Scientists say...

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- ask certain ones here who claim to go to their respective houses of worship why they go. (I figure maybe it makes them feel good...but how about rationality?) I am NOT afraid to "learn the basics of science" at all. Not in the least. In fact, now that you remind me I am going to look for Scientific American at the library. Now I'm willing to go over rationally some literature you suggest, but -- you have to take the time to discuss it without insults --

You are afraid. Every time that you try you end up running away or worse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone Oh, and before I forget -- I am sure -- very sure -- that those who go to their respective houses of worship here that you may consider "rational believers" will likely tell you that the miracles accounted for in the Bible are myths. But maybe they just like the idea that a man named Jesus, if he existed, was a nice guy promoting love...
and again -- cockroaches surviving...after humans destroying themselves...

Why do you do this!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the problem with that, and I suggest you read it: the incident were Jesus brought sight to a blind man. The Pharisees not only did not like it but contested against the man and Jesus. His parents were so scared of being thrown out of the synagogue if they backed up Jesus that they were quiet.

That may be myth. Have you ever noticed how the number of miracles increase as the time after the death of Jesus increases? Perhaps there were no miracles.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are afraid. Every time that you try you end up running away or worse.

I'll keep it simple. You choose the text or report from scientists and we can discuss it. Now if you can't answer questions about it, that might stop the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll keep it simple. You choose the text or report from scientists and we can discuss it. Now if you can't answer questions about it, that might stop the discussion.

That hardly does any good if you do not understand the basics of science. You will probably just deny the parts that you do not like. And what you do not understand is that scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. If you just deny something or use a nonsensical argument that is a form of lying. What happens if you do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

That hardly does any good if you do not understand the basics of science. You will probably just deny the parts that you do not like. And what you do not understand is that scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. If you just deny something or use a nonsensical argument that is a form of lying. What happens if you do that?

OK, so since you say I am anti-science (which I am not), let's go over what you consider the basics of science perhaps on another thread? You start with what you consider the basics, and I'll follow if I can. I'll be happy to.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, yes. I very much enjoy discussing with people their religious beliefs. Mostly it's just fun, but also because on rare occasion someone will say something significant that validly challenges my current beliefs, and I have the opportunity to grow. Unlike most participants in this forum, my assumption is that, like all humans, I make mistakes and reach wrong conclusions, thus I am always open to change. However, given that I'm 62 and have studied religions my whole life, the odds of encountering any new ideas are pretty low.

Have you heard of the website AISH? That's AISH.com. I was looking up certain concepts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, so since you say I am anti-science (which I am not), let's go over what you consider the basics of science perhaps on another thread? You start with what you consider the basics, and I'll follow if I can. I'll be happy to.

You have consistently shown yourself to be anti-science by repeatedly rejecting all the things that science offers that don't mesh with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have consistently shown yourself to be anti-science by repeatedly rejecting all the things that science offers that don't mesh with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

You, my dear, have consistently shown yourself to be anti-bible, as many profess to say so much if not all of it is mythical like you do. (Have you read AISH.com about the end times yet?) But that's ok because obviously the concept that the Bible is based on myths is shared by many who yet differ in their religious viewpoints but consider themselves as believers in something somehow, meaning they don't profess to be atheists as some here do, some like you say they are Christian but also believe the Bible is based on myths. I am not anti-science. But that does not mean I agree without question because a scientist says something.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have consistently shown yourself to be anti-science by repeatedly rejecting all the things that science offers that don't mesh with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I have a literal interpretation of the Bible. You might want to explain that, but be that as it may, you have a right to your beliefs both about the Bible and about me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I have a literal interpretation of the Bible. You might want to explain that, but be that as it may, you have a right to your beliefs both about the Bible and about me.

Literal. As in thinking everything in the Bible is historical and concrete, rather than see its many instances of being figurative. Your belief that Genesis 1 is historical is just one of many examples.

An example of the difference:
What does "A rolling stone gathers no moss."
Literal, concrete : A stone that tumbles down a hill doesn't stay in one place long enough for moss to grow on it.
Figurative: People who are always on the move never form roots in a particular place

IOW, someone with literal thinking thinks the proverb refers to stones, when in fact it is a statement about people.

 

[YoursTrue]

Literal. As in thinking everything in the Bible is historical and concrete, rather than see its many instances of being figurative. Your belief that Genesis 1 is historical is just one of many examples.

An example of the difference:
What does "A rolling stone gathers no moss."
Literal, concrete : A stone that tumbles down a hill doesn't stay in one place long enough for moss to grow on it.
Figurative: People who are always on the move never form roots in a particular place

IOW, someone with literal thinking thinks the proverb refers to stones, when in fact it is a statement about people.

Before I make any statements or assessments of your belief, may I ask if you think or believe that the person described as Moses in the Bible is a true account? It would most likely be helpful if you would outline what you believe and/or don't believe about the account in detail. Rolling stone has not much to do with the account in Genesis unless you want to make it so. Meantime, why not just say what, if any, parts of Genesis particularly with regard to the history you think are mythical. Perhaps we can go on from there. Otherwise, to speak in vast generalities for me doesn't work.

 

[YoursTrue]

That hardly does any good if you do not understand the basics of science. You will probably just deny the parts that you do not like. And what you do not understand is that scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. If you just deny something or use a nonsensical argument that is a form of lying. What happens if you do that?

In other words, your view as you agree with scientists must be correct. Is that right? Now I'm wondering if you can't present anything you would like to go over to see if you understand it and agree with it. That pertains to @IndigoChild5559 and a few others here, too. But! You have a good day. (afraid?? nah ... not you...)

 

[YoursTrue]

You are afraid. Every time that you try you end up running away or worse.

I still can't see why you don't question those that have God AND a total belief in scientific theory here about these things -- who knows? maybe it would help you to believe in God. Or do you, but maybe just not the Bible? There are quite a few here who believe in unseen somethings maybe not the Bible, maybe yes, and science also. Talk to them about these things.
If you can't produce evidence in the form of information from the science basis you're speaking of and don't want to discuss it, hey, have a good day, please. Bye for now...
Remember though--sediment can be moved by flowing lava. So don't worry about that.

 

[Tomef]

Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense!

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.

No, it's like saying the shore is made up of many grains of sand.

 

[Pogo]

In other words, your view as you agree with scientists must be correct. Is that right? Now I'm wondering if you can't present anything you would like to go over to see if you understand it and agree with it. That pertains to @IndigoChild5559 and a few others here, too. But! You have a good day. (afraid?? nah ... not you...)

No, it is not our conclusion that science must be correct, it is our observation that presentation of evidence to you is followed not by introspection but by denial and wild sidetracks when not just "that is too complicated" or "that's silly".
This is why we can't present anything to you for your understanding, and that which you present to us is not science but strawman representations.

 

[Pogo]

Remember though--sediment can be moved by flowing lava. So don't worry about that.

Yup, just like the layers that are created when you bake cookies on a greased and floured cookie-sheet.
Where did you come up with this goofy strawman?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Before I make any statements or assessments of your belief, may I ask if you think or believe that the person described as Moses in the Bible is a true account

Nope, not going to answer. Not only has this been discussed in full, meaning you are simply being rude to speak of it as if you don't already know my answer, but IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT DISCUSSION.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In other words, your view as you agree with scientists must be correct. Is that right?

It floors me that you can be in this forum for so long, and have this explained to you so many times, and yet still somehow imagine that that is the case.

I'm starting to get disgusted by your unwillingness to listen, and learn what others think. It's not just this discussion, your refusal to listen to others contaminates ALL your conversations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, your view as you agree with scientists must be correct. Is that right? Now I'm wondering if you can't present anything you would like to go over to see if you understand it and agree with it. That pertains to @IndigoChild5559 and a few others here, too. But! You have a good day. (afraid?? nah ... not you...)

No, and this is where fundamentalists constantly make errors. It is not about the person. Creationists often attack Darwin in the hopes that that would refute evolution. He could have been a mass murderer, evolution would still be true.

It is not about the man or what say it. It is about the evidence. It is the evidence that tells us that without a doubt that the Adam and Eve story is a myth.