Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then break it down. Instead of a post full of denial is there a single belief of yours that you can rationally support?
-
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 Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
I'm still waiting for empirical evidence of Genesis' claims.
Replied already _ maybe you wanted a specific canned answer and not mine?
I do not believe you in reality replied to the specific problem in the Genesis text. You danced around a lot.
I guess it is a matter of perspective on who is doing a two step.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
These are not opinions. The math is objectively and demonstyrably moronic.
My questions are specific and direct as to how the perfect world is described in Genesis. OK, one point is clear on your part that you believe life on Earth was perfect before the Fall and Original Sin of Adam and Eve, which is sufficient for you to acknowledge that it is in direct conflict with the science of evolution and the known history of humanity going back hundreds of thousands of years and more. The world was never perfect without suffering death and was the we see it today.
No... since science hasn't discovered all things, nor has it delineated all epochs of time, it cannot determine if there was never a time where all things were never perfect. It would be a statement of faith.
It has discovered that the past does not allow a scenario that includes a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Well, you assuming the Genesis myth is literally true, or representative of some real events, IS the assumption, and all based on faith. That means there is no factual basis to assume this, and faith continues to be unreliable and arbitrary. So you must have some personal motive to assume some old story is true, because there are no facts or history that suggests your assumption is warranted.
Can you acknowledge that your beliefs are not based in fact, and not what a rational person seeking truth would conclude?
Unfortunately, you are foolishly committing an illogical attempt at 'arguing from ignorance' which is not true.
Geology, history, archaeology, and Paleontology have overwhelmingly demonstrated and documented the history of life and human history as not perfect but dominated by suffering and death.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why make that claim? It does not logically follow. It appears that you are making a false accusation of faith against someone that is not using faith.
That is paramount to saying that science has discovered it all. Since that is false, your statement is false.
My beliefs are based on facts in as much as facts are available. Where my beliefs have no science facts available, it is as much as a belie when science does not have facts available.
Last edited:
In certain epochs, you are correct.
In 60 millenniums, it would be hard pressed to have all information to determine if there was a time when things were different.
For an example:
Scientists stunned to discover plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice
Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history -- like the one we are now creating with human-caused...
www.sciencedaily.com
Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history
Could that be the time when all was well? I wouldn't know...
However, what it does exemplify is that you really don't have all the information on the history of the earth. Basically, you are taking your faith belief and imposing it on what is not known... a religion of sorts since you are basing in on perfect facts.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not. Your statements are equivalent of trying to say that because we do not know everything that we cannot know some things. Now that is a logical fallacy.
Perhaps you should try to learn some more scientific facts.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In certain epochs, you are correct.
In 60 millenniums, it would be hard pressed to have all information to determine if there was a time when things were different.
For an example:
Scientists stunned to discover plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice
Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history -- like the one we are now creating with human-caused...www.sciencedaily.com
Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history
Could that be the time when all was well? I wouldn't know...
We do know. There has been more recent work done on that. There are ways to date events and that clear area That occurred over a million years ago. Which is in the very recent geologic past:
How and when did the Greenland Ice Sheet form?
The formation of the Greenland Ice Sheet was not typical and research shows that it may be more sensitive to natural climate variability than previously thought.
And you of all people should trust this article. Let me quote from it:
"As Christ said, “Now we have two points—from Summit and Camp Century—where ice disappeared. For so much melt to occur, the ice sheet is showing greater sensitivity to natural climate variability than previously thought.” Christ added that for the ice to retreat to that degree, conditions needed to be relatively warm for a long time.
With anthropogenic climate warming and the long lifespan of gases like carbon dioxide and methane, global temperature will be higher for thousands of years. “It’s kind of already baked into our climate future,” said Christ."
No, you are abusing the word "faith" again. Accepting what we do know now and projecting from that is not faith. That event happened before Homo sapiens existed. I should add that this does not contradict other ice core dates which do go to only a maximum of 123,000 years:
Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey
Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …
www.bas.ac.uk
No it isn’t. Science follows the evidence to valid conclusions. Your religious interpretation and beliefs can’t compete. Religion offers no knowledge about how things are. I know you are committed and absorbed in your dogma but it doesn’t work.
No they aren’t. You have adopted a belief system from exposure to conservative Christianity. You might think it is fact based but notice you can’t back it up.
No it isn’t. Religions have many ideas that are not consistent with what we know is true. When science speculates or creates a hypothesis it has to be consistent with reality.
So unless science has the whole picture, it has nothing? No. Many facts pertaining to the Biblical narrative are firmly established; facts which contradict or preclude parts of the narrative.
And facts are what we've been asking for since RF began, yet, thus far, we've seen none.
If your faith is based on facts please explain them.
When science doesn't have facts available it just says 'I don't know'. It doesn't make unsupported claims.
The context is that he is saying that science knows it all. I am not saying that it doesn't have a picture just not a complete one. An outline... yes. But be honest, with all that we can learn, how much is it comparison to what we don't know yet?
I went through all of this already.
But let me give you a beginning point... Genesis does NOT have a detail on how God created the earth. Neither does science tell us how it all began. We do see that it has purpose and is purpose driven. It is a story about human kind. Cain was an agriculturist... we can estimate when agriculture began... it is within the margin of error. (Didn't reach that point with the previous poster).
Science does have theories yet to be supported. If I am not mistaken.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that was your strawman. He simply said that there are things that we know, and he was correct about what we know.
Wait, what questions do you think that science has not answered? Once again you appear to be making the fallacy of claiming that since we do not know everything, and you are right about that, that means that we cannot be sure of anything. And that is flat out wrong.
So? This is significant... how?
How recent is "recent," and what point are you making? Why would such a melting be troublesome?
Earth's had warm and cold periods for hundreds of millions of years. There were times when arctic temperatures were Florida-like. There were times when half the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers. There was one time when the entire globe froze.
Who's making such a claim? All anyone's saying is that what we do know precludes magic poofing and much of the biblical narrative. Our claims are based on empirical evidence, yours on folklore.
What faith belief? Please give some examples. Science abhors faith, and has developed a whole methodology to eliminate it.
What is not known we admit is not known. What we claim to know is supported by tangible, testable, objective evidence.
Science can show why it believes what it does, while, despite claims, religion largely can not.
Last edited: