• 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!

Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

Commoner

Headache
Yeah, we all know how the cattle mentality makes things true! As long as the herd follows along!

Yes, having your mistakes exposed by others in your field leads to "cattle mentality". You're right, how could I have missed it. Oh, there I go again with my cattle mentality when I should be disregarding any critique and just going with my gut, right?

You're beginning to sound like a troll. You know what happens to trolls, don't you?
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Yes, having your mistakes exposed by others in your field leads to "cattle mentality". You're right, how could I have missed it. Oh, there I go again with my cattle mentality when I should be disregarding any critique and just going with my gut, right?

You're beginning to sound like a troll. You know what happens to trolls, don't you?

I disagree with a majority of the scientific method and take a stance spiritually. I at least spend time learning from a few of the scientists that have contributed some decent knowledge beyond trying to make reality conform to a method of formulas but with some truth and defend my beliefs so you want to call it sounding like a troll .What is that like an easy way for you out of any discussions?
 

Commoner

Headache
I disagree with a majority of the scientific method and take a stance spiritually. I at least spend time learning from a few of the scientists that have contributed some decent knowledge beyond trying to make reality conform to a method of formulas but with some truth and defend my beliefs so you want to call it sounding like a troll .What is that like an easy way for you out of any discussions?

Method of formulas? Oh, I see - you don't know what you're talking about, right? Well, that's not that unusual. But I do suggest you take the time to actually find out what the scientific method is before you make yourself look bad.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to get out of the discussion. I actually like talking to trolls. :rolleyes:
 

McBell

Unbound
I disagree with a majority of the scientific method and take a stance spiritually. I at least spend time learning from a few of the scientists that have contributed some decent knowledge beyond trying to make reality conform to a method of formulas but with some truth and defend my beliefs so you want to call it sounding like a troll .What is that like an easy way for you out of any discussions?
ah yes.
back to your "faith".
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
And so are you????

Oops...I meant...I (wouldn't) be walking around quoting him as if he was a sage......

But to answer your question...No...I'm no sage....but this isn't the first time I've seen you drooling, like a school girl, over the life of Nikola Tesla.
 

Galileo

Member
Quote:
My Post: To embrace science is to embrace reality. That's what science is all about, explaining the real world around us by examining tangible evidence. You sound like a friend of mine who is quite fond of a certain herbal concoction. He often goes off on topics that you are describing.
"Like bro what if we aren't really here and like we are just part of a dream that's being dreamed by some other being and when he wakes up we'll like totally cease to exist."
That's a direct quote from my friend while taking his her.........er......."medication".


Walkntune: Is this an example of embracing reality with science and what your post is really saying???
Mental disease comes from those who get trapped in there fight and flight responses behind fear and instead of trying to deal with their emotional traumas they try to reason themselves out logically
but unfortunately their rationality eventually becomes irrational as their chemicals become out of balance in the brain. It's sad how much medical science has failed in trying to be successful in the area of mental illness but since they rely on logic they assume fixing the chemical imbalance will fix the problem when all along it's the emotional trauma that is the problem.Medical science has definately done a profound job of keeping society suppressed and turned every feeling of the blues they can into a mental disease to push their drugs for profits.( your not blind to the commercials right???)

You read way too much into my post. I was being sarcastic when telling the story of my friend. I wasn't talking about mental illness, if you notice in my last post I put the word medication in quotes. I was eluding to the fact that he smokes a lot of marijuana. My point was that the people who are trying to argue against science make about as much sense as someone that's hopped up on drugs.
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
You read way too much into my post. I was being sarcastic when telling the story of my friend. I wasn't talking about mental illness, if you notice in my last post I put the word medication in quotes. I was eluding to the fact that he smokes a lot of marijuana. My point was that the people who are trying to argue against science make about as much sense as someone that's hopped up on drugs.

Oh I understood your post. I was just showing the real side of what you were saying and the effect of medical science on society and reality. Not that all is bad but it has failed miserable in the mental health department.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Oops...I meant...I (wouldn't) be walking around quoting him as if he was a sage......

But to answer your question...No...I'm no sage....but this isn't the first time I've seen you drooling, like a school girl, over the life of Nikola Tesla.

Finding interest in Tesla's scientific achievements is no different then you riding on the coat tail of any other scientist and the achievements you think science has arrived at.
Of course twisting of the meaning like you have is completely expected as you are a man of logic and not heart. But it is entertaining I must admit!;)
In all honesty I would rather hear you argue in science because I would be open to your opinions instead of this show if integrity I have been getting.
 
Last edited:

Gabethewiking

Active Member
Finding interest in Tesla's scientific achievements is no different then you riding on the coat tail of any other scientist and the achievements you think science has arrived at.
Of course twisting of the meaning like you have is completely expected as you are a man of logic and not heart.

Just curious, but what do you mean by the bolded/underlined part?
 
Last edited:
I have studied the geology of several countries plus reading the Palaeontology journals, Science, Nature, Natural History, Discovery, Scientific American, the Journal of the British Natural History Museum (London). There is no scientific evidence of a Global Flood. No scientist has shown such evidence unless they tamper with data very severely. What they propose as evidence always is explained in scientific terms that can be demonstrated in a deliberately deceptive slight of hand.

There was no internal source for the 2.5 billion cubic Kilometres of water necessary to flood the top of Mt. Everest 8 Km high. I could not come from Earth’s crust or between crust and mantle. Just under the thin crust is red hot magma. What little water seeps through the crust is boiled and erupted out in Geysers and Ocean floor hot springs. No 2.5 billion cubic Kilometres could have existed in the thin crust of the Earth or beneath it. There is super hot molten magma. There was no canopy over the Earth that would hold a reservoir of water the area of Earth and 5 miles (8Km) thick. This would not have been able to float in the atmosphere. It would have fallen immediately as it was formed.

Where could that 2.5 billion cubic Km (900 million cubic miles) of water go afterwards?

How did Noah bring animals from distant Australia, New Zealand, South America, North America, Polar Regions, Madagascar, Hawaii, or Tahiti to Mesopotamia; and then get them back from Mount Ararat to Brazil, Patagonia, Australia, Tasmania, North America, Madagascar etc. Because no bones of those animals are found along the trail back and none found before the Magic Flood on the land along the way. Kangaroos evolved in Australia in isolation. They are still only in Australia. They are not in Africa, Asia, Europe, or Cleveland. They would have to have been brought from Australia to the Middle East and back from Eastern Turkey to Australia across thousands of miles of Ocean.

The Ark had no sails, no oars, no engine or propeller, and no nuclear power drive. How could such a merely passively floating boat circle the Earth twice in picking up animals and taking them back?

Please have an open mind about those myths and you will see that they are childish and illogical. There was never a Global Flood. There was never a time in which some geological layer was not desert at the time of the Magical Global Flood. If you believe the time of the flood was 2349 BC, that is rubbish because Scottish/Pictish, Irish, and Pre-Celtic Tara People ancestors were living in Crannogs and stone houses on Scara Brae in the Orkneys and Northern Scotland from 4000 BC through to 400 BC with no interruption of habitation. They didn't notice the Flood, nor did the Egyptians busy building pyramids from 3200 BC and other statues over a 3000 year period. No flood interrupted the work on Egyptian statues and pyramids, or the building of the Celtic passage graves at Clava Cairns near Inverness.

The fact is that certain animals are found only in certain isolated location. For example, Kangaroos have never been found outside of Australia and New Guinea. Certain species of fresh water fish have been found nowhere outside of the Amazon Basin. Lemurs are only on the Island of Madascar in the last 20 million years. Emus, Koalas, Marsupial wolves, wombats, and marsupial lions are found only in Australia. Many other animals while on the Eurasian mainland are found only at great distances from Palestine, Mt. Ararat, and Mesopotamia. These include: polar bears, tapirs, aardvarks, Meercats, Irish Elk, Reindeer/Caribou, Moose, and the Ice loving Macaques of Northern Japan. There are a few thousand other animals found far from Mesopotamia.

These represent animals never found in Mesopotamia/Ararat. How did Noah and his sons gather all of these animals from the far reaches of the left and right hemispheres and polar areas? How did they fit in the approximately 3.8 million species into the Ark if it was the wee little boat described in Genesis? How could they store enough food for the entire long journey aboard the tiny boat? When it landed on Mt. Ararat how did they return all of these animals back to their places of origin? They would have needed to move the Ark from eastern Turkey to either the Black Sea or to the Persian Gulf, a very huge task of portage of such a boat. Then that boat, without sails or engine would have to sail thousands of miles east and west, after getting unstuck from that Turkish Mountain. Then it would need to sail around to Northern Europe and Scandinavia, south to Australia, New Zealand, and Tierra del Fuego. This would be without sails, without a diesel or nuclear engine, and without oars or oar portals for rowing.

How did they transport the:


  • Koalas, Wallabies, Kangaroos, Wombats, Marsupial wolves, Emus, and Marsupial lions back to the island continent of Australia?
    How did they get the Kiwis back to N. Z.?
    How did they get Giant Tortoises back to Galapagos?
    Pangolins (scaled ant eaters), aardvarks, wart hogs to South Africa
    Tapirs, Jaguars, sloths, prehensile tailed New World Monkeys back to South America
    Armadillos, Alpacas, Llamas, and Rheas (flightless birds) to remote South America
    Lemurs back to Madascar
    Orang-utans and (Hobbit man) H. floresiensis back to Indonesia/Borneo
    Siamangs, Gibbons, Gorillas, Chimps, and Bonobos back to Africa
    Indian Elephants back to India
    African Elephants back to Africa
    Pronghorns, Rocky Mountain sheep, Canada Lynx to North America
    Delicate fresh water tropical fish back to the far interior of the Amazon River
    Etc. Etc.


If you dump 2.5 BILLION Km ³ of water and not upset the aquatic life. It this huge amount of water was fresh water, the dilution would kill the salt water fish, shellfish, crustacean, cephalopod, sponge, and reef building organisms, no more sharks, no more barracudas, no sports marlins, no more Chesapeake or New Orleans tasty crabs, no more New England Lobsters (Lawbstah’s.)

If you dump 2.5 Billion Km ³ of saline waters, you kill all of the important fresh water fish in the Amazon basin, the Canadian-American Great Lakes, the thousands of fish rich Canadian and American fresh water lakes, Scottish/Irish/Scandinavian/Alpine lakes, the many great river systems around the world, and the 400,000,000 amphibians of the world who can only breed in fresh water.

Not to belabour this but the point is that Noah’s Flood makes no sense. It violates so many natural laws the list would require a separate posts.

In brief where does one suddenly acquire 2.5 Billion Km ³ of water from anyplace short of the Jupiter/Saturn Ice Moons? There is not 1% of that volume in the thin Earth Crust or in the atmosphere as clouds. Clouds dense enough to hold 2.5 billion Km ³ of water dispersed in vapour and small droplets would block out ALL sunlight. So pre-flood times would have been in long Nuclear Winter with temperatures -40 º to -150 º making the Earth a frozen wasteland.

Finally departing from the scientific rebuttal, the Noah Story is the most immoral and unjust story ever written. A violent God with rage attacks murdering millions of innocent babies, children, pregnant women (each counts as two murders now), perhaps as many as trillions of animals from the small to the large. What did the non-human animals have to do with SOME men sinning, and shagging other poofs? Why not just strike them down. He invented the term "overkill" with that story.

I fail to understand how people claim to believe any of the story. Can anybody explain to me why it is so important to believe a story of obvious rubbish and horrifying Divine cruelty? Is belief in this mythical flood necessary for salvation. I thought you only had to accept the deification of Jesus and accept him as Lord and Saviour. It is so irrational that its wide belief in the USA after long have been read as metaphor in the Industrialised advanced nations.

Ardipithecus
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Finding interest in Tesla's scientific achievements is no different then you riding on the coat tail of any other scientist and the achievements you think science has arrived at.

