1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Religion in today's society

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Clone™, Mar 4, 2014.

  1. Aegiscalibur

    Aegiscalibur Add Witty Title Here

    I did read the links, but I wonder if you did. Half of it is only trying to provide evidence of the fact that the Biblical event was plausible, not likely. The arc could have been built? No kidding; of course it could have been built. Even I could have told you that.

    The other half is based on "evidence" that hasn't been confirmed by any independent source. Even I could post a blog and say I have discovered the Holy Grail, full of photos and everything. Why don't you believe in UFO sightings and the Loch Ness monster then? There are far more photos and witness statements of them than anything Wyatt has, a simple Google search away.

    I did say your statements were vague to begin with, but you refused to clarify them, so I'm operating under the assumption that it's based on some kind of form-substance separation. Feel free to provide more detailed arguments; it was more interesting than the spam of Christian websites.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2014
  2. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    Why is that?

    Facts are facts and what I've presented is solid evidence. If you think only scientific findings and records are valid, it implies bias in favor of the scientific community, not for truth.

    The more you guys do this, the more apparent it becomes that the atheist debaters in this thread are struggling with this and have to wrench in excuses to casually ignore what is presented rather than examine the evidence itself. Examine the what and analyze the material, not who presented it.

    But said "professionals" could be just as biased as well. If you don't accept the evidence, it's because you don't accept the evidence, not because it doesn't exist.

    The photographs on UFO Sightings Daily are flawed for the fact that 90% of them are too blurry and don't show the subject matter from different angles the way the Christian sites did.

    Why aren't Christian websites credible? I asked this before but you haven't answered.

    The UFO Sightings Daily is a whole different subject matter. To be honest and frank, its photographs are blurry and ambiguous, and it doesn't go into depth regarding its research and findings. Most of it seems to take a single abstract shape and say hey, this is <insert shape,> it means aliens were there, but we don't have different angles of the subject matter, nor do we have documentation.

    Neither of those sites go into depth. Also, the second site you mentioned could have made up that entire statement as well (it also doesn't refute ALL the claims, only the Noah's Ark ones). Also, from what I've found, the Noah's Ark discovery may be a stretch, but could still be plausible. The evidence for some of the others is stronger, I'll admit.

    In any case, examine what Ron Wyatt uncovered, not who he is.

    Still, what about the others?
     
  3. Aegiscalibur

    Aegiscalibur Add Witty Title Here

    Hang on a second. I don't believe everything published in a scientific journal. I judge on a case-by-case basis.

    To begin with, there's a difference between ancient history and natural science. Most experiments in natural science are really "in your face" things. Spheres roll down slopes in a way that Newton predicted, at least in normal conditions and within reasonable margin of error. Quantum mechanics makes our computers run. The processes of evolution (genetic recombination, mutation, natural selection) are taking place every day.

    The same can't be said of these miracles you speak of. Try to cure cancer with praying. It just won't work with any degree of reliability worth mentioning.

    Historical evidence is harder to judge, but at least get independent (as independent as possible anyway) sources to examine the evidence. Why hasn't Wyatt been able to get his evidence confirmed? Do you think there is some massive conspiracy against him?

    It's not like the Christian sites are showing photos of Moses crossing the Red Sea or anything. It's all some rocks, vague shapes, etc. and a lot of speculation.
     
  4. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    There's a reason why not everything can be cured all the time by praying. If praying was all it took for every person's problems to be solved, no one would ever die, suffer heartache, and so on. That's not something for this life or for this world. At least not now. In addition, if we could just wish all our problems away, that would make us weak, helplessly dependent, and we would just expect God to make up for our laziness and lack of care.

    The reason why Wyatt hasn't been able to get his evidence confirmed is because the scientific community, like you, doesn't believe in miracles, which is a necessary component. I honestly think Wyatt has done a respectable job tracking and linking real life physical evidence to Biblical scripture. Is it 100% correct? Probably not, but a great share of it has to be. Why else would bones and chariot wheels be at the Red Sea Crossing site? Or ruins at Sodom and Gomorrah? If you don't believe the biblical events, then there has to be some other explanation for these, and there isn't any. Meanwhile, Wyatt has also provided plenty of photographic evidence as well.

    Well, if we had a time machine, obviously we could verify that. That's not how archaeology works, however. But even so, within the scientific archaeological community, priceless artifacts are destroyed carelessly and a lot is thrown away.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/travel/16family.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
    http://www.siasat.com/english/news/...troyed-due-carelessness-archaeology-officials

    It's no surprise Wyatt wanted to take a different approach with his own projects, especially with regards to biblical artifacts.

    But think about it earnestly. If the scientific community had evidence in their hands that proved the biblical stories were true, could they really be trusted with it?

    I think you give the scientific community and society far too much credit and power. To be fair, if you question religion, you should question the authenticity of what the scientific community says as well instead of demanding that all sources of proof come from them.
     
  5. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    I'll go ahead and give my two cents even though it'll probably not change anybody's minds...

    Part of what it is hanging me up, and probably not just me, is what exactly it means to believe in Biblical events. I don't need to believe that Achilles was a demigod in order to believe that the Trojan War happened. In fact, any mythology will have a correlation with history--mythology was the vessel a people's mores were communicated. Before the written word, song was how history was remembered--that's why the Iliad is about the only document we have talking about the Trojan War and why we study the Iliad to study history, even though we understand it's not a historical document in the same sense the Deceleration of Independence is or a fictional story in the same sense Harry Potter is. Mythology is the odd narrative that sits between history and fantasy.

    And yes, I will called the Bible a mythology. I'm defining mythology to be a culturally significant narrative.

    For me, saying that Noah's Ark happened exists does not in anyway convince me that a great flood happened. Your articles do not begin to discuss the myriad of concerns I have, such as how Noah would have gotten animals on far-off (e.g. Kangaroos or Penguins) or how fish would survive a changing ecosystem or trees survive an immense flood. Why is there no geological record of a global flood happening? How would animals reproduce without killing themselves (e.g. how would Zebra thrive without the Lions munching on what remains). After all, carnivores can't suddenly become herbivores.

    Which isn't to say a flood didn't happen either. Note the lack of the word global; I am alluding, of course, to talking about a local flood. For example, the study talked about in this (I don't know whether to attribute it to PBS, Scientific American Frontiers, or both) discuss how they found evidence of an influx of salt water to the sea, among others. More importantly though, the time frame (7.5 to 15 thousand years ago) correspond to the beginning of the Holocene, wherein it would not be unreasonable for a glacial to interglacial climate change to create local floods around the world. Moreover, we could also speculate that Noah, if he and his ark existed, didn't literally take two of every animal, but rather two of every farm animal (e.g.) where most of the concerns I would have would go away. In fact, implying that climate change is the cause for the Biblical flood can easily account for other flood mythology and why flood mythology as a whole exists nearly everywhere.

    The point is, whether or not someone found Noah's Ark doesn't change the fact that finding an Ark made by Noah isn't tantamount to showing a global flood. Finding that Sodom existed without providing evidence as the exact cause of its destruction is not tantamount to showing God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

    More or less, that's the critical issue here: how would even jump to "possible ark made by someone named Noah" to "God created a global flood" is beyond me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  6. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    The issue here is that there really isn't a scientific process. It's making guesses without testing them. Scientific journals at least have stuff that have gone through testing, and there can be debate about what's in them, as long as the evidence against is also credible.

    Plus the scientific community is all about truth, it just keeps testing and testing to make sure the truth is still true.
     
  7. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Not only that, but there are huge prizes out there for anyone that debunks strong theories. Like, legitimately disproving huge, well-tested theories earns you Nobel prizes, recognition everywhere, and tons and tons of money.

    The ones that are still around aren't still here for a lack of trying.
     
  8. Aegiscalibur

    Aegiscalibur Add Witty Title Here

    Uh, yeah, I'm sure we have all heard that already. But you can't prove it, which was the point in case you missed it.

    If there is evidence that can only convince people who already believe in what you are trying to prove, then I'd call it pretty useless evidence.

    Meanwhile, scientific evidence has been able to convince nonbelievers. Nobody believed in quantum mechanics in ancient times, but now they do because it's hard to deny something so obviously in front of you.

    Even assuming that Wyatt didn't just make up his evidence, how about plain old earthquakes or people fighting on chariots? No other explanation? That's an insult to the reader; anyone can come up with one in a few seconds.

    If you read the context, you'd notice that the comparison point was those UFO pictures you were criticizing. How is a photo of a vaguely shaped rock somewhere any better than a blurry photo of an alleged alien spacecraft?

    Yes, I also found the Holy Grail in my backyard, but I'm not going to show it to anyone because they would drop it and break it. Totally legit.

    I don't trust the scientific community much at all, let alone society. Have you been reading any of my posts? How much of an individualist and anarchist do I have to be to avoid these "you blindly believe in society" accusations?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  9. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    First point I'd like to make is that scientists aren't 100% sure how water even got on Earth in the first place. Second point is that the scientific community doesn't doubt the great flood was possible, but it cannot answer the question of where and when it happened.

    I need to ask again why you feel God and spiritual entities need to adhere to a scientist's dictations? As for the scientific community about truth? They can't figure out whether fish oil is good for us or not, why people yawn, what diets are right, or even why we have to go to sleep at night. When it comes to understanding the universe, scientists haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg, let alone scrape it.

    Case in point, you drastically overestimate the power and knowledge scientists have to declare what is truth and what is not.

    And you really don't think that's not political either?

    http://www.fitsnews.com/2014/09/23/barack-obamas-nobel-peace-prize/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/obama-nobel-peace-prize-norway-rebuke-war

    Hate to say it, but with enough money, power, and influence, anyone can win a Nobel prize. As for the money, well, we all know what money can do to a person once they have too much of it.

    It's sad what a few materialistic things can do to sway people from the truth and what is important.

    Prove it on what basis? Scientific testing again?

    Not everything can be scientifically tested. Was there a sunrise on February 7th, 1643? Yes, but can you scientifically prove that?

    Scientists aren't gods or deities. They don't hold the books of all truth or sit in positions of divine authority that holds limitless power and declaration over what is truth and what is false. They're humans just like you and I. They don't know everything and make mistakes all the time, just like we do. Heck, there are plenty of things even you know that even the best of scientists don't. I think atheists in general give them far, far too much credit.

    All it means is being open-minded to occurrences that science cannot explain and go beyond what humans can test and understand. It's not even asking for that much.

    Are there things beyond what you can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch? Are there things that go beyond what you see on a daily basis? A yes to both of these is all it takes.

    Today we call it quantum mechanics. In ancient times, they could have referred to such principles as something different yet still be aware of them.

    How do you know Wyatt made up his evidence? What do you have that supports this claim? What motive and gain would Wyatt have for doing that, and how well do you know him to the point where you are certain he would do that?

    Also, you still didn't answer the questions, so I'll repeat them again:

    Why else would bones and chariot wheels be at the Red Sea Crossing site? Or ruins at Sodom and Gomorrah? If you don't believe the biblical events, then there has to be some other explanation for these, and there isn't any.

    Which particular photo of a vaguely shaped rock are you referring to?

    Also, if you checked the links, there was way, WAY more than just one photo of rocks in there. So even if there was just this one particular photo that missed the mark (again, point to me which photo this is), there was still truckloads of more evidence in there. I'm not saying Ron Wyatt is perfect, but he certainly went the extra mile to provide plenty of clear photographs and research that supports the Bible.

    That's what photos and videos are for! Show us that grail, you knucklehead! Show us the same kinds of photos and videos that Wyatt provided with explanations, Bible references, and analysis!

    Oops. It's okay, I know you were only kidding.

    Well, that's certainly a sad state to live in. Ever... stop for a moment to consider what the world would be like if everyone had that same kind of mentality? No trust, no cooperation, no teamwork? Certainly would be a darker, colder, more apathetic world.

    It sounds more like you have a personal issue with believing anyone you interact with could be a liar as opposed to simply not agreeing with presented evidence.
     
  10. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    I was going to make an actual reply but then I read on and realized you continued to try and state things along the lines of "Scientists don't know X thing, therefore science can't be trusted" and "'God' exists outside of logic so you can't touch my religion with your science because reasons". I'll leave this cesspool alone.
     
  11. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    well, i was blown off quickly.

    First point, yes the scientific community doubts a great global flood could happen for reasons so concrete they're more likely to be rejected from publication for being trivial than being wrong (e.g. how come there's no mass extinction within the past 10,000 years).

    Or at least it would be, if it weren't for the fact that research into climate change prompts interest in sea level rises that we can see, for example here, no spike that would correlate to a global flood within the past 20,000 years.

    And yes, while we're not sure how water made its way to earth, we're pretty sure it's been around for a long time. This source, for example, indicates that liquid water has been here at lest 4.4 million-ish years ago (i.e. not long after earth was formed). Point is, water was here so long before Noah's flood allegedly happened that to talk about its origins is a red herring altogether.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  12. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuum, dude, that's the nobel peace prize! That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about! What are you even on, AA!?
    Look, any scientist worth his beans is trying to get a nobel prize in a science field, and disproving a legitimate theory is the best way to do just that. In a field of skepticism, you have to really do it too.
    And leaving a field intact doesnt get you anything as far as material prizes, so you'd think if scientists were corrupted, thered be less theories alive, ya?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  13. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    I'd just like to point out that there would have been far too few members of any species on the ark to have the "kind" actually survive. Only one male and one female literally gives you the most narrow gene pool possible, dooming the species as inbreeding becomes the only option for procreation and the offspring inevitably become sterile and too disfunctional to even survive. Yes, this goes for humans too. There may have been Noah and wife and his sons and their wives but that's still far too few eligable mates and most of them share familial genetics already.

    Basically, even if we look past how it is impossible to fit the number of animals required into a boat the size of the ark(that we do know the supposed measurements of) along with all the required food and fresh water to sustain them all along with keeping the carnivores from murdering all of the herbivores and all of the venomous animals from killing just about anything and ignoring the obvious potential for deadly disease in a ridiculously cramped enclosed space such as the ark we still have the problem of the flood killing every loving macroscopic animal on the planet. If the flood actually happened we wouldn't be having this debate.
     
  14. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Just for the record the commonly accepted number for a population to grow without any chance of genetic defects or anything is about 500. Even a group of 50 has a good chance of running into genetic issues over time. Part of the reason we're in a mass extinction right now is we have species below those numbers, it's about trying to make the population grow without ruining future viability for the species.
     
  15. Aegiscalibur

    Aegiscalibur Add Witty Title Here

    Then it's a pretty good thing I don't claim to know things like that. My stance is uncertainty, so in the absence of evidence I win.

    But you weren't talking about open-mindedness, you were talking about already believing in miracles! At least read your own posts.

    Then they hid their knowledge pretty damn well. Why weren't they building computers and cell phones? If you know modern physics, you can simply derive classical physics and set up the relevant industry.

    I never even said he made it up.
    It's right there above your reply, in plain English.

    Did you find the answers lacking, or did you just not read my post? I can't tell.

    The UFO pictures are allegedly showing the spacecraft themselves, not some rocks, ruins or pieces of wood that supposedly prove divine power just because. You found some city that got flattened by an earthquake? Of course this proves that Yahweh struck it down because it's not like earthquakes ever happen naturally... oh wait. And of course there is no way to dump chariot wheels into the sea without Yahweh, either.

    What was so great about his analysis? He is assuming from the start that Yahweh is responsible and the Bible is true. Then by discovering some indirect evidence and not even considering other possibilities he arrives at the conclusion that he assumed right at the start.

    Nice strawman you have there. If I think for myself and don't blindly believe in everything someone says, obviously I can't work with anyone else because... logic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  16. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    The difference being that professionals have to overcome their biases when they prove their assertions and post their findings in a formal report to be scrutinized by people who may have opposing biases.

    I almost died. "Didn't show the matter from different angles like the Christian sites". Too bad these weren't Christian UFOs... you would have accepted them on the spot.

    I'm not entirely convinced you read my posts. I have already explained that. Others have already explained that. Either you don't care that they aren't credible sources, or you can admit that the UFO page is just as credible. Choose one.

    Nope, not at all. Your posts lack documentation too. Where are the "scientific readings" on the blood from the arc? You are going to criticize this, when many of your links provide NOTHING in the way of evidence at all? They are just claims with bible verses tacked on. If you do ever decide to provide real evidence, I'll wait. Post a Christian website, I don't care, so long as it links to actual science and not just Google maps of the middle east.

    Getting you to admit it might not be total fact is good enough for me. Guess that's the extent of an impact total refutation of your position will have.

    Both links do that...

    Red Sea: Just describes that the bible might actually be talking about a real place. Whoopdedoo. If I was writing a work of fiction I think I should at least add some real places for immersion.

    Sodom & Gomorrah: This is the best evidence I have found for the city. It's not all too convincing. The only people who agree it exist are, wow, would you look at that, Christians and Muslims who have the place in their holy books. It's almost like they would believe it even if there were no evidence at all.

    Mt Sinai: Zeus isn't on Olympus, either.
     
  17. Silver Soul

    Silver Soul Well-Known Member

    So, the Pope says Evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching. Boy, those evolution teaching bans are looking really stupid. Then again, look what happened with Galileo.
     
  18. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Galileo's problem was he couldn't prove his theory and then ran afoul of politics when he published a work that appeared to be insulting to the current pope. Galileo considered the tides as proof of his theory and we all know what causes the tides. Even his fellow scientists thought he was wrong about the tides.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Galileo.2C_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides

    You can advocate all you want for a theory but without some proof, don't expect to be believed.
     
  19. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    People have provided more proof than you could ever ask for already in this thread. Go read a textbook on the topic, remember back to highschool science, even. This is accepted scientific fact in the scientific community, just as global warming is fact that people are hesitant to believe.

    People don't want to believe things, so they ignore the scientific consensus. That's fine. Admit that you are doing so because you simply don't want to believe what's been proven again and again and again, though.
     
  20. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Even Einstein has had his theories disproven by people like Stephen Hawking, but instead of treating him like something who was wrong and didn't deserve his accomplishments, they respect him for the work he did, both as an inspiration, and putting forth the knowledge for them to study.
     

Share This Page