Nation of Israel and God

Post Reply New Topic

Well, only cheap or bad fiction would have just-so stories.



The premise people-didn't-have-God is assumed without the reasoning explained. You will now reason from that unestablished premise:



By any standard, man still has extremely finite knowledge about life, the universe, and everything to this day. We've certainly advanced technologically. But to imagine we've advanced in being able to answer the profound questions of life is hubris. (Are crime, hunger, and poverty just about wrapped up? No, they are not even moving in that direction.)
I have both given and reasoned my premise, and now I can proceed with my point:
Your argument claims that, from our great ignorance, which I established above, mankind has gleaned important truths about God. And further, this ignorance has informed us that our present assumptions about God are necessarily superior to our ancient assumptions. "Our extremely finite knowledge and wisdom have shown us the truth!" This is baseless.



Uh, ya, we're not quite at "thoroughly", are we? So close though, right?



We always had science at a useful level. The Great Pyramids and Stonehenge are great examples. I saw a show where modern people (with all their modern intelligence, ya) tried to duplicate Stonehenge using period construction machines and techniques. I believe they failed to raise even one stone before it broke in the middle from the stress, and they gave up.



I agree that Scripture is no compendium. I don't think it claims to be either. It would take eternity to read a compendium about everything, so what would have been the point in God creating a book bigger than the Earth for us to read? And, as I said, science is no compendium either. It's not even close to one, and it answers less important questions than Scripture does.

Last edited by Ragtime on 12 Nov 2011, 11:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.

There have been dozens of scandals in natural science and paleontology, usually incorrectly reconstructed skeletons, refusals to admits mistakes and outright frauds. Most of these occurred almost a century ago, but there are recent examples too:

Year: 1997
Con artist: Unidentified Chinese fossil collector (who might not have known he was defrauding anyone)
Originally published in: National Geographic Magazine, November, 1999 issue
For more information: National Geographic Magazine, October, 2000 issue (Photo by O. Louis Mazzatenta), Nature Magazine, February 17, 2000 issue, Unearthing the Dragon by Norell and Ellison
In 1997, a Chinese farmer found an exquisite birdlike fossil with faint feather impressions. A couple yards away, he found a lizard-like fossil tail. He took these and other finds home, glued the pieces together, then sold the result to a local dealer. To the farmer, it looked like a nice, complete fossil, which would bring him a little more money than shattered pieces. To less-than-careful eyes, the composite looked like a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Over the next two years, the composite fossil made its way into the hands of a loose association of amateur dinosaur enthusiasts, professional paleontologists and National Geographic editors. With unprecedented achievement in lousy communication, various members of this group purchased the fossil for $80,000, insured it for $1.6 million, proudly announced the new species Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, then eventually wished they'd never seen the little fossil. Added to the embarrassment was the near certainty that it had been illegally smuggled out of China, a fact which — to its credit — National Geographic insisted be remedied before it agreed to publish the find. (The fossil was eventually repatriated.) The original plan was to describe the fossil in a peer-reviewed publication — a contingency that National Geographic gambled on — but after the paper was rejected by both Nature and Science, National Geographic didn't have time to pull the article. The magazine ignored its policy of awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed paper and announced the find. Just a few months later, Xu Xing, a collaborator in the research announced the bad news, and confirmed what a few others had quietly suspected: The fossil was a composite. In fact, it was a composite of 88 pieces. Finger pointing ensued. Creationists loved it. But as paleontologist Mark Norell has pointed out, the fossil never passed peer review, and the scientists involved revealed the forgery.

Many more here: http://www.strangescience.net/stfor2.htm

"Evolution must be true" used to be a belief. Now it is an imperative.

And for examples of the rampant dishonesty surrounding the Theory of Evolution, see Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion". It's a great book, very informative.

But not one of these things has proven evolution to be false.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not that it matters but here's a delicious bowl of potato salad. Yum.


I know you are now hungry. It's okay, you can break away from the computer to grab some food... Go ahead, the fridge won't bite... much.

Last edited by kxmode on 13 Nov 2011, 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

I prefer my potato salad with eggs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

*gasp* But Chives make all the difference along with bacon!

I never said you had to get rid of the chives and bacon.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What then "proves" God to be false?

Really?
I think kxmode has a great point with the no egg tater salad.
and that the folks in this thread are just talking past each other.
For myself evolution has no connection to religious belief or bible-doubting
(the text self-contradicts enough to not need outside help)
for me the too many Gods problem is a more powerful argument than
the theodicy problem or the evolution vs faith strawman.

I'm a practicing Lutheran, so I'm hardly one to ask about proving God false. Going by my upbringing, one knows God by faith, not by proof.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well there we go. We're making progress! Chives, Bacon AND eggs altogether in one bowl of oh so delicious potato salad.

That is yummy, indeed!

-Bi,,. otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How many eggs can you add before it becomes egg-salad with potatoes?
I am troubled by the direction of this thread.

That's just the risk you'll have to take.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer