A Challenge or Stripe - Can you defend one aspect of Creation Science of your choice?

[CabinetMaker]

This has been answered.

Nope.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

We'll get to that. Meanwhile, we're still trying to figure out where you stand.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

And you're asserting that it cannot be determined whether it is accurate. Hence the question you face. Is it possible that the Joseph account is accurate? Your answer should be "yes," but let's get that from you.


I'm not addressing anything as fact. It's called a discussion. Feel free to join it.

Here's where it's at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the final failure of Stripe. The OP of this thread laid out certain rules that we were to both follow. Stripe repeatedly failed to to respond to my requests to support his assertion.

It will also be over when somebody fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point is any question or statement of fact/position that is not addressed. In essence, if you don't address the other persons point you are conceding the point to your opponent.

Stripe's chosen subject was history. He opened with a statement that Genesis is a history.

I said that Stripe's statement that Genesis is an accurate history is a statement of faith and that if he wanted it to be accepted as an accurate history he would need to provide some documentation. I suggested that more than on e account would be a good place to start.

Strip responded by saying there are many accounts but that Genesis was the best.

This left Stripe in a bit of a predicament. His statement that there are many accounts of creation means that each of those accounts would be equally historical. His claim the Genesis was by far the best is an assertion in need of support. I asked him how he determined that Genesis was the best account. That was in post #29 on page two.This is post #101 on page 7. Stripe has not answered request for how he determined that Genesis is the best. At this point I have little reason to expect Stripe to answer that question. As such, Stripe has failed to defend his position that Genesis is an accurate account of history and creation.

It is my contention that Stripe failed to meet the most rudimentary standards of academic care. He offered assertions as settled fact and refused to support those assertions. He misquoted and parsed responses to create straw men that he then proceeded to argue against.

What do you think? Did you learn anything from Stripe? Can you take Stripe's description of how Genesis is the best and use that to show your skeptical friends why Genesis is the best? What did you learn from Stripe that will help you argue that Genesis is the best, indeed, the only creation account that can be trusted?

 

[CabinetMaker]

A picture without a link and some description is not evidence of anything. It can be used by anybody to claim anything if you don't provide the context for the picture.

Egypt? Semitic people?

Here is some context, the image is from the Beni Hasan tomb.

From the ink:
Both the Biblical Patriarchs and the Beni Hasan Asiatics traveled from the same region (Syro-Palestine) to the same region (Egypt) during the same period (twentieth–nineteenth centuries BC). While no one proposes these are the Israelites, it is the right people, the right places and the right time to offer greater insights into the world of Biblical characters.

Again, one of the failings in arguing for creation science is the lack of adherence to accepted academic standards. Other academics follow these rules so you need to follow them as will. You would be seen as a person of integrity rather than just another fundamentalist. People may not agree with you, but they would respect your integrity.

 

[Stripe]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the final failure of Stripe. The OP of this thread laid out certain rules that we were to both follow. Stripe repeatedly failed to to respond to my requests to support his assertion.
[box]It will also be over when somebody fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point is any question or statement of fact/position that is not addressed. In essence, if you don't address the other persons point you are conceding the point to your opponent.[/box]

Stripe's chosen subject was history. He opened with a statement that Genesis is a [URL="http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117196-A-Challenge-or-Stripe-Can-you-defend-one-aspect-of-Creation-Science-of-your-choice&p=4663440&viewfull=1#post4663440"]history[/URL].

I said that Stripe's statement that Genesis is an accurate history is a statement of faith and that if he wanted it to be accepted as an accurate history he would need to [URL="http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117196-A-Challenge-or-Stripe-Can-you-defend-one-aspect-of-Creation-Science-of-your-choice&p=4663590&viewfull=1#post4663590"]provide some documentation[/URL]. I suggested that more than on e account would be a good place to start.

Strip responded by saying there are many accounts but that [URL="http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117196-A-Challenge-or-Stripe-Can-you-defend-one-aspect-of-Creation-Science-of-your-choice&p=4663966&viewfull=1#post4663966"]Genesis was the best[/URL].

