Absurdities of so called science

[juvenissun]

And you don't? How can you possibly doubt how good science is at discovering the truth when it has led to such dramatic improvements to human life? Things like computers, modern medicine, cars, air conditioning? How can anybody doubt that science is good at what it does when its fruits are all around us?

I suspect that people who do doubt the power of science are merely ignorant of it.

This one takes us back to the theme of OP.

As I am enjoying the achievement of science, I don't think science is really doing any good to human being. We are no better off than people lived 1000 years ago from any point of view. If I were allowed to chose, I prefer the life 1000 years ago. I think science is leading us to destruction.

 

[juvenissun]

Juv, I think he was trying to say that such a flood SHOULD have left evidence, and there is none to suggest that it actually happened.

He's asking how such a flood could have occurred without leaving that evidence.

Which flood left any evidence? What evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

Um... I'll have to check some sources, but I'm pretty sure "god-eating" was never exclusive to christianity... nor was it original. I'm almost positive the Aztecs believed in it, and I'm fairly certain the Khonds in India practiced it, as well as the Mithraists in ancient Rome.

Anything other aspects of the christian god that you believe are unique?

Wait. Before I give you another one, I like to check out what you said. It is kind of interesting.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Hespera]

Prove it!? A man in the well preserved sacred records of a nation that had preserving the records as a priority, need not be doubted without reason! Have some respect.


Who cares if it was trees that came from some magical burp of pond slime, or some magical Raven? If you grow any science, that addresses that or other issues, get back to us. Otherwise you will have to agree science does not know. Gotcha!

I thought I said there was no need, unless it was those dreamland scenarios, that branch out from actual present geological realities, and are nothing but speculative belief based fables hiding under the dress of 'geollogy'?

The example given was the drift of the continents as measured presently. Focus, girl. Yoou're playing with the big boys now.

If you want to discuss issues with me, then fine. If you want to make it personal, well, Asian girls learn from day one how to slice someone to pieces with words. Not that I am going to bother, with you.

Also, don't bother with your metaphors ok? "....speculative belief based fables hiding under the dress of 'geollogy'?" Concentrate on spelling and punctuation. If you have something real to say it can be said in plain words.

There was no time of Noah. If you wish to give an actual date for something, fine. You want to start with the premise that that biblical account is accurate. No dice.

Asking me to prove something doesn't / didn't exist is senseless. You know that can't be done. I can't prove there is no alien base in your molars. All I can do is point out that there is no evidence. There is no evidence that there was a world wide flood. That tends to falsify the Noah story.

Now, you are claiming that science is full of nonsense. So, why dont you bring out an example of something in science that can be falsified with real data. So far all you have done is try to toss it back to me.

Ok! so what it is about science that you think you can prove is phony?

 

[Jester4kicks]

That's fair, Jester, but let me be equally honest.

Faith allows us to understand what those who don't exercise it cannot, viz.:

I've noticed in my almost three years here that those who chose not to walk by faith in Jesus Christ can only understand one thing: GOD DID IT. Even if they disagree, they [seem to] understand what we mean when we say that. I first started formulating that idea when someone repeatedly challenged me to fully-explain creatio ex nihilo --- right down to the mechanical level --- and even though I posted a Wikipedia article and explained that creatio ex nihilo is a bottom-line answer that is acceptable to others --- he (or she) still didn't get it. And I won't even go into Embedded Age, which, after almost three years of explaining, is still misunderstood.

Where the Bible came from, how It is preserved, who wrote what specific book --- forget it --- it is beyond their comprehension. Pure science (a.k.a. walking by sight) does that to a person.

According to the Bible, they are not able to comprehend what is/has been going on in the spiritual world.

Sounds like faith just allows you to insert explanations wherever you see fit in order to justify and rationalize that faith.

Here's the basic order of operations... I'm sure you'll correct me here:
-Evidence and experimentation shows dinosaur fossils that are over 230 million years old.
-Christian faith says the whole of existence is roughly 6,000 years old.
-People like you think "how can I make the facts fit my faith?"

It's that last part that really is the problem for me. As I said before, I could care less if you have your own beliefs. My problem comes from people who willfully try to change the facts to fit their own pre-determined conclusions.

Of course, my other problem is with people who put so much stock in their own faith... as if it is the only faith and it's the only correct faith... when the reality is that their belief in that faith is PURELY circumstantial to the culture they were born into. If you're American, there a very good chance you'll be born to a christian family. If you're anywhere in the middle east, you'll probably be born into a muslim family. If you're in India, you'll probably be born into a hindu family.

In any of these cases, you are equally likely to grow up believing your own faith is the only correct faith.

 

[juvenissun]

Juv, I would never ask you to change your beliefs in this manner. I was free to find my own answers, and I personally think others need to find their own way as well.

What I would ask is that you be honest with yourself, and us, and not try to say that faith is based on evidence or logic. If your faith was based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith... that's simply by definition. Have your faith, have your beliefs... you're entitled to them. Just don't say that any of it is backed up by evidence, because it's not... and don't saying belief without evidence is logical, because it's not.

I have to be honest to myself. Otherwise my faith won't hold.
That is why I put "" to the word evidence. You may read it as "so-called evidence". For example, if I can see the "possibility" of the global flood, then that is an "evidence" to me. I bet you do not have that, because you could not see any (zero) such possibility.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Which flood left any evidence? What evidence?

The data comes twofold:
1. Evidence of other floods, both recent and past, that show what a flood layer looks like.
2. Evidence of other things occurring instead of a flood.

Does that clear it up? If the story of noah is true, there should be evidence of a global flood. There is none. How could such a flood occur without leaving evidence of its occurence?

Wait. Before I give you another one, I like to check out what you said. It is kind of interesting.

Thanks for the info.

No prob. I'm always suprised by how many things people think are exclusive or original to christianity.

 

[Hespera]

Which flood left any evidence? What evidence?

i guess we are satisfied that you are no geologist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood

http://ldolphin.org/meddead.html

 

[juvenissun]

You know, both you and Av claim to be scientists, which is something i find very very hard to believe.

Do you mean where is the data that there WAS a flood? There is no data for that. None. zip. nada.

If you mean data that there WASNT a flood.. its like you say "If there were no data about a horse in my room, where would be the data".

That hardly makes sense, but, as long as you dont see any horse, dont see any horse apples or smell anything, nobody else seems to see a horse....well, then the whole issue is pretty much moot. no horse.

No flood.

So, flood or no flood, there is no sign. Then now would you know there were a flood or not?

Ha ha ... you are confused. Put it this way, should a flood leave any sign? Not being a geologist or a scientist, I think you can not answer this question.

 

[Hespera]

This one takes us back to the theme of OP.

As I am enjoying the achievement of science, I don't think science is really doing any good to human being. We are no better off than people lived 1000 years ago from any point of view. If I were allowed to chose, I prefer the life 1000 years ago. I think science is leading us to destruction.

You can choose right now! The life of a subsistence farmer in say Indonesia is very little different form a thousand years ago. Dig in the mud in 100 degree heat. Watch your kids dying from fever, and the others with their little bellies distended and crying for food. Wait it gets better.....

Blaming "science" for anything is kind of ridiculous. Its like blaming guns for violence. Its people. if we are heded for destruciton... an idea that Christians have been trumpeting for about 2000 years now... its people doing it, not angels, or 'science".

 

[AV1611VET]

If the story of noah is true, there should be evidence of a global flood. There is none. How could such a flood occur without leaving evidence of its occurence?

I know! --- I know! --- --- Can I answer this one? --- Please?

 

[Jester4kicks]

I have to be honest to myself. Otherwise my faith won't hold.
That is why I put "" to the word evidence. You may read it as "so-called evidence". For example, if I can see the "possibility" of the global flood, then that is an "evidence" to me. I bet you do not have that, because you could not see any (zero) such possibility.

Somewhat... at least I think we're getting closer to the same page here.

I always try to keep my mind open to possibility... but I also don't automatically accept that possibility without some kind of corroboration. Could there have been a global flood? I doubt it... but if evidence exists to support it, I would love to see it so that I could reconsider my position.

I understand that you're using a loose-definition of evidence here... but you just said that the possibility of something occuring is "evidence" of that thing occurring. See, that's where I get a little irritated. It's one thing to say "I think it's possible, and it's in the bible, so I choose to believe it". It's a whole other ballpark when you say "I think it's possible, and the fact that I think it is possible means that it happened".

It's circular reasoning and, applied across the board, it completely undermines all rational thought.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I know! --- I know! --- --- Can I answer this one? --- Please?

You already did.... or don't you remember saying "I don't think a global flood is scientifically possible"?

 

[AV1611VET]

You already did.... or don't you remember saying "I don't think a global flood is scientifically possible"?

Oh --- sorry ---

 

[Hespera]

So, flood or no flood, there is no sign. Then now would you know there were a flood or not?

Ha ha ... you are confused. Put it this way, should a flood leave any sign? Not being a geologist or a scientist, I think you can not answer this question.

ha ha? Too busy laughing to read the links about flooding I guess.
I do agree that you are not a geologist, and that is why you think I cannot answer the question.

If there had been a flood such as in the account of Noah, it would have left huge amounts of evidence. Usually, your creationists try to prove there is, claiming that say, the grand canyon was made of soft rock so it was easily carved out in a few days.

As fo the confusion... yes, a flood does leave a lot of sign. Not a matter of "should". It does. Still confused?

 

[juvenissun]

That's fair, Jester, but let me be equally honest.

Faith allows us to understand what those who don't exercise it cannot, viz.:I've noticed in my almost three years here that those who chose not to walk by faith in Jesus Christ can only understand one thing: GOD DID IT. Even if they disagree, they [seem to] understand what we mean when we say that. I first started formulating that idea when someone repeatedly challenged me to fully-explain creatio ex nihilo --- right down to the mechanical level --- and even though I posted a Wikipedia article and explained that creatio ex nihilo is a bottom-line answer that is acceptable to others --- he (or she) still didn't get it. And I won't even go into Embedded Age, which, after almost three years of explaining, is still misunderstood.

Where the Bible came from, how It is preserved, who wrote what specific book --- forget it --- it is beyond their comprehension. Pure science (a.k.a. walking by sight) does that to a person.

According to the Bible, they are not able to comprehend what is/has been going on in the spiritual world.

Hey, brother. I am really amazed on what Paul said that people can (should?) see God by seeing the creations. Obviously, that is the leap from science to faith, which many many people failed to do. Science is not monopolized by scientists. Farmers can see a lot of sciences. That is why many farmers believe and many scientists do not believe. The leap from science to faith has nothing to do with science at all. It is all about grace.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's the basic order of operations... I'm sure you'll correct me here:
-Evidence and experimentation shows dinosaur fossils that are over 230 million years old.
-Christian faith says the whole of existence is roughly 6,000 years old.
-People like you think "how can I make the facts fit my faith?"

The above three are all wrong.

 

[Chalnoth]

This one takes us back to the theme of OP.

As I am enjoying the achievement of science, I don't think science is really doing any good to human being. We are no better off than people lived 1000 years ago from any point of view. If I were allowed to chose, I prefer the life 1000 years ago. I think science is leading us to destruction.

A thousand years ago people lived much shorter lives, had to worry much more about disease, and largely lived in a feudal society with nobility and peasantry (who were little better than slaves...and some were slaves) and precious little inbetween.

I don't see how promoting ignorance is going to help us improve things further.

 

[juvenissun]

Somewhat... at least I think we're getting closer to the same page here.

I always try to keep my mind open to possibility... but I also don't automatically accept that possibility without some kind of corroboration. Could there have been a global flood? I doubt it... but if evidence exists to support it, I would love to see it so that I could reconsider my position.

I understand that you're using a loose-definition of evidence here... but you just said that the possibility of something occuring is "evidence" of that thing occurring. See, that's where I get a little irritated. It's one thing to say "I think it's possible, and it's in the bible, so I choose to believe it". It's a whole other ballpark when you say "I think it's possible, and the fact that I think it is possible means that it happened".

That is how a criminal detective work. To major questions raised by reading Genesis, that is what the nature of the reasoning is.

As far as the "evidences" of Global Flood I can see, it would be a long story and I don't think you have the patience to consider it. If you like, the "data" of flood I am talking to Hespera is a small piece of it. You may start from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, brother. I am really amazed on what Paul said that people can (should?) see God by seeing the creations. Obviously, that is the leap from science to faith, which many many people failed to do. Science is not monopolized by scientists. Farmers can see a lot of sciences. That is why many farmers believe and many scientists do not believe. The leap from science to faith has nothing to do with science at all. It is all about grace.

Yup --- this is what I tell people when they ask about those who have never heard about Jesus Christ, and wonder if they go to Hell when they die.

I believe God gives these people a special ability to discern enough about Him via nature that they are "without excuse" when they stand before Him.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: