Do you have any way to support this claim, other than your unique interpretation of the Bible?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you have any way to support this claim, other than your unique interpretation of the Bible?Um ... did Shem know about the Jews?
The Chinese didn't exist when Canaan sired his children, who later became the Chinese.
You're putting the rickshaw before the runner.
You were there and watched it happen, were you?
No, he has god's written testimony. If he had been there, based on what we know about eyewitness testimony, he would have gotten it all wrong anyway.Did you watch God create the Earth?
Ya -- just like you guys use science to support science.So, you're using the Bible to support the Bible.
Cue Austin Powers.
"Some" miracles?
If you dont care for the word 'reject' then how about 'ignore", or, "do not in any way take into account" unfalsifiable / unverifiable claims or the paranormal.
I am not using theory to reject data. Theory gives reason to doubt the validity of some data...that is when it is nice to be able to confirm observations.
Using theory to reject data is for the theists.
A written account of alleged eyewitness observation of a miracle makes for "data" of such poor quality as to be worthless. But I guess you agree with that..."Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, we are allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory.
It doesnt qualify as an "anomaly"; you may think it happened, I dont.
I cant prove it didnt happen; you cant prove there is no chupacabre anomaly.
i reject the "data" from inclusion in any theory.
Really? They don't teach cell theory as true? They don't teach round earth as true? How about the theory that DNA is in a double helix? What do you teach them as?
Dunno your point here other than a exercise in rhetoric or maybe a put down of some sort.
Im not going to go thru explaining why a scientific theory cannot be proven.
The Chinese didn't exist when Canaan sired his children, who later became the Chinese.
You're putting the rickshaw before the runner.
We don't know what effects a global flood would have.
Or the global atmospheric conditions when it took place.
People do guess both the time and the conditions.
Having done that, then then insist it never took place according
to conditions that they made up.
But the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Chinese failed to notice they were flooded.
Yes. Didn't you read the criteria I gave for the "some"? For events in the past that leave evidence we can study today, then science can study those events. This applies to all one-time events. We can reject a global flood because it would have left evidence to today. But how about Hannibal supposedly bringing elephants over the Alps? No one has repeated the feat. So, did it happen or not? What you do is choose to believe the people who report it happened. Similarly, people choose to believe the people who report that the Resurrection happened. Science is non-committal about each.
It is not remotely "similar" to say the 'ressurection" happened. Not to pick on analogy as the thing to argue about but there is nothing "miraculous' about crossing the alps, nothing that requires a fundamental altering of the whole nature of reality.
Show me an event, miraculous in nature, that doesnt require 'choosing" to believe. (choosing to believe is a weird concept)
I told you the word to use: anomalus data.
Provide some examples of anomalous data that requires a supernatural explanation. Real data not say-so like j smith and his books.
It doesn't even do that. Data is used to evaluate theory. Theory is not used to evaluate data. If you are going to reject data, you must use some independent criteria to do so. If you want to reject the account of Hannibal and the elephants over the Alps, you must use (hypothetical) independent data from physiology that would say that the elephants could not endure the air pressure at that altitude. As I said, that independent data is hypothetical, but it gives you the idea of what "independent" is.
LOL! If only that were so. As you have demonstrated, it's also for atheists.
You seem fond of this idea that i reject data for theoretical reasons, its kind of a theme of yours. i dont. Lol yourself on this one.
No, I do not agree with "worthless". I said "anomaly". That doesn't make it worthless; it simply means the data is not intersubjective. As such, science cannot say whether it is, or is not, valid. Since we cannot say the data is valid, we are allowed to view it as anomalous.
Something that requires a miracle, you cant tell if it happened and leaves no trace of its occurance, and you call that anomalous data. i call it just -so stories. That is not data at all. You can view it as you like but that does not make it data, and it sure cant be incorporated into any theory. how worthless does something have to be / how many criteria for nonexistent, to qualify, in your book? .
You are reading into my data what your "theory" says should be there. Once again, using theory to reject data is not unique to theists. Thank you for so conclusively demonstrating that.
"thank you" indeed. Your data...? I think i missed it please repeat. I dont use theory to reject data. Im trying to figure out why you keep saying that, or what your angle is. Are you assuming that some miracles are true and then reverse engineering a way to fit them into reality?.
Now you are twisting "anomaly" out of its meaning. "2 : deviation from the common rule 3. something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified" That's exactly what the Resurrection is. And that was, of course, the case with the first hot air balloon. It was an anomaly; a deviation from the common rule.
Seems to me you is doing the twisting here, as you are including things that didnt happen. Where does the dictionary allow for that.
What is a "chupacabre anomaly"?
People make up stories that they have seen the chupacabre. So... what do you do with that 'data'?
I reject such (worthless) "data" about chupacabre from inclusion in any theory about life in the USA and what do you do...? Call it rejecting data because of theory. That is upside down and backwards.
And that you cannot do. You are back to rejecting data because of theory.
Very simple. You claimed that your school never taught any theory as "true". All those are theories. I'm trying to find out if your school never taught these theories as true. By your evasive answer, I infer that the answer is "no", that your school taught all those theories as true.
My dad would periodically explode while reading my high school science books. It may well be that this or that teacher claimed this or that theory was true. i mostly just sat at my desk with a book on my lap and ignored the class. I dont appreciate the use of the word "evasive" which i find to be demeaning and it is besides a gross mischaracterization, such as one tends to get from mindreading. i'd ahve gotten in a lot less trouble if i had made a habit in life of being evasive rather than confronting..
I think evolution should be taught as true. It has survived as much testing as those other theories, and has earned the position that it be taught as (provisionally) true.
OTOH, evolution cannot be taught as atheism.
I can do that if you want. Yes, strictly speaking, no scientific theory can be proven. The only proven statements in science are the negative ones; the disproved theories.
However, that does not stop us from teaching scientific theories as true. Or viewing them as true. For example, we all view Bernoulli's theory as true. After all, we all get on airplanes. We don't worry about "a scientific theory cannot be proven".
We learned it as the Bernoulli principle, not "theory".
And i certainly dont need you to to lead me to understanding the difference between "proven / demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt... which is where evolution for example is... and 'proven to be true. Of "proven to be false". Maybe you are addressing that to the larger audience. If so i am sorry to learn that you think it is legitimate to teach theory as fact. if you are some sort of teacher you are not doing anyone much of a service not making a proper distinction between theory and fact. My dad was a geologist, and as a scientist, he made sure i understood that the only time you talk about "facts" is something like 'its a fact that these are the data points I got".
I dont know who are the 'we' who dont worry about something so basic to the nature of the subject as the distinction between theory and proven fact, but i hope that doesnt represent the standards of any educational institution.
So, I'm having you draw a distinction from "strictly speaking" to "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".
This post, by far, is one of the best I have ever read.There are only 4 races red yellow black and white. Genitics were pure back then "small inbred family". Also the chinese had a name for a monotheistic God , but they no longer use it it got lost in one of their dynastys,and seperated from the common man. Also st. Thomas went to India 2,000 years ago. There still exists a church there founded by him. So I am a Young Earth Creationist.
There are only 4 races red yellow black and white. Genitics were pure back then "small inbred family". Also the chinese had a name for a monotheistic God , but they no longer use it it got lost in one of their dynastys,and seperated from the common man. Also st. Thomas went to India 2,000 years ago. There still exists a church there founded by him. So I am a Young Earth Creationist.
I am not trying to be rude, but is this serious?
There are only 4 races red yellow black and white. Genitics were pure back then "small inbred family". Also the chinese had a name for a monotheistic God , but they no longer use it it got lost in one of their dynastys,and seperated from the common man. Also st. Thomas went to India 2,000 years ago. There still exists a church there founded by him. So I am a Young Earth Creationist.
There are only 4 races red yellow black and white. Genitics were pure back then "small inbred family". Also the chinese had a name for a monotheistic God , but they no longer use it it got lost in one of their dynastys,and seperated from the common man. Also st. Thomas went to India 2,000 years ago. There still exists a church there founded by him. So I am a Young Earth Creationist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?