Religion using science

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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?

and i'm not calling you stupid. you might have an iq of 300 but if you don't have the education to fathom advanced mathematics, that's not your fault, its a lack of education, not intelligence.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
this is not a high school. Everything i used in my diagram are widely acclaimed scientific facts. If you don't have the education to understand it, its time to stop debating.

"widely acclaimed scientific facts" Like calling Trig, Algebra? 😆

Here is a fact for you: If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

Also, this is not your idea.

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 Shakyamunison
"widely acclaimed scientific facts" Like calling Trig, Algebra? 😆

Here is a fact for you: If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

Also, this is not your idea.

1. its hosted by my photobucket account
2. It was done by me in mspaint.
3. I can send you photos of my paper worked out version.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
1. its hosted by my photobucket account
2. It was done by me in mspaint.
3. I can send you photos of my paper worked out version.

Post away...

in a bit, i g2g.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
in a bit, i g2g.

Then, just link to your publication in a scientific journal.

easiest way is to go to a scientific discussion board and post his question then get an answer and paste it here. 😛

its what i do sometimes do to sound smart,,,, 😆 🤓 😎

if it seems they are talking down to you dont take it personal its not you who is asking the question/statement..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
easiest way is to go to a scientific discussion board and post his question then get an answer and paste it here. 😛

its what i do sometimes to sound smart,,,, 😆 🤓 😎

Please do it. 😄

i dont wanna .. you do it argue

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Astronomy-%26-Cosmology-forum-8f.php

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i dont wanna .. you do it argue

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Astronomy-%26-Cosmology-forum-8f.php

It was not my idea. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

if i go their and ask the question i'll look stupid.. 😛

i have an image to uphold in that community of like minded intellectuals.
they are liable to kick me out and proclaim me the village idiot..
surely someone of my stature cannot be allowed to be viewed in such a manner. i am sure you can understand perhaps with you having nothing to risk can enter said site with your dignity intact.

i like boobs 😛 tomcat

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?

Very simple. People like things that make them look right and dislike things that make them look wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very simple. People like things that make them look right and dislike things that make them look wrong.

Pretty much. Most religions are happy to trumpet their acceptance of scientific findings, up until the point where it starts to seriously challenge their beliefs. Currently in vogue is the practice of finding vague overlaps between religious texts and, say, astrophysics. This is selective interpretation, post-diction, confirmation bias, and probably some other logical fallacies I'm forgetting. Like any good pattern-seeking species, we can find all sorts of "connections" when we look for them. Doesn't mean that they are valid, especially when we must ignore so much that is contrary to our current knowledge in order to find occasional similarities.

Strictly speaking, though, empirical tests cannot comment on the transempirical: that is, they can't say anything about the supernatural (i.e. God, the idea of a soul, etc.). Scientific studies can, however, support, refute, or call into question religious claims of supernatural forces affecting material reality. This includes a wide array of religious and/or paranormal claims, and is what, unfortunately, creates the societal divide between the two camps in many cases.

As to the specific stories mentioned in the opening post like the Arc, flood, and so forth, those are obvious myths. They are pursued as scientific facts only by fringe groups who take a much more literalist approach to all portions of the Bible, not just the New Testament.

so, religion isn't "using science"

for instance, what is a tested hypothesis about religion that these people have produced, what is an experimental paradigm? etc.

It is the same as anyone. You hear things and you interpret it through the way you understand reality. Religious people are more than willing to accept some and disregard other scientific fact specifically because they are not actively involved in science. It is merely some tidbit of information they picked up that appears to have the credibility of the lab coat. They believe it because it conforms to what they already believe, not because of scientific methodology, which makes them just as willing to disregard as accurate and robust findings in other fields.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if i go their and ask the question i'll look stupid.. 😛

i have an image to uphold in that community of like minded intellectuals.
they are liable to kick me out and proclaim me the village idiot..
surely someone of my stature cannot be allowed to be viewed in such a manner. i am sure you can understand perhaps with you having nothing to risk can enter said site with your dignity intact.

i like boobs 😛 tomcat

Come on... all you have to say is "I'm trying to get information to b*tch slap someone who's argument goes as follows... ...can anyone help me out?"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

Cosigned