Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-14-2014, 10:44 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge View Post
Science can provide some facts. But it cannot intrpret itself so you always have a persons bias involved.
What do you mean it can't interpret itself? Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?

Quote:
But science cannot replicate the creation of the universe or the earth, therefore there is no science to prove the age of either. There is personal views of how to intrpret the data we do have. The honest truth is, we cannot prove it.
Do you know what the red light shift is? It is a relevant question, because if you don't you won't understand how it is relevant.

 
Old 11-15-2014, 12:06 PM
 
Location: In the Light of His Love
518 posts, read 466,508 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
What do you mean it can't interpret itself? Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?



Do you know what the red light shift is? It is a relevant question, because if you don't you won't understand how it is relevant.
Simple question. Has science created a universe or earth yet? That's called replacation. Science can provide many things and if someones theroy is correct then it may be ture but until you replacate you have not proven it scientificly. Let's admit that simple fact.
 
Old 11-15-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,763,968 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge View Post
Simple question. Has science created a universe or earth yet? That's called replacation. Science can provide many things and if someones theroy is correct then it may be ture but until you replacate you have not proven it scientificly. Let's admit that simple fact.
Of course not. That is not a fact at all. To scientifically study an event, what are commonly referred to as being "repeatable" to be considered science, are the results of scientific experimentation or predictions of observations regarding an event. The event itself need not be repeated. It's the method of study that is scientific.

Last edited by PanTerra; 11-15-2014 at 01:26 PM..
 
Old 11-15-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge View Post
Simple question. Has science created a universe or earth yet? That's called replacation. Science can provide many things and if someones theroy is correct then it may be ture but until you replacate you have not proven it scientificly. Let's admit that simple fact.
Why do creationists and fundamentalists avoid answering a question, and ask another in its stead?

I asked if you:
  • Do you know what the scientific method is?
  • Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?
  • Do you know what the red light shift is?

You did not answer ONE of those questions. Until you show an understanding of them, any further debate is useless, as I am talking about apples and you are talking about rocks.
 
Old 11-15-2014, 06:43 PM
 
Location: In the Light of His Love
518 posts, read 466,508 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Why do creationists and fundamentalists avoid answering a question, and ask another in its stead?

I asked if you:
  • Do you know what the scientific method is?
  • Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?
  • Do you know what the red light shift is?

You did not answer ONE of those questions. Until you show an understanding of them, any further debate is useless, as I am talking about apples and you are talking about rocks.
I cannot answer for creationists and fundamentlisits. I am just stating the scientific facts of the matter. Until you can admit the truth of that we cannot dialog on the subject.

I have a basic college level knowledge of science. Public, state run, Liberal arts college educated at that. Just so you know where I am coming from.

Now we are not discussing what I know so your questions are just a diversion to avoid having to admit I am telling the truth. I have nothing invested in either side of the issue so I don't have to come up with way's to defend my faith as you seem to feel you must do. You see, when you don't have a side you can look at all the evidence with an open mind and not have to filter it to make it fit your position. You need to try this approach if you wish to understand the matter from a scientific point of view.

For instance, real science recognizes it does not know the age of the earth, so real science states a date range it believes fits in to the assumptions they make in the dating methods used.

Last edited by BishopRidge; 11-15-2014 at 06:54 PM..
 
Old 11-15-2014, 09:15 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge View Post
I cannot answer for creationists and fundamentlisits. I am just stating the scientific facts of the matter. Until you can admit the truth of that we cannot dialog on the subject.
If you can't describe the scientific method, you can not claim to be stating scientific facts. And you are avoiding answering that question. If you don't know what it is, that is OK to say so, but don't make assertions that you can not back up.

Once again, Do you know what the scientific method is?
Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?

Quote:
Now we are not discussing what I know so your questions are just a diversion to avoid having to admit I am telling the truth. I have nothing invested in either side of the issue so I don't have to come up with way's to defend my faith as you seem to feel you must do. You see, when you don't have a side you can look at all the evidence with an open mind and not have to filter it to make it fit your position. You need to try this approach if you wish to understand the matter from a scientific point of view.
Unless you can demonstrate what you understand about the issue, you can't make assertions, not back them up and not expect to be challenged on them.

Once again, Do you know what the red light shift is?

The answer is very important when discussing the age of the universe. Very. If you don't know and don't understand it, you can't be having a discussion from the basis of fact, only 'feeling'.
 
Old 11-16-2014, 06:48 AM
 
Location: In the Light of His Love
518 posts, read 466,508 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
If you can't describe the scientific method, you can not claim to be stating scientific facts. And you are avoiding answering that question. If you don't know what it is, that is OK to say so, but don't make assertions that you can not back up.

Once again, Do you know what the scientific method is?
Do you know how rigorous a process peer review is in recognized journals?



Unless you can demonstrate what you understand about the issue, you can't make assertions, not back them up and not expect to be challenged on them.

Once again, Do you know what the red light shift is?

The answer is very important when discussing the age of the universe. Very. If you don't know and don't understand it, you can't be having a discussion from the basis of fact, only 'feeling'.
I told you my education. You have not provided any evidence you know what these things are though. If you do not want to discuss then just say so. I am not the subject and I recognize the ploy of diverting to discussing the massager when you do not like the message. If you have a college education, you would likely know the first two that you asked. The "red light shift" is the Doppler effect of a light source moving away from an observer. A shift to Blue indicates a light source that is moving toward the observer. It is common with all moving sources of RF energy. One can experience the effect when monitoring the ISS as it passes over. As the craft approaches your location you receive it's transmitted signals a bit higher in frequency and as it passes and moves away from you the signals drop in frequency from that being transmitted. An even simpler way to experience the Doppler Effect is to listen to an ambulance siren. As it approaches, the pitch is higher in frequency and as it passes and moves away from you, it drops in pitch.
There is a theory that we can use the Red Light shift to determine the age of the universe. This requires many unprovable assumptions though. You must assume the speed of the object has remained constant over time. You must assume you know the original starting point of the object. If those assumptions are true and you can prove there is nothing causing an effect on the light over the billions of miles, then you may be on to something. Science has just not gotten to the point it can prove the assumptions yet.

Last edited by BishopRidge; 11-16-2014 at 07:23 AM..
 
Old 11-16-2014, 06:54 AM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,667,464 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge View Post
I told you my education. You have not provided any evidence you know what these things are though. If you don't want to discuss then just say so. I am not the subject and I recognize the ploy of diverting to discussing the messagener when you don't like the message. I don't play that game.
I think Cupper's point is that if you make an assertion about a subject you need to have at least rudimentary knowledge of the subject. In this case, if you are making a point about the scientific method then you should know the scientific method. If you are only a messenger, repeating what you've read, then you should provide the source.
 
Old 11-16-2014, 07:20 AM
 
Location: central Florida
1,146 posts, read 640,643 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altruistic1 View Post
I was raised Catholic and Catholic schools teach evolution and try not to contradict science, however many evangelicals still think the world is only 6,000 years old which leads to distrust of Biology and many other areas of science like climate science. Why this conflict?

The main problem is most Evangelicals think of the Bible as the literal word of God and not metaphorical. The Bible doesn't really come up with a date for creation however. The 6,000 year age of the earth comes from James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh, who added up all of the Begats in the Bible and came up with the date of the creation of everything at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC

My question is, why do these people believe the ignorant guess of one person back around 1640, to the accumulated knowledge of most scientists since then?
The problem with the statement of global age is that the book in question, the Bible, hasn't been read at all.

The book never says the world is 6k years old. Never. I've looked from front to back and it just isn't there. None of the statements inside suggest a start date either. It never says anything about geology either.

In fact, the book is silent on a lot of things. It doesn't speak of dinosaurs, tectonic plate shifts, astronomical alignment of planets and stars, genetic principles or even human history on other continents. It's only focus is one thing - the fall of man and his reconciliation with God. Regarding that subject, the Bible is consistent with its own topic.

In fact, most good books religious, secular, scientific or otherwise are consistent with their own subject matter. An obvious exception is the Qur'an, but that's a subject for another debate. If the reader wishes to learn about astronomy, then he should journey to the library and check out that section. There are numerous books there about it. If archeology is one's interest, there's a section about that too. Geology, paleontology, the medical arts and history are all library sections that contain huge amounts of information on their specific subjects. The Bible doesn't speak to any of those. Why should it? The Bible story is about the relationship between man and God. That's it and that's all.

The Bible strictly adheres to its own topic - the relationship between God and man. That particular story began about six thousand years ago when man abandoned his special position in the order of creation. There are no dinosaurs in the story of the garden of Eden because the Bible isn't about T-Rex. If you want a book about that big guy, then you need to look elsewhere. In fact, the Bible doesn't even talk about dogs and cats. If you want an encyclopedia, then you need to look somewhere else.

But if you want a book about God's revelation of Himself to man and His plan of salvation, then you'll find none better than the Holy Bible. If you want to discover how you can reconcile your life with God, then the Bible is the key to understanding. If you want to learn the truth about how God feels about saints and sinners, then I suggest reading the book.

There are three separate accounts of the creation of the world in the Bible. All of them state that the world was created by God. The narrative then moves on quickly. There are no details as to how it was done, when it was done or even why it was done. That's not what the Bible story is about. Read it and you'll see for yourself.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....
 
Old 11-16-2014, 07:29 AM
 
Location: In the Light of His Love
518 posts, read 466,508 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
I think Cupper's point is that if you make an assertion about a subject you need to have at least rudimentary knowledge of the subject. In this case, if you are making a point about the scientific method then you should know the scientific method. If you are only a messenger, repeating what you've read, then you should provide the source.
So you seem to be implying that you and or Cupper got this information from your scientific experiments first hand and not from reading textbooks and journals. I did not know you were such scientist. Please share your experiments with us. Now while I did first learn of the Doppler Effect and Red Light Shift from textbooks, I do utilize methods to receive signals based on that knowledge. I do have some practical, first-hand knowledge of the subject.

OK, to help you out here is a simple explanation of the Scientific Method.

Formulate a Question.
Do research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test your Hypothesis by experimentation. (this is where you replacte something to prove your hypothesis)
Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
Communicate your results. (this is where the peer review comes in)

Now can you or Cupper provide the absloute proof of the age of the earth? The age of the universe?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top