1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science Babble vs Truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Oct 5, 2021.

  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't get this problem when I talk to most children. I understand the very young ones would need time to grow in understanding, but when I ask most to give me an example, I don't have to explain to them what an example is.
    I did not ask you for proof of evolution. Why would I do that, to hear you repeat the same thing we hear over and over, and read for ourselves on the internet?
    I asked for an example to help me understand what you meant when you said there was no proof of God. I said "say for example evolution". The reason I chose evolution is because I thought that might be easy for you. Little did I know, it proved to be quite a challenge for you, and up till now you failed to give me an example... that's useful anyway.

    What did I deny? That natural selection is not breeding? If you think it is, then you disagree with this Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity. See Misconceptions about natural selection , and I won't ask if you do.

    Do you feel good saying "that's how science works" where it fails to give the right answer, and comes later with a different answer, for which it is not sure that is the right answer either? Where the scientists say, "we could be wrong". Why are you so proud of that, I'm curious to know?

    What if you got an answer to questions that you later discover are true?
    That's how the Bible works. it provides us with the truth, and later, that truth is discovered, or realized. That builds more confidence in it, does it not?
    The universe had a beginning. That was stated as a fact, in the Bible. The earth is suspended on nothing. The earth is circular, or round. Jericho was quickly routed, and burnt. Babylon was sacked, and lies uninhabited. Etc.
    That's how the Bible works.

    If the Bible was like a novel that's authored by one writer, what you say here, might have some merit.
    However, the Bible is a collection of books or documents, written by different men at different periods in time. So we have corroborating testimony, and there is testimony outside the Bible as well.
    So, I have to wonder what your definition of evidence is, and what would be evidence to you, other than what you want to believe or accept.

    Jericho is one event. The Bible contains more than one event supported by archaeological evidence, and it confirms many of its historical persons.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources


    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    There are many things to be taken into account... much of what I cannot present in a short time.
    However, it's also fair to take into account that there are critics bent on discrediting the Bible, and they will "pull out all stops" to do so.
    Yet the Bible has stood the test of time, proving the critics wrong, time and time again.

    ...and they all come to differing opinions - some for; some against Some interpreting erroneously; some trying to be fair.
    This too, would take more than just a few posts.
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Something to think about Nimos. Every question is not a question to you. Some questions are rhetorical. For example, a person may say, "Most people are wearing fogged glasses. Why is that? They don't want to see reality."
    The person is not asking you a question. They asked a rhetorical question to get your attention - to "prepare your mind" for what they are about to say next.
    So when reading posts, try to avoid skimming, Try connecting sentences, so that you grasp what is being said.
    It's important we do so, not just with posts on internet forums, but when reading the Bible.
    We will see beneficial results, or ignore them.

    Getting back to how science works and how the Bible works...
    Persons claim that Genesis got it wrong, but I think if they open their eyes, they would realize that it's the other way around - that science got it wrong that time also. Perhaps they will come later, and tell us they did, or they cannot be certain of what they believed at this time.
    That's the beauty of truth I think. Once you know its source, you realize the errors, before people come to realize them.
    Thus no amount of science babble trumps truth, as I mentioned before.
    I hope you get what I am saying, because I want us to have a reasonable understanding discussion. I'm all for that. Are you.

    So here is what I consider both reasonable and wise.
    Say someone told me something 99 times, and I discovered everytime that what they told me is true.
    Say, the 100th time, they told me something that conflicted with - I'll use the direct focus in this analogy - 'science'.
    Should I now consider this 100th time, that the person has told me something untrue.
    That doesn't make sense to me. It seems more logical, sensible, and reasonable, to go with what I have been told the 100th time, and take the view that the 'science' is in error. Especially since as you pointed out, rightly so, that's how science works. It doesn't always get things right. In fact, it gets things wrong 99.9% of the time before it gets it right, and in most cases, there is no guarantee that what it thinks it has right now, is actually right. It could be wrong... again.

    I don't know if you disagree, and why, but that seems reasonable to me.
    Science has its limits.

    To give an example of those limits, we can look at a simple contrast. Science doesn't do morals. It doesn't tell you if there is absolute morality, or what a moral lifestyle should be.
    The Bible does. It tells us there is absolute morality. It also tells us what moral lifestyle works for the good of all humanity.
    In this too, I have seen that it proves true.

