Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science and Religion

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 34 posts ] 
Science and Religion
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Science and Religion

Greetings,

A recent survey threw up some counter-intuitive results:

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

Raises some interesting questions, and pointers, on how to approach/educate the public - and particularly the religious - on science.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:53 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

Wow, that's amazing!
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:19 am
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

I'd really like to know what they consider "scientists". How's the breakdown? How many theoretical physicists, how many biologists or paleontologists, how many "scientists" in name only... the numbers don't make sense unless the definition of "scientists" is very, very loose.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:11 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

Greetings,

The study is now online, according to Rice University - though the link doesn't seem to work(!?):

RUS

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:14 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1772Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science and Religion

I cant speak for everybody, but I am personally aware of many scientific facts thanks to evangelical Christians.


. The appendix is not useless

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years

. Junk DNA is not Junk

. Earths rotation is slowing down

. Moon is moving apart from the earth

. Magnetic Field is decaying

.There is a mitochondrial eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago

. Living Fossils have been found

etc


I am not saying that evangelical Christians discovered these facts, I am only saying that I personally learned about this scientific facts because they are typically promoted by evangelicals, and if I where to bet, I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:31 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 171Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:I cant speak for everybody, but I am personally aware of many scientific facts thanks to evangelical Christians.


. The appendix is not useless

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years

. Junk DNA is not Junk

. Earths rotation is slowing down

. Moon is moving apart from the earth

. Magnetic Field is decaying

.There is a mitochondrial eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago

. Living Fossils have been found

etc


I am not saying that evangelical Christians discovered these facts, I am only saying that I personally learned about this scientific facts because they are typically promoted by evangelicals, and if I where to bet, I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.


What is your point?

Additionally I am not entirely sure those are all facts.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:23 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science and Religion

Going to regret taking the troll bait...

. The appendix is not useless


This one is pretty tired in creationist circles. The claim is that it helps with the immune system in the gut, but it seems to be isolated from the rest of the gut bacteria so it can really only defend...itself... It's a vestigial organ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years


Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5730 years, and therefore it is used to date biological samples up to about 60,000 years in the past. Another tired one in creationist circles... Luckily, we have other dating methods: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

. Junk DNA is not Junk


Yet another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

. Earths rotation is slowing down


Another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth

. Moon is moving apart from the earth


Hey look, another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

. Magnetic Field is decaying


Hey guess what, yep it's a PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geomagnetism

.There is a mitochondrial eve


Man sure is getting boring debunking all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years


Perhaps, luckily (unluckily?) the Kuiper Belt keeps feeding us more: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Comet

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago


There's a literally a wiki that debunks all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sun

. Living Fossils have been found


Sigh: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Do you know that even the Creation Institute tells you not to use these arguments because they are so bad and so thoroughly debunked? I'm actually amazed you didn't bring up the distant starlight "theory".

The problem I see here is that science and religion don't need to be at odds. It's only creationists that seem to have a fucking problem with everything and twist any data they have into whatever container they are trying to fit it in.

Here's the entire list of PRATTs if you want to make sure you're coming up with something original: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:01 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2561Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:I cant speak for everybody, but I am personally aware of many scientific facts thanks to evangelical Christians.


. The appendix is not useless

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years

. Junk DNA is not Junk

. Earths rotation is slowing down

. Moon is moving apart from the earth

. Magnetic Field is decaying

.There is a mitochondrial eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago

. Living Fossils have been found

etc




First of all, I can't speak for everybody, but I'm personally aware of highways because of Hitler.


I'm not trying to invoke the nazi card. That's just the best analogous statement I could come up with on the fly. I'm not really trying to be funny or provocative, but I had to somehow demonstrate the absurdity of your point.

Your point is basically that you learned some random science points (a few of which are wrong) from some morons with an agenda, so that makes those morons A-OK with you.

Well, they're not ok. For one, they weren't qualified to teach science. Second, as I mentioned, they had an agenda, which means that not only did they twist some facts or totally misunderstand/misrepresent some of the things, they also demonstrated how science can be misused to further an agenda, which could, by all rights, make you distrustful of science.

And for the love of god, why didn't you just open a frigging science book instead? Sure, maybe this misguided ideological fight from these morons sparked your initial interest in science, which you deem to be a good thing, but seeing as you're still very much harboring many of the delusions that accompanied the above science points, I really don't think it's a good thing.

If at some point in the future you manage to free yourself of your ideological shackles, and view science as the ideally unbiased, insanely useful world-discovering tool that it is, only then can this be viewed as a good thing.



leroy wrote:I am not saying that evangelical Christians discovered these facts, I am only saying that I personally learned about this scientific facts because they are typically promoted by evangelicals, and if I where to bet, I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.


No.

Maybe I only know a couple of them because some science communicator talked about them in videos because he had to debunk them (or rather, their connection to creationism), but most of them I know because they were presented to me by REAL scientists/science communicator, as actual science, and not as random, disjointed factoids meant to prop up some primitive ideology.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:03 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2383Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.


No.

This post brought to you from that little-known place, not America.
Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:31 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

Dustnite wrote:Going to regret taking the troll bait...

. The appendix is not useless


This one is pretty tired in creationist circles. The claim is that it helps with the immune system in the gut, but it seems to be isolated from the rest of the gut bacteria so it can really only defend...itself... It's a vestigial organ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years


Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5730 years, and therefore it is used to date biological samples up to about 60,000 years in the past. Another tired one in creationist circles... Luckily, we have other dating methods: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

. Junk DNA is not Junk


Yet another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

. Earths rotation is slowing down


Another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth

. Moon is moving apart from the earth


Hey look, another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

. Magnetic Field is decaying


Hey guess what, yep it's a PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geomagnetism

.There is a mitochondrial eve


Man sure is getting boring debunking all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years


Perhaps, luckily (unluckily?) the Kuiper Belt keeps feeding us more: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Comet

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago


There's a literally a wiki that debunks all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sun

. Living Fossils have been found


Sigh: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Do you know that even the Creation Institute tells you not to use these arguments because they are so bad and so thoroughly debunked? I'm actually amazed you didn't bring up the distant starlight "theory".

The problem I see here is that science and religion don't need to be at odds. It's only creationists that seem to have a fucking problem with everything and twist any data they have into whatever container they are trying to fit it in.

Here's the entire list of PRATTs if you want to make sure you're coming up with something original: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


Rationalwiki is fucking joke. Oddly enough, you can actually find better explanations of many these counter arguments on creationwiki. The rationalwiki on moon reccesion is a joke. Completely non technical and undefined. Check it out for yourself.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:16 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science and Religion

Typical troll post from next. Wiki pages are supposed to be non technical. Go down to the references if you want to see the actual sources cited. I also love that you call it a fucking joke at the same time citing another wiki.

So you agree with leroy's list of bullshit "facts" that have been debunked countless times?
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:10 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3339Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:I am not saying that evangelical Christians discovered these facts, I am only saying that I personally learned about this scientific facts because they are typically promoted by evangelicals, and if I where to bet, I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.


Beyond what Dustnite said, this comment does shed some light on the echo chamber you were living in.

I know I get my science information from actual science magazines, journals, shows, and documentary. The creed (or lack thereof) of a scientist is irrelevant.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:19 pm
YIM WWW
leroy
Online
Posts: 1772Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science and Religion

Dustnite wrote:Going to regret taking the troll bait...

. The appendix is not useless


This one is pretty tired in creationist circles. The claim is that it helps with the immune system in the gut, but it seems to be isolated from the rest of the gut bacteria so it can really only defend...itself... It's a vestigial organ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years


Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5730 years, and therefore it is used to date biological samples up to about 60,000 years in the past. Another tired one in creationist circles... Luckily, we have other dating methods: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

. Junk DNA is not Junk


Yet another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

. Earths rotation is slowing down


Another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth

. Moon is moving apart from the earth


Hey look, another PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

. Magnetic Field is decaying


Hey guess what, yep it's a PRATT: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geomagnetism

.There is a mitochondrial eve


Man sure is getting boring debunking all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years


Perhaps, luckily (unluckily?) the Kuiper Belt keeps feeding us more: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Comet

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago


There's a literally a wiki that debunks all these PRATTs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sun

. Living Fossils have been found


Sigh: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Do you know that even the Creation Institute tells you not to use these arguments because they are so bad and so thoroughly debunked? I'm actually amazed you didn't bring up the distant starlight "theory".

The problem I see here is that science and religion don't need to be at odds. It's only creationists that seem to have a fucking problem with everything and twist any data they have into whatever container they are trying to fit it in.

Here's the entire list of PRATTs if you want to make sure you're coming up with something original: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html




each of those are scientific facts for example it is a fact that the magnetic field is decaying..............weather if this facts prove YEC or not is irrelevant to the point that I am trying to make.


the point is that at least some people learn about scientific facts and gain interest in science thanks to Christian evangelicals. in that sense people like Ken Ham are making positive contributions to science.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:28 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science and Religion

Yet each one of those claims are refuted. So, should we call all of these "alternative facts"?

The point is that you refuse to look deeper into an issue than what someone else told you. I can cite sources that are friendly to YECs that disagree with your bullshit above and yet you'll say these are wrong because they don't fit your preconceived conclusions.

References:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

The point is, as next ironically points out, is that you can review a wiki but it's not meant to be an ending point but a starting point to discovering new information. People like Ken Ham seem interested not in discovering anything. They seem to really really like money and will desperately seek any pathway to getting more money. Ruining a generation of people with nonsense seems to be a byproduct they could really care two shits about.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:45 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1772Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science and Religion

Dustnite wrote:Yet each one of those claims are refuted. So, should we call all of these "alternative facts"?

The point is that you refuse to look deeper into an issue than what someone else told you. I can cite sources that are friendly to YECs that disagree with your bullshit above and yet you'll say these are wrong because they don't fit your preconceived conclusions.

References:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

The point is, as next ironically points out, is that you can review a wiki but it's not meant to be an ending point but a starting point to discovering new information. People like Ken Ham seem interested not in discovering anything. They seem to really really like money and will desperately seek any pathway to getting more money. Ruining a generation of people with nonsense seems to be a byproduct they could really care two shits about.


No these are not "alternative" facts, these are uncontrovertial scientific facts that even your sources grant.

the only controvery is on weather if this facts indicate YEC or not.


many people know that the earth´s magnetic field is decaying becasue of YEC apolegetics, thanks to YEC many people are aware of this scientific fact........therefore they are making positive contributions to science.


Ruining a generation of people with nonsense seems to be a byproduct they could really care two shits about



Do you have evidence for this? do you have any evidence that suggests that apolegetics "ruin" people?....can you porve that reading answers in genesis ruins people?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:09 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:Do you have evidence for this? do you have any evidence that suggests that apolegetics "ruin" people?....can you porve that reading answers in genesis ruins people?


Oh look, you still have that deceitful "quote" in your signature.

leroy wrote:Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”


Admittedly, it doesn't prove that reading answers in genesis made you into who you are today.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:29 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:Do you have evidence for this? do you have any evidence that suggests that apolegetics "ruin" people?....can you porve that reading answers in genesis ruins people?


Notice how I'm actually responding to the content you write? Try doing the same.

Yes, and specifically creationists are harming not only America but they are also harming the world. Raising children with these ideas is even more harmful. Why? Because when you have over 70% of Republicans that deny evolution and you have over a significant portion of the American public denying climate change as real and not impacted by humans, this leads to dangerous policies. In fact, if it weren't for cheap natural gas, I would expect this push for coal plants in this country to start raising our carbon footprint yet again and adding onto the greenhouse effect that is building up in our atmosphere.

The US lags behind several major countries in science and education. Creationists, like you, are still trying to insert their dogma into the education system especially on the Texas Board of Education where if you can get your textbook to be printed there, the textbook is then proliferated to the rest of this country.

Have you ever wondered what happens when a country suddenly experiences a Brain Drain of all their experts and talent? It's not good. Ask Greece.

What it all comes down to is a money grab. And due to the influence of Republican gerrymandering, dominance of right wing news media according to viewership, and the proliferation of the anti-intelligensia we have real, demonstrable harm being conducted on a national scale if not on the world scale.

The problem I have here is that we shouldn't even be having this debate. There is one truth and you and others like you have conveniently decided to believe whatever you want regardless of what is actually true or at least demonstrable. Instead, you'd rather obfuscate the way forward. You do this because you've been told to do this or (more likely) it's gets you in a flutter to troll on the net. Leroy, do you care if the things you believe are reasonable and accurate?

No these are not "alternative" facts, these are uncontrovertial scientific facts that even your sources grant.


No, leroy, those are not incontrovertible facts. Just because you assert things, does not make it true. I have backed up everything I said with the direct data or with a starting point for research. You have not recipricated, neither has nexttodie. I don't expect you to as you're obviously a troll. Every one of your "alternative facts" are brought up so many times there's not only a wiki for each response as a starting point for investigation but there's several articles explaining the blatant misunderstanding that comes from each of your assertions. If you bothered to read anything into the subject, you would discover that. Instead, you have decided to conclude the answer before seeing the information.

However, if you don't respond to any of these points, leroy. I'm done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-denial-of-catastrophic-climate-change-is-a-clear-danger/2016/11/15/98520864-aa8e-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.bad14eba2f80

http://www.alternet.org/story/152349/why_the_anti-science_creationist_movement_is_so_dangerous

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/experiences.htm

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scopes-creationism-education/

The harder question is answer is what good does creationism do for anyone? What questions does it answer? What predictions does it make? How can I use creationism to better humanity?
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:46 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

Dustnite wrote:Typical troll post from next. Wiki pages are supposed to be non technical. Go down to the references if you want to see the actual sources cited. I also love that you call it a fucking joke at the same time citing another wiki.

So you agree with leroy's list of bullshit "facts" that have been debunked countless times?


You haven't debunked anything. You might think you have because rationalwiki is so poorly written. There are only a couple things in his list that are even debatable.

It is a fact that earth's rotation is slowing down. It is a fact that the moon is recession of the moon is a real thing. We measure these things each year.

I find it ironic you did not know this. I think one point leroy was trying to make is that there tends to be a set of scientific truths that you are more likely to be made aware of in reading non-secular material.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:23 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

leroy wrote:
Dustnite wrote:Yet each one of those claims are refuted. So, should we call all of these "alternative facts"?

The point is that you refuse to look deeper into an issue than what someone else told you. I can cite sources that are friendly to YECs that disagree with your bullshit above and yet you'll say these are wrong because they don't fit your preconceived conclusions.

References:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

The point is, as next ironically points out, is that you can review a wiki but it's not meant to be an ending point but a starting point to discovering new information. People like Ken Ham seem interested not in discovering anything. They seem to really really like money and will desperately seek any pathway to getting more money. Ruining a generation of people with nonsense seems to be a byproduct they could really care two shits about.


No these are not "alternative" facts, these are uncontrovertial scientific facts that even your sources grant.

the only controvery is on weather if this facts indicate YEC or not.


many people know that the earth´s magnetic field is decaying becasue of YEC apolegetics, thanks to YEC many people are aware of this scientific fact........therefore they are making positive contributions to science.


Ruining a generation of people with nonsense seems to be a byproduct they could really care two shits about



Do you have evidence for this? do you have any evidence that suggests that apolegetics "ruin" people?....can you porve that reading answers in genesis ruins people?


The earth's magnetic field is currently decreasing in strength as it has in the past prior to reversing. Decreasing in strength temporarily is not the same as decaying.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:27 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science and Religion

thenexttodie wrote:
Dustnite wrote:Typical troll post from next. Wiki pages are supposed to be non technical. Go down to the references if you want to see the actual sources cited. I also love that you call it a fucking joke at the same time citing another wiki.

So you agree with leroy's list of bullshit "facts" that have been debunked countless times?


You haven't debunked anything. You might think you have because rationalwiki is so poorly written. There are only a couple things in his list that are even debatable.

It is a fact that earth's rotation is slowing down. It is a fact that the moon is recession of the moon is a real thing. We measure these things each year.

I find it ironic you did not know this. I think one point leroy was trying to make is that there tends to be a set of scientific truths that you are more likely to be made aware of in reading non-secular material.


Yep, those are facts, and based on the data they're perfectly in line with the age of the earth as we know it, being some 4.6ish billion years old.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:29 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 34 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests