Science IS religion

[Subduction Zone]

- My point precisely. No one needs needs a reason not to believe in a same state past, for which there is no evidence. They need reasons to accept them.

Work on that.

But there is evidence for that. Lying denials does not change the fact that you were given evidence from several posters.

When you falsely denied the evidence that I presented you proved that at best you do not understand evidence. That you keep running away tells us that you realize that you would lose even plausible deniability if you learned what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your link offers no support, and just claims scholars have a consensus of doubt. Jesus affirmed Scripture was true. When the unnamed so called scholars rise up from the dead, we can talk.

Did he? And if that is the case why do you claim that God is a liar?

 

[dad]

What makes you think that it came from below upwards?

I don't know which direction it came from. I asked the question so we can see if a fountain of the deep can be ruled out. Some people have theorized that a rupturing fount of the deep could eject water and material from below forcefully enough to even have some of the ejecta leave earth gravity.

That's putting the cart before the horse. First you have to show that there was a worldwide flood to begin with. Without a worldwide flood evidence, the reason the explanation of the presence of iridium must necessarily defer to the explanation with the most evidence supporting it.

No, YOU have t show that all the iridium had to have come exclusively from an asteroid impact if you claim it did!

Huh? No, I claim the limits of human imagination; they told stories according to that which they knew, and they knew salt.

You don't know what they knew. Nor have you ant evidence it was a fraud.

There are some aspects of beliefs that have a basis in assumption; but an assumption is not necessarily a belief in itself.

We are not talking generalities, but the specific beliefs and assumptions actually used in models of the past by science.

If you understood astronomy, you would understand why this claim is utterly ridiculous.

If you understood it you could say why.

Judges 11:30-31 clearly show Jephthah making a promise to render a "burnt offering" of the first thing he saw unto the Lord upon his triumphant return.

Yeah, so he lied! Ha. He gave his daughter a few months to prepare for whatever he was planning to do. The spirit of what the sinner said seems to have been an immediate sacrifice to God. Basically he was running at the mouth.

Judges 11:39 clearly states that Jephthah did as he had vowed.

This scholarly commentary addresses the issue.

"
The text is vehayah layhovah, vehaalithihu olah; the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering; that is, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman. If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites,

the fire, i.e., made burnt-offerings of them, as is generally supposed. That Jephthah was a deeply pious man, appears in the whole of his conduct; and that he was well acquainted with the law of Moses, which prohibited all such sacrifices, and stated what was to be offered in sacrifice, is evident enough from his expostulation with the king and people of Ammon, Judges 11:14-27. Therefore it must be granted that he never made that rash vow which several suppose he did; nor was he capable, if he had, of executing it in that most shocking manner which some Christian writers ("tell it not in Gath") have contended for. He could not commit a crime which himself had just now been an executor of God's justice to punish in others.

It has been supposed that "the text itself might have been read differently in former times; if instead of the words I will offer IT a burnt-offering, we read I will offer HIM (i.e., the Lord) a burnt-offering: this will make a widely different sense, more consistent with everything that is sacred; and it is formed by the addition of only a single letter, ( aleph,) and the separation of the pronoun from the verb. Now the letter aleph is so like the letter ain, which immediately follows it in the wordolah, that the one might easily have been lost in the other, and thus the pronoun be joined to the verb as at present, where it expresses the thing to be sacrificed instead of the person to whom the sacrifice was to be made. With this emendation the passage will read thus: Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors or my house to meet me-shall be the Lord's; and I will offer HIM a burnt-offering." For this criticism there is no absolute need, because the pronoun hu, in the above verse, may with as much propriety be translated him as it. The latter part of the verse is, literally, And I will offer him a burnt-offering, olah, not leolah, FOR a burnt-offering, which is the common Hebrew form when for is intended to be expressed. This is strong presumption that the text should be thus understood: and this avoids the very disputable construction which is put on the vau, in vehaalithihu, OR I will offer IT up, instead of AND I will offer HIM a burnt-offering.

"From Judges 11:39 it appears evident that Jephthah's daughter was not SACRIFICED to God, but consecrated to him in a state of perpetual virginity; for the text says, She knew no man, for this was a statute in Israel. vattehi chokbeyishrael; viz., that persons thus dedicated or consecrated to God, should live in a state of unchangeable celibacy. Thus this celebrated place is, without violence to any part of the text, or to any proper rule of construction, cleared of all difficulty, and caused to speak a language consistent with itself, and with the nature of God."

Those who assert that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, attempt to justify the opinion from the barbarous usages of those times: but in answer to this it may be justly observed, that Jephthah was now under the influence of the Spirit of God, Judges 11:29; and that Spirit could not permit him to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own child; and especially under the pretence of offering a pleasing sacrifice to that God who is the Father of mankind, and the Fountain of love, mercy, and compassion."

Judges - Chapter 11 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org

Already did. You ignored it and dismissed it.

Link? Hahaha

Gaps in our knowledge just means that we have more to learn.

The issue is NO knowledge at all and making stuff up fraudulently pretending to know.

 

[dad]

I will once you prove it was the same yesterday.

It is a completely equivalent chore.

I can't prove it was the same because I do not think it was...science does!

Science cannot say either way, same or different, it is a matter of belief only! Furthermore, history and Scripture tell us of life spans many many centuries long, so obviously things worked differently.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Some people have theorized that a rupturing fount of the deep could eject water and material from below forcefully enough to even have some of the ejecta leave earth gravity.

Yeah. His name was NephillimFree, a self-proclaimed apologist and "creation scientist" and a popular YouTuber among the crowd. He has no formal scientific education and his claims are always absurd.

Unfortunately, I can not find the original video nor the rebuttal I was looking for. Nephillim is always quite entertaining.

So, in short, it's not "some people" it's one non-scientist making stuff up.

In the future, maybe you should consider your source before making outlandish claims, like water can eject itself into outer space.

Nor have you ant evidence it was a fraud.

I never called it a "fraud". I will call it a "myth" with no basis in fact; and as it is a myth, the tellers of the myth used that with which they were familiar to tell the story with. You missed the whole point entirely; something you are very skilled at.

We are not talking generalities, but the specific beliefs and assumptions actually used in models of the past by science.

Again, you do not understand that there is a difference between an assumption and a belief. You will never get that, because if you do get that, then your entire "science is religion" claim crumbles at your feet. (Not that holding one particular belief qualifies it as a religion, anyway. Cripes, your case is so weak!)

If you understood it you could say why.

Me not understanding it doesn't make it "not true". Off the top of my head, I can give you math, measuring different wavelengths emitted from the planetary body (each of which travel at different speeds) and cross-confirming, and redshift.

How do we measure the distances to things in space?

He gave his daughter a few months to prepare for whatever he was planning to do. The spirit of what the sinner said seems to have been an immediate sacrifice to God. Basically he was running at the mouth.

Apologist nonsense. The text is clear.

The issue is NO knowledge at all and making stuff up fraudulently pretending to know.

Like you pretending to "know" that there was a "different" nature?

 

[Milton Platt]

So you admit assumptions are basically what origin sciences is all about. OK. Not only assumptions but beliefs.

Various religions do have some assumptions also, that is true. Christian faith is well grounded in history and documentation. Beliefs have been verified, fulfilled, tested, tried, proven, repeated, observed.

Christianity is based upon the unfalsifiable assumption that there is a god. Science is based upon observation, experimentation, based upon our knowledge of how the laws of nature work. When you are able to provide the same quantity and quality of evidence for your god as we have for natural processes, you will really have something. I wish you luck.

Any time I have asked for the evidence, it has been pointed out to me that the god is "unknowable" and exists outside of space and time.
How do you provide evidence for something like that?

 

[dad]

Yeah. His name was NephillimFree, a self-proclaimed apologist and "creation scientist" and a popular YouTuber among the crowd. He has no formal scientific education and his claims are always absurd.

Never heard of him.

Here is one source though, that did claim it.


