Science IS religion

[gnostic]

Your link offers no support, and just claims scholars have a consensus of doubt. Jesus affirmed Scripture was true.

But the fact remained that there were no evidences of the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua ever existing in the the 2nd millennium BCE, which was supposedly written by Moses in the Late Bronze Age.

No such biblical texts on clay tablets, on leather parchments, on papyrus scrolls or on stone stele, no inscriptions in hieroglyphs, cuneiform or alphabets in this period where Moses and Joshua supposedly lived.

All evidences point to all books that were attributed to Moses, to be composed in the 7th century BCE and later.

Jesus affirmed nothing since by his time the stories were already well-known.

 

[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.

Nearly all historians say Abraham was not a real, historical person, and that much of the biblical account of the patriarchs could not have happened.

For example, he could not have left Ur of the Chaldees around 2000 BCE when the Chaldeans only migrated out of Arabia around 800 BCE, and he could not have met the Philistine king , when the Philistines were a sea people who only arrived in the Levant around 1200 BCE.

And we can rely on Abraham not having lived to 175 years, an age people would not dream of living even with the aid of modern medical facilities.

Once again, nearly all historians say there was no Exodus from Egypt as portrayed in the Bible. With no biblical Exodus, there was no biblical Moses.

So, where did the Israelites come from? The consensus of historians is that they were rural Canaanites who left the region of the rich coastal cities, to settle peacefully in the hitherto sparsely populated hinterland. They were not descended from a nation of slaves in Egypt, and they were not descended from the Hebrew patriarchs. Abraham and Moses were from a mythical past.

 

[Polymath257]

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....

You don't know that. In fact, you can't know that the books you rely on to get this information haven't magically changed their contents because the laws of physics changed.

You cannot know that the Bible is accurate because it is possible all the words of the Bible changed last year, along with all of your memories.

You see? Last Thursdayism works both ways.

 

[dad]

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

You want us to find what you cannot. I see. I think the idea of a debate is that you are supposed to have a position and be able to support it.

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.

Long as you didn't believe the silly fables embedded in the exhibits, fine.

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 see, so you misled many kids.

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.

Fine. Personally I am not sure what good a god who says He created but really didn't would be. Whatever.

If you were to be correct, geneticists would overwhelmingly be on your side-- but they ain't.

No. They just memorize what they are taught. They are taught that DNA represents not just today, but the past also.

In the process of rejecting the basic ToE, fundamentalists reject the basic scientific methodology itself that includes the "scientific method".

Only where that method is applied to the unknown!

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.

You don't know what you thought you did. Yu chose a belief.

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.

I don't do church, but if I did I would not be talking to anyone who did not believe Jesus and the apostles and Moses for guidance or fellowship.

Evolution stands to common sense, namely all material objects change over time, and genes are material objects.

False. It does stand to reason that the observed trait we have from God of being able to adapt and evolve exists and now works a certain way. It does NOT stand to reason that this started before Adam was created!

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).

Who cares if new species are formed? The origins debate involves origins, not how it now works. I suspect there were many many evolved creatures before the flod also who adapted/evolved from the original kinds. I think the changes at that time were very fast also.

I also think that only the KINDS were called to the ark! So if say, dinos had evolved from birds or whatever, they would NOT be invited. Godly evolution is wonderful.

Come on back to the winning side. The water is fine here.

 

[sooda]

You want us to find what you cannot. I see. I think the idea of a debate is that you are supposed to have a position and be able to support it.


Long as you didn't believe the silly fables embedded in the exhibits, fine.



I see, so you misled many kids.

Fine. Personally I am not sure what good a god who says He created but really didn't would be. Whatever.
No. They just memorize what they are taught. They are taught that DNA represents not just today, but the past also.
Only where that method is applied to the unknown!

You don't know what you thought you did. Yu chose a belief.

I don't do church, but if I did I would not be talking to anyone who did not believe Jesus and the apostles and Moses for guidance or fellowship.
False. It does stand to reason that the observed trait we have from God of being able to adapt and evolve exists and now works a certain way. It does NOT stand to reason that this started before Adam was created!

Who cares if new species are formed? The origins debate involves origins, not how it now works. I suspect there were many many evolved creatures before the flod also who adapted/evolved from the original kinds. I think the changes at that time were very fast also.

