bcuzbcuz Posted August 8, 2016 Author Posted August 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, danielwoods said: You continue to claim that by digging I would know or realize that these layers were laid down horizontally and not sideways. But what is missing is the reason why you think digging would change my view? It's almost as if you think there are no geologists who hold the same view as I do. By the way one of my favorite canyons to drive through is just south of St. George on I-15. Why dig? Because real life experience far outweighs anything that can be gained from merely following someone's viewpoint online. Asimov makes that point in his "Foundation Trilogy". I don't doubt there are some geologists that believe that geologic layers were layered sideways, I just doubt that they have many other geologists who agree. In other words, a scientists isn't right merely because he is a scientist, he needs to be able to verify his opinions with good data. Although the geologic layers are many million years old, a geologist will need to demonstrate that observable events can repeat the possibility of such an event. Since you (and those you reference to) believe that the geologic layers are not millions of years old, but of a much more current event time scale, the requirement for repeatable observations is increased a thousand fold. Now you need to name names. Provide a list of the geologists who you reference to, preferably with their academic standing and degrees. Provide a reading list, either articles from peer reviewed forums, or published books. I'm an avid reader so give me your best shot. I no longer live in Utah and last time I visited Bryce Canyon was back in the 1990's with my youngest daughter. But I remember, with fondness, my trips all through the southwest, from Moab to Mesa Verde. 1
danielwoods Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: Of course, for any position, faith is involved. It's just that your faith-based position is not scientific. I think that should be clear, yes? It's you against the scientific materialism, right? (setting aside the fact that Mormonism is also materialistic) If you can acknowledge that faith is involved for any position. And just so we're clear faith indicates that no amount of testing or science is or can be involved, by definition. Then how can one person's faith be not faith (more scientific) than another's faith? Let me put it this way. If one says that a singularity started our existence and another says a supreme being did it. How can one faith be more scientific than another when neither is testable or demonstrable?
Gray Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, danielwoods said: If you can acknowledge that faith is involved for any position. And just so we're clear faith indicates that no amount of testing or science is or can be involved, by definition. Then how can one person's faith be not faith (more scientific) than another's faith? Let me put it this way. If one says that a singularity started our existence and another says a supreme being did it. How can one faith be more scientific than another when neither is testable or demonstrable? Faith just means trust or confidence. Either you have trust in the scientific method or you do not. Science does not eschew faith, but it does limit itself to that which is testable/falsifiable. Faith in an untestable supreme being is outside of the limits of science. The singularity, on the other hand, is derived from mathematics and trajectories. Run the clocks backwards and you end up inevitably at the singularity. That is within the boundaries of science. Edited August 8, 2016 by Gray
Atheist Mormon Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, danielwoods said: Let me put it this way. If one says that a singularity started our existence and another says a supreme being did it. How can one faith be more scientific than another when neither is testable or demonstrable? Comeon Man! This Ark thing is grotesquely imbecile work of imagination.....It's nothing like reading the Book of Genesis, where everything is left to imagination...Here a dufus tries to make it like it was.... Ask yourself; does it look anything like the Bridge of Starship Enterprise? Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Christianity. 2
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Comeon Man! This Ark thing is grotesquely imbecile work of imagination.....It's nothing like reading the Book of Genesis, where everything is left to imagination...Here a dufus tries to make it like it was.... Ask yourself; does it look anything like the Bridge of Starship Enterprise? Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Christianity. Agreed.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: As you just did and you refused my CFR. At least there is symmetry. You cited a book published by Deseret, that is not a scholarly article on Old Testament studies and theology. 6 hours ago, danielwoods said: Sorry but I disagree. I wonder, do you believe in climate science? or do you reject it? Edited August 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
The Nehor Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: You cited a book published by Deseret, that is not a scholarly article on Old Testament studies and theology. And you refuse to get it and look in the back to see where said articles were originally published. Yes, we have been over this ad nauseum. If you are that curious buy one less video game this month and buy the book. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I wonder, do you believe in climate science? or do you reject it? I reject it. The idea that climate is governed by scientific laws to any degree is ludicrous. Clearly it is controlled by the mental psionic powers of a race of short aliens with giant heads residing on a small planet orbiting the star Arcturus. P.S. Poor try on attempting to get my opinion on climate change but you worded that horribly. Either that or you imagine that climate change is the sum total of climate science (climatology) in which case you should probably stop pontificating on your views. 1
sunstoned Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Comeon Man! This Ark thing is grotesquely imbecile work of imagination.....It's nothing like reading the Book of Genesis, where everything is left to imagination...Here a dufus tries to make it like it was.... Ask yourself; does it look anything like the Bridge of Starship Enterprise? Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Christianity. Very well stated.
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Why dig? Because real life experience far outweighs anything that can be gained from merely following someone's viewpoint online. Asimov makes that point in his "Foundation Trilogy". I don't doubt there are some geologists that believe that geologic layers were layered sideways, I just doubt that they have many other geologists who agree. In other words, a scientists isn't right merely because he is a scientist, he needs to be able to verify his opinions with good data. Although the geologic layers are many million years old, a geologist will need to demonstrate that observable events can repeat the possibility of such an event. Since you (and those you reference to) believe that the geologic layers are not millions of years old, but of a much more current event time scale, the requirement for repeatable observations is increased a thousand fold. Now you need to name names. Provide a list of the geologists who you reference to, preferably with their academic standing and degrees. Provide a reading list, either articles from peer reviewed forums, or published books. I'm an avid reader so give me your best shot. I no longer live in Utah and last time I visited Bryce Canyon was back in the 1990's with my youngest daughter. But I remember, with fondness, my trips all through the southwest, from Moab to Mesa Verde. If I had time I'd make a list for you, but I don't. As I said before, it's not my job. I have too many jobs right now, and don't need another. Real life experience does make a difference, I agree. However, it doesn't change one's world view or perspective. For example, when I drive through the US and look at the layers (literally everywhere), I see confirmation of what I believe to be true. And I'm sure the same thing would happen if I started to dig. And I'm also sure that you see confirmation of your beliefs as well. The difference is you don't think they are beliefs, but somehow yours are derived from the data and mine are not. Which is fine I really don't care. But, what I notice is that you aren't really that familiar with what is taught by those geologists who believe as I do, because of your descriptions of what I believe don't match what I believe actually happened and also fits the data quite well. Which at this point you will ask that I cite those references, to which I will respond I don't have time and i'm not really interested because I don't think it will matter much. I can't even get anyone here to admit that they are exercising their faith.
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Gray said: Faith just means trust or confidence. Either you have trust in the scientific method or you do not. Science does not eschew faith, but it does limit itself to that which is testable/falsifiable. Faith in an untestable supreme being is outside of the limits of science. The singularity, on the other hand, is derived from mathematics and trajectories. Run the clocks backwards and you end up inevitably at the singularity. That is within the boundaries of science. "Run the clock backwards" is a good example of blind faith. There is no way to test that the theoretical "running the clock backwards" was an accurate assessment of what actually happened or not. It may be. But there's no way to know using the scientific method. It's just faith. It's equal to a faith commitment of believing that a supreme being did it. Oh sure, there's math involved, and trajectories predicted... sure. But, there's no way to know for sure. It's faith in the end. 1
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Comeon Man! This Ark thing is grotesquely imbecile work of imagination.....It's nothing like reading the Book of Genesis, where everything is left to imagination...Here a dufus tries to make it like it was.... Ask yourself; does it look anything like the Bridge of Starship Enterprise? Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Christianity. Oh wait are you interested in helping Ken Ham and Christianity? I didn't think so. Just throwing stones. I've walked through the Ark, and it's an awesome experience. Many people who wouldn't ever pick up a book on the subject are walking through a book by walking through the Ark. As a Christian, I thought it was a great visual tool that sparks one's imagination.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: And you refuse to get it because you are not citing scholarly articles. 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: If you are that curious buy one less video game this month and buy the book. You are giving me no reason 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: P.S. Poor try on attempting to get my opinion on climate change but you worded that horribly. Either that or you imagine that climate change is the sum total of climate science (climatology) in which case you should probably stop pontificating on your views. LOL I was asking daniel woods! Not you Edited August 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
bcuzbcuz Posted August 9, 2016 Author Posted August 9, 2016 4 hours ago, danielwoods said: If I had time I'd make a list for you, but I don't. As I said before, it's not my job. I have too many jobs right now, and don't need another. Real life experience does make a difference, I agree. However, it doesn't change one's world view or perspective. For example, when I drive through the US and look at the layers (literally everywhere), I see confirmation of what I believe to be true. And I'm sure the same thing would happen if I started to dig. And I'm also sure that you see confirmation of your beliefs as well. The difference is you don't think they are beliefs, but somehow yours are derived from the data and mine are not. Which is fine I really don't care. But, what I notice is that you aren't really that familiar with what is taught by those geologists who believe as I do, because of your descriptions of what I believe don't match what I believe actually happened and also fits the data quite well. Which at this point you will ask that I cite those references, to which I will respond I don't have time and i'm not really interested because I don't think it will matter much. I can't even get anyone here to admit that they are exercising their faith. No time? Good bye.
Gray Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 6 hours ago, danielwoods said: "Run the clock backwards" is a good example of blind faith. There is no way to test that the theoretical "running the clock backwards" was an accurate assessment of what actually happened or not. It may be. But there's no way to know using the scientific method. It's just faith. It's equal to a faith commitment of believing that a supreme being did it. Oh sure, there's math involved, and trajectories predicted... sure. But, there's no way to know for sure. It's faith in the end. No it's not blind faith. Blind faith would be confidence in an idea based on no evidence at all. We know that the universe is expanding in all directions. We know if you extrapolate backwards in time everything goes back to a single point. That's not blind faith. The most likely scenario is that everything indeed started from the singularity. There is no other plausible option.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 7 hours ago, danielwoods said: Oh wait are you interested in helping Ken Ham and Christianity? I didn't think so. Just throwing stones. I've walked through the Ark, and it's an awesome experience. Many people who wouldn't ever pick up a book on the subject are walking through a book by walking through the Ark. As a Christian, I thought it was a great visual tool that sparks one's imagination. "I've walked through the Ark, and it's an awesome experience." I'm sure There will be tons of people like you (I don't mean demeaning way), likewise there will be people mocking me for spending money to visit "Star Trek" experience. Again, I probably would spend the money to visit makebelieve ark just to see the caged dinosaurs......
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: No it's not blind faith. Blind faith would be confidence in an idea based on no evidence at all. We know that the universe is expanding in all directions. We know if you extrapolate backwards in time everything goes back to a single point. That's not blind faith. The most likely scenario is that everything indeed started from the singularity. There is no other plausible option. You are right, not completely blind faith because there is some evidence. Saying there is no other plausible option is definitely a statement of faith.
Gray Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 minute ago, danielwoods said: You are right, not completely blind faith because there is some evidence. Saying there is no other plausible option is definitely a statement of faith. What are the other plausible options?
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: "I've walked through the Ark, and it's an awesome experience." I'm sure There will be tons of people like you (I don't mean demeaning way), likewise there will be people mocking me for spending money to visit "Star Trek" experience. Again, I probably would spend the money to visit makebelieve ark just to see the caged dinosaurs...... Interestingly I also walked through the Titanic experience thing in Branson, MO. And it had some similarities to the ark in that it was telling a story as well. The Star Trek thing sounds interesting as well.
thesometimesaint Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Science doesn't care what you, or anyone else believes. Just what can be demonstrated in the lab and/or in nature.
The Nehor Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: because you are not citing scholarly articles. You are giving me no reason LOL I was asking daniel woods! Not you LULZ!
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: What are the other plausible options? The question of plausibility hinges on parameters. If we make the assumption (a faith based assertion) that there is no God. Then the singularity might be the most plausible option. I've heard of other multiverse options as well. If we say that God does exist then obviously that could change what is most plausible. Dr. Humphreys has theorized that star light/time/ and the very fabric of the universe were created in such a way that makes it appear as if the universe is expanding. But that is but one theological viewpoint. Edited August 9, 2016 by danielwoods
Gray Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 26 minutes ago, danielwoods said: The question of plausibility hinges on parameters. If we make the assumption (a faith based assertion) that there is no God. Then the singularity might be the most plausible option. I've heard of other multiverse options as well. If we say that God does exist then obviously that could change what is most plausible. Dr. Humphreys has theorized that star light/time/ and the very fabric of the universe were created in such a way that makes it appear as if the universe is expanding. But that is but one theological viewpoint. I'll rephrase. What are the other plausible options that are within the realm of scientific inquiry? Theological exploration has very different parameters than scientific exploration.
danielwoods Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 10 hours ago, Gray said: I'll rephrase. What are the other plausible options that are within the realm of scientific inquiry? Theological exploration has very different parameters than scientific exploration. Correct. When science is defined at materialistic in nature. As in, only materialistic explanations need apply. Then the philosophical world view of materialism is labeled as true (or scientific) and all others are labeled as "untrue" (or unscientific). Which is why the deception is so deeply engrained in our culture. Very few seem to realize they are sold a bill of (philosophical) goods when they study "science." Oh, the claim is that we only allow material explanations because those are the only things we can study... Ha Ha Ha! The joke is in those myriad of things we can't study, yet they are still accepted as "scientific", simply because they support the materialistic view and assumed to be true. The singularity is but one example.
Gray Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: Correct. When science is defined at materialistic in nature. As in, only materialistic explanations need apply. Then the philosophical world view of materialism is labeled as true (or scientific) and all others are labeled as "untrue" (or unscientific). Which is why the deception is so deeply engrained in our culture. Very few seem to realize they are sold a bill of (philosophical) goods when they study "science." Oh, the claim is that we only allow material explanations because those are the only things we can study... Ha Ha Ha! The joke is in those myriad of things we can't study, yet they are still accepted as "scientific", simply because they support the materialistic view and assumed to be true. The singularity is but one example. The material is the only thing that can be verified to exist in the physical universe as something other than an abstraction. How does one study the soul when the soul makes no measurable effect on the material world? The dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural mirrors the dichotomy between concrete and abstract. The supernatural exists not in the material world, but rather in the mind. This is a topic for philosophical and theological exploration, but science of a necessity deals with the concrete universe (of course, science can also study thought, but thoughts in and of themselves are not supernatural). You cannot put the supernatural under a microscope, or measure it or detect it with any instrument. If the supernatural exists it behaves exactly as if it doesn't, which means that it is useless to science - and of course to Mormonism. Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 19 hours ago, danielwoods said: The question of plausibility hinges on parameters. If we make the assumption (a faith based assertion) that there is no God. Then the singularity might be the most plausible option. I've heard of other multiverse options as well. If we say that God does exist then obviously that could change what is most plausible. Dr. Humphreys has theorized that star light/time/ and the very fabric of the universe were created in such a way that makes it appear as if the universe is expanding. But that is but one theological viewpoint. Yet some 40% of all American scientist are theists. It could be a multiverse, but we lack, at this time, the necessary evidence to verify such. BTW Any time you have to posit any God or Godlike force to make science work it is not science, but it is religion. I refuse to believe my God is a trickster. 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?
Recommended Posts