Scientific evidence confirms old ages in the Bible

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat
Context is what is being implied by my statement.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Nothin

What about not science : is that science as well ?

Science is the mechanism that allows the creation of the universe and allows it to persist, or not. Obviously, we don't understand all of science. We only understand a tiny faction of it from the perspective of our own environment.

Huh? Science is a method which helps us understand the many intricate workings of the universe. For it to work properly, it requires honest debate and scrutiny. The universe doesn't require a man made method to allow it to persist.

a reply to: Cymatic

Language is the method with which we are able to communicate our discoveries and understanding the ramification of our scientific experiments, hypothesis and theories.

Science is the totality of the factual reality, interactions and workings of the mechanisms which allows all things to exist and persist, or not. We don't understand science, we are still trying to interpret our experiments, much like the creator characters of Genesis. "No Tree of Life for you", "We're going to narrow the gene pool with a flood, and shorten life spans, and see if that fixes anything".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Language is the method with which we are able to communicate our discoveries and understanding the ramification of our scientific experiments, hypothesis and theories.

Science is the totality of the factual reality, interactions and workings of the mechanisms which allows all things to exist and persist, or not. We don't understand science, we are still trying to interpret our experiments, much like the creator characters of Genesis. "No Tree of Life for you", "We're going to narrow the gene pool with a flood, and shorten life spans, and see if that fixes anything".

No, science is not the totality of factuality, science is the totality of our understanding of factual reality.

originally posted by: Cymatic

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Language is the method with which we are able to communicate our discoveries and understanding the ramification of our scientific experiments, hypothesis and theories.

Science is the totality of the factual reality, interactions and workings of the mechanisms which allows all things to exist and persist, or not. We don't understand science, we are still trying to interpret our experiments, much like the creator characters of Genesis. "No Tree of Life for you", "We're going to narrow the gene pool with a flood, and shorten life spans, and see if that fixes anything".

No, science is not the totality of factuality, science is the totality of our understanding of factual reality.

The term "science" itself is a modern creation. Although around since the 15th century (meaning knowledge) the word scientist didn't even exist until the 1800's. People like Isaac Newton whom many think were "scientists" were known as natural philosophers.

Science is our understanding of the natural world around us. It only exists because our Creator put into play the fundamental laws of the universe that operate flawlessly to keep our universe together.

And no Stephen Hawking's (one of the greatest minds of science) statement: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" is not scientific or even makes scientific sense. These are fantastical statements made based on pseudoscience and metaphysics.

When the greatest minds in science make such absurd statements you have to realize how unscientific and absurd their fundamental premises must be.

originally posted by: neoholographic


Nope, it shows that God can work through science and technology if He wants to. He Created it.

For example, God Created Adam from the dust of the ground but He chose to Create Eve from Adam's rib and carrying out a modern day surgery on Adam. He didn't have to. He could have Created Eve from the dust of the ground like Adam but he didn't choose to.

Again, God Creates what science discovers. With the plagues of Egypt he worked through locusts and hail. He controls all things and is the Creator of all things.

If we want to talk science/tech and God then creating Adam would have been the 4 billion year cycle of life before man that came from dust and Eve was the use of DNA... Just saying.

a reply to: randomuser

No disagreement here. They have to make such statements because nearly a century ago it was declared there must be a natural origin to the universe with no outside intelligent force. That statement alone contradicts the very notion of science but that's what they rolled with

a reply to: Cymatic

We understand, for example, the water cycle, how the sun makes ocean and ground water evaporate as water turns turns to a gas, makes clouds that rain and drop water down on earth. We say "that's science".

Everything that exists/happens can be explained, one way or the other, by science, even if WE haven't discovered that science.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Everything that exists/happens can be explained, one way or the other, by science, even if WE haven't discovered that science.

