Is Science defined as Truth-seeking?

[OldWiseGuy]

No, that was a very biased reading of yours. It shows that you could not approach that article with an open mind. They used obvious examples to make their point but then went out of their way to say that it applies to everyone at times.

And I did not ask about co-workers, but it appears that you may not deal with the public at all in your job so perhaps you will not be able to relate.

I don't consider those I interact with "the public".

 

[Kylie]

Sea beds rose (upwelled) flooding the land.

So how did the seabeds lift up? Were they levitating? If so, how? Or did something push them up - if so, what?

It was a restored olive tree. God has used the ruin/restoration cycle many times before, as is seen in the geologic record.

So all the olive trees were killed, and God restored one of them to life?

Then why bother with the ark at all? Why not just kill everything and use the same trick to get the people and animals he wanted back?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So how did the seabeds lift up? Were they levitating? If so, how? Or did something push them up - if so, what?



So all the olive trees were killed, and God restored one of them to life?

Then why bother with the ark at all? Why not just kill everything and use the same trick to get the people and animals he wanted back?

God will answer all questions in due time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm sure some of those answers will bring a chuckle. God is not without a sense of humor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure some of those answers will bring a chuckle. God is not without a sense of humor.

I don't think so. If God exists he very well may be angry with you. You have been in effect claiming that God is dishonest by hiding his evil work. Best to treat the flood as a morality tale at best, and not a very good one.

 

[Kylie]

God will answer all questions in due time.

Ah yes. The typical creationist answer which often gets brought out when people ask hard questions that your beliefs have no sane answer to. Right up there with "God works in mysterious ways."

In any case, your claim that God will answer all questions is completely unconvincing. You have failed to support your argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah yes. The typical creationist answer which often gets brought out when people ask hard questions that your beliefs have no sane answer to. Right up there with "God works in mysterious ways."

In any case, your claim that God will answer all questions is completely unconvincing. You have failed to support your argument.

I'm just trying to convince you that these are my beliefs. I'm going bowling this afternoon. I'm not trying to convince you to go with me, I'm just informing you that I'm going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just trying to convince you that these are my beliefs. I'm going bowling this afternoon. I'm not trying to convince you to go with me, I'm just informing you that I'm going.

Having personal beliefs is fine. But if one states errant beliefs on a public forum they will be corrected.

 

[Kylie]

I'm just trying to convince you that these are my beliefs. I'm going bowling this afternoon. I'm not trying to convince you to go with me, I'm just informing you that I'm going.

Yet you've still failed to support your argument. I've shown that it leads you to a point where there's no rational explanation you can provide, and so you bring out a non-answer. Regardless of whether you are trying to convince me or not, your position is not supported, and I don't see why anyone would want to hold a position that isn't supported.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yet you've still failed to support your argument. I've shown that it leads you to a point where there's no rational explanation you can provide, and so you bring out a non-answer. Regardless of whether you are trying to convince me or not, your position is not supported, and I don't see why anyone would want to hold a position that isn't supported.

My beliefs are supported by faith and evidence, however subjective.

I could assert that I feel better when I exercise, but some scientist would counter by asserting that one doesn't need exercise in order to feel better.

Also, I'm a hunter. I've unzipped many critters and always see common design, not the descendants of a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My beliefs are supported by faith and evidence, however subjective.

I could assert that I feel better when I exercise, but some scientist would counter by asserting that one doesn't need exercise in order to feel better.

Also, I'm a hunter. I've unzipped many critters and always see common design, not the descendants of a common ancestor.

I have not seen any evidence and faith is the opposite of evidence.

And your arguments still need some work. You do not seem to understand the difference between subjective and objective.

Also you cannot claim to see "common design" until those terms are properly defined, and have a testable hypothesis. Which means that it needs to be falsifiable. What you do see is evidence for a common ancestor since those are well defined terms and the concept is falsifiable. Evidence is another concept that most creationists do not understand.

 

[USincognito]

Labelling people makes it easier to de humanize them.

Every flat earther, creationist, anti-vaxxer and climate change denier I've encountered has been 100% human.

 

[Kylie]

My beliefs are supported by faith and evidence, however subjective.

Faith isn't support.

There are plenty of people out there who have faith that contradicts yours, and they are just as convinced that their faith supports their beliefs as you are.

And if you have proper evidence, please present it. Let's see if it actually stands up to investigation.

I could assert that I feel better when I exercise, but some scientist would counter by asserting that one doesn't need exercise in order to feel better.

Well, for a start, you need to give something more specific than "feeling better", since that could mean anything.

Also, I'm a hunter. I've unzipped many critters and always see common design, not the descendants of a common ancestor.

And how have you eliminated the "common ancestor" explanation and verified that "common designer" is the only possible option left?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are plenty of people out there who have faith that contradicts yours, and they are just as convinced that their faith supports their beliefs as you are.

I'll allow that others have different beliefs than mine.

And how have you eliminated the "common ancestor" explanation and verified that "common designer" is the only possible option left?

By looking at the only evidence available.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll allow that others have different beliefs than mine.



By looking at the only evidence available.

At best you are only misinterpreting the evidence. Understanding the nature of evidence makes that more difficult. To date there is not any scientific evidence for ID or creationism. Would you like to learn why?

 

[Kylie]

I'll allow that others have different beliefs than mine.

And do you also agree that they have just as much justification for their beliefs as you do for your beliefs?

By looking at the only evidence available.

Oh, you ran a genetic analysis, did you? Both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA?

I don't think you actually looked at the evidence, I think you looked at just what you needed to in order to justify what your faith required you to believe and then stopped there.