Posting the view of scientific findings is a tad bit different then posting Tesla esoteric/religious/dogmatic views in conjunction with science. But I guess it's no difference to you considering I've seen you stretching yourself to make make science and religious belief work together.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1884413-post1381.html
"The best I can do for you now is to say love is similar to the force of gravity and it's one object being attracted to another that permeates all through the universe and the hand of God that holds all things together. We can see it's effect on other objects but in and of itself we cannot determine the substance from which it is made."

Or this jewel.....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1884376-post1374.html
The method is the distance you are willing to step out of logic into faith!
Love is the creative substance of all existence and not subject to it's laws or your logic."


Of course twisting of the meaning like you have is completely expected as you are a man of logic and not heart.

What are you talking about? What meaning have I twisted? I have have very limited interactions with you so show me what meaning of what I've twisted.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Oops...I meant...I (wouldn't) be walking around quoting him as if he was a sage......

But to answer your question...No...I'm no sage....but this isn't the first time I've seen you drooling, like a school girl, over the life of Nikola Tesla.
What are you talking about? What meaning have I twisted? I have have very limited interactions with you so show me what meaning of what I've twisted.
I was talking about twisting my stance around to try and belittle me(like the little schoolgirl thing) but i am very lighthearted and do take it good fun.(a little entertaining actually). I just ask don't troll around and then accuse me of trolling.

Originally Posted by Walkntune
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1381.html
"The best I can do for you now is to say love is similar to the force of gravity and it's one object being attracted to another that permeates all through the universe and the hand of God that holds all things together. We can see it's effect on other objects but in and of itself we cannot determine the substance from which it is made."

As far as this above I am Sorry you can only see things in the natural realm(logically) and can't see them spiritually.
We can only measure and observe the effects of gravity on objects and the same with love.We can even observe chemical reactions in the body from the effects of love.And we can observe actions from those who love and are effected by love.
 

Commoner

Headache
I was talking about twisting my stance around to try and belittle me(like the little schoolgirl thing) but i am very lighthearted and do take it good fun.(a little entertaining actually). I just ask don't troll around and then accuse me of trolling.

Oh, I think it was I who actually accused you of being a troll. Can't let others take all the credit for my brilliant observation.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Trolling1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
O
h, I think it was I who actually accused you of being a troll. Can't let others take all the credit for my brilliant observation.

Thanks for the example and I will try and keep it in mind as I smile at most of your posts!
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I was talking about twisting my stance around to try and belittle me(like the little schoolgirl thing) but i am very lighthearted and do take it good fun.(a little entertaining actually). I just ask don't troll around and then accuse me of trolling.

Please....I don't troll. Check my stats and my time here on RF. If I was guilty of such you can best believe I'd been dealt with. No, I was simply critiquing you. Maybe I should have added (IMO) at the end.....


As far as this above I am Sorry you can only see things in the natural realm(logically) and can't see them spiritually.

I suspect neither can you...but I guess all we have to go on is your word...right?

We can even observe chemical reactions in the body from the effects of love.And we can observe actions from those who love and are effected by love.

Do you have scientific sources for this?
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Please....I don't troll. Check my stats and my time here on RF. If I was guilty of such you can best believe I'd been dealt with. No, I was simply critiquing you. Maybe I should have added (IMO) at the end.....
OK I respect that sincerity and believe you take your science very seriously and it can be offensive for someone to try and discredit basically your whole method of reality.It is the same for Christians(and those who rely on any other method) and unfortunately for them many have turned a blind eye to the gifts and methods we were born with to rationalise and come to truth.
If I was on here trolling I would not have spent so much time opening myself up to science when there was a time I would have shunned the very word. I just know that scientists are in disagreement with each other as religions are.I am not a scientists but I try and familiaize myself with the method and have a more philosophical point of view.

Do you have scientific sources for this?
This is wikipedia



Simplified overview of the chemical basis of love.


Main article: Love (scientific views)
Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.[8] Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others; romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating; and attachment involves tolerating the spouse (or indeed the child) long enough to rear a child into infancy.
Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.[9]
Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have.[9] Enzo Emanuele and coworkers reported the protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these return to previous levels after one year. [10]
 
Last edited:
Top