Why do Christians ignore the atrocities of the Old Testament?

peer review.

 

Which original inquiry? I have answered every one of your questions posed to me and you have ignored the answers, tossing them aside and just repeating the question over and over again until it seems like you'd be content to do so ad infinitum.

For what claim? Show me where I have made a claim and then said I could back it up with irrefutable proof. Can you do so? I think not since I'm certain that I have never said I could. I have already repeatedly told you that there is no such thing as proof when we used inductive reasoning on the natural world. This is exactly why you are intellectually dishonest. You keep demanding things out of me that I never claimed to be able to do, and you're pretending like you've already proven that such an act can even be feasibly done.

 

like this?

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/peer-reviewed-creation-journal/

 

When you stated "All I was saying was that people with degrees of science don't necessarily have very good knowledge about the epistemological goals of science," and I challenged you to provide irrefutable proof that "people with degrees of science don't necessarily have very good knowledge about epistemological goals of science." All you provided was rationalizations.... nothing intellectually honest... nor supported by any type of official documentation.

I never said that you could back it up with irrefutable proof. It is my contention that you cannot provide irrefutable proof. I am not pretending that any irrefutable proof can be found, thus the reason for my challenge. Knowing that you cannot provide such irrefutable proof. Therefore, your claims, any of them are no more nor any less meaningful than the claims made by any other person on this forum. If you cannot provide irrefutable proof, then that is the end of the game.

 

I am not pretending that any irrefutable proof can be found, thus the reason for my challenge.[/quote]

Well, then, your challenge was idiotic since I already admitted to this contention multiple times and YOU were the one that contended that it was naive of me to claim that irrefutable proof of a tornado striking a community was not possible.

The end of WHAT game? The game where you show that you have been entirely inconsistent with your contentions? That you know that I cannot provide irrefutable proof of my claim, but somehow still think that irrefutable proof can be found of a tornado hitting a community?

 

We don't have them, so for us, they don't exist.
What was the point of the nitpick? Did it prove something?
What we do know is your dedication to the "original manuscripts" is absurd.

 

You have that one bass ackwards. Keep things in context. If you are a witness to the tornado, then to you (as a witness) the proof is irrefutable, but your claim as a witness to another person would not be irrefutable, as the destruction might have been caused by any number of physical events in the perspective of the person to whom you made the claim. My challenge is not "idiotic" but shows the futility of such arguments about the existence of God, or God being responsible for this event or that event, or the existence of the Holy Spirit.... From the perspective of the witness it is irrefutable, but to the hearer of the claim, it is not irrefutable. You made claims about the intellectual capacity of people graduating from college, I challenged you to provide irrefutable proof. To you (from your perspective) many people graduate from college lacking in (what you refer to) preparedness for the professional world of science. You provided no proof other than your own declaration which is not proof of anything other than your own opinion.

The game of making claims that you cannot support in a manner that is irrefutable.

 

The point of the nit-pick as you call it is to pin point the difference in the statement. There are so many "absolute" statements that are made on this forum that I have to make sure I clarify my position.

what did it prove? it clarified the statement.

My dedication may be absurd to you, and some others, but there are many others, that do not find it that way. Bruce, we all have opinions, as long as we realize that they are just opinions.

 

Bruce tries to maintain an argument against the existence and discovery of the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls which in the Hebrew support the translations we have made into Armenian, English, etc.
Certainly those scrolls demonstrate the care, custody, and control of the writings during those two millennia and hence support the assumption of a reliability prior to that, over the previous 1.3 thousand years.

But more important, a lose reading of Genesis, for instance, shows that science now describes the same things ,with or without the sacred attachment to these writings.

 

How can you have a dedication to the truth of the originals if no one has ever seen them?
That is an opinion that should be given respect?
How did you achieve this dedication to a mirage?
Do you see the problem with having total confidence in something that noone can validate?

 

That is an absolute presumption. How do you know that no-one has ever seen them? Someone had to see them in order to do the first translation.

 

Not necessarily true.
See if you can figure out why.

 

Even your boy "bart ehrman", said no doctrine has been affected, by textual variants, and he's an educated scholar, and antagonist.
Then we have the dead sea scrolls.

I think the opinion should be given respect, but respect isn't a the final arbitar for me.

 

No! You are making the claim that it is not necessarily true, now explain your reasoning.

 

I'm not smart enough, you're going to have to explain it to me.

 

So testy, Incorporeal.
Quite simply, the original stories weren't in written form.

 

Textual variants compare existing manuscripts with each other. They have no relevance to existing manuscripts and the originals which can't be compared to.
What do the Dead Sea Scrolls prove regarding the content of the originals, except that they are probably closer than later manuscripts?

 

1) The entertain value could never be more important than it would be today.

The sensationalism of people coming forward would revive Christianity, by insisting that science now confirms what is written in Genesis, either factual and directly, or by a close comprehensive reading that demonstrates a INTENTIONAL use of metaphor to relate things thought impossible before this century.

More than that, the things which Genesis clearly stated and now confirmed by facts supports the idea of a divine source of such information.


2) Proving it is immaterial, since science merely theorizes and proves nothing.
The only outcome is that people who are rational and educated can decide whether the correspondences between facts of science and statements in scripture coincide.
This is a 180 degree diametrically opposite situation that people trying to show how science invalidates scripture.

 

You are right about that,,, they were oral traditions.. but guess what... those oral traditions got into written form... No-one today speaks the ancient languages that were used in the oral traditions and we are left with nothing more than the written forms. So, quite simply, the entire conversation is about the written forms.... NOT the oral traditions of which no-one living today knows and can validate.

 

Awesome!!!!!

"creationist scientists" right up there with military intelligence.

No not like that peer review. this journal amounts to a circle jerk. All the "peers" are in agreement as to the end result prior to reviewing whatever hilarious "creation science" paper crosses their desk.

Creationist scientists have had to establish their own research journals because mainstream science journals are tightly censored and closed against creationist ideas.

One does not peer review "ideas". Here is a ludicrous example of the nonsense they try to pass of as "science"

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/appalachians-eroded-by-receding-waters-of-noahs-flood/

First, the strata that make up the Appalachians were deposited during the first half of Noah’s Flood as waters were rising. The Flood occurred 4500 years ago, and the first half lasted about 150 days.

Second, the Appalachian Mountains were folded and formed by the Appalachian Orogeny (i.e. the Appalachian mountain-building event) which occurred about half way through the Flood, or just before. By this stage or soon after the whole earth would have been covered by water, including the North American continent.

The author is expressing completely unsubstantiated opinion. He accepts geological process, but not geological time and so tries to shoehorn an GSA scientific analysis into a biblical time frame.

That simply isn't science and no reputable scientific journal would publish such a ridiculous "idea".
Exactly the reason this creationist propaganda site had to be established.

 

I concur. Sort of reminds me of a former posting of mine where I gave a reasonable explanation of the distinction between the "creation" and the "manifestation" found in contrast between Genesis 1: 1-3 and the remainder of Genesis.

 

The "copies" are great.
Whether these "copies" differ from some original that you insist would be important, lets read those we have and see that, what they say is now supported by Sociology, Physical Science, Behavioral Sciences, Psychology, and current events.

 

Except I'm not sure you're truly understanding the distinction that should be made. There is a clear divergence between the belief that the proof is irrefutable and the actual status of the proof being irrefutable, one is subjective in nature and the other objective in nature. And maybe you should have made that distinction when you said this: "So you are now saying that when a tornado strikes a community, there is no irrefutable proof that such an event took place? How absurdly naive that statement of yours is," because obviously my my statement wasn't naive. There is no objective irrefutable proof and a subjective proof is not absolute since it rests on certain beliefs and assumptions.

And? Where does this information lead you next logically?

But I never claimed that I could provide such irrefutable proof. I already acknowledge that there is such a thing as the belief that there is a perception of absolute truth. So, we end up admitting that there isn't a way to come to an objective proof. So what do we do? We do the only thing that we can possibly do: use inductive reasoning to come as close to what we consider knowledge (the ability to create axioms that consistently predict the future).