Science Vrs The Bible .... explain to me Gobeklitepe

biostudent said:

Not worth wasting my time on this kind of tripe. Bring verifiable references by verifiable authors not somebody who's only given credential is a Hotmail email address.


I see no qualm between religion and evolution.

Click to expand...

so your lack of substantive claims which can be refuted or proved either way somehow proves your (nebulous) assertion, and anybody who doesnt believe your bullshit must prove a negative to refute your slippery ill-defined assertions?

you sure you aint Benny Hinn?

Dr Kynes said:

so your lack of substantive claims which can be refuted or proved either way somehow proves your (nebulous) assertion, and anybody who doesnt believe your bullshit must prove a negative to refute your slippery ill-defined assertions?

you sure you aint Benny Hinn?

Click to expand...

You can twist words all you want but you haven't refuted either one of my assertions.

Posted one year ago.

biostudent said:

1) the geology of sediments recently founded at the base of the Dead Sea match the Biblical description of the material rained on Sodom & Gomorrah, as mentioned in the Bible 2,000 years ago; and 2) the embryology of the human recently detailed by science matching the exact morphological details as outlined in the Quran 1,400 years ago.
Looking forward to your input on this.

Click to expand...

Like I said, bring verifiable sources from verifiable authors not somebody who identifies himself with a Hotmail username.

Please cite one reference to proof that evolution is real. Evolution not adaptation.
Evolution is theory. At one point all science was a theory.
What is theory? Faith!.

^^ Actually, science is still mostly theory. You are judging science by some advocates who've probably never studied any science beyond high-school.

Let me also add one of the core principles of scientific methodology that differentiates it from pseudoscience: science is based on evidence NOT proofs. Proofs is what you find in pseudoscience, faulty research methods, media, and from people whose primary source of scientific literature is Google searches and reading abstracts.
Although the two words may seem to be antonyms, the distinction is clear in linguistics. Example of proof: I saw a sports car drifting, leaving skid marks on the road, and parking across the street. Example of evidence: I saw parallel skid marks on the road and a sports car parked across the street.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned types of pseudoscientific and ignorant people give a bad name to real, legit science.

So, evolution, be it adaptation or cladistic homoplasy, in legit scientific literature is always associated with evidence. Likewise, there is a lot of evidence for evolution, not proof. Now read this last line while keeping above distinction of proof vs evidence in mind.

^^^ I agree.

Hey I was raised in church.
I also went to college.
I was talking about the fact that things in nature adapt all the time, but a bird that changes colors to adapt to its environment is still a bird.

There is not one single account of one species evolved into another.

Let me also say there is a difference in a christian and creationist.

I think you can believe in god and science

Example of proof: I saw a sports car drifting, leaving skid marks on the road, and parking across the street. Example of evidence: I saw parallel skid marks on the road and a sports car parked across the street.


Yes but you could take the evidence and prove it was the sport car or not.
Are the tires the same size, brand and composition.
Is the wheelbase of the marks the same as the car?

Only real way to prove it is to witness it. If not, there are probably more than one type of car with those characteristics and impossible to differentiate them. Can be a duo of bikers or somebody artificially implanting it. Availability heuristics is a type of cognitive bias that tends to skew conclusions in these types of cases.

whitebb2727 said:

......What is theory? Faith!.

Click to expand...

Nonsense ... clearly you aren't a practicing engineer!

god1 said:

Nonsense ... clearly you aren't a practicing engineer!

Click to expand...

Structural actually. USAF.

At some point you got to have faith that your theory is right even if it is contradicted by another theory.

Theory is not absolute truth. You got to have faith in your theory,

whitebb2727 said:

Structural actually. USAF.

At some point you got to have faith that your theory is right even if it is contradicted by another theory.

Theory is not absolute truth. You got to have faith in your theory,

Click to expand...

I think there’s an important distinction that should be made in the application of “theorizing and postulation” in a scientific application vs the application in religion.

In the applied science fields such as engineering; engineers generally form theories as an approach to problem solving. These postulations are open to peer review and modification as empirical or other data becomes available. This concept is an important part of the process in successful product development.

I have yet to come across a major religious organization that provides a mechanism for doctrine modification based on input from practitioners or otherwise. Perhaps you know of one?

They don’t call the practice of religion “faith based” for nothing …

In my career I’ve met a lot of crazy investors but have yet to meet one that will write a check for millions of dollars based solely on the “faith” of the engineering team that “things” will work out.

god1 said:

They don’t call the practice of religion “faith based” for nothing …

Click to expand...

I love how easily some of the "defenders of science" ignore the FAITH BASED aspects of science, while at the same time shit all over the faith based aspects of religion. The "scientist" willing to have FAITH in unproven theories is intelligent and evolved while all those "religious" fools that have faith in unproven theories are archaic morons.

If "scientists" and all the proponents of "science" are so fucking smart, then why don't they have the intelligence to recognize their own hypocrisy?

When it comes down to it, they can be just as fanatical, hateful, and obnoxious, as ANY religious zealot.

Lmao... interesting debate. So where do past-lives fit into all this? A medical doctor, who witnesses clinically-deceased patients describe floating above and hearing conversations between nurses in another room. Countless such cases have been recorded world-wide. It seems there is an ample amount of proof, just not the science to back it up - (yet).

indicat33 said:

Lmao... interesting debate. So where do past-lives fit into all this? A medical doctor, who witnesses clinically-deceased patients describe floating above and hearing conversations between nurses in another room. Countless such cases have been recorded world-wide. It seems there is an ample amount of proof, just not the science to back it up - (yet).

Click to expand...

My dad had to have exploratory surgery, split throat to groin. He told stories of leaving his body while recovering.

I was raised in a mid class baptist church. Most everyone there had jobs in either computers, engineers, and other careers that require degrees. Religion and science together.

When it comes to god or science, guns or not, left wing or right wing. Most of the time the people on the outer most of either side get most of the attention. People forget that most fall in the middle. .

whitebb2727 said:

When it comes to god or science, guns or not, left wing or right wing. Most of the time the people on the outer most of either side get most of the attention. People forget that most fall in the middle. .

Click to expand...

I don't perceive that being an issue. The issue becomes at what point does a practitioner abandon one for the other? When does a scientist draw the line, and where does the religion draw it?
The latter uses a blanket excuse, "because God".
The former has different levels (perhaps a continuous spectrum) of thresholds.
A quantum physicist may ponder the idea of consciousness, and say, "Nope, that's where I draw the line. Physics can't explain that". Whereas another might say, "of course the consciousness is governed by quantum processes, definable by wave functions..."
Who's right?
Science wants understanding of function, ultimately.
Religion doesn't...the ways of the orthodox representatives seem to hover somewhere between art and philosophy. Some of the more esoteric "colleges" may try to bridge the gap (eg. Rosicrucians), but fail to establish sound hypotheses which can be measured discretely.

Strangely, myth may very well be the inspiration for both. We are wired to believe...

http://www.newscientist.com/special/god

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE IS GOOD FOR

Bible-Tek > All

biostudent said:

You can twist words all you want but you haven't refuted either one of my assertions.

Posted one year ago.


Like I said, bring verifiable sources from verifiable authors not somebody who identifies himself with a Hotmail username.

Click to expand...

i refuted BOTH those idiotic claims long ago.

1: you can find exactly the same "miraculous" sediments in mono lake tufas. no ancient sinful evildoers were punished by the god of abraham in central calif., unless your bible is VERY progressive.

2: the vague and idiotic claims of the koran display a fine understanding of the GREEK MISUNDERSTANDINGS of embryology ~200 AD, and do not display any sacred hidden wisdom. the koran's flowery (and often execrable) prose doesnt hide any deep understanding of any scientific principles.

and just for swank...

3: accusing me of "twisting words" because you havent been able to scrape together any source (not even unreliable ones) to support your vague allusions and nebulous assertions does not create a requirement that i provide you with unimpeachable sources to refute your blather.

you were full of shit last year, and this year your shit is just older, crustier and ashier.


last year's New Hotness:




your current rehashing of the same old tired claims of "Biblical Science"

Lots of loose use of the terms:religion, faith, science and archaeology.The word myth probable should have been used a few times, many posters could be more precise,.... Science and religion are in conflict (creationism in the science classroom).Some dates in some posts are off more than a thousand years, Those that believe the earth is 6500 yrs. old are Usherites, after Bishop Usher who added up the begats and came up with a number.I recommend the writtings of Joseph Campbell, worlds foremost authority on comparative religion during his life,