Jump to content

The validity of science.


warri0r45

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said religion was wrong and science was right in my post, I said that non-religious people ARE right when they tell you you're stupid. The Bible isn't proof of jack squat, and neither is faith. God has NEVER had a SHRED of proof for himself. Evolution has, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you can just believe a book written by humans is the COMPLETE answer to the universe. :roll: Then it's only a matter of "WHICH" one is right. :lol:

 

 

 

Do you agree with what lordkrohn1626 says:

 

 

 

There is no physical evidence that there was a world wide flood, which would have killed ALL vegetation, thus there would have been no food for the alleged Ark full of animals. Fossil life does not reflect a mass killing of all animals worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mind is like a parachute, it is only good if it is open. To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said religion was wrong and science was right in my post, I said that non-religious people ARE right when they tell you you're stupid. The Bible isn't proof of jack squat, and neither is faith. God has NEVER had a SHRED of proof for himself. Evolution has, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you can just believe a book written by humans is the COMPLETE answer to the universe. :roll: Then it's only a matter of "WHICH" one is right. :lol:

 

 

 

Do you agree with what lordkrohn1626 says:

 

 

 

There is no physical evidence that there was a world wide flood, which would have killed ALL vegetation, thus there would have been no food for the alleged Ark full of animals. Fossil life does not reflect a mass killing of all animals worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mind is like a parachute, it is only good if it is open. To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest XplsvBam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

Dogmatic evolutionist...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

Dogmatic evolutionist...

 

 

 

I'm just wondering what the gain is from a degeneration into sensless name calling. Can we all evolve please? This isn't about what we believe, it's about how valid science is at uncovering truth and thus far there have been no alternative systems presented although some people seem to take offense to particular scientific theories. Why don't you take offense to others? Why not do some inquiries, find some evidence against evolution for yourself and send it to a scientific journal? That would be more productive, I'm sure and if your claims are in any way scientifically sound, I'll guarantee you they will listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

Dogmatic evolutionist...

 

 

 

Dogmatic? You're the dogmatic one. You're the one so hung up on your own dogma that you just totally disregard everyone else, and insult those people who oppose you.

sig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well being Christian I do believe in a god(or as we call him God, not taht hard to remember) but science still interests me alot and I believe alot in science. But sometimes if you try to be too logic and lean so much on it then you miss the simplest of explainations.

Kaisershami.png

Kaisershami.png

meorkunderscore-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well being Christian I do believe in a god(or as we call him God, not taht hard to remember) but science still interests me alot and I believe alot in science. But sometimes if you try to be too logic and lean so much on it then you miss the simplest of explainations.

 

 

 

Man, I wish you had changed that "but" to an "and". Is this how common men think in regards to science and God? They have to be the two most compatible things in existence -.- .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I believe in God and science", not "I believe in God, but science is coolish too."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for the second part of your post, "God did it" and "the magma flowed causing the volcano to erupt", in regards to theists, are the same thing. Everything that happens would have both a scientific and a theological explanation (again, not for atheists), not one or the other.

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have a very good grasp of evolution, maybe that is why I don't believe in it. Even if you don't think it is plausible, it is possible. You can't disregard all reason just because evolution appears to be perfect to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems like your the one that has lost their abductive reasoning. Reason is why evolution is a much more reasonable theory, then any alternative. Using God for your gaps seems like disregarding reason to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Cosmic Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ Evolutionist Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.

 

 

 

2. Stellar Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ How the stars, galaxies etc. formed

 

 

 

3. EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joke post? I can't even begin to respond to this. Mr 'I've done 4 semesters of physics' and you don't know how a star forms? Seriously, do you even read what you copy and paste?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionist pass off proof of microevolution as proof of all evolution. Which is complete BS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never read this?

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said religion was wrong and science was right in my post, I said that non-religious people ARE right when they tell you you're stupid. The Bible isn't proof of jack squat, and neither is faith. God has NEVER had a SHRED of proof for himself. Evolution has, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you can just believe a book written by humans is the COMPLETE answer to the universe. :roll: Then it's only a matter of "WHICH" one is right. :lol:

 

 

 

Do you agree with what lordkrohn1626 says:

 

 

 

There is no physical evidence that there was a world wide flood, which would have killed ALL vegetation, thus there would have been no food for the alleged Ark full of animals. Fossil life does not reflect a mass killing of all animals worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mind is like a parachute, it is only good if it is open. To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

 

 

 

Then why is the lack of fossils/evidence a problem when it comes to the Bible and Noah's Ark, and not a problem when you're talking about macroevolution?

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because with the flood, you can look and say "Okay, this obviously didn't happen...There's no evidence...", but with Macroevolution, you have to use inductive reasoning and assume that there is something in the ground which we have never found, or there is stuff that just didn't fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could argue that we just haven't found any evidence for the flood *yet*, but come on...We know what to look for, and we know where to look for it. It isn't there. Finding evidence of a global-mass-killing-flood is a lot easier than finding a single fossil in the Earth.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well being Christian I do believe in a god(or as we call him God, not taht hard to remember) but science still interests me alot and I believe alot in science. But sometimes if you try to be too logic and lean so much on it then you miss the simplest of explainations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats the simpilest explanation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let me guess.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God?

~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said religion was wrong and science was right in my post, I said that non-religious people ARE right when they tell you you're stupid. The Bible isn't proof of jack squat, and neither is faith. God has NEVER had a SHRED of proof for himself. Evolution has, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you can just believe a book written by humans is the COMPLETE answer to the universe. :roll: Then it's only a matter of "WHICH" one is right. :lol:

 

 

 

Do you agree with what lordkrohn1626 says:

 

 

 

There is no physical evidence that there was a world wide flood, which would have killed ALL vegetation, thus there would have been no food for the alleged Ark full of animals. Fossil life does not reflect a mass killing of all animals worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mind is like a parachute, it is only good if it is open. To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter.

 

 

 

Then why is the lack of fossils/evidence a problem when it comes to the Bible and Noah's Ark, and not a problem when you're talking about macroevolution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, to begin with, evolution has many more evidences and logicality besides the fossil record. Secondly, the fossil record for evolution is sufficient to suggest a common trend, where the fossil record for the flood is basically non existant. There may be a large number of fossils in one area, but that is far from a dense layer of fossils all in the same rock layer around the entire world i.e. there is no such thing. Thirdly, the fact that the fossil record for evolution has gaps is beside the point as all of the current fossil record coincides with evolutionary theory. Compare that to the fossil record for the flood and it's not even a contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well, to begin with, evolution has many more evidences and logicality besides the fossil record. Secondly, the fossil record for evolution is sufficient to suggest a common trend, where the fossil record for the flood is basically non existant. There may be a large number of fossils in one area, but that is far from a dense layer of fossils all in the same rock layer around the entire world i.e. there is no such thing. Thirdly, the fact that the fossil record for evolution has gaps is beside the point as all of the current fossil record coincides with evolutionary theory. Compare that to the fossil record for the flood and it's not even a contest.

 

 

 

To me there is a huge difference between macroevolution and microevolution. If you're just talking about evolution I can't be sure what you're actually saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because with the flood, you can look and say "Okay, this obviously didn't happen...There's no evidence...", but with Macroevolution, you have to use inductive reasoning and assume that there is something in the ground which we have never found, or there is stuff that just didn't fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could argue that we just haven't found any evidence for the flood *yet*, but come on...We know what to look for, and we know where to look for it. It isn't there. Finding evidence of a global-mass-killing-flood is a lot easier than finding a single fossil in the Earth.

 

 

 

What I'm addressing is that you are saying: "Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all". If fossil records hardly has any meaning at all, then the lack of them shouldn't be able to disprove Noah's Ark.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a combination of things that prevent the flood from ever being a possible event if we think logically and rationaly:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God flooding the earth.

 

 

 

God taking water away.

 

 

 

God making Noah survive.

 

 

 

God making the animals survive.

 

 

 

God making sure theres no fossil records of the flood.

 

 

 

God making the boat.

 

 

 

God allowing the boat to defy physics and hold that amount of animals and food needed.

 

 

 

God somehow helping Noah collect animals he could never have gotten.

 

 

 

God stopping animal nature, hence not letting them eat and kill each other.

 

 

 

God allowing for mass amounts of food to feed all the animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I'm sure a lot more of what God had to do.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, we're lucky to have half the fossils that we do, considering the delicate and specific conditions they require to form and stay accessible. The fossil record supports evolution, but isn't the only evidence behind it.

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a combination of things that prevent the flood from ever being a possible event if we think logically and rationaly:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God flooding the earth.

 

 

 

God taking water away.

 

 

 

God making Noah survive.

 

 

 

God making the animals survive.

 

 

 

God making sure theres no fossil records of the flood.

 

 

 

God making the boat.

 

 

 

God allowing the boat to defy physics and hold that amount of animals and food needed.

 

 

 

God somehow helping Noah collect animals he could never have gotten.

 

 

 

God stopping animal nature, hence not letting them eat and kill each other.

 

 

 

God allowing for mass amounts of food to feed all the animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I'm sure a lot more of what God had to do.

 

 

 

I think some of it falls under the same category as Jesus walking on water. That doesn't seem to be possible unless he is God and is able to defy physics. The Noah's Ark/flood is possible if there is a God. However, I would also like some archeological findings supporting the Ark. But as Tigra00 says:

 

 

 

Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a combination of things that prevent the flood from ever being a possible event if we think logically and rationaly:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God flooding the earth.

