Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have just as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do for any other historical person or event that goes back a thousand years or better. And if you wish to play your game, there are no eyewitnesses of WWI only written accounts of the witnesses. There are other written accounts and archaeological evidence supporting what is written in the Holy ...[text shortened]... l the time to visit the sites written about in the Holy Bible. So your objections are bogus. 😏

i think you are confused between veterans and eyewitnesses. the last veteran that we know of died earlier this year but there are many people alive that witnessed the events of ww1. on another note we also have film recordings of the veterans that have since died being interviewed about their experiences during the war. im pretty sure the bible has non of these.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think you are confused between veterans and eyewitnesses. the last veteran that we know of died earlier this year but there are many people alive that witnessed the events of ww1. on another note we also have film recordings of the veterans that have since died being interviewed about their experiences during the war. im pretty sure the bible has non of these.

Yes, I was thinking of veterans of the war. I also realize that we have advantages of recording history that was not available 2000 years ago. But when compared to historical records of 2000 years ago, the Christian experience is accounted for very well as historical events that really happened.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
WWI has mountains of evidence as well as contemporary historical coverage. you can even visit the sites and see some of the wreckage as a direct result from that war.

Nevertheless Kelly argues that believing in WWI requires believing fairy tales. Or at least he has given no reason why his argument should not lead to that conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless Kelly argues that believing in WWI requires believing fairy tales. Or at least he has given no reason why his argument should not lead to that conclusion.

Maybe, I misunderstood. I thought he was trying to defend against the argument that the Holy Bible consisted of fairy tales rather than real history like WWI.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, I misunderstood. I thought he was trying to defend against the argument that the Holy Bible consisted of fairy tales rather than real history like WWI.

Yes, you misunderstood. Kelly argues that all beliefs about anything you have not personally witnessed are equivalent and essentially no different from fairy tales. He is yet to explain what difference personal witness makes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you misunderstood. Kelly argues that all beliefs about anything you have not personally witnessed are equivalent and essentially no different from fairy tales. He is yet to explain what difference personal witness makes.

No, that is not true.
I've argued that unless someone witnesses it we are left with a best guess.
I take recorded history over what someone believes may have happen with
nothing but a guess as what occured almost every tiime.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
On page 13 of this thread you said, "We can look at snap shots in the now, look at the little bit of time we have had and then form a guess upon something quite beyond our reach. "

I was interested to see if you thought we all do that. All I mean is, I think we agree, we all do that. No one is looking at more than snapshots in the now.

Okay, sure when looking at the distant past we get something in the here and
now and from that "deduce" what we think occured. There isn't a recorded history
when it comes to the distant past, we run with little tid bits of information. Much
like a game of Sudoku you can run with the numbers you see and with careful
planning always be able to win flawlessly. Except if you over look anything it would
mean the mistake you made will ruin your game period. With the distant past you
don't now what is required, you don't know how it all got here, so you don't know
what it is you need to look at to even get a fix on the time! Not knowing how it
all got here means that if the universe is really a few thousand years old because
God created it than all the proper math applied to our dating methods will not
be even close. Not knowing how it all got here does not lead itself to us being
able to measure the distant past with or without God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, that is not true.
I've argued that unless someone witnesses it we are left with a best guess.
I take recorded history over what someone believes may have happen with
nothing but a guess as what occured almost every tiime.
Kelly

Well then it is you that is most likely to believe in fairy tales. After all, most fairy tales start with 'Once upon a time' and are written as if they are history. So you will take them as factual historical accounts even though they mention fantastical creatures or impossible events.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, that is not true.
I've argued that unless someone witnesses it we are left with a best guess.
I take recorded history over what someone believes may have happen with
nothing but a guess as what occured almost every tiime.
Kelly

So suppose the following:
1. It is written by an ancient scribe in Egypt that a particular city is in a particular spot.
2. Archaeologists dig around the area and find no ruins. However 50 miles away they do find ruins of a large city.
3. Kelly will believe the written record of where the city was and discard as mere guesses the ruins of a city found elsewhere

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then it is you that is most likely to believe in fairy tales. After all, most fairy tales start with 'Once upon a time' and are written as if they are history. So you will take them as factual historical accounts even though they mention fantastical creatures or impossible events.

And those other stories are riddled with "it could have", "it may have", it seems to
have" and other verbiage that is honest enough to suggest that they are just giving
their thoughts and turning it into some story on what may have occurred too are
also coming from the same place the mind of man.

If is made up in the mind of man, you may as well put a once upon a time on
some of the things that are written about the past. Much of what you believe that
has happened in the past are just based upon things people "believe" happened
and when they talk about them as if they know they are right and without error
makes fools of themselves, because they don't know but pride has set in.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So suppose the following:
1. It is written by an ancient scribe in Egypt that a particular city is in a particular spot.
2. Archaeologists dig around the area and find no ruins. However 50 miles away they do find ruins of a large city.
3. Kelly will believe the written record of where the city was and discard as mere guesses the ruins of a city found elsewhere

You have to go after me personally?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have to go after me personally?
Kelly

It seems you have reduced his arguments down to the point that he is making up the stories now.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have to go after me personally?
Kelly

I am not 'going after you personally'. I am restating your claims in a different way. If you feel I am stating them wrong then you are free to clarify. If you just feel that it makes your claims look ridiculous then that is because they seem ridiculous to me. It is only personal in as far as you are the only person I know who would always take human written records as more accurate than other forms of evidence. If you found a guy with seven stab wounds in the chest, and the only witness claims that the dead man fell on the knife 7 times, you would take the witnesses statement as more likely to be factual than the physical evidence.
That is what you claim:
Originally posted by KellyJay

I take recorded history over what someone believes may have happen with
nothing but a guess as what occured almost every tiime.

OK I admit that you put in the word 'almost' there, so maybe there are cases where you do consider the evidence over a persons written statement. When would you do so? What standard of evidence is required?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not 'going after you personally'. I am restating your claims in a different way. If you feel I am stating them wrong then you are free to clarify. If you just feel that it makes your claims look ridiculous then that is because they seem ridiculous to me. It is only personal in as far as you are the only person I know who would always take human writt ...[text shortened]... er a persons written statement. When would you do so? What standard of evidence is required?

When you throw my name into it you are, you can move a point around without
doing that. But as stories go you can make them up with the best of them.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not 'going after you personally'. I am restating your claims in a different way. If you feel I am stating them wrong then you are free to clarify. If you just feel that it makes your claims look ridiculous then that is because they seem ridiculous to me. It is only personal in as far as you are the only person I know who would always take human writt ...[text shortened]... er a persons written statement. When would you do so? What standard of evidence is required?

What standard of evidence do you think is good enough if there is no way to
prove your point wrong? It doesn't matter what the evidence is if you cannot
be shown your wrong, even if your right who would know? So going on and on
about things you cannot prove and cannot know is right up with with "once
upon a time" it is between your ears only. In the here and now we can monitor
and measure and verify as time lets us, but if we go beyond our abilities to being
able to check our work if its right or wrong we crossed a line.
Kelly