I also think that only the KINDS were called to the ark! So if say, dinos had evolved from birds or whatever, they would NOT be invited. Godly evolution is wonderful.

Come on back to the winning side. The water is fine here.

Origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era . A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.
Origin of birds - Wikipedia
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Birds

 

[ratiocinator]

I did I would not be talking to anyone who did not believe Jesus and the apostles and Moses for guidance or fellowship.

And what evidence do you have for what you believe about these people and what they taught? I mean proper evidence, not empty bluster and blind belief...

 

[metis]

You want us to find what you cannot. I see. I think the idea of a debate is that you are supposed to have a position and be able to support it.

I'm not into "debate" but more into "discuss", especially since "debates" are all too often fed by ego.

Long as you didn't believe the silly fables embedded in the exhibits, fine.

I've held an actual dinosaur rib that dates back many millions of years ago at a museum in Casper, Wyoming, and for you to call things at an exhibit as part of "silly fables" is simply bizarre and disingenuous.

I see, so you misled many kids.

I think I'm seeing "projection" being evidenced here.

BTW, I didn't teach "kids".

No. They just memorize what they are taught. They are taught that DNA represents not just today, but the past also.

Again, you really do not even get close to understanding how we in science operate.

Also, for your paradigm to work, one would have to believe that almost all geneticists are ignorant of their own subject, or are highly dishonest, or both. Any other scenario simply doesn't work. Thus, I do have to repeat that your posts simply appear to be "projections" of your own personality onto them.

I don't do church, but if I did I would not be talking to anyone who did not believe Jesus and the apostles and Moses for guidance or fellowship.

How is that negated by my approach, which is similar to actually a majority of Christian theologians here in the States according to the last Pew Poll I read on this? Most if them do not have a problem with the ToE as long as it is understood that God was and is behind it all.

Who cares if new species are formed?

Those of us in the living sciences do, and the ToE is part & parcel with that.

The origins debate involves origins, not how it now works.

They're tied together in a huge "web" that goes back billions of years and continues through today and into tomorrow.

I also think that only the KINDS were called to the ark!

Only if one views the Flood account as a real event, versus the probability that it's a Jewish reworking of a much older Babylonian account likely designated to teach Jewish morals and values as opposed to the more dominant Babylonian ones found in that area of the world.

Come on back to the winning side. The water is fine here.

Your approach is hardly a "winning side", plus much of your demeanor is not one of the love and compassion that Jesus taught. It's not about "winning"-- it's about Truth, honesty, study, and compassion for all. And it's your attitude, and all too many who behave like that, which again makes me so pleased I left the church that I grew up in.

So, we have nothing in common, plus I've learned over the many years that those like you who usually speak the "loudest" typically have so little to add to any serious discussion. Therefore, respond as you might, but I'd rather discuss matters with those capable and willing to have serious adult discussions rather than engage in childish head-butting.

Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[dad]

Origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era . A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.
Origin of birds - Wikipedia
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Birds

Great. If dinos evolved from birds, fine with me! If they later evolved back to birds, fine with me! I can out evo the evos.

 

[dad]

And what evidence do you have for what you believe about these people and what they taught? I mean proper evidence, not empty bluster and blind belief...

Lots, but it is above the paygrade of science and we are trying to stoop to it's level here in the thread.

 

[dad]

I'm not into "debate" but more into "discuss", especially since "debates" are all too often fed by ego.

Defend your beliefs, whatever you like to call it.

I've held an actual dinosaur rib that dates back many millions of years ago at a museum in Casper, Wyoming, and for you to call things at an exhibit as part of "silly fables" is simply bizarre and disingenuous.

The rib was not that old actually. You take your religious dating too seriously.

BTW, I didn't teach "kids".

OK, whoever it was then....

Also, for your paradigm to work, one would have to believe that almost all geneticists are ignorant of their own subject, or are highly dishonest, or both.

Ask one to prove DNA was the same. Get back to us with the answer. In case you do not know it already though...they have no idea.

How is that negated by my approach, which is similar to actually a majority of Christian theologians here in the States according to the last Pew Poll I read on this? Most if them do not have a problem with the ToE as long as it is understood that God was and is behind it all.

Most are in apostasy also...so? The only issue that matters is what God says in the bible. Not what some nominal 'believers' who don't really believe the bible anyhow.

Those of us in the living sciences do, and the ToE is part & parcel with that.

Regardless of what turns your cranks, the issue is irrelevant to the origin issues! Modern adapting is very much after the fact of creation!

They're tied together in a huge "web" that goes back billions of years and continues through today and into tomorrow.

All woven from the same religious strand!

Only if one views the Flood account as a real event, versus the probability that it's a Jewish reworking of a much older Babylonian account likely designated to teach Jewish morals and values as opposed to the more dominant Babylonian ones found in that area of the world.

There is nothing older than God and His word was here before He sent it in written form! Babylon is post flood anyhow!!!

Your approach is hardly a "winning side", plus much of your demeanor is not one of the love and compassion that Jesus taught. It's not about "winning"-- it's about Truth, honesty, study, and compassion for all. And it's your attitude, and all too many who behave like that, which again makes me so pleased I left the church that I grew up in.

Compassion does not mean bending over and taking lies up the hind side actually. It means having the guts to tell folks the truth.

Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Glad you asked!

He requires us to teach our children His word. He requires us to know Jesus, who created the world and life here. Walking with God is not walking against Scripture and with unbelievers!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

We also could call it assumption, because both terms apply.

Great! Making progress! At least we have finally resolved the issue that an assumption is not necessarily a belief! Well done!

When we see waves here, we do so IN OUR time! So you cannot give us speeds for deep space.

Because there is no evidence to suggest that there are different speeds.

So I believe that Scripture records the actual realities of the old world and nature.

Science merely believes!

Read this post again and see if you can find the irony ....

The issue is science claiming the same processes and laws always were and will be...for no apparent reason at all!

There are reasons given. These reasons can be found in a study of chemistry and physics.

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

See? That's the paradox: You have to believe before you can believe and then you can "find the proof". Think about that.

If they later evolved back to birds, fine with me!

Things aren't repeated in evolution. Doesn't work like that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lots...

You're so quick to insist on evidence from other people (that you then ignore), so come on, post even one solid, objective reason to believe your favourite bible characters about any of this.

...but it is above the paygrade of science and we are trying to stoop to it's level here in the thread.

Content-free bluster.

 

[dad]

Because there is no evidence to suggest that there are different speeds.

Think about it, how do we determine speeds? We think we know the distance to what we are looking at for one thing. Then maybe we see ho long light takes to get from one point to another near that. In this example, we firstly do not actual know the distance. (distance requires uniform time and space)
Secondly, we are looking only from INSIDE OUR own time 'zone' or area. We might call that area the fishbowl. Time in the fishbowl is all we ever see. If we see light streaming in from distant stars, it still is seen here in our space and time in the fishbowl. So whatever time it takes only represents time unfolding here. There can be no correlation with time out there. So the 'speed' would seem the same to us here. In reality if time were not the same out there, the time involved in getting from point A to point B out there could be vastly different.

There are reasons given. These reasons can be found in a study of chemistry and physics.

False. Reactions in this present time do not mean reactions in the far past on earth were the same.

See? That's the paradox: You have to believe before you can believe and then you can "find the proof". Think about that.

Not my problem what others believe or I believe. Your science claims need to be independent of all that and stand up alone. If you claim nature was the same you need to be able to show evidences...boom, boom, boom. You can't just believe it was one way.

 

[dad]

You're so quick to insist on evidence from other people (that you then ignore), so come on, post even one solid, objective reason to believe your favourite bible characters about any of this.

.

You seek to have other people explain their beliefs rather than support the science claims based on beliefs. Save us all time and admit it.

 

[dad]

Things aren't repeated in evolution. Doesn't work like that.

Missed this point the first time I replied to post.
Sorry, but you are in no position to say what similar evolving from kinds happened or not after and before the flood, and later changes in nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

You seek to have other people explain their beliefs rather than support the science claims based on beliefs. Save us all time and admit it.

Quite the reverse - I started off giving you evidence and logic but you just ignored it and posted bluster and falsehoods. Just wondered how you'd do when I asked you for evidence - now we know: more bluster and a refusal to even try.

Exodus 20:16
Matthew 7:5

 

[Bear Wild]

But the fact remained that there were no evidences of the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua ever existing in the the 2nd millennium BCE, which was supposedly written by Moses in the Late Bronze Age.

No such biblical texts on clay tablets, on leather parchments, on papyrus scrolls or on stone stele, no inscriptions in hieroglyphs, cuneiform or alphabets in this period where Moses and Joshua supposedly lived.

All evidences point to all books that were attributed to Moses, to be composed in the 7th century BCE and later.

Jesus affirmed nothing since by his time the stories were already well-known.

I can't help but get the feeling that dad does not care at all what anyone posts. It would seem that this is just his way of being able to rant about his beliefs without taking anyone else's opinion into account. I must admit I do enjoy your posts and continue to learn from you and others so I guess that is at least one redeeming aspect of his opiniated posts.

 

[gnostic]

I can't help but get the feeling that dad does not care at all what anyone posts. It would seem that this is just his way of being able to rant about his beliefs without taking anyone else's opinion into account. I must admit I do enjoy your posts and continue to learn from you and others so I guess that is at least one redeeming aspect of his opiniated posts.

Despite his attitude and his twisted sense of truth, I have also learn things from other members too.

My focus in civil engineering and computer science, only taught physics and maths that were related and applicable to these two courses, so the physics and maths were pretty limited.

I have learn far more physics in the last 15 years than I did in my two courses, especially in fields that I have never studied before, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc.

During late 1980s to mid-90s, most of civil engineering works involved roadworks, but I have also worked brief stint (2 years) in waters, such as mains and storm-water drains. So I didn't need to learn relativity or quantum mechanics.

And my knowledge in biology was limited to Year 9 high school biology, although I did learn limited stuff about woods and trees, that can be used as building materials in civil engineering, otherwise it is all concrete and steel and asphalt. I had only started learning evolution in 2003-04 from my cousin's old 1st year biology textbook.

Much of what I know now about physics, astronomy and biology, only come from the last 15 to 17 years of my life, outside of formal education, learning what I can and in my own free time, from textbooks and websites (like NASA, ESA, CERN).

And of course, I have learned stuff from members of forums (like here at RF, and from earlier at Free2Codes; I actually met YmirGF at Free2Codes), some are biologists, some are mathematicians and physicists, and we even have a retired archaeologist-anthropologist (metis).

Biology is definitely not my areas of expertise, so I far more comfortable with physics, but what I am learning now has gone well beyond my high school and universities physics.

But I am still learning, whatever I can, whenever I can.

 

[gnostic]

Think about it, how do we determine speeds? We think we know the distance to what we are looking at for one thing. Then maybe we see ho long light takes to get from one point to another near that. In this example, we firstly do not actual know the distance. (distance requires uniform time and space)
Secondly, we are looking only from INSIDE OUR own time 'zone' or area. We might call that area the fishbowl. Time in the fishbowl is all we ever see. If we see light streaming in from distant stars, it still is seen here in our space and time in the fishbowl. So whatever time it takes only represents time unfolding here. There can be no correlation with time out there. So the 'speed' would seem the same to us here. In reality if time were not the same out there, the time involved in getting from point A to point B out there could be vastly different.


False. Reactions in this present time do not mean reactions in the far past on earth were the same.
Not my problem what others believe or I believe. Your science claims need to be independent of all that and stand up alone. If you claim nature was the same you need to be able to show evidences...boom, boom, boom. You can't just believe it was one way.

Wow, dad. You sure do love using the "fishbowl" analogy upon anyone who disagree with you.

But if you think about it, you are in much smaller fishbowl.

To date, you have made claims after claims after claims, like that laws of physics today were very different from physics in the past, like a mere 4000 to 6000 years, and yet you have NOT ONCE presented any evidence that this is the case.

You are the one who is the claimant of this ridiculous belief of yours, then you are the one who should be presenting the evidences that physics in ancient time were different.

You haven't presented any evidence to support your claims. So without evidences, it can be easily dismissed, merely as your misguided opinions.

 

[dad]

Wow, dad. You sure do love using the "fishbowl" analogy upon anyone who disagree with you.

But if you think about it, you are in much smaller fishbowl.

To date, you have made claims after claims after claims, like that laws of physics today were very different from physics in the past, like a mere 4000 to 6000 years, and yet you have NOT ONCE presented any evidence that this is the case.

The bible and history do confirm that nature was different in the past. Try to grasp that science does not know one way or the other. So evidence for one or the other will not be from science! If you claim science does know what the forces and laws of nature were like tens of millions of (science) years ago, then simply post the evidence.

Without evidence the fables of origin science can and will be regarded as misguided opinions and baseless beliefs.