Where is your evidence creationists?

[mandyangel]

I could have looked it up, and 'put it in my own words.' But I'm a straight shooter, I will admit that I don't understand the complexities of the scientific method, but I do know that its something atheists point to as their EVIDENCE, I'm just saying that I believe its a sacred cow, thats all.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I could have looked it up, and 'put it in my own words.' But I'm a straight shooter, I will admit that I don't understand the complexities of the scientific method, but I do know that its something atheists point to as their EVIDENCE, I'm just saying that I believe its a sacred cow, thats all.

Well that is a refreshing honesty on this forum Mandy, I appriciate that.

Now then I can imagine that if you are unfamilour with it you might view it as just some dogma, I know I sometimes feel that way when a thread is derailed by math enthousiasts and they start posting all kinds of mumbojumbo saying 'drake equation proofs it' or whatever.

What I would like to do, is go over what the scientific methode is together.
Then afterwards you can either explain to me what makes it a sacred cow, or perhaps you will find that it wasnt after all.
That way either you or me will learn something from the exchange. Sound good? (Dont worry though, It will only take 5 minutes.)

 

[ianb321red]

My problem is that you showed no evidence.

Evidence for what? That the Bible is accurate?

Didn't I quote a half dozen non-religious historical sources that can be cross referenced to support the accuracy of The Bible?

Didn't I quote directly from "The Annals"?

Did you actually bother to read my post?
Please explain what "no evidence" means!!

And remember, I'm not bothered whether you accept the evidence or not...I'm justifying my argument and my position. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to accept what I consider to be evidence.

That fact is, that my position (and belief) is based on objective evidence. This means it's available for anybody to test and attest in order to challenge and disprove it. That's what objectivity means. It's not my own personal evidence.
So I repeat, until anyone can demonstrate convincingly that the evidence for The Bible is indeed inaccurate, then it holds that The Bible is an historically accurate account.

So the challenge remains - show me a more convincing alternative history than The Biblical one and then we can begin to have a proper discussion. Until you can do that you do not have a counter argument worth listening to.

 

[Fastener]

And remember, I'm not bothered whether you accept the evidence or not...I'm justifying my argument and my position. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to accept what I consider to be evidence.

That fact is, that my position (and belief) is based on objective evidence. This means it's available for anybody to test and attest in order to challenge and disprove it. That's what objectivity means. It's not my own personal evidence.
So I repeat, until anyone can demonstrate convincingly that the evidence for The Bible is indeed inaccurate, then it holds that The Bible is an historically accurate account.

So the challenge remains - show me a more convincing alternative history than The Biblical one and then we can begin to have a proper discussion. Until you can do that you do not have a counter argument worth listening to.

I agree with ianb321red, for me Robin Hood, Dick Tracey, Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur were all real people and untill you can prove to me with evidence that they were not I'm saying they were.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So the challenge remains - show me a more convincing alternative history than The Biblical one and then we can begin to have a proper discussion. Until you can do that you do not have a counter argument worth listening to.

Sure I'll start.
Jesus had a twin, the disciples were lied too.

How did I do?

 

[Greg1234]

I agree with ianb321red, for me Robin Hood, Dick Tracey, Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur were all real people and untill you can prove to me with evidence that they were not I'm saying they were.

Babe Ruth, Jefferson, Plato.

 

[Greg1234]

Sure I'll start.
Jesus had a twin, the disciples were lied too.

How did I do?

Francis Bacon was a sea shell. Me?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Francis Bacon was a sea shell. Me?

Still more believable than the biblical story.

 

[Greg1234]

Still more believable than the biblical story.

more believable than the materialistic stories

 

[Fastener]

more believable than the materialistic stories

Every time, that's why the not so smart are attracted to religion.
Don't think just believe and hand over the money.

 

[RickG]

Evidence for what? That the Bible is accurate?

Didn't I quote a half dozen non-religious historical sources that can be cross referenced to support the accuracy of The Bible?

Didn't I quote directly from "The Annals"?

Did you actually bother to read my post?
Please explain what "no evidence" means!!

And remember, I'm not bothered whether you accept the evidence or not...I'm justifying my argument and my position. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to accept what I consider to be evidence.

That fact is, that my position (and belief) is based on objective evidence. This means it's available for anybody to test and attest in order to challenge and disprove it. That's what objectivity means. It's not my own personal evidence.
So I repeat, until anyone can demonstrate convincingly that the evidence for The Bible is indeed inaccurate, then it holds that The Bible is an historically accurate account.

So the challenge remains - show me a more convincing alternative history than The Biblical one and then we can begin to have a proper discussion. Until you can do that you do not have a counter argument worth listening to.

I can't remember the source, but I do recall reading that the book of Daniel is believed to have been written after the events that were prophesied in it.

 

[ianb321red]

I can't remember the source, but I do recall reading that the book of Daniel is believed to have been written after the events that were prophesied in it.

It's impossible.
Qumran 4QDanc demonstrates this to some extent.
The following explains in more detail:

Dating the book of Daniel

 

[MoonLancer]

sorry but this image is wrong.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Ask a question --> Do background research --> Construct a hypothesis --> Test hypothesis --> Analise data --> Communicate results

anyway that image is just a poor copy of this

which i have not seen a rebuttal to btw

 

[mandyangel]

sorry but this image is wrong.

Steps of the Scientific Method

Ask a question --> Do background research --> Construct a hypothesis --> Test hypothesis --> Analise data --> Communicate results

anyway that image is just a poor copy of this

which i have not seen a rebuttal to btw

We've all got our charts. Very cool!!!

 

[MoonLancer]

We've all got our charts. Very cool!!!

no rebuttal? I'm not surprised.

 

[ianb321red]

no rebuttal? I'm not surprised.

I'll provide a rebuttal.

Your wheel of power chart is actually more relevant to the Qu'ran than The Bible.

The problem with the chart is that it assumes people believe The Bible simply because it claims infallibility. However a text can't claim to be infallible unless it be objectively validated to be so.

So The Bible can to be tested and proven to be infallible. It can't just claim to be infallible on it's own (like the Qu'ran does).

So the first error with the chart is with the connection between why people believe The Bible and the absolute claim of infallibility. Christians accept the infallibility of The Bible, not just because "The Bible says so..", but because it can be objectively proven to be infallible.
So the second error with the chart is that it excludes the very important and necessary steps taken to actually prove and demonstrate The Bible's infallibility - of which there are many I should add....

So the chart is overly simplistic and therefore gives the impression that Christians only believe in The Bible because The Bible says to believe in The Bible.

It filters out the abundance of objective evidence that can be demonstrated that the text is infallible. And it is because we can attest The Bible in this way, that the credence of infallibility can be established and applied.

No book or text can declared to be infallible just because the given book or text claims infallibility in itself.

Therefore it is not a circular argument or a process of self validation. The validation of the text in terms of historical accuracy, prophetical accuracy, Archaeological accuracy and so on exists outside of the biblical text and can be applied irrespective of religious belief or disposition. Basically, this chart was done by someone who probably isn't aware of textual criticism and/or historical methods.

 

[Fastener]

The validation of the text in terms of historical accuracy, prophetical accuracy, Archaeological accuracy and so on exists outside of the biblical text and can be applied irrespective of religious belief or disposition.

That must be why Christianity is the only religion in the world, hang on it's not is it? approx 5 billion people believe in religions other than Christianity don't they? I wonder why that is when it should be obvious to everyone that Christianity is the one because of it's historical, prophetical and archaeological accuracy, or could that be just be the opinion of it's believers.

 

[Greg1234]

I wonder why that is

There isn't one country, one language, one culture, one shoe to fit all.

 

[Fastener]

There isn't one country, one language, one culture, one shoe to fit all.

Therefore hundreds of religions, yours is just one of hundreds of right and true religions.

 

[WingsLikeEagles]

That must be why Christianity is the only religion in the world, hang on it's not is it? approx 5 billion people believe in religions other than Christianity don't they? I wonder why that is when it should be obvious to everyone that Christianity is the one because of it's historical, prophetical and archaeological accuracy, or could that be just be the opinion of it's believers.

No one will ever be "argued" into the Christian faith--faith leading to salvation is an act of God. The purpose of the historical, prophetical and archeological supports to the truth of the Bible are merely to come against the misrepresentations posed by the enemy of the souls of humankind. A barrier of lies turns many away before they are even able to study the claims of Christ. There is, in this world, the Kingdom of Light headed by our King Messiah and there is the Kingdom of Darkness. Sadly, a majority of humans have been so blinded by Satan (or their own sin) that they prefer the darkness "because their deeds are evil."