A short explaination of the human-nature

[2PhiloVoid]

It's other areas of science that are involved
in work that has disproved so much of
the Bible.

I'd rather say that various areas of science have simply disproved certain dogmatic interpretations of the Bible that are held by some people.

 

[Larniavc]

Does your son's Harry Potter book (like my son's Harry Potter books) point to an historic, ongoing social story of ethnic and ideological unrest between wizards taking place outside the text and upon the world stage?

Totally. The house elves are slaves, the goblins are hook nosed money lenders who command a significant control over wizarding finance. Wizards have a ruling elite that feather's there own nest, life extension magic is withheld from people considered 'impure'. Some folks even think it is really magical and therefor dangerous (like Dungeons and Dragons). I take it you haven't read the books.

But you know that was not my point. It was about factual things in a work of fiction (in this case the Harry potter books).

 

[Larniavc]

I'd rather say that various areas of science have simply disproved certain dogmatic interpretations of the Bible that are held by some people.

We can all agree with that, at least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Totally. The house elves are slaves, the goblins are hook nosed money lenders who command a significant control over wizarding finance. Wizards have a ruling elite that feather's there own nest, life extension magic is withheld from people considered 'impure'. Some folks even think it is really magical and therefor dangerous (like Dungeons and Dragons). I take it you haven't read the books.

No, I haven't read the books. I have seen all of the movies, however. And I used to play AD&D when I was younger.

I've also read aplenty of Marx and different shades of Neo-Marxism, both good and bad, when I was taking my Masters. So, your allusions aren't lost on me. I get what you're attempting to say.

But you know that was not my point. It was about factual things in a work of fiction (in this case the Harry potter books).

I know, I know. Some skeptical folks lately are calling it the "Spider-man fallacy." The thing is, that fallacy falls flat for someone like myself.

 

[Derf]

That's a deceptive claim.

Why?

Archaeology deals only with human
history. Like finding arrowheads or
excacavating ancient cities.

True.

It's probably true that no archaeological
discovery disproves any part of the Bible.

This is a significant admission on your part. Remember it.

It's other areas of science that are involved
in work that has disproved so much of
the Bible.

Disproved, no. Disagreed with? Yes. We've been talking about 1 aspect, the out of Africa theory, for which I've provided evidence, which you acknowledged, that has early humans in places outside of Africa earlier than those funds from inside. This doesn't confirm the bible's account, but it supports it, while starting to tear down the OOA account.

The accuracy of the text of the Bible is what is in question, against secular accuracy. The reason for bringing up archaeological topics is because those are much easier to confirm or refute with evidence. One of the oldest confirmations was the Hittite people. Archaeologists said there was no such group, and used such statements to say that the Bible was untrustworthy. Then they started finding evidences of the Hittites. Thus, the bible's veracity was confirmed (in that one area), while the archaeologists' veracity was undermined.

It didn't happen immediately, and neither will it with other disciplines, but it is progressing. If the Bible is highly accurate in the one area, and is truly the word of God, then it will be shown to be highly accurate in all areas, despite current claims to the contrary.

 

[Derf]

I don't think anyone would deny the Bible takes place on Earth. What archeological evidence is there for the supernatural claims of the Bible? Or the Noachian Flood. Or Exodus?

Evidence of the flood is all over the place. Go look at the Grand Canyon. The layer boundaries are way too even to allow for thousands of years between them, much less millions, without erosion. The answer from secular science?
"The story begins about 2 billion years ago when igneous and metamorphic rocks were formed. Then, layer upon layer of sedimentary rocks were laid on top of these basement rocks." (From Geology - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service))

"Sedimentary" means they were laid down by water. The straight lines indicate they saw no water or wind action for millions of years in their timeline, which is miraculous, if it happened.

The layers cross much of the N American continent. Such vast deposition requires that a lot of water covered a lot of the land at one time. You can say it took a long time, but the layer boundaries say different.

