Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #309]

... are you affirming that no atheist has used the Bible to support a scientific argument or claim in the science area of the forum?

Can you provide an example of this? I don't recall ever seeing any such thing, but there are plenty of debates where science has been used to debunk biblical claims (eg. Noah's flood). Never seen an atheist use the bible to support a scientific argument or claim though ... I'm not sure how that would even work.

Clownboat: Uses the Bible to argue that God cannot be creator:

"I submit that if a god is perfect, its would create without flaws.
Matthew 5:48
New International Version
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Here: viewtopic.php?p=1091655#p1091655

Miles: Uses the Bible to argue that God cannot be creator:

Genesis 6:6
The Lord was sorry he had made human beings on the earth. His heart was filled with pain.

1 Samuel 15:35
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 42:10
“ ‘If you resolve to remain in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you. For I deeply regret the disaster that I have inflicted upon you.

Amos 7:1-3
The Lord God showed me this: He was forming a swarm of locusts at the time the spring crop first began to sprout—after the cutting of the king’s hay.
2And it came to pass, when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, “O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee! By whom shall Jacob arise? For he is small.” 3The Lord repented concerning this. “It shall not be,” saith the Lord.

There are many more too scattered around the Science and Religion area, these are all examples of the Bible being used to support some claim about God or Christian beliefs, any claim that refers to some objective data can be regarded as being a scientific claim. The claim being that IF God as described in the Bible did exist then we have a contradiction between reality and the Bible and that therefore the Bible is the proof (for some here) that God did not create and does not really exist.

The plain fact is the atheists cite the Bible more than I or other theists do here.

[Clownboat]

My words arent empty, and i am debating the darkness.

You don't offer evidence that your claims are true. Therefore they are in fact empty claims.

Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

It's rather odd that you say this because you and others regularly offer it as evidence of erroneous history, distorted morality and superstition, that's not equitable - you can cite it as evidence for your claims but others can't cite it as evidence for theirs...

What an odd way to debate.
I made a claim that his words were empty because there was no evidence presented, which is what makes them empty.

Nothing in which you typed countered what I said. Why even hit the quote button if you are not going to address that which you hit quote to?

I could ask you to suppy evidence for your claims, but they are off point to begin with and I'm thinking your entire point was to muddy the waters, so I care not to help you in that endeavour.

[Clownboat]

My words arent empty, and i am debating the darkness.

You don't offer evidence that your claims are true. Therefore they are in fact empty claims.
Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

You see this is a debate sight-the darkness stands on one side, and i stand for God and his truth.

I believe I understand as to why man has created religions. I understand there are humans that have a need to have answers to questions that religions provide (why and how are we here, what happens when we die etc...). My mother is one such person. She needs to think she knows about such unknowns as it provides comfort to her and I get that, even though I don't share the need.

Feel free to believe in whatever god concept makes you happy, but why can't you do it without making enemies (the darkness stands on the one side) out of everyone that doesn't share in your religious beliefs? You have providing a wonderful example of the division that religions cause. Ironic no, coming from a religion of love?

Again, I understand your need to have a religion, what I don't understand is the seeming desire to make enemies of those who do not subscribe to a believe you choose to believe in. The division caused by religions is unjustified IMO, but you keep right on displaying it for us all if you can't help yourself.

Only when mothers and fathers stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates another so much, as to send them to an eternal hell will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed caused by religious beliefs. And yet, you believe that I'm on the side of darkness. Something about a plank in ones own eye comes to mind.

Be well.

You cannot disprove a word i say, so then you are in the same boat. Except i am correct.

Sorry, your words were already disproven when they were shown to be empty.
We all understand that you believe yourself to be correct. While myself, I am willing to be shown to be wrong and am open to correction.

For example: If you don't approve of the scientific method, please point to a better mechanism that humans should employ in place of it. Make a valid argument and you could possibly convince me. Why is that? Thanks for asking. It is because I don't assume myself to be correct.

[Inquirer]

My words arent empty, and i am debating the darkness.

You don't offer evidence that your claims are true. Therefore they are in fact empty claims.

Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

It's rather odd that you say this because you and others regularly offer it as evidence of erroneous history, distorted morality and superstition, that's not equitable - you can cite it as evidence for your claims but others can't cite it as evidence for theirs...

What an odd way to debate.
I made a claim that his words were empty because there was no evidence presented, which is what makes them empty.

Nothing in which you typed countered what I said. Why even hit the quote button if you are not going to address that which you hit quote to?

I could ask you to suppy evidence for your claims, but they are off point to begin with and I'm thinking your entire point was to muddy the waters, so I care not to help you in that endeavour.

Well what more can I say? you yourself asserted:

Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

Yet here we are looking at arguments put forth by atheists that used the Bible to argue that God does not exist, they quoted the Bible as evidence that the writers contradict observed reality, so you'd better go and tell them that their arguments don't count.

[Clownboat]

The plain fact is the atheists cite the Bible more than I or other theists do here.

OK, let's assume that is true, what is your point? Is there issues with citing the Bible?

Clownboat: Uses the Bible to argue that God cannot be creator:
"I submit that if a god is perfect, its would create without flaws.
Matthew 5:48
New International Version
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

are you affirming that no atheist has used the Bible to support a scientific argument or claim in the science area of the forum?

Inquirer, where in my quote above am I using the Bible to support a scientific argument?

What I did and Inquirer failed to realize is that I analyzed a religious claim (the Bible god is perfect) and noted how it is illogical (because of what the Bible says elsewhere). There is no other way to analyze the gods as there is no evidence for any of the gods, but claims made about god concepts can be analyzed and even at times shown to be at odds with the book making the claims. This is what was actually done, but again, I believe Inquirer is just trying to muddy the waters to take the post as far off topic as possible.

[Clownboat]

My words arent empty, and i am debating the darkness.

You don't offer evidence that your claims are true. Therefore they are in fact empty claims.

Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

It's rather odd that you say this because you and others regularly offer it as evidence of erroneous history, distorted morality and superstition, that's not equitable - you can cite it as evidence for your claims but others can't cite it as evidence for theirs...

What an odd way to debate.
I made a claim that his words were empty because there was no evidence presented, which is what makes them empty.

Nothing in which you typed countered what I said. Why even hit the quote button if you are not going to address that which you hit quote to?

I could ask you to suppy evidence for your claims, but they are off point to begin with and I'm thinking your entire point was to muddy the waters, so I care not to help you in that endeavour.

Well what more can I say? you yourself asserted:

Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

Yet here we are looking at arguments put forth by atheists that used the Bible to argue that God does not exist, they quoted the Bible as evidence that the writers contradict observed reality, so you'd better go and tell them that their arguments don't count.

Again, what is wrong with quoting the Bible? If we are going to discuss your god concept, where should we pull info from if not the Bible? Face it, the ONLY place your god concept exists is in the Bible and in your head. You can't fault me for that as I would surely prefer to reference another source, but none are available sadly. The Bible is all we have, so it will be referenced. What an odd complaint!

Both the religious and non-religious can quote the Bible in this forum. The Bible is not concidered to be evidence.

ref·er·ence
noun
1.
the action of mentioning or alluding to something.
2.
the use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.

ev·i·dence
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It would do you well to learn the difference, but again, I think your point is to move the discussion off topic anyway.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #311]

There are many more too scattered around the Science and Religion area, these are all examples of the Bible being used to support some claim about God or Christian beliefs, any claim that refers to some objective data can be regarded as being a scientific claim.

What? Any claim that refers to some objective data can be regarded as being a scientific claim? You seemed to have either missed the point entirely, or are doing the usual word games to try and create a scenario where you can claim to be correct when you clearly are not. The examples you gave are NOT of an atheist using the bible to support a scientific claim (ie. the thing you claimed happens in this forum section). Your new and nonsensical definition of what a scientific claim is doesn't change that. Try again.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #311]

There are many more too scattered around the Science and Religion area, these are all examples of the Bible being used to support some claim about God or Christian beliefs, any claim that refers to some objective data can be regarded as being a scientific claim.

What? Any claim that refers to some objective data can be regarded as being a scientific claim? You seemed to have either missed the point entirely, or are doing the usual word games to try and create a scenario where you can claim to be correct when you clearly are not. The examples you gave are NOT of an atheist using the bible to support a scientific claim (ie. the thing you claimed happens in this forum section). Your new and nonsensical definition of what a scientific claim is doesn't change that. Try again.

Define scientific claim then, or find a source that does.

[kjw47]

My words arent empty, and i am debating the darkness.

You don't offer evidence that your claims are true. Therefore they are in fact empty claims.
Holy Books don't count as evidence here.

You see this is a debate sight-the darkness stands on one side, and i stand for God and his truth.

I believe I understand as to why man has created religions. I understand there are humans that have a need to have answers to questions that religions provide (why and how are we here, what happens when we die etc...). My mother is one such person. She needs to think she knows about such unknowns as it provides comfort to her and I get that, even though I don't share the need.

Feel free to believe in whatever god concept makes you happy, but why can't you do it without making enemies (the darkness stands on the one side) out of everyone that doesn't share in your religious beliefs? You have providing a wonderful example of the division that religions cause. Ironic no, coming from a religion of love?

Again, I understand your need to have a religion, what I don't understand is the seeming desire to make enemies of those who do not subscribe to a believe you choose to believe in. The division caused by religions is unjustified IMO, but you keep right on displaying it for us all if you can't help yourself.

Only when mothers and fathers stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates another so much, as to send them to an eternal hell will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed caused by religious beliefs. And yet, you believe that I'm on the side of darkness. Something about a plank in ones own eye comes to mind.

Be well.

You cannot disprove a word i say, so then you are in the same boat. Except i am correct.

Sorry, your words were already disproven when they were shown to be empty.
We all understand that you believe yourself to be correct. While myself, I am willing to be shown to be wrong and am open to correction.

For example: If you don't approve of the scientific method, please point to a better mechanism that humans should employ in place of it. Make a valid argument and you could possibly convince me. Why is that? Thanks for asking. It is because I don't assume myself to be correct.

The destruction and pollution of Gods planet and many getting cancer show major fault in scientific thinking.

[brunumb]

You seemed to have either missed the point entirely, or are doing the usual word games to try and create a scenario where you can claim to be correct when you clearly are not.

Prepare to be dragged down the rabbit hole chasing definitions and other distractions until we have all forgotten that Inquirer made yet another ludicrous claim and is shunting the discussion away from his faux pas.