Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What you're saying is, you believe in magic.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The flood in Genesis
- Thread starter Just_me_Mike
- Start date
What you're saying is, you believe in magic.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
But with the ark you need 'super evolution' to re-diversify life on earth. You can see the problem with this when those adhering to the flood don't believe evolution ever happened.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
not necessarily. Animals are more fertile than humans. Not to mention the fact that they produce more offspring than the average human(octmom is not average), in less time. It would be nothing for animals to repopulate the earth faster and better than we. To say otherwise, would be to...
...discount science!
...discount science!themadhair
Well-Known Member
To get current biodiversity you would need super-evolution. One pair of dogs, with four alleles max for each gene between them, becoming the biodiversity of canids today with thousands of different alleles in only 4,000 years is super-evolution.
You would need speciation events to occur thousands of times faster than present rates.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
FFS, do you have any idea just how much of modern science is in stark disagreement with a global flood?? Do you realise that the notion every species on the planet should have a genetic bottleneck dating to around 4,000 years ago makes a total mockery of genetics?? Do you know how much geologists know about flooding and the associated geological signs and how these same geologists see absolutely nothing to indicate a global flood?? Do you know that recorded history features entire civilisations that apparently didnt notice they were underwater for a year?? Did you know that the fossil record and the associated geographical distributions of animals completely flies in the face of global flood 4,000 years ago?? Did you know that at least triple the amount of water currently on the planet would be needed for a global flood??
A global is neither plausible not scientific given the huge stack of research which contradicts it. It is not that people specifically set out to disprove the global flood, it is that by studying the world it became freaking obvious the thing never happened. And, unfortunately, there are seemingly enough folks in the world sufficiently partial to their global flood codology that they are working to retard science education as a result.
Dont even dare attempt to claim the flood is scientific until you take a look at just how much scientific research poo-poos it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
not necessarily. Animals are more fertile than humans. Not to mention the fact that they produce more offspring than the average human(octmom is not average), in less time. It would be nothing for animals to repopulate the earth faster and better than we. To say otherwise, would be to...
No, it would not. The Giant Tortoise has a lifespan of 177 years. Evolution is a very slow, gradual process. To account for the diversity of life on earth would take billions of years--which turns out to be how old the earth is.
It's not a question of repopulation, but of rate of change.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Because the evidence doesn't support it. It's not me that rejects it, it's biology. To have the diversity of species we see today would mean speciation events every few months; we would observe them. We observe that doesn't happen.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
You wanna try not insulting me next time? I AM NOT MORMON!!! NOR AM I FFH!!
Now. Seeing as how you people are the ones taking it literally in an attempt to make you feel better about your beliefs, I do think that you need to take a hard look at why not even scientists believe that theory is absolute fact!!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Because theories are not facts. Do you know what a scientific theory is? What it means for something to be a theory? Like atomic theory or the germ theory of disease?
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Theory
- a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...
- hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...
- a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
and, yet, seems to me that those not in the scientific field are the ones taking scientific theory as fact.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it's the opposite. The first definition is the scientific one. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. See the difference between a scientific theory and religious dogma? The fact that something is a theory, in science, does NOT mean that it has not been tested, or that there is not evidence to support it; quite the contrary.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
no, actually you are cherry picking a definition to suit your intended purpose. That of an attempt not to subscribe to a religion at all. It's not working.
all three definitions fit all theories. They are all nothing but hypotheses that allow people to explain what made no sense to them in the first place.
Religious is also a theory. It is a hypothesis that is merely an explanation that explains what made no sense to a person in the first place.
There is no difference between religious theory and scientific theory except to the cherry-picker
all three definitions fit all theories. They are all nothing but hypotheses that allow people to explain what made no sense to them in the first place.
Religious is also a theory. It is a hypothesis that is merely an explanation that explains what made no sense to a person in the first place.
There is no difference between religious theory and scientific theory except to the cherry-picker
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"There is no difference between religious theory and scientific theory except to the cherry-picker"
Tell me, what prediction has your religion made regarding future events in the natural world that has been tested and found to both accurate and repeatable?
Tell me, what prediction has your religion made regarding future events in the natural world that has been tested and found to both accurate and repeatable?
themadhair
Well-Known Member
That is what scientific terminology does. When you describe a scientific theory in any other terms you are not using the scientific meaning of the word. Science, by its very nature, requires very precise definitions. A scientific theory is one such precise definition.
Scientific theories explain facts. Hundreds on thousands of facts and observations about the atom are explained by atomic theory. Hundreds of thousands of facts and observations regarding gravity are explained by the theory of gravity. Hundreds of thousands of facts and observations about evolution are explained by the theory of evolution.
All you are doing at the moment is closing your eyes and ignoring this in order to make your flood myth work.
Your computer? Built by using semiconductor theory.
Your vaccinations? Made by using germ theory and evolutionary theory.
Your gasoline? Made using fractional distillation on oil which was found using geological theories.
The problem you really have here rakhel is explaining why these scientific theories hold in the face of new discoveries, and why the physical evidence we find in the world supports them.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Science already did that.