Possible Evidence For Religious Anecdotage

[arthwollipot]

It depends on the credentials. If the speaker has a Doctorate of Creationist Studies from the ICR, that doesn't count for much in academic circles.

However, there are occasions when genuine credentials don't count either. Someone can have advanced postdoctoral degrees in mathematics and physics, and still know jack about biology.

Notice how few of the credentialed sources that creationsts cite actually have credentials in biology.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Much ado is made about educational credentials as if they would would make any difference when presented in support of creationist claims. The fact is that educational credentials would be glibly dismissed as irrelevant. Which of course means that the damned-if-you-do-or-don't modus operandi is the choice one for many here-a modus operandi which is indicative of a fanatically hermetically closed mentality impervious to any type of contradictory evidence or logic regardless of source.

It's not merely the possession of a sheepskin that makes a scientist (or any other researcher) credible. It's the quality of the research. Unlike the Creationists, Leakey produced evidence that could be examined and be subject to peer review.

 

[m_huber]

Much ado is made about educational credentials as if they would would make any difference when presented in support of creationist claims. The fact is that educational credentials would be glibly dismissed as irrelevant. Which of course means that the damned-if-you-do-or-don't modus operandi is the choice one for many here-a modus operandi which is indicative of a fanatically hermetically closed mentality impervious to any type of contradictory evidence or logic regardless of source.

I don't care if a pink hippo comes up with the evidence. If it is right, I will believe what the evidence tells me. When the evidence is not present, it doesn't matter if the person saying it has 14 Ph.d.'s. The reason why no scientist accepts the so-called "contradictory evidence" is because it always has a more pedestrian explanation.

However, when Creationists like Robert Gentry who have a long list of credentials come up with proposals like the polonium haloes in granites, it does make everyone sit up and think for a moment. It is a fresh idea that comes from observation, works with normal scientific principles, and has interesting implications if it is true. Then, we analyze the argument and the samples, realize that it isn't polonium causing the haloes, so the entire argument falls apart, and life goes on.

 

[Ladewig]

So you are a self-proclaimed authority on the Bible?

None of the things you mention, except perhaps the flood which strove to cleanse mankind of demonic genetic contamination, were based on genes. Would your effort to defend mankind from genetic contamination by aliens categorize you as a genocidal maniac?
Pharoah's army met a military defeat. Are all military defeats Genocide? The Caanannites were driven from the land not based on genes but based on their behavior. Sodom and Gomorah were also destroyed based on behavior of the people there and not on genes.

Tanstaafl already pointed out that genocidal doesn't have to be limited to genes, but I do think the tenth plague in Egypt qualifies as mass murder based on genes. (Exodus 12:29-30) "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

Killing children and infants in a nation, including children of people in jail, is genocide. Unless you want to argue that the the children's deaths were "not based on genes but based on their behavior."

 

[Ladewig]

The Tigris and Euphrates were sluggards in the flooding department, and the Caspain Sea, into which they drain,

Don't they drain into the Persian Gulf?

 

[This Guy]

So you are a self-proclaimed authority on the Bible?

None of the things you mention, except perhaps the flood which strove to cleanse mankind of demonic genetic contamination, were based on genes. Would your effort to defend mankind from genetic contamination by aliens categorize you as a genocidal maniac?
Pharoah's army met a military defeat. Are all military defeats Genocide? The Caanannites were driven from the land not based on genes but based on their behavior. Sodom and Gomorah were also destroyed based on behavior of the people there and not on genes.

Before making such statements which you obviously expect the ignorant here to accept without any qualms as to your authority or your motives for saying them, I suggest that you reconsider how these unsubstantiated, mindless, statements make their author appear to be.

BTW

Tagging that preferred conclusion as obvious casts great doubt on your reading comprehension ability as well as on the quality and true nature of your recently-rejected beliefs.


Romans 10:2
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Would there be anything to back up this "demonic genetic contamination"?

This is the first time I've seen this expression used, and I'd really like to know of any evidence that supports it. Biblical or scientific, either would be nice

 

[Radrook]

Tanstaafl already pointed out that genocidal doesn't have to be limited to genes, but I do think the tenth plague in Egypt qualifies as mass murder based on genes. (Exodus 12:29-30) "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

Killing children and infants in a nation, including children of people in jail, is genocide. Unless you want to argue that the the children's deaths were "not based on genes but based on their behavior."

Are we misunderstanding what is meant by genocide?

The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/history/

Since God's intention was not to wipe the Egyptians out via killing of their first-born, according to this definition it wasn't genocide.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You focus on credentials when the actual thing that is relevant is evidence. You are using the common Creationist Bible believers' tactic called the straw man.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are we misunderstanding what is meant by genocide?



Since God's intention was not to wipe the Egyptians out via killing of their first-born, according to this definition it wasn't genocide.

Well, that's a relief.

I suppose that when Moses ordered the killing of the Midianite women in Numbers: 29 that probably wasn't genocide either, but if he had tried it in 1944, he still would have been hanged for it.

 

[Ladewig]

Are we misunderstanding what is meant by genocide?

The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.

Since God's intention was not to wipe the Egyptians out via killing of their first-born, according to this definition it wasn't genocide.

Some advice: when one uses a website as a citation for an argument, it is helpful to read the entire web page rather than simply to look at the first paragraph.

On December 9, 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust and in no small part due to the tireless efforts of Lemkin himself, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes "genocide” as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish.” It defines genocide as:

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You have not demonstrated that the word genocidal is inappropriate.

 

[shadron]

Would there be anything to back up this "demonic genetic contamination"?

This is the first time I've seen this expression used, and I'd really like to know of any evidence that supports it. Biblical or scientific, either would be nice

I agree with you, TG. Never heard of that before, after 20 years of intense Catholic education. I don't think the term would have made any sense at all before, say, 1990, in any case. I believe we're in the presence of an incipient New Revelation, and I can't wait to hear what joy it will bring to my heart. Lay it on us, St. Radrook.

Romans 10:2
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Brother, ain't that the truth.

 

[shadron]

Shadron I posted evidence of 400,000 year old wooden spears and a 4,000 yr old carved gord. I'm only saying wood can be preserved.

I don't buy the chariot wheels on the Red Sea floor as I also posted the fact the evidence was only reported on fake web sites. There was no actual evidence suggesting the claims were true of either the sulphur balls or the chariot remains. And we already know there is no evidence of any worldwide flood event regardless of how many very large floods there have been.

Yes ma'm. And as I said, "Absolutely! (I agree)"

 

[This Guy]

I agree with you, TG. Never heard of that before, after 20 years of intense Catholic education. I don't think the term would have made any sense at all before, say, 1990, in any case. I believe we're in the presence of an incipient New Revelation, and I can't wait to hear what joy it will bring to my heart. Lay it on us, St. Radrook.



Brother, ain't that the truth.

Thanks for posting that. I think Brother Radrook has me on ignore since our first/last little disagreement. Maybe he will see your post and bless us with a response

 

[Meadmaker]

Would there be anything to back up this "demonic genetic contamination"?

This is the first time I've seen this expression used, and I'd really like to know of any evidence that supports it. Biblical or scientific, either would be nice

He's referring to the Nephilim, in Genesis Chapter 6. When the "Sons of God came into the daughters of men"*, apparently that referred to demons impregnating human women, and messing with human genes.

This interpretation is not common among Biblical scholars. In fact, this is the first I've heard of it. Mostly, Biblical scholars would prefer that passage just mysteriously vanish, and they tend to think that "B'nei Elohim" must not mean what it seems to mean, which is "Sons of God."

 

[This Guy]

He's referring to the Nephilim, in Genesis Chapter 6. When the "Sons of God came into the daughters of men"*, apparently that referred to demons impregnating human women, and messing with human genes.

This interpretation is not common among Biblical scholars. In fact, this is the first I've heard of it. Mostly, Biblical scholars would prefer that passage just mysteriously vanish, and they tend to think that "B'nei Elohim" must not mean what it seems to mean, which is "Sons of God."

I suspected that might be the point he was making. I question the strength of his contention in light of what the Bible actually says though. I'm hoping he will give a good explanation.

 

[Radrook]

I agree with you, TG. Never heard of that before, after 20 years of intense Catholic education. I don't think the term would have made any sense at all before, say, 1990, in any case. I believe we're in the presence of an incipient New Revelation, and I can't wait to hear what joy it will bring to my heart. Lay it on us, St. Radrook.



