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 Sources vs Science

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Oct 26, 2020.

  1. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,265
    Ratings:
    +4,913
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Now, you are making up story; it is pure speculation.
     
  2. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    25,100
    Ratings:
    +12,114
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
  3. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,320
    Ratings:
    +168
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes I'm just demonstrating that a local flood could still make sense even 100 years after telling Noah about it.
     
  4. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,265
    Ratings:
    +4,913
    Religion:
    Pi π
    It is called “speculating”, not “demonstrating”.

    If you were “demonstrating”, you would be providing something that you can actually show.

    All you are doing, is throwing ideas around...that are not necessarily true...hence, “speculating”.
     
  5. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    877
    Ratings:
    +304
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Noah's flood was modernize by science using the man-made global warming claim, near the year 2000 after Gore lost the election. The new and improved world flood would be caused by the polar ice caps melting by 2010, and the earth becoming flooded. We were all asked to appease God; mother nature, by eliminating fossils fuels. This plagarization of the biblical account of the flood, seemed to resonate with the left, since it appeared to have science backing and also touched a deeper need. You can take people out of religion but not religion out of people.

    This science magic trick was made possible, because, Science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources it needs to do science. Scientists are beholden to Government, Business, Industry and private donations. These money and resource givers have something to say in terms of which science theories will get the money. It is up to the scientists to politic to get resources. Science politics is often about exaggerated claims to move rich people emotionally; hobnob.

    In the beginning, global warming and climate change had been supported by two reasonable theories. Manmade was one of the two. The other theory had to do with all the geological evidence of the earth. Data collected over decades, for nearly the last billion years of the earth's history, showed that the earth had naturally gone through many cycles of climate change over time. This theory had the most basis in terms of hard evidence to support itself. The made-man theory had never occurred before, in all of earth's history and had no direct evidence that it was even possible.

    Both theories needed resources, but the money givers shifted all the money to only one side and then used political pressure to dismiss the other side, that had the most science proof of its theory. The one-sided science that was done, was still good science, but not all the possible science data was generated, by being so one sided in terms of resource allocation to two theories. The result was the conclusions, by default, based on all the new data generated, favored the theory with more money and less political pressure. A consensus of science formed, via this carrot and stick approach by the money managers. If you wanted resources and wanted to avoid harassment, you needed to toe the line.

    The great flood of Gore, did not happen and yet nobody in science blamed the theory since this would have resulted in political backlash and the drying up of your well. Outsiders needs to be careful, not about the scientific method, but about the desires of the benefactors of science, calling the shots, in terms what science theory they need for their own agendas.

    There are many conceptual flaws in cornerstone theories of science but these are ignored since scientists are not steering the ship. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need resources from those who have set the course, I jumped ship long ago and swam to an island, so I could be true to science and not the benefactors; science swamp. There are others out there, who are easy to dismiss, due to lack of resources to generate proof, but not by sound reasoning.
     
  6. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,320
    Ratings:
    +168
    Religion:
    Christian
    That sounds like what we are both doing.
     
  7. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,265
    Ratings:
    +4,913
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No, Brian, I wasn’t trying to change the story...

    ...all I was saying that your interpretation that Genesis Flood was a large local flood, doesn’t make sense in the light of the description of Genesis 6 to 8.

    I am not disputing the story of Noah, the ark and Flood, I am disputing your rationality about your interpretations.
     
  8. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    You're talking about Young Earth Creationists... which is just a small subset of all creationists. MOST are Old Earth Creationists, for whom evolution is merely the method a creator god used to create diversified life forms.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    My definition is up to date. Definitions are due to both common usage and origins of terms. Your definition fails on both counts. A person does not get to make up their own definitions.

    So though there may be many NASCAR fans that are racists it is not because they enjoy auto racing. In the same sense there are many Christians that are creationists, but it is not because they believe in an ultimate creator.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The sciences cannot prove an idea right, but they can show that an idea as presented is wrong. Many creationists make the error of assuming that scientists are trying to "disprove God". That is not the case. But they may show that a particular version of God is wrong. If one believes in the God of the creation myth that version has been shown to be wrong. But that does not mean that the Christian God or the Muslim God or any God has been refuted.

    There are Flat Earthers that have that belief dues to their religion. Disproving a Flat Earth does not "disprove God". Well neither does disproving the myths of Genesis.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope, you are still trying to make your own definition of a well defined term.
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    There is no point in supplying you with evidence if you do not even understand the concept. Creationists as a rule do not understand the concept and tend to run away when assistance in understanding is offered.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    No, I'm not. That's why Young Earth Creationism is even a term... it's designed to distinguish between young Earth creationists and all OTHER creationists. Read the link below.

    Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Just rechecking my OP to see if I made a mistake, based on the direction these comments are taking...

    Do they really take into account its limitations?
    Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...


    Ah. I didn't make a mistake.
    No blü. Can't forgive you. Sorry.
    That to me would be making an excuse for someone not being willing to take the time to understand. :)
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Sheesh. Read the and understand the OP.


    I was civilized in saying I don't understand what you are saying... twice.

    So you are not interested in the earthquake question. No problem.

    Again.... Whatever you mean.
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    If the many flood experts who just love a good flood debate are interested, consider, if you cannot demonstrate that science is able to determine whether or not two earthquakes occurred within a two year period, then that's enough evidence of the limits of science regarding accurately verifying historical event, no matter how significant they are.
    Assumptions can be many, yes. Verification... No.
     
  18. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,884
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I have no idea what you just said, but none of it addresses the point I made ─ namely that you don't appear to understand the probative power of the absence of evidence in particular cases eg the absence of evidence for the Flood.
     
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Then I understand why you don't understand.
     
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,884
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    And I understand that you don't understand.

    But don't let me detain you from Uzziah.
     
Loading...