Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

pauldla · 06-05-2015 05:03AM

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

No one else mentioned Newton here, before you.

I presume that Turtwig meant 'Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton' as an analogy; my reading is that, saying science has debunked Darwin is as ridiculous and ill-informed (and as pointless, I might add) as saying that science has debunked Newton.

silverharp · 06-05-2015 07:24AM

hinault wrote: »

Science doesn't make any claims as to the whether or not Adam, Eve, Noah etc existed or not, SH.

what do you mean by that? "Science" doesnt set out as a goal to disprove these things, it just goes out and looks for evidence of Earth's past. Knowing Biology or Geology and basic Geography contradicts the Noah story for instance , so any sensible Christian is forced into concluding that its a myth

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 07:57AM

hinault wrote: »

And what about the next life?

Once you come in to existence, you're created for eternity.

By all means enjoy this life and live it to the full, but always keep in mind that what is ahead of you after this life will last far far longer than this life.:)

Nah it doesn't, that's just your imagination running wild, this is your only life, don't waste it.

hinault · 06-05-2015 09:59AM

pauldla wrote: »

I presume that Turtwig meant 'Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton' as an analogy; my reading is that, saying science has debunked Darwin is as ridiculous and ill-informed (and as pointless, I might add) as saying that science has debunked Newton.

No one else chose to mention Newton, before Turtwig did.
No one.

There is no analogy to speak of.

hinault · 06-05-2015 10:00AM

silverharp wrote: »

what do you mean by that? "Science" doesnt set out as a goal to disprove these things, it just goes out and looks for evidence of Earth's past. Knowing Biology or Geology and basic Geography contradicts the Noah story for instance , so any sensible Christian is forced into concluding that its a myth

Where did Science set out to disprove the account about Noah?

hinault · 06-05-2015 10:01AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Nah it doesn't, that's just your imagination running wild, this is your only life, don't waste it.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll have an awfully long time to live with that!:)

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 10:04AM

hinault wrote: »

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll have an awfully long time to live with that!:)

Aye but you're hedging your bets, I'm a gambler

hinault · 06-05-2015 10:24AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Aye but you're hedging your bets, I'm a gambler

I'm not hedging anything apart from the border hedge out in the garden!

I accept the guarantee given by Christ that everyone is subject to eternity.

silverharp · 06-05-2015 10:30AM

hinault wrote: »

Where did Science set out to disprove the account about Noah?

I said it didn't . but anyone who cares to be critical of Christianity can point out that the Noah story is a myth based purely on the scientific history.

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 10:34AM

hinault wrote: »

I'm not hedging anything apart from the border hedge out in the garden!

I accept the guarantee given by Christ that everyone is subject to eternity.

Christ, is that the hippie with the long hair that could do the cool walking on water trick? Sounds like a great lad a parties but I wouldn't be taking any guarantees from him

hinault · 06-05-2015 10:43AM

silverharp wrote: »

I said it didn't . but anyone who cares to be critical of Christianity can point out that the Noah story is a myth based purely on the scientific history.

You're aware that there is evidence which appears to indicate that water levels did change greatly?

You're aware that fossil records of bone fragments for creatures found in the sea, have been found far above current sea levels on locations inland?
How does one explain finding whale bone fragments found 500-600 feet above current sea level on dry land in places like the Swiss Alps?

The fossil records throughout many parts of the world indicate that the presence of sea fossils at altitude on dry land.
What caused these fossils to end up where they were found.
The Flood?

06-05-2015 10:48AM

Plate Tectonics

silverharp · 06-05-2015 11:01AM

hinault wrote: »

You're aware that there is evidence which appears to indicate that water levels did change greatly?

You're aware that fossil records of bone fragments for creatures found in the sea, have been found far above current sea levels on locations inland?
How does one explain finding whale bone fragments found 500-600 feet above current sea level on dry land in places like the Swiss Alps?

The fossil records throughout many parts of the world indicate that the presence of sea fossils at altitude on dry land.
What caused these fossils to end up where they were found.
The Flood?