    One may protest that we can't know absolute truth. However, my view is that one is mistaken to think that.
    I was going to use the word "if" so that you could easily relate, but it feels wrong, so I will say, because God is, absolute truth can be known by those to whom God reveals it. Since God is the source of truth.
    Ones who have come to see that the Bible has proven to be true, accept it as it is - not as the word of men, but as it truthfully is - the word of God.
    So the YECs actually got it right, when they say, they start with the Bible as the truth, because it is the inerrant word of God.

    That does not mean the YECs got everything right, and that's understandable, as is the case with scientists there will be disagreement as different people try to find truth.
    I hope you know I am not a YEC, but I used them to make this point.
    They have the right approach, contrary to so called Christians who say they start with 'science', and dismiss the Bible where it conflicts with 'science... calling it myth, as a matter of fact.
    That certainly is not Christ-like, nor Christian, because according to the Bible, Jesus and his apostles viewed the scriptures as the inerrant word of God. John 17:17
    So those "Christians" evidently have got it backwards.

    Another objection you guys get wrong, is when you say, we interpret things wrong, or according to how we want.
    This is done, yes, by immitation Christians, but you are the ones who interpret things wrong. Like when you say, that prophecy was written after the fact.

    Like I said, getting into this can be quite lengthy. So I am not sure if you have that time.
    Ou'll have to let me know.
     
  3. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,925
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    To be fair, we burned the witches because they weighed as much as a duck. Duck Season.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    Not sure why you think I would be proud of that? It was merely a explanation of science since you seem to express that there were a problem with it, when its not getting everything right 100% of the time. A lot of people seem to believe that this is how science ought to work and uses it as an argument against it, but that is how science works, its an iterative process of getting closer to understanding the natural world and is just as much about telling us what is definitely not true. So it was solely meant to explain that misconception.

    In most cases I have no issue with this, I would be surprised if all the people in the bible were merely fictional. But one has to keep things separated, simply because the bible hold a lot of historical information, about cities, places etc. doesn't mean that everything in it is then true. But it is fine that they discover these things as it helps explain things.

    Im well aware of this, but let me give you an example (This is just made up to demonstrate it).

    "Could the bible be true? Yes, but you refuse to answer this, you just avoid the question all the time. But lets assume that the bible is true..."

    This is exactly how you presented yours. I present a question not really meant for you to answer, but at the same time I have a go at you for something that you haven't said or never intended. When you then point this out and reply to me, I tell you that "Not all questions are meant literally". At best that is simply a dishonest way of discussing. And I would expect you to comment on it, if I wrote something like that to you.

    Lets look at what you wrote:
    Did this woman have proof? Depends on what you mean by proof, and you have not till now made that clear with any explanation. So until you are able to...

    Its not about opening ones eyes, its about what the evidence tells us. And so forth, nothing of what we know, seem to fit with the Genesis account of how things came into being. If you or anyone else disagree with it, that is perfectly fine, there is no problem with that, but you have to demonstrate it and show where science got it wrong and come up with some better explanation. If you are correct, the evidence for it should be there, but simply haven't been discovered yet.

    I strongly disagree with this, because it is not a logical way of thinking about things. (Don't misunderstand it as me having a go at you personally) As there is a good reason for why this is the case.

    Lets say you know someone, a good friend, that you trust which have told you lots of things over the years which are correct. At some point a murder is committed and your friend is a suspect, but tells you that he didn't do it. Is he telling the truth?

    Obviously as a good friend you ought to believe him, but that is completely different compared to whether he is telling the truth or not. The evidence will tell whether he did it or not. And even if he is caught lying, doesn't mean that all the 1000s of times he have told you something else, weren't true.

    Therefore we don't assume that just because someone or something, has been correct one or more times, that they are automatically correct the next time. Each claim has to stand on its own.

    This is not a reasonable way of thinking, again not personal, but with good reason. Also why I wrote that my intention were to explain what science were in the begin because a lot of people misunderstand it. Science doesn't concern itself with moral questions, just as it doesn't concern itself with beauty. Just to stress it, for instance, science doesn't tell us whether it is morally right or wrong to use a nuclear bomb.

    The bible claim to be a moral guideline, but have nothing to support this claim. And arguably I think it is very easy to make a case for it being highly immoral in fact. Simply because it claims or you think it is the case, doesn't make it correct. Because again, I completely disagree and in that case, you could say that it is because im immoral then. Which is fine, but you have no way of demonstrating that, so it would merely be a claim.

    The difference between religion and science, is that science doesn't claim to be able to answer these questions, whereas religion does, despite never having demonstrated that it can.

    Fair enough, but to that I would ask you to demonstrate that God exist. But also that absolute truth exist, because there are a lot of claims being made here.

    I don't think you are a YEC.

    So who decide whether the YEC are correct about their understanding of the bible or you are? Because I assume that they disagree with you, and a lot of them will claim that the Earth is flat and approx. 6000 years old. Which you can get to by adding the ages together. So do you accept science and it being ok in this case or is it purely based on your own interpretation of the bible?

    Is the bible wrong about this in your opinion (Just wondering)?
    Luke 3:23-38
    23 - Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
    24 - the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
    25 - the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
    26 - the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
    27 - the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
    28 - the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
    29 - the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
    30 - the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
    31 - the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
    32 - the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
    33 - the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
    34 - the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
    35 - the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
    36 - the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
    37 - the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
    38 - the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
     
    #424 Nimos, Oct 16, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    @Nimos I just have time for one quick response.
    I will address your post later.
    So on the point of proof, you have not explained, so I can only say, you don't have proof of what you believe, just as you say there is no proof of God.
    However, I can say for sure we have evidence of God, since proof is a word that can prove to be complicated, based on how one uses it, and right now I don't know how you are using it.

    So, I say there is evidence of God. You say no.
    You say there is evidence for what you believe as presented as science. I say no.
    So that's where we are on that.
    It seems we are both saying it's a matter of how we interpret that evidence. :shrug:

    I think there is a lot you don't know, which you think you do. Hence why you are making that argument.
    You probably would say the same about me. ;)
    Later.
     
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,070
    Ratings:
    +5,464
    Religion:
    Pi π
    You are treating the Bible as historical, but much of earlier narratives, from Genesis (eg Adam) to 1 Kings 11 (death of Solomon) are largely myths.

    It is only from kingdoms of Israel and Judah, of the Hebrew people that we get some verifications of historicity, from independent sources (eg Assyrian annals, Egyptian records) and archaeological findings.

    Lots of ancient nations developed their own myths, and the Hebrews were no different.

    Don’t you find it funny, that no where from Adam to Solomon, that none of these biblical books can named rulers of neighboring kingdoms (eg early Bronze Age Sumer, later Bronze Age Babylonia, Assyria, Hittite kingdom, Egypt, where writing exist) that were contemporary biblical figures? Or that those foreign kingdoms have no records of the biblical patriarchs, of Moses and Joshua and of Saul, David and Solomon?

    Abraham, Jacob and Jacob’s family resides in Egypt, and not once could it named any Egyptian monarchs supposedly contemporary to Abraham, Jacob and Joshua.

    It is the same with Exodus, no Egyptian kings were named around the time of Moses’ birth (, nor the time of plagues and Israelite liberation from slavery and exodus starting from Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) (Exodus 12).

    The Levant, or more specifically 2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age Canaan, was a transit point for east and west, north and south. Trades occurred in Canaan, with neighboring nations, as well as wars and diplomacy, and there were literacy in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Hittite kingdom, and even in Canaan, and yet there are no mention of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David and Solomon. If Solomon was married to many princesses, then why are there no names of contemporary rulers in Egypt, Babylonia or Assyria?

    As to Jericho.

    According to Joshua, after the falling of the wall, there were genocide where only a prostitute and her family were spared. If that were true, where are all the unburied bodies, people who died of violence, from blunt force weapons or from sharp weapons?

    Naming a city, like Jericho that existed in the time of WHEN the book of Joshua was written in the 6th century BCE, doesn’t validate the entire Bible at all, nor does it validate Joshua himself as Moses successor as leader and prophet.

    All variations of the Gilgamesh from the 3rd millennium Sumerian “Bilgames” to 1st millennium Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian “Gilgamesh”, have named a number of historical places, it doesn’t validate Bilgames/Gilgamesh. There are also other Bronze Age Sumerian stories about the gods that named cities, where they were worshipped, eg Uruk, Ur, Eridu, Nippur, Kish, Shuruppak, etc.

    The Greek epics attributed to Homer and Hesiod have named many historical cities, regions and islands, not only that are in Greece, but also in Asia Minor (Anatolian Turkey), Syria, Egypt.

