• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How does the Biblical flood fit in with the natural world we see today?

gboisjo said:
Your statement is a crock of non-scientific do do. The newest scientific research suggests that Earth’s water came from both rocky material, such as asteroids, and from the vast cloud of dust and gas remaining after the sun’s formation, called the solar nebula.
Click to expand...

Saying that something "suggests" does mean that we know how there came to be water on the earth. You can believe what's suggested if you want and you may turn out to be correct, but until we know, then we don't know - you do know what know means I hope?

gboisjo said:
Most of Earth’s water did come from asteroids, but some also came from the solar nebula.

It is made naturally, no magic, no miracles.

earthsky.org

How did Earth get its water? | EarthSky.org

For decades, scientists have said that at least some of Earth's water came from comets and asteroids. New research suggests an even more primordial source, the vast cloud in space from which our world formed.
earthsky.org earthsky.org
Click to expand...

Picking any old article that "suggests" this or that is fine, but do not portray speculative science with established, verified, facts, the writers of that paper do not make that error, which is why they used the term "suggests", I therefore suggest you reread it and read some other material about this - as I have.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Why do you think there's some conflict between the universe being created and the scientific exploration of that universe? there's no conflict nor has there been historically, the vast majority of people who contributed to the growth of science over the past few centuries had some kind of belief that the universe was created.



Well as I said most of the seminal contributors to our understanding of science over the past three or more centuries did not share your belief that creation was "nonsense", if you really think it is nonsense then you must dismiss Maxwell, Faraday, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Ampere, Leibniz, Lavoisier, Priestly, Dalton, Babbage, Mendell, Marconi, Compton, Heisenberg etc etc etc as cranks, men who believed nonsense. Curiously though that belief in "nonsense" did not hold back scientific progress, a bit surprising that eh?
Click to expand...

I find appeals to authorities who lived centuries ago in this regard to be silly attempts that may work for the lazy minded but not for anyone who understands just how profound the concept of evolution is and the subsequent discovery of genetics. Sorry but most if not all minds prior to the recent era were tainted by the familiarity and ubiquity of religion. Making claims like this is no different then saying Plato or Aristotle supported the Gods of Olympus therefore we must take them seriously and conjure up fantasies about Cronus and Zues.
 
Vadinho said:
I find appeals to authorities who lived centuries ago in this regard to be silly attempts that may work for the lazy minded but not for anyone who understands just how profound the concept of evolution is and the subsequent discovery of genetics.
Click to expand...

Well I'm afraid that almost everybody relies on appeals to authority. You likely rely on it if you believe in evolution, so being selective about who can use it and what for - I'd say that's more silly.

Most evolutionists I encounter on these kinds of forums rely on an appeal to authority, they'll cite this or that person and this or that book and this or that article.

Vadinho said:
Sorry but most if not all minds prior to the recent era were tainted by the familiarity and ubiquity of religion.
Click to expand...

This is true but that fact doesn't tell us anything about the validity of those beliefs, how a belief arose, from what sources does not tell us if the belief is therefore true or false - your argument here is called the "genetic fallacy".

Vadinho said:
Making claims like this is no different then saying Plato or Aristotle supported the Gods of Olympus therefore we must take them seriously and conjure up fantasies about Cronus and Zues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's true, but the obvious take away is that a belief in a deity, a creator does not hinder the discovery of scientific truths and may in fact have inspired the efforts to discover them; as I said there is no "either or" there is no conflict we are not forced to decide "science or God" that is untrue, there is no incompatibility between these two areas of human thought, this is just another of the common yet intellectually flawed arguments that atheists make up and try to pass off as truth.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well I'm afraid that almost everybody relies on appeals to authority. You likely rely on it if you believe in evolution, so being selective about who can use it and what for - I'd say that's more silly.

Most evolutionists I encounter on these kinds of forums rely on an appeal to authority, they'll cite this or that person and this or that book and this or that article.



This is true but that fact doesn't tell us anything about the validity of those beliefs, how a belief arose, from what sources does not tell us if the belief is therefore true or false - your argument here is called the "genetic fallacy".



Perhaps that's true, but the obvious take away is that a belief in a deity, a creator does not hinder the discovery of scientific truths and may in fact have inspired the efforts to discover them; as I said there is no "either or" there is no conflict we are not forced to decide "science or God" that is untrue, there is no incompatibility between these two areas of human thought, this is just another of the common yet intellectually flawed arguments that atheists make up and try to pass off as truth.
Click to expand...

Do YOU make any intellectually flawed arguments that you try to pass off as truth?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well I'm afraid that almost everybody relies on appeals to authority. You likely rely on it if you believe in evolution, so being selective about who can use it and what for - I'd say that's more silly.
Most evolutionists I encounter on these kinds of forums rely on an appeal to authority, they'll cite this or that person and this or that book and this or that article.
This is true but that fact doesn't tell us anything about the validity of those beliefs, how a belief arose, from what sources does not tell us if the belief is therefore true or false - your argument here is called the "genetic fallacy".
Perhaps that's true, but the obvious take away is that a belief in a deity, a creator does not hinder the discovery of scientific truths and may in fact have inspired the efforts to discover them; as I said there is no "either or" there is no conflict we are not forced to decide "science or God" that is untrue, there is no incompatibility between these two areas of human thought, this is just another of the common yet intellectually flawed arguments that atheists make up and try to pass off as truth.
Click to expand...

No, everyone does not rely on appeal to authority. Using scientific facts is not an appeal to authority. Using the opinion of a single scientist is.

You don't encounter evolutionists because there are no such thing as them here or anywhere else.

