Brian 2.0 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 The evidence does exist- it is indisputable that the ancient civilizations depicted and wrote about living breathing dinosaurs. Now you are completely free to draw up your own conclusions but the evidence really does exist. It is only a "theory" that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago- that is not a fact. I can say that dinosaurs died out a few hundred years ago and guess what? We are in the same theoretical boat- both theories are an attempt to state when the dinosaurs went extinct.Same theoreticial boat? SureSame breadth and quality of evidence? Not even close.
Rob Osborn Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Same theoreticial boat? Sure Same breadth and quality of evidence? Not even close. I agree. When you place actual historical records and drawings, engravings, sculptures, etc, against conjecture of dates its a no brainer. I hear you 100%
Brian 2.0 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 I agree. When you place actual historical records and drawings, engravings, sculptures, etc, against conjecture of dates its a no brainer. I hear you 100%Which is why you have, what, 2% of all scientists on your side. The evidence is that convincing.
Brian 2.0 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 And I think I'm being VERY generous with that 2% number.
Rob Osborn Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Which is why you have, what, 2% of all scientists on your side. The evidence is that convincing. Funny thing is, less than .3% of the worlds population belong to the one true church. Evidence thus doesn't mean much when you have a world of blinders on the masses.
thesometimesaint Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Funny thing is, less than .3% of the worlds population belong to the one true church. Evidence thus doesn't mean much when you have a world of blinders on the masses. That is an Ad Populum argument.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Did I hear a mosquito buzzing? I don't know. Is it physically possible to hear a mosquito? Yes dependent on size and proximity to ears.
LittleNipper Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 According to the Washington Times over 60% of Americans believe the Bible stories of the Flood, Moses, etc... A scientist is not a scientist because he or she is secular or considers only the secular. A good scientist is an individual seeking the truth through researching possibilities --- and not just those promoted/accepted by the professor.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) According to the Washington Times over 60% of Americans believe the Bible stories of the Flood, Moses, etc... A scientist is not a scientist because he or she is secular or considers only the secular. A good scientist is an individual seeking the truth through researching possibilities --- and not just those promoted/accepted by the professor. That is an Ad Populum Argument.SEE http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html No we don't seek "Truth" by researching possibilities. We observe some action or object then make logical natural testable statements about it. By definition science can not impose any God or Godlike force into science and it still be science. IE; Two kinds of flood models . First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point? Edited March 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I don't know. Is it physically possible to hear a mosquito? Yes dependent on size and proximity to ears. I just heard it again
Rob Osborn Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 That is an Ad Populum Argument. SEE http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html No we don't seek "Truth" by researching possibilities. We observe some action or object then make logical natural testable statements about it. By definition science can not impose any God or Godlike force into science and it still be science. IE; Two kinds of flood models . First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model. Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point? In your view, no, science cant posit god or anything godlike. Its a good thing that its a free world and my view of science does include God who, BTW, works within the laws of science. Its not your right to say who or what cant be included in science.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I just heard it again Hearing written words is a psychological problem.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 In your view, no, science cant posit god or anything godlike. Its a good thing that its a free world and my view of science does include God who, BTW, works within the laws of science. Its not your right to say who or what cant be included in science. Science can't posit ANY God or Godlike force and still be science. Of course it is a free world, to the extent you can believe anything you want. However you beliefs are inconsistent with reality. Unfortunately the further you get from reality the more difficult life becomes. God is omnipotent. So even if he follows all the rules it is a invalid test. IE; 2+2+God=4 What is the unnecessary element in that equation? Your view of science isn't correct. I've repeatedly corrected you, but you persist in your own special definitions of words. I have every right and a professional responsibility to correct errors in claimed ideations. God has to mean more to you than the total of what you don't know.
LittleNipper Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 If science can't posit any God or Godlike force, then scientists should be ever mindful as they hold the "Cosmos" in awe ----- or they may worship the creation rather then the Creator.
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 If science can't posit any God or Godlike force, then scientists should be ever mindful as they hold the "Cosmos" in awe ----- or they may worship the creation rather then the Creator. I am in constant awe of the Cosmos, and am humbled by our often feeble attempts to understand her, and her Creator.
Rob Osborn Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Science can't posit ANY God or Godlike force and still be science. Of course it is a free world, to the extent you can believe anything you want. However you beliefs are inconsistent with reality. Unfortunately the further you get from reality the more difficult life becomes. God is omnipotent. So even if he follows all the rules it is a invalid test. IE; 2+2+God=4 What is the unnecessary element in that equation? Your view of science isn't correct. I've repeatedly corrected you, but you persist in your own special definitions of words. I have every right and a professional responsibility to correct errors in claimed ideations. God has to mean more to you than the total of what you don't know.Think what you want but its not your right or any of your organized groupsright to go around and police what is and what isnt science. The science I believe in includes God and includes his holy words. The science I believe in places the Creator at the very center of all things in nature and the universe. My science upholds its very author- God himself.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Think what you want but its not your right or any of your organized groupsright to go around and police what is and what isnt science. The science I believe in includes God and includes his holy words. The science I believe in places the Creator at the very center of all things in nature and the universe. My science upholds its very author- God himself. Please stop with your own special definitions of words. sci·encenoun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Please stop with your own special definitions of words. sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc. Like I said, you don't have any right to say what I think isn't science. My definition of science includes God. Sorry your doesnt. Oh well. You call what you believe "science" and I call what I believe "science". Who really cares? Its still science, just maybe not what someone else thinks is science. Its no big deal. Edited March 31, 2014 by Rob Osborn
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Like I said, you don't have any right to say what I think isn't science. My definition of science includes God. Sorry your doesnt. Oh well. You call what you believe "science" and I call what I believe "science". Who really cares? Its still science, just maybe not what someone else thinks is science. Its no big deal. Use a Dictionary.
Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Use a Dictionary.I use one all the time. Kind of interesting that your special definition of science cant posit any God or godlike force isnt in any of dictionary definitions.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I use one all the time. Kind of interesting that your special definition of science cant posit any God or godlike force isnt in any of dictionary definitions. Science uses the natural world. The supernatural is pertaining to God. su·per·nat·u·raladjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. Use A Dictionary
Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Science uses the natural world. The supernatural is pertaining to God. su·per·nat·u·raladjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. Use A DictionaryOnce again, thats your own special definition. My God isnt supernatural, He works within the laws of nature and science.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Once again, thats your own special definition. My God isnt supernatural, He works within the laws of nature and science. That is right out of the dictionary. Supernatural means pertaining to any God. That makes your God deceptive.
Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 That is right out of the dictionary. Supernatural means pertaining to any God. That makes your God deceptive.You are an atheist aren't you? You certainly can't believe in the same God I believe in or you would know that the God the LDS believe in doesn't use magic and means outside of science and logic.
Recommended Posts