Well CTD, you keep missing the point.
Nonsense. Suppose a dead man is found with a suicide note. The note can be interpreted as a message from the dead man, or as a ruse. Until the truth is discovered, both interpretations are valid.`
The point is that both cannot be true, and that the way you differentiate the truth from the many possible false interpretations is by testing, by investigating until the truth is discovered. Many people, Creationists included, seem to think having an alternative is good enough, that they do not need to test their concept for validity.
Science is based on one truth being possible and then investigating to determine that truth, and not resting on comfortable "alternative explanations" no matter uncomfortable the truth may be.
Thus we come back, again, to the founding interpretation that there is one truth -- even you make this interpretation when you say "until the truth is discovered" -- and that we can uncover that truth by further investigation.
It is the work of seconds to think up examples which show your claim for what it is.
The truth.
Wrong. Assumptions are not interpretations. And neither of these are observations , so you needn't bother to falsely equate them either.
But interpretations are assumptions, they are possibilities that can be used as working hypothesis to test against reality for validity. The better the interpretation is the better it explains the evidence.
We can interpret the evidence of the world around us to consist of one reality that is true, that is objective, or we can interpret it to consist of mystery and magic. The problem with the mystery and magic interpretation is that it cannot be tested, whereas the the one objective reality interpretation is testable. Your dead man with a suicide note could have been done by mystery and magic: can you provide evidence that will validate or invalidate that claim?
Every last one of these things you call "facts" is a conclusion. There are no exceptions, not even one!
Every one is a statement of fact. It's like saying "there is a table in my room" when there is a table in my room. The fact of the table actually existing in my room does not rest on my concluding that the table is there, it rests on the fact that it is there. This is the facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the table in the room evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.
To even assert that the priests of evolutionism have the power to alter reality with their conclusions... that's just one screwball religion right there! Obviously, if they had such power I would not exist. I'm happy to be of service and demonstrate that this idea is false.
But they don't alter reality by stating what the evidence is. When I state that 1+1=2 that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. When I state that the earth is round and orbits the sun, that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. When I state that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. The fact that this reality is different than your personal comfort zone view is not their or my problem.
So you credit Jeanie with writing Genesis? I think we have some pretty good evidence that this is not the case.
And still you dodge the issue. The truth must be uncomfortable to you that you avoid it so.
The issue is to provide actual evidence that supports in any way Jeanie's assertion that "things were different" and that there were "giants" and a period of time that had no rain, that her "interpretation" of her faith was in any way credible and could be true. So far you have provided zilch, which leaves me with the distinct impression that you do not have any.
But in circular fashion, you cite antihistorical conclusions based upon the assumption that there was no flood.
No, I look beyond the suicide note, beyond the comfortable explanation, to determine the truth. The evidence shows that rain has in fact occurred throughout the natural history of the planet. The evidence shows that sedimentary deposits world wide are inconsistent with a biblical flood. There is one truth on the history of life on earth, and there have been many myths and fantasies based on magic and mystery that have been invalidated by the evidence. Such evidence can only be "antihistorical" if you cling to a false interpretation of "historical" as truth, rather than test it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past. Recently, there has been an increased interest in oral history, passed down from generation to generation. New technology, such as photography, sound recording, and motion pictures, now complement the written word in the historical record.
The word history derives from the Greek (historia), "learning by inquiry" and that from (historeo), "to examine, to observe, to inquire", in turn from (histor), "a wise man, and one who knows right, a judge".[1][2] Academically, history is the field of research producing a continuous narrative and a systematic analysis of past events of importance to the human race.[3] Those who study history as a profession are called historians.
We again come around to there being one reality, that we can investigate with objective evidence to determine which concepts are valid and which are invalid.
The
City of Troy was once considered an element of mythology, of mystery and magic, but then they found the city using information in the Greek stories. This demonstrates that Troy was in fact a part of history, but I don't see anyone claiming that this means that Achilles was real.
Enjoy.
Probably a side-effect of the improvements I see.
The improvements are good, but I miss the "mark all messages as read" button. Not a biggie.