My son's Harry Potter book references London.

You're comparing a set of documents written over a 1500 year period by various authors about real life to Harry Potter? You're in the wrong forum.

 

[Larniavc]

The layer boundaries are way too even to allow for thousands of years between them, much less millions, without erosion.

Please show evidence of this.

 

[Derf]

Please show evidence of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 337970

It would be an amazing thing if all of that was carved out merely in the matter of about 5 or so weeks.

 

[Astrid]

Why?

True.

This is a significant admission on your part. Remember it.


Disproved, no. Disagreed with? Yes. We've been talking about 1 aspect, the out of Africa theory, for which I've provided evidence, which you acknowledged, that has early humans in places outside of Africa earlier than those funds from inside. This doesn't confirm the bible's account, but it supports it, while starting to tear down the OOA account.

The accuracy of the text of the Bible is what is in question, against secular accuracy. The reason for bringing up archaeological topics is because those are much easier to confirm or refute with evidence. One of the oldest confirmations was the Hittite people. Archaeologists said there was no such group, and used such statements to say that the Bible was untrustworthy. Then they started finding evidences of the Hittites. Thus, the bible's veracity was confirmed (in that one area), while the archaeologists' veracity was undermined.

It didn't happen immediately, and neither will it with other disciplines, but it is progressing. If the Bible is highly accurate in the one area, and is truly the word of God, then it will be shown to be highly accurate in all areas, despite current claims to the contrary.

It's no "admission" ( reluctant confession)
at all.
Archseoogy is limited in scope.
And failure to find a trace of anything
to confirm such as towr of babel, Sodom or
gomorrah, Exodus events etc doesn't disprove
them. Tho it could raise doubts for the non gullible.

As for disproof, polar ice alone disproves the flood.

It's silly to deny that.

 

[Astrid]

Evidence of the flood is all over the place. Go look at the Grand Canyon. The layer boundaries are way too even to allow for thousands of years between them, much less millions, without erosion. The answer from secular science?
"The story begins about 2 billion years ago when igneous and metamorphic rocks were formed. Then, layer upon layer of sedimentary rocks were laid on top of these basement rocks." (From Geology - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service))

"Sedimentary" means they were laid down by water. The straight lines indicate they saw no water or wind action for millions of years in their timeline, which is miraculous, if it happened.

The layers cross much of the N American continent. Such vast deposition requires that a lot of water covered a lot of the land at one time. You can say it took a long time, but the layer boundaries say different.


You're comparing a set of documents written over a 1500 year period by various authors about real life to Harry Potter? You're in the wrong forum.

Some sediments are deposited by water.
Sedimentary does not mean deposited by wate
You've no idea what you are talking about.
That's the smallest example.

Aeolian (Dunes) Landforms - Geology (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Derf]

It would be an amazing thing if all of that was carved out merely in the matter of about 5 or so weeks.

That wasn't my focus, but we could talk about it. It would be similar to other, observed canyons that have been carved out in a single incident, like a dam break. There's one near where I live. And Mt St Helens is a good one, because we know when the deposits happened, as well as when the canyon was carved.

 

[Derf]

It's no "admission" ( reluctant confession)
at all.
Archseoogy is limited in scope.
And failure to find a trace of anything
to confirm such as towr of babel,

Like ziggurats which are found all over the world...as if they all used to live in the same place??

Sodom or
gomorrah,

“All the observations stated in Genesis (about Sodom and Gomorrah) are consistent with a cosmic airburst,” says Kennett in the statement. (From Ancient City's Destruction by Exploding Space Rock May Have Inspired Biblical Story of Sodom)

Exodus events

Have you seen Patterns of Evidence, Exodus? Archaeologists have found remains of a village near the Nile delta populated by Semitic people, ruled by 12 elders, one of which is depicted in a statue as wearing a multicolored coat. The bones of the one are missing, but the other eleven were found.

etc doesn't disprove
them. Tho it could raise doubts for the non gullible.

Are you in that category? Or are you so gullible that no amount of evidence will convince you.

As for disproof, polar ice alone disproves the flood.

No it doesn't. It likely resulted at least partially from the flood.

It's silly to deny that.

It's silly to call people silly who don't agree with you.

 

[Derf]

Some sediments are deposited by water.
Sedimentary does not mean deposited by wate
You've no idea what you are talking about.

"Sedimentary" is first noted as being used in 1830, 2 years after Noah Webster published his first english dictionary. The word wasn't in it.

Interestingly, George Lyell happened to publish his treatise on Geology in, you guessed it, 1830, where he used the word over 50 times. He actually included it in the glossary with this definition:
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS are those which have been formed by their
materials having been thrown down from a state of suspension or solution in water.

That's the smallest example.

Aeolian (Dunes) Landforms - Geology (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

I certainly don't suggest that wind doesn't play a part in landscape formation. But once sand has accumulated, it requires either great heat or cementaceous action to turn it into rock. Maybe both in many cases. Water is by far the greater actor. Which gets back to the idea of great tracts of land covered by water. Sound familiar?

Here's what your link had to say about it:
Aeolian processes are responsible for the emission and/or mobilization of dust and the formation of areas of sand dunes. They largely depend on other geologic agents, such as rivers (water), glaciers (frozen water), and waves (water), to supply sediment for transport.

 

[Bobber]

It would be an amazing thing if all of that was carved out merely in the matter of about 5 or so weeks.

The world will never acknowledge this though. Anything which get any where near close to the Biblical narrative they'll run away from

 

[Larniavc]

View attachment 337970

That’s a picture. Which geological process are you claiming it evidences?

 

[Bradskii]

That wasn't my focus, but we could talk about it. It would be similar to other, observed canyons that have been carved out in a single incident, like a dam break. There's one near where I live. And Mt St Helens is a good one, because we know when the deposits happened, as well as when the canyon was carved.

You think that's a canyon, similar to the picture of the Grand Canyon you posted earlier? Good grief, that's the route the Lava from Mount Helens took. Did someone tell you that that's an example of water carving through rock? Tell me who said that. He lied to you. I need to tell him how wrong he is.

USA Washington State Mount St Helens tight shot of the slope of Mt Saint Helens showing the lava flow path Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: USA Washington State Mount St Helens tight shot of the slope of Mt Saint Helens showing the lava flow path - AX2913 from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You think that's a canyon, similar to the picture of the Grand Canyon you posted earlier? Good grief, that's the route the Lava from Mount Helens took. Did someone tell you that that's an example of water carving through rock? Tell me who said that. He lied to you. I need to tell him how wrong he is.

USA Washington State Mount St Helens tight shot of the slope of Mt Saint Helens showing the lava flow path Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: USA Washington State Mount St Helens tight shot of the slope of Mt Saint Helens showing the lava flow path - AX2913 from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

Creationists will always try and use Mount St. Helens' eruption as 'proof' that the Grand Canyon was formed in a majorly short amount of time... even though that the two things are demonstably different.
Physically, they are similar, but they are 100% not the same thing.

 

[Astrid]

The world will never acknowledge this though. Anything which get any where near close to the Biblical narrative they'll run away from

" acknowledging" something that is not true
is what flood advocates do.
So is running away.
Ignoring all data in favour of a chosen
narrative is exactly what intellectual
dishonesty is.
Examples are abundant in this thread.
Your claim against "the world" is unsubstantiated.

 

[Astrid]

Creationists will always try and use Mount St. Helens' eruption as 'proof' that the Grand Canyon was formed in a majorly short amount of time... even though that the two things are demonstably different.
Physically, they are similar, but they are 100% not the same thing.

Anyone could run a hose across loose soil
and quickly make a miniature canyon.
They'd have no luck trying it on solid rock.