Science Over Faith?

[jfgordon1]

kind of off subject (yet on subject). My EX-gf's family is really religious... sitting with them while we watched The exorcism of Emily Rose was creepy. You should have seen the look in their eyes. It was like they were literally seeing the Devil inside of the girl. Their eyes getting all watery and everything...

yada yada yada... i said "peace" to that family !

 

[fish601]

If they were that flawed, they wouldn't be used. .

dating methods are the only thing they have to go with

 

[Nocturn3]

dating methods are the only thing they have to go with

There are other dating methods than radiometric. Or are you saying that EVERY dating method is wrong, and that we have no way of dating any object that will give true results?

Not that there's anything wrong with radiometric dating, but the earlier stuff worked pretty well. Look up incremental dating for an example, as well as various forms of chemical dating and material-specific methods.

 

[CrackerJax]

kind of off subject (yet on subject). My EX-gf's family is really religious... sitting with them while we watched The exorcism of Emily Rose was creepy. You should have seen the look in their eyes. It was like they were literally seeing the Devil inside of the girl. Their eyes getting all watery and everything...

yada yada yada... i said "peace" to that family !

Which made you more scared? The movie or the family watching it....

 

[hanimmal]

Do you want the end story of macro evolution that makes the big bang false? Its genetically impossible for the genes to create a new complete structure on its own. For example like a fish creating legs. You can only just create more or less of what they already have which is called a mutation and doesnt normally follow through to the offspring. for example and extra leg or finger. Lets say somehow the genes did create legs for a fish, WHY?? Suddenly the fish just decided it liked what land looked like and said hey lets make some legs! So what each generation of the specie was like okay first ill make a stubbie, and each generation after will continue on that. Yeah thats likely. But right they make it sound more reasonable but saying it happened over billions of years because no one can prove that wrong. Darwin came up with the so called macro evolution when all he witnessed was micro evolution (which is absolutely true) and he had no idea about our technology that has conjured up the info that no DNA can just mutate a whole new peice into itself. NOT POSSIBLE.

The lack of how the world has changed has hurt your argument.

Those fish that grow legs, are not just BOOM legs.

As the earth crust moved towards the surface of the ocean those fish had fins. As plants started to stretch and break the surface of the water, they started to slowly develop a tactic of pushing the branches out of the way with their fins. So then those muscles start to develop. Over hundreds of thousands of years small mutations (your micro evolution I guess) favor those fish living near the surface to have longer and more usable fin/legs.

Now for some guesswork: As the land came closer and closer to the surface of the water, the Oxigen levels increased so the lungfish started to develop their system very gradually. Eventually leading them to be able to go onto the breaking land to evade predators and new feeding grounds. Eventually those legs that were developing worked into fully working legs and you eventually end up with lizards.

You also said something about T-Rex nostrils being only the size of horses. You forget about their mouths?

This is why religion needs to end.

Everything that doesn't fit into the bible of choice gets tossed aside as wrong, without anyother thought being applied to it.

The bible is not the statis quo. We are not born believing in the bible. It is pushed onto most of us at a very young age and we are told that it is evil to question it because it will lead to us going to hell. That is just wrong, and if we allow it to dominate our thinking then we will stop to progress as a species.

By the way, your intolerant view of religion was prophesized too.

It was prophesized? Maybe because the ones making it all up knew that eventually it would be found to be fraudulent. This was a hedge on their bet.

 

[fish601]

Everything that doesn't fit into the bible of choice gets tossed aside as wrong, without anyother thought being applied to it.
.

I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.

 

[hanimmal]

It was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Germany, and is ‘dated’ between 48 and 54 million years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment (see chapter 9 for more details of this exquisitely designed system).

So where is it being said by real scientists that it could not be from evolution? Just because there is not a fossil remain before this does not prove that it was not there. Many animals have had different forms of sonar, why is this proof that it would not be able to be able to be evolution?

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers. The photograph to the right shows that bats have always been bats.6

Again those 'fully formed fossil records" are not the proof that they did not evolve.

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs.

However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’7 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional. It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.8
All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:

The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.10
​

There is little to overturn that today.11

Yeah because there is no evidence, so everything is speculative and open to debate on how it evolved. It does not prove that God created it out of his will.


There is many ways to show how something could be wrong. It just means that there is not enough proof to say yes that can be a theory. You need proof to make it a theory.

There is not enough proof to say that god is not possible. But there is plenty to show that the bible was written by man and changed throughout the last 1700 years by man. That is enough to call it a work of fiction.

Someone tried to point to a excavation that prooved the bible. But where is the tower of Babal? That should have been the largest building ever created by man if it was enough to have god damn it and put men down and create all the languages. So you would think that somepart of it would remain and be very easy to spot, since it would have to be larger than anything that is created today. Because God has not struck down the sears tower.

 

[Nocturn3]

I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.

What are your views on human chromosome 2? I'd say that's a strong ape to man link myself.

 

[hanimmal]

I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.

But there is a lot of information showing this. The fact that in the jungle the fossils remains decompose too fast to have a good fossil record does not mean there is not anything showing it. Looking at the DNA you can trace the evolution.

Look at how our eyes are set, the birthing, feeding, emotions, and so much more. Those are things that will point you to it. But to believe that some can change with evolution and we are somehow special and cannot possibly have evolved from a distant ancestor is extremely biased.

People just want to believe that we are somehow more special than everything else on the planet. But we are still animals. We just are the first to put the parts of the brain and certain traits to make us the most intelligent and observant on the planet.

 

[hanimmal]

flawed dating methods

You realize that you cannot possible measure anything?

It is true. You take a tape measurer and cut a two inch piece of paper. It is not exactly two inches. As you go down to the micro level there will be parts that are more or less than the two inches. And you cannot possible measure it because everytime you go down further it will still be off.

It is the same with dating. There is no exact measurement as you go. You know how old you are, but as you follow your birth to the second, micro second, ect your time will get off, you can at best get a range.

And the further and further back you go in time, the larger those micro measurements get. Until people try to say that it is now unreliable, but when you look at it in context, it is plenty reliable.

 

[fish601]

What are your views on human chromosome 2? I'd say that's a strong ape to man link myself.

it doesnt demonstrate common ancestry it assumes it.

 

[CrackerJax]

The burden of proof lies at the feet of the Bible, not science. science has an amzing amount of proof.

The Bible has literally none.

Why are we even discussing this?

 

[fish601]

You realize that you cannot possible measure anything?

It is true. You take a tape measurer and cut a two inch piece of paper. It is not exactly two inches. As you go down to the micro level there will be parts that are more or less than the two inches. And you cannot possible measure it because everytime you go down further it will still be off.

It is the same with dating. There is no exact measurement as you go. You know how old you are, but as you follow your birth to the second, micro second, ect your time will get off, you can at best get a range.

And the further and further back you go in time, the larger those micro measurements get. Until people try to say that it is now unreliable, but when you look at it in context, it is plenty reliable.

when we use a tape measure we know the starting point and ending point.
dating methods only know the ending point.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock; [/SIZE][/FONT]​

• [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A. the rock contained no “radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.[/SIZE][/FONT]
  [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.[/SIZE][/FONT]
  [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay). [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?[/SIZE][/FONT]​

 

[fish601]

The burden of proof lies at the feet of the Bible, not science. science has an amzing amount of proof.

The Bible has literally none.

Why are we even discussing this?

why are you discussing this?

besides evolution (ape to man) i dont think anything else we have talked about contradicts the bible
i have said this before, i do not have a problem with how old the earth is i just do not believe scientist are even close to guessing the right age, it has nothing to do with the bible.

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.

 

[CrackerJax]

No problems other than evolution?.... just a tiny discrepancy huh. There isn't ANY scientific information in the Bible. Why would you think diminishing science gets you any closer to....anything. The Bible still falls in upon itself...it is self defeating.

 

[jfgordon1]

Which made you more scared? The movie or the family watching it....

lmao... the family without a doubt. I was at a loss for sure.

 

[PadawanBater]

why are you discussing this?

besides evolution (ape to man) i dont think anything else we have talked about contradicts the bible
i have said this before, i do not have a problem with how old the earth is i just do not believe scientist are even close to guessing the right age, it has nothing to do with the bible.

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.

fish, let me get this straight, according to you...

-we can't date anything past 50,000 years because every dating method is based on assumptions, except carbon dating

Except there have been at least two different people, other than myself, who have linked you to actual scientific sites where they explain EXACTLY, IN DETAIL how the methods are used. We've explained to you that if the dating methods were not accurate, the scientists would be the first ones to discard them and start over with accurate measurements, that is how you know it's true science, they're not interested in what they want to be true, they are interested in WHAT IS true.

If you fail to realize this and change your beliefs/arguments accordingly, all that is going to happen is you will continue to lose credibility in this discussion. I've seriously had enough of it man, it's not bias coming from an atheist, it's not a conspiracy, it's not because I want to discredit God or the bible... it's because the goddamn methods are true, they ARE ACCURATE, they work. You not accepting that doesn't change a thing. I can't stress enough how much I want to emphasize this to you. Please man seriously, for your own good, go read up a little bit more on the dating methods. If you come back and STILL believe they are faulty, it's then your responsibility to tell me why, not just say "they're wrong because this paper says so and these creationists think so.."

-humans were once giants because of the high oxygen level in the atmosphere

...but didn't you just say;

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.

I'd like to know how you observed, tested, or reproduced the early atmospheric conditions of Earth. Well, not really because of course, you didn't... But you felt this argument was valid... Why is that?... wait wait, let ME tell YOU why it WAS a valid argument, maybe then you'll see how science does NOT only deal with what we can directly observe, test, or reproduce.

How many murderers do you know about who were convicted because they were caught in the act of murder? I'd say not very many... Most of them get caught on the shit they leave behind, we call this evidence, the field of study that figures this stuff out is called Forensic Science, imagine that! Evolutionary Biologists do the exact same things in science. They look for evidence of something to support their idea, they're not out there trying to manipulate the evidence to support their idea, those people get caught, there are plenty of good examples as you probably already know about as your team loves exploiting the few bad apples as the legitimate scientists...

So, you either support state sponsored murder via lethal injection (if they're lucky) without any substantial proof or evidence to convict the guy, the only exception being a murderer who was actually caught in the act...

or, you must abandon this notion that 'real science' ONLY deals with directly observable, testable, reproduceable data.

-humans walked with dinosaurs

I don't really know what else I can say about this one man, if you're walking around believing this in the 21st century, you are seriously taking every single oz of your 8lb brain for granted.

Can I ask you an honest question fish?

-Is this an idea you would support in public in a group of your own peers? A group of people who you know and who know you? People whose opinions would actually matter to you?

-human genome 2 is not significant in tracing common ancestors between modern apes and modern homo sapiens

By FAR one of the strongest pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, specifically that modern homo sapiens share a common ancestor with other modern apes. If you believe it's not significant, there is no question you don't understand it.

You also said something about T-Rex nostrils being only the size of horses. You forget about their mouths?

FTW! I LOL'D at that, +rep Hannimal

 

[hanimmal]

when we use a tape measure we know the starting point and ending point.
dating methods only know the ending point.

You still do not accurately know the starting or ending point when you measure with a tape. You can only get an estimate. Those two inches that you think you measured will turn out to not be exactly two inches. That is the point. As you move to a more micro scale the measurement becomes off, no matter what. It is like the number Pi. It doesn't end you can continue to follow it as it becomes smaller and smaller, but in reality it is just a range that we end up using.

Same with dating techniques. Or all science, it is not 100%, ever. Nothing is. It is just an accurate range.

Take your birth, depending on who you are asking, when you say your birthday there will be some debate on it accuracy. Are you considering the earliest possible moment of conception where the sperm was injected or when the sperm entered into the egg, or when you started to breach, or when the doctor smacked you on the ass and said now to the nurse? That can be a pretty long range when considering what tops 30 years old.

Lets try the math.

Say you are 30 years old and there is a 9 month range of when you were born. So with 360 months (30 years) and a nine month range we would have a 2.5% range on your time of birth (9 divided by 360).

So when there is a range of 2.5% in 100 million years it would be 2.5 million years of a range. So you may be able to see how accurate it is using the range of your birth.

 

[mexiblunt]

LOL pretty much what he said.

The question of science over faith is an easy one...

Faith is belief in something without solid evidence that it is true. In the beginning stages of a relationship we may have faith that someone is true to us, that they love us, etc. As the relationship matures what we have is no longer "faith". We have evidence.

The same is true for religion and science.

Whether science produces EVIDENCE AGAINST religious beliefs (man has been around longer than allowed for in religious texts... man is living LONGER than ever before and therefore no one in the bible really lived hundreds of years... plants need light to survive and all natural light originates from the sun, therefore it is not possible that light was created, then plants, then the sun as laid out in Genesis, etc..etc) or if science produces EVIDENCE SUPPORTING religious beliefs.. um.. like... if scientists show that... somehow... you can make a woman out of a man's rib......

Either way... the evidence kills the faith... because with evidence, faith is no longer necessary.

That is the MAIN reason I do not understand why believers debate their religious beliefs through linking to what they believe is supportive evidence. The fact that they have found what they believe to be evidence means they were seeking evidence... which means the word of the Bible was not enough to convince them... which means they have no faith.

Faith requires that you read... accept as empirical, unshakable fact as true as your very own existence... and you NEVER question the validity of any of it regardless of how preposterous it may sound. To someone with faith... debating the existence of a God would be as silly as debating the existence of life itself. They would not partake in it.

Word!! And if the faithfull by chance did have a question... this place might not have the answers seeked.

 

[CrackerJax]

yes, but the drive to convert unbelievers overwhelms them. The reason for this has already been mentioned.... they don't TRULY believe.

The arguing over science and evolution is nothing more than a recruitment tool.