Just an editing suggestion, Cooper. Perhaps you should say “Mormon scriptures” as the Mormon Bible is the KJV Bible.
hardcore posted 02-11-2000 11:46 AM
To which, batgirl posted 02-11-2000 11:49 AM in reply
Oh, the horrible irony of it! Now, batgirl, perhaps you’re aware of the Old Testament’s Book of Genesis, in particular verses 19, 20 and 22, which say (bolding mine):
So which was it? Did the dinosaurs take the trip with Noah or did they die in the flood in contradiction to the verses I just cited above?
What I am now wondering is why you don’t believe those verses (see your statement about “died in the flood”) yet defend the creation story as fact.
Posted by me:
Should read:
the BoM is a first-person account. In any event, do you believe that the Japanese are descended from Amaterasu? Judaism isn’t the only religion with an oral tradition.
**
I’m not sure David’s opinion is entirely off target:
Judaism: The event at Sinai presents such overwhelming evidence for Judaism that all the overwhelming evidence is completely trumped by it, and has to be accomodated through extreme intellectual gymnastics involving discarding Popperian falsifiability and Occam’s razor.
Mormonism: if the Mormons are descended from witnesses of a Sinai-like event, then I’ll have to ask my rabbis why it doesn’t measure up.
Why strain at the gnat and swallow the camel? What sort of evidence could the rabbis possibly produce that could be greater than the evidence against your beliefs?
While I’m here, I wanted to ask batgirl: any progress? also, what sort of research are you doing on my questions? ie are you looking up papers on the proteins in question in order to formulate your own explanation, or are you looking at creationist sources?
-Ben
I wanted to ask CMKeller something else:
do you believe in young-earth geology, or do you believe in a deceptively old-looking young earth? If you believe in the former, then why does the earth have a magnetic field?
-Ben Sandler
The young-earth creationists make a specific, testable assertions: The earth, and the universe as a whole, was created about 5600 years ago.
I’ve been through this thread twice, and I haven’t seen anyone on the pro side post any corroborating physical evidence to back up the assertion.
The only arguments I’ve seen resolve to either “abiogenesis is implausible, therefore the Bible must be true” and “the Bible contains some true statements, therefore everything in it must be true” both of which seem pretty obvious fallacies.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
Sorry, “assertion”
Single: You forget that the die-hard creationists completely discount any evidence to a millions of years old earth with “That was planted by God to test your faith.”
And I covered that one when I said that would mean the Universe is like an art forgery, something new made to look old.
What kind of people make art forgeries?
><DARWIN>
_L___L
I forget nothing. 
Discounting contradictory evidence differs from offering evidence in your favor.
I’m attempting to determine if YE-C proponents are offering a rational argument in favor of their asserion, or if they’re just trying to muddy the issue with logical flim-flam. To be fair, I try to view all scientific claims with such scepticism.
Note to YE-C proponents: do not tell me to read the Bible, I’ve read it. Do not tell me to do my own research. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim, you have the burden of proof.
And {bashful}Gee thanks guys!{/bashful} It’s nice for a newbie to be taken seriously!
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
jab1:
If the precipitation is cold enough, it could. There’s nothing in the scripture that necessarily indicates that water of uniform warmth fell. While it’s true that in normal conditions, the Arctic breaks up in the summer, that’s under conditions of several months of uninterrupted daylight. The odd weather conditions that prevailed during the flood might have prevented that.
Most of the waters were not natural, but were from a source referred to as “wellsprings of Tehom” Tehom is a Hebrew word which is usually translated as “depths,” but refers to some sort of primordial location, not any Earthly location (it’s referred to in the second verse of Genesis).
'Fraid I don’t know, but I can’t resist offering the following zinger for your next line:
Very, very slowly. 
Monty:
Not true. The claim to descent is key, since it makes it much less likely that the event could have been totally fabricated.
Let’s suppose, for example, that the Bible was a fake and was introduced to the Jewish nation several hundred years after the supposed events had occurred. Since it’s introduced as something that had happened to their ancestors, the natural reaction would have been, “Why didn’t dad/grandpa/etc. ever tell me about this?” and it wouldn’t have been accepted by the populace as, it turns out, it has been.
On the other hand, if the events described occurred to people with whom the readers of don’t have a direct connection, then it doesn’t have that question above applied to it. Either the audience believes the presenter of the story or it doesn’t.
Ben:
Beats me. As far as I know, why not? I believe all Jews (other than converts, obviously) are descended from Jacob/Israel.
Ben, I’m not a Rabbi myself. When it comes to questions of religion, I ask one, and this is a question related to religion. If I don’t find their answer satisfactory, I can deal with it as I choose. But I’m certainly not going to throw over the teachings of people I’ve known personally my entire life based on what some semi-anonymous person on a message board whose posts I’ve seen for a month without even consulting them to ask for their opinions.
All I can say to that is, you haven’t seen the kind of depth and wisdom contained in the Torah that I have been taught. I’m not going to try to encapsulate a dozen years of Talmudic studies on a message board. But do bear in mind that I do not discard the evidence of Earth’s age. I accommodate it. Admittedly, the logic seems a bit strained, especially to one who does not find the Torah and Talmud to be compelling, but the logic accommodates both sets of evidence rather than discards one for the sake of the other.
As I’ve said numerous times before, I’m in the latter camp.
Jab1:
Those who want the beauty of the art, but don’t feel the need to go through the process that the original artwork entailed.
Chaim Mattis Keller
What kind of people make art forgeries?
Criminals.
><DARWIN>
_L___L
< SIGH >
I just received an e-mail from a high school sophomore who said she (I think) saw my message on this board (didn’t say which message or which thread or anything) and wanted my help to point her towards research that would help her disprove “the Big Bang theory of evolution.”
First, we obviously have a reading comprehension problem here if she thinks I’m out to disprove either the Big Bang or evolution. Second, we have a basic failure in the understanding of science, considering that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
Man oh man oh man…
Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.
Incorrect. There’s apparently no problem, as you show with your comment “why not?” regarding the old Japanese claim to descent from a goddess, with folks accepting stuff that is obviously fable. More evidence for that can be found with the acceptance of the Greem myths and many myths around the world in other societies. Another interesting theory is that the original recipients of the story saw it as a really good, and a moral/ethical, story-lesson. Perhaps 'twas the folks who arrived on the scene later who decided it was the inerrant facts of the matter.
That should be “Greek myths” and not “Greem myths” above.
jab1:
No, people who sell art forgeries as real, or pass off other people’s work as their own are criminals. There’s nothing criminal about creating an imitation of, say, “The Scream,” including a document that says “This is an imitation,” rather than going through the bother and expense of obtaining the Munsch (sp?) original.
DavidB:
I can’t believe you’re sighing. Personally, I’m falling off my seat with laughter. 
Monty:
Well, I can’t claim to be intimately familiar with the Japanese legend, but the fact is that if the being in question was a physical creature, then it doesn’t fit my definition of “G-d” anyway. Judaism does recognize that there have, throughout history, been people who were capable of special magic (Pharaoh’s magicians, for instance) or might (e.g., Goliath the Philistine), so as far as I know, the Japanese could be descended from a single, extraordinary individual (or a pair thereof). So to me, your “obvious fable” could be “potential fact.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
CMK: Yeah, it is funny, but it’s also just so, I dunno, disgusting. I mean, this kid can’t even read enough of a lousy message to figure out which “side” I’m on – this is what constitutes research these days?
I have gotten a number of similar e-mails about the REALL website. Somebody will do a search for “psychic” and get a hit on one of our articles. Then, apparently without even bothering to read said article, they will fire off an e-mail to me asking if I can refer them to a good psychic so they can find their missing dog/child/whatever. I should create a canned response, but so far I’ve sent back e-mails saying that they are better off hiring a private detective if they feel they must do something above and beyond what the police are doing, because there is no such thing as a “good psychic.”
But I digress.
cmkeller:
I do not want this to sound too harsh, but I do not see that you have found a way to accomodate scientific discoveries with your religious faith. Your posts make it evident that your faith is unyielding and you warp or selectively discard scientific knowledge in order to fit your reconceptions. Now, you certainly have a right to view the world as you wish, and it is obvious to me that your faith is a vital part of your life. I wish you much happiness. But the word “accomodate” implies that the necessities of each viewpoint have been preserved, and that is not true if you abandon the idea that scientific observation reveals valid truths about the natural world.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Spiritus Mundi:
By “accommodate” I mean that I do not try to deny, as some have, the scientific proofs of age in the items in question, on the assumption that some day the whole system of radiocarbon dating will be proven wrong, Hallelujah. I mean that I grant the validity of the science, and assume that G-d made it that way for reasons of his own.
Chaim Mattis Keller