(November 18, 2014 at 11:32 am)Chas Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Harry37 Wrote: Rather than clog up the message with my response, you might consider the following site as "evidence" for the global flood:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConten...ticle=1791

blessings,
Harry

That link denies a world-wide flood; it's about a flood of naturally occurring meltwater into Hudson Bay. So, there's that.

---

(November 18, 2014 at 11:21 am)Harry37 Wrote: Evolutionary science is an invalid source of proof since it is based upon theory. And since you reject the Bible as a valid, reliable source of evidence, the question of a global flood cannot be resolved between us; it is a secondary issue. The prime issue is the validity of the Bible. If you wish to discuss that matter, I would be happy to participate.

It's also worth noting that my theological position is that I can only present the evidence, not convince you of its truth. That's a matter between God and you.

A scientific theory is an explanation of evidence. We base theory on fact, not fact on theory.

something the religious cannot understand.

(November 18, 2014 at 12:21 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 11:32 am)Chas Wrote: That link denies a world-wide flood; it's about a flood of naturally occurring meltwater into Hudson Bay. So, there's that.

---

A scientific theory is an explanation of evidence. We base theory on fact, not fact on theory.

A fact is something that is proven, absolute truth. A theory is something that is arrived at through the gathering of evidence that is circumstantial at best; not factual. A good example of theory is the assumption that the ratio between C12 and C14 is unchanging. One could safely say that it is a fact that fact is absolute truth, and it is a fact that theory is not, and therefore is incapable of being the basis of fact.

something the religious cannot understand.

You might also check out the definition of the word, "religion." Every moral agent is religious, including atheists.

(November 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm)Harry37 Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 12:21 pm)dyresand Wrote: A fact is something that is proven, absolute truth. A theory is something that is arrived at through the gathering of evidence that is circumstantial at best; not factual. A good example of theory is the assumption that the ratio between C12 and C14 is unchanging. One could safely say that it is a fact that fact is absolute truth, and it is a fact that theory is not, and therefore is incapable of being the basis of fact.

something the religious cannot understand.

You might also check out the definition of the word, "religion." Every moral agent is religious, including atheists.

nope atheists aren't group with the religious were A- Religious. there is a big difference. we don't need a religion or religions. I don't believe in a magical sky being because there is various reasons. What happened to the old gods of mythologies there all forgotten while new gods replaced them. Horus the sun god the inspiration of jesus he is a less forgiving being long forgotten. jesus being a being that can forgive every single human sin including murder and the systematic rape and killing. why is it that atheists have such a extremely low crime rate that theists. because we know we get 1 life we shouldn't fuck it up hurting people. but you theists are like ill be forgiving ill keep asking for forgiveness from a divine being.

(November 18, 2014 at 12:54 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm)Harry37 Wrote: You might also check out the definition of the word, "religion." Every moral agent is religious, including atheists.

nope atheists aren't group with the religious were A- Religious. there is a big difference. we don't need a religion or religions. I don't believe in a magical sky being because there is various reasons. What happened to the old gods of mythologies there all forgotten while new gods replaced them. Horus the sun god the inspiration of jesus he is a less forgiving being long forgotten. jesus being a being that can forgive every single human sin including murder and the systematic rape and killing. why is it that atheists have such a extremely low crime rate that theists. because we know we get 1 life we shouldn't fuck it up hurting people. but you theists are like ill be forgiving ill keep asking for forgiveness from a divine being.

if one has a value system by which he lives, he is "religious." All men are religious in that sense. Whether or not you agree with the definition is immaterial.

And that was not even my main point.

Even if ... many Buddhists are atheists

(November 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm)Harry37 Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 12:54 pm)dyresand Wrote: nope atheists aren't group with the religious were A- Religious. there is a big difference. we don't need a religion or religions. I don't believe in a magical sky being because there is various reasons. What happened to the old gods of mythologies there all forgotten while new gods replaced them. Horus the sun god the inspiration of jesus he is a less forgiving being long forgotten. jesus being a being that can forgive every single human sin including murder and the systematic rape and killing. why is it that atheists have such a extremely low crime rate that theists. because we know we get 1 life we shouldn't fuck it up hurting people. but you theists are like ill be forgiving ill keep asking for forgiveness from a divine being.

if one has a value system by which he lives, he is "religious." All men are religious in that sense. Whether or not you agree with the definition is immaterial.

And that was not even my main point.

Most Buddhists are atheists. Religion specifically Christianity is not the moral system of a modern day society. Look at iran and iraq including all of the middle east. That is a system of religious morality and laws. They are barbaric they are behind in times. They kill anyone who leaves their religion. you are born into a religion you cannot change your religion. i do not live by religious morality so you cannot say i do. if your so inclined to say all men i me being personally the person that i am do not fit into your criteria because my morality is more superior to your own. i live in a secular country you are free to say what ever you want within legal limits but you cannot just say we all live under the same bullshit. i live in a country for the most part were laws are fair and just. but the people who send people accused of crimes base their reasoning off of emotion and send innocent people to jail and send a killer free. <- Zimmerman. I live in a type of country where the emotions of people can suede a jury to the guilty or not guilty sentencing.

(November 17, 2014 at 11:49 am)Harry37 Wrote: Your Claim: The flood was not worldwide. You've provided no evidence.
Then you asked for evidence that there was a worldwide flood. I did. Take it or leave it.

Oh yes I have provided evidence, have you not read the rest of the thread? The stratigraphic column not only shows no indication of a worldwide flood, but includes plenty of evidence directly contradicting it (continuous seasonal deposits that would take weeks to form, layers that could only form through windblown periods, etc) there are whole civilizations that apparently didn't notice getting destroyed by the flood at all, the genetic bottleneck that would result from the flood would be impossible to resolve, the actual logistics of the ark itself would be impossible to execute, etc etc. It's not my fault you didn't bother to do any reading before deciding what I've done here.

Quote: if one has a value system by which he lives, he is "religious." All men are religious in that sense. Whether or not you agree with the definition is immaterial.

So, let me ask you this: you don't know what a basic word, like theory means, so why should any of us believe your other definitions?

And even if we did, your claim that everyone is religious doesn't drag us down to your level, it just creates a two-tiered system where now we have rational religions which are well grounded, and... well, your kind of religion, which isn't. What you can't do is equivocate between definitions. That's dishonest.

(November 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 11:49 am)Harry37 Wrote: Your Claim: The flood was not worldwide. You've provided no evidence.
Then you asked for evidence that there was a worldwide flood. I did. Take it or leave it.

Oh yes I have provided evidence, have you not read the rest of the thread? The stratigraphic column not only shows no indication of a worldwide flood, but includes plenty of evidence directly contradicting it (continuous seasonal deposits that would take weeks to form, layers that could only form through windblown periods, etc) there are whole civilizations that apparently didn't notice getting destroyed by the flood at all, the genetic bottleneck that would result from the flood would be impossible to resolve, the actual logistics of the ark itself would be impossible to execute, etc etc. It's not my fault you didn't bother to do any reading before deciding what I've done here.

Quote: if one has a value system by which he lives, he is "religious." All men are religious in that sense. Whether or not you agree with the definition is immaterial.

So, let me ask you this: you don't know what a basic word, like theory means, so why should any of us believe your other definitions?

And even if we did, your claim that everyone is religious doesn't drag us down to your level, it just creates a two-tiered system where now we have rational religions which are well grounded, and... well, your kind of religion, which isn't. What you can't do is equivocate between definitions. That's dishonest.

Let me just clear this up for our dumb theist friend here.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Well, reliable in the sense that they're our best current model, not that they're incontrovertibly true.

(November 18, 2014 at 2:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well, reliable in the sense that they're our best current model, not that they're incontrovertibly true.

so the bible is wrong lets grow up and move on from these arguments be cause are right information is key to a happier world instead of magic and sky beings.