    Then there are matter of timing, dating when Jericho was left abandoned.

    If Solomon was a real king who constructed the Temple, according to 1 Kings 6:1, in the 4th year of his reign, the exodus from Rameses (Exodus 12:37) would occur 480 years earlier:

    So if 4th year of Solomon’s reign was 967 BCE, the 480 years would put Moses leading Israelites out of Egypt in 1447 BCE, and Moses’ death to 1407 BCE, followed by the so-called Battle of Jericho. Moses’ birth would be dated to 1527 BCE.

    The problem with this date 1407 BCE, is that modern archaeology have dated Jericho abandonment to around 1570 BCE. So Jericho dated over 160 years earlier than dates provided in 1 Kings 6:1. The archaeological evidence also pointed to Jericho before even Moses was born.

    The other problem with the biblical Jericho, is that it say the battle of Jericho occurred after Moses’ death, which would be in reign of 18th dynasty Amenhotep II (1425 - 1398 BCE), but according to dating of Pi-Ramesses (Exodus “Rameses”), Pi-Ramesses never existed until the reigns of Seti and Ramesses II, both 19th dynasty kings, in the 13th century BCE!

    What Exodus and Joshua say about Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) and Jericho, are opposite to archaeological evidence of two cities. Pi-Ramesses never existed, when Jericho was abandoned, and Jericho was abandoned too earlier for Joshua.

    Joshua (book) also say invaded the rest of Canaan, and the cities named never indicated such invasion by Israelites. So not only Moses’ story was invention, but also Joshua’s story.

    So, no. The archaeological Jericho doesn’t validate the biblical Jericho.

    Lastly, John Garstang (1930s) relied too much on the biblical timeline with excavation of Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), and not impartially scientifically dating the Bronze Age Jericho. Garstang's claims are outdated. More recent datings, confirmed Kathleen Kenyon's dating (1950s).
     
    #426 gnostic, Oct 16, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,981
    Ratings:
    +29,462
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The problem is that you do not know what evidence is and you refuse to learn. What do you call it when a person is ignorant on purpose?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    You need to be more specific, do you refer to what I believe about science, religion or just in general?
     
  9. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,330
    Ratings:
    +6,501
    There ya' go.....nPeace doesn't really trust science because it doesn't operate like his religion.

    In his religion, truth is revealed by a god and once received that truth is absolutely true forever and always, never changes, can never be questioned, and even when/if things come along that seem like they contradict this truth, the proper reaction is to deny or reject it and stick to the original truth, no matter what.

    Of course that's pretty much the opposite of how science works.

    However, his comment does provide a good window into a couple of things. First, it gives a good indication of why he and others who think in such an absolutist, black/white manner never really seem to grasp how science works, no matter how many people try and explain it to them. They don't get it because they don't understand it, and they don't understand it because it's the opposite of their own way of thinking. To be fair, it's probably much the same as how I just don't understand the religious way of thinking.

    Second, it reveals one of the fundamental factors behind their science denialism. If you don't understand a process and that process operates in a way that's the opposite of your own way of doing things, more than likely you're going to dismiss whatever results that process produces (especially if they go against your deeply held beliefs).

    So really, nPeace's comment was quite helpful. I just hope those who are interested in interacting with him (and others like him) on science saw it and appreciated it for what it revealed.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    "nothing of what we know"? :laughing: That's real funny Nimos. Real funny. :tearsofjoy:
    What do we know? You mean after admitting how science works... knowing the fact that it doesn't always get things right... knowing the fact that it's ongoing, and isn't sure it has it right, but can change what it thinks it knows currently...
    You mean after I went through that with you, and showed how the Bible gets it right, and it is then discovered, you put that in a sentence! Come on Nimos. Seriously? :laughing:

    This is a funny bit too, Nimos. Thanks for the laughs.
    I'm not laughing at you. I just find some of these quite funny. ;)
    If you have known your mom all your life, or most of it, you have evidence of her character. You more than likely can say what she would or would not do, in her right mind.
    You won't be able to vouch for her, if she "goes off" from time to time.
    Evidence is not always clear cut, so there may be no direct evidence that your mom is innocent, and the "powers that be" may be out to get her, with framed evidence.
    I think you can vouch for your mom, based on the evidence you accumulated over the years you got to know her reputation.
    I know I can. Same with the one whom I have built trust in over the years of knowing that they are trustworthy those 99 times... and beyond.