"The rupture began with a deep crack at the Earth’s surface. Because stresses in tension cracks are concentrated at each end of the crack, both ends grew rapidly—at about 3 miles per second.47 Within seconds, this crack penetrated down to the subterranean chamber and then followed the path of least resistance. The rupture probably completed its path around the Earth in about 2 hours.48 Initial stresses were largely relieved when one end of the crack ran into the path left by the other end. In other words, the crack traveled a path that intersected itself at a large angle, forming a “T” on the opposite side of the Earth from where the rupture began. That “T” can be seen inside the circle in Figure 44 on page 112.

49 a fountain of water jetted hypersonically into and far above the atmosphere."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery

His book also cites pressures calculated and reasons why rock and debris would also be ejected with the waters.

So, yes, some people do feel the fountains erupted with great pressure! As I said, I don't know. However you are required to prove the direction of impact if you claim it was a crater rather than a fount of the deep remnant.

In the future, maybe you should consider your source before making outlandish claims, like water can eject itself into outer space.

That was not my claim. However I do suspect that the windows of heaven, that brought most of the water to earth from the far side of the universe, may have also been involved in taking a lot of water away from earth!

Again, you do not understand that there is a difference between an assumption and a belief.

Irrelevant when discussing the belief of origin sciences that nature was the same. That is unsupported baseless belief alone. We also could call it assumption, because both terms apply.

Me not understanding it doesn't make it "not true". Off the top of my head, I can give you math, measuring different wavelengths emitted from the planetary body (each of which travel at different speeds) and cross-confirming, and redshift.

Waves involve time. It takes time for waves to move. When we see waves here, we do so IN OUR time! So you cannot give us speeds for deep space.

Like you pretending to "know" that there was a "different" nature?

Those who make a science claim based on not knowing are not making a real science claim. I do not know what nature was like exactly either of course. I do have some clues from history and the bible though. So I believe that Scripture records the actual realities of the old world and nature.

Science merely believes!

 

[dad]

Christianity is based upon the unfalsifiable assumption that there is a god.

Man's inability to make Him false is not a bad thing! Now if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the bible would have been proven false. He did, and fulfilled over 300 prophesies as well. He proved it right.

Science is based upon observation, experimentation, based upon our knowledge of how the laws of nature work.

Origin science is NOT. That is based on claiming nature was the same with zero proof. No observation. No testing. No repeating etc.

When you are able to provide the same quantity and quality of evidence for your god as we have for natural processes, you will really have something. I wish you luck.

There is no issue in this thread with natural processes. They are great and God given. The issue is science claiming the same processes and laws always were and will be...for no apparent reason at all!

Any time I have asked for the evidence, it has been pointed out to me that the god is "unknowable" and exists outside of space and time.
How do you provide evidence for something like that?

Most people find proof when they ask Him in to their hearts. He works from the inside out.

In the words of Jesus

Lu 17:20 - And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

 

[sooda]

Your link offers no support, and just claims scholars have a consensus of doubt. Jesus affirmed Scripture was true. When the unnamed so called scholars rise up from the dead, we can talk.

Jesus referred to what he had been taught.

 

[sooda]

Man's inability to make Him false is not a bad thing! Now if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the bible would have been proven false. He did, and fulfilled over 300 prophesies as well. He proved it right.

Origin science is NOT. That is based on claiming nature was the same with zero proof. No observation. No testing. No repeating etc.

There is no issue in this thread with natural processes. They are great and God given. The issue is science claiming the same processes and laws always were and will be...for no apparent reason at all!
Most people find proof when they ask Him in to their hearts. He works from the inside out.

In the words of Jesus

Lu 17:20 - And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Luke never knew Jesus and did not live in Palestine.

 

[ratiocinator]

My point precisely. No one needs needs a reason not to believe in a same state past, for which there is no evidence.

Firstly, that wasn't the point I was responding too - you really don't care about telling the truth, do you? You said: "Not believing in the manna episode in Exodus for NO reason would be no different than believing in tooth fairy paying a child a penny for lost tooth."

Secondly, there is evidence for the same nature in the past, you're just unable or unwilling to grasp it. It is the cross checking and self-consistency of the picture that emerges from making that assumption. The only credible alternative is a trickster god and Last Thursdayism...

 

[dad]

Jesus referred to what he had been taught.

By His Father

 

[dad]

Luke never knew Jesus and did not live in Palestine.

