|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2004 : 15:33:29 [Permalink]
|
Dave: I will accept the amended definition of 'reasonable'-
everybody-(drum roll): reasonable-having a reason(noun), able to reason(verb), and not having a substantial reason against. Does that work for everyone? Dave, here is a point that I am trying to make: eyewitness testimony of an event is a reason to believe that said events occur. And because there is no eyewitness testimony of mice living on the sun, and there is eyewitness testimony of miracles, miracles are more likely than mice living on the sun.
Everyone: If you do not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence, I will see no point in continuing this thread. I accept eyewitness testimony as evidence, not neccessarily conclusive, but evidence nonetheless. I think that an event with an eyewitness testimony is more reasonable to believe than an event with no evidence, even if neither event can be proven. If you do not agree, then we are too far apart in our thinking to come to the same answer.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 18:34:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
eyewitness testimony of an event is a reason to believe that said events occur.
Eyewitness' testimony are only as reliable as the eyewitness.
In a court of law a witness can be crossexamined in order to determine his/her motivations and truthfulness. We can't do that, so we have to remain skeptical to the bible-writers' testimony. Either way, we need alternate sources of information for verification, and I'm afraid there are none.
quote:
And because there is no eyewitness testimony of mice living on the sun, and there is eyewitness testimony of miracles, miracles are more likely than mice living on the sun.
It's not the lack of testimony of mice living on the sun that prompts us to conclude that there are none there. It is our accumulated knowledge of the conditions on/in the sun and the ecological requirements of the mouse. A mouse living on the sun would indeed be a miracle.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 09:00:52 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
First, eye witness accounts can be a form of evidence depending on the environment we are in. In the scientific community, eye witness accounts are worthless if they cannot be repeated and verified. In courts of law they can be a form of evidence. In debate they can be a form of evidence, but are usually considered weak if they cannot be repeated or verified beyond the "because I said so."
Also we know that eye witness accounts are often wrong thus weakening their nature even more and sometimes causing us to associate a more probable probability to an event that never occurred. By your logic I would have to say that UFOs, astrology, psychics, Big Foot, Nessie, Mormonism, ghosts, and numerous other strange phenomena are more likely than numerous other events no one has supposedly witnessed. All of these have "eye witnesses".
My sentiments match those of Dr.Mabuse exactly with the mouse on the sun example. However if you were to change your example to strange energy spirit beings living on the sun then I would have to equate nearly equal probabilities to this spirit being living on the sun vs. a claimed miracle or UFO. Until the eye witness account can be verified any at all then it has no more standing than no eye witness in this example. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 10:45:50 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, eyewitness testimony is a hint that something might have happened, but only slightly raises the probability of an event in a scientific realm. Plus, the Bible's "eyewitness testimony" wasn't always eyewitness, and was an oral testimony for at least 30 years.
If you've got the idea that memory is like a permanent record of an event, like a camera taking a picture, you've got thirty-plus years of research to catch up on. Some examples, from Jury Selection and Decision making,quote:
In evaluating the overall accuracy of eyewitness testimony, it is useful to distinguish between the three stages of human memory: acquisition, retention, and retrieval. It is also important to point out that human memory has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate and that all three stages of memory are susceptible to considerable interference. Eyewitnesses may record the incident inaccurately (faulty acquisition), may forget vital details over time (faulty retention), or may interpret what they have seen in a distorted fashion in order to respond to a leading or biased question (faulty retrieval). Although forensic psychologists have studied all three stages extensively, it is the latter stage of memory retrieval that is of most relevance to the courtroom. In court trials, memory retrieval takes the form of testimony elicited by questioning.
Dot dot dot...quote:
In a similar experiment, Loftus again showed people a film depicting a number of events. In one scene a car was seen travelling along a country road. Half of the witnesses were asked to estimate the speed of the car "as it passed the barn", even though no barn appeared in the film. One week later, over 17% of these witnesses reported having seen a barn in the film, as compared to only 3% of the witnesses who were asked to simply estimate the speed of the car with no reference to the fictitious barn. Thus, the misleading question had a significant effect on the memory ‘retrieval' of the eyewitnesses. Similar experiments have shown that witnesses can be misled into seeing non-existent road signs and into believing that a red light was actually green. Further study has shown that such misleading information is most effective when the questioner is of high status (such as a barrister). The reconstructive tendency of human memory is brought to bear by the context of memory retrieval. No witness in a trial wants to appear a fool. If, in any way, they are led to believe that a particular version of events has taken place, then they are quite likely to recall the events in such a way as to concur with that version, rather than suggest that their camera does actually lie.
Now, one can assume that the authors of the Bible weren't being asked leading questions when they wrote this stuff down, but it's quite possible that they'd been exposed to 30-years' worth of distorted retellings of events, and thus may not have "remembered" the right stuff when committing their testimony to a written record. The similarities and discrepancies amongst the Gospels might attest to this. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2004 : 17:33:18 [Permalink]
|
Everyone:
I maintain my stand; in spiritual matters, testimony is important. Say there's two religions that promise that you will recieve inner peace if you follow their teachings. If one has 90% of its followers declaring that they have inner peace, and the other has 10% of its followers declaring that they have inner peace, I think it is logical to believe that the religion with a 90% success rate is more likely to have truth than one with a 10% success rate. And I'm not saying that testimony proves anything, but if you do not grant that testimony increases credibility, we won't be able to continue this thread.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2004 : 19:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Right, Hippy. I'm quite willing to grant that, for example, one religion might have an 0.0009% chance of being correct while another has an 0.0001% chance of being correct. There are, after all, over 4,200 different religious sects in the world today (and many more if we include all past and some possible future sects), so the odds of any one of them being "true" are probably very small.
Garrison Keillor's show tonight had a "news break" in it in which it was announced that the Second Coming had occured, and thousands of Lutherans had vanished. Very funny stuff. And I've also enjoyed Rowan Atkinson's Hell Sketch. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 09:00:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Everyone:
I maintain my stand; in spiritual matters, testimony is important. Say there's two religions that promise that you will recieve inner peace if you follow their teachings. If one has 90% of its followers declaring that they have inner peace, and the other has 10% of its followers declaring that they have inner peace, I think it is logical to believe that the religion with a 90% success rate is more likely to have truth than one with a 10% success rate. And I'm not saying that testimony proves anything, but if you do not grant that testimony increases credibility, we won't be able to continue this thread.
Hippy
Testimonials such as, "I sincerely believe, deep in my heart, that OJ killed Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman. This feeling is overwhelming and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the truth." If 90% of us believe this, then clearly OJ is guilty and all we needed to do was make ourselves available to the prosecution.
If testimonials can not prove anything, then how can they increase credibility. Many skeptics will tell you that testimonials do not constitute evidence. "Just because a lot of people believe a foolish thing, (such as believeing that John Edwards, Sylvia Brown, Van Pragh, Peter Popov, Benny Hinn, etc. actually have the skills they claim to have) is it not still a foolish thing.(1)"
(1) Can not think of who originally said this. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 20:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Since for the last few pages we have made practically no progress, I suggest that we go to a different question: the Flood. The Creation is harder to discuss because for the most part it had no witnesses and it is further in the past. Now, you probably would like to present some data about the impossibilities of the Flood, the histories of other people that don't mention the Flood, and signs of civilization right after the Flood in places far away from Mt. Ararat.
I am interested in any point you wish to bring up concerning the Flood, and I will like to know where you get your information from. If anyone would like to continue our previous discussions in addition to this I will be happy to do so.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 21:31:51 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Hippy, I'd be much more interested in any truly positive evidence there might be for a global flood. I'm not talking about the Mount St. Helens-type "well, if this happened this fast, then maybe everything else did, too," but rather evidence for which it would be unreasonable to posit anything but a global flood. Evidence which says that the mostly-gradual geologic history which has been pieced together over the past few centuries is probably wrong. Evidence which cannot be explained by the current models.
After all, if it is still your intention to challenge your faith, then go ahead and put it to the test: go and look for those things for which the only reasonable answer is, "a global flood must have caused this." After all, given what geologists currently think, they can indeed say, "if there were a global flood of Biblical proportions, we should see this, that, and this other thing." Find those things, and you'll have found signs of The Flood.
If you are unable to find any such evidence, it may be reasonable to assume that there was no global flood, or, if you're of such a mind, to perhaps posit that God erased all the inarguable evidence of one.
To my mind, this approach would be a much better way to continue your quest, rather than have other people toss out bits and pieces of contrary evidence, each part being much less noteworthy than any single pieces of truly positive Flood evidence would be. Geology, after all, has been built up of millions of little tidbits of information, whereas tell-tale signs of a global flood would be, well, global. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2004 : 07:58:20 [Permalink]
|
This is a beauty:
quote:
Now, you probably would like to present some data about the impossibilities of the Flood, the histories of other people that don't mention the Flood, and signs of civilization right after the Flood in places far away from Mt. Ararat.
I would not even consider using any of this information in a discussion as to whether there was a flood or not. But just to address these points, there is no historical evidence what so ever of a world wide flood. There are some mythological writting of a flood. There is alot of amazing things that are recorded in mythologies, but that has nothing to do with history.
As far as the laughable "signs of civilizations right after the flood far from Mt. Ararat", I would say, "right after what flood?".
My arugument against a world wide flood would be the following:
1. There is not enough water on the planet for a world wide flood.
2. There is no geological evidence of a world wide flood.
That is about it, what more is needed. It is physically impossible and there is no evidence that it occurred. Seems pretty clear to me.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 14:54:24 [Permalink]
|
furshur: I believe you misunderstand my comments on civilizations after the Flood. What I meant was, you would say that there are signs of civilizations that didn't record the Flood when the Bible says the Flood was happening. Anyway, here are two sites presenting both sides:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
I scanned both articles, and drdino seemed to be answering a few problems brought up by the talkorigins site. However, I would like to see some more documentation on drdino's point 22. I'd lilke to know why they say that the Flood best explains bent rock strata, so I'll browse some more later. In the meantime, let's discuss some of his other points:
1) Over 250 Flood legends have been found from all parts of the world. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
Now then, according to your theory of history, during the time the Flood stories were being written (I am being very approximate) there were people living in all of the different continents. It is interesting to note that people who should not have had contact with each other have similar versions of history. Of course, this all varies with how similar their stories are, so let's look into that again later.
Point two seems to explain many objections brought up by the talkorigin,
but we'd have to do some serious research on strengths of wood under pressure and such if we wish to fully answer the question of 'was the ark strong enough?'
Point 8 stresses that we don't really know how many species a 'kind' encompasses, whether it be one species or a whole genus. Scientists would object to me saying that a pair of dogs are the origins of all the dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. They would say that there wasn't enough time for them to evolve. However, we don't believe in your veiw of evolution, so that point is out of the question. I believe that stuff happens a lot faster than you think. I think that we evolve faster, the Earth shifts faster, etc.
Points 15 and 16 seem to deal well with the problem of enough water.
Point 17 is very interesting and I would like to look up more about it.
On another note, I recently heard that another light source, a galaxy or something was discovered over 13 billion light years away. It is, so far, the farthest point in our universe where we can see something. Hence, that light is 13 billion years old. How long ago was the Big Bang supposed to be? 14 billion years old? Does the number change every time another galaxy is found on the edge of our visible universe? What is the date of the Big Bang based on?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 16:00:15 [Permalink]
|
The 'hip' guy said:
quote:
1) Over 250 Flood legends have been found from all parts of the world. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
I know of some legends about a flood (in addition to Genesis). I was not aware of such a large number of flood legends and question how similar they are to genesis, but I think the important term here is legend. I am aware of many flood legends in the Near East and they seem to be variants of the same legend.
Do you know what natural disasters cause the most deaths in the world? If you guessed flood, you win. Given the devestation caused by floods I would not be surprised if many legends arose around God send a flood to punish man.
A alot of legends about a flood proves nothing anyway. I would wager there are thousands of legends about half-animal and half-humans and that does not mean the legend is based on anything factual. There are thousands of legends of people who can fly or have other magical properties, so what.
