Gray Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, danielwoods said: Thanks. Your quotes of Mary Schweitzer demonstrate that she thinks they are 68 million years old. Yet there is no way to verify this claim (which is typical for those who have faith in millions of years, why question it? It fits what I already believe). There is strong evidence supporting the age of the fossils. I know you dismiss such evidence, but it's there. 19 minutes ago, danielwoods said: Further your proclaimamtion there is no historical evidence for the existence of Noah demonstrates your willingness to close your eyes to evidence. Let me put it this way - there is as much historical evidence for Paul Bunyan as Noah. Noah might have been a real person, but the evidence for that just doesn't exist. 19 minutes ago, danielwoods said: Now it's one thing to attack the evidence, but to simply claim it's not there. That's where ones faith is truly in action. Oh unless you have some historical evidence that we could look at that makes the claim that Noah didn't exist and was a myth made up by some writer. And then we'd have to answer why 200 other ancient cultures have a flood story. The issue here is lack of evidence. We have no historical evidence to tie the Noah figure in the Bible to a real historical person. We don't have third or even forth hand eyewitness testimony. There is just nothing there, as far as I know. There are many convergences between a variety of ancient myths. Just ask Joseph Campbell. Myths speak to our unconscious fears and desires. There's something in most of them that resonate deeply in the human psyche. That does not mean that these myths are historically accurate, however. It's story telling. All good stories are largely the same story, underneath the surface level.
thesometimesaint Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 What? That claim makes absolutely no sense. I have no problem with Noah existing as a prophet of God. Doing what he believed God told him. Build an ark and save what he could from a massive albeit regional flood. SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. 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. Each one of those numerous flood stories happened at vastly different times, vastly different locations, with vastly different peoples, their numbers involved, and consequences than what is claimed in the Bible. The Jews got their flood story from the Mesopotamian stories written thousands of years earlier. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative
rodheadlee Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 On 8/9/2016 at 0:12 PM, 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. Alternatives to the singularity[edit] Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based onM-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Alternatives to the singularity[edit] Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based onM-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity A steady state universe. SEE https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 more evidence that most Theists (the very religious) are not very interested in Science and Math.
Kemara Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 On 12/08/2016 at 0:11 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: 2. Last time I didn't cite a book published by Oxford University. 1. You have a habit of quoting works that you have not actually read. You have openly admitted, without any reservation or qualification, that you do not always read the works that you cite in support of your arguments. Is this one of those cases? 2. In the previous discussion, when you were owned so thoroughly that you were finally forced to admit your argument was wrong, you did not provide this citation but you did quote the author (Ecklund) making the exact same arguement, so I fail to see how you being owned would change now simply because you provide a citation. Ecklund's argument didnt win the day previously and it wont win the argument now. 3. Lets get to the crux of the matter right away. Do athesists and agnostics make up the majority or minority of scientists according to the Pew Research Center survey of 2009? 4. Since atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists then you would have to admit, using your own logic and reasoning, that atheists and agnostics are less interested in science and they probably slow down scientific progress. On 11/08/2016 at 11:22 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: that shows most Christians are not interested in scientific progress. Christianity probably slows down scientific progress. sadly! Sadly, the statistics you have shared do not support this arguement. Let the game of shifting goal posts, changing definitions, strawman, red herrings, special pleadings and intellectual dishonesty commence.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: 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. but such a massive local flood that killed everyone contradicts science and the laws of physics, and there is no evidence of such a massive flood. Please tell me how did Noah's ark float in a regional flood? How did the water get high enough? How did it cover the mountains? New Orleans area was "six feet below sea level–and it is completely surrounded by water", but the hurricane didn't kill everyone. http://www.history.com/topics/hurricane-katrina that is why many Christians believe Noah's flood was just a metaphor. Edited August 12, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: more evidence that most Theists (the very religious) are not very interested in Science and Math. So where exactly is the evidence that the very religious are not very interested in science and math? In order for the statistics to say what you want them to say you have to equate service attendance with being "very religous" and this is simply not the case. One can be very religious and not attend a service once or more per week. Once again the statistics you are using do not support your arguement.
thesometimesaint Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 No it does not. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_China_floods
danielwoods Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: There is strong evidence supporting the age of the fossils. I know you dismiss such evidence, but it's there. There is strong extrapolation, there isn't actual evidence of millions of years, because we wouldn't know what that looked like. There is data which I interpret differently than those believers in long ages. We can all study your desk in real time. What we can't do is study millions of years in real time. That requires faith and extrapolation. So, I don't dismiss it, I simply don't believe it anymore. The old earth/universe model no longer holds any water for me in light of all the data. Quote Let me put it this way - there is as much historical evidence for Paul Bunyan as Noah. Noah might have been a real person, but the evidence for that just doesn't exist. The issue here is lack of evidence. We have no historical evidence to tie the Noah figure in the Bible to a real historical person. We don't have third or even forth hand eyewitness testimony. There is just nothing there, as far as I know. Is the Bible not historical evidence? Did the fact that Jesus believed he was a real person mean anything? Or Peter? Or all the Jewish people who include Noah in all of their genealogies? You calling it "nothing" Is telling. Quote There are many convergences between a variety of ancient myths. Just ask Joseph Campbell. Myths speak to our unconscious fears and desires. There's something in most of them that resonate deeply in the human psyche. That does not mean that these myths are historically accurate, however. It's story telling. All good stories are largely the same story, underneath the surface level. I'm not saying they are all true. I agree with you that the fact that there are 200 flood stories is evidence that something happened, most probably something like a flood of some sort.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kemara said: Do athesists and agnostics make up the majority or minority of scientists according to the Pew Research Center survey of 2009? Dude! I am not talking about atheists and agnostics, don't move the goal post. I am saying most Theists are not very interested in scientific progress. Atheists and agnostics are great for scientific progress, only 7.0% of Americans are atheist/agnostics, but their % is much bigger in the scientific community. But again, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics. 3 hours ago, Kemara said: 4. Since atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists then you would have to admit, using your own logic and reasoning, that atheists and agnostics are less interested in science and they probably slow down scientific progress. Again, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics, I am talking about religious Theists. 3 hours ago, Kemara said: Let the game of shifting goal posts, changing definitions, strawman, red herrings, special pleadings and intellectual dishonesty commence. Isn't it sad that only 7% of NAS scientists believe in a personal God? The numbers are switched in the General Population. Quote Since atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists then you would have to admit, using your own logic and reasoning, that atheists and agnostics are less interested in science and they probably slow down scientific progress. only 7.0% of the General Population is atheist/agnostic, they don't slow down scientific progress at all. but again, don't change the subject, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics. Edited August 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Dude! I am not talking about atheists and agnostics, don't move the goal post. I am saying most Theists are not very interested in scientific progress. Atheists and agnostics are great for scientific progress, only 7.0% of Americans are atheist/agnostics, but their % is much bigger in the scientific community. But again, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics. Again, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics, I am talking about religious Theists. Isn't it sad that only 7% of NAS scientists believe in a personal God? The numbers are switched in the General Population. only 7.0% of the General Population is atheist/agnostic, they don't slow down scientific progress at all. but again, don't change the subject, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics. My posts go directly to the the statistics you have presented and your illogical and disingenous interpretation of those statistics, so Dude! just address what I wrote and stop avoiding the issues: In case you missed it: 1. You have a habit of quoting works that you have not actually read. You have openly admitted, without any reservation or qualification, that you do not always read the works that you cite in support of your arguments. Is this one of those cases? 2. In the previous discussion, when you were owned so thoroughly that you were finally forced to admit your argument was wrong, you did not provide this citation but you did quote the author (Ecklund) making the exact same arguement, so I fail to see how you being owned would change now simply because you provide a citation. Ecklund's argument didnt win the day previously and it wont win the argument now. 3. Lets get to the crux of the matter right away. Do athesists and agnostics make up the majority or minority of scientists according to the Pew Research Center survey of 2009? 