"Just Religious Truth" (whatever that means)
Ray Martinez
religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
truth.
Where does the Bible say this ?
Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
obviously records real history ?
Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
it across the board and uniform ?
I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
with archaeological facts:
Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
and only "religious truth"
Ray
Frank Sullivan
day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
borderline nihilism.
But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
trust."
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137023856....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> religious truth".
Would Ray be so kind as to produce a single instance where I, or anyone
else, has made such an assertion? I wouldn't want to accuse Ray of saying
something he knew to be false.
> This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> truth.
The writing of the Bible is not physical evidence, which is the only
evidence any science ever uses. There is no "scientific truth", in the
same sense as "religious truth". All science is provisional.
>
> Where does the Bible say this ?
The Bible doesn't say anything about science, because science was not
invented until long after the Bible was written down.
>
> Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> obviously records real history ?
That appears to be your problem. The Bible does not "obviously" record
"real" history. "History" as a dicipline did not exist at the time of the
Bible either.
>
> Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> it across the board and uniform ?
Actually, it's the other way around. Creationists accept science, except
where it conflicts with their belief that the Bible is inerrant. The
Bible's statements regarding historical, or scientific matters are regarded
as irrelevant to scientific investigation, unless they can be corraborated
by the physical evidence.
>
> I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> with archaeological facts:
>
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
>
> Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> and only "religious truth"
That the Bible does contain elements of actual historical import is
not in dispute. It was, after all written partly as a chronicle of the
past, as the Hebrews saw it.. What I've been saying all along is that
unless one can find physical cooraboration, any historical and/or scientific
claims the Bible should be treated as any other unsupported text from the
time period. People from that day were not any less intelligent, or any
less able to observe events, and record them. What's different is that
today historians make pains to determine the veracity of historical records,
and don't give undue credence to oral tradition passed on over many
generations.
The Bible was written from a particular point of view, by a number of
individuals, over hundreds of years. It was written in a time before
"history" as we understand it today existed, and long before there was any
kind of scientific process applied to natural phenomena. What we would
consider today to be "legend" or "myth" was often included in such
chronicles, without anyone considering the historical accuracy of those
statements. This is not a failing of the people involved in writing down
the books of the Bible, is was just the way things were written down at the
time.
That doesn't mean that nothing in the Bible can match with modern history
or modern science. As I said above, the people of the time the Bible was
written were intelligent people, who were just as capable of observation as
people today. What they lacked (in modern terms) is the modern
investigative tools we use today, which were not available to them.
Expecting the Bible to be completely accurate in history or in science is
expecting far too much from the text. It would be like expecting them to
have everying written on computer discs, which they did not have, and would
not have known how to use.
DJT
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> truth.
The Bible isn't a science book. It's a rich mixture of histories,
myths and other stories.
> Where does the Bible say this ?
>
> Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> obviously records real history ?
The people who wrote the Bible had political and societal axes to grind
as well. Certainly they reported on real events, but sometimes with
their own spin. (Like the saying that the victors write the history
books.)
> Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> it across the board and uniform ?
Again, the Bible is not a science book. If observed reality refutes
something written a couple thousand years ago by someone who was
semi-ignorant, what's the problem?
> I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> with archaeological facts:
>
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
>
> Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> and only "religious truth"
I'm curious why you need "evidence" that your religious beliefs are
"correct." Is your faith that weak?
Chris Thompson
What is "real history"? If you spent any time at all looking at history,
you would realize it is only presented through the eyes of humans.
"Real" history- in the sense of pure objective factual history, is so
rare and so boring that it's almost meaningless. Living history, on the
other hand- the history of the people, the places, the ways people and
places shaped events- is absolutely fascinating.
You want to freeze history into your version of truth. It cannot be
done. History is more than someone smiting someone else. It's the story
of lives and deaths and everything in between.
Chris
Nick Keighley
> TEists
could you expand your acronym? What does TE mean? According
to google its either part of a New Zealand place name or something
to do with Taoism.
TEism gave me something in Swedish(?? wild guess) "Teism (av grek.
theos "gud"), tron på en transcendent och personlig Gud som skapat
världen och agerar i historien."
this actually makes more sense than some of the stuff I've seen on TO
(talk.origins- a news group) recently
> like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> religious truth".
I've not seen this term "religious truth". The Bible is not generally a
good
source to be used on its own. Nor is any historical text.
> This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> truth.
"sigh". The Bible is of great historical importance. But without
support it cannot be taken as "truth". Nor can any other document.
The term "Darwinian scientific truth" makes no sense. Darwin
published a book describing a scientific theory concerning the
diversity of life. Is this what you are referring to? There has been
huge amount of research since Darwin, and the "modern synthesis"
that is modern evolutionary biology is vastly expanded (and
supported) beyond Darwin's foundations.
Compare Newton's Pricipia (spelling? - rubbish) with the
"Newtonian Physics" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Just accept that science is not a variation on religion and has
very different standards of proof. Science actually has to *work*.
Do you pray before you post something to a news group. Surprise me!
> Where does the Bible say this ?
>
> Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> obviously records real history ?
?? seriously?
> Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> it across the board and uniform ?
the test is normally drawn where you can demonstrate something to
be true or not. Do apples fall? Yep. Did the Red Sea part? Yes? How
do you know? Did the sun halt? Yes? How do you know?
> I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> with archaeological facts:
>
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
>
> Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> and only "religious truth"
--
Nick Keighley
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and
orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and
this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and
experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an
unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things,
claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should
do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest
the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
I would never laugh to scorn a Christian
Ray Martinez
Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
evidence - why ?
Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
Bible.
The link contains better quality physical evidence proving the Bible
than the entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution.
Ray
MrSpooky
Christianity? I love a discussion about Theism-Atheism myself (I
taught a "Philosophy of Atheism" class in Berkeley recently) but dear
god, this is a forum about EVOLUTION. Take it to alt.atheism if you
wanna discuss this stuff.
Ray Martinez
Giant evasion of physical evidence corroborating many Biblical events.
What Darwinists are proving is their well known bias and admitting the
only physical evidence they will recognize is a limited amount, and it
has to be supportive of their starting biases or it aint evidence =
Darwinian fundamentalism - the same business on the other side of the
street.
Ray
Ray Martinez
VoiceOfReason wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> > religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> > from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> > truth.
>
> The Bible isn't a science book. It's a rich mixture of histories,
> myths and other stories.
>
Mandatory atheist philosophy.
Why have you evaded the link ?
> > Where does the Bible say this ?
> >
> > Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> > obviously records real history ?
>
> The people who wrote the Bible had political and societal axes to grind
> as well. Certainly they reported on real events, but sometimes with
> their own spin. (Like the saying that the victors write the history
> books.)
>
Everyone has an axe but this atheist-Darwinist.
> > Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> > it across the board and uniform ?
>
> Again, the Bible is not a science book. If observed reality refutes
> something written a couple thousand years ago by someone who was
> semi-ignorant, what's the problem?
>
Straw man totally evading the OP.
Why ? = inability to refute.
> > I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> > with archaeological facts:
> >
> > http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
> >
> > Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> > and only "religious truth"
>
> I'm curious why you need "evidence" that your religious beliefs are
> "correct." Is your faith that weak?
Atheist rhetoric.
Dishonest answer evading physical evidence that proves O.T. history.
Faith is based on the facts contained in the Bible.
All in all we have a Darwinist not wanting to acknowledge the OP facts.
Darwinian pleas asking for evidence proving the Bible turns out to be a
sham as we all knew from the get-go.
Romans 1:18 is true "....who suppress the truth" talking about
Darwinists/atheists and theists who make atheist conclusions.
Ray
Frank Sullivan
Ray, a Creationist who speaks about others in the third person, has
missed the point. The point isn't whether or not the evidence is
physical. The point is whether the evidence that some of the Bible
speaks of a true history can be taken to mean that all of the
non-historical context in the Bible can be considered to be true. I
contend that, if we find good evidence that there really was a Trojan
War someday, we should not take that to mean that Iliad is a true
narrative. Similarly, if it turns out that some of the names and places
in the Bible are real (which, no doubt, they are), we should not accept
that as proof that the supernatural claims in the Bible are correct.
Again, I'm not saying the evidence is fake. I'm saying it doesn't mean
what you claim it means.
The "eyewitness testamony" comment was in reference to one of Sean's
earlier posts, and I don't think I've misrepresented it (tell me if you
think I'm wrong).
Frank Sullivan
Again, corroboration of historical names and places in no way
constitutes evidence for supernatural claims. It is only evidence that
the names and places mentioned in the Bible are real.
> Ray
Frank Sullivan
evidence which suggests that the names and places mentioned in the
Bible refer to real people and places. Or, in some cases, real myths
held by people at the time. No one here is going to swallow your b.s.
assertion that these facts prove the supernatural claims made by the
Bible. You have failed to establish that link.
Ray's evasion of this issue ? = inability to refute.
Delaware Dave
> with archaeological facts:
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancie...
I viewed the link. Some beautiful artifacts, some of which seem to
cooraborate some passages in the Bible - but nothing more.
Evidence that _some_ accounts in the Bible represent *actual history*
is not evidence that _all_ accounts in the Bible represent *actual
history*.
Cheers,
Delaware Dave
hbar...@troy.edu
"This site is Powered by Jesus Christ with the help of PHP, Javascript,
Flash, Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe, Echo-inc.com, Software.com,
Newtek, ZDNet, Google and More...WITH GRATEFUL APPRECIATION"
Tell you what, you go find some REAL archaeological evidence, not
powered by JC, and then we'll talk. OK?
HB
Chris Thompson
Why is the physical evidence in the Bible true, but fossils lie?
Chris
Shane
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> TEists
>
> could you expand your acronym? What does TE mean? According
> to google its either part of a New Zealand place name or something
> to do with Taoism.
Ray generally uses TE as shorthand for Theistic Evolutionist, for
example, a chrisitian who supports evolution. It is also possible that
he uses it ocassionally for Theory of Evolution.
I think it is fair to say that whilst Ray has very little time for
straight evolution, he has a particular dislike for theistic
evolution, as he feels its proponents are two faced in that on the one
hand they profess god, and then on the other deny him with their
support of evolution.
Yes I know this position of Ray's has many issues, but sadly Ray does
not acknowledge them.
I hope I have reflected Ray's position accurately here, but I am sure
he will correct me if I am in error.
[...]
--
Shane
Shane
I suspect that Ray posts this sort of stuff here because he actually
gets treated with a reasonable degree of respect. Sure some people fly
off at him, but generally the threads do not degenerate too far. My
brief forays into alt.atheism have shown me that the level of
discourse there is not nearly so polite. I suspect that Grendel and
muldoon etc. have also learnt the same thing.
My two cents.
--
Shane
A.Carlson
wrote:
>TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
>religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
>from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
>truth.
>
>Where does the Bible say this ?
Why does the Bible have to say something for it to be true? Why can't
conclusions simply be drawn from comparisons of what is written in the
bible and what is actually true based on other sources of evidence?
>Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
>obviously records real history ?
The bible records whatever some religious scribe wrote down way back
when and, yes, also happens to sometimes reflect (accurately or not)
historic events not unlike what might be reflected in the Illiad or
the Oddyssey. One statement or event that can be proven to be factual
does not automatically prove any and all other statements. The fact
that there are any number of discrepancies as well as internal
inconsistencies should have put this to rest a long time ago were it
not for the fact that we are talking about religion here and that
means that there are always those who will zealously believe all that
is written despite any and all facts to the contrary.
>Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
>it across the board and uniform ?
Yes, science as a whole, and this is certainly not limited to the TOE,
has brought to light many issues reflected in the bible that no longer
hold up under scrutiny.
The study of the issue of 'inerrancy is hardly limited to traditional
science either. There are a lot of discoveries that have been made in
linguistics, archaeology, and comparative religious studies for
example that also reflect on the claim of biblical inerrancy.
>I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
>with archaeological facts:
>
>http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
>
>Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
>and only "religious truth"
Who has ever claimed that the bible has absolutely no historic truth
to it? This claim can't even be made about such works of fiction as
Homer's Illiad and Oddyssey.
Is it your contention that finding historic truths in the Illiad or
the Oddyssey is proof of a pantheon of gods on Mount Olympus?
If not, why should the bible be treated any differently? Because it
is a religion?
And why aren't the tablets that reveal the Epic of Gilgamesh shown
along with these other archaeological (selective) 'facts' (need I even
ask)? Is it because not all evidence is actually in support of any
and all passages in the bible?
Going by only highly selective sources, particularly when dealing with
religion or true believers, is not the best way of discovering the
actual unadulterated truth.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Again, the Bible is not a science book. If observed reality refutes
> something written a couple thousand years ago by someone who was
> semi-ignorant, what's the problem?
The problem is with people who claim the bible is true or inerrant. It
is neither.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Giant evasion of physical evidence corroborating many Biblical events.
Like the sun being created after plants?
Like the earth being flat?
Like the earth not moving?
Bob Kolker
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
>religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
>from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
>truth.
>
>Where does the Bible say this ?
>
>Where do you draw the line and how inlieu of the fact that the Bible
>obviously records real history ?
it's 64 here in dallas. that's history. i guess that makes me
historically accurate on all things i would ever write.
>
A.Carlson
wrote:
>
>Frank Sullivan wrote:
>> It cracks me up that people like you spend so much time on here every
>> day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
>> and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
>> borderline nihilism.
>>
>> But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
>> beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
>> could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
>> trust."
>
>Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
>evidence - why ?
>
>Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
>insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
>
>Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
>
>Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
>Bible.
How does the fact that early Israelites were taken into captivity at
one point prove the Genesis account of creation or the Noachian
deluge?
>The link contains better quality physical evidence proving the Bible
>than the entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution.
You've obviously got a very distorted view of what qualifies as
'evidence' if you think a few clay tablet or obelisks reflecting one
event that is not even in dispute somehow verifies completely
different events that have been soundly refuted based on numerous
lines of evidence.
Sir Isaac Newton, who was big into biblical numerology, believed that
the world would be destroyed sometime in the 1800's. The fact that he
was right about various physical laws and clearly wrong about the
destruction of the Earth have absolutely nothing to do with each
other. One does not prove or disprove the other. Each point either
stands or falls on its own merit.
Frank Sullivan
A.Carlson wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2006 17:36:26 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Frank Sullivan wrote:
> >> It cracks me up that people like you spend so much time on here every
> >> day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
> >> and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
> >> borderline nihilism.
> >>
> >> But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
> >> beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
> >> could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
> >> trust."
> >
> >Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
> >evidence - why ?
> >
> >Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
> >insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
> >
> >Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
> >
> >Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
> >Bible.
>
> How does the fact that early Israelites were taken into captivity at
> one point prove the Genesis account of creation or the Noachian
> deluge?
We're talking to the guy who thinks that the existence of Rainbows
proves the flood.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5ccf11814ebedf31
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137030613.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Some events and people mentioned in the Bible have been corraborated by
other sources. No one disputes that. That does not mean, however that
all of the Bible is corraborated by physical evidence.
>
> What Darwinists are proving is their well known bias and admitting the
> only physical evidence they will recognize is a limited amount, and it
> has to be supportive of their starting biases or it aint evidence
False claim. The physical evidence leads where it may, which has supported
some of the Bible's accounts, and has refuted some of them. Scientists
follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
=
> Darwinian fundamentalism - the same business on the other side of the
> street.
Ray, your definition of "fundamentalism" is sorely mistaken.
DJT
A.Carlson
Because they don't give him the answer that he seeks?
If you *know* the answer even before you see the evidence then it
simply stands to reason that any evidence that runs contrary must be
wrong.
er...@swva.net
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> > > religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> > > from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> > > truth.
> >
> > The Bible isn't a science book. It's a rich mixture of histories,
> > myths and other stories.
> >
>
> Mandatory atheist philosophy.
What is the purpose of saying, "Mandatory atheist philosophy?"
Mandated by whom? Atheist how?
>
> Why have you evaded the link ?
What makes you think anybody evaded it? Say, we read it (which I did,
but I will also reread it closer later.) What effect do expect it to
have? I guess I am trying to politely ask, what is your point? If
every word of it is true, it still doesn't mean we have to throw away
any scientific theories. If you think otherwise, explain.
>
>
>
> > > Where does the Bible say this ?
> > >
> > > Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> > > obviously records real history ?
I know the answer to that. Where you draw the line depends on exactly
which part of the Bible you are talking about and what we know about it
from other sources, such as other ancient documents, other
archaeological finds, and the findings of the various sciences.
> >
> > The people who wrote the Bible had political and societal axes to grind
> > as well. Certainly they reported on real events, but sometimes with
> > their own spin. (Like the saying that the victors write the history
> > books.)
> >
>
> Everyone has an axe but this atheist-Darwinist.
If by "atheist-Darwinist," you mean Voice of Reason, why do you say he
has no axe to grind? He's not the subject of discussion. That's the
real meaning of ad hominum: changing the subject from the message to
the messenger. It's axes to grind by the authors of the Bible that is
the subject (and not only the Bible, but any document you might read).
