Well that proves it then

Lost User

ryanb31 wrote:

you accept one historical record because your faith is in science

No, sweetie, I accept the historical records of the Greek philosophers because they have been well documented for over 2,000 years.

ryanb31 wrote:

you... cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion.

The corruption of religion by "some people" is irrelevant to my choice of historical record. I accept historical records (including those in the Bible) that are largely in accordance with archaeological evidence.

ryanb31 wrote:

The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it.

Have you read your Bible? The Old Testament uses the Sumerian/Babylonian cosmology. Earth: relatively flat, fixed, never to be moved. Sun: enters Stage East, climbs the vault of heaven by noon, descends, bows and exits Stage West. Tiptoes back behind vault for the next performance.

ryanb31 wrote:

How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?"

Well, the advent of genetics, various dating methods, etc. have not managed to disprove it. And it has predicted the existence of species types whose fossils have subsequently been discovered.

ryanb31 wrote:

the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing.

The Theory of Cognitive Development has the same hole. Could it be that providing an explanation of the Origin of the Universe, (or the Origin of Life, if that is what you are attempting communicate) is not their job?

If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.

jschell

Dalek Dave wrote:

Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool.

You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.

Dalek Dave wrote:

Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you?

And it seems possible that you don't understand what the word "assumption" means. And certainly not in the context in which I presented it.

Dalek Dave wrote:

Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove.

You can't prove anything without assumptions.

Dalek Dave wrote:

In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?

Certainly a hideous analogy. And even worse based on the specifics of the last. The US judicial system is full of examples of failures.

Lost User

ryanb31 wrote:

All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work.

You've abandoned the Biblical account? You accept the Evolution of Species? How about the Big Bang Theory?

ryanb31 wrote:

Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.

How would you know? Your understanding of Science is even less than that of Religion. However, as the Scientific Method is designed to extend our knowledge, obviously Science is not "all knowing".

If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.

ZurdoDev

Provide some references from the Bible to back up what you are saying about the earth and sun.

ZurdoDev

Then stop trying to use science as your proof for everything.

jschell

Dalek Dave wrote:

I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about.

At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology.

Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths.

Sigh...obviously a failure in the educational system then given that you do not understand the basics of science. Even worse that that you do not understand that assumptions are a fundamental and explicitly stated part of every mathematical proof.

Dalek Dave wrote:

I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it?

Another demonstrated failure in education. First off a given belief system doesn't need to prove anything at all within another the belief system. No more so that science is required to prove or disprove the bible. And science is a belief system. If you think not then please present proofs for the following. 1. Everything, and I do mean everything, is measurable. 2. Given object A and object B and the statement that A 'equals' B then prove that B is in fact A.

Dalek Dave wrote:

Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist.

It is well known in science that that statement is nonsense. Science doesn't seek to address the existence of god in the general sense because it is recognized that it outside the domain of what science seeks to cover (and that is another fundamental mathematical concept one that does have proofs.) You are free to believe that there are no dieties. It is not possible for you to prove that (and that is another fundamental concept of mathematics/logic.)

Dalek Dave wrote:

Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc.
Not much of a way to build a world is it?

Perhaps you were not referring to me, but I will note that my post said absolutely nothing about my viewpoint about the

jschell

Marcus Kramer wrote:

Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning.
Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation.
It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.

Err...no. First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven. Further every discipline of science has assumptions that are taken as absolutes and are never questioned. At least not by the rank and file. Second your hypothetical scenario is exactly what some people do - without proof. They believe completely that certain individuals have some connection with a diety or some other non-scientific factor. Thus you are doing nothing but stating your personal belief. Third your "extrodinary" statement is of course a fine attitude for a skeptic to take. That however is a personal decision, not an absolute. And most people do not follow that. So you might require that but is by no means absolute for most people and that includes even those that have a strong scientific leaning. If that isn't the case then it should be easy to demonstrate that those who believe in science are less likely to be taken in by financial scams.

jschell

ryanb31 wrote:

I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments.

There are other Christians that would disagree with that.

ZurdoDev

That is straight from the Bible so what specifically would they disagree with?

jschell

Marcus Kramer wrote:

If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge?

Utter nonsense. The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions. And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.

Marcus Kramer wrote:

What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.

More nonsense. If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that. There is of course the logical fallacy of attempting to 'prove' some belief. But that ignores both the fact that such a 'proof' originates in another belief system and also ignores the fundamental belief of a god in the first place which by itself is sufficient to explain everything.

jschell

ryanb31 wrote:

That is straight from the Bible so what specifically would they disagree with?

You would need to ask them. Pretty sure that the have been many disagreements as to what the Bible actually says though.

fjdiewornncalwe

jschell wrote:

First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven.

So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide. Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief. Not to convince me, but to be honest with yourself regarding it.