Thread: Ancient vs Modern

How do we know when to accept information as gospel? Can't help but notice all those interesting debates that pit creationists against Darwinists. Both sides stalemated, unable to sway the other's opinion. One group relying on words contained within ancient texts and the other on recent scientific discovery.

Interesting to listen to one side regale about just how fleeting knowledge is. The fact that what is accepted today is always subject to change and yet this same side steadfastly adheres to ancient writings. On the same note, ancient manuscript is rejected by the other side for exactly the same reason, because knowledge has a shelf life and ancient texts had their's expire long ago.

Both sides then agree that in time, information changes. So what gives?

I think we should accept the modern over the ancient when modern ideas are overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence. For example, people and societies of the Dark Ages believed the world was flat and Earth was the center of the universe. Empirical evidence in present-day invalidate those ancient ideas. So long as our direct observations continue to match planetary shape and movement this relatively modern information should be accepted over the ancient ideas.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

On the same note, ancient manuscript is rejected by the other side for exactly the same reason, because knowledge has a shelf life and ancient texts had their's expire long ago.

Both sides then agree that in time, information changes. So what gives?

Ancient texts aren't rejected because they are ancient, but because their 'facts' are wrong. Only the morals are possibly outdated.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Ancient texts aren't rejected because they are ancient, but because their 'facts' are wrong. Only the morals are possibly outdated.

You can't rail against modern facts because of their changeability and accept ancient facts as gospel at the same time. It's hypocritical.

I understand that ancient text was once modern. But the earth isn't flat and the sun doesn't scurry around to the other side of the planet at night. I don't think adherents to ancient text would dispute that facts such as these are in truth, quite false. Why? Because of the evidence.

So is it safe to say that creationists accept scientific evidence? If they accept some then are they not once again demonstrating hypocrisy by ignoring other evidence contradictory to their claims? I'm not sure who I prefer, a staunch unrelenting ancient text believer or one who only accepts parts of it.

What about the ancient creationist versus modern creationist? Would the ancient accept today's modern version?

I think you are singing to the choir.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Ancient texts aren't rejected because they are ancient, but because their 'facts' are wrong. Only the morals are possibly outdated.

So is it safe to say that creationists accept scientific evidence? If they accept some then are they not once again demonstrating hypocrisy by ignoring other evidence contradictory to their claims? I'm not sure who I prefer, a staunch unrelenting ancient text believer or one who only accepts parts of it.

It is an opinion. Same as Buddhism and Christianity. One believes in one god, another prays to Buddha. It isn't hypocritical. So I guess it is safe to say that too. It's just how you look at it...

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I think you are singing to the choir.

Seems so A lot of the songs are the same.