>
>
> > > Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> > > it across the board and uniform ?
Across the board, of course. How could it conceivably be otherwise?
If one piece of evidence conflicts with another then you have to take
it with a grain of salt. For science to be done right, you can't give
anybody's say-so a free pass to not need evidence, especially not the
contents of ancient documents. One has to be _extra-careful_ not to
give one's own preferred ancient documents special loyalty. That would
be as bad for scientific results as using a cracked lens or a bent
ruler.
> >
> > Again, the Bible is not a science book. If observed reality refutes
> > something written a couple thousand years ago by someone who was
> > semi-ignorant, what's the problem?
> >
>
> Straw man totally evading the OP.
>
> Why ? = inability to refute.
Whoosh. He wasn't trying to refute anything. You do not even
understand that you did nothing that required refuting.
>
>
>
> > > I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> > > with archaeological facts:
> > >
> > > http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
> > >
> > > Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> > > and only "religious truth"
> >
Personally, I have to study the Bible a lot, and then just live with
uncertainty.
> > I'm curious why you need "evidence" that your religious beliefs are
> > "correct." Is your faith that weak?
>
> Atheist rhetoric.
Does this mean you won't answer?
>
> Dishonest answer evading physical evidence that proves O.T. history.
Gives evidence for, not "proves."
>
> Faith is based on the facts contained in the Bible.
Faith is based on liking God and deciding to be on his side.
>
> All in all we have a Darwinist not wanting to acknowledge the OP facts.
So what?
>
> Darwinian pleas asking for evidence proving the Bible turns out to be a
> sham as we all knew from the get-go.
This makes no sense. You didn't say anything (and neither did the
archaeology link) that had any;thing to do with Darwin one way or the
other.
>
> Romans 1:18 is true "....who suppress the truth" talking about
> Darwinists/atheists and theists who make atheist conclusions.
Nope, there wasn't such thing back then, but say there was. How does
that excuse you not answering anything he said?
>
> Ray
Ray, all you did was jump up and down and call names. You had no
answer for anything that anyone said to you. If you had an actual
point, what was it? Was it that you think that if part of the Bible is
true, we have to accept the parts that make no sense in light of
science?
Eric Root
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137029786....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frank Sullivan wrote:
>> It cracks me up that people like you spend so much time on here every
>> day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
>> and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
>> borderline nihilism.
>>
>> But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
>> beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
>> could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
>> trust."
>
> Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
> evidence - why ?
Has he "evaded" or just not been highly impressed.
>
> Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
> insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
I don't see any insult to the physical evidence in Frank's post.
>
> Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
That you don't understand how science works?
>
> Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
> Bible.
Physical evidence that supports the Bible is fine, and in fact if you could
provide some to support your claims, it would be an improvement on your
usual style of argument.
>
> The link contains better quality physical evidence proving the Bible
> than the entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution.
The entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution runs into the
thousands of individual fossils, reams of genetic evidence, hundreds of
years of anatomical studies, many behavioral studies, myriad biochemical
studies and so on. The evidence in the site Ray linked to provides only
a few contemporary accounts which match some names found in the Bible.
Why this evidence is "better quality" than the mountain of evidence for
human evolution is anyone's guess. But that's hardly the point. No one
claims that the Bible is entirely unreliable on everything. That's another
one of Ray's strawman positions. Evidence that some of the names in the
Bible match contemporary inscriptions does not mean the Bible is inerrant in
all things.
DJT
Pithecanthropus Erectus
I am not sure if you have read any historical novels or not, but if, for
example Herman Wouk gives detailed accounts of World War II battles,
does that prove that Victor Henry existed?
If the story tellers referenced true events or places does that mean
that the entire story is %100 accurate?
I don't think so.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Pithecanthropus Erectus
It is a newsgroup setup to discuss topics related to origins, mostly
centered on biological evolution. It was created to draw evolution
doubters out of real science forums.
The forum is not moderated for content, but moderated to limit
cross-posting to other groups. Evolution doubters will bring in the
religion discussion often, because they believe that evolution is the
atheist position.
That's why it is here. The nice thing that newsreaders do, is download
headers so that you can choose which articles/posts you would like to
read and those you wish to avoid.
I would sympathize more with your complaint if every reader were forced
to read all articles.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> > > religious truth". This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> > > from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> > > truth.
> >
> > The Bible isn't a science book. It's a rich mixture of histories,
> > myths and other stories.
> >
>
> Mandatory atheist philosophy.
I'm a Christian, you ninny... much more so than you obviously.
> Why have you evaded the link ?
Why do you tell lies about people who show you you're wrong?
> > > Where does the Bible say this ?
> > >
> > > Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> > > obviously records real history ?
> >
> > The people who wrote the Bible had political and societal axes to grind
> > as well. Certainly they reported on real events, but sometimes with
> > their own spin. (Like the saying that the victors write the history
> > books.)
> >
>
> Everyone has an axe but this atheist-Darwinist.
Everyone has a brain except Ray the Satan worshipper.
> > > Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> > > it across the board and uniform ?
> >
> > Again, the Bible is not a science book. If observed reality refutes
> > something written a couple thousand years ago by someone who was
> > semi-ignorant, what's the problem?
>
> Straw man totally evading the OP.
>
> Why ? = inability to refute.
I addressed the OP. Your response was to throw insults rather than try
to learn from other people's points of view. Why? = inability to find
your ass with both hands.
By the way, PLEASE look up the definition of a strawman. You'll look
less ignorant that way.
> > > I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> > > with archaeological facts:
> > >
> > > http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
> > >
> > > Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> > > and only "religious truth"
> >
> > I'm curious why you need "evidence" that your religious beliefs are
> > "correct." Is your faith that weak?
>
> Atheist rhetoric.
Wow, looks like I hit a raw nerve there. So you are so insecure in
your faith that you have to throw insults at anyone who doesn't buy it?
That's pretty sad.
> Dishonest answer evading physical evidence that proves O.T. history.
Read again for comprehension.
> Faith is based on the facts contained in the Bible.
<snip remaining hypocrisy>
VoiceOfReason
If a Tyrannosaurus walked up to you and said, "I'm a herbivore, trust
me," would you?
:-)
VoiceOfReason
Shane wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2006 17:35:32 -0800, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> TEists
> >
> > could you expand your acronym? What does TE mean? According
> > to google its either part of a New Zealand place name or something
> > to do with Taoism.
>
> Ray generally uses TE as shorthand for Theistic Evolutionist, for
> example, a chrisitian who supports evolution. It is also possible that
> he uses it ocassionally for Theory of Evolution.
>
> I think it is fair to say that whilst Ray has very little time for
> straight evolution, he has a particular dislike for theistic
> evolution, as he feels its proponents are two faced in that on the one
> hand they profess god, and then on the other deny him with their
> support of evolution.
Indeed. In fact Ray has had it explained to him on several occasions
that most of the world's Christians aren't Biblical literalists, and
have no problem reconciling their faith with evolution.
<...>
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I think we can trust Ray to correct you even when you are *not in
error.
> [...]
>
> --
> Shane
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
So, since there is a city of Troy, then the events recorded in the
Illiad are corroborated, and therefore the gods of the Greek pantheon
are real.
>
> What Darwinists are proving is their well known bias and admitting the
> only physical evidence they will recognize is a limited amount, and it
> has to be supportive of their starting biases or it aint evidence =
> Darwinian fundamentalism - the same business on the other side of the
> street.
Good! Join us in the next party for Dionysius. Do you like to dance? I
know some young women who are whetting their appetite...
http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/147.html
Since Thebes and wine exist, this poem must record real events.
>
> Ray
Augray
wrote:
>
>Frank Sullivan wrote:
>> It cracks me up that people like you spend so much time on here every
>> day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
>> and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
>> borderline nihilism.
>>
>> But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
>> beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
>> could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
>> trust."
>
>Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
>evidence - why ?
>
>Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
>insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
>
>Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
>
>Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
>Bible.
Ray, you can hardly ridicule someone for not being loyal to physical
evidence when you're not loyal to it yourself. I've pointed out to you
in http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2bd3c562bc930f1a
and http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7f716742092b6c8
that Babylonian documents show that Nebuchadnezzar was not the father
of Belshazzar, which is contrary to the Bible. And the site you
provided a link to at the beginning of this thread backs this
position. See
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaNebuchadnezzar_II00000058.htm
So, are you going to admit that the Bible contains at least one
factual error? Or, to express it in a fashion you seem to be fond of,
is the following more accurate?:
Ray's criticism of others for not being loyal to physical
evidence when Ray's not loyal to it himself = demonstration of
Ray's hypocrisy.
>The link contains better quality physical evidence proving the Bible
>than the entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution.
Hardly.
>Ray
jet
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1137023856....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> > religious truth".
>
> else, has made such an assertion? I wouldn't want to accuse Ray of saying
> something he knew to be false.
>
> > This is the reduction of truth which happens to come
> > from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> > truth.
>
> evidence any science ever uses. There is no "scientific truth", in the
> same sense as "religious truth". All science is provisional.
>
> >
> > Where does the Bible say this ?
>
> invented until long after the Bible was written down.
>
> >
> > Where do you draw the line and how in lieu of the fact that the Bible
> > obviously records real history ?
>
> "real" history. "History" as a dicipline did not exist at the time of the
> Bible either.
>
> >
> > Is the line drawn where there is conflict with Darwinian science or is
> > it across the board and uniform ?
>
> where it conflicts with their belief that the Bible is inerrant. The
> Bible's statements regarding historical, or scientific matters are regarded
> as irrelevant to scientific investigation, unless they can be corraborated
> by the physical evidence.
>
You are being too generous here. Creationists accept science, except
where it conflicts with their belief that _their interpretation of_ the
Bible is inerrant. They are content to view the Bible as
non-historical/literal when it conflicts with their hermeneutical
framework.
> >
> > I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> > with archaeological facts:
> >
> > http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
> >
> > Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> > and only "religious truth"
>
> That the Bible does contain elements of actual historical import is
> not in dispute. It was, after all written partly as a chronicle of the
> past, as the Hebrews saw it.. What I've been saying all along is that
> unless one can find physical cooraboration, any historical and/or scientific
> claims the Bible should be treated as any other unsupported text from the
> time period. People from that day were not any less intelligent, or any
> less able to observe events, and record them. What's different is that
> today historians make pains to determine the veracity of historical records,
> and don't give undue credence to oral tradition passed on over many
> generations.
>
> The Bible was written from a particular point of view, by a number of
> individuals, over hundreds of years. It was written in a time before
> "history" as we understand it today existed, and long before there was any
> kind of scientific process applied to natural phenomena. What we would
> consider today to be "legend" or "myth" was often included in such
> chronicles, without anyone considering the historical accuracy of those
> statements. This is not a failing of the people involved in writing down
> the books of the Bible, is was just the way things were written down at the
> time.
>
> That doesn't mean that nothing in the Bible can match with modern history
> or modern science. As I said above, the people of the time the Bible was
> written were intelligent people, who were just as capable of observation as
> people today. What they lacked (in modern terms) is the modern
> investigative tools we use today, which were not available to them.
> Expecting the Bible to be completely accurate in history or in science is
> expecting far too much from the text. It would be like expecting them to
> have everying written on computer discs, which they did not have, and would
> not have known how to use.
>
> DJT
explainer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> TEists like Dana Tweedy and others routinely assert the Bible is "only
> from the Bible to not be on the same level as Darwinian scientific
> truth.
>
>
> obviously records real history ?
>
> it across the board and uniform ?
>
> with archaeological facts:
>
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
>
> Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> and only "religious truth"
And your point is? By the way, is your link to bible-history.com
evidence of some sort? I missed your premise. Read their mission
statement which states...
"BIBLE HISTORY ONLINE BELIEVES ... That the scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments are verbally inspired of God and are without error as
originally written, and that they are the authoritative Word of God;
the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian life."
So much for anything scientific there... or was that your point?
All the best, Gordon Hill
Nick Roberts
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I ask TEists to view this link which corroborates Old Testament history
> with archaeological facts:
>
> http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/
> archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_archaeological_discoveries.html
Quite interesting, but factually dubious in parts.
Your source gives "Later Assyria became a world empire in the 9th
century BC". As Assyrian power at its height didn't reach beyond the
Bosphorus in the North, beyond Egypt in the South (much later, and very
briefly), and only just reached the Zagros highlands in the East, this
claim is rather over-inflated.
More important, however, is the following description:
"The Assyrians were miraculous in warfare, in fact military strategists
today have a difficult time understanding how the Assyrians were so
advanced in their military tactics."
This, frankly, is drivel.
The Assyrians were quite advanced in some areas (particularly in
siegecraft), but to describe them as "miraculous in warfare" devalues
the word "miraculous" so far that a "miraculous" event would be only
marginally worth a raised eyebrow.
As for "military strategists today have a difficult time understanding
how the Assyrians were so advanced in their military tactics" - more
rubbish. They used pretty much standard tactics for the period,
but were more successful than many other states simply because the
training of their troops was excellent. Nothing miraculous, just a
willingness on the part of their kings to pay for a standing army
rather than relying on a citizen militia and unreliable subject levies.
The fall of Assyria started soon after the Assyrian kings started, in
turn, to rely on subject levies.
> Please explain your views and tell me where the Bible is actual history
> and only "religious truth"
Bits of the Bible seem to be descriptive of real events, certainly. I
don't know of anyone who denies this.
However, you cannot infer that because some parts of the Bible are
consistent with our current view of history then the entire Bible is
accurate in all details.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
rupert....@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank Sullivan wrote:
> > It cracks me up that people like you spend so much time on here every
> > day, encountering mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution,
> > and all of it is dismissed out of hand. You're the ultimate skeptics;
> > borderline nihilism.
> >
> > But when it comes to the question of evidence for your own religious
> > beliefs, it's like "hey look at this clay pot that kinda says MSS which
> > could mean Moses," or, "I have eyewitness testamony from people I
> > trust."
>
> Frank, a Darwinist, has completely evaded the link and its physical
> evidence - why ?
>
> Instead he has completely misrepresented the contents of the link by
> insulting the physical evidence exactly opposite of what it is - why ?
>
> Frank so perfectly has captured exactly what I really wanted to show:
>
> Darwinists are really not loyal to physical evidence if it proves the
> Bible.
>
> than the entire inventory of evidence supporting human evolution.
The page contains stuff like this: "It is interesting that the prophet
Isaiah revealed that the territory surrounding the Sea of Galilee would
be among the first to be conquered by the Assyrians and also the first
to hear and see the Messiah. Jesus first began minister around the Sea
of Galilee. (Isaiah 9)", which is odd, because on the face of it,
Isaiah 9 says no such thing. It must be a matter of interpretation.
> Ray
David Jensen
>
>I FUCKING KNOW !
>
>Please remember you have established this fact so after my paper is up
>we will see how you feel about it then.
>
>Remember THIS post.
Will your paper be up this century?
Ray Martinez
March or April.
Ray
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>>
>> Will your paper be up this century?
>
>March or April.
>
>Ray
of 2015...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137371877....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> Indeed. In fact Ray has had it explained to him on several occasions
>> that most of the world's Christians aren't Biblical literalists, and
>> have no problem reconciling their faith with evolution.
>>
>> <...>
>
> VOR:
>
> I FUCKING KNOW !
>
> Please remember you have established this fact so after my paper is up
> we will see how you feel about it then.
Ray, if you "paper" ever sees the light of day it will be of no consequence.
It will only be another in your string of failures.
>
> Remember THIS post.
Ray has quite often claimed that others are "enraged" when writing. I
think we can plainly see that Ray himself is projecting.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137372461.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> Will your paper be up this century?
>
> March or April.
What year?
DJT
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> VOR:
>
> I FUCKING KNOW !
>
> Please remember you have established this fact so after my paper is up
> we will see how you feel about it then.
>
> Remember THIS post.
>
> Ray
*
Ray -- just between you and me -- I think you're slipping.
I know that you are preparing some 'paper' that will completely explain
your point of view and thereby shoot down Darwin, Dawkins (the real one
and not the asshole who posts here under that name), and anyone else who
believes (as I do) that the theory of evolution is the best explanation
of the diversity we observe.
Will your 'paper' be out soon? Why do you spend your time posting here
when you could be working on your supposedly epoch-making work of
philosophy (or physics or biology or geology or whatever?)
When you assert, in all-caps "I FUCKING KNOW !" you have sent us a
warning -- frankly speaking -- that you are slipping.
And that's a shame. I do not want to see any human being pushed off the
deep end -- cornered like a rat in a maze -- whose only response can be
to lash out at whatever stands in front of him.
Please take a break -- get away from this newsgroup for your own good.
Take a long holiday and relax -- get some rest. I really think it will
be good for you.
Come back later and continue your arguments for what you believe.
Good luck!
earle
*