How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Like what?

They all drank Red Bull, grew wings, and then kangaroos, lizards, wombats, koalas, platypuses, all the marsupial, just flew to Australia?



then you are going to ignored the remains that were found at Lake Mungo?

the older remains have been dated to 40,000 years…others were about 22,000 and 12,000 years old.

I don't know what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

So again...you believe some type of flood happened and you say that I am 99% plus more wrong about your beliefs regarding the Bible, right? Explain please.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't know what you're saying. I do know that this world is in a miserable situation and has been for....a long time.

"Miserable situation for a long time..." Yes, but that is to be expected. There are seven errors in Revelation which can stop the church...or put another way the church which is like Joshua circling Jericho must accomplish overcome seven problems in order for its task to be complete. There is no giving up and no going back. If I am interpreting right.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Miserable situation for a long time..." Yes, but that is to be expected. There are seven errors in Revelation which can stop the church...or put another way the church which is like Joshua circling Jericho must accomplish overcome seven problems in order for its task to be complete. There is no giving up and no going back. If I am interpreting right.

And I believe that this world of miserable horrible conditions including the junk (don't want to use the word crap) like Halloween will be over. Thank God for that! I have bad knees but would be on my knees thanking God for the prophecies of this world being closed down!

 

[YoursTrue]

I need to stop thinking that proof and evidence are the same thing? I do not. But evidence does not PROVE the posit. Or better put, theory. It does not. Therefore...have a good one.

@gnostic When I first got to these forums, I had a basic education in evolution and biology. My major in college was not science, and I have since found out especially here from others that different areas of scientific endeavor may not qualify a person to delve into or speak about other areas. Would you or others say I right about understanding this point?

 

[John53]

So again...you believe some type of flood happened and you say that I am 99% plus more wrong about your beliefs regarding the Bible, right? Explain please.

I grew up on a flood plain. First hand experience of about 15 or so floods so yes I believe "some type of flood happened".

99.8% to be exact.

 

[YoursTrue]

I grew up on a flood plain. First hand experience of about 15 or so floods so yes I believe "some type of flood happened".

99.8% to be exact.

Oh. Well I find geography and culture interesting, but you were only referring the 99.8% perhaps to a large flood, is that right? Nothing else maybe in the Bible? I like to understand the way people think.

 

[The Hammer]

So again...you believe some type of flood happened and you say that I am 99% plus more wrong about your beliefs regarding the Bible, right? Explain please.

Why does this take a flood and not say, a tsunami or tropical storm?

 

[cladking]

@gnostic When I first got to these forums, I had a basic education in evolution and biology. My major in college was not science, and I have since found out especially here from others that different areas of scientific endeavor may not qualify a person to delve into or speak about other areas. Would you or others say I right about understanding this point?

Not really.

Obviously someone who has never studied or thought about a subject isn't really qualified but a squirrel doesn't need to know about dendrology or biology to know that acorns taste pretty good and if he forgets where he puts one then an acorn machine will grow in its place. Anyone can make true or false statements about reality whether it's in their specialty or not.

I try to stay in my depth but that's shallow water that covers about everything.

 

[John53]

Oh. Well I find geography and culture interesting, but you were only referring the 99.8% perhaps to a large flood, is that right? Nothing else maybe in the Bible? I like to understand the way people think.

No I was referring to you being 99.8% wrong about what you think I believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I was referring to you being 99.8% wrong about what you think I believe.

And of course you know this for a fact, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does this take a flood and not say, a tsunami or tropical storm?

What are you talking about?

 

[Pete in Panama]

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

It often is but not always. I like both definitions but I try and keep the two distinct.

 

[YoursTrue]

I grew up on a flood plain. First hand experience of about 15 or so floods so yes I believe "some type of flood happened".

99.8% to be exact.

So some type of flood happened that was evidently spoken of a long time ago, would you agree with that?

 

[John53]

And of course you know this for a fact, right?

There's a +- .000001% factored in

 

[John53]

So some type of flood happened that was evidently spoken of a long time ago, would you agree with that?

Sure like the floods I lived through are spoken of and the tails told grow with each telling. Maybe in 2,000 years I'll be some god like figure. I rescued 2 dogs wading through flood water.

 

[gnostic]

@gnostic When I first got to these forums, I had a basic education in evolution and biology. My major in college was not science, and I have since found out especially here from others that different areas of scientific endeavor may not qualify a person to delve into or speak about other areas. Would you or others say I right about understanding this point?

unless you have cited peer-reviewed works that offered factual data that can be viewed, what you are doing is just expressing your opinions.

Primary and high school education in sciences don’t cut it.

What matters are not just college or university qualifications, unless you have studied in the right fields, and that you have work experiences in that fields.

Let’s say that you, have studied in medicine, and you have become GP or surgeon who have some experiences working in hospitals. You may have some experiences with human genetics, but only have only limited knowledge of evolution. Then my answer would be no, you don’t have the qualification, nor the experiences to talk of Evolution of say of other families and species of animals, or that of plants, fungi, archaea and bacteria. And you certainly wouldn’t have qualifications if you have been in more specialised fields such molecular biology (especially in genome research) or in paleontology.

Not everyone who studied biology are experts in paleontology (study of fossils).

But say you have university qualifications in business or marketing, in law, in art, or in engineering, then no, you are definitely not qualified to say what is or isn’t science, or what is or isn’t evidence. Or you can do is express personal opinions. Especially if you’re not going to cite from peer-reviewed, well-researched and tested sources.

And what I meant by “tested” sources, I means sources that provided verifiable evidence (including experiments) and data. Experiments that are repeatable, so independent scientists can follow the instructions or methodology of experiments, and get results precisely the same as the sources; independent scientists should be able to determine if the analysis of the evidence, experiments and data are accurate or not.

 

[The Hammer]

What are you talking about?

Y'all were talking about koalas making it to Australia. Doesn't require a flood.

 

[YoursTrue]

unless you have cited peer-reviewed works that offered factual data that can be viewed, what you are doing is just expressing your opinions.

Primary and high school education in sciences don’t cut it.

What matters are not just college or university qualifications, unless you have studied in the right fields, and that you have work experiences in that fields.

Let’s say that you, have studied in medicine, and you have become GP or surgeon who have some experiences working in hospitals. You may have some experiences with human genetics, but only have only limited knowledge of evolution. Then my answer would be no, you don’t have the qualification, nor the experiences to talk of Evolution of say of other families and species of animals, or that of plants, fungi, archaea and bacteria. And you certainly wouldn’t have qualifications if you have been in more specialised fields such molecular biology (especially in genome research) or in paleontology.

Not everyone who studied biology are experts in paleontology (study of fossils).

But say you have university qualifications in business or marketing, in law, in art, or in engineering, then no, you are definitely not qualified to say what is or isn’t science, or what is or isn’t evidence. Or you can do is express personal opinions. Especially if you’re not going to cite from peer-reviewed, well-researched and tested sources.

And what I meant by “tested” sources, I means sources that provided verifiable evidence (including experiments) and data. Experiments that are repeatable, so independent scientists can follow the instructions or methodology of experiments, and get results precisely the same as the sources; independent scientists should be able to determine if the analysis of the evidence, experiments and data are accurate or not.

Whatever you and scientists say must be true, right? You know like majority opinion, peer reviewed etc.

 

[gnostic]

Whatever you and scientists say must be true, right? You know like majority opinion, peer reviewed etc.

It is not matter of opinions, if there are evidence and data to support the models.

Verifiable evidence and data are what provide objectivity to peer-reviewed scientific theories.

New, but “working” hypotheses that provide verifiable evidence, test results from experiments & data, for peer review, are not merely stating opinions.

You seemed to ignore evidence and data.

Do you know what I mean by data?

Data are observations that provide information about the evidence. For example, quantity and measurement are the most common types of data, such as measuring the mass and dimensions of the evidence, acquiring density or other physical characteristics, like the physical or chemical composition.

take for instance, a large meteorite crashed into your lawn. Experts can retrieve it, take all sort of measurements from the meteorite exterior. But they can also measure or quantify what inside the meteorite that are not apparent from external observations. Is the meteorite made of stone, metal or mixture of both? Molecular and chemical analysis will provide whatever other inorganic and organic substances within the meteorite. Meteorites like the Murchison meteorite or Allende meteorite have identified large quantities of different types of organic compounds and molecules. All these measurements and quantities are data acquired from physical evidence, which in this example, the meteorite.

those evidence along with data are not opinions, yourstrue.

As long as I can cite sources that well-documented the data, then I am not just expressing my opinions, I would have sources that back my opinions.

The Bible is neither scientific treatises, nor historical accounts…especially with regarding to Genesis Creation and Flood, or the post-Flood events like the Tower of Babel episode (Genesis 11) or the so-called “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10). What Genesis say about Egypt and Nimrod are not only inaccurate, they are wrong historically and archaeologically, as Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures (eg Uruk or erech, and Nineveh ) go beyond the Bronze Age to the late Neolithic periods. Nimrod couldn’t have built both Nineveh and Calah as they are 5000 years between foundations.

the Bible is simply very unreliable As a source, especially as Genesis are not eyewitness accounts, they are mythological narratives.