Religion using science

So in my last debate got me thinking of something, I tried a post search and couldn’t find it but here it is so sorry if it is a dup thread.

So most every time I get into a debate about evolution or the Bible being true historical fact comes up with the use of science to prove how old something is. Well the part that confuses me is that when the general accepted age of the Earth is 4+ billions years old which many religious people say is wrong according to the Bible and that the science and math used to come up with that age of the Earth is wrong.

However when it comes to proving that the Arc is this old, or a flood happened her or this city is this old and so on and now the math and science is perfectly good?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So in my last debate got me thinking of something, I tried a post search and couldn’t find it but here it is so sorry if it is a dup thread.

So most every time I get into a debate about evolution or the Bible being true historical fact comes up with the use of science to prove how old something is. Well the part that confuses me is that when the general accepted age of the Earth is 4+ billions years old which many religious people say is wrong according to the Bible and that the science and math used to come up with that age of the Earth is wrong.

However when it comes to proving that the Arc is this old, or a flood happened her or this city is this old and so on and now the math and science is perfectly good?

Well, the Earth IS 4.5 Billions years old and the universe is a little more than 14 billion years old. Thus sayeth some Mormons.
There is no official doctrine on evolution or creationism.

However, it is known inside the Mormon religion that knowing such things is not necessary for salvation.

If you want to read a nice artcle from a long standing Apostle in my religion, here is a compilation from Elder Henry B. Eyring.

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html

If anything, this should show how organic Mormon's are with science. Even if the prophet and leader of the Church holds one belief on science and God, that doesn't mean it is spread as official doctrine or is accepted as offical doctrine. Some hold that this is evidence no divine nature of your leaders. Great.

Edit-I think your idea on the theists refusing to grow because science contradicts them is just plain stupid of the Theists...meaning I agree with your point. As long as the Mormons continue to be receptive to new science, I will be a Mormon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the Earth IS 4.5 Billions years old and the universe is a little more than 14 billion years old. Thus sayeth some Mormons.
There is no official doctrine on evolution or creationism.

However, it is known inside the Mormon religion that knowing such things is not necessary for salvation.

If you want to read a nice artcle from a long standing Apostle in my religion, here is a compilation from Elder Henry B. Eyring.

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html

If anything, this should show how organic Mormon's are with science. Even if the prophet and leader of the Church holds one belief on science and God, that doesn't mean it is spread as official doctrine or is accepted as offical doctrine. Some hold that this is evidence no divine nature of your leaders. Great.

Edit-I think your idea on the theists refusing to grow because science contradicts them is just plain stupid of the Theists...meaning I agree with your point. As long as the Mormons continue to be receptive to new science, I will be a Mormon.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Pretty good article, thanks for posting that. I do have to say that you are one of the most open minded Mormons that I have ever talked to.

Thanks man! 😄

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So in my last debate got me thinking of something, I tried a post search and couldn’t find it but here it is so sorry if it is a dup thread.

So most every time I get into a debate about evolution or the Bible being true historical fact comes up with the use of science to prove how old something is. Well the part that confuses me is that when the general accepted age of the Earth is 4+ billions years old which many religious people say is wrong according to the Bible and that the science and math used to come up with that age of the Earth is wrong.

However when it comes to proving that the Arc is this old, or a flood happened her or this city is this old and so on and now the math and science is perfectly good?

What I often wonder is, why do those who obviously know their science keep on debating with those who obviously don't (yet insist that their "religious" view is as legit as a scientific one)? It becomes apparent right off the bat you're not going to get anywhere, so why expend the time and energy (especially since there are those "religious" folk who debate just to screw with your mind)?

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah, the power of intellectualization...why I find psychology so fascinating.

What I often wonder is, why do those who obviously know their science keep on debating with those who obviously don't (yet insist that their "religious" view is as legit as a scientific one)? It becomes apparent right off the bat you're not going to get anywhere, so why expend the time and energy (especially since there are those "religious" folk who debate just to screw with your mind)?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Same reason that I like to shove spoons in my eyes. 😄 🙂 😉 😬 😐

btw, great avi.

i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. 😛

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind.

Originally posted by Mindship
It hurts less than using a grapefruit knife?

btw, great avi.

Or grapefruits. 😱

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So in my last debate got me thinking of something, I tried a post search and couldn’t find it but here it is so sorry if it is a dup thread.

So most every time I get into a debate about evolution or the Bible being true historical fact comes up with the use of science to prove how old something is. Well the part that confuses me is that when the general accepted age of the Earth is 4+ billions years old which many religious people say is wrong according to the Bible and that the science and math used to come up with that age of the Earth is wrong.

However when it comes to proving that the Arc is this old, or a flood happened her or this city is this old and so on and now the math and science is perfectly good?

Its called hypocrisy.

It makes them look foolish.

It makes us question their other points.

Thread solved! 🙂

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. 😛

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

Only in your mind. The rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out how you got to such a profoundly wrong position.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. 😛

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

i posted two qoutes from your scientist and the link page that you have bn using to support your believe and you question the qoute thinking it was mine and called me a dumbass..

calling me a dumbass when it was your scientist and link page arguing against the extreme global warming.. that leads me to believe you did not read the entire artical or you dont seem to understand that your scientist you are referencing dont show the same view as you... and are calling their theories and mathematical equations as you put it "Dumbass".

there is a word called critical thinking learned it in school it is what allowed me to make a similar argument in my previous post similar to what was just mention here with the ice sheets and the equator.. take a look at my last post. i am no scientist but you can see the similar thinking and common sense at play.

oh and you failed to address my calculations because you don't understand basic algebra?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
oh and you failed to address my calculations because you don't understand basic algebra?

You can't hide behind math.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't hide behind math.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
because you don't understand it? when your opposition's arguement is too advanced for you, its time to concede.

But you have not even tried to communicate your ideas. Now you are coming across as an ego maniac.

Please start over, and keep it simple. If I'm as stupid as you think I am, then you need to show your math step by step.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you have not even tried to communicate your ideas. Now you are coming across as an ego maniac.

Please start over, and keep it simple. If I'm as stupid as you think I am, then you need to show your math step by step.

now just a brief estimate, but the distance between the earth of the sun according to the diagram of the orbit appears to be about 1/3 of what it is now. 1/3 of 93 million is about 31 million. now you take the "maximum difference" from the picture above and divide 31 million by it. i got 19. now take your hot temperature summer day and multiply it by that factor. 100 degree's farenheit *19= 1900 degrees when 60million miles closer to the sun.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
fine. i will do it here. attached is the mathematics required to figure out how much the north and south poles change.

now just a brief estimate, but the distance between the earth of the sun according to the diagram of the orbit appears to be about 1/3 of what it is now. 1/3 of 93 million is about 31 million. now you take the "maximum difference" from the picture above and divide 31 million by it. i got 19. now take your hot temperature summer day and multiply it by that factor. 100 degree's farenheit *19= 1900 degrees when 60million miles closer to the sun.

So, is that all you going to do?

Now remember, you think I'm stupid. So, you are going to have to brake it down more.

First off: Why should I believe any part of your diagram?