This left Stripe in a bit of a predicament. His statement that there are many accounts of creation means that each of those accounts would be equally historical. His claim the Genesis was by far the best is an assertion in need of support. [URL="http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117196-A-Challenge-or-Stripe-Can-you-defend-one-aspect-of-Creation-Science-of-your-choice&p=4664119&viewfull=1#post4664119"] I asked him how he determined that Genesis was the best account[/URL]. That was in post #29 on page two.This is post #101 on page 7. Stripe has not answered request for how he determined that Genesis is the best. At this point I have little reason to expect Stripe to answer that question. As such, Stripe has failed to defend his position that Genesis is an accurate account of history and creation.

It is my contention that Stripe failed to meet the most rudimentary standards of academic care. He offered assertions as settled fact and refused to support those assertions. He misquoted and parsed responses to create straw men that he then proceeded to argue against.

What do you think? Did you learn anything from Stripe? Can you take Stripe's description of how Genesis is the best and use that to show your skeptical friends why Genesis is the best? What did you learn from Stripe that will help you argue that Genesis is the best, indeed, the only creation account that can be trusted?

Nope.

The conversation is right here:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I bolded the question aimed at you, which is the only relevant issue of substance that has not been addressed.

Your turn. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope.

The conversation is right here:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I bolded the question aimed at you, which is the only relevant issue of substance that has not been addressed.

Your turn. :up:

Well, looky there! I answered in post number 78.

Told you you wouldn't like the answer. As usual, you ignore that which you don't like.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The Lord Jesus Christ is a Sith? Who knew....

Luke 14

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

So you're telling me that unless you're a severely depressed person who despises everyone, including their own family, then you can't be a disciple?


Which means that all of disciples must've been hateful, depressed hermits?

 

[Greg Jennings]

This has been answered.

Nope.

Your move. :up:

You're such a joke. I can't believe you teach children (in the fraction of time you haven't been busy here in the last decade, anyway)

 

[Nick M]

A picture without a link and some description is not evidence of anything.

It is Egyptian history. They drew pictures, even with their words. Those are Hebrews. It doesn't have to be Joseph in the drawing to prove your claim wrong of there not being any history. There clearly is. You just don't like it.

 

[Stripe]

Well, looky there! I answered in post number 78. Told you you wouldn't like the answer. As usual, you ignore that which you don't like.

Nope. I accepted that answer as a response to line 4: Is the Joseph account accurate?

We've moved on. Line 6 is a completely different question: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Please read more carefully. :up:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is Egyptian history. They drew pictures, even with their words. Those are Hebrews. It doesn't have to be Joseph in the drawing to prove your claim wrong of there not being any history. There clearly is. You just don't like it.

Given that Striped asked about Joseph, yes, it does have to be Joseph to prove me wrong.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope. I accepted that answer as a response to line 4: Is the Joseph account accurate?

We've moved on. Line 6 is a completely different question: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Please read more carefully. :up:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :thumb:

Stripe will play this game for a while and then claim that I never answered any of his questions. His problem us that he failed to establish a common ground by supporting his assertion that Gebesis is the best. Since Stripe was unable to support that assertion, Stripe cannot logically claim to know whether the account of Joseph is factual history or not. Stripe must first establish his claims as factual before he can make any claims.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe will play this game for a while and then claim that I never answered any of his questions. His problem us that he failed to establish a common ground by supporting his assertion that Gebesis is the best. Since Stripe was unable to support that assertion, Stripe cannot logically claim to know whether the account of Joseph is factual history or not. Stripe must first establish his claims as factual before he can make any claims.

We're getting there. I assert Genesis is accurate, you assert it is not. We are trying to figure out why you have a problem with its accuracy.

This is where we're at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

We're getting there. I assert Genesis is accurate, you assert it is not. We are trying to figure out why you have a problem with its accuracy.

This is why failed to defend your chosen topic. You assert a truth without marking ant attempt to support your assertion. Your assertion is nothing more than a statement of faith. Your assertions are not fact.

 

[Stripe]

This is why failed to defend your chosen topic. You assert a truth without marking ant attempt to support your assertion. Your assertion is nothing more than a statement of faith. Your assertions are not fact.

Nope.

I have defended what I believe.

An assertion is an assertion; you have made one too. They are necessary in a discussion.

I'm not treating my assertion as a fact. A discussion, remember?

This is where it's at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

The bolded question is the one you face. Any time you're ready. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope.

I have defended what I believe.

An assertion is an assertion; you have made one too. They are necessary in a discussion.

I'm not treating my assertion as a fact. A discussion, remember?

This is where it's at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

The bolded question is the one you face. Any time you're ready. :up:

Yes, you have stated what you believe and argued from what you believe. Again, this is a sratement of faith.

You have not established that your faith is fact. I asked you to defend one aspect of creation science. Science deals in facts. Creation science wants people to believe that they have the facts. You have quite clearly demonstrated that you cannot establish your assertions as fact.

Give it up, you lost.

 

[Stripe]

Science deals in facts.

Not primarily. It primarily deals in evidence. And this is history, which is a whole 'nother ball game, involving stories. You need to tell yours, which is why you need to continue the conversation. :up:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Bolded, remember?

Creation science wants people to believe that they have the facts.

I don't care what you believe — as long as you're willing to defend it in a rational manner and give it up if it becomes untenable.

You have quite clearly demonstrated that you cannot establish your assertions as fact.

And you will not answer simple questions.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not primarily. It primarily deals in evidence. And this is history, which is a whole 'nother ball game, involving stories. You need to tell yours, which is why you need to continue the conversation. :up:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Bolded, remember?

I don't care what you believe — as long as you're willing to defend it in a rational manner and give it up if it becomes untenable.

And you will not answer simple questions.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

Lets say I have a skeptical friend (I have several, actually). They contest the historical accuracy of Genesis based scientific research that contradicts the time line laid forth in Genesis. Using only your posts in this thread, show me the most I can use to convince them that Genesis is an accurate historical account. Keep in mind that these friends are engineers and will not accept assertions as facts. If I assert something to them, they will demand supporting evidence. Show me where you posted that supporting evidence so that I can convince skeptical people that Genesis is what you assert that it is.

 

[Stripe]

Lets say I have a skeptical friend (I have several, actually). They contest the historical accuracy of Genesis based scientific research that contradicts the time line laid forth in Genesis. Using only your posts in this thread, show me the most I can use to convince them that Genesis is an accurate historical account. Keep in mind that these friends are engineers and will not accept assertions as facts. If I assert something to them, they will demand supporting evidence. Show me where you posted that supporting evidence so that I can convince skeptical people that Genesis is what you assert that it is.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

Good post Stripe! That'll show him!

 

[Stripe]

So I guess Cabinetmaker has given up. :idunno:

Genesis is an account of history that utterly eliminates the possibility of evolution.

It was kinda unclear what his objection was. It seemed like he was saying Genesis is not accurate history, but I think he really wanted to say it is not history at all.

His altered answer to the question about the veracity of the Joseph account was also problematic. When he answered: That cannot be determined, my follow-up question was designed to expose the inconsistency in his conversation with me.

If it were true that the veracity of the account could not be determined, then he would be forced to answer "yes" when asked if Joseph's story is possibly true. If he had answered "no," then clearly his "cannot be determined" response would be false.

 

[6days]

So I guess Cabinetmaker has given up. :idunno:

Genesis is an account of history that utterly eliminates the possibility of evolution.

It was kinda unclear what his objection was. It seemed like he was saying Genesis is not accurate history, but I think he really wanted to say it is not history at all.

His altered answer to the question about the veracity of the Joseph account was also problematic. When he answered: That cannot be determined, my follow-up question was designed to expose the inconsistency in his conversation with me.

If it were true that the veracity of the account could not be determined, then he would be forced to answer "yes" when asked if Joseph's story is possibly true. If he had answered "no," then clearly his "cannot be determined" response would be false.

Good conclusion Stripe!