A short explaination of the human-nature

[2PhiloVoid]

I have? I'm discussing actual ideas about formation of the Grand Canyon with him. He challenged me to present my view. I did. Then he takes his ball and goes home. Of course I would double down on my view when asked to explain it.

Stop presenting a view of the world that aligns with the bible when the evidence presented against it is pure bluster? No wonder you're afraid of truth. Grow a backbone, Phil.

Pure bluster? Oh, really. Here's what I don't see at work within your "point of view": actual engagement on your part with the FULL corpus of claims, statements, praxis and/or facts that are arrayed by, and thereby representing, another person's point of view, even that of another, fellow Christian.

Until you actually engage those elements of another person's viewpoint, no one can really take you seriously because all you do essentially, is present superficial rhetoric (or hubris) on behalf of your chosen "denominational" association.

Thus, you prevent the fostering of an environment for bilateral, mutual conversation and understanding, and this is one reason I'm not going to answer the rejoinders you made to my previous statements (up in post #153).

While I know it is very well possible that I'm incorrect about you and your intentions, you appear to simply want to bluster at others here and merely present yourself with a dismissive, indifferent attitude about it all along the way. That sort of behavior is counter productive for learning anything from each other, let alone to communicate "truth" as you think all of us must see it.

Anyway, Peace in Christ!

 

[Derf]

Pure bluster? Oh, really. Here's what I don't see at work within your "point of view": actual engagement on your part with the FULL corpus of claims, statements, praxis and/or facts that are arrayed by, and thereby representing, another person's point of view, even that of another, fellow Christian.

What I think you're saying is that ive presented my side of the argument sufficiently. Thank you.
On the other people's views, I can't engage the full corpus until at least some part of the corpus is presented. @Warden_of_the_Storm saying, "high school textbooks have my truth in them" is not presenting anything. You saying, "go read a bunch of higher criticism" is not presenting anything.

Until you actually engage those elements of another person's viewpoint,

Still waiting for them to be presented.

no one can really take you seriously because all you do essentially, is present superficial rhetoric (or hubris) on behalf of your chosen "denominational" association.

And you can tell which denominational association I've chosen by my posts? I'd like to hear it.

Thus, you prevent the fostering of an environment for bilateral, mutual conversation and understanding, and this is one reason I'm not going to answer the rejoinders you made to my previous statements (up in post #153).

No, it's because you can't verbalize anything that you think is actually true, though it's possible I'm incorrect about your abilities--I hope I am.

While I know it is very well possible that I'm incorrect about you and your intentions,

Yes, it's possible.

you appear to simply want to bluster at others here and merely present yourself with a dismissive, indifferent attitude about it all along the way.

Dismissive of what? Indifferent to what? You didn't present much to dismiss, except those that actually stand for something (like atheists and fundamentalists).

That sort of behavior is counter productive for learning anything from each other, let alone to communicate "truth" as you think all of us must see it.

What is it you want to teach me? Not to accept anything as truth? Where's the truth in that?

Anyway, Peace in Christ!

Thank you, but Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. Would you like to discuss what that means?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you, but Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. Would you like to discuss what that means?

Without resorting to pulling several books on Biblical Exegesis/Hermeneutics off my bookshelves, I'm going to take a wild guess that where Jesus says He "came not to bring peace but a sword," He didn't mean to go around gaslighting people, especially other fellow Christians.

Do you think He did mean that?

 

[Derf]

Without resorting to pulling several books on Biblical Exegesis/Hermeneutics off my bookshelves, I'm going to take a wild guess that where Jesus says He "came not to bring peace but a sword," He didn't mean to go around gaslighting people, especially other fellow Christians.

Do you think He did mean that?

I certainly wouldn't think He meant it about fellow Christians at all. But might He have meant it about fellow Jews, some of which were going to reject Him and His message/His truth, and persecute His followers...the ones who were accepting His message? Now, those Jews didn't think they were rejecting their Messiah and the truth, but they were. And they did multiple things that counted as "a sword", like stoning brothers (such as Stephen) who brought conviction about the Messiah, just because they didn't like his message of truth. What was Stephen's message about that offended them so? History. They didn't like being confronted by their own history. They didn't answer Stephen to explain where he was wrong in his version of their history...they just decided to stone him. Funny how history tends to repeat itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I certainly wouldn't think He meant it about fellow Christians at all. But might He have meant it about fellow Jews, some of which were going to reject Him and His message/His truth, and persecute His followers...the ones who were accepting His message? Now, those Jews didn't think they were rejecting their Messiah and the truth, but they were. And they did multiple things that counted as "a sword", like stoning brothers (such as Stephen) who brought conviction about the Messiah, just because they didn't like his message of truth. What was Stephen's message about that offended them so? History. They didn't like being confronted by their own history. They didn't answer Stephen to explain where he was wrong in his version of their history...they just decided to stone him. Funny how history tends to repeat itself.

Who's getting stoned here, Fred?

 

[Derf]

Who's getting stoned here, Fred?

I'm the only one that has presented a message.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm the only one that has presented a message.

If by chance I failed to deliver my message, here it is: if you want to axiomatically frame your faith by starting with certain presuppositions, like the Great Flood was real and literally covered the earth and leaving behind geological formations like the Grand Canyon, be my guest.

And if you want to argue about it, we have other forums here for that. Or if you want to get into nitty-gritty levels of beliefs, I've left a book list in my personal page here on CF. You can peruse it, and if if any part of it strikes your fancy, you can engage it and know that I'm more than HAPPY to discuss it ..............................................

Otherwise, have your own faith to yourself!

 

[Derf]

If by chance I failed to deliver my message, here it is: if you want to axiomatically frame your faith by starting with certain presuppositions, like the Great Flood was real and literally covered the earth and leaving behind geological formations like the Grand Canyon, be my guest.

And if you want to argue about it, we have other forums here for that. Or if you want to get into nitty-gritty levels of beliefs, I've left a book list in my personal page here on CF. You can peruse it, and if if any part of it strikes your fancy, you can engage it and know that I'm more than HAPPY to discuss it ..............................................

Otherwise, have your own faith to yourself!

If it's ok to believe in a literal flood, and a literal dispersion from Babel, which would counter the out of Africa scenario, why did you jump into this conversation in the first place?

If by chance I failed to deliver my message, here it is: if you want to axiomatically frame your faith by starting with certain presuppositions, like the Great Flood was real and literally covered the earth and leaving behind geological formations like the Grand Canyon, be my guest.

You may call it a presupposition...that probably fits. But then it needs to be investigated to make sure the data fits, just like any other presuppositions, including yours. The reason I still hold that presupposition is that the biblical evidence, myths if you will, told me about it, and cultural, archaeological, and recent paleontological evidence supports it.

@Warden_of_the_Storm gave his presupposition--geology myths from high school textbooks-- then promptly left the thread when he had the chance to defend it. Normally when someone joins a conversation denying the proposed presuppositions, he needs to say why those are wrong (which he didn't do), present his presuppositions (which he didn't do, except for a passing reference to those implanted by high school geology textbooks), present his evidence to support such presuppositions (which he didn't do), and be prepared to defend them (how could he, when he hadn't really presented any).

And if you want to argue about it, we have other forums here for that.

Why is it always a different forum? This one started (not by me) because the OPer presented his narrative trying to fit supposed evidence to supposed biblical and secular myths, which is a good idea, because such can result, if we are all persistent enough, in getting closer to rhe truth (yes, there is a single truthful story about how mankind spread across the earth, though it may be hard to find enough evidence to convince everyone). Unfortunately the originator was a drive-by thread starter.

Or if you want to get into nitty-gritty levels of beliefs, I've left a book list in my personal page here on CF. You can peruse it, and if if any part of it strikes your fancy, you can engage it and know that I'm more than HAPPY to discuss it ..............................................

Otherwise, have your own faith to yourself!

What I think you're saying is that you don't know your beliefs well enough to explain them to me, which, when referring to educated people, usually neans they don't know them well enough to believe them sincerely themselves.

