nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 14:10, October 26, 2008
, 14:10, October 26, 2008→Biblical Inconsistency?: Writing should be understood in its context.
Finally, you establish a dichotomy between science and history, whereas any professional historian will tell you that history must follow the scientific method. In the course of historical studies, a narrative must be treated as the primary evidence on which hypotheses are made. Testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible, which is one reason why the fossil record is only weak evidence for any origins thoery. Evolution is actually tested in completely different ways, which I discuss in our debate on "counterexamples to evolution" discussion. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Finally, you establish a dichotomy between science and history, whereas any professional historian will tell you that history must follow the scientific method. In the course of historical studies, a narrative must be treated as the primary evidence on which hypotheses are made. Testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible, which is one reason why the fossil record is only weak evidence for any origins thoery. Evolution is actually tested in completely different ways, which I discuss in our debate on "counterexamples to evolution" discussion. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, the second part of the account does have ''some'' chronological statements, but it is not primarily chronological. I would also point out that if a document that has been around for a long time and accepted as authoritative for a long time by many people ''appears'' to have a contradiction that has somehow gone unnoticed by so many people for so long, then perhaps the apparent contradiction exists only in the minds of those seeing the contradiction. Much of ancient society was a "high context" culture, where the context of a writing was assumed to be understood, instead of being spelt out. What I'm getting at is that the second part of the account should be read ''in the light of'' the first part, and not as a totally separate account. If I said to you that Abdul's two wives often argued with each other, and someone else told you that Abdul was no bigamist, then you might conclude that one or other of us was lying or mistaken. But if you already knew that Abdul was married, widowed, then married again, but that his second wife knew the first wife well before she died, then you would understand what I said in a different light. And although you might argue that my wording wasn't clear to you, you would at least have to concede that it wasn't incorrect. Nothing in the second part of the creation account clearly and unambiguously contradicts the first part. The only contradiction is from taking an overly-literal understanding and looking for contradictions. So when {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|4-7}} ''appears'' to contradict Genesis 1, you should be saying, "but plants had already been created, so what is this referring to instead?". [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/881/ This article] explains that Genesis 2:4-7 would have been talking about ''cultivated'' plants, and clearly {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|8-9}} is talking specifically about the Garden of Eden, not plants in general. I've already answered regarding {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|18-19}}, but will add that naming them and finding Adam a helper was why God brought the animals to him, not why they were created in the first place.
: The experts I was referring to were experts in Hebrew and Old Testament, and one (or even several) church organisation(s) does not change that. And even though the Catholic Church has compromised on this aspect in recent times, it's still official Catholic doctrine that Adam was a real person. Furthermore, essentially everyone accepted it as history until the last few centuries when "scientific" ideas started to be applied to it. Even now, most scholars who reject its literalness do so for reasons other than the text itself, as is documented in [[Old Earth Creationism]]. I'm sure this also applies to the Catholic Church.
: Yes, history does to a fair extent follow the scientific method, but only up to a point. It relies to a large extent on ancient documents, and historians have to make value judgments on the reliability of those documents. There's few opportunities to do scientific tests in cases like that. Sure, one can put the stone tablet under a microscope or test its chemical composition to determine that it is authentic, or that it came from a certain culture, or whatever, but what sort of scientific tests does one run on the content of the writing? But then you admit that "testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible", which is another way of saying that they are not really falsifiable, which means that they don't really qualify as science. As for evolution being tested in different ways, what I recall you saying in that other discussion is that evolution is "tested" by how ''plausible'' it is, which is different from testing whether or not it's correct.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)