He worked with Peter. God promised to send His Spirit to help folks get it right. Not sure why people feel free to air random foolish bible doubts on this thread....

 

[sooda]

He worked with Peter. God promised to send His Spirit to help folks get it right. Not sure why people feel free to air random foolish bible doubts on this thread....

Are you claiming God didn't know the land either? Luke completely screws up the locations.

 

[dad]

Firstly, that wasn't the point I was responding too -

If the shoe fits...

you really don't care about telling the truth, do you? You said: "Not believing in the manna episode in Exodus for NO reason would be no different than believing in tooth fairy paying a child a penny for lost tooth."

To break it down for you then, you do need some reason to claim something did or did not happen. As for your false accusations of not being honest, find a mirror.

Secondly, there is evidence for the same nature in the past,

Thank you, so let's see it.

you're just unable or unwilling to grasp it.

Unwilling to believe that the fanatically belief smeared evidences you want to offer only after they are totally dunked in your beliefs are valid. The facts themselves and evidence itself in NO way supports your fables. In fact, we see you need to deny history and God and the bible records as par for the course in your belief system of hate and doubt and denial and darkness.

It is the cross checking and self-consistency of the picture that emerges from making that assumption.

I cross checked and every single thing mentioned so far in this thread to try and support your pseudo science fables is 100% belief based. Not 98%.

The only credible alternative is a trickster god and Last Thursdayism...

It has been pointed out that the old ages/no created world deception has nothing to do with evidences but only to do with belief that you religiously attach, weld, glue, and paint and spray on all evidences you can get your religious little hands on!

 

[dad]

Are you claiming God didn't know the land either? Luke completely screws up the locations.

Verse?

 

[sooda]

Verse?

Luke

Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions by Diogenes the Cynic

Let's do Luke. The traditional author of Luke-Acts is supposedly a physician and traveling companion of Paul named Luke. Neither Luke nor Paul is a witness of Jesus even by tradition so I suppose I could stop right there but I think I'll take the time to point out that even the tradition which does exist is dubious.

• First of all, the author of Luke-Acts never claims to have known Paul.
• 
  
• The earliest known claim for this tradition comes from Irenaeus in the late 2nd century who probably based his conclusion on the "we passages" from Acts as well as a stray mention of someone named Luke in Philemon (the name turns up in a couple of the non-authentic Pauline letters as well but the authentic corpus only mentions the name once in passing).
• 
  
• There is no reason whatever to suppose that the Luke mentioned by Paul has anything to do with either GLuke or Acts.
• The "we" passages in Acts are those passages during which the narrative voice changes from third person to first person plural. This is the source of the supposition that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul's but Vernon Robbins has shown that this was merely a Greek literary device for describing sea voyages.
• Furthermore, Luke knew Josephus, which puts that Gospel into the mid 90's CE at a bare minimum and probably later. This means that Paul had been dead 30 years before Luke-Acts was written.
• Furthermore, Luke is dependent on both Mark and Q which (contrary to some Christian folklore) means that Luke had no access to first hand accounts from other witnesses.
• There are also historical inaccuracies in Luke as well as contradictions with other Gospels which I will get to in time.

It is highly unlikely, then, that the book was written by a companion of Paul and there is absolutely no reason to connect the "Luke" who is so casually mentioned by Paul in one letter to the composition of Luke-Acts.

So, to sum up Luke, it is an anonymous Gospel whose author makes no claim to first hand knowledge and no claim to knowledge even of Paul. It was written more than a half century after the crucifixion, is dependent on secondary sources and contains numerous historical errors and contradictions with the other Gospels.

The fable of a physician named Luke who traveled with Paul comes from a claim made 150 years after the crucifixion and is corroborated by nothing in the text itself.

 

[metis]

False. That is still believing DNA was the same! Prove it.

I can't "prove" much of anything to anyone who doesn't have an open mind. Instead, maybe actually do the homework yourself.

I used to believe what you do back when in high school, but my parents were "museum freaks" whereas I learned to love the natural sciences, and especially enjoyed the natural history museums at the Smithsonian and at the University of Michigan. I had plans on going into the ministry, but my denomination's insistence that evolution could not and did not happen stopped me. Instead, I went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology, which also includes our study of human evolution and genetics, and ended up teaching it for 30 years.

I left my fundamentalist Protestant denomination in my mid-20's, and years later converted to a denomination that doesn't view actual science as being a threat to our faith in God and Jesus. I also went on to teach theology, which I am resuming this fall.

If you were to be correct, geneticists would overwhelmingly be on your side-- but they ain't. In the process of rejecting the basic ToE, fundamentalists reject the basic scientific methodology itself that includes the "scientific method". Plus, they tend to take a view of the Creation accounts that makes no sense in light of what we now know, especially since there are alternative interpretations. If your pastor and/or denomination tell you that one must take the Creation accounts at face value ("literalism"), then they are simply accidentally or intentionally mistaken.

Evolution stands to common sense, namely all material objects change over time, and genes are material objects. The true "miracle" would be if new species weren't formed over time, but we know they have been (maybe google "speciation" for explanation and links to actual scientific studies).

So, your choice is to use your brain to accept both the theology of God's creation and also the science behind it, or to reject both. Since the Truth cannot be relative, to reject the basic ToE is to also reject how God's creation appears to have been done.

 

[ratiocinator]

To break it down for you then, you do need some reason to claim something did or did not happen.

Good grief, this isn't hard, try: Burden of proof (philosophy). Oh, sorry, that would involve you actually reading something and thinking about it - my bad.

You need a reason to support any positive claim - like the stories in the bible are literally true. You don't need a reason to reject such a claim if no evidence is offered to support it.

I cross checked and every single thing mentioned so far in this thread to try and support your pseudo science fables is 100% belief based. Not 98%.

From my discussions with you, you have checked nothing at all and have totally ignored all the evidence put to you and refused to even acknowledge logical problems with your own position. And that's before we get to you offering absolutely no evidence for any of your own claims about the past.

The facts themselves and evidence itself in NO way supports your fables.

Untrue. The facts and evidence support what science has concluded. The choice is between the considered and reviewed conclusions of pretty much every expert in all the many different fields of study that support an old Earth and universe, or your uninformed, empty bluster and silly contradictions. Tricky choice...

In fact, we see you need to deny history and God and the bible records as par for the course in your belief system of hate and doubt and denial and darkness.

There is no denial of history - that is untrue - and you have provided no evidence for the accuracy of the biblical account, let alone any reason to think that your god exists. As far as I can see, you seem to be more filled with hate, doubt, denial, and darkness than most of the people you are contradicting.

It has been pointed out that the old ages/no created world deception has nothing to do with evidences but only to do with belief that you religiously attach, weld, glue, and paint and spray on all evidences you can get your religious little hands on!

Untrue.

 

[sooda]

“Luke’s Geography: Knowledge, Ignorance, Sources, and ...
“Luke’s Geography: Knowledge, Ignorance, Sources, and Spatial Conception.” Pages 101–43 in Luke on Jesus, Paul, and Earliest Christianity: What Did He Really Know? Edited by Joseph Verheyden and John S. Kloppenborg. Biblical Tools and Studies, 29,Luke_s_Geography_Knowledge_Ignorance_Sources_and...
For the interior of palestine, Luke shows only place-name knowledge but nonetheless uses a spatial imaginary as a key part of his presentation of Jesus’ activities. Luke has slight relational knowledge of Jerusalem, but it is slight. For the Levantine coast, however, Luke displays accurate relational or cartographical knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

I can't prove it was the same because I do not think it was...science does!

Yes, and so does everyone else.

Science cannot say either way, same or different, it is a matter of belief only! Furthermore, history and Scripture tell us of life spans many many centuries long, so obviously things worked differently.

Again, if your position is that, then there is no reasonable discussion to be had. There is no way to know anything about the past and it is all potentially illusory. This is, in essence, the same issue that solipsism has to deal with: the fact that everything we ever experience might be an illusion.

Once you get past that, there is a real world with a past that can be understood via the scientific method. And yes, that method assumes the laws are the same in the past unless there is evidence otherwise. Which there is not.

So, by denying this basic point, you say that no knowledge about the past is possible at all. And that is something reasonable people deny.