21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't care... 😉

I'm saying I understand what you are saying. Lord.

26 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I'm saying I understand what you are saying. Lord.

Cool, but call me Dave...

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Cool, but call me Dave...

I'm saying I understand what you are saying. Lord help you, Dave.

17 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I'm saying I understand what you are saying. Lord help you, Dave.

Indeed, but someone didn't understand the intention of an emoji (😉) as shorthand for 'this is a joke'.

So you see, my young Padawan, the power of the dark-side... 😇

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but someone didn't understand the intention of an emoji (😉) as shorthand for 'this is a joke'.

So you see, my young Padawan, the power of the dark-side... 😇

17 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

<No text>

Stop it, please.

Most of the conflicts I have been involved in are of the Evolution V Creation type.

The argument details change over time from the creationist side, from experience.

19 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Most of the conflicts I have been involved in are of the Evolution V Creation type.

The argument details change over time from the creationist side, from experience.

Sometimes, it's more nuanced than that...

19 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

The argument details change over time from the creationist side, from experience

It’s called moving the goalposts and throwing random fallacies at the wall to see if any stick

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sometimes, it's more nuanced than that...

I was just trying to make a general comment, get my feet under the table so to speak.

The OP is 9 years old but I would disagree with the statement. By definition Science is at odds with the three main religions, we do not need religious people to point it out.

Also some arguments from religious push the opposite view, that science actually verifies scripture.

I have a book on Islam dedicated just to that, I do not have the title (big apologies there, I appreciate citations are key in these discussions, I request you give me till Tuesday to post them)

Overall today though, arguments from creationist Christians? Micro evolution is ok, macro is not ok. Presumably because this violates the "kinds" verses in Genesis.

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s called moving the goalposts and throwing random fallacies at the wall to see if any stick

They certainly seem to sing from the same hymn sheet and follow the latest additions.

For context, my comments come from interaction on line, YouTube, science websites and looking up some publications on the D.I.

On 5/23/2025 at 9:37 AM, pinball1970 said:

Most of the conflicts I have been involved in are of the Evolution V Creation type.

The argument details change over time from the creationist side, from experience.

Most of the time for me it’s about the interpretation of cheddar man against far right European nationalists or mainstream Christian’s

On 5/24/2025 at 8:40 AM, pinball1970 said:

I was just trying to make a general comment, get my feet under the table so to speak.

The OP is 9 years old but I would disagree with the statement. By definition Science is at odds with the three main religions, we do not need religious people to point it out.

Science is formally oblivious to religion, insofar as religion deals with spiritual/supernatural things and science deals with the material/physical world.

They are only at odds where religious folk try to insist that their religious texts makes pronouncements about the physical world.

On 5/24/2025 at 8:40 AM, pinball1970 said:

Also some arguments from religious push the opposite view, that science actually verifies scripture.

Not so much. You can only say this if scripture made specific predictions that did not have more than one interpretation, and scripture tends to be vague. To say science verifies it is retconning. If there was no science from which to crib answers, you don’t get those answers. (e.g. age of the earth in Christianity)

On 5/24/2025 at 8:40 AM, pinball1970 said:

I have a book on Islam dedicated just to that, I do not have the title (big apologies there, I appreciate citations are key in these discussions, I request you give me till Tuesday to post them)

I predict these will be the vague passages that do not lend themselves to one definitive answer.

On 5/24/2025 at 8:40 AM, pinball1970 said:

Overall today though, arguments from creationist Christians? Micro evolution is ok, macro is not ok. Presumably because this violates the "kinds" verses in Genesis.

Revisionism, though. They ceded that ground when the sheer weight of evidence forced it. Gods of the gaps. God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance (as Tyson puts it)

On 6/22/2016 at 4:37 AM, Ihcisphysicist said:

Because Mr. Strange, if there is more than religion than there definitely is more than Science too.

Evidence please

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Science is formally oblivious to religion, insofar as religion deals with spiritual/supernatural things and science deals with the material/physical world.

They are only at odds where religious folk try to insist that their religious texts makes pronouncements about the physical world.

I disagree with the religion part. Sure, it deals with the supernatural but the scriptures that the three Abrahamic religions are based on, also documents gives a long human history from the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve, the flood, the Exodus and beyond. People, places, battles and Kings, much of which is at odds with history, archaeology and science.

Scientists and archaeologists did not set out to contradict Biblical claims but key discoveries did do that along the way.

Edited May 29May 29 by pinball1970

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I disagree with the religion part. Sure, it deals with the supernatural but the scriptures that the three Abrahamic religions are based on, also documents gives a long human history from the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve, the flood, the Exodus and beyond. People, places, battles and Kings, much of which is at odds with history, archaeology and science.

Scientists and archaeologists did not set out to contradict Biblical claims but key discoveries did do that along the way.

You can certainly argue that @swansont 's "insofar" does some fairly heavy lifting in some expressions of the Abrahamic religions. But it remains a fair statement as a general principle, I'd have thought. So long as religion avoids making claims about the processes of the natural world, there isn't a conflict - witness the large number of religious scientists. Regarding historical accuracy of the Old Testament, that's a matter for historians, whose disciple is well used to working with partial and biased accounts and does not find them shocking, because it is human nature.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I disagree with the religion part. Sure, it deals with the supernatural but the scriptures that the three Abrahamic religions are based on, also documents gives a long human history from the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve, the flood, the Exodus and beyond. People, places, battles and Kings, much of which is at odds with history, archaeology and science.

Scientists and archaeologists did not set out to contradict Biblical claims but key discoveries did do that along the way.

I don’t see how that disagrees with me. The conflict arises from religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world (instead of e.g. being allegories)

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I disagree with the religion part. Sure, it deals with the supernatural but the scriptures that the three Abrahamic religions are based on, also documents gives a long human history from the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve, the flood, the Exodus and beyond. People, places, battles and Kings, much of which is at odds with history, archaeology and science.

Scientists and archaeologists did not set out to contradict Biblical claims but key discoveries did do that along the way.

The bible/s aren't meant as a de facto description of history, it's a teaching aid and some of the stories are meant for children.

The conflict from both side's always gravitate around the litteral value, rather than just accepting the value of the recognisable part's, that are clearly 'trying' to convey a message, that we all could benefit from; if we stopped to think about it.

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see how that disagrees with me. The conflict arises from religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world (instead of e.g. being allegories)

Did Jesus think Adam and Eve were allegorical? How about the Gospel writers? Luke puts Adam in the Genealogy of Jesus.

John says Jesus was around before Abraham, "before Abraham was I am." Did Abraham exist? The father of the Jews?

Or Moses?

Some modern, sophisticated Christians today may think some stories are allegorical but there seem to be a lot that think the Bible is inerrant. Enough to cause trouble.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

I predict these will be the vague passages that do not lend themselves to one definitive answer.

These are the kinds of cites and books I was referring to.

A few sites and books on this.

 https://livingwaters.com/scientific-facts-in-the-bible/

 https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

 https://churchonthecorner.us/questions-on-faith/how-the-bible-aligns-with-science/

 https://www.whyislam.org/physics-in-the-light-of-the-quran/

 An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an: Volume 1 (The Foundational Sciences Series) Paperback – 6 July 2017

by Sh. Furhan Zubairi (Author)

 The Quran and Science: Guidance for Mankind with Scientific Discoveries and Prophecies Paperback – 31 May 2016

by Ghiasuddin Ahmed Khan

 Scientific Facts in the Bible

100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin by Ray Comfort. Publisher, Bridge Logos Published November 2001

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

So long as religion avoids making claims about the processes of the natural world, there isn't a conflict

That is what those religions do, make claims about the real world not just the supernatural.

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The bible/s aren't meant as a de facto description of history, it's a teaching aid and some of the stories are meant for children.

The Bible was not put together till the 4th CE and those OT stories were absolutely not meant for children! Have you read them?

15 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

The Bible was not put together till the 4th CE and those OT stories were absolutely not meant for children! Have you read them?

Here we go... 😇 You have the magic ability to understand, in fine detail, a culture whose language you can't possibly understand... 🙄

Edited May 29May 29 by dimreepr

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Here we go... 😇 You have the magic ability to understand, in fine detail, a culture whose language you can't possibly understand... 🙄

No, I read what scholars have to say about it.

2 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

No, I read what scholars have to say about it.

Scholars are taking a best guess and you're treating them as purveyors of absolute truth; do you understand?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Scholars are taking a best guess and you're treating them as purveyors of absolute truth; do you understand?

What are my options?

I could read The Bible as it is now in English and make my best guess.

I could listen to a priest from the pulpit who claims to know what scripture is where it came from and what it means.

I could listen to random stranger.

I could listen to Scholars and archaeologists, who have studied the manuscripts in the original languages they were written. A study that is their day job so to speak, seasoned qualified professional in the field who write text books for University students much like scientist do in their fields for their students.

I chose the last one, I do not think that is unreasonable.

When I was a student of Biology I read Alberts, Molecular Biology of The Cell. It was standard text.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Scholars are taking a best guess

So it is a matter trusting their educated guesses than my own own or other unqualified people.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Bart Ehrman, Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman, Géza Vermes and Magnus Magnusson have been the main ones.

Ehrman has debated many of his colleagues on points so one can get different perspectives too.

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

treating them as purveyors of absolute truth;

One last point on this, simply, no i do not. The reason is they do not do that either, the purpose of the historian is try and find out what "most likely" happened in the past.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Revisionism, though. They ceded that ground when the sheer weight of evidence forced it. Gods of the gaps. God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance (as Tyson puts it)

Agree on that.

19 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

What are my options?

You could try for PhD, what makes you think my hypothesis is wrong?

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

Did Jesus think Adam and Eve were allegorical? How about the Gospel writers? Luke puts Adam in the Genealogy of Jesus.

I have no idea.

Do you think this rebuts my point? I don’t see how.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

John says Jesus was around before Abraham, "before Abraham was I am." Did Abraham exist? The father of the Jews?

Or Moses?

Some modern, sophisticated Christians today may think some stories are allegorical but there seem to be a lot that think the Bible is inerrant. Enough to cause trouble.

Again, I don’t see how this is contrary to my point. Insisting that the Bible is inerrant would seem to confirm that the conflict is caused by “religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world”

35 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

So it is a matter trusting their educated guesses than my own own or other unqualified people.

How are you qualified?