    We have been through this before, and yes I did demonstrate we have evidence supporting the Bible's moral standards do work, and they are not limited to one culture or society. It was demonstrated, and yes, you dd disagree with it, and will continue to... I have nio idea if that will be till death.

    I've been there, and done that.
    If I thought you were open minded on that, I would bury you in an avalanche of solid evidence, but I have things to do, and using up precious time right now is out of the question.
    We have been here before. I had the time back then. Not now. Unfortunately :( because this is a subject I love to discuss.
    Watching you guys desperately grab at straws makes it an even more delightful experience. :D

    Anybody is free to consider themselves right Nimos. Even you.
    What does that have to do with the fact that there is truth and there is error?
    Because error exists, doesn't mean truth doesn't. :shrug:

    Science okay in what case? Making assumption about the age of the earth, and saying that they are going by the evidence?
    Of course there is evidence the earth has been around quite a long time. However, are you sure scientists' estimates are correct? I'm not.
    Why? They are based on many assumptions, which leads to thinking wrong conclusions must be correct.
    The Bible does not say how old the earth is, in case you are wondering.

    The Bible is not wrong in anything, in my opinion.
    I have not come across anything that was ever demonstrated to be wrong.
    What's wrong with it in your opinion?
     
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Your arguments seem to be based purely on your ideas and opinions.
    Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc., and the events surrounding them, have been verified by real people, including historians.

    It seems to me you are grabbing at straws in order to dismiss what's presented. In other words, you seem eager to build strawman arguments.
    Didn't they find dead ones in the Jericho digs?
    The skeletal remains from the 1952 excavations at Jericho
    Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): The Archaeological Expeditions to Tell es-Sultan (1868-2012)

    Let's say though that there was no evidence of human or animal bodies, would that mean that the city was uninhabited, and just crumbled and burned on its own?
    Would it mean there was no one in the city for Joshua and his men to kill?
    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/skeleton-mystery-dont-bones-decay-decompose.html
    A human body could lose all its flesh and tissue in as little as a week, or it could remain in place for thousands of years! It all depends on the conditions the body is in, and the same thing is true for bones.
    After hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet (in which humans have only been around for a minute fraction), if bones never decayed, we would find them everywhere!


    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    Also, consider this...
    https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bit...Amanda_thesis_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Current dates for the four major periods of the EB, beginning with the EB I, are often drawn from radiocarbon dating for strata of that period; strata most commonly identified from the ceramic typologies (Sharon, 2014, pp. 50–1). However, the radiocarbon dates utilised for defining periods by different scholars, are often obtained from different sites throughout the region. Another dating method is to calibrate the EB Levant with Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egypt, as the state respectively formed to the south of the Levant (Greenberg, 2014, p. 271). Table 2.1 demonstrates the subsequent variety of dates for the EB. Notably, Richard (2014), de Miroschedji (2014) and Sharon (2014) are all contributions within the one text on Levantine archaeology (Steiner & Killebrew, 2014). De Miroschedji (2014) continues to divide the EB I into three further identifiable sub-periods: the EB IA (c.3700-c.3400 BCE), the EB IB (c.3400-c.3200 BCE), and the Terminal EB IB (c.3200-c.3100 BCE).
    dating.jpg

    In her excavation reports from 1960, Kenyon describes all Proto-Urban burials as multiple, secondary burials; secondary either from being buried elsewhere, or from the remains being moved from one location to another within the tomb after flesh decay (Kenyon, 1960b, p. 4)

    This article says that most fragments were inconclusive of juvenility, but those that were definitely juvenile appear to represent a relatively steady mortality rate.

    Some of these tombs contained hundreds of bodies. Fetal and infant remains were also discovered... In fact, the article suggests there is the high possibility that more infant and fetal bones were transposed to the tomb during deposition, but have since disintegrated.
    That interesting.
    Why so many young deaths?

    Throughout the article, reference is made to different interpretation of the evidence which resulted in different conclusions by different scholars.
    So, as was presented before, the dating is off, and as we saw from the table above, it can be off by hundreds of years.
    So why claim that the opinion favoring the period of about 1570 BCE is correct, as opposed to some 100+ years later?
     
  12. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,583
    You've already been warned about the dishonest act of quote mining, so I'm wondering why you're still doing it.

    "But I am bound to confess, that, with all my faith in this principle, I should never have anticipated that natural selection could have been efficient in so high a degree, had not the case of these neuter insects convinced me of the fact."
    -Charles Darwin, Origin of Species


    If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest refraining from such dishonest tactics that have already been brought to your attention. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,583
    "Do you feel good saying "that's how science works" where it fails to give the right answer, and comes later with a different answer, for which it is not sure that is the right answer either? Where the scientists say, "we could be wrong". Why are you so proud of that, I'm curious to know?"


    Because it's the truth. And it's honest. Why wouldn't someone be proud of that?
    Do you prefer dishonesty and false confidence? I'm curious to know.
     
  14. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,070
    Ratings:
    +5,464
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No, Hockeycowboy.

    The real sad part is that you don’t even bother to do a proper research into how planets formed and how they orbit around the star.

    Nothing in the Bible provides any explanation as to HOW.

    Does Genesis 1 say anything about formation of other planets in the Solar System? Does it say anything as to HOW the sun form? Does it say anything about HOW the Earth rotate on it axis, or HOW the Earth orbits around the sun? Does the Genesis say anything about gravity?

    It is no to every questions.

    “God did it” in Genesis (1 to 2), and “God did it” in book of Job (particularly 38 to 41), aren’t explanations. These chapters don’t explain a thing, because these chapters aren’t scientific explanations.

    When I read these chapters, all I see is that authors didn’t know much about the reality of nature.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,208
    Ratings:
    +4,959
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yesi I have. How they orbit is due to gravity, but the explanations as to how they formed is ridiculous!

    Why should it? It’s not a science book! But when it does touch on science, it’s accurate. Example: Job 26:7

    Who would have known that back then?!!


    Or Job 38:16…. “vents of the sea”, and “trenches of the deep”
    Completely unknown by humans back then, yet modern tech has proven it Completely accurate!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,981
    Ratings:
    +29,462
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why do you think that the planets forming through the effects of gravity are "ridiculous"? I want to see the peer reviewed papers that refute the nebular hypothesis.

    And no, you are merely grasping at straws. You have no way of knowing what exactly was meant by that verse. Actually this is more accurate than your "vents":

    “Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
    or walked in the recesses of the deep?

    The "springs of the sea" do not exist in the sense implied in that verse. And all they knew back then was that the seas were deep., They knew nothing of trenches. You are trying to reinterpret the Bible after the fact. That does not make it accurate. It is also why people have to torture the clear "Flat Earth" verses of the Bible. The writes of that time were simply understandable ignorant about the Earth and the Bible continually demonstrates that.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  17. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,208
    Ratings:
    +4,959
    Religion:
    Christian
    You hope, but I see it clearly.
    If the Bible is the invention of only ‘ignorant people,’ why would they even try to mention what is “in the deep”, what could not be seen at the time? When it could be proven wrong.

    But it isn’t wrong!

    I see you conveniently ignored Job 26:7.
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,981
    Ratings:
    +29,462
    Religion:
    Atheist
    LOL! Do you seriously not realize that to an amateur that any water that is deeper than one can measure is "in the deep".

    It is not that the people of that time were stupid. No one has implied that. They simple lacked the knowledge that we have gained over the years. You have to really stretch to make the Bible seem to say what you want it to say. That is no a proper way to treat it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,981
    Ratings:
    +29,462
    Religion:
    Atheist
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,755
    Ratings:
    +9,644
    Religion:
    Atheist



    Yes, it's called learning.

    Gotta love when creationists point this out, as if it is a bad thing.


    It can never be done with certainty. Science doesn't deal in absolutes / certainties.
    Science looks for what is most likely. And new evidence always has the potential to disproof existing understanding and lead to new, and more accurate / more likely, explanatory models.

    That's how science makes progress.
    That's how scientific explanation gets ever-more accurate.

    No, religion is the opposite.
    Religion is never-changing.
    It contains the same kind of mythical nonsense today as it did millenia ago.
    In fact, religions even tend to take pride in that....


    There's no reason to think it will.
    There's no way to prove it won't.
    So while very unlikely, you can't know it for certain.



    Not what was being said.
    The nature of gravity itself might change in reality. It almost certainly won't. There's no reason to think it would. Everything we know about the universe tells us that it won't.
    But we can't prove that. So we don't know it for certain.

    There's very little one can know for certain, if one is being intellectually honest about it.

    ... as a result of new discoveries, new facts, new evidence.
     
Loading...