Is Christianity alone in this?

[Tcg]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

My preference is for convincing and verifiable evidence. Anything that aligns with my preexisting biases will likely always be convincing, but if it's verifiable I feel much better standing on that.

If the evidence is convincing, it is probably verifiable.

Just sayin.

I know for a fact that based on previous debate topics you do NOT accept some verifiable evidence

Verifiable evidence such as?

, but are happy to remain convinced by whatever preexisting evidence you think you have.

Pretty much, yeah.

Since you will likely ask: How many steps will it take to reach X if you only step 1/2 the distance remaining to X from your current position at each step?

I don't bring this up to reopen a debate, only to show that basic math verifies my position (infinite)and ignoring it convinces you (some finite number that isn't infinite).

Based on this, it basically means anything we present will remain unconvincing to you. Honestly, that's fine. Readers will decide in a debate what is convincing and what isn't. If they can verify it themselves, I don't need to do anything else.

First off, props to you for recalling a classic debate and/or analogy.

It shows that you were listening.

The point was; if the past is eternal and each second (or whatever measure of time) represents a point on the timeline, you won't be able to reach a point of equal distance back to the past, relative to the current present point.

The same logic applies to the future as well. It can't happen.

This may all seem confusing, but it is quite simple and once you get it, you get it.

That analogy helps drive home the point that the past cannot be eternal and a beginning is absolutely necessary.

So yes, I am convinced.

[TRANSPONDER]

My preference is for convincing and verifiable evidence. Anything that aligns with my preexisting biases will likely always be convincing, but if it's verifiable I feel much better standing on that.

If the evidence is convincing, it is probably verifiable.

Just sayin.

I know for a fact that based on previous debate topics you do NOT accept some verifiable evidence

Verifiable evidence such as?

, but are happy to remain convinced by whatever preexisting evidence you think you have.

Pretty much, yeah.

Since you will likely ask: How many steps will it take to reach X if you only step 1/2 the distance remaining to X from your current position at each step?

I don't bring this up to reopen a debate, only to show that basic math verifies my position (infinite)and ignoring it convinces you (some finite number that isn't infinite).

Based on this, it basically means anything we present will remain unconvincing to you. Honestly, that's fine. Readers will decide in a debate what is convincing and what isn't. If they can verify it themselves, I don't need to do anything else.

First off, props to you for recalling a classic debate and/or analogy.

It shows that you were listening.

The point was; if the past is eternal and each second (or whatever measure of time) represents a point on the timeline, you won't be able to reach a point of equal distance back to the past, relative to the current present point.

The same logic applies to the future as well. It can't happen.

This may all seem confusing, but it is quite simple and once you get it, you get it.

That analogy helps drive home the point that the past cannot be eternal and a beginning is absolutely necessary.

So yes, I am convinced.

Xeno's paradox? But that is itself based on a fallacy. The fallacy of the beard in fact. It is based the premise of a conceptual trick - a false parameter, that the arrow is at non - motion at every point along the line of travel, and since it must be still at every point, it cannot move from one point to another and thus the arrow cannot move. Your argument that time cannot move from point to point forward or back is using that as an analogy..

The debunk is that how small is the point? No matter how small you make it, if it has dimension, the arrow is still in motion. In fact it is only the infinitely small point where the arrow is not moving. Which, to reverse the actual situation and correct he parameter, says 'there is no actual (measurable) point where the arrow is not in motion. Thus the arrow (and time) demonstrable or logically does move.

And verifiable evidence such as. That which is scientifically and logically sound, not based on Biblefaith and denial. Just sayin'.

I know that gets debated, but I also know the debate was long done and the Theist (Bible) side lost. They just don't know it and won't accept it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I understand that denial of the universe being 14.5 billion years old would resolve the 7 days problem (though not why light and dark was created before the sun)

If the sun suddenly disappears, would not light still emit from the stars?

See, stuff like that..

but the point was about those who DO accept a 14.5 billion year old universe but try to make it fit the Bible by dividing the age of the universe by 7. Which is denied by Genesis because it is talking of days with morning and evening.

Agreed. The morning/evening thing is a problem is a problem for those folks.

Now I did watch an explanation of how Hubble's constant can be used to calculate the age of the universe, but don't look to me to explain it. I'm sure it can be found online and I may try to find a quick summary to post.

Understood.

Though as I said, I expect it will just be dismissed as any science that contradicts the Bible is dismissed.

Just like anything that contradicts science is dismissed.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Xeno's paradox?

Not at all. But you can call it; Venom's paradox.

But that is itself based on a fallacy. The fallacy of the beard in fact. It is based the premise of a conceptual trick - a false parameter, that the arrow is at non - motion at every point along the line of travel, and since it must be still at every point, it cannot move from one point to another and thus the arrow cannot move. Your argument that time cannot move from point to point forward or back is using that as an analogy..

The debunk is that how small is the point? No matter how small you make it, if it has dimension, the arrow is still in motion. In fact it is only the infinitely small point where the arrow is not moving. Which, to reverse the actual situation and correct he parameter, says 'there is no actual (measurable) point where the arrow is not in motion. Thus the arrow (and time) demonstrable or logically does move.

Sorry, sir. No need to attack straw man. Here, let me break down MY paradox.

Lets imagine you've been running on an infinitely long road, eastbound...and you've been running for eternity. You never began to run, nor did you ever stop running.

You have indeed been running for eternity.

Now, as you've been running for eternity, you see me in the middle of the road, and I stop you.

I say "Sup homie. Dig this; I want you to run the opposite direction you came, and I want you to stop at the point of EQUAL distance westbound, relative to the distance that you reached eastbound (at our current point)."

You say "Alright, bet".

And you commence to running.

Now the question is, at what point or distance would you stop?

The point of emphasis is; not only is it impossible for you to stop at ANY point under those circumstances, but it isn't even possible for you to reach any given point on the road in the first place.

That, followed by the fact that the "set" amount of points that you traveled to reach me (on the road) would be infinite, which would mean that you would have successfully traversed infinity in a finite amount of time!!

But you cannot traverse infinity in a finite amount of time!!

It is just all one giant ball of absurdity, but that is exactly what we would have if the past is eternal.

It can't happen.

And verifiable evidence such as. That which is scientifically and logically sound, not based on Biblefaith and denial. Just sayin'.

The sooner you realize that science isn't the end-all-be-all of knowledge, the better.

I know that gets debated, but I also know the debate was long done and the Theist (Bible) side lost. They just don't know it and won't accept it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I had a look and some are better than others. One was very good but the presenter had an accent to dense I could hardly understand him. Others tended to emphasise the Other method - of using red shit and distance of stars to estimate the age.

There are also Qora questions. There are cooler and more entertaining videos but this might do.

Thanks for the groundwork.

Now I can anticipate the objection - why should we assume constant rate of expansion? Answer - why should we not? Physics says that wen you fire a bullet at a target, the bullet will not slow down and speed up. So constant rate of expansion, like most of these Constants is the favoured model.

Great anticipation as you are correct.

If you look outside and see a car riding at 80mph, do you assume that it was riding at 80mph ten minutes ago?

If the car is moving at 80mph now, does this mean that the speed will increase or decrease 10 minutes from now?

I know you predicted the questions, but those are indeed legitimate questions.

Of course this date may be open to revision, especially with the discovery of a star that appears to be older than the age of the universe But what I don't expect it to show is that it is just a few thousand years old. Even radiometric dating of the earth shows that earth is older than that. I believe there are even decent radiocarbon dates older than a few tens of thousands of years. All the evidence is against YE and none that I know of is for Genesis.

Yeah and even those radiometric dating methods have been questioned as invalid. Things aren't as black/white as im sure you'd like it to be.

That aside, the arguments I use for the evidence of God/Christianity are independent of any of that stuff.

So none of the dating stuff concerns me.

[TRANSPONDER]

Xeno's paradox?

Not at all. But you can call it; Venom's paradox.

But that is itself based on a fallacy. The fallacy of the beard in fact. It is based the premise of a conceptual trick - a false parameter, that the arrow is at non - motion at every point along the line of travel, and since it must be still at every point, it cannot move from one point to another and thus the arrow cannot move. Your argument that time cannot move from point to point forward or back is using that as an analogy..

The debunk is that how small is the point? No matter how small you make it, if it has dimension, the arrow is still in motion. In fact it is only the infinitely small point where the arrow is not moving. Which, to reverse the actual situation and correct he parameter, says 'there is no actual (measurable) point where the arrow is not in motion. Thus the arrow (and time) demonstrable or logically does move.

Sorry, sir. No need to attack straw man. Here, let me break down MY paradox.

Lets imagine you've been running on an infinitely long road, eastbound...and you've been running for eternity. You never began to run, nor did you ever stop running.

You have indeed been running for eternity.

Now, as you've been running for eternity, you see me in the middle of the road, and I stop you.

I say "Sup homie. Dig this; I want you to run the opposite direction you came, and I want you to stop at the point of EQUAL distance westbound, relative to the distance that you reached eastbound (at our current point)."

You say "Alright, bet".

And you commence to running.

Now the question is, at what point or distance would you stop?

The point of emphasis is; not only is it impossible for you to stop at ANY point under those circumstances, but it isn't even possible for you to reach any given point on the road in the first place.

That, followed by the fact that the "set" amount of points that you traveled to reach me (on the road) would be infinite, which would mean that you would have successfully traversed infinity in a finite amount of time!!

But you cannot traverse infinity in a finite amount of time!!

It is just all one giant ball of absurdity, but that is exactly what we would have if the past is eternal.

It can't happen.

Ok. if that was your analogy, then it is meaningless. In fact it is the strawman of which you speak. It is irrelevant to the analogy. The runner would simply say 'I have been running eternally, so your request that I run back an equal distance is invalid. I am not sure of what argument you are trying to make with all this, but so far it isn't happening.

And verifiable evidence such as. That which is scientifically and logically sound, not based on Biblefaith and denial. Just sayin'.

The sooner you realize that science isn't the end-all-be-all of knowledge, the better.

I know that gets debated, but I also know the debate was long done and the Theist (Bible) side lost. They just don't know it and won't accept it.

There's another strawman of yours. Though maybe more denialist that strawman. two fallacies for the price of one. While we rationalists know that there is more to life than science,. science remains the best (in fact the only reliable) method of telling us what's true. Even ethics and morals looks like being understood better through science than philosophy ever did, forget about religion.

It's not we materialists that need to credit science less, but you Faith-heads that need to credit it more. You should at least have seen how much credit the Faithful give it when they try to claim that it supports their fallacious analogies.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Ok. if that was your analogy, then it is meaningless. In fact it is the strawman of which you speak. It is irrelevant to the analogy. The runner would simply say 'I have been running eternally, so your request that I run back an equal distance is invalid. I am not sure of what argument you are trying to make with all this, but so far it isn't happening.

All of that energy I put in to re-explaining it...just for you to miss the point.

Life goes on.

There's another strawman of yours. Though maybe more denialist that strawman. two fallacies for the price of one. While we rationalists know that there is more to life than science,. science remains the best (in fact the only reliable) method of telling us what's true.

I disagree.

Even ethics and morals looks like being understood better through science than philosophy ever did, forget about religion.

Wow.

It's not we materialists that need to credit science less, but you Faith-heads that need to credit it more. You should at least have seen how much credit the Faithful give it when they try to claim that it supports their fallacious analogies.

Without the origins of the universe, there would be no science.

No science = no universe.

It is you who needs to give credit to the Almighty.

[Difflugia]

If the evidence is convincing, it is probably verifiable.

You must be new here.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. if that was your analogy, then it is meaningless. In fact it is the strawman of which you speak. It is irrelevant to the analogy. The runner would simply say 'I have been running eternally, so your request that I run back an equal distance is invalid. I am not sure of what argument you are trying to make with all this, but so far it isn't happening.

All of that energy I put in to re-explaining it...just for you to miss the point.

Life goes on.

There's another strawman of yours. Though maybe more denialist that strawman. two fallacies for the price of one. While we rationalists know that there is more to life than science,. science remains the best (in fact the only reliable) method of telling us what's true.

I disagree.

Even ethics and morals looks like being understood better through science than philosophy ever did, forget about religion.

Wow.

It's not we materialists that need to credit science less, but you Faith-heads that need to credit it more. You should at least have seen how much credit the Faithful give it when they try to claim that it supports their fallacious analogies.

Without the origins of the universe, there would be no science.

No science = no universe.

It is you who needs to give credit to the Almighty.

So far I have debunked both your analogies. I suspect that your claim that I am still not getting the point, and you declining to clarify what the analogy and the point actually is looks like a smokescreen.

We (and you) rely on science every day. You only 'disagree' when it cuts across your faith. Very irrational, inconsistent and in denial of the way that science has consistently turned out to be right and the Bible wrong. I doubt that even you supposes that the earth is a flat circle with a dome over it. Rather you would try to argue that's what the Bible Really says (even though it doesn't).

And Wow indeed, when DNA answered the mystery of Instinct and that is leading to a Biological understanding of human behavior and thus, ethics and morals.

Of course without the Universe where would be no humans and no science. Though there would be Physics, of a kind. That's as pointless as crediting the Construction industry with learning 'Without the builder making the building, there would be no education classes'. true but pointless and irrelevant. And I see no reason at all to give credit to a postulated Creative Cosmic Mind that probably doesn't exist, and would probably not care about what you or I credit or not even if it did. It is rather you who needs to credit legitimate doubts and questions about these faith -claims of yours.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So far I have debunked both your analogies.

Did you??

I suspect that your claim that I am still not getting the point, and you declining to clarify what the analogy and the point actually is looks like a smokescreen.

You didn't ask for clarification.

We (and you) rely on science every day.

You rely on science every day. I rely on God every day.

You only 'disagree' when it cuts across your faith.

My faith is based upon sufficient evidence, and will not be shaken by insufficient evidence.

Very irrational, inconsistent and in denial of the way that science has consistently turned out to be right and the Bible wrong.

Science / logical reasoning says that the universe began to exist, which is what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years before empirical data poured in.

Science (observation, experiment, prediction) tells us that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't. The Bible has been telling us that animals will bring forth (produce) after their kinds.

Science (observation, experiment, prediction) tells us that intelligence (the mind) only comes from intelligence. The Bible tells us that a mind (intelligence) created other minds.

So, the record shows that science has just begun to catch up to what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years...contrary to your false sentiments.

I doubt that even you supposes that the earth is a flat circle with a dome over it. Rather you would try to argue that's what the Bible Really says (even though it doesn't).

?

And Wow indeed, when DNA answered the mystery of Instinct and that is leading to a Biological understanding of human behavior and thus, ethics and morals.

DNA doesn't tell us what we ought/ought not do.

So, try again.

Of course without the Universe where would be no humans and no science. Though there would be Physics, of a kind. That's as pointless as crediting the Construction industry with learning 'Without the builder making the building, there would be no education classes'. true but pointless and irrelevant. And I see no reason at all to give credit to a postulated Creative Cosmic Mind that probably doesn't exist, and would probably not care about what you or I credit or not even if it did. It is rather you who needs to credit legitimate doubts and questions about these faith -claims of yours.

However you slice it, sir.