Science is not about beliefs. God is only about beliefs. So that is how they differ. Incompatible? Depends on your view. But science does tend to push god into an increasingly shrinking corner. It is more common for things thought to have supernatural causes to be found to have natural explanations then vice versa.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Saying that something "suggests" does mean that we know how there came to be water on the earth. You can believe what's suggested if you want and you may turn out to be correct, but until we know, then we don't know - you do know what know means I hope?
Picking any old article that "suggests" this or that is fine, but do not portray speculative science with established, verified, facts, the writers of that paper do not make that error, which is why they used the term "suggests", I therefore suggest you reread it and read some other material about this - as I have.
Click to expand...

Do you know what know means? And how it is different from belief?

There is no such thing as speculative science.
 
Clinton said:
Thanks RAMOSS! That's another question in the back of my mind. For races of people to develop it must of taken more than 4 thousand years!
Click to expand...


I know you don't want copy/paste - but it's too complicated to explain in my own words.
If anyone is interested - here is one explanation:



How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?

 
devildavid said:
No, everyone does not rely on appeal to authority. Using scientific facts is not an appeal to authority. Using the opinion of a single scientist is.
Click to expand...

Unless you personally establish any "facts" yourself each and every time you do anything then you will have no option other than to leverage someone else's claims, reports, documentation and so on.

You must place some trust in those individuals and in the source its published in if you want to accept what they state without personally verifying it yourself.

Furthermore just because some document might give the appearance it is the collective unanimous opinion of multiple individuals does not mean that is in fact the case, again you must place some trust in these sources - without that you are at an impasse.

Here's an example of what I'm trying patiently to explain to you - what is the speed of sound in dry, still air at 20 degrees C?

Will you setup an experiment at home to measure it (and trust your equipment)? or will you look at some source (and trust it)? or will you recall it (and trust your recollection)? or will you ask someone you know (and trust them)?

devildavid said:
You don't encounter evolutionists because there are no such thing as them here or anywhere else.
Click to expand...

You may truly sincerely believe this but I don't think you know where to look.

devildavid said:
Science is not about beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yes you say this quite often but if you only knew where to look you'd see that there are hundreds, thousands of scientists and science educators who'd disagree with this belief.


devildavid said:
God is only about beliefs.
Click to expand...

Not true and its very obvious David, you see that statement itself is just a belief, a personal belief, and more the point a mistaken one.


devildavid said:
So that is how they differ. Incompatible? Depends on your view.
Click to expand...

Yes, it depends on us, who we are, what we believe, who we ask, asking different people will get us different answers - this is a fact - go and try it.


devildavid said:
But science does tend to push god into an increasingly shrinking corner. It is more common for things thought to have supernatural causes to be found to have natural explanations then vice versa.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way, gaining a better understanding of the means by which God may implemented something does not reduce the role of God.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Unless you personally establish any "facts" yourself each and every time you do anything then you will have no option other than to leverage someone else's claims, reports, documentation and so on.
You must place some trust in those individuals and in the source its published in if you want to accept what they state without personally verifying it yourself.
Furthermore just because some document might give the appearance it is the collective unanimous opinion of multiple individuals does not mean that is in fact the case, again you must place some trust in these sources - without that you are at an impasse.
You may truly sincerely believe this but I don't think you know where to look.
Yes you say this quite often but if you only knew where to look you'd see that there are hundreds, thousands of scientists and science educators who'd disagree with this belief.
Not true and its very obvious David, you see that statement itself is just a belief, a personal belief, and more the point a mistaken one.
Yes, it depends on us, who we are, what we believe, who we ask, asking different people will get us different answers - this is fact - go and try it.
I don't see it that way, gaining a better understanding of the means by which God may have done something does not reduce the role of God.
Click to expand...

Facts are not "personally" established by anyone. Facts are not beliefs.

What is the distinguishable difference between something physically happening and saying that god made it physically happen?
 
devildavid said:
Facts are not "personally" established by anyone. Facts are not beliefs.

What is the distinguishable difference between something physically happening and saying that god made it physically happen?
Click to expand...

As you wish, believe whatever you like, I don't care.
 
devildavid said:
Not asking you to care, just to acknowledge facts. Fact are not a matter of belief.
Click to expand...

Dave, show me the proof - the logical proof - that facts and beliefs are unrelated?

If you don't want to use the term "unrelated" then tell me - define what you mean by "not a matter of belief"?

You really want to go here? OK lets do it - answer my questions please.
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
Because speculation is not science.
Click to expand...

Again what exactly do you mean by this statement?

Obviously the word "speculation" is a different word to "science", we all know they mean different things and and nobody has argued otherwise, but is that what you meant or did you mean something else?
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Dave, show me the proof - the logical proof - that facts and beliefs are unrelated?
If you don't want to use the term "unrelated" then tell me - define what you mean by "not a matter of belief"?
You really want to go here? OK lets do it - answer my questions please.
Click to expand...

Facts are not beliefs. Otherwise, they would not be facts. This really isn't that hard.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Again what exactly do you mean by this statement?

Obviously the word "speculation" is a different word to "science", we all know they mean different things and and nobody has argued otherwise, but is that what you meant or did you mean something else?
Click to expand...

Science is not based on speculation.
 
devildavid said:
Facts are not beliefs. Otherwise, they would not be facts. This really isn't that hard.
Click to expand...

But you actually said "Facts are not a matter of belief" and my question was about that, so once again you are answering questions you were not asked and not answering questions you were asked.

Are facts and beliefs related in any way, any way at all?
 
devildavid said:
Science is not based on speculation.
Click to expand...

What does "not based on" mean? for that matter what does "based on" mean?

You cannot even answer simple questions about the statements you make, this tells me that you have no real idea what it is your talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom