Nope. I declare it to be an account of history. You invented a distinction between "history of science" and "history of God's interaction with man." I ask is it history or not.
I agree that it is a history of God's interaction with man and is not an account of the history of science. However, you seem to think that because it is a history of God's interaction with man that it is not history.
So, again: Is Genesis an account of history?
This is one of your key tactics for derailing any attempt at conversation with. You intentionally misinterpret peoples statements and twist them to avoid answering. Let me rephrase for you. You stated, "None of them stack up to Genesis though." to which I replied, "This is an unsupported assertion on your part." You asserted that Genesis was the best without supporting that statement hence, you made an unsupported assertion.
Nope. My assertion was that Genesis is an account of history. You asserted that there needs to be multiple accounts before it could be considered history. This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion — plenty of single accounts are sufficient to be used in the study of history. However, I then refuted your challenge by showing that there are many accounts.
Instead of conceding that your objection is invalid, you seized upon an irrelevant side issue, pretending that now I have to justify my belief that Genesis is the best account. Nope. First, you have to clarify what you believe the nature of Genesis is — is it an account of history? Then you have to recant your assertion that there needs to be more than one account, while acknowledging that there is more than one account.
Then perhaps you would have the rational foundation to ask for evidence that my belief in the primacy of Genesis is justified.
My response was not irrational.
Sure, it was. You responded as if I had presented a belief when I had asserted a fact. If you disagree with my assertion of fact, tell us why we should remove a body of evidence because someone believes that material to be true.
Are we going to be allowed to saw off every piece of evidence you provide that you claim to believe is true?
A simple statement of fact about how historians approach their subject is not an irrational statement. If you have one account of something, how do you verify that that account is indeed accurate? A second account of the the same events is always helpful. If that is not available, other methods must be brought to bear.
Of course. However, this has nothing to do with what I said.
You asserted that I had presented a belief, when I made a statement of fact.
This stems from your challenge to my evidence: "As the source you cited is Scripture, and given that you take Genesis to be literally true, you have made a statement of faith." I have not made a statement of faith. Genesis is an account of history. You seem to agree with this — saying it is "history of God's interaction with man" — yet you still want to argue. :idunno:
Where you err is that you state there is single account of ancient history.
Nope. Multiple accounts, remember? Constantly getting what I have said wrong shows that you're not taking this conversation seriously.
What you need to do is retract this statement. :up:
You define that source to be 100% accurate with no attempt to verify it.
We could talk about that if you would construct a rational counter to the assertion that Genesis is an account of history. So far you've invented a couple of categories of history and put Genesis into the "God's interaction with man" box as if that proved it is not an account of history. I'm waiting for you to explain why you think Genesis is not history through your action of defining it as history.
If you wish others to see your statement as a statement of historical and/or scientific fact, then I will ask you to defend your statements to the same level of academic rigor as any other person in the field will be held.
So you think Genesis is not an account of history, right?
It is my belief (that means this is a statement of faith) that Genesis is an account of God's earliest interactions with mankind. I believe that the account is a "historical fiction" of you please, The events happened but maybe not in the exact way that Genesis explains them.
That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in ignoring without evidence.
As soon as you use the words, "I believe," you have made a statement of faith, not fact. Saying that it is your opinion does not mean that it is not a statement of faith.
Nope. The fact I presented did not have "I believe" as the primary element. Fact: that a man believes A does not remove A from the body of evidence.
Are we going to be allowed to saw off everything you claim to believe?
This is another tactic you use to turn conversations away from topics you do not wish to discuss. You say that there is a historical account and then make statements based on that account. Trouble is, you assume that the account is 100% accurate yet have provide no support for that position nor has that position been accepted as a reliable source by all parties in the debate.
Nope. I have not made any claims of truth based on the assertion of Genesis as historically accurate. That would be to commit the fallacy of begging the question. What we are trying to determine is whether you think Genesis is history. So far you've made up two categories and placed it in one of them as if calling scripture "the history of God's interaction with man" proves it is not history.
If you are going to introduce a source then both sides must accept that source.
So, tell us. Is Genesis an account of history?
If I were to introduce a text book on evolution with the claim that it is 100% accurate, would accept that as source of information for the debate? Why or why not?
This discussion is how the Genesis account utterly refutes Darwinism. What you need to show is that Genesis cannot be an account of history.
So far, you have admitted that it is history — at least as far as I can tell. :idunno:
This is another of your tactics to derail conversations. No dichotomy was presented. You asked me, "You really are going to have to do much better than this. Here's where you need to start: You need to declare that Genesis is not an account of history and show evidence that it cannot be." I answered your question and you attempt say that my opening sentence is wrong simply because you do not agree with my position.
Nope. I do not make false accusations of logical failings.
When you say: "My reasons for seeing Genesis as an account of God's first interactions with men and not as an accurate history," this implies that it cannot be both. I would say that Genesis is an accurate account of God's dealings with man over the first few thousand of years of history.
The fossil record indicates that much more time than six 24 hour periods elapsed during God's act of creation. I base my statement on the evidence that God left for us to find and examine.
That's nice. I have evidence from the fossil record that utterly eliminates evolution as a possibility. However, I'm sticking to one argument at a time. In this one, we're still trying to figure out whether you think Genesis is history.
There is evidence of local flooding that inundated large areas but there is evidence that these floods were indeed global. If you disagree, please present your evidence that the flood encompassed the entire globe.
We have a very specific challenge that has been presented to your Darwinism. Your tactic seems to be to invent ideas in order to make the conversation as unwieldy as possible. I won't be sucked down any rabbit trails. What you need to do is clarify your stance on Genesis: Is it history?
I didn't make up my own story.
Sure, you did. Unless you can show where the Bible says the ark had to carry "every type of animal on Earth." Unless you meant to say "created kind" instead of type, you've made up the idea that the ark had to carry — for example — lions and tigers when the evidence shows these are of the same kind.
And regardless, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Unless you would care to define exactly what biblical "kinds" of animals are and how those "kinds" became all the animals we see today. By the way, what happened to the dinosaur "kind"?
Pretending you do not know the definition of kind is a dishonest tactic. That makes you dishonest. How about you accurately repeat the definition of kind, apologize for your dishonesty and drop this attempted rabbit trail.
We're still waiting on you to clarify your stance on the historicity of Genesis.
Another of your petty tactics for derailing conversations. You claim that I am ignorant of something.
Nope. An argument from ignorance is not to claim you are ignorant of something. It is a logical fallacy that attempts to portray an idea as wrong because a piece of evidence has not been found. In these cases, you demanded that the ark and the Tower of Babel be provided, implying that our ignorance of their whereabouts is reason to doubt the Biblical account. These are arguments from ignorance, not an insult. In fact, the ignorance is on our part. We do not have the evidence you demand.
However, the logical fallacy — a far more damning failing — is on your part. Add to it that your fallacies are designed to pad out a wild goose chase. My challenge is very specific and so far, you are yet to clarify your stance on Genesis. Is it history?
Your implication is that you know something that I do not.
I know that your arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies that might reveal ignorance
in me. You have now revealed that you are ignorant over what an argument from ignorance is.
Please show us your evidence of Noah's Arc or the Tower of Babel. If you cannot do that, then I did not make an argument from ignorance. My argument is based on what has been found in the archeologically record to date.
Arguments from ignorance are still logical fallacies.
And yet another tactic to avoid the discussion. You employ this overly literal interpretation of what people say so that you can make these meaningless quips. I was referring to the fact that Genesis is a single book, a single account. I believe that you are actually smart enough to understand the distinction that I was making but chose to be deliberately obtuse.
Or perhaps you just need to be more careful with your words. When you say Genesis is "a single person account," that makes it seem very much like you think only one person wrote it, when that would be impossible — assuming, of course, that it is an account of history.
Sure we can read it. But reading it proves nothing.
Sure, it does. Reading Genesis would reveal its details, exposing as incorrect your assertion that it is not detailed.
We have to go beyond reading it and look for the evidence that supports the accounts. If you read it and believe it, it is an act of faith. If you read it and then investigate it then it is no longer simply faith.
We're still trying to figure out your opposition. Is Genesis an account of history?