Darwin Day Lecture 2016

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss Atheism and Agnosticism, post inspirational Atheist and Agnostic memes and quotations, ask questions of an Atheistic or Agnostic nature, and discuss your Atheist or Agnostic views on Life and the Outdoors. If you don't want to see Athesim and Agnosticism being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier beliefs or insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#91

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:08 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: Greg, I seriously doubt that any of those benefits we currently enjoy due to the advances of science owe anything to someone's theory that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
Oil and gas exploration depends heavily on geologic evaluation and interpretation which, coincidentally, is what lead to the current estimate of the age of the Earth. One tiny piece of the supporting data are sedimentary rock - formed under the sea - show up on mountain tops, along with fossils of marine life. You could see this and much more at many natural science museums across the world.

Further, where do you think oil and gas come from? You apparently have no idea.

But don't believe me. I've worked as a reservoir engineer for a major oil company for 25 years.
Greg, I do believe you. In fact, I was all ready well aware of these things which have been observed, and have in fact observed many of them myself, not just in museums but on actual mountaintops. And there was the recent(2010?) discovery of animal fossils at high elevations in CO, such as ground sloth and others that I'm not sure are normally associated with high elevations(though I'm def not sure on that one). At any rate, these were the highest elevations that mastodons or giant ground sloth have been found in CO. Plus, at 500 ft above sea level and hundreds of miles from the ocean, I routinely find sea shells in eroded areas where I often hike.

Of course, there are some who would claim this was evidence for a world wide flood, but I know you would find that ridiculous. But either way, I am well aware of everything you point out.

Still, I find it hard to believe that that your ability to use science to find oil would be greatly enhanced by belief in evolution, or even the exact age of the earth. I would think it would be more linked to something in hard science which can be observed and measured, and the use of various high tech machines, the development of which would not depend much on the age of the earth or the evolution of one species into another. But I don't know your field, so if you say so I'll just have to take your word for it and consider that a strike against my arguments.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#92

Post by Scott » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:15 am

Since the supreme court is a political entity I don't lean on it as the source for knowledge (it is not supposed to be political but since we can reasonably predict how they will each vote prior to the finding, it is). I believe we must follow its legal findings, but I don't think they are all that wise. I believe they were political appointees to promote an agenda.

Agreed - PURE science is data driven. Not all my professors believed in intelligent design (I went to a liberal state school). But in the absence of data, science does make educated guesses that are often not honestly presented as guesses.

From Men in Black - "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Agreed - do what you need to do to get through the day.

A world driven entirely by science with no emotion, art, beauty, etc, is not a world I would much enjoy living in. You can argue that art IS science in symmetry, musical patterns, etc. But appreciating the beauty, or enjoying it is not science, it is emotion. Pure science leaves no room for interpersonal relationships beyond what is logical and convenient. Science has no room for morality (right or wrong). It has lots of room for ethics (fair to all). Science turns people into Spock. There is no room for emotion. It entirely removes the human side of life. In an odd way pure science is not logical at all. What is the meaning of discovering all of this information, if it ends when you die? Why do you care about future generations health, well being, and what they think of you? Caring - That human side is where I find God.

I love doing research and looking at results. But I chose to not go into that as a profession directly out of college because of the strong religion bashing (this conversation is cordial, but many are not), and the general nature of science is to try to disprove what someone is presenting to be sure they are not frauds, or that they are not incompetent. Then there was the politics of grant writing, paper publishing, departmental positions, patents, money, etc. The whole process was too adversarial for me. Too tiring.

My comments accepted that science and religion are different, and I choose both. You might not see choosing both as an option, but I do. The nice thing about God is that it is not possible to prove the negative. No one can PROVE with data a God does not Exist, and I feel no compunction to prove He does. I am comfortable stating a belief. And note that I did not promote any ONE religion in my comments, just the idea that religion can exist. Those who believe in a religion can argue about which one is most correct.

The one overwhelming principle I live by is freedom of choice - and the consequences of those choices. That is why I am not a big political guy. Both sides want to force you to do something they think is right. For the ''greater good". I try to tolerate all people and their choices, so long as they do not directly negatively affect me. I do not define tolerance as agreeing, but allowing others the right to live and believe as they choose. I believe in religion, You do not. I am OK with that. Respectfully agree to disagree, but still interact and get along. It gets me through my day.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#93

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:47 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: So now I realize no atheist is going to agree with the creation account.
No geologist or astronomer regardless of their religious affiliation will agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account either because it doesn't fit the data. The analysis of Genesis concluding that the world is anything close to 6000 years old is completely incompatible with the available evidence. Like oil. Like limestone. Probably also coal, slate, marble and many others. The Catholic Church does not agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account, because that doesn't fit the data.
Steven Austin, who has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. all in Geology is, I think, a young earth creationist. Though I'm not certain of that, he has certainly worked to throw doubt on the accuracy of some rock dating methods that have been used to gather the data. I suspect there are a few more like him out there.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#94

Post by GregD » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:20 am

Scott wrote: Agreed - PURE science is data driven. Not all my professors believed in intelligent design (I went to a liberal state school). But in the absence of data, science does make educated guesses that are often not honestly presented as guesses.
The only thing science claims to know is that explanations that are inconsistent with the data are wrong. Everything else is a guess, with varying degrees of confidence. That is why the term Theory is used; a bit of intellectual precision mocked by Scuba. Confidence can get quite high, but as things get complicated one's level of confidence is limited by personal capabilities as well as the fundamental data. For some, non-scientists especially, things get complicated very quickly.

But it is dishonest and dangerous to ignore the religious and political motivations behind attacks on science and science education in the U.S. And the bias is one sided. There is no scientific motivation to prove or disprove any particular religious belief or political position; science just follows the data as best it can. On the other side it is obvious that the attacks are motivated to protect the credibility of a preferred world view, regardless of the data to the contrary. Many religions provide a creation story, and object to the scientific "religion" creation story being taught in public schools. If science and religion are, as Sarge insists, "on the same footing", it is simply unjustifiable for it to be taught in public schools. Why do we have the National Academies? We teach science in schools and we have the National Academies only because science has such a profound impact on our way of life and our continued well being.
Last edited by GregD on Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#95

Post by GregD » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:30 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: So now I realize no atheist is going to agree with the creation account.
No geologist or astronomer regardless of their religious affiliation will agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account either because it doesn't fit the data. The analysis of Genesis concluding that the world is anything close to 6000 years old is completely incompatible with the available evidence. Like oil. Like limestone. Probably also coal, slate, marble and many others. The Catholic Church does not agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account, because that doesn't fit the data.
Steven Austin, who has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. all in Geology is, I think, a young earth creationist. Though I'm not certain of that, he has certainly worked to throw doubt on the accuracy of some rock dating methods that have been used to gather the data. I suspect there are a few more like him out there.
You can't get excommunicated from science even if your work is complete crap. I have personally met a few senior technical people, at least 1 a Ph.D. researcher, that demonstrated clear incompetence in scientific research. Even if dating methods are completely unreliable there is no way to explain geology that you can touch with your own hand if the Earth is 6000 years old. Even if the Earth is only 100,000 years old, the young earth hypothesis is wrong.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#96

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:41 am

Scott wrote:I learned a long time ago that I am very poor at changing anyone's mind on anything. So I just give what I believe, and don't try to debate it. Other people speak much better than I do, so I usually lose........................
Same here. I am not aware of ever having changed anyone's mind on any of what we have been discussing, and I am not expecting it to happen. In fact, I'm not sure I was very open to any of this until I first had at least a modicum of faith, although I still found the Bible preposterous and could not stand those Bible thumpers. You know, like me. I was still that way for a while after I came to belief.

So, any argument or point I make is to- hopefully anyway- strengthen the faith of believers. People who- very often- are believers in Christ but at the same time are inundated with evidence from the unbelievers which they believe also. And it sometimes leaves them at a loss, some of them even embarrassed by the primitive and obviously wrong things they find in the Bible. We send our children, maybe raised in church, off to college where, at best, their are presented data by professors they respect that every thing they were taught is wrong. Almost always with no counter arguments being available. At worst, these professors openly ridicule the Bible and any one who would believe it. Then, if they remain Christian at all after that onslaught, they are reduced to either arguments about why the Bible does not really say what it seems to say, or that it is mostly just a vast allegory or parable, or they simply resort to blind faith as an excuse to their peers as to why they believe such obvious fiction.

There might indeed be an element of blind faith in that first acceptance of the Gospel. In fact Paul(in 1 Cor 2:14) says that without the Spirit, man is incapable of accepting/understand the things of God. But I feel that God has provided abundant evidence for the believer in both His Word and in nature, or a combination of both, and Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things(I assume about Him and His Word). But just going by my church, I also find many believers are fairly ignorant of what the evidence God has provided in the Bible. So, when I present my case, it is really in the hope that there will be a believer who is struggling against the apparent contradictions between evolution and the creation account, and many other things in the Bible. And maybe ridicule that comes from the unbelievers who might even be his friends of people he/she looks up to, like college professors.

I may be flattering myself to think I can help any believer with the above, but that is my hope, even if it is just one helped. But probably just as importantly, debates have often led me to deeper study of scripture and history as I attempt to defend, and this invariably strengthens my own weak faith.
1 Peter 3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#97

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:42 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
No geologist or astronomer regardless of their religious affiliation will agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account either because it doesn't fit the data. The analysis of Genesis concluding that the world is anything close to 6000 years old is completely incompatible with the available evidence. Like oil. Like limestone. Probably also coal, slate, marble and many others. The Catholic Church does not agree with a literal interpretation of the creation account, because that doesn't fit the data.
Steven Austin, who has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. all in Geology is, I think, a young earth creationist. Though I'm not certain of that, he has certainly worked to throw doubt on the accuracy of some rock dating methods that have been used to gather the data. I suspect there are a few more like him out there.
You can't get excommunicated from science even if your work is complete crap. I have personally met a few senior technical people, at least 1 a Ph.D. researcher, that demonstrated clear incompetence in scientific research. Even if dating methods are completely unreliable there is no way to explain geology that you can touch with your own hand if the Earth is 6000 years old. Even if the Earth is only 100,000 years old, the young earth hypothesis is wrong.
You have been able to prove the earth is over 100,000 years old, or probably billions, by the touch of your hands? Interesting.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#98

Post by GregD » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:51 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
Steven Austin, who has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. all in Geology is, I think, a young earth creationist. Though I'm not certain of that, he has certainly worked to throw doubt on the accuracy of some rock dating methods that have been used to gather the data. I suspect there are a few more like him out there.
You can't get excommunicated from science even if your work is complete crap. I have personally met a few senior technical people, at least 1 a Ph.D. researcher, that demonstrated clear incompetence in scientific research. Even if dating methods are completely unreliable there is no way to explain geology that you can touch with your own hand if the Earth is 6000 years old. Even if the Earth is only 100,000 years old, the young earth hypothesis is wrong.
You have been able to prove the earth is over 100,000 years old, or probably billions, by the touch of your hands? Interesting.
You seem to be trolling. Clearly misrepresenting my statements.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#99

Post by Scott » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:59 am

GregD wrote:
Scott wrote: Agreed - PURE science is data driven. Not all my professors believed in intelligent design (I went to a liberal state school). But in the absence of data, science does make educated guesses that are often not honestly presented as guesses.
The only thing science claims to know is that explanations that are inconsistent with the data are wrong. Everything else is a guess, with varying degrees of confidence. That is why the term Theory is used; a bit of intellectual precision mocked by Scuba. Confidence can get quite high, but as things get complicated one's level of confidence is a function of personal capabilities as well as the fundamental data. For some, non-scientists especially, things get complicated very quickly.

