World's oldest temple found in Turkey

[Athrond]

Apparantly you didn't read my posts?

yep. my post underlines yours

 

[dad]

I know it, and you know it, but do they know it?

No more than they know otherwise. They should stick to what they know.

 

[Garyzenuf]

That is fine. Even if there were more rings than years to the flood, all that may mean, is that more rings came in a year than at present. Not that the microscope is wrong.

Seeing you appear to be making this stuff up as you go along, how exactly could this happen?

 

[AV1611VET]

No more than they know otherwise. They should stick to what they know.

Well, you know me, bro --- I'm biased toward a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 --- and I think everyone who goes up against a Creationist should know a literal interpretation of this chapter beforehand, as it actually does get harder from there. You can't explain how Jesus walked on water* to anyone who doesn't believe "In the beginning, God..." I've spent an inordinately-long period of time in my two and a half years here explaining Genesis 1 to these guys. They disdain the "God did it" explanation of anything, and that makes our work even harder, and posts and threads inordinately long.

* Actually, you wouldn't have to.

 

[AV1611VET]

[delete]

 

[AV1611VET]

That is fine. Even if there were more rings than years to the flood, all that may mean, is that more rings came in a year than at present. Not that the microscope is wrong.

Seeing you appear to be making this stuff up as you go along, how exactly could this happen?

That's standard dendrochronology, Gary ---

Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.

 

[dad]

Seeing you appear to be making this stuff up as you go along, how exactly could this happen?

Who cares? How could it not happen? Who says life processes worked the same? Who says plants grew at the same rate, and way? Who says the present laws applied? No one. You made that up as so called science went along.

 

[dad]

Well, you know me, bro --- I'm biased toward a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 --- and I think everyone who goes up against a Creationist should know a literal interpretation of this chapter beforehand, as it actually does get harder from there. You can't explain how Jesus walked on water* to anyone who doesn't believe "In the beginning, God..." I've spent an inordinately-long period of time in my two and a half years here explaining Genesis 1 to these guys. They disdain the "God did it" explanation of anything, and that makes our work even harder, and posts and threads inordinately long.

* Actually, you wouldn't have to.

And, if they neither know the bible, or care less, they better at least be able to impose the laws that we have now, on the garden of Eden, and pre history times. Other than just by dreaming.

 

[AV1611VET]

And, if they neither know the bible, or care less, they better at least be able to impose the laws that we have now, on the garden of Eden, and pre history times. Other than just by dreaming.

Correct ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

Who cares? How could it not happen? Who says life processes worked the same? Who says plants grew at the same rate, and way? Who says the present laws applied? No one. You made that up as so called science went along.

Let's ask the pixies -- they were there; they'd know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, you know me, bro --- I'm biased toward a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 --- and I think everyone who goes up against a Creationist should know a literal interpretation of this chapter beforehand, as it actually does get harder from there. You can't explain how Jesus walked on water* to anyone who doesn't believe "In the beginning, God..." I've spent an inordinately-long period of time in my two and a half years here explaining Genesis 1 to these guys. They disdain the "God did it" explanation of anything, and that makes our work even harder, and posts and threads inordinately long.

* Actually, you wouldn't have to.

To be fair, we only disdain people touting "God did it" as a scientific explanation. It's obvious that God could indeed have done it, there's just no evidence that he did. That's why, to us, it seems like a completely arbitrary and unsupported hypothesis: possible, but no more likely than the existence of magic pixies. And I guess it's annoying when some Creationists call us the delusional, unsubstantiated ones.

inb4 your apple challenge.

To the OP: cool find ! But I would've thought the oldest temple would be in Africa... but maybe it's been destroyed since then?

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, we only disdain people touting "God did it" as a scientific explanation.

How would "God did it" be a scientific explanation?

It's obvious that God could indeed have done it, there's just no evidence that he did.

Would it really matter? Dispensation Theology says "no" --- and an atheist says in his heart that there is no God --- note: not in his mind, but in his heart --- thus no amount of evidence is going to convince him, even if God died on a cross and came back.

That's why, to us, it seems like a completely arbitrary and unsupported hypothesis: possible, but no more likely than the existence of magic pixies.

What you call "completely arbitrary and unsupported hypothesis", the Bible calls "many infallible truths."

And I guess it's annoying when some Creationists call us the delusional, unsubstantiated ones.

We could call you what the Bible calls you, but that would bother you too. Do you want us to lie?

 

[Athrond]

Hmmm if you accept yec then isn't the scientific way to go about it trying to analyze how Goddidit? Not just saying it is soo and then leaving it at that. Surely there must be some godly-method or something that we, with what rationality we have can deduce? It's not as if we are without something to work on. It'll be like researchers in bigbang theory trying to reconstruct how things came to be, only now it's only 6000-ish years ago and not a whopping 14billions or whatever.

Goddidit - does not settle it

 

[AV1611VET]

inb4 your apple challenge.

Hmmm if you accept yec then isn't the scientific way to go about it trying to analyze how Goddidit? Not just saying it is soo and then leaving it at that. Surely there must be some godly-method or something that we, with what rationality we have can deduce? It's not as if we are without something to work on. It'll be like researchers in bigbang theory trying to reconstruct how things came to be, only now it's only 6000-ish years ago and not a whopping 14billions or whatever.

Wiccan, now can I play my trump card?

 

[Athrond]

To be fair, we only disdain people touting "God did it" as a scientific explanation.

actually this can be a bit hard It seems to be little difference between argument and person sometimes... I'll try harder

To the OP: cool find ! But I would've thought the oldest temple would be in Africa... but maybe it's been destroyed since then?

This may be likely, the "first temple" may have been built of wood or other decomposing materials.
It'll be likevise tinteresting to see what comes out of simpler structures at gobekli tepe. The "temple tradition" could be milennia older

 

[Athrond]

Wiccan, now can I play my trump card?

well AV, if you study the properties of matter can you say with certainty that you couldn't deduce the way it was "poofed" into existence?

even studying the events described in genesis may even help out in the matter.

If you poofed an apple into existence, I'd probe you *everywhere* to find out how you did it

Athrond

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How would "God did it" be a scientific explanation?

If it were derived from the available evidence. It's not, so it's not scientific.

Would it really matter?

If you want to call it a scientific hypothesis, yes. If you acknowledge that it's a religious, personal belief, then no.

Dispensation Theology says "no" --- and an atheist says in his heart that there is no God --- note: not in his mind, but in his heart --- thus no amount of evidence is going to convince him, even if God died on a cross and came back.

If memory serves, you have a different definition of 'atheist' than the rest of us. So I won't argue this point.

What you call "completely arbitrary and unsupported hypothesis", the Bible calls "many infallible truths."

I don't doubt that they may be true (I'm curious how truth can be anything but infallible), I'm just saying that their affirmation is indeed arbitrary and unsupported. Something can be both arbitrary and unsupported, yet still turn out to be true.

We could call you what the Bible calls you, but that would bother you too. Do you want us to lie?

Not at all. It's not the mud-slinging that's annoying, but rather the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

I long ago accepted that people aren't as rational as I'd like, and I'm not all that bothered about that people believe crazy things (thetans, indeed). Live and let live.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan, now can I play my trump card?

And God said, let there be apples.

 

[AV1611VET]

... (I'm curious how truth can be anything but infallible) ...

OOPS --- my bad --- I should have said, "many infallible proofs" ---

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

--- but your point still applies.

... I'm just saying that their affirmation is indeed arbitrary and unsupported. Something can be both arbitrary and unsupported, yet still turn out to be true.

It was supported back then, but the support, and the supporters, are now gone, thus faith takes over. Did you see the point I made in another thread that science today can't prove the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, let along prove the armada itself ever existed?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you poofed an apple into existence, I'd probe you *everywhere* to find out how you did it

Your humor aside --- I would conjecture that an attempt to do a search of a person who just materialized an apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo would not be the wisest of choices.