That's pure assumption. It's quite possible that there are a myriad of forces and things that are outside the realm of discovery using the scientific method or any instrumentation we could possibly conceive. Even with the understanding we currently have and all the technology that aids us, we still have to invent theoretical forces like dark matter to fit what's observed into the models we currently have.

a reply to: Cymatic

It's quite possible that there are a myriad of forces and things that are outside the realm of discovery using the scientific method or any instrumentation we could possibly conceive.

And...that would still be "science". Science exists without our observation or input. It existence is independent of us.

Even with the understanding we currently have and all the technology that aids us, we still have to invent theoretical forces like dark matter to fit what's observed into the models we currently have.

I understand. Because, for the most part, we don't even know what science we don't know. We're experimenting, hypothesizing and forming theories.

When we discover the science, then we will know....something.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

It's quite possible that there are a myriad of forces and things that are outside the realm of discovery using the scientific method or any instrumentation we could possibly conceive.

And...that would still be "science". Science exists without our observation or input. It existence is independent of us.

Even with the understanding we currently have and all the technology that aids us, we still have to invent theoretical forces like dark matter to fit what's observed into the models we currently have.

I understand. Because, for the most part, we don't even know what science we don't know. We're experimenting, hypothesizing and forming theories.

When we discover the science, then we will know....something.

No, science does not exist without our observations or input.

Definition of science:
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Science is a process, it's not something that just exists on it's own independent of mankind. Reality exists on it's own, and science is the means by which we try and understand it.

a reply to: Cymatic

Whatever you want to call it, the laws that govern the universe are real, even if we haven't discovered them yet. The creator character from Genesis isn't exempt from them and can't just decide whether he wants to obey them or not.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Whatever you want to call it, the laws that govern the universe are real, even if we haven't discovered them yet. The creator character from Genesis isn't exempt from them and can't just decide whether he wants to obey them or not.

You're assuming our knowledge of universal laws are absolute and then claiming that an intelligent force has to obey our limited understanding of how we think universal laws work. There's not even a scientific consensus on whether or not the universe actually has laws, some scientists believe that the universe has the appearance of laws but they are really just well established patterns. We don't know if these laws or patterns are distributed evenly throughout the universe, or even what lies beyond what we can detect. We don't even really know what exactly atoms are and still cannot observe an electron.

So tell me, why would an intelligent force that created the universe have to obey our limited interpretation of what we think are universal laws? There's quite possibly a number of forces and interactions that we don't know exist that a creator can easily manipulate in ways that wouldn't violate the rules of reality.

And it's not "whatever I want to call it", that's what you are doing when you misuse the word science and use it to describe something it's not.

Even the 'conspiracies in religion' section is overrun with deluded religious people who refuse to accept the conspiracy of religion.


All Bible characters are the personification of stars and planets. Grow up humanity.

a reply to: Cymatic

You're assuming our knowledge of universal laws are absolute

Nope. I never said anything of the kind.

claiming that an intelligent force has to obey our limited understanding of how we think universal laws work.

Nope. I'm claiming that anything, intelligent or not, obeys the laws of the universe.

There's not even a scientific consensus on whether or not the universe actually has laws

Yes there is.

why would an intelligent force that created the universe

I never made any kind of claim that an intelligent force created the universe. That's all on you religious folks.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nope. I never said anything of the kind.

Yes you did. You are claiming the universe has laws that a creator isn't exempt from. That implies a full understanding of them and how they work, otherwise you couldn't make that claim.

Nope. I'm claiming that anything, intelligent or not, obeys the laws of the universe.

Uh yeah, that's basically what I said. You don't know the intimate details of anything mankind has declared a universal law, you don't even know if they are universally applied the same throughout the universe or throughout the timeline of existence, yet you somehow claim that an intelligent force must obey them because you said so .

Yes there is.

No there isn't, and that isn't my opinion. The laws as we know it are the best explanation we have so far for our observations. There are theoretical physicists who have different theories on whether we even have laws or they are just very well established patterns. We don't know if they are absolute or evenly applied everywhere, or even if they can be manipulated. You have no clue really, but you still somehow make declarative statements "we have laws, they cannot be broken, and all scientists agree".

I never made any kind of claim that an intelligent force created the universe. That's all on you religious folks.

I never said you claimed that, I was responding to your hypothetical statement: "The creator character from Genesis isn't exempt from them and can't just decide whether he wants to obey them or not". Why would a creator of the universe be bound by something it created? If I programmed a simulated world in a computer, I could easily work around any rules in the system as I control the very nature of how the simulation works. I would be an outside force that could reprogram any rule, or I could even have clever algorithms built in so the simulation reacts to certain data in any way I want.

You don't have any clue what lies beyond space and time and at this point science has no way of observing it. It's all a guess. You're making declarative statements about a puzzle when you've only connected a few pieces. To claim that an intelligent force that is outside of our understanding of space and time, must obey and be bound by our understanding of space and time, is nothing but pure assumption.

a reply to: Cymatic

You're making declarative statements about a puzzle when you've only connected a few pieces.

No. That's what religious people are doing, trying to make excuses as to why it's okay to believe the bible over the science that we understand.

To claim that an intelligent force that is outside of our understanding of space and time, must obey and be bound by our understanding of space and time, is nothing but pure assumption.

To claim that an intelligent force, outside of the Universe, created the universe is nothing but fantasy to fill in the gaps that our science has yet to define.

Saying "God did it, and you can't prove me wrong!" isn't really an argument, which is what you're trying to argue.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

You're making declarative statements about a puzzle when you've only connected a few pieces.

No. That's what religious people are doing, trying to make excuses as to why it's okay to believe the bible over the science that we understand.

To claim that an intelligent force that is outside of our understanding of space and time, must obey and be bound by our understanding of space and time, is nothing but pure assumption.

To claim that an intelligent force, outside of the Universe, created the universe is nothing but fantasy to fill in the gaps that our science has yet to define.

Saying "God did it, and you can't prove me wrong!" isn't really an argument, which is what you're trying to argue.

It's pointless having an honest discussion if you're just going to use strawman arguments and put words in my mouth, instead of actually responding to what I said.

Not once did I imply at all "god did it and you can't prove me wrong" nor did I even mention the bible. That's just a lazy way for you to devolve the conversation into something you can attack. Maybe try responding to what I actually said.

a reply to: Cymatic

Not once did I imply at all "god did it and you can't prove me wrong" nor did I even mention the bible. That's just a lazy way for you to devolve the conversation into something you can attack. Maybe try responding to what I actually said.

That's what the OP and other posters are claiming, and the assumptions that my posts address. You inserted yourself to refute my rejection of the OPs claim with absurd assertions like there is no scientific agreement that there are universal laws, and that an intelligent being from outside the universe, that created the universe wouldn't be subject to any laws.

My point was, and still is, that creation guy from Genesis, you all refer to as "God", sounds more like some ET scientist, or team of scientists, tinkering with life on earth, from The Garden of Eden to the Great Flood.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Not once did I imply at all "god did it and you can't prove me wrong" nor did I even mention the bible. That's just a lazy way for you to devolve the conversation into something you can attack. Maybe try responding to what I actually said.

That's what the OP and other posters are claiming, and the assumptions that my posts address. You inserted yourself to refute my rejection of the OPs claim with absurd assertions like there is no scientific agreement that there are universal laws, and that an intelligent being from outside the universe, that created the universe wouldn't be subject to any laws.

My point was, and still is, that creation guy from Genesis, you all refer to as "God", sounds more like some ET scientist, or team of scientists, tinkering with life on earth, from The Garden of Eden to the Great Flood.

I don't care what other posters are claiming, that's lazy of you to take what someone else might believe then apply it to what I was discussing. Maybe you need to do some more research into the discussion of laws in the scientific community because what I claimed is an actual debate among some scientists. I also clearly explained, with simple logic, why an intelligent force would either not be bound by our understanding of scientific laws or could easily design work arounds in the system. You didn't address that at all, almost like it just didn't register in your head.