-2007, 01:02 PM
:lol:Irony LOLz. Tired of being outmaneuvered by superior debaters? I'm not surpised considering your source for argumentative success.

I win because the moon is actually not made of cheese--in defiance of your own stubborness.

:lol:

LOki
06-11-2007, 01:57 PM
:lol:Yeah. Just as I thought. :clap:

Lightning Waltz
06-11-2007, 05:15 PM
Word.

LOki
06-14-2007, 06:03 PM
Not this time.