How do you define SCIENCE?

[The Hammer]

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

Peer review is not the same as a majority opinion. That's a false equivalency. Just an fyi.

 

[cladking]

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.

I wager you never even noticed the Bible says that water welled up from below.

You not only can't know what the Bible means, you probably don't know what it says.

Centuries and centuries of theologians have studied the Bible as well as the foundations of it and they don't agree what it means any more than Egyptologists agree on the meaning of the pyramid Texts.

 

[cladking]

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.

Paradigms are prevailing opinion. It's pretty much what the word means.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wager you never even noticed the Bible says that water welled up from below.

You not only can't know what the Bible means, you probably don't know what it says.

Centuries and centuries of theologians have studied the Bible as well as the foundations of it and they don't agree what it means any more than Egyptologists agree on the meaning of the pyramid Texts.

There is a prevailing opinion (probably not the correct word) of God as to what a faithful person to HIM should be doing. Yes, understandings can change over the years but that does not mean that God convicts those that put forth such. On the other hand...(I'll let you figure it out)...

 

[YoursTrue]

Peer review is not the same as a majority opinion. That's a false equivalency. Just an fyi.

I did not say that peer review is the same as a majority opinion. It doesn't matter -- either can be wrong.

 

[The Hammer]

I did not say that peer review is the same as a majority opinion. It doesn't matter -- either can be wrong.

Yup but peer review is a lot less likely to be incorrect; and you did equate the two. Whether meant to or not is another story.

"You know like majority opinion, peer reviewed etc."

That places them in the same category.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I did not say that peer review is the same as a majority opinion. It doesn't matter -- either can be wrong.

The question is what is MORE likely to be true. Well done scientific research that is peer reviewed radically ups your odds. That's why science has delivered. Tech and medicine makes our lives so much easier and reduces our suffering.

 

[gnostic]

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.

And that's why everyone here, who do understand sciences, think you are science-illiterate, YoursTrue.

Proof is a logical model, like equations or formulas...AS I HAVE ALREADLY EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU BEFORE, REPEATEDLY!

Evidence are used to test a hypothesis or theory. Proof don't test hypothesis or theory.

Evidence are PHYSICAL that can be observed (or detected), quantify or measure or test.

And even more importantly the evidence that are available to test any model, don't just verify accurate or correct model, they would REFUTE weak or incorrect model.

That's how Scientific Model work, the TESTING would either VERIFY or REFUTE a new hypothesis (or any "proposed" changes to existing scientific theory).

I and others have tried to explain and educate you, but you refused to bloody learn from your mistakes, so you keep repeating the same mistake. There are few words for people who cannot and will not learn, but I wouldn't say it. What I will say that you are uneducated in science or science illiterate, and leave it at that. And since you refuse to learn, you are beyond anyone’s help.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Where? Present the evidence.
Because I can show you something that completely refutes such a statement.
I will, soon.

I’ll keep you informed, too, @YoursTrue

@IndigoChild5559 ,
@YoursTrue :


Regarding the supposed 60,000 years (some claim 70,000 years) of Australian aboriginal culture:

Anthropologist Robert Grant Haliburton went to great lengths in researching ancient cultures, including Australian aborigines, and he discovered some striking similarities shared between far-flung, seemingly unrelated societies!

One was their festivals & feasts of their dead.

In his book, “NEW MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF MAN: Derived From the Calendars and Festivals of Nations; The Festivals of the Dead — Vol.1”, he wrote regarding these Festivals of the Dead:

“It is now, or was formerly, observed at or near the beginning of November by the Peruvians, the Hindoos, the Pacific Islanders, the people of the Tonga Islands, the Australians, the ancient Peruvians, the ancient Egyptians, and the northern nations of Europe, and continued for three days among the Japanese, the Hindoos, the Australians, the ancient Romans, and the ancient Egyptians. pp. 11-12

This can’t be any coincidence.

These festival traditions have carried on so long, that their origins & the reasons behind them, have been forgotten.

But the time of year — end of October, beginning of November — are the dates the Bible gives for the Flood!

This information is supported by another researcher, British Colonel John Garnier, in his book
“The Worship of the Dead; Or, the Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry and It’s Bearing Upon the Early History of Egypt and Babylonia”.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
@YoursTrue :


Regarding the supposed 60,000 years (some claim 70,000 years) of Australian aboriginal culture:

Anthropologist Robert Grant Haliburton went to great lengths in researching ancient cultures, including Australian aborigines, and he discovered some striking similarities shared between far-flung, seemingly unrelated societies!

