Problem with scientists.

[Photonic]

I agree it is a relatively small time period. But the thing is, we still can't pinpoint a date. And that is what Outhouse said. If we can't point to a date, it didn't happen. This is what he specifically said: "OK then if you believe in it you must have a date for when it happened. when EXACTLY did it happen????

If you dont know this date then you dont know it happened."

To me, that is a double standard. Also, I'm not suggesting that a global flood happened. I'm only pointing out that not being able to point to an exact date isn't evidence it didn't happen.

Well, as a scientist I can tell you that finding the exact date is important, but the act of being able to produce an estimate through empirical evidence is enough to verify its existence.

A global flood has no evidence.However, we can verifiably say that the stories surrounding a "global flood story" pinpoint to a local flood of great destruction.

Given that these people lived near the Nile at the time of said flood (which is a river that floods annually) it's quite easy to see how such a story would have arisen as a method by an ancient people to describe something they didn't understand.

 

[fallingblood]

You will never know the CIA's success rate in such, EVER

They canceled the program, suggesting that it wasn't very successful. More so, the information isn't very hidden. That, and we do have quite a bit of information on the project, and it has been debunked.

 

[fallingblood]

what people do as a hobby or or for a TV show does not represent modern science and it spursuit of knowledge.

No department is actively searching for a human soul

You're moving the goal posts. I wasn't talking about the human soul, and spirits do not equal human souls.

More so, this has nothing to do with a hobby or tv show. James Randi is very well respected in his field, not even mentioning Carl Sagan.

Harry Houdini also didn't do it as a hobby or for a TV show, but advanced the research quite a bit. He spent a great portion of his life researching this topic, and involved a number of well respected scientists (again, he worked with Scientific American).

You can't just dismiss it so easily.

 

[fallingblood]

no i wont be pulled into your game as your moving goal post.

that would be like giving the 4200 flood date a 10 or 15 year leeway. not good enough.

we know hos old the earth is and I stated it, end of story.


wehn it comes to pinpointing a mythical date such as the flood ill take a thousand years either way.

thats about 25% margian for error, thats the same as a billion year in earths history.

No game here. You're the one moving the goal posts. You said, and I quote: "OK then if you believe in it you must have a date for when it happened. when EXACTLY did it happen????

If you dont know this date then you dont know it happened."

I'm not arguing for a flood. I'm simply pointing out that your standards simply are not logical. Because if we applied your standards to this, many things never would have happened as we don't know when exactly those things happened.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, as a scientist I can tell you that finding the exact date is important, but the act of being able to produce an estimate through empirical evidence is enough to verify its existence.

A global flood has no evidence.However, we can verifiably say that the stories surrounding a "global flood story" pinpoint to a local flood of great destruction.

Given that these people lived near the Nile at the time of said flood (which is a river that floods annually) it's quite easy to see how such a story would have arisen as a method by an ancient people to describe something they didn't understand.

I completely agree. I'm alright with estimates, especially when dealing with dates such as the formation of the Earth or universe.


And I agree that there was no global flood, but it was probably a local flood that was exaggerated.

My only problem was with the comment by outhouse that we have to know exactly when something happened, and if we don't, then it didn't happen. I think that is just flawed in so many ways.

 

[outhouse]

No game here. You're the one moving the goal posts. You said, and I quote: "OK then if you believe in it you must have a date for when it happened. when EXACTLY did it happen????

If you dont know this date then you dont know it happened."

I'm not arguing for a flood. I'm simply pointing out that your standards simply are not logical. Because if we applied your standards to this, many things never would have happened as we don't know when exactly those things happened.

nothing wrong in asking for a date, to believe something to happen one should first know when it happened

 

[shawn001]

So within a thousand years, when was the Earth formed?

Or, within a thousand years, when was the universe created? Or within a thousand years, when was the first star created?

I get the question, but it doesn't work the same way for the flood because then your talking in 1000 of years not millions or billions, which is called "deep time."

Earth formed 4.57 billion.

The universe 13.7 billion with a margin of error of less then 1%.

The first star roughly 200 million years ago.

The fact we can get those ages is amazing in itself.

Of course there was no global flood for a fact. Not 4200 years ago, 6000 or 10,000 or even a million or even 23 million. Didn't happen.

 

[PennyKay]

Why?

If someone claims to believe something that is clearly counterfactual, why should they be respected for doing so?

Religion has nothing to do with facts. It's all about making that leap on faith and peoples personal beliefs on what the meaning of life is/why life exists/how life should be lived etc should be respected.

When devoutly religious people with little scientific knowledge start making false comments about science, by all means try and correct them, but I'm just saying don't stoop to a level where you're just insulting people based on their beliefs. If they don't want to listen, thats their problem, not yours. You should be confident enough in what you think to be true, to not have to convice people to believe the same way you do.

You probably hate it when religious people preach to you, so don't do it to them either. You get on with your work, they should get on with theirs, and respect eachother for doing so and maybe people would stop arguing so much.

 

[Looncall]

Religion has nothing to do with facts. It's all about making that leap on faith and peoples personal beliefs on what the meaning of life is/why life exists/how life should be lived etc should be respected.

When devoutly religious people with little scientific knowledge start making false comments about science, by all means try and correct them, but I'm just saying don't stoop to a level where you're just insulting people based on their beliefs. If they don't want to listen, thats their problem, not yours. You should be confident enough in what you think to be true, to not have to convice people to believe the same way you do.

You probably hate it when religious people preach to you, so don't do it to them either. You get on with your work, they should get on with theirs, and respect eachother for doing so and maybe people would stop arguing so much.

I would agree with you except that beliefs lead to actions. As I have mentioned here before, I know and have known several people plagued by the misery of Parkinson's disease. They might have had relief available by now if religious types had not interfered with the research.

If religious people would keep their superstitions to themselves, I would have no problem with them, but they don't.

By the way, religions are definitely about facts, starting with whether or not their gods even exist, and carrying on with the supposed gods' properties.

 

[PennyKay]

I would agree with you except that beliefs lead to actions. As I have mentioned here before, I know and have known several people plagued by the misery of Parkinson's disease. They might have had relief available by now if religious types had not interfered with the research.

If religious people would keep their superstitions to themselves, I would have no problem with them, but they don't.

By the way, religions are definitely about facts, starting with whether or not their gods even exist, and carrying on with the supposed gods' properties.

There definitely are religious people who interfere with science, just as there are scientists who interfere with religion and of course that is wrong on both parts.

The point I'm trying to make is that religious people and scientific people often have different views/thoughts beliefs on how the universe came to be etc, neither group can claim to have the definitive answer though, so why should we belittle religious folk from thinking differently to us on forums like these?

As I said, I'm all for a debate, but I am against daft remarks from both sides because both are arrogant enough to truly believe they have the correct answer. The truth is, nobody really knows exactly how or why the universe exists, why life exists, what happens to us when we die. We just take two different approaches, we trusting scientists use logic and reason to explain our existence, religious believers use a leap of faith to explain theirs, and if that is how they chose to live their life, then let them be.

If they want to argue with us that our science is wrong, we should explain to them why we think the way we think, if they still chose to think we are wrong, so be it. My job isn't to preach to everyone telling them how to think or what to believe and neither should yours. Let’s be a better example of the human race.

 

[outhouse]

I get the question, but it doesn't work the same way for the flood because then your talking in 1000 of years not millions or billions, which is called "deep time."

Earth formed 4.57 billion.

The universe 13.7 billion with a margin of error of less then 1%.

The first star roughly 200 million years ago.

The fact we can get those ages is amazing in itself.

Of course there was no global flood for a fact. Not 4200 years ago, 6000 or 10,000 or even a million or even 23 million. Didn't happen.

And there it is, thank you

 

[outhouse]

The youtube vid of Neil Degrasse Tyson shines the best light I have ever seen on how humanity dulls itself with religion by placing god in th egaps of our knowledge.

Isnt it time we quit letting ancient beliefs slow humanity down?

 

[Thief]

The youtube vid of Neil Degrasse Tyson shines the best light I have ever seen on how humanity dulls itself with religion by placing god in th egaps of our knowledge.

Isnt it time we quit letting ancient beliefs slow humanity down?

Without God...we would still be hanging out...in the trees.

 

[fallingblood]

nothing wrong in asking for a date, to believe something to happen one should first know when it happened

Not at all. I always thought that the Earth was formed at some time, but I didn't always know when.

And yes, there is nothing wrong in asking for a date. However, a date does not prove something happened or didn't happen.

 

[outhouse]

Not at all. I always thought that the Earth was formed at some time, but I didn't always know when.

And yes, there is nothing wrong in asking for a date. However, a date does not prove something happened or didn't happen.

Part of the problem with YEC or creationist is pinning them down to a thought or anything else that exist in reality, once they pin themselves down its show over. This applies very well to the mythical flood.

Give me a date and I can then show them history from that time showing them the reality of their belief.

It doesnt matter what time they pick, if they can pick a date you can then prove it didnt happen at that date, now what??? you have another date?


They are really forced to discount dating methods no matter how accurate dating methods are, proof and evidence have to be mentally shifted to protect their false belief

 

[fallingblood]

I get the question, but it doesn't work the same way for the flood because then your talking in 1000 of years not millions or billions, which is called "deep time."

Earth formed 4.57 billion.

The universe 13.7 billion with a margin of error of less then 1%.

The first star roughly 200 million years ago.

The fact we can get those ages is amazing in itself.

Of course there was no global flood for a fact. Not 4200 years ago, 6000 or 10,000 or even a million or even 23 million. Didn't happen.

I agree that a global flood never happened. There is a lot of evidence showing that it never happened. My problem though is with the "evidence" or logic that outhouse used to show that it didn't happen. The logic he used was that if you can't point to a date in which the flood happened, then it didn't happen. And that is simply false.

We can't point to an exact date in which the Earth was formed. We can make a very good estimate, but we can't point to an exact date. And for me, I am fine with that. And that date has changed in the past. As we learn more, the better we can pinpoint it.

As for the universe, the date you gave is an accepted one; however, it is being challenged by other scientists. Since the date is being questioned, that doesn't mean it never happened though. We can still say it happened, without knowing an exact date.

That was my problem with the statement made by outhouse. We can know something happened regardless of knowing when it exactly happened. If one is going to show that the global flood didn't happen, there is a more logical way to go about that.

 

[fallingblood]

The youtube vid of Neil Degrasse Tyson shines the best light I have ever seen on how humanity dulls itself with religion by placing god in th egaps of our knowledge.

Isnt it time we quit letting ancient beliefs slow humanity down?

Science and religion are not opposites. One does not have to give up religion, in order to accept science. In fact, many progressions in science have been done by Christians.

Religion is not slowing humanity down. Ignorance, which both the non-religious and religious are guilty of, slows down humanity.

 

[outhouse]

I agree that a global flood never happened. There is a lot of evidence showing that it never happened. My problem though is with the "evidence" or logic that outhouse used to show that it didn't happen. The logic he used was that if you can't point to a date in which the flood happened, then it didn't happen. And that is simply false.

We can't point to an exact date in which the Earth was formed. We can make a very good estimate, but we can't point to an exact date. And for me, I am fine with that. And that date has changed in the past. As we learn more, the better we can pinpoint it.

As for the universe, the date you gave is an accepted one; however, it is being challenged by other scientists. Since the date is being questioned, that doesn't mean it never happened though. We can still say it happened, without knowing an exact date.

That was my problem with the statement made by outhouse. We can know something happened regardless of knowing when it exactly happened. If one is going to show that the global flood didn't happen, there is a more logical way to go about that.

I use the term exactly, because they have no exact date, you cannot have a exact date to something that never took place


exact isnt the point, getting a date is the objective.

 

[outhouse]

Science and religion are not opposites. One does not have to give up religion, in order to accept science. In fact, many progressions in science have been done by Christians.

Religion is not slowing humanity down. Ignorance, which both the non-religious and religious are guilty of, slows down humanity.

I never stated science and theism dont mix.

Many peole can keep a grip on theism and reality. many cannot.


and religion does have a track record of slowing down humanities progress so dont go there.

 

[fallingblood]

Part of the problem with YEC or creationist is pinning them down to a thought or anything else that exist in reality, once they pin themselves down its show over. This applies very well to the mythical flood.

Give me a date and I can then show them history from that time showing them the reality of their belief.

It doesnt matter what time they pick, if they can pick a date you can then prove it didnt happen at that date, now what??? you have another date?


They are really forced to discount dating methods no matter how accurate dating methods are, proof and evidence have to be mentally shifted to protect their false belief

It has nothing to do with dating. All one has to do to show that a global flood never occurred is show that there is no geological record, that there is not enough water, that there is no evidence anywhere else, that there simply is no evidence.

It has nothing to do with dating. Trying to prove that the flood didn't happen by focusing on specific dates really is illogical, as they can always move the date.