But it is dishonest and dangerous to ignore the religious and political motivations behind attacks on science and science education in the U.S. And the bias is one sided. There is no scientific motivation to prove or disprove any particular religious belief or political position; science just follows the data as best it can. On the other side it is obvious that the attacks are motivated to protect the credibility of a preferred world view, regardless of the data to the contrary. Many religions provide a creation story, and object to the scientific "religion" creation story being taught in public schools. If science and religion are, as Sarge insists, "on the same footing", it is simply unjustifiable for it to be taught in public schools. Why do we have the National Academies? We teach science in schools and we have the National Academies only because science has such a profound impact on our way of life and our continued well being.
I agree with most of this. Most all scientists I know use theory and knowledge interchangeably. While there is a difference, they state that by the time it is theory, as opposed to hypothesis, there is such strong evidence it may as well be fact.

I do disagree with the one sided bias comment. Scientists fight just as hard, or harder, to keep religion out of school, as creationist fight evolution. And both probably disagree with me because I see a happy middle ground. You mention it above, it has no place in schools in your opinion. There is absolutely strong motivation for scientists to fight creation, it is opposed to their belief system, and as such competes for mind-share of the students, and population in general. I draw a sharp distinction between science, and scientists. Scientists are people, just like creationists. There are honest ones, and dishonest ones. The root of all problems with scientists and religionists who are not entirely honest, is power and money.

Science makes our lives better, no question. But so does religion. True religion practiced honestly results in less conflict, less unwanted pregnancy, less crime, less divorce, less child abuse, less disease, more caring for others, more humanity, more peace. Maybe it could be argued that science gives us tools (medicine, tech, etc) and humanity (religion) gives us a reason to use the tools? Science is a cold, heartless, blind subject in and of itself. Humanity gives it purpose.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#100

Post by GregD » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:29 am

Scott wrote: I do disagree with the one sided bias comment. Scientists fight just as hard, or harder, to keep religion out of school, as creationist fight evolution. And both probably disagree with me because I see a happy middle ground. You mention it above, it has no place in schools in your opinion. There is absolutely strong motivation for scientists to fight creation, it is opposed to their belief system, and as such competes for mind-share of the students, and population in general.
Scientists fight to keep religion out of science class because it isn't science. Others, which include scientists, atheists, and theists, fight to keep religion out of schools because of the separation of church and state. Actually, a class on creation stories would be perfectly permissible, just be sure to get a representative sampling of all of them. No fear of competition for mind share here; just an insistence on accurate representation and consistency.

You misunderstood me. If science were the same as religion then it should definitely not be taught in public schools due to separation of church and state. But it isn't a religion. An obvious next question is why should science be taught in schools at all? Many subjects aren't. The only answer I can come up with is the one I gave.

Yes, scientists are greedy, power-hungry liars like everyone else. That motivates the rule of the game requiring that you show consistency with the data. Scientists that cheat get caught. My understanding is that Gregor Menel likely cheated because his experiments are terribly hard to reproduce as he claims to have done them, although other experiments support his findings. My understanding is that Newton cheated also in that he carefully rounded up or down during the steps of his calculations so the final result was as consistent with his theory as possible. I don't recall if the alleged cold fusion experiment was a deliberate fraud or simply bad technique; the cause didn't matter, it was quickly determined to be wrong. Within the last couple of years there was a paper on how people, when polled about some LGBT issues, were more favorable toward LGBT people if the canvasser claimed to be gay. That was a complete fraud and was discovered within a year or two. What other human activity has such an effective self-correction process?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#101

Post by GregD » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:50 am

Scott wrote: Science makes our lives better, no question. But so does religion. True religion practiced honestly results in less conflict, less unwanted pregnancy, less crime, less divorce, less child abuse, less disease, more caring for others, more humanity, more peace. Maybe it could be argued that science gives us tools (medicine, tech, etc) and humanity (religion) gives us a reason to use the tools? Science is a cold, heartless, blind subject in and of itself. Humanity gives it purpose.
If anyone claims that religion makes their life better, I am inclined to take them at their word, so long as religion is a personal choice (you get to choose yours, but not anyone else's). Science cannot work unless each individual has the capacity to make their own assessments and decisions, so freedom of religion is actually critical. There are non-religious, effective ways of reducing those ills you mention. The data is pretty clear that religiously motivated policies against contraception increase unwanted pregnancy and related costs, BTW (State of Colorado offered free contraception for a time and saved a bunch of money, including fewer abortions). Science is not going to give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you are the least bit important in the great scheme of things, that is certainly true. It also leaves the purpose of your life up to you to decide.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#102

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:57 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: But this raises another question. I have already provided- simply as a starting place- evidence that the Law's of Moses contain multiple command related to health that are dead on with modern medical science, showing a knowledge of what is healthy that we did not know until about 150 years ago. And I asked(rhetorically perhaps) how he could have obtained that knowledge assuming it was not actually his God who told him. Now I want to add to that: How could Moses, raised in Egypt- or wherever he was raised and lived- know where the first civilizations on earth were? How did he know it all started on the Euphrates and Tigress rivers, and how did he know the names of so many of the 1st cities? How is it that he was once again exactly correct, when it all could have gotten started just as well in Egypt or Libya, or even in nations like China that God apparently did not bother to tell Moses about? And how is it that it all arose right about the time some of us think the Bible indicates that it did? That Moses guy really got lucky in his guesses about history and health. He also did great with his predictions of the future, which he again says God told him about. But that is for later.
This is a scientifically valid line of investigation, IMHO. Performing such analysis accurately will take considerable dedication and skill. Often the analysis is bungled; remember Chariots of the Gods? It is extremely important and difficult to manage conformation bias.

And I would agree if such analysis demonstrated that the text contained a high incidence of accurate information that could not have been known at the time of the writing of the text, it is objectively logical to suspect that the text is special.

But I won't give you a pass on Genesis. It gets the formation of the Earth wrong. It is impossible to determine the implications of this fact on the credibility of the remaining portions of the Bible until after determining the relationship of Genesis to the other parts. The Bible does not need to be perfectly accurate to be special.
Well, I do appreciate your consideration for those 1st 2 paragraphs at least! Thank you for that at least! Clearly I have a large confirmation bias. Maybe I'm not the only one?

I think I might bow out of this discussion for a while, it has been pretty tiring. Plus, I think I might want to start a new thread discussing the prophets, with the same question "how did they know?". But on the subject of "how did Moses know", and the even more ancient and totally uneducated Job, along with one who was called the wisest man of his time, Solomon, I will add this:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And then, interestingly, when describing the flood, Moses says:
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
So, from ancient times Moses claims God told him that there were waters both below our sky- our atmosphere that separates us from the heavens above and the earth below. He also seems to have been aware that there were springs "of the great deep", far below the earth or ocean, which could burst forth. Was he right? I'm sure we could not know one way or another until the last 100-200 years at most. And this was yet another fantastic opportunity for Moses to be 100% wrong, as he should virtually always be in non-spiritual areas. But does science confirm Moses on this?
http://www.space.com/53-comets-formatio ... ation.html
A comet is an icy body that releases gas or dust. They are often compared to dirty snowballs, ..........Comets orbit the sun, but most are believed to inhabit in an area known as the Oort Cloud, far beyond the orbit of Pluto. - See more at: http://www.space.com/53-comets-formatio ... LE4OP.dpuf
http://earthsky.org/space/did-comets-br ... r-to-earth
Astronomers have been arguing for some years about comets brought Earth its water. Then in 2011, an international team of astronomers using the Herschel Space Observatory to study Comet Hartley 2 (103P/Hartley) published their results on the first comet confirmed to contain ocean-like water.

Besides life, the biggest thing that distinguishes the Earth from other planets in the solar system is the presence of copious amounts of liquid water. Water molecules have been found in nebulae in distant reaches of the galaxy, so water itself isn’t uncommon in the universe. So it might be surprising to learn that no one really knows how all the water on Earth got here!............
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/fea ... 10722.html
Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water.........................Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away......................."The environment around this quasar is very unique in that it's producing this huge mass of water," said Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -combined/
Study: Deep beneath the earth, more water than in all the oceans combined.......................................
“When a rock with a lot of H20 moves from the transition zone to the lower mantle it needs to get rid of the H20 somehow, so it melts a little bit,” Schmandt said. “This is called dehydration melting.”

Then, “once the water is released,” researcher Jacobsen added, “much of it may become trapped there in the transition zone” about 400 miles deep in the Earth.

And its a good thing, too, Jacobsen told New Scientist: “We should be grateful for this deep reservoir. If it wasn’t there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.”
OK, Moses was wrong on that one, he said the mountain tops were covered! ;) But, he also said the floodgates of the heavens were opened, so.... But basically he was, yet once again, dead on again with his claim that there are waters in the heavens above our sky, and in the depths below. How does he ever get any of this stuff right? Anyone?

Lastly, what about how our weather systems work, aka the Hydrological cycle? Did the Biblical ancients have anything to say about that? Job is considered a more ancient book than Moses, even though Moses writes about the creation and civilization and historical events long before his time. But Job is thought to have live about the time of Abraham, maybe 600 years before Moses.
Job 36:5
All humanity has seen it;
mortals gaze on it from afar.
26
How great is God—beyond our understanding!
The number of his years is past finding out.

27
“He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams
;
28
the clouds pour down their moisture
and abundant showers fall on mankind.
29
Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?..........................37:11
He loads the clouds with moisture;...............
and from Solomon, a newcomer, about 900 years before Christ:
Ecclesiastes 1...............
7
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again
........................
11:3
If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain on the earth.
I'm not even going to bother with a scientific ref, we all know this from school, don't we? I do believe these ancients clearly understood the hydrological cycle, though they had probably never been to any school other than Bible training and reading and writing Hebrew. And even if they had been to school, there was no science to teach them. Yet they clearly state that the clouds contain water, but first the water is drawn up from the water on the earth, where it later becomes rain which falls on the earth, and fills the rivers and runs to the seas, where it returns to the clouds again starting the entire cycle over and over.

I could go on about this stuff, but I am temporarily tired of it and Y'all must be tired of me, so my plan is to stop for a while, or at least go on to something else. But does anyone have any guesses as to how these ancients could so often get these things right?

Bill
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#103

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:59 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
You can't get excommunicated from science even if your work is complete crap. I have personally met a few senior technical people, at least 1 a Ph.D. researcher, that demonstrated clear incompetence in scientific research. Even if dating methods are completely unreliable there is no way to explain geology that you can touch with your own hand if the Earth is 6000 years old. Even if the Earth is only 100,000 years old, the young earth hypothesis is wrong.
You have been able to prove the earth is over 100,000 years old, or probably billions, by the touch of your hands? Interesting.
You seem to be trolling. Clearly misrepresenting my statements.
Oh come on now, not trolling in the least, just sort of joking with you. But you might want to expand on "no way to explain geology that you can touch with your own hand if the Earth is 6000 years old.".

Later!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#104

Post by Scott » Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:23 pm

I think places in this thread crossed a line of giving equal space to both sides. If the OP is asking for debate and that is the intent of a thread, then great. If not, then I think we need to be very careful to not come into their clubhouse (atheism and agnosticism forum) to tell them they are wrong. The same as gun supporters don't want gun haters coming into the gun threads stating why guns are stupid.

Just a thought.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#105

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:30 pm

Scott wrote:I think places in this thread crossed a line of giving equal space to both sides. If the OP is asking for debate and that is the intent of a thread, then great. If not, then I think we need to be very careful to not come into their clubhouse (atheism and agnosticism forum) to tell them they are wrong. The same as gun supporters don't want gun haters coming into the gun threads stating why guns are stupid.

Just a thought.
Well, if I responded with too much, I apologize. But when the OP stated right off "I also concur with Coyne's conclusion that science is leads to an accurate understanding of reality and that religious belief is rife with inaccuracies. The evidence is overwhelming.", I figured he wanted some sort of response. Especially since he surely was aware that there are quite a few professing Christians at this site, I figured he was asking for debate. If not, he probably should have said so up front. But he made his claims often at length, I responded at length, and several others responded also. It's true he was probably the only one posting from the atheist point of view, but I don't know what to do about that.

I figured he was up for it and enjoyed it, since every time I opined, he had a chance to respond and prove how ignorant I am! ;)
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Atheism and Agnosticism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest