The order of fossils in the geological column

[PsychoSarah]

All I did was ask a question.

Has Christianity changed the meaning of the word "exist"? or does it still mean exist? if not their God does not "exist".

Whether or not their ideal of god exists is inconclusive, we can't honestly make any claim as to whether or not it exists.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Whether or not their ideal of god exists is inconclusive, we can't honestly make any claim as to whether or not it exists.

Especially if you don't know the meaning of the word "Exist".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Especially if you don't know the meaning of the word "Exist".

Do you? Things don't magically not exist until they are proven, if something exists it exists regardless as to how much proof has currently been collected.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why could it happen one day and not now? will there be any more evidence one day? science can read the signs of ancient floods today so what will change in the future? why do you keep going on about this? it's a dead end.

May I suggest that you get out more and read material other than religious pamphlets, although I can easily understand why you don't.

I have read many scientific articles describing significant changes in many of the conclusions of science. I have never read of a significant change in the biblical record of past events, only new discoveries that support those accounts. Science purports to always being about the business of falsifying it's own conclusions; they are just not in any big hurry to do so.

If I were a betting person I would bet that the science that attempts to debunk the bible will change in the face of new discoveries (that were there all the time) sometime in the future. Of this I have great faith.

 

[bhsmte]

I have read many scientific articles describing significant changes in many of the conclusions of science. I have never read of a significant change in the biblical record of past events, only new discoveries that support those accounts. Science purports to always being about the business of falsifying it's own conclusions; they are just not in any big hurry to do so.

If I were a betting person I would bet that the science that attempts to debunk the bible will change in the face of new discoveries (that were there all the time) sometime in the future. Of this I have great faith.

Not unlike some Christians, you have this notion that science is in the business of debunking the bible, which couldn't be more wrong. Science could care less about the bible or any other holy book when it goes about it's business and it follows the evidence. And, one of the strengths of science, is it does allow for change, when new evidence is uncovered.

You wouldn't want your doctor to ignore new scientific evidence of how to treat you properly if you were in need of care, would you?

 

[Dusty Bin]

I have never read of a significant change in the biblical record of past events, only new discoveries that support those accounts.

Could you point to one of those new discoveries that have supported those biblical accounts?
I would be very interested to read one, thanks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you believe something without sufficient reason to believe it you are being irrational be it subjective or objective.

Rationalists believe things without evidence too (note the bolded part).

Rationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the philosophical method, position, theory, or view. For other uses, see Rationalism (disambiguation).

"In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"[1] or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".

 

[Dusty Bin]

I have read many scientific articles describing significant changes in If I were a betting person I would bet that the science that attempts to debunk the bible will change in the face of new discoveries

Science doesn't debunk the bible people debunk the bible, they may use science to do it, science is only a set of tools.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Rationalists believe things without evidence too.

Please point to one thing, just one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science doesn't debunk the bible people debunk the bible, they may use science to do it, science is only a set of tools.

Science is like a gun, it requires a person to shoot it at another person to kill them.

 

[bhsmte]

Science doesn't debunk the bible people debunk the bible, they may use science to do it, science is only a set of tools.

false claims eventually debunk themselves in due time.

All it requires is; a healthy dose of objective evidence and an objective observer to acknowledge the evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please point to one thing, just one.

Sure, SETI.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Science is like a gun, it requires a person to shoot it at another person to kill them.

Exactly, it's there to do a job.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

false claims eventually debunk themselves in due time.

All it requires is; a healthy dose of objective evidence and an objective observer to acknowledge the evidence.

That's empiricism; the subject is rationalism.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly, it's there to do a job.

You've made my point.

 

[bhsmte]

You've made my point.

And what point would that be?

When you take advantage (every day of your life) of what modern science has provided you, do you look at as someone pointing a gun and killing someone?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Could you point to one of those new discoveries that have supported those biblical accounts?
I would be very interested to read one, thanks.

There are abundant archeological finds that validate the existence of biblical cities thought (by the secular scientific community) to not exist in the middle east. I could rummage around and find one for you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And what point would that be?

When you take advantage (every day of your life) of what modern science has provided you, do you look at as someone pointing a gun and killing someone?

Dusty Bin knows.

 

[bhsmte]

Dusty Bin knows.

When you take advantage (every day of your life) of what modern science has provided you, do you look at as someone pointing a gun and killing someone?

 

[Dusty Bin]

Sure, SETI.

It's perfectly rational to believe we are not the only life forms in existence when there are:
Billions and Billions and Billions of planets out there?

Pick any full stop (period) on this page then travel a million miles, in relative distance you will still not have left our galaxy,
the first radio signal that was sent around 1900 still hasn't reached the edge of our galaxy yet,
and that's travelling at 186,000 miles a second.

To believe there's a God who made everything and who is concerned about you has got to be the biggest ego trip there is.