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.
If I follow your argument, I'd say to you that science is not the be -all and end of everything. On the other hand, coming to beliefs without their having been verified by sound logic and scientifically valid evidence is not to be encouraged. It leads to believing in nonsense.
Prophecy is not valid. The claim of the 'word of God' is not valid. It does not stand up under scrutiny and has no business to be believed. Science has the tried and tested track record of veracity and religion doesn't.
Speculation and theorizing is fine but to believe in any of those speculations and theories without the decent supporting evidence which validates the geocentric solar system, a billion year old earth and the process of natural selection is foolishness, illogic and nonsense.
Like many in our society today (including a lot of people who believe they are religious), you have materialistic blinders on.
Your zeal for science is understandable, science has accomplished great thing for humanity, but it's causing you to ignore whole huge domains of human knowledge and even your own experience that are at least as important to the health of individuals and society as anything scienctific reasoning has led to. This is knowledge that does not always require the kind of scientific or empirical validiation you're assuming is necessary for all knowledge.
Answers to questions like "How do I feel?" "Is this action morally justified?" "What is our relationship with God?" You may have to step out of this argument before you can admit how important that kind of knowledge is, but it undeniably is important. And in fact, I'm sure you engage in these non-scientific types of reasoning every day. Much more often than you use rigorous scientific reasoning. And you're much the better for it.
Unfortunately, this concept of different domains of knowledge and different forms of reasoning to get us there is not really totally accurate. In reality, our minds and paths of reasoning are much more inter-related and there's no way we can ever truly decouple scientific reasoning from religious reasoning in practice. Except, that is, by becoming extremists--athiests or fundamentalists--in which case we do our minds, nature and God a great dishonor.
In the end, that inter-connectivity in our minds is really not so unfortunate, of course. If science could ever truly exist without religion or religion without science (or logic without emotion, or art without morality, etc., etc.) we'd be in a mess.
Oh yes, it has everything to do with ignorance; willful ignorance. Scientific theories have been defined for you in the past, and yet you post as if this ground has not been covered. You can read here again.
Further, it's absolutely ridiculous to assert historical discoveries coming out of the bible. You cherry pick out of the bible and subjectively interpret to suit whatever needs you have. When the stories are too outlandish to reconcile the title analogy is assigned. When it's predicted the sun rises in the east, water wets, etc, the title prophecy is assigned. That's all fine and well, but juxtaposing religion A, B, or C with science is plain old foolish...while you use science intimately on a daily basis. It is a car you drive, a computer you're communicating with, a physician with all the bells and whistles medical science has to offer when you're ill or in need, and insert any and all technology that you take for granted that scientific inquiry provides.
Missing that not so fine point is at best ignorant.
If you don't believe the Bible is being confirmed by historical discoveries. I would suggest you consider going back to school. Not all science is bad. It is the science of speculation I have a problem with. The speculation that throws out dates of millions of years. When such time testing has been proven wrong so many times. Such dates are not confirmed, they are assumed.
If you don't believe the Bible is being confirmed by historical discoveries. I would suggest you consider going back to school. Not all science is bad. It is the science of speculation I have a problem with. The speculation that throws out dates of millions of years. When such time testing has been proven wrong so many times. Such dates are not confirmed, they are assumed.
Modern dating methods are extremely accurate and certainly have not been proven wrong...You are either purposely lying or unbelievably deluded.
Stop with the biased links, and post one from an independent source that proves your assertions...can't do it can you?
... Modern dating methods are extreme, however, they're anything but accurate.... as has been proven regarding the so-called modern dating of the Mount St. Helens area. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
If you don't believe the Bible is being confirmed by historical discoveries. I would suggest you consider going back to school.
What? Back to seminary school where I never went in the first place?
Quote:
Not all science is bad. It is the science of speculation I have a problem with. The speculation that throws out dates of millions of years. When such time testing has been proven wrong so many times. Such dates are not confirmed, they are assumed.
What, specifically, has been proven wrong? Are you speaking of radiometric dating? Please, give me the science lesson.
First sentence "No archaeological discovery has ever proven wrong a Biblical reference." Oh, so Campbell, are you telling me that people actually lived for 700-800 years in biblical times? That the entire planet was submerged underwater and all species of life fit in one boat? Didn't somebody live in a whale or something? Are you saying archaeological discovery supports this?
... Modern dating methods are extreme, however, they're anything but accurate.... as has been proven regarding the so-called modern dating of the Mount St. Helens area. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
I have a few questions. Do you understand the first thing about dating methods...or what the terms even mean? If so, please write up your analysis. I'm interested. If not, then how do you know what you're saying? Just curious.
... Modern dating methods are extreme, however, they're anything but accurate.... as has been proven regarding the so-called modern dating of the Mount St. Helens area. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
Dead wrong...The Mount St. Helen's dating misrepresentation is an intentional creationist lie.
...by no means does your "accusation" detract from the fact that the lava rocks in question had already gone through a liquid state from previous lava rises long before the devastating 1980 eruption. Thus, the scheme of radiogenic rock dating, regardless of your excitement over the possibility of a lie, has more than one problem...one being the impossibility of knowing if stable material such as lead, crystalized during the solidification of the rock from lava. Much of the lead formed in this way, so radiogenic rock date results are extremely exaggerated, because such as they are, makes it appear that a greater quantity of radioactive uranium had decayed into stable lead than reality indicates. While current rates of radioactive decay are known, what is not known by evolutionists is that these rates were not different in the past, because they were not there in the distant past to measure decay rates. Carbon 14 dating is seriously flawed as well. Adherence to this method assumes that the ratio of the relatively few radioactive carbon 14 atoms to the relatively plentiful stable carbon 12 atoms has not changed much in the atmosphere through the centuries. This is not a verifiable fact without any empirical evidence to substantiate such a fantastic claim..."Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." Psalm 1:1
...The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
Like many in our society today (including a lot of people who believe they are religious), you have materialistic blinders on.
Your zeal for science is understandable, science has accomplished great thing for humanity, but it's causing you to ignore whole huge domains of human knowledge and even your own experience that are at least as important to the health of individuals and society as anything scienctific reasoning has led to. This is knowledge that does not always require the kind of scientific or empirical validiation you're assuming is necessary for all knowledge.
Answers to questions like "How do I feel?" "Is this action morally justified?" "What is our relationship with God?" You may have to step out of this argument before you can admit how important that kind of knowledge is, but it undeniably is important. And in fact, I'm sure you engage in these non-scientific types of reasoning every day. Much more often than you use rigorous scientific reasoning. And you're much the better for it.
Unfortunately, this concept of different domains of knowledge and different forms of reasoning to get us there is not really totally accurate. In reality, our minds and paths of reasoning are much more inter-related and there's no way we can ever truly decouple scientific reasoning from religious reasoning in practice. Except, that is, by becoming extremists--athiests or fundamentalists--in which case we do our minds, nature and God a great dishonor.
In the end, that inter-connectivity in our minds is really not so unfortunate, of course. If science could ever truly exist without religion or religion without science (or logic without emotion, or art without morality, etc., etc.) we'd be in a mess.
I respectfully disagree.
Essentially, this is the argument that there are some questions - impulses, morality - which science cannot answer and has no business to.
I say that the sort of questions you mention probably do have scientific answers and science has every business to try to answer them and it would not do our minds or nature any dishonour and I do not see that it would 'leave us in a mess' as you put it.
It is saying that science cannot and should not be allowed to answer these questions that dishonours or minds and the suggestion that 'goddunnit' is the only answer we need dishonours nature. Understanding the workings of nature is what science does and honours it. Seeing nature as nothing more than a neon billboard advertising a huge invisible human who waves his want to make everything happen is dishonouring nature and our minds, too.
Over to you.
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.
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.
The Truth