There is no scientific evidence that there was a flood, therefore trying to determine if the Ark would float is like asking is there was enough oxygen on Mars to support the number of Martians it would take to construct the "Face on Mars".
quote:
On another note, I recently heard that another light source, a galaxy or something was discovered over 13 billion light years away. It is, so far, the farthest point in our universe where we can see something. Hence, that light is 13 billion years old. How long ago was the Big Bang supposed to be? 14 billion years old? Does the number change every time another galaxy is found on the edge of our visible universe? What is the date of the Big Bang based on?
I find this so distressing. Most of the skeptics on this site have some understanding of religion. At least the Christian religion. On the other hand the christians come on this board and the lack of any scientific understanding is amazing.
The site you refered to is very interesting. Here is a cool tidbit:
quote:
Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.
Let me try using logic like this.
All the animals were vegitarians according to genesis. Some biblical scholars have pointed out that beans are very high in protein, so would be great food source. There were probably tents much as the nomadic desert dwellers have today. So with all of the beans on this Ark, the resulting methane produced from the bean eating animals Noah could have funneled the gas into a large ballon made from tents and this could have helped to keep the ark upright and floating.
Hey, this is fun.
Since meat eating animals have teeth that are designed for eating meat, they would not be able to feed themselves very well at all, so many biblical scholars have theorized that all of the meat eaters would be very small. Lions for instance may have been the size of a house cat! Imagine! With Noah being a giant and the carnivorous animals being teeny tiny, well, there is no problem with the ark being able to hold all of the animals.
Well I now have a headache and I think I might go wander around in the traffic for awhile.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 19:14:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
1) Over 250 Flood legends have been found from all parts of the world. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
I extend to you that there have been several floods stories within the past ten years of equal size and devestation to the original floods these legends are based on. When your known world is quite small, then localized flooding can seem quite large indeed. A person of that day might have even considered them global. Or perhaps they became global as the story tellers embellished their retelling of old stories.
quote:
Point 8 stresses that we don't really know how many species a 'kind' encompasses, whether it be one species or a whole genus.
Actually, no one has ever defined what a "kind" is. Until you define what a "kind" is there is no clear way to address point 8.
quote:
Points 15 and 16 seem to deal well with the problem of enough water.
One of many problems with the genesis flood being an actual event.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 21:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Furshur:
Just because I don't know the how the date of the Big Bang was determined you accuse me of having no scientific understanding? Also, I rarely agree with everything said on a site I quote from, especially Christian sites. If I don't say "I agree with this" don't pin it on me.
Let's discuss points 19-21. The theory of Pangea has India connecting with Asia 50-55 million years ago. I certainly grant that there probably would have been much sedimentary deposits on the land that would turn into Mount Everest, but 3,000 feet? Plus whatever has eroded since 50 mya.
On the other hand, the northern part of India (the part that is closest to Mt. Everest) is thought to have been very flat or under water before collision with Asia. Some would probably say that it was this part that was made up of sedimentary rock, and formed Everest. Let's research.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 08:08:41 [Permalink]
|
Hippy Here is a look at the geology of Mt. Everest.
quote:
When mountaineers stand on the summit of Everest and pose for the photograph of their lifetime, they are standing on the remains of marine fossils over 50 millions years old. Geologically, the mountain is a mixture of very different rocks. The lower levels comprise mainly metamorphic rocks (rocks which have been altered by heat or pressure, or sometimes both), and these are predominantly coarse-grained schists, mainly gneisses and migmatities.
Higher up the mountain is granite, an igneous rock produced by the slow cooling of hot molten rock, which is commonly found in the heart of big mountain ranges. Within a few hundred metres of the summit are sedimentary rocks (clays, silts and the carbonate (chalky) remains of marine animals). This layer is affectionately known as the 'yellow band' by Everest climbers. The very top of the mountain is made from much purer limestone, mixed with sandy layers.
A cap of sedimentary rocks on top of a metamorphic and granite core is exactly what one would expect to find based on India colliding and sliding under Asia. I don't have the faintest idea what there is to 'research' or debate.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