But this is plate tectonics , your ancestors were rodents when this stuff was happening . there is a good BBC series about how the continents were formed . you shouldn't come at these arguments from ignorance it makes you look silly. You are Catholic right? I thought it was only extreme evangelicals who read the ot as actual history ?

pauldla · 06-05-2015 11:05AM

hinault wrote: »

No one else chose to mention Newton, before Turtwig did.
No one.

There is no analogy to speak of.

An analogy is a rhetorical device where an idea or thing is compared to another idea or thing. This can be done in a number of ways; one common way is to use the word 'like'. For example:

Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton

The speaker is using two well-known scientists whose work have greatly facilitated scientific progress and whose ideas have become fundamental in their respective fields; the inanity of declaring Darwin as having been 'debunked' is here being illustrated by analogy. There is an analogy, and it's a good one.

Should you chose to respond on this point, I heartily invite you to move beyond mere gainsaying and tell us how Darwin has been 'debunked'.

hinault · 06-05-2015 11:10AM

silverharp wrote: »

But this is plate tectonics , your ancestors were rodents when this stuff was happening . there is a good BBC series about how the continents were formed . you shouldn't come at these arguments from ignorance it makes you look silly. You are Catholic right? I thought it was only extreme evangelicals who read the ot as actual history ?

I'm Catholic.
It's not an article of faith for a Catholic to accept that the Flood happened.
I'm suggesting that the account of the Flood in the Bible might have a basis in fact.

The Bible doesn't purport to be a scientific book. It is a book that advocates for Faith.

Plate tectonics could be a catalyst for many things including the Flood, as told in the Old Testament.

There is lots of evidence which shows that water levels on this planet increased greatly at one point. Whether that evidence is sufficient to accept a literalist interpretation of the Flood story is one aspect.

I have read separately that the Flood story is analagous to the preservation of Faith. In that the arc represents the remnant of believers left in a world which denigrates God. To preserve the remnant from retribution, God gives believers notice that a great calamity will take place to avenge the heresy committed against God.

silverharp · 06-05-2015 11:37AM

hinault wrote: »

I'm Catholic.
It's not an article of faith for a Catholic to accept that the Flood happened.
I'm suggesting that the account of the Flood in the Bible might have a basis in fact.

The Bible doesn't purport to be a scientific book. It is a book that advocates for Faith.

Plate tectonics could be a catalyst for many things including the Flood, as told in the Old Testament.

There is lots of evidence which shows that water levels on this planet increased greatly at one point. Whether that evidence is sufficient to accept a literalist interpretation of the Flood story is one aspect.

the OT is not speaking about how the continents formed as there were no humans there to see it. So from a scientific perspective the story didnt happen. Separately the Flood story has been traced back to a flood story that happened in the Euphrates which became a legend and got absorbed into Jewish culture. It refers to a trader who managed to save his animals on a boat.

hinault wrote: »

I have read separately that the Flood story is analagous to the preservation of Faith. In that the arc represents the remnant of believers left in a world which denigrates God. To preserve the remnant from retribution, God gives believers notice that a great calamity will take place to avenge the heresy committed against God.

Its a story you can make it represent anything you want

hinault · 06-05-2015 12:11PM

silverharp wrote: »

the OT is not speaking about how the continents formed as there were no humans there to see it. So from a scientific perspective the story didnt happen.

The Fossil record suggests that something did happen. And to suggest that Fossil record isn't science is disingenuous.

silverharp wrote: »

Separately the Flood story has been traced back to a flood story that happened in the Euphrates which became a legend and got absorbed into Jewish culture. It refers to a trader who managed to save his animals on a boat.

The Flood story refers to what is recorded in the Bible.

Whether one accepts what the Bible says is another matter.

silverharp · 06-05-2015 01:09PM

hinault wrote: »

The Fossil record suggests that something did happen. And to suggest that Fossil record isn't science is disingeous.

It wasn't a flood . what was once seabed are now mountain tops. You don't understand the science , learn that first

hinault · 06-05-2015 01:19PM

silverharp wrote: »

It wasn't a flood . what was once seabed are now mountain tops. You don't understand the science , learn that first

When were the mountain tops formed so?

hinault · 06-05-2015 01:21PM

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

silverharp · 06-05-2015 01:52PM

hinault wrote: »

When were the mountain tops formed so?

The basic answer is from the plates colliding . other mountain tops are extinct volcanos. Did you not do geography in school?

hinault · 06-05-2015 02:14PM

silverharp wrote: »

The basic answer is from the plates colliding . other mountain tops are extinct volcanos. Did you not do geography in school?

So when were the mountain tops formed?

silverharp · 06-05-2015 02:42PM

hinault wrote: »

So when were the mountain tops formed?

One that sticks in my mind are the Andes where they found whale bones in the mountains in chile, 16 million years or thereabouts. The Himalayas started forming 50 + million years ago.

06-05-2015 02:43PM

hinault wrote: »

So when were the mountain tops formed?

Which particular mountain tops?

We have many different types of mountains, created at different times by different processes.

Here's a primer.

hinault · 06-05-2015 02:56PM

silverharp wrote: »

One that sticks in my mind are the Andes where they found whale bones in the mountains in chile, 16 million years or thereabouts. The Himalayas started forming 50 + million years ago.

Well the Andes were formed 45 million years ago, according to the scientists.

But there is evidence to suggest that this mountain formation may have been delayed because the subduction which caused the formation began 140 million years ago.

This timeline appears to predate what we regard as whale fossils.
So how did the whale fossil get to the Andes?

silverharp · 06-05-2015 03:19PM

hinault wrote: »

Well the Andes were formed 45 million years ago, according to the scientists.

But there is evidence to suggest that this mountain formation may have been delayed because the subduction which caused the formation began 140 million years ago.

This timeline appears to predate what we regard as whale fossils.
So how did the whale fossil get to the Andes?

I'm not sure where you are going with all this , it sounds a bit like prove the holocaust happened
My Chile example was based on finds by paleontologist Michael Novacek who works for the american museum of natural history. In this case the rocks above and below were volcanic and the age was date to 16 million years .
Every mountain range will have their own story and timeline? What exactly do you not believe about the science?

hinault · 06-05-2015 03:34PM

silverharp wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are going with all this , it sounds a bit like prove the holocaust happened
My Chile example was based on finds by paleontologist Michael Novacek who works for the american museum of natural history. In this case the rocks above and below were volcanic and the age was date to 16 million years .
Every mountain range will have their own story and timeline? What exactly do you not believe about the science?

I'm simply pointing out that the scientists tell us that the Andes were formed 45 million years.
It is reasonable to suggest therefore that 45 million year time line predates the existences of what we know now as whales.

Unlike you I don't claim to know how whales fossils managed to get to their location in the Andes or elsewhere for that matter.

I don't claim to know the remains of a sea creature came to be located high up in the Andes mountain range, or in any other mountain range either.

silverharp · 06-05-2015 04:00PM

hinault wrote: »

I'm simply pointing out that the scientists tell us that the Andes were formed 45 million years.
It is reasonable to suggest therefore that 45 million year time line predates the existences of what we know now as whales.

Unlike you I don't claim to know how whales fossils managed to get to their location in the Andes or elsewhere for that matter.

I don't claim to know the remains of a sea creature came to be located high up in the Andes mountain range, or in any other mountain range either.

Why would volcanic mountains form at the same time? There are going to be older and newer parts.
You don't claim to know because you will not read the literature if it interests you so much that you question the science.
There is a geography form on boards , ask your question there and you might get some people to discuss it?
To bring it back to Noah , as the fossils on top of various mountains differ in age by millions of years what possible backup for the Noah story does it give? None , you need a flood that happened 4000 years ago right? Or less than a hundred thousand years ago if you go with a more liberal interpration ;-)

katydid · 06-05-2015 05:12PM

hinault wrote: »

I don't claim to know the remains of a sea creature came to be located high up in the Andes mountain range, or in any other mountain range either.

But you're not prepared to let it disturb your pre-formed ideas

Father Ted Crilly · 06-05-2015 06:40PM

Nobody should be worried about trusting in God, sure it's only an eternity we spend in either Heaven or Hell when we die. I couldn't really care although I am religious.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments