So, You Don't Believe In Noah's Ark? Guess Again!

The theory of evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting,watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling the theory of evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Your claim that the theory cannot be falsified is an "opinion" held by creationists and others with an anti-evolution position.

 

Indeed some are.

No you can't.

I have a fairly good grasp on logic. YOU don't, however.

Name ONE.

This just shows that you have no idea what science is nor how it works.

Atheism is not a rejection of religion. It IS religion. It IS a belief. We've been through this countless times.

No it hasn't. Study up on logic.

 

The liberal left has a vested interest in discrediting anything that might suggest a higher power than themselves. I think there's a lot to the video that deserves consideration.

 

Religion has nothing to do with zeal or devotion. The logical basis for any religion is the presence of an initial circular argument which other arguments all stem back to (in other words, an Argument of Faith). This is how all theories begin, logically speaking, even theories of science.

It's not an "opinion". It is logic. Logic is a closed functional system. It makes use of proofs.

If there is no accessible, practical, specific test that produces a specific result (ie, "external testing", or the testing of a theory against its null hypothesis), then the theory is not falsifiable. That has nothing to do with being a "creationist" or an "anti-evolutionist".

 

Indeed it is not. Study hydrology and gravity. There is only enough water in the world - including melting ALL icecaps - to cover up to just over 200 feet.

Explain to me how it could happen taking into account Hydrology and gravity.

 

nope, atheism and theism are not religions, but a religion can be a atheist or theist religion

otherwise Christians and Muslims both believe in the same religion as they are both theists

all those terms mean is you believe in a God or you do not

 

All that tells me is you are not familiar with evolutionary science or evidence for evolution. There are no proofs in science, only evidence.
Have a nice day.

 

of course I can

demonstrably false

aerodynamics

atheism, by definition, is not a religion. And yes, we've been over this a thousand times.

yes it has. study up on logic.

 

You don't know what the Earth was like in the days of Noah, and you can't apply today's conditions to the days of Noah.

 

Nope, they are themselves religions. Christianity and Muslim are simply two subsets of Theism. They are their own religions, underneath the umbrella religion of Theism.

 

All that tells me is that you are running away from my arguments instead of addressing them (and that you are not very familiar with logic).

This has been my argumentation all along. You are the one acting as if evolution is somehow "scientifically proven"...

See this post of mine for more detail about the logical framework behind religion and science, and how they both work...

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866

You too. If one can set aside for a second all of the misinformation that has been shoved down their throat since they were little, and begin to understand the basics of logic, then one will start clearly understanding the differences between religion and science, and the logical framework of both of them.

 

The underlying theories behind aerodynamics have not been proven. They have, rather, continued to survive null hypothesis testing. Same with any theory of science.

 

There's nothing to run from; you have yet to produce any scientific evidence that would refute the ToE.
Carry on.

 

We have a very good idea of what the earth was like 100,000 years ago. Was Noah earlier than this? We are able to know this by calculating the movement of the tectonic plates that control the continental shift. We know this by geology. According to the Bible Noah was somewhere around the 3rd - 4th millennia BCE. We certainly know what the world was like then. Much as it is now.

 

You're right! Mountains might not have existed before the flood, and the earth might have been more level. Did the earth begin to overheat, and did that cause the waters inside the earth to shoot out and flood the world? Maybe!

Then as the earth began expanding from the heat, and new crust began forming from the magma, the older crust began rising and became the mountains and continents. The waters eventually ran down and filled up the ocean basins leaving Noah high and dry on the mountain top.

See, I have it all figured out!

 

Was that back when days were longer than they are now?

 

But if the earth was smaller, then wouldn't the days be shorter?

 

theism is not a religion or Christians the Muslims are the same religion

 

No you don't have a good idea of what earth was 100,000 years ago. You only know what you're told by 'scientists' who can't see past the narrow scopes of their own discipline.

 

So scientists are confined to study within a narrow discipline? Hmmm....

 

So scientists who are Christians and who agree with me are wrong. 'Mmm'. You are the one who lives within a 'narrow religious scope'. Apply your post to yourself. You don't know anything, only within the narrow discipline of your church.

 

.

When was the Flood? In your explanation it must have been at least several millions of years ago. That excludes the Biblical story which puts it between 4-3000 BCE.

Mountains are formed usually by the movement of tectonic plates causing the continents which rest upon them to collide. When they collide usually one continent rides over the other and land is pushed upwards forming mountain ranges. This is happening even today. The continent containing India is crushing against the Asian continent and forming the Himalayas. Most earthquakes are caused by the movement of the tectonic plates.

There's certainly more to it than that, but none which allow a Biblical Noahs flood. The Biblical story is simply adapted from the Gilgamesh Epic..

 

yes they have

no

 

I honestly think that Jeanette is just winding everybody up; nobody can seriously believe this garbage.

I suppose it passes the time during lockdown.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy. You keep repeating the same thing over and over that I have already addressed.

As I have already counter-argued, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence". There is only "evidence" (supporting/conflicting).

** Any statement that supports an argument is evidence.
** Evidence is, essentially, a predicate.
** A predicate is a conditional or independent statement for the conclusion.
** A conclusion is a dependent statement.
** An argument is a predicate and a conclusion.

Also, as I already stated, I am not interested in "disproving" the ToE, as it is a religion and cannot be proven/disproven. It can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. Personally, I am an agnostic with regard to the ToE.

I am more interested in helping people properly distinguish between what is science and what is religion (and the logic behind the definitions of those words) and less interested in convincing people to believe in a particular religion.