How do you define SCIENCE?

[John53]

Let's be honest. You and many others do not believe any or all of the Bible.

Please do no claim to know what I do or do not believe because it's a 99.8% chance you will be wrong.

So there's really nothing to discuss.

I'll remember that when it comes to evolution.

After the Israelites left Egypt and were entering the promised land, Joshua told them:
Joshua 24: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

And you were there to witness this? If not by your own standard it is not factual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

uh oh -- you just about demolished most of your arguments pro-evolution and especially pro-abiogenesis however it is said to maybe have happened. I have far more confidence in the promises of the Bible regarding the future than I do in man's classification of said Darwinian evolution. And notice please that I said "Darwinian" type evolution. Remember -- there is nothing to back up a 24-hour day in the creation account. This is not to say that I understand everything. OK?

1 Corinthians 15: "But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else. 38But God gives it a body as He has designed, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body.
39Not all flesh is the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the splendor of the heavenly bodies is of one degree, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is of another. 41The sun has one degree of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

And my answer is -- yup. sounds good. sounds right.

No, I did not. All of those are well supported by objective evidence. There is a reason that I so often try to get deniers of science to understand the concept of evidence. Evolution becomes very obvious when one understands what is and what is not evidence. Evolution belongs to the realm of the known. Not of just mere belief.

Now, you tried to use the Bible as evidence. That does not work unless one can demonstrate that the Bible is reliable. How are you going to do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please do no claim to know what I do or do not believe because it's a 99.8% chance you will be wrong.



I'll remember that when it comes to evolution.



And you were there to witness this? If not by your own standard it is not factual.

Yeah ok whatever. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please do no claim to know what I do or do not believe because it's a 99.8% chance you will be wrong.



I'll remember that when it comes to evolution.



And you were there to witness this? If not by your own standard it is not factual.

Let me guess, see if I'm wrong. You won't say which parts of the Bible you believe or don't believe. (Gnite here..)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah ok whatever. Have a good one.

Do not get insulted. Take it as a goad to learn. You could learn the basics in rather short time. The hard part is keeping yourself honest when you first start to learn.


Could you handle all of the evidence supporting evolution and only evolution? The burden of proof is always upon the person that presents an idea. Those that accept evolution publish constantly. They can follow the basic rule of science and publish works where they go over their methodology so that others can recreate their work. They tell of what they observed and give records of that. They explain how it supports their beliefs. That is pretty much basic science.

For some odd reason creation "scientists" do not even try to use the scientific method for their beliefs. They work on the logical fallacy that if evolution is wrong then creationism must be right. It does not work that way. If they succeeded. Which they never do, it would only show that evolution was wrong. It would not support creationism at all. In fact it would still be wrong for almost all of the same reasons.

 

[John53]

Let me guess, see if I'm wrong. You won't say which parts of the Bible you believe or don't believe. (Gnite here..)

I'm sure much of it is based on actual events even the Noah story but it was probably a local flood and Noah rowed his family and livestock to safety across a swollen stream, then the legend grew.

 

[Bthoth]

Whether I am righteous or not is not the point. But the Bible says that the righteous will inherit the earth and will live (dwell) in it forever.."The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever." Psalm 37:29

No man is righteous if 'the fall' is true as nothing undoes a sin, not a red heifer sacrifice nor the sacrifice of jesus.

Man has inherited the earth upon becoming conscious and capable but look at mankind has done. Again, you are using 'songs of David' (psalms) as prophecy and David was not righteous in any sense of the term, so who will live forever?

 

[YoursTrue]

No man is righteous if 'the fall' is true as nothing undoes a sin, not a red heifer sacrifice nor the sacrifice of jesus.

Man has inherited the earth upon becoming conscious and capable but look at mankind has done. Again, you are using 'songs of David' (psalms) as prophecy and David was not righteous in any sense of the term, so who will live forever?

Statements in the Bible must be taken with understanding. We need knowledge , learning, and God's help or spirit. Just to reiterate, Adam and Eve were created according to the Bible without sin. Unblemished, pure. Everyone since then has inherited sin from them. Righteousness does not mean a person is without sin, or, put another way, perfect. Thus to attain to righteousness in God's eyes is different from being sinless.

 

[gnostic]

Let me guess, see if I'm wrong. You won't say which parts of the Bible you believe or don't believe. (Gnite here..)

I'm sure much of it is based on actual events even the Noah story but it was probably a local flood and Noah rowed his family and livestock to safety across a swollen stream, then the legend grew.

The legends of Ziusudra (Sumerian Eridu Genesis) and of Atrahasis (Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis) were river floods.

it is in the Epic of Atrahasis and in the Middle & Late Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (about Utnapishtim) in which you would find some of Genesis have adapted from such as building vessel, the releasing the birds on different days, and the gods being drawn to smell of fresh sacrifices.

As there are no versions of Genesis Creation or Flood appearing earlier than the 6th century BCE when some populations of Jews were living in exile in Babylon, that priesthood wrote their own version, embellishing the Mesopotamian river flood to that flood that cover the whole earth including the high mountains. In all versions of Mesopotamian myths (Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian), they narrated the rising flood water to just 7 days, Genesis again embellished to bounce between 40 days (7:12, 7:17 & 8:6) and 150 days (8:3).

The Genesis Flood is even less believable, as it never happened in the scale as narrated in Genesis 7 & 8. There are no evidence to substantiate the Genesis Flood, not geologically, not archaeologically, and not biologically.

The are no evidence in the strata on any continents in the world, nor are there any evidence in cities and towns were flooded, that would point to a single moment in time where a single global flood had occurred on the scale of Noah’s Flood.

And there are no evidence that show the migration of humans and animals have originated from Ararat.

How would animals that are only indigenous to South America and to Australia survive the long treks to these continents without living trace of them in Eurasian continent? The koalas are not known for their ability to walk great distance, as they spend most of their lives in some eucalyptus trees. How would the koalas avoid the predators from Ararat to Australia? How would they cross the seas, as they cannot swim?

 

[YoursTrue]

The legends of Ziusudra (Sumerian Eridu Genesis) and of Atrahasis (Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis) were river floods.

it is in the Epic of Atrahasis and in the Middle & Late Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (about Utnapishtim) in which you would find some of Genesis have adapted from such as building vessel, the releasing the birds on different days, and the gods being drawn to smell of fresh sacrifices.

As there are no versions of Genesis Creation or Flood appearing earlier than the 6th century BCE when some populations of Jews were living in exile in Babylon, that priesthood wrote their own version, embellishing the Mesopotamian river flood to that flood that cover the whole earth including the high mountains. In all versions of Mesopotamian myths (Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian), they narrated the rising flood water to just 7 days, Genesis again embellished to bounce between 40 days (7:12, 7:17 & 8:6) and 150 days (8:3).

The Genesis Flood is even less believable, as it never happened in the scale as narrated in Genesis 7 & 8. There are no evidence to substantiate the Genesis Flood, not geologically, not archaeologically, and not biologically.

The are no evidence in the strata on any continents in the world, nor are there any evidence in cities and towns were flooded, that would point to a single moment in time where a single global flood had occurred on the scale of Noah’s Flood.

And there are no evidence that show the migration of humans and animals have originated from Ararat.

How would animals that are only indigenous to South America and to Australia survive the long treks to these continents without living trace of them in Eurasian continent? The koalas are not known for their ability to walk great distance, as they spend most of their lives in some eucalyptus trees. How would the koalas avoid the predators from Ararat to Australia? How would they cross the seas, as they cannot swim?

It is possible that some of the animals managed to get across land or water somehow after being released from the ark. And then they stay there.

 

[John53]

It is possible that some of the animals managed to get across land or water somehow after being released from the ark. And then they stay there.

And Koalas took their own Eucalypt trees with them......

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Koalas took their own Eucalypt trees with them......

Thanks for reminding me of this:

John Oliver Has Koala Chlamydia Ward Named After Him | ‘Last Week Tonight’

John Oliver gave his fans a scare Sunday night after he finished a segment on 'Last Week Tonight' proclaiming he was "done" after achieving his "one and only goal" for the show — that of a "koala chlamydia ward."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[gnostic]

It is possible that some of the animals managed to get across land or water somehow after being released from the ark. And then they stay there.

According to Genesis 8, except for the bird that didn’t come back to the Ark, the rest of animals didn’t disembark until Noah and his family did.

There would be migratory patterns that should it trace back to Ararat…there are no such evidence. If Ararat was the origin of all animals, post-Flood, then there would be some remains found around and near Ararat are exotic to this region, there are no evidence of that too.

Animals travel at different speeds and can move about for limited distances. Kangaroos can move at speed and distance, but not something like wombats, or even slower the koalas. Wombats and koalas would be easy prey for predators.

Koalas may be able to travel from one tree to the next, but they would spend most of each days in one or 2 trees for most of their lives. So for koalas to move from tree to tree, from Ararat to southeast coast of Asia mainland, it would take them more generations and more centuries. But how would they cross the seas to Australian coast? Their diet consist of leaves from eucalyptus, they don’t drink water, as they get their water from the leaves. As they don’t swim, did they use floating eucalyptus trees and somehow reach Australia?

Not only do I find it highly unlikely, I don’t think you are thinking logically, YoursTrue.

 

[YoursTrue]

The legends of Ziusudra (Sumerian Eridu Genesis) and of Atrahasis (Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis) were river floods.

it is in the Epic of Atrahasis and in the Middle & Late Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (about Utnapishtim) in which you would find some of Genesis have adapted from such as building vessel, the releasing the birds on different days, and the gods being drawn to smell of fresh sacrifices.

As there are no versions of Genesis Creation or Flood appearing earlier than the 6th century BCE when some populations of Jews were living in exile in Babylon, that priesthood wrote their own version, embellishing the Mesopotamian river flood to that flood that cover the whole earth including the high mountains. In all versions of Mesopotamian myths (Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian), they narrated the rising flood water to just 7 days, Genesis again embellished to bounce between 40 days (7:12, 7:17 & 8:6) and 150 days (8:3).

The Genesis Flood is even less believable, as it never happened in the scale as narrated in Genesis 7 & 8. There are no evidence to substantiate the Genesis Flood, not geologically, not archaeologically, and not biologically.

The are no evidence in the strata on any continents in the world, nor are there any evidence in cities and towns were flooded, that would point to a single moment in time where a single global flood had occurred on the scale of Noah’s Flood.

And there are no evidence that show the migration of humans and animals have originated from Ararat.

How would animals that are only indigenous to South America and to Australia survive the long treks to these continents without living trace of them in Eurasian continent? The koalas are not known for their ability to walk great distance, as they spend most of their lives in some eucalyptus trees. How would the koalas avoid the predators from Ararat to Australia? How would they cross the seas, as they cannot swim?

Naturally there have been found underwater cities. Not saying this means they were flooded by the flood in the Genesis account, but yes, there have been discovered underwater cities.

 

[YoursTrue]

And Koalas took their own Eucalypt trees with them......

the continents may have changed.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to Genesis 8, except for the bird that didn’t come back to the Ark, the rest of animals didn’t disembark until Noah and his family did.

Yes, that is true according to the account.

There would be migratory patterns that should it trace back to Ararat…there are no such evidence. If Ararat was the origin of all animals, post-Flood, then there would be some remains found around and near Ararat are exotic to this region, there are no evidence of that too.

Animals travel at different speeds and can move about for limited distances. Kangaroos can move at speed and distance, but not something like wombats, or even slower the koalas. Wombats and koalas would be easy prey for predators.

Koalas may be able to travel from one tree to the next, but they would spend most of each days in one or 2 trees for most of their lives. So for koalas to move from tree to tree, from Ararat to southeast coast of Asia mainland, it would take them more generations and more centuries. But how would they cross the seas to Australian coast? Their diet consist of leaves from eucalyptus, they don’t drink water, as they get their water from the leaves. As they don’t swim, did they use floating eucalyptus trees and somehow reach Australia?

Not only do I find it highly unlikely, I don’t think you are thinking logically, YoursTrue.

I accept the account in Genesis and am not speaking against it even though I don't understand everything. Since that's how it is in my mind and since I believe in God as well as the idea that the Bible is His way of communicating with mankind, I'll let HIM settle this.

 

[The Hammer]

I define science the same easy as i define (and learned the meaning of) all words.

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary)

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

I love the OED.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please do no claim to know what I do or do not believe because it's a 99.8% chance you will be wrong.



I'll remember that when it comes to evolution.



And you were there to witness this? If not by your own standard it is not factual.

Pretty slim chance then that I am right. according to you. There is lots to discuss but I am probably not the person to discuss it with. (take care...)

 

[YoursTrue]

That's one common definition, and another involves the body of knowledge of the scientific community. By this definition science can hold that water is not wet if the majority says so.

(Not going to disagree...) Although it doesn't mean that the majority opinion is right.

 

[gnostic]

Naturally there have been found underwater cities. Not saying this means they were flooded by the flood in the Genesis account, but yes, there have been discovered underwater cities.

which isn't relevant.

The legend of the original flood hero in the ancient Near East, was the Sumerian Ziusudra, who appeared in the following texts: Instructions of Shurrupak, Eridu Genesis, and alluded in the Death of Bilgames (poem), and in one version of the Sumerian King List (in the recension version known as WB-62).

Only the Eridu Genesis appeared to narrate the creation and flood stories, however the surviving extant clay tablets are badly damaged, so a great deal of the original texts are lost.

but while the Eridu Genesis dont have a complete text, in the next 2 millennia, the story survived in Akkadian versions, which include the Epic of Atrahasis and in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where Ziusudra’s name was changed to Atrahasis and to Utnapishtim.

But the real point, is Ziusudra’s connection to the Sumerian city of Shurrupak. A city that actually showed evidence of flood debris, dated to around 2900 BCE. This was most likely the origin of the legend that appeared centuries later in the late 3rd millennium BCE (eg Eridu Genesis).

What is known is that by the 3rd dynasty of Ur (known as the Sumerian Renaissance, after the end of the Akkadian dynasty), the myths of Ziusudra was already well known that Ziusudra appeared in the Gilgamesh poem, the Death of Bilgames.

In the Death of Bilgames, it only alluded to Ziusudra’s connection to the flood, but provided no details about the flood itself, but it does say Bilgames met Ziusudra, and Bilgames brought back the hand-washing custom that had stopped when the Flood occurred.

It is in the Epic of Gilgamesh (both Babylonian & Assyrian versions) that Gilgamesh met Utnapishtim, who narrated his story about the Flood, that is very similar to the Epic of Atrahasis.

The reasons why the flood story survived in various carnations because of the popularity of Gilgamesh during the 2nd millennium and 1st millennium BCE, that it was often focus in scribe schools in Mesopotamia., where scribe apprentices would practising writing with this epic (learning cuneiform). And it would be the reason why it still survived when jewish hostages were living in Babylon in the 6th century BCE.