If there is one thing that I see as a consistent "Non-scientific" aspect of evolutionary apologetics, it is the acceptance of "theories", and the presentation of those "accepted theories" as if they are "established facts", and the buiding of more "theories" upon those "accepted theories" and then accepting/presenting them as "established facts". This what I believe the scripture refers to as "Science Falsely so-called".
So you have here a timeline which refutes the timeline in the Hebrew scriptures. They can't both be correct. As far as we know, they may both be incorrect. Most would hold the Hebrew scriptures to have been written about the same time as the first known reference to the first king's name in your timeline, (Assumed by many to be the same king, whether refered to as Aha, Menes, Nahor, Min, etc. and by others to be a fictitious conglomeration of many kings.)
But your presentation of this "constructed" timeline as valid refutation of the scripture is clear evidence of your willingness to accept as fact what is only speculative, hense the Creationsists charge of evolution being a religion or "faith" and NOT SCIENCE like so many enjoy sanctimoniously to proclaim. Too often evolutionary theroy's conclusions predate the proclaimed "proof", that it is plain to me that "SCIENCE" is an inappropriate term for it. Your presentation is one more example of exactly that.
Of course.
Not that I am saying that I can disprove it, or even that it is not accurate, but you present it as if it is fact, and conceal the vast amount of speculation.
Oh? Where exactly do you believe I have presented it as "fact"?
Certainly, some of the items on the timeline are going to be debatable. That's obviously true of any timeline (including the Hebrew timeline), which is why I didn't feel there had to be a big disclaimer on it.
But those who subscribe to a "global flood 4000 years ago" view are going to have to reconcile that with the many, many other sources which cause grave problems for such a belief. The Egyptian historical and archeological record is just one of them. Even if the Egyptian timeline needs to be adjusted somewhat as new discoveries are made, it seems wildly unlikely that the effects of an alleged worldwide flood which wiped out all but a boatload of mankind would not have left such enormous aftereffects for hundreds of years that it would have been impossible to miss in, say, Egyptian history. If nothing else, where are the records of how a new king came into Egypt ~4000 years ago and founded a new kingdom upon the empty, washed-out remains of an older lost civilization -- and that the king was the descendant of a sailor named Noah? That would be a pretty big thing to "forget" to write up, especially in a society that made a point of filing away detailed tax records and the wages of slaves.
Instead, Egyptian history seems to have cruised along pretty steadily throughout the entire era in which the Flood is alleged to have occurred.
Flood fans are going to have to deal with that, and with the hundreds of other similar indications of major problems in their scenario.
If there is one thing that I see as a consistent "Non-scientific" aspect of evolutionary apologetics, it is the acceptance of "theories", and the presentation of those "accepted theories" as if they are "established facts", and the buiding of more "theories" upon those "accepted theories" and then accepting/presenting them as "established facts".
It's easy to make derogatory generalizations -- do you have a specific example you'd like to offer?
This what I believe the scripture refers to as "Science Falsely so-called".
That sounds more like "scientific creationism" to me. It claims to be scientific, but is mostly just a gathering of data that can be argued support the biblical version, and an outright rejection of all data that doesn't. That's not science, that's begging the question.
But your presentation of this "constructed" timeline as valid refutation of the scripture is clear evidence of your willingness to accept as fact what is only speculative,
Excuse me? You're reading an awful lot into my post, aren't you?
Where did I "accept as fact" all the particulars of the timeline? Where did I present it as "valid refutation" of scripture?
From the ironic tone of my post, I thought it was pretty clear that I was raisign it as a "yeah, but..." point to ponder; food for thought, and a bit of a kick in the pants for people who read only one source (e.g. Genesis) and then simply presume that it's true and that there isn't any significant information from other sources that raise a lot of questions.
How is this "clear evidence" of my supposed "willingness to accept as fact what is only speculative"?
On the contrary, I was aiming my post at the very sort of people who *do* have the sort of attitude you accuse me of, specifically because I *don't* find that kind of thinking to be a good idea.
hense the Creationsists charge of evolution being a religion or "faith" and NOT SCIENCE like so many enjoy sanctimoniously to proclaim.
Generally, because the creationists misconstrue scientists as badly as you have misconstrued my post.
Too often evolutionary theroy's conclusions predate the proclaimed "proof", that it is plain to me that "SCIENCE" is an inappropriate term for it.
Yet again, you seem pretty free with your generalities, but fail to present any specific examples. Perhaps you should do so now, with regard to your belief that "evolutionary theory's conclusions predate the proclaimed 'proof'".
While you do that, you might want to consider that by speaking of "proof", you have revealed a great misunderstanding of what science actually does and does not claim to do. There are no "proofs" in science. If you think a scientist has claimed to "prove" something scientifically, then you're misunderstanding him.
Your presentation is one more example of exactly that.
So you falsely claim, but that doesn't make it so.
In science, and other related fields, one of the most common methods of testing the strength of a hypothesis is to bring up evidence that seems to clash with it, and ask the proponent(s) of the hypothesis how they reconcile their hypothesis with the apparently contradictory information.
This was the nature of my "hmm, what about the Egyptian timeline which seems to be incompatible with the Flood chronology" post. This is hardly the "proof" of my arrogance that you make it out to be. On the contrary, your offended reaction and resulting personal attack seems like a good example of what truly separates a "religion or faith", as you put it, from actual science.
Science, properly done, welcomes the chance to address possible objections to its theories, so that it can either overcome the hurdle (which strengthens the theory), or so that an incomplete -- or incorrect -- theory can be recognized and booted before too many conclusions are tentatively built upon it. (That's not to say that science and scientists enjoy having to field the same stupid, faulty objections day in and day out, which is why evolutionists on these forums can get a bit testy.)
Religion/faith, on the other hand, not only doesn't appreciate challenges to its positions, it can get pretty defensive and dogmatic about it. Blasphemers (oh, excuse me, "questioners") ultimately are treated as if they are working for the devil in an attempt to destroy the One True Faith -- or at the very least are accused of overweening arrogance for daring to question God's Revealed Truth.
The question of whether the believer is himself being amazingly arrogant for claiming to know and recognize and properly understand the One True Revelation never seems to come to their minds.