Crazy Bible Stories

[DBT]

Why believe in stories? Isn't it enough to live with the mystery of existence? To feel wonder over an incomprehensible universe?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
Some people are extremely uncomfortable if they don't understand something so will accept an 'answer' given by religion rather than admit ignorance to themselves. Others enjoy the challenge of the unknown.

Another reason could be fear. Most religious were indoctrinated from childhood with the belief that they must accept what religion says or they will go directly to hell.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Faith = No Loose Ends?
Back around '80, Phyllis Schlafly came out with a ridiculous book called Child Abuse in the Classroom. (Among other horrible beliefs, she thought that chattel slavery in the U.S. didn't need to be taught to kids in our schools, because "America has freed more people than any other country on earth.") The passage I remember marking in my copy is where she quoted a Christian mom as saying that her kids were coming home from school, where critical thinking was being taught formally, as a unit in, I'm guessing, reading class, and they were complaining about headaches -- that is, actual, physical, severe headaches. You know, from critical thinking: examine your sources, critique your own assumptions, look for supporting logic, look at the support that opposing assumptions carry. Headache stuff.
Phyllis. What a pill. May she rest in peace and may her books grow mold.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why believe in stories? Isn't it enough to live with the mystery of existence? To feel wonder over an incomprehensible universe?

I'd love to have an answer. I don't find either a natural or supernatural origin of the universe satisfactory. Neither makes any sense to me. But I most certainly don't think my views on origins should come down to the scientific understanding of the world 2500 years ago.

I want to produce a Nova like video with today's physicists, but talking like people did 2500 years ago about snakes eating the moon and no one knowing where it went after it sets.

 

[Learner]

Starting with...

In order to be skeptical of dating methods, or geological interpretations, or biology, or paleontology, or archaeology, or history, you need to be at least somewhat educated about these subjects. Are you sufficiently educated to hold meaningful opinions about whether they are right or wrong? No. Yet here you are, telling us you are "skeptical", but you can't actually tell us what you are skeptical of and why. That is the arrogance Jimmy was talking about.

* The arrogance is that you hold to positions counter to science you don't understand, with "faith" that you are right and they are all wrong.*

There is only skeptiscism of some scientific conclusions made by people and not denial of science - finding out things.

It can't be skepticism because you have argued you don't even know better, but have "faith" that all of the scientists are wrong, despite have a mountain of reproducible science to back them up. To suggest you know better, while admitting you know nothing is quite arrogant.

(I include skepticalbip's related post here too )

The arrogance here is that you (plural) were relying too much on a "established" scienfic finding - the best explanation currently known, set-in-stone in your minds, not bothering/ realising to note that an "established" scientic finding that differs from another "established" finding means that there is more than one best "establsihed" scientific explanation around?

How much education in those respected fileds does one need to be sceptical when one can determine by BASIC LOGIC (what Lion previously pointed out)? Which seems to me, quite underated when a layman uses it e.g. making the judgment (even as a theist) to NOTE the implications that there is an "established" scientist (Gerta Keller for example) who disagrees (refuting) with the more known conclusion - the single-asteroid-mass-extinction killed all the dinosaurs - contending with the explanation - That it was more than one mass-exinction event, that killed the dinosaurs and other creatures later than conventionally thought.

Keller contesting the Alvarez hypothesis- single impact on Chicxulub ... extinction of dinosaurs..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerta_Keller

Which one is it?

We can afford to be sceptical here on which of the "established" is the correct one .. no faith involved but basic logic.

(cont.. later with other part, hard to focus with the racket around here)

 

[Keith&Co.]

The arrogance here is that you (plural) relying too much on "established" scienfic findings - the best explanation currently known, set-in-stone in your minds, not realising that an "established" scientic finding that differs from another "established" finding means that there is more than one best "establsihed" scientific explanation around?

Um, exactly how many 'best' explanations can there be? I mean, in English?

 

[Learner]

more than one is the spanner in the works for the established part of the discussion.

 

[skepticalbip]

Starting with...

* The arrogance is that you hold to positions counter to science you don't understand, with "faith" that you are right and they are all wrong.*

There is only skeptiscism of some scientific conclusions made by people and not denial of science - finding out things.

