Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 111 (574409)
08-15-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 5:31 PM


Re: on honesty.
if you cannot take God's word for creation, the flood etc., thenhow can you take His word for salvation and heaven?
That's your problem, isn't it, and the problem so many true believers face.
But the fact is that the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been disproved. True believers, such as yourself, can't admit that though, and go through all sorts of contortions to try and convince themselves that the scientific evidence that is so clear to everyone else in the world is wrong.
Some true believers just wish science would go away and stop disproving their beliefs. You seem to have a different approach; you look at science and deliberately misrepresent, obfuscate, and deny that which is inconvenient.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 5:31 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 111 (574412)
08-15-2010 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 5:31 PM


Re: on honesty.
archaeologist writes:
jar writes:
When you are so obviously wrong about facts that can be checked, things like Evolution or your assertion that there was some Biblical Flood, how can you expect children to believe anything you say about those things that cannot be easily checked, things like the god you market?
this is one thing you, people like you, evolutionists and atheists et al, just do not understand. God has made faith as one of the rules. not everything will be easily checked and one has to take God's word for it.
if you cannot take God's word for creation, the flood etc., thenhow can you take His word for salvation and heaven? neither of those can be easily checked nor proven scientifically. you just want the benefits from God nothing else. Jesus said 'pick up your cross and follow me', it won't be easy and notice He did not say 'and follow science...'
I cannot know that I am saved or even that there is an afterlife. I can believe that. I cannot look to anything as a reward, all I can do is try to live my life and try to live up to what I have been charged to do, to really take up my cross and live the life.
But I can check the data and evidence for a Biblical Flood or the accuracy of the different creation myths. When I do that I can with a very high degree of confidence state that there was never a Biblical Flood., that the creation myths are mutually exclusive.
Since the evidence is overwhelming that some things like the creation myths or the Biblical Flood Myths are not factual, I need to ask why they were included.
But we cannot stop being honest, we must continue to look at the real record that GOD wrote, the world we live in. We cannot and must not stop scientific inquiry even when it shows that the stories in the Bible are not factual or historic.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 5:31 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 111 (574850)
08-18-2010 5:06 AM


That's your problem, isn't it, and the problem so many true believers face.
no it is not. it is the problem of one who denies God in one area of the Bible then supports Him in another.
But the fact is that the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been disproved
actually it never has mostly the so-called disproval comes from an argument of silence and as i wrote earlier or in another thread and never got a real sincere response was: what kind of evidence are you looking for and where would you expect to find it?
even the cries of 'Noah's Ark has been found...' has been met with large skepticism tus even if we foun dit, athiests and secularists would not accept it and demand even more evidence. it is a no win situation for the believer, thus we just sit back and tell you to do what God said to do--you have to use faith .
Some true believers just wish science would go away and stop disproving their beliefs.
tht is just totally wrong. there has never been a discovery scientifically or archaeologically that has disproven the Bible. such cries have all been manipulations, assumptions, speculations and conjecture concerning the so-called evidence discovered and has nothing to do with the discovery at all.
But I can check the data and evidence for a Biblical Flood or the accuracy of the different creation myths. When I do that I can with a very high degree of confidence state that there was never a Biblical Flood., that the creation myths are mutually exclusive.
youall keep saying this generalizations yet you all have yet to produce one link to such data or discvovery or disproval. itis like you are trying to vconvince yourselves that there was no global flood when there was.
i will cite ryan & pitman's work; the discoveries off India; even Hancock's push for the monument off Japan as evidence that all the flood waters did not disdappear and that the geography change dafter Nah's flood. we have evidence for it, but you have to decide to accept it.
But we cannot stop being honest, we must continue to look at the real record that GOD wrote, the world we live in. We cannot and must not stop scientific inquiry even when it shows that the stories in the Bible are not factual or historic.
but you are not honest for this so-called scientific inquiry deals with limited evidence, and pre-determines what they will accept or what the evidence should look like. niether you or this 'scientific inquiry are honest let alone objective.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 08-18-2010 8:34 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-18-2010 9:47 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 79 of 111 (574870)
08-18-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 5:06 AM