 

 

 

God taking water away.

 

 

 

God making Noah survive.

 

 

 

God making the animals survive.

 

 

 

God making sure theres no fossil records of the flood.

 

 

 

God making the boat.

 

 

 

God allowing the boat to defy physics and hold that amount of animals and food needed.

 

 

 

God somehow helping Noah collect animals he could never have gotten.

 

 

 

God stopping animal nature, hence not letting them eat and kill each other.

 

 

 

God allowing for mass amounts of food to feed all the animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I'm sure a lot more of what God had to do.

 

 

 

I think some of it falls under the same category as Jesus walking on water. That doesn't seem to be possible unless he is God and is able to defy physics. The Noah's Ark/flood is possible if there is a God. However, I would also like some archeological findings supporting the Ark. But as Tigra00 says:

 

 

 

Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please stop quoting me if you have no idea what I was saying and are trying to take it out of context to make me sound like an idiot. Because after that, I made it very clear that evidence of the flood would be SIMPLE to find, while a single fossil in the vastness of the Earth is VERY hard to find. I'm sure that some fossil's of some species will never even be found, or won't even exist today. There were, what, a million+ GENERATIONS for the Dinosaurs, depending how long they lived? How many TOTAL dinosaurs do you think ever existed? Billions...And I'm probably being modest. But alas, we've only found "thousands" of fossilized, full skeletons. Some dinosaurs we've discovered are only based upon ONE single bone. One of the most "famous" dinosaurs of all time is infact based on only one bone. We're not even sure what it looked like, we only have a best guess. Gigantopithicus is entirely based off only a jaw bone, aswell. I think there might be a leg bone for one, too...Not sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the flood happened, we'd see it. If evolution happened, we'd be where we are right now - very lucky to find what we have so far. But religious people aren't happy with that. They seem to think that every species is different because there are not 1,000 species between them showing obvious evolution. Well, sorry, but sometimes you just can't find the stuff. And apparently, it means nothing to you guys if two animals look EXTREMELY related, but quite different at the same time as long as there is no fossil's connecting them.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I made you look like an idiot. I don't think you are. Maybe I'm just tired of people trying to make us religious people look like idiots. I guess many think we're idiots. However, it doesn't belong in a discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just don't believe in macroevolution. It doesn't make sense to me and in my opinion the theory is lacking evidence.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm addressing is that you are saying: "Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all". If fossil records hardly has any meaning at all, then the lack of them shouldn't be able to disprove Noah's Ark.

 

 

 

But the lack of evidence should.

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I'm addressing is that you are saying: "Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all". If fossil records hardly has any meaning at all, then the lack of them shouldn't be able to disprove Noah's Ark.

 

 

 

But the lack of evidence should.

 

 

 

You could argue that we just haven't found the evidence, but I'm not an archeologist nor have I researched articles about Ark findings, thus I can't tell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I don't like is persons saying a global flood is impossible from a logical view. If there is a God and it's written in his book, it's possible due to his omnipotence.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your just supporting logical fallacies with more logical fallacies. It could be true because it's written in the bible which could be Gods book. The only possible way you could beleive it was real is if you where some sort of fundementalist in respect towards the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would you beleive the Bible to be the word of God? Because you have faith, and faith is just a word to make it sound like ilogical beleifs have some founding when they have nothing. So the beleif you have that the ark was real is founded on completley nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have nothing but a worthless intrinsic argument.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest XplsvBam
Your just supporting logical fallacies with more logical fallacies. It could be true because it's written in the bible which could be Gods book. The only possible way you could beleive it was real is if you where some sort of fundementalist in respect towards the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would you beleive the Bible to be the word of God? Because you have faith, and faith is just a word to make it sound like ilogical beleifs have some founding when they have nothing. So the beleif you have that the ark was real is founded on completley nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have nothing but a worthless intrinsic argument.

It would be logical fallacy if it was independent of the truth. Seeing as it hasn't been proven there isn't an ark it can't be independent of the truth because the truth isn't known yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is independant of truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - The isn't enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - Animals would kill each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - The ark would never be able to float.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theres no possible way this ever happened without entering a intrinsic argument which is completley worthless.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are millions of different species of animals and plants [currently] on earth -- possibly as many as 40 million

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see a boat that can hold at least 2 (7 in some cases) of each of 40 million species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would have to be the size of a country. Except it was meant to be ~450' long.

fractalsignature2lq4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest XplsvBam
It is independant of truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - The isn't enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - Animals would kill each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - The ark would never be able to float.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theres no possible way this ever happened without entering a intrinsic argument which is completley worthless.

Truth - There is enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth. Look at the ice caps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - Animals do kill each other, but seeing as our vision of the circumstances on the supposed ark are limited, it is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth - Again our vision of the circumstances on the supposed ark are limited, it is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.