4. Since atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists then you would have to admit, using your own logic and reasoning, that atheists and agnostics are less interested in science and they probably slow down scientific progress. 5. So where exactly is the evidence that the very religious are not very interested in science and math? In order for the statistics to say what you want them to say you have to equate service attendance with being "very religous" and this is simply not the case. One can be very religious and not attend a service once or more per week. Once again the statistics you are using do not support your arguement.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: 1. You have a habit of quoting works that you have not actually read. You have openly admitted, without any reservation or qualification, that you do not always read the works that you cite in support of your arguments. Is this one of those cases? that is none of your business, that is why you check the sources I cite. NOW STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS! Don't change the subject! 1 hour ago, Kemara said: 3. Lets get to the crux of the matter right away. Do athesists and agnostics make up the majority or minority of scientists according to the Pew Research Center survey of 2009? Yes! most NAS scientists are atheists/agnostic about a personal God. Stop changing the subject! I am talking about the fact that most religious Theists are not very interested in scientific progress because of the clear fact that most of them never become scientists. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: 4. Since atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists then you would have to admit, using your own logic and reasoning, that atheists and agnostics are less interested in science and they probably slow down scientific progress. I already answered that question! "Atheists and agnostics are great for scientific progress, only 7.0% of Americans are atheist/agnostics, but their % is much bigger in the scientific community. But again, I am not talking about atheists and agnostics." Not in this conversation! My goodness! Stop that hot air, it is clear you have nothing else. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: 5. So where exactly is the evidence that the very religious are not very interested in science and math? I never said the very religious, I said "most religious Theists" All the evidence is in front of you! Just admit it! You lost! Edited August 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
The Nehor Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 Just now, TheSkepticChristian said: that is none of your business, that is why you check the sources I cite. Which makes you a bad academic and a bad scientist. "I can say whatever I want about things I have not read and do not understand and it is your responsibility to correct me if I get it wrong." Have you considered volunteering for the Trump campaign?
SteveO Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: "I can say whatever I want about things I have not read and do not understand and it is your responsibility to correct me if I get it wrong." Which would be fine except in other threads he never admits when he is shown to be dead wrong. He just digs his heels in... 🤔 ...he should volunteer for the Trump campaign
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, SteveO said: Which would be fine except in other threads he never admits when he is shown to be dead wrong. He just digs his heels in... Tell me how I am wrong? I always admit when I am wrong, that is why I change my mind very often. Stop the personal attacks!! 37 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Which makes you a bad academic and a bad scientist. beautiful ad hominem! Now let's get back to the issue. The data shows that most religious Theists are not very interested in scientific progress because most of them never become scientists. Imagine a world were everyone was a religious Theist, it would have very few scientists. Seriously! 90% of the American population believes in God, but only 7% of NAS scientists believe in a personal God. Imagine if it was 100% of the American population. Edited August 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: that is none of your business, that is why you check the sources I cite. I will take this response as an admission that you have not read the source. As such you could not possibly have checked the source for bias or validity. This ongoing practice of yours is very poor form and is just one of many examples of your academic sloppiness, intellectual shortcoming and unreliability when in comes to genuine discourse that is based on logic and reason. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Yes! most NAS scientists are atheists/agnostic about a personal God. Thank you for admitting this undeniable fact so quickly. Last time it took pages and pages of the most insufferable logical fallacies and anti-inellectualism before you stopped denying the facts. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am talking about the fact that most religious Theists are not very interested in scientific progress because of the clear fact that most of them never become scientists. The fact that most religious theists do not become scientists is no indication of their interest in scientific progress. Are you interested in the Olympic games? Most people are but very few become Olympic athletes. The data you use to support the claim of "interest" in no way, shape or form tells us anything about interest in sceintific progress. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: My goodness! Stop that hot air, it is clear you have nothing else. Hot air? Really? Was it me who provided a citation from a source that I have not read? Was it me who used statistics in a way that would embarass any rational thinking intellectually honest person? 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I never said the very religious, I said "most religious Theists" Good grief Skeptic, you are a complete and utter joke. This is what you said just a few short posts previously: On 12/08/2016 at 3:17 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: more evidence that most Theists (the very religious) are not very interested in Science and Math. Please read the words that you wrote. Did you or did you not refer to "the very religious"? Yes or no? 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: All the evidence is in front of you! None of the data you have cited provides any evidence for the claims you have made. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Just admit it! You lost! I have lost many things, but I have never lost a discussion with you.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Kemara said: I will take this response as an admission that you have not read the source. As such you could not possibly have checked the source for bias or validity. This ongoing practice of yours is very poor form and is just one of many examples of your academic sloppiness, intellectual shortcoming and unreliability when in comes to genuine discourse that is based on logic and reason. STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT! My word means nothing in a message board, that is why you must check the sources I cite! 18 minutes ago, Kemara said: Thank you for admitting this undeniable fact so quickly. Last time it took pages and pages of the most insufferable logical fallacies and anti-inellectualism before you stopped denying the facts. What? I said, "Yes! most NAS scientists are atheists/agnostic about a personal God." LOL but again, I was not talking about Atheists and Agnostics. I am talking about Theists. 18 minutes ago, Kemara said: The fact that most religious theists do not become scientists is no indication of their interest in scientific progress. Are you interested in the Olympic games? That is not what I am saying. Of course most people think science is interesting, but I am talking about VERY interested. Only 6% of Americans know basic science according to Pew. "Just 6% of respondents got a perfect score." http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/ It is clear that most Theists don't have a lot of passion for science because of that fact that most don't become scientists. Just change "very" to "passion" 18 minutes ago, Kemara said: Good grief Skeptic, you are a complete and utter joke. This is what you said just a few short posts previously: It's the same thing! I am done with you! You are wasting my time, I am busy! Let's have a conversation when you stop the personal attacks/ Edited August 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
SteveO Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Tell me how I am wrong? I always admit when I am wrong, that is why I change my mind very often. Stop the personal attacks!! This stopped being a discussion and has turned into you having to be right.
The Nehor Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: The data shows that most religious Theists are not very interested in scientific progress because most of them never become scientists. Again this idea if you do not do it professionally you just do not care. By this logic everyone who does not become an economist is indifferent to the economy and you personally do not care about child abuse because you are not a social worker. Your monstrous apathy towards suffering children disgusts me. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Imagine a world were everyone was a religious Theist, it would have very few scientists. We had this world a few centuries back. We did not lack scientists. I think your premises and conclusions are flawed. 1
Kemara Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: My word means nothing in a message board, that is why you must check the sources I cite! This is very true, your word means nothing, you have proven this over and over again. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: What? I said, "Yes! most NAS scientists are atheists/agnostic about a personal God." LOL Yes and I thanked you for admitting this so quickly because last time we discussed this subject it was harder than getting blood from a stone...so again, thank you. 19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am talking about Theists. First it was theists, then it was a sub-set of theists that you called "the very religious" which subset was based on frequency of attendance at a religious service, now its back to theists again. Goal posts on wheels! 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: That is not what I am saying. Of course most people think science is interesting, but I am talking about VERY interested. First it was interested, now it is VERY interested. Goal posts on wheels yet again! In any case it doesnt matter if it is interested, very interested or really truly fabulously interested, my argument still holds, the statistics you use do not show interest in scientific progression. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: "Just 6% of respondents got a perfect score." http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/ First it was interest in scientific progression and now it is interest in science that is demonstrated by one's knowledge of sciene concepts. Goal posts on wheels again! 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is clear that most Theists don't have a lot of passion for science because of that fact that most don't become scientists. Sorry but this is not clear at all. The correlation between interest/passion and becoming a scientist that you are trying to peddle is ridiculous and juvenile. Furthermore the statistics you have used to peddle this position show not such thing. Lots of people are interested, very interested, really truly fabulously interested and passionate about the Olympic games but are not Olympic athletes. You yourself have demonstrated an interest/passion for science yet you are not a scientist, your interest/passion negates your position. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It's the same thing! I am done with you! Clearly it is not the same thing. You specifically said "the very religous" yet you claimed, specifically, that you did not say that. You are a joke and you should be ashamed and embarassed. Finally, thank you very much for proving that I can predict the future. On 12/08/2016 at 3:30 PM, Kemara said: Let the game of shifting goal posts, changing definitions, strawman, red herrings, special pleadings and intellectual dishonesty commence.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: First it was interested, now it is VERY interested. Goal posts on wheels yet again! I said "very interested" many times! LOL I told that to bcuzbcuz! You even told me "So where exactly is the evidence that the very religious are not very interested in science and math?" LOL You are the one changing goal posts, you are trying so hard to paint me as a flip-flopper. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Lots of people are interested, very interested, really truly fabulously interested and passionate about the Olympic games but are not Olympic athletes. No, they are very interested in watching the Olympics (TV Entertainment), but not very interested practicing the Olympic sports. Watching TV is not a sport, and there is no health benefit. If you are very interested (or passion) in Math and Science, you will practice them. I bet they would at least get a perfect score on a test about basic Olympics, remember that only 6% of Americans know basic Science, just like the 7% of NAS scientists that believe in a personal God. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Clearly it is not the same thing. You specifically said "the very religous" yet you claimed but in other posts I said "religious Theists" or simply Theists! Same thing! You know exactly what I mean! but you are just playing games and wasting my time. I seriously need to ignore you. I am sick of your word games. Edited August 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am sick of your word games. I am only repeating your words, are you sick of yourself? No one would blame you if you were.
thesometimesaint Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, danielwoods said: There is strong extrapolation, there isn't actual evidence of millions of years, because we wouldn't know what that looked like. There is data which I interpret differently than those believers in long ages. We can all study your desk in real time. What we can't do is study millions of years in real time. That requires faith and extrapolation. So, I don't dismiss it, I simply don't believe it anymore. The old earth/universe model no longer holds any water for me in light of all the data. Is the Bible not historical evidence? Did the fact that Jesus believed he was a real person mean anything? Or Peter? Or all the Jewish people who include Noah in all of their genealogies? You calling it "nothing" Is telling. I'm not saying they are all true. I agree with you that the fact that there are 200 flood stories is evidence that something happened, most probably something like a flood of some sort. Were you there when your mother was born? No it isn't. It is a logical argument that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua bar Yosef live some 2000 years ago in the Palestine region of Rome. Whether he was Yeshua bar El is a matter of religion. For any historical claim historian must establish province(Who first said it). With the Bible there is none. Name me some area of the civilization that hasn't experienced a flood in the last 4000 years or so? Edited August 13, 2016 by thesometimesaint
bcuzbcuz Posted August 13, 2016 Author Posted August 13, 2016 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Were you there when your mother was born? No it isn't. It is a logical argument that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua bar Yosef live some 2000 years ago in the Palestine region of Rome. Whether he was Yeshua bar El is a matter of religion. For any historical claim historian must establish province(Who first said it). With the Bible there is none. Name me some area of the civilization that hasn't experienced a flood in the last 4000 years or so? The word "flood" used in many culture' tales is not as common a factor as some would try to make. A river overflowing its banks is not the same thing as the flood of Gilgamesh or Noah. The EGyptian culture has the world starting from a small mound of dirt in an ocean of water but for them, the yearly flooding of the Nile was the basis of their wealth. As you state, the Bible's flood story did not originate with them but was picked up from their time in Babylonia.
Recommended Posts