It can't be skepticism because you have argued you don't even know better, but have "faith" that all of the scientists are wrong, despite have a mountain of reproducible science to back them up. To suggest you know better, while admitting you know nothing is quite arrogant.

(I'd include skepticalbip's post here too )

The arrogance here is that you (plural) were relying too much on a "established" scienfic finding - the best explanation currently known, set-in-stone in your minds, not bothering/ realising to note that an "established" scientic finding that differs from another "established" finding means that there is more than one best "establsihed" scientific explanation around?

How much education in those fileds does one need to be sceptical when one can determine by BASIC LOGIC (what Lion previously pointed out)? It seems to me, underated when a layman uses it e.g. making the judgment (even as a theist) to NOTE the implications that there is an "established" scientist (Gerta Keller for example) who disagrees with the more known conclusion - the single-asteroid-mass-extinction killed all the dinosaurs - contending with the explanation - That it was more than one mass-exinction event, that killed the dinosaurs and other creatures later than conventionally thought.

Keller contesting the Alvarez hypothesis- single impact on Chicxulub ... extinction of dinosaurs..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerta_Keller

Which one is it?

We can afford to be sceptical here on who's right ..no faith involved but basic logic.

You are mixing several things here. With regard to the extinction event about 65 million years ago, the fact that many species went extinct around that time is a scientific finding. There are a few hypothesis as to the cause, the impact that created the Chicxulub crater is only one of these hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a scientific finding but a proposed explanation to account for the finding that there was an extinction. A hypothesis is not 'set in stone' or 'established'. It is a possibility that fits the scientific finding. A hypothesis is a possibility to be tested. In the case of the KT extinction, there is good evidence that the Chicxulub impactor played a major part in the extinction even though there may have been other contributors. If no evidence is found to support a hypothesis or evidence is found that is contrary then that hypothesis is dropped.

The finding is the extinction. The hypothesis is a possible explanation for it.

 

[Learner]

You are mixing several things here. With regard to the extinction event about 65 million years ago, the fact that many species went extinct around that time is a scientific finding. There are a few hypothesis as to the cause, the impact that created the Chicxulub crater is only one of these hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a scientific finding but a proposed explanation to account for the finding that there was an extinction. A hypothesis is not 'set in stone' or 'established'. It is a possibility that fits the scientific finding. A hypothesis is a possibility to be tested. In the case of the KT extinction, there is good evidence that the Chicxulub impactor played a major part in the extinction even though there may have been other contributors.

The finding is the extinction. The hypothesis is a possible explanation for it.

Sure, this is a fair concept along side Vulcanism which also has plausibility as a concept. Concepts presented in an informational balanced way. However .... Dr. Keller doesn't see it that way as one sees it as "they maybe right or I maybe right, not sure" so to speak. In fact she is certain her conclusions are correct.


(I'll be in and out of forum,sorry about that)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dr. Keller doesn't see it that way as one sees it as "they maybe right or I maybe right, not sure" so to speak. In fact she is certain her conclusions are correct.

So, she's convinced of her explanation for the accepted observations. Good for her.
But does that mean any of us have to be convinced by her conviction? Or can we withhold conviction until better evidence is found?

And, who are you criticizing?

You said it was arrogant for us to believe something because there were more than one 'best' established theory, as a means of justifying YOU being skeptical of science. Except you're not skeptical because there's a lack of consensus, you're skeptical because ALL the scientific conclusions match the evidence, which doesn't allow room for your cherished myth.

So, you're actually being misleading about the significance of debate in the scientific fields you really know bupkes about.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are mixing several things here. With regard to the extinction event about 65 million years ago, the fact that many species went extinct around that time is a scientific finding. There are a few hypothesis as to the cause, the impact that created the Chicxulub crater is only one of these hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a scientific finding but a proposed explanation to account for the finding that there was an extinction. A hypothesis is not 'set in stone' or 'established'. It is a possibility that fits the scientific finding. A hypothesis is a possibility to be tested. In the case of the KT extinction, there is good evidence that the Chicxulub impactor played a major part in the extinction even though there may have been other contributors.

The finding is the extinction. The hypothesis is a possible explanation for it.

Sure, this is a fair concept along side Vulcanism which also has plausibility as a concept. Concepts presented in an informational balanced way. However .... Dr. Keller doesn't see it that way as one sees it as "they maybe right or I maybe right, not sure" so to speak. In fact she is certain her conclusions are correct.


(I'll be in and out of forum,sorry about that)

If she is certain, then that sounds like she has gotten too attached to her belief unless she has some damn good, indisputable evidence to support it and damn good, indisputable evidence that an impactor played no part. Since she is a noted paleontologist, I think maybe you are overstating her position unless she is suffering from senility.

Just in case you are not familiar with how the Chicxulub impactor hypothesis came about:
... There are fossils of many species in the strata below the KT boundary that are not found above that boundary and are extinct.
... In the strata just above the KT boundary there are no fossils of large animals.
... At the KT boundary around the world there is a distinctive layer in the strata between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods.
... Investigation of that layer of sediment found it rich in iridium, an element common in asteroids but rare in Earth's crust.
------ those are all scientific findings even Dr. Keller would accept.

... Alvarez offered an hypothesis of a large impactor that accounted for the KT sediment layer rich in iridium and the extinction.
... That hypothesis led to a several years long search for an impact crater dating to that time to support the hypothesis.
... Such a crater was found, the Chicxulub crater matched the time and the necessary size so was good support for Alvarez's hypothesis

The evidence indicates that the Chicxulub impactor was a major contributor to the extinction but not necessarily the only contributor.

ETA:
As a contrast, religion offers claims that are not evident (as scientific finds are) and no hypotheses to explain those claims unless the claims are first accepted as true... it's called circular reasoning. For instance, the claim that there is a god and as evidence there is the claim that he performs miracles. The claim that he performs miracles is nonsense unless the claim that there is a god is first accepted as an undeniable truth. The only 'evidence' for that god and/or the miracles is that some people said it was so. In case you haven't noticed, people say a lot of things that just ain't so, and not just about religious beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The arrogance here is that you (plural) were relying too much on a "established" scienfic finding - the best explanation currently known, set-in-stone in your minds, not bothering/ realising to note that an "established" scientic finding that differs from another "established" finding means that there is more than one best "establsihed" scientific explanation around?

The keyword I used was "reproducible".

How much education

in those respected fileds does one need to be sceptical when one can determine by BASIC LOGIC (what Lion previously pointed out)?

Don't need any. You need to demonstrate they are wrong, which probably could be a bit easier if you had an education in said fields.

Which seems to me, quite underated when a layman uses it e.g. making the judgment (even as a theist) to NOTE the implications that there is an "established" scientist (Gerta Keller for example) who disagrees (refuting) with the more known conclusion - the single-asteroid-mass-extinction killed all the dinosaurs - contending with the explanation - That it was more than one mass-exinction event, that killed the dinosaurs and other creatures later than conventionally thought.

Yeah, this would be arguing footnotes, what you are trying to do if argue with the entire textbook.

We can afford to be sceptical here on which of the "established" is the correct one .. no faith involved but basic logic.

Healthy skepticism is when you don't have a horse in the race. Arguing you are skeptical because otherwise your entire faith implodes isn't healthy.

 

[atrib]

Starting with...
The arrogance here is that you (plural) were relying too much on a "established" scienfic finding - the best explanation currently known, set-in-stone in your minds, not bothering/ realising to note that an "established" scientic finding that differs from another "established" finding means that there is more than one best "establsihed" scientific explanation around?

First, let us examine what I actually said:

It could depend on the sediment accumulation in such a flood, which would bury pretty much everything. Would be quite a lot of very deep digging for the future archeoligists looking for bones, I suspect.

Some good indivdual topic ideas, nice one.

Geologists have been investigating the earth's crust for a long time, and they have found all sorts of things. For example, they have found evidence of a meteor strike from 65 million years ago, all across the globe, which is the event that is believed to have caused a mass extinction on the planet that included the dinosaurs. Guess what geologists haven't found? Evidence for a global flood within the past 5,000 years or so that could be tied to the Biblical flood story. Amazing, right?

But it doesn't end there. An extinction event of the magnitude of the Biblical flood would have been obvious in the genomes of all living things that experienced this extreme population bottleneck (a family of humans and two animals of each kind). That evidence does not exist either. We can identify population bottlenecks in humans from 100,000 years ago when the population had dropped to just 30,000 or so individuals, but there's nothing from 4,000 years ago when the population had dropped to just a handful of people? Its almost as if the global flood story isn't true.

Getting called out repeatedly for posting nonsense like this would be embarrassing to most people, but not to you apparently.

That was my entire post. Now lets focus on this sentence:

which is the event that is believed to have caused a mass extinction on the planet that included the dinosaurs

Do you dispute what I said? That scientists have found evidence for a meteor impact from 65 MYA associated with the Chicxulub impact crater all over the planet, which many scientists believe was a significant contributing factor to the extinction of dinosaurs. Including the Wiki page on Gerta Keller you cited.

What is arrogant about my statement? What should we rely on if not the best available scientific findings? The scientific method is far superior to making up shit to suit whatever belief you might hold at any given time, wouldn't you agree?

How much education in those respected fileds does one need to be sceptical when one can determine by BASIC LOGIC (what Lion previously pointed out)? Which seems to me, quite underated when a layman uses it e.g. making the judgment (even as a theist) to NOTE the implications that there is an "established" scientist (Gerta Keller for example) who disagrees (refuting) with the more known conclusion - the single-asteroid-mass-extinction killed all the dinosaurs - contending with the explanation - That it was more than one mass-exinction event, that killed the dinosaurs and other creatures later than conventionally thought.

Can you explain why you are skeptical of the claim that the earth was struck by a large meteor about 65 MYA. And that this impact caused a planetwide extinction event? Please articulate your reasons as to why.

Keller contesting the Alvarez hypothesis- single impact on Chicxulub ... extinction of dinosaurs..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerta_Keller

Which one is it?

We can afford to be sceptical here on which of the "established" is the correct one .. no faith involved but basic logic.

(cont.. later with other part, hard to focus with the racket around here)

You googled the event just now. At least you made the fucking effort. That is definitely an improvement.

Now lets get back to what my post was focused on.

Guess what geologists haven't found? Evidence for a global flood within the past 5,000 years or so that could be tied to the Biblical flood story. Amazing, right?

But it doesn't end there. An extinction event of the magnitude of the Biblical flood would have been obvious in the genomes of all living things that experienced this extreme population bottleneck (a family of humans and two animals of each kind). That evidence does not exist either. We can identify population bottlenecks in humans from 100,000 years ago when the population had dropped to just 30,000 or so individuals, but there's nothing from 4,000 years ago when the population had dropped to just a handful of people? Its almost as if the global flood story isn't true.

You made the claim that geologists and paleontologists would find evidence of the Genesis flood and the mass extinction event associated with the flood. Where is this evidence? Can you point to the geological maps and cross sections that show this layer of flood sediment with the fossils from 4,000 years ago? No, you can't, because this evidence does not exist. Can you point to genetic studies that highlight the bottlenecks created by the Genesis flood? No, you can't, because these bottlenecks don't exist.

You get upset because I challenge you when you make up shit. One day you might get upset enough to actually do something about it, like pick up some textbooks and start reading. I am not optimistic, but hope dies hard.

 

[atrib]

You are mixing several things here. With regard to the extinction event about 65 million years ago, the fact that many species went extinct around that time is a scientific finding. There are a few hypothesis as to the cause, the impact that created the Chicxulub crater is only one of these hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a scientific finding but a proposed explanation to account for the finding that there was an extinction. A hypothesis is not 'set in stone' or 'established'. It is a possibility that fits the scientific finding. A hypothesis is a possibility to be tested. In the case of the KT extinction, there is good evidence that the Chicxulub impactor played a major part in the extinction even though there may have been other contributors.

The finding is the extinction. The hypothesis is a possible explanation for it.

Sure, this is a fair concept along side Vulcanism which also has plausibility as a concept. Concepts presented in an informational balanced way. However .... Dr. Keller doesn't see it that way as one sees it as "they maybe right or I maybe right, not sure" so to speak. In fact she is certain her conclusions are correct.


(I'll be in and out of forum,sorry about that)

Can you explain, in your own words, what Keller's opinions are, and why you find these opinions credible?

 

[Learner]

No particular order..

The keyword I used was "reproducible".

Don't need any. You need to demonstrate they are wrong, which probably could be a bit easier if you had an education in said fields.

Yes I think I sort of agree there. Education in said fields .. how many here on this thread has? Quite a few people quote from other people in said fields which is normal, and how many do that?

Which seems to me, quite underated when a layman uses it e.g. making the judgment (even as a theist) to NOTE the implications that there is an "established" scientist (Gerta Keller for example) who disagrees (refuting) with the more known conclusion - the single-asteroid-mass-extinction killed all the dinosaurs - contending with the explanation - That it was more than one mass-exinction event, that killed the dinosaurs and other creatures later than conventionally thought.

Yeah, this would be arguing footnotes, what you are trying to do if argue with the entire textbook.

No just highlighting that an estabished scientist disagrees with an established convention.

Healthy skepticism is when you don't have a horse in the race. Arguing you are skeptical because otherwise your entire faith implodes isn't healthy.

No horse in the race like the Atheists (not all) Versus Horse in the race Theists (on the forum)... sure, if you say so.

(back in a few)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes I think I sort of agree there. Education in said fields .. how many here on this thread has?

A good deal in many respective fields actually.

Yeah, this would be arguing footnotes, what you are trying to do if argue with the entire textbook.

No just highlighting that an estabished scientist disagrees with an established convention.

As I said, you are trying to cloak arguing against a textbook for arguing against a footnote. You want to toss aside entire segments of science.

Healthy skepticism is when you don't have a horse in the race. Arguing you are skeptical because otherwise your entire faith implodes isn't healthy.

No horse in the race like the Atheists (not all) Versus Horse in the race Theists (on the forum)... sure, if you say so.

There is a difference. An atheist says there is no god. Right now, you aren't arguing the existence of god. So your suggestion isn't apples to apples.

You are arguing about alleged historic events that happened on Earth that have no evidence for them, and a good deal of evidence against them.

 

[Learner]

Dr. Keller doesn't see it that way as one sees it as "they maybe right or I maybe right, not sure" so to speak. In fact she is certain her conclusions are correct.

So, she's convinced of her explanation for the accepted observations. Good for her.
But does that mean any of us have to be convinced by her conviction? Or can we withhold conviction until better evidence is found?

And, who are you criticizing?

Thats how I sort of see it...untill better evidence is found and I go along with...it doesn't mean you have to be convinced by her convictions nor should it be for anyone else by their convictions ( unless .... you're theist with that view point).

You said it was arrogant for us to believe something because there were more than one 'best' established theory, as a means of justifying YOU being skeptical of science. Except you're not skeptical because there's a lack of consensus, you're skeptical because ALL the scientific conclusions match the evidence, which doesn't allow room for your cherished myth.

I believe there are a science explanations for the flood. Theists don't deny science, NOR DO I. As I said before, there are scientists who are religious as well. Figure that one out. ME well I do note these scientist-theists are still theists I have something to be at least a little sceptical for, regarding convictions when these theists haven't yet been convinced - or convinced entirely, if you must.

So, you're actually being misleading about the significance of debate in the scientific fields you really know bupkes about.

Sure meanwhile getting on.....

 

[Keith&Co.]

I believe there are a science explanations for the flood.

except there is extensive evidence AGAINST the food. And against the biblical cosmology of a flat, unmoving Earth, solid sky, holes in it for rain, sun rolling inside the sky....

Theists don't deny science, NOR DO I.

Fraid you do, really.
You judge science by the conclusions, not the process. That's nit sciencey.

As I said before, there are scientists who are religious as well. Figure that one out.

there are some who adapt their ubderstanding of God's word to the facts they find thru research. The scientists don't take their gods into tge lab. Or the field. Mor the classroom. Or the textbook....

ME well I do note these scientist-theists are still theists I have something to be at least a little sceptical for, regarding convictions when these theists haven't yet been convinced - or convinced entirely, if you must.

there you go again. Scuence is neutral on the exustance of gods. Totally silent.
You want to pose science as an atheistic inquiry, which shows you dont grok science.
They can be theists and scientists, sure. You can be a creationist svientist.
You just cannot try to publish your religion AS your science without being laughed at.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....You just cannot try to publish your religion AS your science without being laughed at.

Yes. I always liked this cartoon.

 

[Learner]

just having a teabreak. keep on with comercials