Don't get mad about this, again. I want every Christian to be able to articulate his beliefs, even if different from my own...not because they are all equally valid, but because
1. If he's wrong, then he can learn the truth, and
2. If I'm wrong, then I can learn the truth.
But if nobody is ever wrong, then there's no such thing as truth. From what you've told me, that's where you are right now. I sure hope you don't stay there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I think you're saying is that you don't know your beliefs well enough to explain them to me, which, when referring to educated people, usually neans they don't know them well enough to believe them sincerely themselves.

No, I know my beliefs. I just don't have the time to write out 10,000 pages of articulation on it in the matter of one or two days.

I also know the boundaries of what it is I know; I also know that there are other people who are apparently oblivious to the fact that they have these same epistemological boundaries.

Don't get mad about this, again. I want every Christian to be able to articulate his beliefs, even if different from my own...not because they are all equally valid, but because
1. If he's wrong, then he can learn the truth, and
2. If I'm wrong, then I can learn the truth.
But if nobody is ever wrong, then there's no such thing as truth. From what you've told me, that's where you are right now. I sure hope you don't stay there.

Again, you resort to gaslighting. STOP...................doing that. While we're at it, you might think about the following:

Maybe I'm fully aware of the fine lines that exist psychologically and socially among fellow Christians or Seekers to know that some issues, if tapped too hard, or too forcefully, will disturb some people too deeply. So, I tread carefully and slowly. I'm not here to draw forth a sword and quickly and utterly cut down to the morrow of any other person's Worldview, especially if at the moment the structure of that person's worldview could be the only thing holding up their attention toward Jesus.

Do you get me? It's called the attempted application of Emotional Intelligence.

Anyway, I'm going to drop this discussion with you. If you want to talk further, you know where I am and you can more than easily look at the academic and scholarly issues that I "hide behind."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Warden_of_the_Storm gave his presupposition--geology myths from high school textbooks-- then promptly left the thread when he had the chance to defend it. Normally when someone joins a conversation denying the proposed presuppositions, he needs to say why those are wrong (which he didn't do), present his presuppositions (which he didn't do, except for a passing reference to those implanted by high school geology textbooks), present his evidence to support such presuppositions (which he didn't do), and be prepared to defend them (how could he, when he hadn't really presented any).

I'm going to step back in because I see that you're talking about me behind my back here.

You did nothing to counter anything I said. For everything I said, you just went "But is it really?" or "No, that's not true at all." Continously. You did not a damn thing to actually counter anything I said, except call everything I said either a myth or just say that it was wrong without doing anything to say WHY it was wrong.

That's why I left: because you were engaging in what is basically trolling. Nothing intellectual, nothing smart. Just trolling. If you want to actually defend your own viewpoints, you would actually explain them, instead of just going "Oh, any story is a myth" and this brilliantly oxymoronic statement of: "Every historical record is evidence of the event recorded. A record might be true or false, and the event recorded might be factual or fictitious.", and who can also forget your brilliant claim about the Bible explaining how the Grand Canyon was formed... and then just leaving it.

You are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect in full-force.

 

[Derf]

I'm going to step back in because I see that you're talking about me behind my back here.

Welcome back. If I wanted to talk about you behind your back, I wouldn't have tagged you in my post.

You did nothing to counter anything I said. For everything I said, you just went "But is it really?" or "No, that's not true at all." Continously.

Followed by my reasoning for why I didn't agree with you. Continuously.

You did not a damn thing to actually counter anything I said, except call everything I said either a myth or just say that it was wrong without doing anything to say WHY it was wrong.

Why what was wrong? All you did was tell me that everything we learned in geology in high school was correct and therefore what I said wasn't. If you'd like to offer some of your HS textbook wisdom, please do. Otherwise my position is the only one on the table, after the OP, anyway.

That's why I left: because you were engaging in what is basically trolling. Nothing intellectual, nothing smart.

Yes, but you left because my "nothing intellectual, nothing smart" was obviously too intellectual and smart for you. That's what I got out of it. If that's not true, show me, don't just go off in a huff.

Just trolling. If you want to actually defend your own viewpoints, you would actually explain them, instead of just going "Oh, any story is a myth" and this brilliantly oxymoronic statement of: "Every historical record is evidence of the event recorded. A record might be true or false, and the event recorded might be factual or fictitious.", and who can also forget your brilliant claim about the Bible explaining how the Grand Canyon was formed... and then just leaving it.

You're pretty good at finding those statements. Can you find the ones where I explained my position? For example, posts 18, 106, 129, 141, 148, 152?

You are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect in full-force.

How impressive. That's you calling me an expert. I'm flattered!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Welcome back. If I wanted to talk about you behind your back, I wouldn't have tagged you in my post.

Even though I said that I was done with the conversation. I'd call that talking about me behind my back.

Followed by my reasoning for why I didn't agree with you. Continuously.

You didn't, at all. You made claims, which were not subsatianted with any shred of evidence whatsoever. Just claims on claims on claims.

Why what was wrong? All you did was tell me that everything we learned in geology in high school was correct and therefore what I said wasn't. If you'd like to offer some of your HS textbook wisdom, please do. Otherwise my position is the only one on the table, after the OP, anyway.

Because I have no reason to doubt centuries worth of scientific evidence and study versus the claims of a random nobody on the internet with an inflated self-ego.

Yes, but you left because my "nothing intellectual, nothing smart" was obviously too intellectual and smart for you. That's what I got out of it. If that's not true, show me, don't just go off in a huff.

Inflated self-ego.

You're pretty good at finding those statements. Can you find the ones where I explained my position? For example, posts 18, 106, 129, 141, 148, 152?

Taking post 18 as the example, the only thing that shows as your position is your arguing from a position of incredulity and also that you start with the illogical position that the Bibilical claims are the right, because you cannot concieve that they might be wrong, in the face of God's actual creation and the actual study of His creation.

How impressive. That's you calling me an expert. I'm flattered!

Not an expert in the slightest, just a person with an inflated self-ego. I would go on more, but anything else I'd add would be against forum rules in any shape or form of what I type.

 

[Derf]

Taking post 18 as the example, the only thing that shows as your position is your arguing from a position of incredulity and also that you start with the illogical position that the Bibilical claims are the right, because you cannot concieve that they might be wrong, in the face of God's actual creation and the actual study of His creation.

Very good! Let's talk about post 18. Here it is:

"Since you call it a "biblical" flood, you actually know that there's that evidence.. In addition, there are fossils of huge animals and small, land animals as well as air and sea found all over the world. Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water.

The fossils are sitting in geologic layers that often have flat boundaries between layers, which require water to form and then not be disturbed for millions of years, potentially, while the layers above are applied, all over the world.

Not believing in some kind if world-wide cataclysm that killed multiple millions of species was so inane that secular scientists eventually had to come up with another source other than water, so they envisioned large rocks hitting the earth, killing a bunch of animals with, yes, you guessed it, tsunamis, giving much credence to the bible's account. Tsunamis are made with water, in case you forgot."

Which part do you disagree with?

 

[Derf]

No, I know my beliefs. I just don't have the time to write out 10,000 pages of articulation on it in the matter of one or two days.

I don't want to know all 10000 pages of what you believe (sorry...just not that interested). But I'd be interested in what you believe about the current topic...maybe.

I also know the boundaries of what it is I know; I also know that there are other people who are apparently oblivious to the fact that they have these same epistemological boundaries.



Again, you resort to gaslighting. STOP...................doing that.

I think you might have an incorrect definition of "gaslighting".

While we're at it, you might think about the following:

Maybe I'm fully aware of the fine lines that exist psychologically and socially among fellow Christians or Seekers to know that some issues, if tapped too hard, or too forcefully, will disturb some people too deeply.

Some people may need to be disturbed more deeply to get them to understand their only hope is in Jesus Christ.

So, I tread carefully and slowly. I'm not here to draw forth a sword and quickly and utterly cut down to the morrow of any other person's Worldview,

Neither am I, unless it is leading them to reject Christ and what He told us.

especially if at the moment the structure of that person's worldview could be the only thing holding up their attention toward Jesus.

How do you know this about someone?

Do you get me? It's called the attempted application of Emotional Intelligence.

Anyway, I'm going to drop this discussion with you. If you want to talk further, you know where I am and you can more than easily look at the academic and scholarly issues that I "hide behind."

Ok, see ya.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Very good! Let's talk about post 18. Here it is:

"Since you call it a "biblical" flood, you actually know that there's that evidence.. In addition, there are fossils of huge animals and small, land animals as well as air and sea found all over the world. Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water.

The fossils are sitting in geologic layers that often have flat boundaries between layers, which require water to form and then not be disturbed for millions of years, potentially, while the layers above are applied, all over the world.

Not believing in some kind if world-wide cataclysm that killed multiple millions of species was so inane that secular scientists eventually had to come up with another source other than water, so they envisioned large rocks hitting the earth, killing a bunch of animals with, yes, you guessed it, tsunamis, giving much credence to the bible's account. Tsunamis are made with water, in case you forgot."

Which part do you disagree with?

All of it.

Also, for the love of God: drop the condescension.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't want to know all 10000 pages of what you believe (sorry...just not that interested). But I'd be interested in what you believe about the current topic...maybe.

I currently tend to "believe" the same thing about both the Flood and the Geologic Column as my sources do, which I mentioned above in a previous post (and that's in contradistinction to the other sources I also have which affirm the Flood).

But frankly, I don't think this topic is the "crux" of where the Bible stands or falls.

I think you might have an incorrect definition of "gaslighting".

Nah. I tend to go with the denotations of "gaslighting" that psychologists and philosophers currently tout in connection with human relations and/or argumentation. So. This means that to avoid gaslighting others, you'll need to do more than simply flip open a dictionary to understand "what IT IS."

Some people may need to be disturbed more deeply to get them to understand their only hope is in Jesus Christ.

I don't like your use of the term "disturbed." That's the point of all that I was saying above. We may want to challenge people in a intellectual and congenial way, but as Christians, we shouldn't be seeking to psychologically "disturb" them.

Neither am I, unless it is leading them to reject Christ and what He told us.

Sometimes, it's not in what you say as much as it is in "how" you say what you say. You might consider that. We also might not want to assume a prophetic posture where the Lord hasn't actually deputized us as such ........................................................................

How do you know this about someone?

You chat with them, person to person, human mind to human mind, as people rather than adding them as another notch of victory on our evangelical belts.

Ok, see ya.

Ok.

 

[Derf]

All of it.

Excellent! Then I'll pick one to discuss.
"Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water."

Which part of this one is wrong?

Here's my side of the argument, example 1 taken from an Oxford University natural history website:
---
First step of the formation of a mould and cast fossil from
When an animal or plant dies its remains usually rot away to nothing. Sometimes though, when the conditions are just right and its remains can be buried quickly, it may be fossilised. There are several different ways fossils are formed. Here we go through the five steps of fossilisation to make a typical 'mould and cast' fossil.

1. An animal dies, its skeleton settles on the sea floor and is buried by sediment.​

---
"Sea floor" requires water.

Example 2, from How do fossils form?:
---
Most animals become fossilized by being buried in sediment. For them to be fossilized, they have to be buried and leave an imprint before they decompose.
---
"Sediments" usually have to involve water, especially if the animals need to be preserved before they decay or are eaten.

I can provide more examples, but first tell me if you now agree with that part of my statement.

Also, for the love of God: drop the condescension.

I'm happy to as soon as you stop making me do your job for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Excellent! Then I'll pick one to discuss.
"Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water."

Which part of this one is wrong?

Here's my side of the argument, example 1 taken from an Oxford University natural history website:
---
First step of the formation of a mould and cast fossil from
When an animal or plant dies its remains usually rot away to nothing. Sometimes though, when the conditions are just right and its remains can be buried quickly, it may be fossilised. There are several different ways fossils are formed. Here we go through the five steps of fossilisation to make a typical 'mould and cast' fossil.

1. An animal dies, its skeleton settles on the sea floor and is buried by sediment.​

---
"Sea floor" requires water.

Example 2, from How do fossils form?:
---
Most animals become fossilized by being buried in sediment. For them to be fossilized, they have to be buried and leave an imprint before they decompose.
---
"Sediments" usually have to involve water, especially if the animals need to be preserved before they decay or are eaten.

I can provide more examples, but first tell me if you now agree with that part of my statement.

Yeah, you would actually be surprised how many animals live in areas that gives them ready access to water since, believe it or not, water is needed to live. Also, there is such a thing as weather too. That can drastically raise water levels in localized areas.

Fossils do not need to be underwater to form as fossils, they just need to buried under sediment to be protected from the elements and scavengers. Landslides, sand dunes collapsing, collapsing in mud, will preserve a fossil as readily as being underwater does. The Gobi Desert is a brilliant example of dinosaur fossils found in areas that did not have vast areas of water in it. But the main key for fossilization is that an animal's remains be preserved in a place where oxygen cannot get to it, thus slowing and eventually stopping decay as minerals replace bone.

Now, with that out of the way: you still need to explain how any of what you said is evidence for a flood. Where are the dinosaur bones and the humans existing together? In your claim, when did the Flood happen?

I'm happy to as soon as you stop making me do your job for you.

No, you're not doing 'my job for me' at all. You're just being rude.

 

[Derf]

Yeah, you would actually be surprised how many animals live in areas that gives them ready access to water since, believe it or not, water is needed to live. Also, there is such a thing as weather too. That can drastically raise water levels in localized areas.

Weather, like floods, right. See, we're already getting closer to agreement!

Fossils do not need to be underwater

I didn't claim that.

to form as fossils, they just need to buried under sediment to be protected from the elements and scavengers.

Which is easier with lots of water and lots of sediment. Maybe some amount of heat and/or some form of concretion medium, since there are bacteria and scavengers that are under the surface of the sediment.

Landslides, sand dunes collapsing, collapsing in mud, will preserve a fossil as readily as being underwater does.

Then there ought to be lots of preserved cactus fossils, but ther aren't.

The Gobi Desert is a brilliant example of dinosaur fossils found in areas that did not have vast areas of water in it.

Like this description?
"Palaeontologists still continue to discover fossils that prove the current territory of Gobi Desert had a very different climate and environment before 120 to 70 million years ago during the Cretaceous period. 120 million years ago the vast desert basins and valleys contained freshwater rivers and lakes with abundant water resources." We're discussing what it was like when the animals died, not today.

But the main key for fossilization is that an animal's remains be preserved in a place where oxygen cannot get to it, thus slowing and eventually stopping decay as minerals replace bone.

Or you have to fossilize quickly to prevent the decay. How long do you think it takes to fossilize, say, a whole fish in the conditions you mentioned?

Also, are all the components of the bone you mentioned replaced? They would have to be to last for millions of years, right?

Now, with that out of the way: you still need to explain how any of what you said is evidence for a flood.

We're still talking about fossils being overwhelmingly found that were laid down by or in water, right? Water...flood...see the connection? It's not slam dunk evidence for a flood, but just one of the evidences. Are you saying you're ready to go on to the next one from my post?

Where are the dinosaur bones and the humans existing together?

First, it's unlikely the humans lived with the dinosaurs, i.e., in the same location. And you've already mentioned location as being important. So we would expect scant evidence that they died together. Fossils only tell when and where a creature died and was buried, though it could be close to where it lived.
There are curious artworks that suggest humans saw dinosaurs. This one is over 500 years old.

In your claim, when did the Flood happen?

I think it was around 2500 BC, maybe up to 6000 BC.

No, you're not doing 'my job for me' at all. You're just being rude.

I'll try to curtail my rudeness.

 

[Bradskii]

We're still talking about fossils being overwhelmingly found that were laid down by or in water, right?

So as you say that literally everything was killed at exactly the same time in a global flood then there'd be fossils of everything, everywhere, all showing exactly the same age.

Hmm. Let me check to see if that's what we actually have.

Nope. I had a quick look. Seems there's nothing like that. So this new theory: 'Fossils form in wet conditions, therefore there was a global flood' proves to be so monstrously inept that it can't even be classed as wrong.