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.
Well, my post was a direct response to this:
But I forgot that christians often work to "lessen God's harvest and destroy God's people". They are obviously not True Christians™.
I get what you’re saying. Really, I do. I don’t profess to be terribly intelligent nor to be right about everything. Heck, I’m not even sure about my grammar half the time. I’m not the one claiming to have direct communication with the creator of the universe and again, I’m not calling you a liar. I have considered your position and given it the credence it merits, which is none since you admit you cannot support it beyond your own word which contradicts empirical evidence.I think you should consider the possiblility that what I say is true, simply because I have no reson to lie about it, nor have you suggested one as a possibility. I'm not in it for the money, I'm not trying to convert you, I simply made a claim that it was confirmed for me that it is true. You being an atheist, I don't really expect that you would believe that. However, I'm not just talking to you personally, but to many people.
Many people who are not atheist and think differently than you do, know that God does give people words of knowledge, and revelations of truth. They may see the videos, be unsure about it, but read what I have written about it, and they already may know that God works in these type of ways many times...so could find it an acceptable confirmation. Scripture say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, the truth shall be established.
So there you have it. The atheists wont believe it, and others might. But just because you personally do not believe it, or believe in God...is no reason for you to be stiff-necked about it as if, you're right about everything and that's that. That's a fairly arrogant attitude to have. You not believing it, doesn't establish that it is untrue.
The evidence for evolution. There are libraries and internet databases full of it. You can start with a simple Google search but it would also be useful to visit your local library and ask a librarian to show you a few entry level books on the subject.What empirical evidence would that be?
I'm not selling a book. I'm not selling a CD. I'm not making a claim about having a special ability. I'm making a claim that I know Ron Wyatt is credible.
Support your claim that he is not.
Hung up on it? Yes and No.Boy, you are really hung up on that critical thinking stuff.
Well, you haven't told me how you establish facts. You haven't even defined "fact", that I recall. For the record:We don't agree on what establishes a fact, that's all. Your facts must be able to be proven in a test environment. My facts do not always have to be established in a test environment. I know better than that.
1. I don't have a religion. Religions seem to require a significant element of faith. Science, fortunately, when practiced correctly, has no need of faith.It sounds as if science is your religion. Anything outside of science is wrong. And scientists never lie for the money...okayy...
If these "facts" are not testable then they are not objective. You seem to have a very loose definition of critical thinking.Some facts that have been established for me, in a non-testable way, are still established facts and truth. This takes it into objectivity and critical thinking.
Have I said anything to the contrary? "Truth", which I'll take for the moment to be equivalent to "well supported theory" is very often stranger than fiction. J.B.S.Haldane famously remarked "The world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine".The truth is stranger than fiction brother. and if you can't grasp that, then we're unlikey to ever agree on anything. It may sound like foolishness to you...but that doesn't mean it is.
If these "facts" are not testable then they are not objective. You seem to have a very loose definition of critical thinking.
In passing, I'll note that science does not concern itself with "truth". It is too abstract a concept and too prone to emotive, subjective claims.
Nope. I never claimed to have a special ability. I do not have any special abilities. That is just something that God has done for me in the past, and never has it happened because of my own volition.
Ron Wyatt has been attacked over this because there is a real spiritual war going on, so people who speak truth will be attacked and denounced in an effort to lessen God's harvest and destroy God's people. Take that for what you will, but it is the truth.
That's my point. Ron is credible.
Fair enough, but you were the one to bring this up in defense of Ron Wyatt.
As I pointed out earlier, at lot of the criticism he has received are from other Christians including creationist organizations. And if you look at their arguments, this isn't about some 'spiritual war'. It's simply about Wyatt's claims to have discovered basically every single important Biblical find ever with nothing substantial to back them up. They are simply calling him out on it.
Remember what I said earlier about different standards of evidence? This nicely illustrates it.
You watched some Ron Wyatt videos, had a "feeling" and decided that you believe it. But if you ask me, that's a pretty weak standard for evidence.
If Wyatt had really discovered everything he's claimed to have, he'd probably be the most celebrated amateur archaeologist in the history of amateur archaeology. Biblical scholars from around the world would be heralding his discoveries as the greatest Biblical finds of all time.
And yet, when you start to dig into his claims, you'll quickly find they evaporate. There is nothing substantive to back up anything he has claimed to have found. Consequently, a lot of people, particularly those involved in archaeology, Biblical scholarship, and even other creationist organizations consider him a fraud.
Well, you haven't told me how you establish facts. You haven't even defined "fact", that I recall. For the record:
- I do not require that facts be proven in a test environment.
- I look for assertions to be supported by the balance of evidence
- I require that if assertions are disproven in any environment that they be discarded.
- I'm less interested in facts (which are as slimy as eels) and more interested in finding the most plausible explanation for observations.
You may believe you "know better than that", but I've always valued a strong measure of self doubt. It's a tool in ones critical thinking tool kit.
1. I don't have a religion. Religions seem to require a significant element of faith. Science, fortunately, when practiced correctly, has no need of faith.
2. Science has a restricted field of study. It has nothing to say on matters outside that field of study. If you believe otherwise you are mistaken.
3. I have never claimed that scientists don't lie for money. However, I cannot think of any instance where this has been demonstrated. I would be interested to learn what examples you have. Some scientists do lie for recognition, or because they abandon their scientific principles and seek to "prove" something they believe based on faith that "they know better".
At any rate, such a claim is irrelevant since the scientific method is well designed to correct for inappropriate subjectivity, deceit and error.
Sounds kind of like you are.So I didn't just watch Ron's video and say Ohhh he found it.
Actually, what you've described as your heuristic for accepting Wyatt's claims is the exact opposite of skepticism. It comes across as implicit gullibility.There's a lot more to it than that. I'm more skeptical than you realize.
No...you're atheist so no wonder you don't believe anything.
You'd think so, wouldn't you...and yet he's not. Wow, I wonder why? because Satan has people out working for him when they believe that they're working for God. Oh the irony of it...but it's true.
And I was skeptical so did dig into his claims. Do you know how many oh we found the ark of the covenant videos are on Youtube? A lot. I've watched at least most of them. I didn't get "that feeling" of truth when watching anyone's video about the Ark...except Ron Wyatts. So...there you have it.
Wyatt has never produced one shred of evidence to support his claims, yet you're willing to accept it because of a feeling. Could have been heartburn for all you know.
I don't know how you define "scientist". I am not a scientist, but I have an honours degree in Geology, I worked as such in the oil industry for a few years before moving into engineering disciplines - they tend to employ many of the same principles.1. Oh-ho-ho, I disagree. Science does so require faith. Unless you are a scientist yourself, then you have to put your faith into the scientist and accept his word that he speaks the truth. Are you a scientist? I'm guessing no. Me either. Ok then. You just have your fav scientists who you trust sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
First of all, I don't consider myself an 'atheist'.
Second of all, you have no idea what I believe or why I believe it.
What if Satan had Ron Wyatt has working for him? What if you've been hoodwinked? Would you even know?
Watching a bunch of Youtube is not "digging" into his claims.
If you really wanted to verify his claims, you'd do so by searching for independent confirmation of his finds by reputable archaeological sources. Have you tried that?
I don't know how you define "scientist". I am not a scientist, but I have an honours degree in Geology, I worked as such in the oil industry for a few years before moving into engineering disciplines - they tend to employ many of the same principles.
In those scientific disciplines I am interested in I am quite capable of assessing the quality of published research. No faith is required. For those disciplines I have less grounding in I have confidence in the effectiveness of the peer review system to ferret out the most egregious errors in most cases. And frankly, in these fields, the basic question "what simplifications have been made" is powerful in suggesting what weight should be given to the study's conclusions.
Put another way. If I have any favourite scientists it is because they have demonstrated an ability to ask and answer interesting questions. Part of that demonstration lies in the presentation of the data and the analyses in a clear and convincing manner, accessible to me, or anyone with minimal science training. Faith could hardly be further away.
First the trivia. I mean - in British vernacular an honours degree, not an honorary degree.That's good I guess as far as that goes, and I can recognize and give validity to a certain amount of intelligent understanding to you for those reasons. However, as you yourself said, science is many specialized areas and you're not specialized in anything beyond geology. Perhaps not even geology. I'm not entirely sure how much academic accolades that an honorary geology degree would have...or did you mean a degree, with honors, in geology?
First the trivia. I mean - in British vernacular an honours degree, not an honorary degree.
Now the main points:
Of course geology is itself sub-divided into further disciplines. Off the top of my head and in no particular order we could consider stratigraphy, sedimentology, petrology, palaeontology, micropalaontology, geochemistry, historical geology, geomorphology, geophysics, geochronology, mineralogy, tectonics, vulcanology, petrography, tectonics, petroleum geology, economic geology, structural geology, crystallography, regional geology, seismology, engineering geolgy, etc.
And each of those has subdivisions. A palaontologist will likely specialise in one class, such as the Cephalopoda, or more likely a sub-class, such as ammonites. Within those he will specialise further perhaps in terms of studying their role in the ecology, or their evolution over time, or their role as index fossils, or the ammonites of a specific, restricted geological age, or geographical location. One of my teachers had chosen to specialise in sexual dimorphism in ammonites.
So how could I, or anyone, hope to understand the incredibly granular, detailed research that would emerge from such specialisation? Simple. Only three things are required:
(If you wish to get picky, you could say focus translates into hard work and a sound technique for reading and absorbing the literature, whether textbook, or research paper.)
- Knowledge of the vocabulary
- Understanding of the scientific method
- Focus
Now returning to the heart of our discussion, we have two alternate approaches.
Your Approach: base a lot of your positions on what you know is the truth.
My Approach: take advantage of the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of individuals who are and were much smarter than I.
Are you surprised I should opt for the second approach? I don't trust my own observations and intuitions. Why on Earth should I accord any weight to yours?
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?