Private christian school "science" quiz

[Ky]

(05-14-2013 11:18 AM)Eintity Wrote:  I'm religious, and I'm pretty sure that stuff isn't in the Bible.

Indeed, most of it doesn't appear to be. The specifics are all wrong in both religious and secular science.

Ignoring that, I think people take much more issue with the "were you there" statement and the idea that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time humans did. This is the point I think they are trying to convey, and the fact of the matter is that there's no definitive proof - pitting the book of Job (the historical aspects of which take place before Genesis ever finishes) against carbon dating doesn't end in a result for one or the other.

That said, I am a fan of neither science and would very much like to do away with the concept in general. Both sciences have deviated far from the scientific method and would be better summed up into two groups: "how we think things work" and ancient history.

[EntityCubed]

"Dinosaurs were made on the 6th day."
Were you there?

[no]

(05-14-2013 03:03 PM)Prince Darkstar Wrote:  I think this is what they study in that class:

I wasn't aware that this site had become anti-dropout.

[Potato]

Quote:Indeed, most of it doesn't appear to be. The specifics are all wrong in both religious and secular science.

what's wrong with secular science? and the whole assumption behind religion is that god and the supernatural methods by which he create and do stuff cannot be understood through science; religion to the religious should be equally believable whether or not it can be verified through science. any scientific finding which contradict religious beliefs can be rejected on religious grounds. so wtf is "religious science"

the average size of a dinosaur was: d. sheep
what caused there to be fossils: b. a global flood

Quote:This is the point I think they are trying to convey, and the fact of the matter is that there's no definitive proof - pitting the book of Job (the historical aspects of which take place before Genesis ever finishes) against carbon dating doesn't end in a result for one or the other.

so you think carbon dating is about as reliable as a story book by Job?

Quote:Both sciences have deviated far from the scientific method and would be better summed up into two groups: "how we think things work" and ancient history.

legend is not history. history requires evidence. an ancient book might tell a story about the city of troy, and it may become legend, but troy can't become history until they find it and dig up the ruins.

[Ky]

(05-15-2013 09:25 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:Indeed, most of it doesn't appear to be. The specifics are all wrong in both religious and secular science.

what's wrong with secular science? and the whole assumption behind religion is that god and the supernatural methods by which he create and do stuff cannot be understood through science; religion to the religious should be equally believable whether or not it can be verified through science. any scientific finding which contradict religious beliefs can be rejected on religious grounds. so wtf is "religious science"

the average size of a dinosaur was: d. sheep
what caused there to be fossils: b. a global flood

Quote:This is the point I think they are trying to convey, and the fact of the matter is that there's no definitive proof - pitting the book of Job (the historical aspects of which take place before Genesis ever finishes) against carbon dating doesn't end in a result for one or the other.

so you think carbon dating is about as reliable as a story book by Job?

Quote:Both sciences have deviated far from the scientific method and would be better summed up into two groups: "how we think things work" and ancient history.

legend is not history. history requires evidence. an ancient book might tell a story about the city of troy, and it may become legend, but troy can't become history until they find it and dig up the ruins.

As I've said, I dislike both sciences. I can't tell whether I should be more displeased with religious science for being so vague and un-agreed-upon by experts (yes, they exist) in that field, or with secular science for encroaching upon the minds of religious scientists. Both have their fair share of flaws (the most important being that neither one is, in the correct use of the term, a "science").

Something verified through secular science is not necessarily verified through religious science, and vice versa. You can believe there was no global flood all you want, just as I can deny the possibility of some other catastrophic event wiping out the dinosaurs. Stick with your own science rather than bashing another.

(Also, I'm not sure where they pulled that "average dinosaur size" from. I don't remember that from reading Job.)

Radiometric dating techniques are actually less reliable than historical documents - in short, carbon dating requires accuracy in a radioactive state of carbon, something that is relatively impossible. Contrary to popular belief, carbon dating is NOT used on dinosaur bones because the assumption is that the bones are millions of years older than the maximum effectiveness of the method. In comparison, the book of Job is comprised of historical accounts. Were you there? They were.

Legend is history. The part of legend that is untrue reveals the mindsets of the people of the time. The part of legend that is true is historical data. The Bible's story is really two-fold - one way to look at it is that it is the timeline of Hebrew settlement, and another way is that it is the revelation of the mindset of God's chosen people.

If you're really as hung up on facts as you seem to be, check your own science first. You may find the things you take to be axioms are nothing more than conjectures, hypotheses, and theories (which, in their defense, are as close to facts as they can be without being factual).

(Well, I took the bait, didn't I? Fine.)

[brainiac3397]

Better to have some proof with limited accuracy, then no proof at all.

Even if they aren't 100% spot-on, the testing still reveals that the bones/soil are way older than these people think.

[Ky]

(05-16-2013 10:26 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Better to have some proof with limited accuracy, then no proof at all.

Even if they aren't 100% spot-on, the testing still reveals that the bones/soil are way older than these people think.

One could say the same for the Bible.

Way older? Even optimistically speaking carbon dating is completely ineffectual at the 60,000 year range. It also only works on organic remains (as carbon-14 tends only to be present in, and thus decaying in, once-living organisms).

It is not used on dinosaurs, contrary to popular belief, because it would not return any evidence in favor of the theory that dinosaurs are millions of years old.

(Also, I've considered the possibility that God created the world as though it had already existed for a long time just to mess with people's heads. That would be hilarious if it were true.)

[Potato]

Quote:You can believe there was no global flood all you want, just as I can deny the possibility of some other catastrophic event wiping out the dinosaurs.

what people believe is not the same as what logic dictate. extraordinary or supernatural events are usually not taken as history, the Odyssey is not taken as evidence for cyclopes'. so why do you take the bible as evidence for historical supernatural events or jesus miracles? that -simple, written text is not sufficient evidence for extraordinary, supernatural, past events- is what appear to be your view on most of this stuff, but you've made an exception for the bible because you've been hearing too much about it from too young, imo. or explain why you think the story of jesus's resurrection (or one of the few different versions of it within the gospels) is more credible than the story of mohammad's miraculous ascent into heaven from temple mount or whatever

Quote:Contrary to popular belief, carbon dating is NOT used on dinosaur bones because the assumption is that the bones are millions of years older than the maximum effectiveness of the method.

carbon dating isn't the only version of radiometric dating, they also have "uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...e-age1.htm

Quote:In comparison, the book of Job is comprised of historical accounts. Were you there? They were.

you don't know that "they" were who they claim to be (and they probably weren't: http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God...06QS02F8), you don't know "they" weren't simply writing fiction WHICH PEOPLE OFTEN DO.

Quote:The part of legend that is untrue reveals the mindsets of the people of the time. The part of legend that is true is historical data.

yeah but when we read fiction- including those with references to the real world, like harry potter in the land of britain, or the odyssey around the Aegean sea, we usually regard all the supernatural parts as "untrue parts" because being written into text on some ancient scrolls or popular novels or whatever just isn't enough evidence for such extraordinary claims to be considered plausible.

Quote:(Also, I've considered the possibility that God created the world as though it had already existed for a long time just to mess with people's heads. That would be hilarious if it were true.)

you might as well consider the possibility that god created you two minutes ago with false memories already implanted in your head. what's hilarious is how desperate you are in trying to hold on to the superstitious nonsense that you've been brainwashed into. no offense

[Disciple]

Fuck religion. I don't mind people following it on their own, but when they try to force-feed that bullshit down children's throats and pass it off as 'science', it's too far.