157 replies to this topic

[Yun]

A global flood has already been disproved by science

Anti-flood: http://www.talkorigi...-noahs-ark.html

Pro-flood rebuttals: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
http://www.answersin...ok/global10.asp

Anti-flood rebuttal to pro-flood rebuttal: http://www.geocities...odnonsense.html

See also: http://globalflood.org

There are PhD-holding scientists on both sides, so whether the question has been settled scientifically or not depends on whose science you find to be better.

[lobster]

In the Chinese character of "boat", it is made up of 3 characters, boat/ship, 8 (as in the number/quantity) and mouth.

This is nonsense, the character chuan 船 is a relatively new character comprising of the meaning 舟 and the sound (the right side, dunno how to type). The real ancient character for boat is Zhou 舟, which was a pictograph of a, um, boat.

[Chris Weimer]

The difference, Yun, is that objective scientists look at the evidence and then decide, while AIG looks only towards the scriptures, and then justifies it.

[Chris Weimer]

There are PhD-holding scientists on both sides, so whether the question has been settled scientifically or not depends on whose science you find to be better.

AIG's has one person in evolutionary biology...at least on that article...

[snowybeagle]

The difference, Yun, is that objective scientists look at the evidence and then decide, while AIG looks only towards the scriptures, and then justifies it.

Folks, let me request again to maintain these in the context of historical discussion rather than evolution/creationism young/old earth global/local/no flood debate.

Chris, if there's something wrong with the evidence/hypothesis, then it does not whether it is from "objective scientists" or from AIG, does it?

And if there's something valid about the evidence/hypothesis, then it does not matter either whether it is from "objective scientists" or from AIG, does it?

Yun is no stranger to unusual historical claims in articles, one example is the recent argument about a certain member's historical lineage and lineage of some historical characters. Despite the fact that some of the authors quoted had a record of making dubious claims which could not be substantiated, Yun showed that other claims made by the same author should not be dismissed on those grounds, though they should be examined more carefully.

You are entitled to your own personal opinion, of course.

[somechineseperson]

Nothing that humans have direct access is completely objective. The Noumena, the real, ultimate reality and truth of things is inaccessible to humans. (At least coventionally) Every piece of data is theory-laden. Science or non-science, everything has an element of faith in it.

Scientists do not study the world of Noumena, they study the phonomenal world, which is partly constrained by qualities of the Noumena, but also partly an invention/construction of the scientists themselves.

Consider for example the case of electrons. No one has ever seen or have any direct sensory experience of electrons, yet we all assume they exist. But actually electrons only exist in a particular phenomenal world constructed by scientists. Electrons are only observable if one already assumes a particular theoretical framework. Throw away the theoretical framework all one has are a bunch of senseless lines on a photographic plate from the cloud chamber.

Now compare this with direct spiritual experience, free from any theoretical assumptions or framework, by Christians or people of other faiths. IMHO this may be a closer glimpse to Noumena than scientific evidence, though I do think science is more systematic. Both have their merits. The more direct kind of spiritual experience can only happen on an individual basis, which is why it is difficult to prove or disprove them using conventional scientific methods. Conventional scientific methods, however, do have limits. For science to be able to confirm (the word "prove" is philosophically speaking incorrect, for science relies on induction, which can never prove anything) something, the thing needs to be reproducible to some extent. But what something is by definition irreproducible, i.e. by definition is unique and can only happen once? Then science can neither confirm nor falsify it.

Real spirituality is like a sudden incursion into Noumena, it can go deeper, but it's sporadic and unsystematic. Science on the other hand is the systematic method of trying to catch a glimpse of Noumena, but it can only reach the shallower regions.

[Chris Weimer]

Nothing that humans have direct access is completely objective. The Noumena, the real, ultimate reality and truth of things is inaccessible to humans. (At least coventionally) Every piece of data is theory-laden. Science or non-science, everything has an element of faith in it.

Wrong.

Scientists do not study the world of Noumena, they study the phonomenal world, which is partly constrained by qualities of the Noumena, but also partly an invention/construction of the scientists themselves.

The reason why the "Noumena" (actually numina, Latin, numen, numinis - divine will) aren't studied by scientists is because they can't be proven to exist. Since you can never actually know they exist, why should they even speculate?

Consider for example the case of electrons. No one has ever seen or have any direct sensory experience of electrons, yet we all assume they exist. But actually electrons only exist in a particular phenomenal world constructed by scientists. Electrons are only observable if one already assumes a particular theoretical framework. Throw away the theoretical framework all one has are a bunch of senseless lines on a photographic plate from the cloud chamber.

Take any Physics 101 class and try telling the professor that. Electrons are, actually, observable, in more than one aspect. You should try sticking with what you know.

Now compare this with direct spiritual experience, free from any theoretical assumptions or framework, by Christians or people of other faiths. IMHO this may be a closer glimpse to Noumena than scientific evidence, though I do think science is more systematic. Both have their merits. The more direct kind of spiritual experience can only happen on an individual basis, which is why it is difficult to prove or disprove them using conventional scientific methods. Conventional scientific methods, however, do have limits. For science to be able to confirm (the word "prove" is philosophically speaking incorrect, for science relies on induction, which can never prove anything) something, the thing needs to be reproducible to some extent. But what something is by definition irreproducible, i.e. by definition is unique and can only happen once? Then science can neither confirm nor falsify it.

Real spirituality is like a sudden incursion into Noumena, it can go deeper, but it's sporadic and unsystematic. Science on the other hand is the systematic method of trying to catch a glimpse of Noumena, but it can only reach the shallower regions.

Well, for saying a lot, you sure did say nothing. No one assumes a particular framework, than work off of it. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous. Electrons were discovered and then worked into a particular framework, and we have good ol' math to back it up. Numina, on the other hand, have no evidence and require a presumption that they exist.

You work on faith, not me.

[Yun]

Chris, there's a way to be disagree and still be nice. You may have big issues with faith because you had to lose it rather painfully, but please avoid taking it out on other people's faiths. Otherwise I will have to edit your posts. Thanks...

[Chris Weimer]

Sorry Yun, but this is ridiculous. The guy obviously doesn't know a thing about physics, yet spouts it off as some proof for his god.

[somechineseperson]

Sorry Yun, but this is ridiculous. The guy obviously doesn't know a thing about physics, yet spouts it off as some proof for his god.

I guess you don't know about philosophy of science. Whether or not certain concepts proposed in physics theories (such as electrons, quarks, etc) are meant to correspond to anything in reality or not is a debatable question. But perhaps it doesn't matter as long as the theories work.

[Kulong]

No matter how much Christian fanatics want to justify Christianizing Chinese, the fact is, the Bible was written by MEN (not God) who CLAIMED that they were writing the "words of God". Also, at the time when the Bible was written, to them the world was no bigger than southern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa.

[Chris Weimer]

Kulong - many of the books in the Bible don't even claim to be the word of god. Truly, only the prophetic books of the old testament do this properly.

[Yun]

No matter how much Christian fanatics want to justify Christianizing Chinese, the fact is, the Bible was written by MEN (not God) who CLAIMED that they were writing the "words of God".

Kulong, are you implying that I am a fanatic, simply because I go to a church that was founded in the 1950s by a Chinese Christian evangelist from China, named the Evangelise China Fellowship, and would like to see more Chinese become Christians because I think it is good for them spiritually? Has anything I wrote on CHF ever sounded fanatical to you? I would urge you to refrain from stereotyping people and using inflammatory words. You may live in Texas, but not all Christians are like Bush.

BTW, if you say the same thing to a Muslim, that the Quran was written by a man who claimed to be writing the words of God, you are likely to offend him very seriously. He doesn't have to be a fanatic - he just has to believe in the fundamentals of his faith (yes, 'fundamentalist' is such an easy word to demonise isn't it). Christians are generally more tolerant of this than Muslims, because they are taught to expect rejection.

Also, at the time when the Bible was written, to them the world was no bigger than southern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa.

By the time of the New Testament, they knew about India and Central Asia. Alexander only got that far, but there were certainly Greek legends about lands further away, including the land of the Seres (i.e. China). So it would depend on which part of the Bible you're talking about. When the Prophets wrote, China was in the Zhou dynasty. How big do you think the world was to the Zhou? And they still called it "All Under Heaven"!

[somechineseperson]

The Bible is not written by God, it is written by people within a particular historical and cultural context, but inspired by God.

IMHO the Bible is not the only text that is inspired by God.

[TMPikachu]

Sorry Yun, but this is ridiculous. The guy obviously doesn't know a thing about physics, yet spouts it off as some proof for his god.

You sure have alot of faith in your beliefs

Edited by TMPikachu, 09 June 2005 - 05:26 PM.