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. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    Have you been reading MY posts or someone else's? Nothing I've written suggests that I believe in a biblical flood or that I even have any belief in any god or gods. The ONLY thing that I've argued on this thread is that a creationist simply believes in a creator being and that a lack of belief in evolution has nothing to do with it.
     
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,883
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    A thousand pardons!
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Oh dear.
    Point? Which one? Yours? Mine?
    If yours, why yours and not mine?

    Oh. I get it. The most stubborn sets the rules.
    Okay.
    I probably have a streak of stubborn in me, so let's do it.

    [​IMG]
    Do you agree science has limits, cannot determine everything, and relies heavily on interpretation of the evidence (reg. historical science), which is often based on assumptions that are not conclusive, or necessarily accurate or complete?

    A simple yes or no answer will resolve the question of what you understand.

    Please note, a frivolous claim that is unsupported, and or false, does not count as a satisfactory answer... although it would show you are not up to the task. :)
     
    #123 nPeace, Oct 29, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

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

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,883
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Science works by empiricism and induction, hence its conclusions are never proof against unknown unknowns. Science sets out to explore, describe and where possible explain the world external to the self, which is to say, objective reality. Scientific method has no rival in this field.

    Thus a question like, has the tip of Mt Everest been anything like 25 feet under water in the last ten thousand years? can be answered by consideration of the evidence with a resounding no, for the reasons I outlined.

    Against that background ─

    yes, science has limits
    yes, it cannot determine everything, see above
    yes, it interprets the data but (the part you left out) it also tests its findings by experiment to ensure that its findings are as correct as possible,
    but as to working on hypotheses ('assumptions that are not conclusive or necessarily accurate or complete'), they're clearly marked 'hypothesis' ─ there's no advantage in pretending in science, so that's a no.

    'Historical science' is a different branch of reasoned enquiry to science ─ history approached by historical method. Science nonetheless comes in useful at many points of historical enquiry, not least archeology, geology, biology and so on.

    That's why we can be remarkably confident that there was never a Genesis flood.
     
  6. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    See, this is an Internet forum and the keyboard is very close by. There is no need to run away anywhere mate, all one has to do is stop typing.

    The problem with you is that you think creationists are by default so stupid that they cant type a few words in a search engine and read a wikipedia page you are linking to here. So you are trying to teach others what "evidence" means. Its quite a strange position.

    Do you think Newton was as dumb as you think all creationists are?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Nope. I said "Be Specific". Not give some general article defining what scientific evidence means.

    I asked you to be specific. In what field of study do creationists fear evidence? Is it evolution? Or is it rocket science? Or is it biology? Those were examples.

    Making general statements is not being specific. I hope you understand.
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why would you say such a silly thing. Of course I do not think that creationists are by default stupid. There can be some intelligent creationists. The problem is that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. You were given a challenge to find one and you could not do so.

    By the way your complaint about a Wikipedia page is invalid. I explained when I first posted that link that there are many others that give the same definition. Try to pay attention to what people say and not what you want them to say.

    Like it or not these days there is not that much difference between creationists and Flat Earthers. It is only a matter of degree of willful ignorance. That does not mean "stupid".
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    All of the sciences refuted creationism. There are various different versions of creationism. You are the one that has not been specific.

    Give me a specific belief and we can discuss if it has been shown to be wrong and how. I cannot be specific when you will not give a proper specific argument. Do you remember how @ChristineM refuted you and you gave the same "be specific" challenge. When you give vague claims we can only give vague refutations. Yet they still are refutations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Err. So in your opinion creationists are by default "dishonest and uninformed". You keep repeating this. Thats the definition of bigotry mate.

    Anyway, I cannot remember you giving a so called "challenge". Could you please specifically define what your "challenge" is?
     
  11. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Saying "all" is not being specific. Give a specific one, and how that refutes creationism. Im sure you understand that request.
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, it is not an "opinion". It is an observation. You could not even find a single example to counter my claim. You in effect supported my claim. All you can do is to make false claims about me.

    Find me an honest and informed creationist and I will take back what I said. That is a simple, reasonable, and honest challenge.

    And I was specific. Please do not say "be specific" when you cannot be "specific" yourself.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh I understood. I can also see that you are running away from a reasonable request.

    Take some time to reply. I am going to bed again.
     
  14. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Saying "all" is not being specific. Give a specific one, and how that refutes creationism. Im sure you understand that request.

    Tell me. What is your definition of "an honest informed creationist".
     
  15. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Again I can tell you that I dont need to run away you see? Its just a keyboard so I can stop typing or close the laptop. Thats it.

    What is your reasonable request? Define it clearly and specifically. Making general statements are not reasonable requests.

    Please go ahead.
     
  16. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    7,577
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Right. So in your "observation", creationists all by default "dishonest and uninformed". Lol. Thats bigotry mate. You are defining bigotry. There is no point telling someone with that level of bigotry towards billions of people in this world, most of the human species, this cannot be explained.
     
  17. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    25,100
    Ratings:
    +12,114
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Absence of evidence in a situation that would be expected to leave evidence is, indeed, evidence.
    His is the most thorough and easily understood treatment of the subject I'm aware of.
    I don't know of any other such collation of consilient facts on the subject. There are more in-depth articles on the various points, in scientific journals, for example, but these are not easily understood by the layman, nor collected into a single treatise.
    Finding no unicorns in a search of central park is poor evidence they do not exist. Finding no ash or debris at the alleged site of a house fire is evidence.
    The point is that science is aware of its limitations, and of what would constitute good evidence. Science makes no claims based on bad or ambiguous evidence.
    From the OP:
    True. In these particular cases we would not expect to find evidence, and scientists would make no such claims based on lack of evidence.
    I'm not sure of the context of this, but a 'claim by a document' would not generally be considered scientific evidence. Anyone can write a document claiming anything.
    I get that you do not understand what scientific evidence is, or how science works.
     
  18. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    27,242
    Ratings:
    +21,711
    Religion:
    None

    I don't know who you are talking to here, they must be on my ignore list (for a very good reason).

    But i can guess
     
  19. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,265
    Ratings:
    +4,913
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No, Brian, large regional floods have occurred in past history and in recent history.

    But for Noah to being warned about the 100 years before it occur, if the flood was regional, it is utterly senseless to build an Ark, when he could have more easily and safely move his family to area not affected by this local flood.

    The Ice Ages ended 7000 YEARS BEFORE THE EARLY BRONZE AGE (3100 - 2000 BCE), so the notion that the ice ages were responsible for the Genesis Flood and for other myths, is rather tenuous, and the evidence don’t support any of them all, regardless if they were worldwide or local/regional.

    There are no connection between myths and the ice ages.

    Second, the ice sheets mostly covered Northern Europe and Asia, and North America, and some high mountainous regions, eg the Swiss Alps, Caucasian mountains, Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, the Andres, etc.

    On the Swiss Alps for instance, the ice sheets was isolated, surrounded by areas not covered by the sheets.

    [​IMG]

    And there were no ice sheets in Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia.

    And don’t confuse what the myths say with geology, because geological evidence don’t show one massive flood, especially covering mountains as Genesis claim.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
     
Loading...