One was their festivals & feasts of their dead.

In his book, “NEW MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF MAN: Derived From the Calendars and Festivals of Nations; The Festivals of the Dead — Vol.1”, he wrote regarding these Festivals of the Dead:

“It is now, or was formerly, observed at or near the beginning of November by the Peruvians, the Hindoos, the Pacific Islanders, the people of the Tonga Islands, the Australians, the ancient Peruvians, the ancient Egyptians, and the northern nations of Europe, and continued for three days among the Japanese, the Hindoos, the Australians, the ancient Romans, and the ancient Egyptians. pp. 11-12

This can’t be any coincidence.

These festival traditions have carried on so long, that their origins & the reasons behind them, have been forgotten.

But the time of year — end of October, beginning of November — are the dates the Bible gives for the Flood!

This information is supported by another researcher, British Colonel John Garnier, in his book
“The Worship of the Dead; Or, the Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry and It’s Bearing Upon the Early History of Egypt and Babylonia”.

Interesting post.

I do have a question though. Given that these were not literate cultures, and left no writings, how would we know about these festivals? I mean, it's one thing to examine graves. It's quite another to claim we know all the traditions surrounding festivals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting post.

I do have a question though. Given that these were not literate cultures, and left no writings, how would we know about these festivals? I mean, it's one thing to examine graves. It's quite another to claim we know all the traditions surrounding festivals.

I guess that's a good question. I looked up about tools as if hominids while back made tools and it made no sense to me. Frankly in order for me to believe some things that scientists say, I'd have to question THEM, not merely read their articles and books.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wager you never even noticed the Bible says that water welled up from below.

You not only can't know what the Bible means, you probably don't know what it says.

Centuries and centuries of theologians have studied the Bible as well as the foundations of it and they don't agree what it means any more than Egyptologists agree on the meaning of the pyramid Texts.

Then some of us had this big discussion about water just discovered. New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth

 

[gnostic]

I wager you never even noticed the Bible says that water welled up from below.

You not only can't know what the Bible means, you probably don't know what it says.

Centuries and centuries of theologians have studied the Bible as well as the foundations of it and they don't agree what it means any more than Egyptologists agree on the meaning of the pyramid Texts.

Then some of us had this big discussion about water just discovered. New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth

As others have already told you, @YoursTrue, in other threads - including @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @exchemist & @Astrophile - they have told you that water that exist in the mantle, are chemically bound to minerals as ringwoodite.

This is not free water in liquid state, and it isn‘t H2O water, it is OH ion, in another word, the water they are talking about is hydroxide (OH).

There are many types of mineral that are hydrated, and the hydroxide is often crystallised with the minerals, and one of these hydrated minerals are ringwoodites, that exist in the transition between upper mantle and lower mantle.

meaning the water within the mantle isn’t ocean of liquid water, they are exist in only solid form as part of ringwoodite.

And lastly, cladking & YoursTrue, if Flood did happen, what do you think would happen to salinity level in water. It would turn brackish, which are not only not drinkable for humans, it wouldn’t be good for most terrestrial animals, as well as it would most plants. Even most plants can only tolerate minimal salinity in water.

The problem with you understanding the article, you believe the “ocean” as ocean of water in their liquid state, but as the article informed you, which you have chosen not to comprehend, nor the explanation given to you by SZ, shunyadragon, exchemist & Astrophile, it isn’t free liquid water.

And btw, the water that come out of volcanic activities are water vapour, not liquid water, and the water are not from ringwoodite. They are groundwater that infiltrated into the magma chamber, prior to eruption. The magma chambers are located in the Earth crust, and not between the upper & lower mantle, which are from 525 to 600 km below earth’s surface.

And as to you, @cladking, sure, water can from ground, but not as narrated in Genesis 7, there are really not enough water to cover the high mountains, as it say in 7:19-20 & 8:4 (Ararat). For water to reach this high, as the two peaks of Ararat, where did the water disappear?

For water to cover as high the Greater Ararat (the taller peak), it would change the sea level, staying in this level for centuries, the sea level wouldn’t drop down to original level prior to flood, in matter of half-year.

What Genesis 7 & 8 describe isn’t remotely possible. You don’t understand this, @cladking , and neither does @YoursTrue .

 

[Subduction Zone]

As others have already told you, @YoursTrue, in other threads - including @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @exchemist & @Astrophile - they have told you that water that exist in the mantle, are chemically bound to minerals as ringwoodite.

This is not free water in liquid state, and it isn‘t H2O water, it is OH ion, in another word, the water they are talking about is hydroxide (OH).

There are many types of mineral that are hydrated, and the hydroxide is often crystallised with the minerals, and one of these hydrated minerals are ringwoodites, that exist in the transition between upper mantle and lower mantle.

meaning the water within the mantle isn’t ocean of liquid water, they are exist in only solid form as part of ringwoodite.

The problem with you understanding the article, you believe the “ocean” as ocean of water in their liquid state, but as the article informed you, which you have chosen not to comprehend, nor the explanation given to you by SZ, shunyadragon, exchemist & Astrophile, it isn’t free liquid water.

And btw, the water that come out of volcanic activities are water vapour, not liquid water, and the water are not from ringwoodite. They are groundwater that infiltrated into the magma chamber, prior to eruption. The magma chambers are located in the Earth crust, and not between the upper & lower mantle, which are from 525 to 600 km below earth’s surface.

And as to you, @cladking, sure, water can from ground, but not as narrated in Genesis 7, there are really not enough water to cover the high mountains, as it say in 7:19-20 & 8:4 (Ararat). For water to reach this high, as the two peaks of Ararat, where did the water disappear?

For water to cover as high the Greater Ararat (the taller peak), it would change the sea level, staying in this level for centuries, the sea level wouldn’t drop down to original level prior to flood, in matter of half-year.

What Genesis 7 & 8 describe isn’t remotely possible. You don’t understand this, @cladking , and neither does @YoursTrue .

Excellent. I can name two everyday materials that could help him to understand his error if he ever can reason rationally.

Concrete and drywall.

When on pours a slab of concrete it has a lot of water in it. The water does not drain away into the underneath it, well I should say that very very little does. Drywall, even though it has a misleading name has a lot of water in it. It is essentially gypsum Gypsum's chemical formula is CaSO4*2(H20). Or a calcium sulfate molecule and roughly two molecules of water. I would have to google the reaction for concrete, but it is on the same order.

 

[YoursTrue]

As others have already told you, @YoursTrue, in other threads - including @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @exchemist & @Astrophile - they have told you that water that exist in the mantle, are chemically bound to minerals as ringwoodite.

This is not free water in liquid state, and it isn‘t H2O water, it is OH ion, in another word, the water they are talking about is hydroxide (OH).

There are many types of mineral that are hydrated, and the hydroxide is often crystallised with the minerals, and one of these hydrated minerals are ringwoodites, that exist in the transition between upper mantle and lower mantle.

meaning the water within the mantle isn’t ocean of liquid water, they are exist in only solid form as part of ringwoodite.

And lastly, cladking & YoursTrue, if Flood did happen, what do you think would happen to salinity level in water. It would turn brackish, which are not only not drinkable for humans, it wouldn’t be good for most terrestrial animals, as well as it would most plants. Even most plants can only tolerate minimal salinity in water.

The problem with you understanding the article, you believe the “ocean” as ocean of water in their liquid state, but as the article informed you, which you have chosen not to comprehend, nor the explanation given to you by SZ, shunyadragon, exchemist & Astrophile, it isn’t free liquid water.

And btw, the water that come out of volcanic activities are water vapour, not liquid water, and the water are not from ringwoodite. They are groundwater that infiltrated into the magma chamber, prior to eruption. The magma chambers are located in the Earth crust, and not between the upper & lower mantle, which are from 525 to 600 km below earth’s surface.

And as to you, @cladking, sure, water can from ground, but not as narrated in Genesis 7, there are really not enough water to cover the high mountains, as it say in 7:19-20 & 8:4 (Ararat). For water to reach this high, as the two peaks of Ararat, where did the water disappear?

For water to cover as high the Greater Ararat (the taller peak), it would change the sea level, staying in this level for centuries, the sea level wouldn’t drop down to original level prior to flood, in matter of half-year.

What Genesis 7 & 8 describe isn’t remotely possible. You don’t understand this, @cladking , and neither does @YoursTrue .

There were and are springs below. Anyway remember the drifting continents.

 

[YoursTrue]

Peer review is not the same as a majority opinion. That's a false equivalency. Just an fyi.

I brought those out as two views. Not equal, fyi.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were and are springs below. Anyway remember the drifting continents.

Those do not help you. You need a LOT of water and there is very little water trapped in the ground.


And how do the drifting continents help you? They can only drift at a few inches a year at the very most.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup but peer review is a lot less likely to be incorrect; and you did equate the two. Whether meant to or not is another story.

"You know like majority opinion, peer reviewed etc."

That places them in the same category.

Thanks for offering your opinion on the matter of my expression.

 

[YoursTrue]

As others have already told you, @YoursTrue, in other threads - including @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @exchemist & @Astrophile - they have told you that water that exist in the mantle, are chemically bound to minerals as ringwoodite.

This is not free water in liquid state, and it isn‘t H2O water, it is OH ion, in another word, the water they are talking about is hydroxide (OH).

There are many types of mineral that are hydrated, and the hydroxide is often crystallised with the minerals, and one of these hydrated minerals are ringwoodites, that exist in the transition between upper mantle and lower mantle.

meaning the water within the mantle isn’t ocean of liquid water, they are exist in only solid form as part of ringwoodite.

And lastly, cladking & YoursTrue, if Flood did happen, what do you think would happen to salinity level in water. It would turn brackish, which are not only not drinkable for humans, it wouldn’t be good for most terrestrial animals, as well as it would most plants. Even most plants can only tolerate minimal salinity in water.

The problem with you understanding the article, you believe the “ocean” as ocean of water in their liquid state, but as the article informed you, which you have chosen not to comprehend, nor the explanation given to you by SZ, shunyadragon, exchemist & Astrophile, it isn’t free liquid water.

And btw, the water that come out of volcanic activities are water vapour, not liquid water, and the water are not from ringwoodite. They are groundwater that infiltrated into the magma chamber, prior to eruption. The magma chambers are located in the Earth crust, and not between the upper & lower mantle, which are from 525 to 600 km below earth’s surface.

And as to you, @cladking, sure, water can from ground, but not as narrated in Genesis 7, there are really not enough water to cover the high mountains, as it say in 7:19-20 & 8:4 (Ararat). For water to reach this high, as the two peaks of Ararat, where did the water disappear?

For water to cover as high the Greater Ararat (the taller peak), it would change the sea level, staying in this level for centuries, the sea level wouldn’t drop down to original level prior to flood, in matter of half-year.

What Genesis 7 & 8 describe isn’t remotely possible. You don’t understand this, @cladking , and neither does @YoursTrue .

Do you know the sea levels thousands of years ago?

 

[YoursTrue]

As others have already told you, @YoursTrue, in other threads - including @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @exchemist & @Astrophile - they have told you that water that exist in the mantle, are chemically bound to minerals as ringwoodite.

This is not free water in liquid state, and it isn‘t H2O water, it is OH ion, in another word, the water they are talking about is hydroxide (OH).

There are many types of mineral that are hydrated, and the hydroxide is often crystallised with the minerals, and one of these hydrated minerals are ringwoodites, that exist in the transition between upper mantle and lower mantle.

meaning the water within the mantle isn’t ocean of liquid water, they are exist in only solid form as part of ringwoodite.

And lastly, cladking & YoursTrue, if Flood did happen, what do you think would happen to salinity level in water. It would turn brackish, which are not only not drinkable for humans, it wouldn’t be good for most terrestrial animals, as well as it would most plants. Even most plants can only tolerate minimal salinity in water.

The problem with you understanding the article, you believe the “ocean” as ocean of water in their liquid state, but as the article informed you, which you have chosen not to comprehend, nor the explanation given to you by SZ, shunyadragon, exchemist & Astrophile, it isn’t free liquid water.

And btw, the water that come out of volcanic activities are water vapour, not liquid water, and the water are not from ringwoodite. They are groundwater that infiltrated into the magma chamber, prior to eruption. The magma chambers are located in the Earth crust, and not between the upper & lower mantle, which are from 525 to 600 km below earth’s surface.

And as to you, @cladking, sure, water can from ground, but not as narrated in Genesis 7, there are really not enough water to cover the high mountains, as it say in 7:19-20 & 8:4 (Ararat). For water to reach this high, as the two peaks of Ararat, where did the water disappear?

For water to cover as high the Greater Ararat (the taller peak), it would change the sea level, staying in this level for centuries, the sea level wouldn’t drop down to original level prior to flood, in matter of half-year.

What Genesis 7 & 8 describe isn’t remotely possible. You don’t understand this, @cladking , and neither does @YoursTrue .

So you think the water only came from below the earth's crust? I doubt the sea level would have dropped back to the original level anyway, after the flood. Besides there would be, now that you mention it, plenty of dead bodies down below wherever they went. In the soil I suppose.