Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Ancient vs Modern

  1. #1 Ancient vs Modern 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,790
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Ancient vs Modern 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote 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 Only the morals are possibly outdated.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Ancient vs Modern 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I think you are singing to the choir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Ancient vs Modern 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hate my country
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote 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...
    Sorry for my poor English skills, I've learned it by myself... Trying to improve them, feel free to criticize, hehe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I think you are singing to the choir.
    Seems so A lot of the songs are the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •