Thread: TN science bill protects teachers who allow debate over evolution

Originally Posted by aboutenough

So using your basis of evalutation all history is not valid because it was written down and we cannot prove it? What physical evidence do we have of Columbia landing in America? Or the Pilgrims coming to America? I could use your logic and dismiss those incidents because alls I have is written history. You seem to be using selective science to support your theories

So, using your argument TH White's tales are all 100% true? They are written down and cannot be proven? How about Tolkein? Seen any Hobbits? How about a Nazgul or two?
Stephen Donaldson's Unbeliever series is fact because it's written down? It's all we have, and in many ways is much like the Bible.

BTW, Historiography (which is the study of history) is, at best, a soft science. History is not a science by any definition of the word.

Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson

OK, for one, you are correct as far as the absolute truth regarding history. WE get a sugar coated or not fully factual history. THe further back we go without all the recording, video, and mass media and writing, the more inaccurate it is. Columbus' travels to america are documented by multiple sources, not just one book written decades after he did it. That's what you hvae in the bible. Also, it didn't say magical things like columbus parted the atlantic ocean and that's how he got to america, or that he rode a pink unicorn. THe bible is full of these things. Some stories are only in the bible and not validated. ANd the fact some people and places existed that means teh bible is true, like you hear argued, is equally bs. And if there was certain events, they were natural events, not magic. The people in that time were completely ignorant of the natural world and were very superstitious. Take stories being passed down from generation to generation and humand elaborate and make the story more and more unbelievable

There's more to it than that. The Bible is full of cultural cross pollination, and simply contains too many parallels to the mythology of other religions to be taken as "truth."
Further, we are talking about a book which tried to capture a, primarily oral, tradition and so many stories were embellished to make the telling more interesting. There's just so much room for doubt that no rational person would take the Bible as an unimpeachable source of accurate historical data.

Originally Posted by Djinn

It's something - a start. But it's not much, considering the the magnitude of the claim (tens of thousands of slaves).

But as your source puts it:


Tens of thousands of slaves over many years should leave a rather large historical footprint.

It might, but there's nothing to suggest that this entire footprint would be preserved and discoverable. Here's the thing about this evidence--even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that there were Hebrews in Egypt during a given period, that's still no proof of a deity or that any of the specific elements of the Exodus story are corroborated.

Originally Posted by Towski

The point is that if you've only ever encountered one christian liberal, it speaks more to you than it does their lack of existence.

You probably know that in order to back Liberal policies like abortion it begs to differ with the churches position. Now the policy requiring churches to provide birth control to its employees even divides more. Either Chrisitian liberals are totally silent in their views or they are as rare as hens teeth.

Originally Posted by Djinn

It's something - a start. But it's not much, considering the the magnitude of the claim (tens of thousands of slaves).

But as your source puts it:


Tens of thousands of slaves over many years should leave a rather large historical footprint.

Thats true, but this may be the start of more discoveries.

Originally Posted by Cicero

So, using your argument TH White's tales are all 100% true? They are written down and cannot be proven? How about Tolkein? Seen any Hobbits? How about a Nazgul or two?
Stephen Donaldson's Unbeliever series is fact because it's written down? It's all we have, and in many ways is much like the Bible.

BTW, Historiography (which is the study of history) is, at best, a soft science. History is not a science by any definition of the word.

It seems like some history is better then none and two or more sources agreeing with each other begin to bolster the findings.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

You probably know that in order to back Liberal policies like abortion it begs to differ with the churches position. Now the policy requiring churches to provide birth control to its employees even divides more. Either Chrisitian liberals are totally silent in their views or they are as rare as hens teeth.

Funny thing...unless you're counting as 'Christians' only the members of denominations that oppose birth control, your second argument makes little sense. And liberals don't necessary support abortion, they simply think that the temporal laws of government don't necessary have to match the laws of God. As a liberal, I don't think I have the right to force my ethical system on anyone else. As a Christian, I'm opposed to abortion for myself...well...I'm a guy so that's an ethical question I don't have to face (I guess maybe that's why I'm a liberal--I don't think I have a right to speak on ethical questions that affect only other people).

If you want to find a bunch of liberal Christians, better check out the United Church of Christ [or the Presbyterian Church USA, or the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)]. On the other hand, you might not consider them Christians, since your view of what's acceptable among Christians appears to be rather narrow.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

Thats true, but this may be the start of more discoveries.

Could be. But until we have a few more, I'm not planning on giving much credence to the story. And to bring this back on topic, same goes for "intelligent design." Once "intelligent design" researchers show some progress, then it might be worth a second look.

But to the best of my knowledge, there is NO aspect of "intelligent design" that has changed due to research. That doesn't sound like science to me. If I'm wrong, tell me where I can learn NEW things about "intelligent design" - you know... the cutting-edge research. Stuff you wouldn't find in a 10-15 year-old book.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

It seems like some history is better then none and two or more sources agreeing with each other begin to bolster the findings.

Actually, 'history' with only one source isn't history, pretty much by definition.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

Thats true, but this may be the start of more discoveries.

Maybe, but "don't count your chickens." Scholarship requires that we don't make claims beyond the evidence available.