Brother, ain't that the truth.

There is neither a need to be a saint nor to study the Bible deeply to gain this knowledge. In fact, simply enter Nephilim into the search engine and read. Ever consider doing that before going knee-jerk fashion into the mockery mode ?

 

[Radrook]

He's referring to the Nephilim, in Genesis Chapter 6. When the "Sons of God came into the daughters of men"*, apparently that referred to demons impregnating human women, and messing with human genes.

This interpretation is not common among Biblical scholars. In fact, this is the first I've heard of it. Mostly, Biblical scholars would prefer that passage just mysteriously vanish, and they tend to think that "B'nei Elohim" must not mean what it seems to mean, which is "Sons of God."

What is or isn't common a preference among scholars is irrelevant to the intended meaning of the text. Neither is majority opinion a guarantee of accuracy. That's why many decided to Protest against Catholic Church teachings because majority of scholar opinion doesn't protect against misunderstanding.

BTW
I am assuming you are right in saying that the majority is on the side you say they are in reference to the text involved. Is there any evidence you can provide for that conclusion?

 

[Radrook]

Some advice: when one uses a website as a citation for an argument, it is helpful to read the entire web page rather than simply to look at the first paragraph.

I looked at the entire page but since that's the basic definition I am using that's the one relevant to me and not the expanded version which you prefer.

You have not demonstrated that the word genocidal is inappropriate.

According to the basic definition I am using it is. God wasn't striving to wipe those people off the face oif the earth. But quibbling about definitions isn't really the issue at all-is it? Since whether God intended to do so or not- it still just doesn't sit right with you that he take a human life.

 

[Ladewig]

I looked at the entire page but since that's the basic definition I am using that's the one relevant to me and not the expanded version which you prefer.

Oh, it's not just my preference, the United Nations and the 137 countries that have ratified the convention prefer that definition. In fact, it is the legal definition of the word. If in 2008, a person targeted a specific nation and killed one child in every household in the entire country, I cannot imagine any rational person not describing that activity as genocide.

According to the basic definition I am using it is. God wasn't striving to wipe those people off the face of the earth. But quibbling about definitions isn't really the issue at all-is it?

Actually, I think it is. The issue is whether or not the term genocidal can be appropriately applied to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph. You have not provided any evidence that the term is incorrectly applied.

Since whether God intended to do so or not....

I have to ask: can you give an example of God doing something He did not intend to do?

... it still just doesn't sit right with you that he take a human life.

On the contrary, I believe that if God sets the rules for who lives and who dies, then people who understand the rules and voluntarily break the rules should get whatever punishment God has defined.¹ My issue is that the Egyptian children did not deserve to die. The leader of the country most certainly was a sinner as slavery is a heinous crime; but killing the children of people who had nothing at all to do with enslaving the Jews (i.e. people in the dungeon) seems a wee bit off the mark in terms of justice.


- - - - - - - -
(1) I do, however take issue with God's infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing. Eternity in hell clearly violates the spirit and the letter of the precept that the punishment should fit the crime.

 

[This Guy]

There is neither a need to be a saint nor to study the Bible deeply to gain this knowledge. In fact, simply enter Nephilim into the search engine and read. Ever consider doing that before going knee-jerk fashion into the mockery mode ?

Well, I did some searching, and there is a bit of info on those critters, and it does appear that others beside Radrook share his opinion, more or less. It does seem to be some dispute regarding who the Nephilim were fathered by, wither it was Angles, or Sons of God. Some believe they are one and the same, others two separate groups. Either way, there are indications that these Nephilim may have been at least partly responsible for God sending the flood (well, if you believe the Bible, and think there was a flood anyway).

I found one source (Not Biblicial) that indicated "God granted ten percent of the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim to remain after the flood, as demons, to try to lead the human race astray (through idolatry, the occult, etc.) until the final Judgment." Nice guy that God. He so loved the world, he purposely left demons around to temp us to disobey him. Just to make sure we deserved him having his Son (who of course was actually him) killed for us I suppose.

Seems to me God sure made things complicated.

Anyway, I'm gonna let this topic rest. It's more bazaar than I care to get into.