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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians in grad school, for example, will often be made to feel uncomfortable. I was guilty of that kind of intolerance when I was in college.
I think that he meant with "dismiss" to just dismiss it, because no evidence was given
Sure.
To whom does it belong? based on examination of evidence.
If you are saying that faith does not involve investigating, testing, gathering evidence, and drawing of inference, then perhaps we are not on the same page here.
Does the Bible even say anything about archaeopteryxes?
We cannot use that so broadly, and here is why.
Yes, you’re right. It was late, I was tired. I also said ‘impugning’, which didn’t apply.Knowledge is not the same as intelligence.
Thanks for sharing that, bro.
It should be this way. And I’m glad that quite a few scientists present their interpretations as supposition, using terms in their papers as “likely,” “probably,” “could have been”, etc. Unfortunately, these papers are then used by many (biased(?)) people as ‘proof’ of something.
When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
Allow me to babble for a while in this thread.
Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?
Trying to be as brief as possible, i'm taking a few quotes from here.
******************************************************************************************
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.
inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly.
Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable.
...scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
******************************************************************************************
@Polymath257 asked How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?
I will answer these questions, and at the same time I want to ask the same of you. How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?
This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.
Before I start, I want to be sure we have the same understanding of evidence, since it seems apparent to me that skeptics here, want to equate evidence to conclusions.
Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho
Carbon-14 is normally accurate to within 15 years, but the older the sample, the more necessary it is to calibrate and corroborate dates using other means. Indeed, there is a current debate in the field of archaeology concerning how accurate Carbon-14 dating is in the Levant9, as well as whether there is a need to recalibrate the curve used in radiocarbon calculations.
Over the years several samples of charcoal and grain seeds from the final Canaanite city at Jericho have been tested for C-14 levels. The current Italian-Palestinian excavation team, directed by Lorenzo Nigro, tested two samples from the final destruction of the city in 2000; one sample dated to 1347 BC (+/- 85 years) and the other dated to 1597 (+/- 91 years).11 Archaeologist, Dr. Titus Kennedy, has summarized: “The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction…these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction. Overall, the C-14 dates from the destruction of the Bronze Age city of Jericho range from as high as 1883 BC to as low as 1262 BC - a range of over 600 years.” Clearly we will need to look to other methods to determine when Jericho was destroyed.
Regarding the second, the article says that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's earlier interpretation that Jericho was abandoned at the time of the Conquest of Canaan in 1406 BC is incorrect, when considering all the evidence demonstrating that Jericho was still in existence through 1500 BCE.
On the third, one archaeologist - Dr. Bryant Wood, considered to be an expert in Canaanite pottery noted that another Archaeologist - Kathleen Kenyon, had based her dating of the destruction of Jericho solely on "the absence of imported pottery". Her conclusions that Jericho was unoccupied at the time Joshua is said to have conquered and destroyed Jericho was based on... The author of the article put in his bit... (She would have done well to follow esteemed Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)
What's the point?
Both Garstang and Kenyon conducted significant excavations at Jericho. Both were excellent field archaeologists Garstang meticulously analyzed the pottery he excavated and Kenyon carefully improved excavation methodology in general. Yet both differed on their interpretation of the data.
Evidence is not conclusion. Evidence requires interpreting. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions. Those conclusions may be wrong.
This is why scientists will disagree with each other, because interpretations don't mean the same thing.
So to be sure, is there anything you disagree with in this OP? Please specify or add anything you would like to... related to th OP, please.
Dude, you’re equating a Master Scientist harnessing energy to create, with “a cosmic pixie farting”?
Are you serious? This is just a blog, by some nobody called Heinrich Mallison. Who give a monkey's what he thinks, whoever he is?
It’s on evidential grounds, also. Or rather, the lack of evidence supporting evolutionary mechanisms as the builder of novel features. The “explanatory deficits” (Gerd Müller) are everywhere. And many scientists are recognizing its limits.