archaeologist writes:
even the cries of 'Noah's Ark has been found...' has been met with large skepticism
It has been found dozens of times in my memory.
When there is a history of bogus claims of finding Noah's Ark, then a lot of skepticism is called for.
archaeologist writes:
tus even if we foun dit, athiests and secularists would not accept it and demand even more evidence.
This is nonsense.
If you find the remains of an old boat, then you have found the remains of an old boat. That, by itself, is not evidence that it was Noah's Ark. Not just atheists and secularists, but honest Christians too should expect a lot more evidence before deciding what it is.
archaeologist writes:
there has never been a discovery scientifically or archaeologically that has disproven the Bible.
Correct. And it would never disprove the Bible. That's because they the theologians would just change what they claim the Bible says.
If you go by what is actually written in the Bible, rather than what theologians say is there, then Genesis 1 is already contradicted by physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 5:06 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 80 of 111 (574892)
08-18-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 5:06 AM


Yet more untruths from you.
archaelogist writes:
actually it never has mostly the so-called disproval comes from an argument of silence and as i wrote earlier or in another thread and never got a real sincere response was: what kind of evidence are you looking for and where would you expect to find it?
I told you what evidence would be needed and even where to find it, yet you continue to claim that no one answered you.
If either of the Biblical Flood stores were true then we MUST see the genetic evidence of a bottleneck event happening at the same very recent time in EVERY living human, land animal and bird.
While finding such evidence would not prove there was a flood (the event could have been any catastrophe), not finding that signature does prove that no such event happened.
tet more untruths.
archaeologist writes:
tht is just totally wrong. there has never been a discovery scientifically or archaeologically that has disproven the Bible. such cries have all been manipulations, assumptions, speculations and conjecture concerning the so-called evidence discovered and has nothing to do with the discovery at all.
See above. That the Biblical Flood ever happened has been refuted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 5:06 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 111 (575213)
08-19-2010 4:23 AM


But the fact is that the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been disproved
That the Biblical Flood ever happened has been refuted.
.
again provide the specific discovery that shows that Noah's flood did not happen. saying there must be this, or there must be that is NOT evidence nor a discovery but wishful thinking. you cannot prove a bottleneck for civilization started with 8 people and there is NO evidence prior to that time that would produce the graph you want.
the scant amount of old bodies/skeletons we do find will not be sufficient for such a study. thus your call for genetical bottlenecks is unrealistic.
it is easy to deny and make such blanket and empty statements.
Now i am thinking of the pakistani flood that has taken place recently. this is a good example of why Noah's flood was global and did take place. NO ONE puts a destructive local flood into their identity, religious works, or makes it a life changing event. Katrina is another example, the flooding there did not do anything to change america's identity, nor did they incorporate it as a major historical event that changed their civilization or made them put it into their religious writings.
it may get noted by some historian but not all, and some may footnote it but local floods come and go and they are not news once it is over and the cleanup begins. nor do they interupt their presedential lists to include it, like the sumerians did.
Noah's flood is real and those who claim otherwise are just deceiving themselves.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 5:04 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 84 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-19-2010 6:38 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 90 by jar, posted 08-19-2010 8:57 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 10:18 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 08-19-2010 11:02 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 94 by bluescat48, posted 08-19-2010 6:07 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 111 (575220)
08-19-2010 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 4:23 AM


saying there must be this, or there must be that is NOT evidence nor a discovery but wishful thinking.
Just as saying that if someone had fed my body through a woodchipper I wouldn't still be alive is "NOT evidence nor a discovery but wishful thinking".
Y'know, archaeologist, when you have to abolish the scientific method in order to cling to your delusions, that's a sign that you're wrong.
you cannot prove a bottleneck for civilization started with 8 people and there is NO evidence prior to that time that would produce the graph you want.
I bet if that was coherent it would be untrue.
the scant amount of old bodies/skeletons we do find will not be sufficient for such a study. thus your call for genetical bottlenecks is unrealistic.
Perhaps you should try to find out how genetic bottlenecks are actually identified. Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with "old bodies/skeletons" and a lot more to do with equilibrium heterozygosity.
Now i am thinking of the pakistani flood that has taken place recently. this is a good example of why Noah's flood was global and did take place. NO ONE puts a destructive local flood into their identity, religious works, or makes it a life changing event.
Excuse me, have you ever looked at the immense amount of trivia that is included in your own holy book?
There's a whole book of the Bible about some guy suffering from painful boils. One's heart goes out to him, but surely there have been more significant historical events.
Noah's flood is real and those who claim otherwise are just deceiving themselves.
And yet in the course of your brief but entertaining stay on these forums it is you who have tended to be hopelessly, ridiculously wrong about pretty much everything.
By the way, are you ever going to produce that evidence that ancient Minoans had microscopes?
So I think the possibility that you are deceiving yourself is markedly more likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 4:23 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 111 (575224)
08-19-2010 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2010 5:04 AM


lot more to do with equilibrium heterozygosity.
here:
Lect 4. Heterozygosity
you still need genetic material to find it and based upon more asusmption. this area of genetics looks like it is designed to omit the truth as well. i doubt you could find evidence of 8 people who lived in an area that was later populated by thousands.
in other words your supposed bottleneck is lost amidst the crowd and you come to false conclusions based upon faulty research and data.
when you have to abolish the scientific method in order to cling to your delusions, that's a sign that you're wrong.
not abolishing the 'scientific method' just getting rid of the secular distortions and faulty rules and changing them to the correct ones: right and wrong, truth and error.
{by the way, how many millions of predictions for the evolutionary theory have been hidden away because they were wrong?}
G.H. Hardy (the English mathematician) and W. Weinberg (the German physician) independently worked out the mathematical basis of population genetics in 1908 (Hardy, 1908). Their formula predicts the expected genotype frequencies using the allele frequencies in a diploid Mendelian population. They were concerned with questions like "what happens to the frequencies of alleles in a population over time?" and "would you expect to see alleles disappear or become more frequent over time?"
Hardy and Weinberg showed in the following manner that if the population is very large and random mating is taking place, allele frequencies remain unchanged (or in equilibrium) over time unless some other factors intervene. If the frequencies of allele A and a (of a biallelic locus) are p and q, then (p + q) = 1. This means (p + q)2 = 1 too. It is also correct that (p + q)2 = p2 + 2pq +q2 = 1. In this formula, p2 corresponds to the frequency of homozygous genotype AA, q2 to aa, and 2pq to Aa. Since 'AA, Aa, aa' are the three possible genotypes for a biallelic locus, the sum of their frequencies should be 1. In summary, Hardy-Weinberg formula shows that:
the bolded words prove my point---assumptions. plus ideals and ignoring reality.
taken from:
Basic Population Genetics [M.Tevfik Dorak]
and i was right again:
The assumptions of HWE
1. Population size is effectively infinite,
2. Mating is random in the population (the most common deviation results from inbreeding),
3. Males and females have similar allele frequencies, and the locus is autosomal,
4. There are no mutations and migrations affecting the allele frequencies in the population,
5. The genotypes have equal fitness, i.e., there is no selection (in viability and fitness
very difficult to prove, when all the grandchildren of noah and then his sons only had each other to marry. then babel took place and a great migration happened throwing off all modern scientific ideas, theories, equations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 5:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 6:40 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 93 by jar, posted 08-19-2010 11:36 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 84 of 111 (575227)
08-19-2010 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 4:23 AM


Now i am thinking of the pakistani flood that has taken place recently. this is a good example of why Noah's flood was global and did take place. NO ONE puts a destructive local flood into their identity, religious works, or makes it a life changing event. Katrina is another example, the flooding there did not do anything to change america's identity, nor did they incorporate it as a major historical event that changed their civilization or made them put it into their religious writings.
If you don't think that the Pakistan flood is a life changing event for many people, particularly the thousands who have died or lost members of their family, and also for the millions who have been displaced and are now suffering from injury, hunger or disease, and that it will continue to affect their lives for many years to come, and that a great deal already has been and will continue to be written down to record the event and its consequences, there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend reality.
Furthermore, you obviously fail to understand that any people who suffered such catastrophes thousands of years ago would have had little or no idea of the size of the earth and their place in it. To them, the local area was "The Whole World", so any local catastrophe would have been considered "global" (not that many of them would have thought of the world as an actual globe) and most people outside the area of catastrophe would have had little or no idea that it had even occurred. If anyone later heard a story of a great "global" catastrophe, they would have no way of knowing where it actually happened, that it maybe happened in some other valley and not where they lived. That's obviously very different to today where everyone knows that the recent floods only affected certain areas of Pakistan.
Today we find evidence in rocks and soils of large local floods in the past. In some cases, such as the floods that occured in North America as the glaciers melted at the end of the ice age, they were huge floods, far greater than anything witnessed in recent history. But there is no evidence in the soils and rocks of anything like a single global flood. If there were ever a single global flood (leaving aside the question of where all that water would come from and then go to) there would be evidence in soils and rocks of the same age all around the world. There is just nothing like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 4:23 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:00 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 111 (575228)
08-19-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 5:47 AM


you still need genetic material to find it and based upon more asusmption. this area of genetics looks like it is designed to omit the truth as well. i doubt you could find evidence of 8 people who lived in an area that was later populated by thousands.
in other words your supposed bottleneck is lost amidst the crowd and you come to false conclusions based upon faulty research and data.
If you know what you meant by that crazy jumble of words, would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?
I think that you are still making stupid and inaccurate guesses as to how scientists detect a genetic bottleneck; but the incoherence of your thoughts is obscured by the incoherence of your mode of expression.
not abolishing the 'scientific method'
Yes. You are trying to discount failed predictions as evidence against a hypothesis.
{by the way, how many millions of predictions for the evolutionary theory have been hidden away because they were wrong?}
Like you, I can't think of a single one.
the bolded words prove my point---assumptions. plus ideals and ignoring reality.
Your point and its relevance are cryptic and obscure.
Perhaps I should explain to you that finding out what would happen if "if the population is very large and random mating is taking place" is not the same as assuming that this is always the case.
But if that was the sort of thing you were capable of understanding, you wouldn't post such a large quantity of garbage.
very difficult to prove, when all the grandchildren of noah and then his sons only had each other to marry. then babel took place and a great migration happened throwing off all modern scientific ideas, theories, equations.
You do not explain how if "all the grandchildren of noah and then his sons only had each other to marry" this would "throw off" all modern scientific ideas.
But if you know what crazy ideas are fulminating in your brain, perhaps you would explain it to the rest of us?
Back in the real world, the population bottleneck is exactly the sort of thing one could detect by genetic analysis --- if it had taken place.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:47 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 111 (575232)
08-19-2010 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-19-2010 6:38 AM


don't take the moralist viewpoint when you hate morality and miss the point of the example and take it to an aspect NOT dealt with in the post. all you are doing is trying to deflect the point so you can miss the truth and keep on claiming that there was no Noah's flood.
as for your last paragraph, you do not know when those items were put there and you cannot tell if they were from a local or Noah's flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-19-2010 6:38 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-19-2010 7:29 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 111 (575233)
08-19-2010 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2010 6:40 AM


yes go to the distortion and the false accusation personal attack when shown your theory is too limited to prove what you want.
the assumptions doom that process.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 7:35 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 88 of 111 (575238)
08-19-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 7:00 AM


as for your last paragraph, you do not know when those items were put there
Missoula floods - Wikipedia
Check out the above wikipedia reference for information on the Lake Missoula floods, which under the sub-heading The Current Understanding includes an explanation that paleomagnetism studies have been supported by deposits of volcanic ash from Mt Helena and by sedimentary deposits in the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Columbia River in determining the time of the floods.
There's also a whole load of references to further in-depth reading on the scientific studies of this, should you choose to do so. On the other hand, if you prefer scientific enquiry to end, you can ignore them completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:00 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 111 (575240)
08-19-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 7:01 AM


yes go to the distortion and the false accusation personal attack when shown your theory is too limited to prove what you want.
the assumptions doom that process.
Again, one supposes that that was intended to mean something. I gather that you believe that you have "shown" something other than ignorance and petulance.
But despite my requests you are apparently unable or unwilling to say what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:01 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 111 (575273)
08-19-2010 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 4:23 AM


archaeologist writes:
again provide the specific discovery that shows that Noah's flood did not happen. saying there must be this, or there must be that is NOT evidence nor a discovery but wishful thinking. you cannot prove a bottleneck for civilization started with 8 people and there is NO evidence prior to that time that would produce the graph you want.
Utter nonsense yet again.
Having a breeding population of only eight samples IS by definition a bottle neck and that was not even the worst case. The breeding population of the unclean kind was only four critters.
If the Bible story was true then those bottlenecks MUST exist and MUST show up in the genes of EVERY human, every flying critter and every land animal.
The marker is NOT there. The Biblical Flood never happened.
Those that claim there was a Biblical Flood are just fantasizing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 4:23 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024