Flood, literal or not?

theFijian · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Hey look if they've got his dental records then ignore everything I've said as I'm obviously wrong.

Known for their honesty were they?

FoeHammer.

Wow. Talk about clutching at straws.

FoeHammer · Feb 16, 2007

flatworm said:
We have the marked coffin. What do you have? Nothing.

WOW! a marked coffin, And that proves what exactly?

The ancient egyptians are known for keeping good records, yes.

So were the nazis.

On one side, we have a mummy, a coffin, and various contemporary writings on the reign of Tuthmoses III that don't mention him drowning in the Red Sea.

Which proves nothing.
[quote]On the other hand, we have the claim of some anonymous guy on the internet with an obvious bias.
Boy, that's a tough one.[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not going to waste 85 minutes of my life to be fed another list of PRATTs.

Changed your mind and watched it did you? Checked out his claims and found them false?

Added: Remember, for the ancient egyptians, the pharaoh was a god.....

How gullible they must have been.

..... Substituting some shmuck's body for his would be akin to the Catholic church hanging a painting of the Raptor Jesus over the altar in St. Peter's.

If they had a mind to... who knows?

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer · Feb 16, 2007

grimbly said:
Blah, blah, blah...

Careful how you answer this because it may force you to actually think.

As opposed to being told what to think eh?

FoeHammer.

Psudopod · Feb 16, 2007

As opposed to being told what to think eh?

So, active studing evidence is being told what to think, but substituting "goddidit" to a vaild model of reality is being open minded?

Beastt · Feb 16, 2007

It's too bad this has to be pointed out so often but, whenever reality disagrees with a book, it is the book which is wrong. Reality simply can't be wrong. Reality shows that there was no global flood as claimed in the Bible. It shows that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. It shows that there is no validity to the concept of prayer.

Reality is correct for it can't be other than correct. The Bible is wrong.

flatworm · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
WOW! a marked coffin, And that proves what exactly?

So were the nazis.

Which proves nothing.

I know the game you're playing. I call it the argument from crisp sets. It's a feeble attempt to justify ignoring the weight of the evidence.

The argument from crisp sets goes like this: Set up three sets- ideas that are absolutely proven true, those that are absolutely proven false, and one big bin for all the "not absolutely proven" ideas. Then you take your opponent's position, which unless it is a theorem in mathematics or symbolic logic, can never be proven absolutely, and toss it in the "unproven" set. Take your own position, which no matter how ridiculous cannot be absolutely disproven, and toss it in the same bin. Claim the two are somehow on par with each other.

In reality the middle set is quite a broad spectrum ranging from the ridiculous to the obvious. To claim that your ideas are on par with real egyptology is like saying the idea the Queen of England is really a reptilian alien is on par with the idea she is a human being.

You can rant and rave but in the end we have real archeological evidence on one hand and the say-so of some anonymous guy with a religious agenda on the other.

Changed your mind and watched it did you? Checked out his claims and found them false?

I was referring to you.

How gullible they must have been.

Awww, did the mean old Ancient Egyptians not support your fantasy?

If they had a mind to... who knows?

FoeHammer.

That's the point- they most definitely did not have a mind to.

BeamMeUpScotty · Feb 16, 2007

If you, as a literalist, believe that God caused the flood to happen through a series of (thousands upon thousands) of miracles, then stop there. Don't try to then prove that the flood could happen via natural means (i.e., there was enough water, room on the ark, food, etc...). God intervening through miracles to 1) have Noah be able to build the ark and collect all the animals and food; 2) cause the flood; and 3) erase all evidence of 1 and 2 is the only way the flood could have happened.

It might have been posted before in this thread, but even so it would be good to repeat it. Here is a thorough refutation of Noah's ark:

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
by Robert Moore

thaumaturgy · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
As opposed to being told what to think eh?

FoeHammer.

Foe, you are not alone with this sort of comment but it is annoying me quite a bit. In the past couple weeks I've heard a number of like-minded individuals claim that those who support science are merely parroting what they were told and clinging it to for no other reason.

Please, let's drop this line! Religion is nothing BUT an appeal to authority.

Religion can be nothing but this because there is no way to verify the statements or interpretations.

This line of attack by creationists needs to be stopped.

Let's clarify a few points:

As a research chemist I may not be out in the field every day checking all known data about everything known to humanity. But, as a scientist, I have been involved in producing, gathering, interpreting and vetting data as a peer-reviewer for a couple of journals. So I know what goes into make a scientific claim.

If I so desire I can check and re-check every investigators' work known to humanity. If the paper was published it included a clear description of how the data was gathered and is totally open to being reinvestigated.

Religion is competing interpretations of, usually, ONE holy book of unknown provenance coupled with people's "feelings" or "hallucinations" or "inspirations"

Don't tell scientists they simply doing what they are told to do, unless you have experienced science that way. Believe me, the rest of us who DO science for a living know it ISN'T like that.

So let's please stop calling scientists automatons who merely parrot authority, shall we?

theFijian · Feb 16, 2007

Beastt said:
Reality is correct for it can't be other than correct. The Bible is wrong.

Rather, the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible is laregely wrong.

grimbly · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
As opposed to being told what to think eh?

FoeHammer.

And with that one sentence you have demonstrated to this board your profound IGNORANCE about science. You must be feeling pretty proud right about now.

MrGoodBytes · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
WOW! a marked coffin, And that proves what exactly?

It proves nothing. Knowing that the ancient Egyptians revered their pharaos as gods and knowing that burying an impostor in the Pharao's coffin would have been completely unthinkable, however, strongly indicates that the mummy in question is really the pharao and nobody else. Especially when the alternative is preferring hebrew folklore over 200 years of archeology.

So were the nazis.

Indeed. That's why we know how many people died in their euthanasia programs, what property they confiscated from the Jews and so on. Oh, did you have a point?

Which proves nothing.

Nobody here is looking for proof. We are looking for evidence.

Beastt · Feb 16, 2007

theFijian said:
Rather, the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible is laregely wrong.

Well, if you're prone to reading what the Bible says and then changing everything to mean something other than what it says, you're utilizing a technique which could be used to make the argument that "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is all 100% true.

It's a predominantly dishonest way to read anything. Even "Peter Pan" comes out as a true and even a religion if we apply sufficient degrees of non-literal reading to the text.

But as long as you're going to mention the dreaded "literalism", where one actually reads what the words say; what's your take on the Bible's claim of a global flood? What specific words do you twist/change/avoid to try to salvage the Bible from it's obvious errors regarding the story?

Jadis40 · Feb 16, 2007

theFijian said:
Rather, the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible is laregely wrong.

Not only that...but they say that the Genesis account of creation is 100% literal, then say that 7 literal churches in Revelation are symbolic...but that's a whole different debate.

FoeHammer · Feb 16, 2007

grimbly said:
And with that one sentence you have demonstrated to this board your profound IGNORANCE about science. You must be feeling pretty proud right about now.

What has being told what to think by the catholic church got to do with science?

FoeHammer.

grimbly · Feb 16, 2007

FoeHammer said:
What has being told what to think by the catholic church got to do with science?

FoeHammer.

Well I see your as ignorant about religion as you are about science. Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool rather than open it and prove them right.

Now do you want to defend that tripe found on the videos YOU recommended people watch or just admit that you're one of the gullible rubes taken in by his flim-flam.

We await your brilliance.

Beastt · Feb 16, 2007

Maybe a tad harsh?

theFijian · Feb 19, 2007

beastt said:
Well, if you're prone to reading what the Bible says and then changing everything to mean something other than what it says, you're utilizing a technique which could be used to make the argument that "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is all 100% true.

Or rather if take a more mature approach and decide that the genre and received context of the literature should determine it's meaning then you are letting it speak for itself rather than forcing a contemporary meaning onto it. The Hitchhikers comparison is therefore a little over simplistic. Higher textual criticism has brought a lot to biblical hermeneutics over the last century, but then if you're predisposed against taking the Bible seriously then you're not going to consider these things. But of course this is more for GA.

FishFace · Feb 19, 2007

theFijian said:
Or rather if take a more mature approach and decide that the genre and received context of the literature should determine it's meaning then you are letting it speak for itself rather than forcing a contemporary meaning onto it. The Hitchhikers comparison is therefore a little over simplistic. Higher textual criticism has brought a lot to biblical hermeneutics over the last century, but then if you're predisposed against taking the Bible seriously then you're not going to consider these things.

Indeed. The "genre and received context" would be, "Some stories and poems written down by a bunch of peasants a few thousand years ago, onwards."

Flood, literal or not?

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Godspeed, Spacebat

Legend

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Seeker for life, probably

Legend

Senior Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency