Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

real life wrote:

That's true.

The basic premise is 'we may not know HOW evolution occurred, but we just KNOW that it did. therefore all evidence must be interpreted to see HOW (not if) it fits into evolutionary theory'.

That's not the basic premise of evolution. What school did you go to?

Hey everyone, how many of you that studied evolution in school learned that the basic premise of the theory is: "we may not know HOW evolution occurred, but we just KNOW that it did."

0 Replies

Sorry ros. I'd hear that one from you so often, I was just sure it was the basic premise.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Sorry ros. I'd hear that one from you so often, I was just sure it was the basic premise.

Sorry buddy, you've never heard it from me before.

My posts speak pretty clearly for themselves. You seem to be living in a dream world.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
baddog
your incomprehension is your own.

Bingo . . .

What is sadder here is that BD apparently believes that because he can find this drivel online, he has established a reliable source, and that simply linking such nonsense constitutes providing evidence, which can be relied upon unless and until it is refuted. For my part, although i am not obliged to refute anything that someone contends if they haven't provided proof, i avoid linking sites with an obvious atheist agenda, and a penchant for ridiculing scripture. I don't accept the drivel of religionist web sites, and i don't intend to offer diatribes from atheist web sites in rebuttal.

Having read a good deal of nonsense provided by yourself - let's agree on a fair compromise. You provide a description of criteria for adequate determination of proof/evidence that is equally & fairly conclusive. As claimed by your assertion - providing a fair solution should be no problem for you and this is your opportunity to show it.

0 Replies

Another interesting [and related] article:

Revelation, Speculation and Science
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

It is one of those embarrassing historical ironies that modern science could not have arisen except in the atmosphere of a Christian world-and-life view. Nevertheless, the scientific community today persists in playing the prodigal by assuming an antagonistic stance against the Christianity of divine revelation. Hypnotized by Darwin's evolutionary scheme and enchanted with the products of scientific technology, modern man has granted science a secularized godship and bows before it in fetish idolatry.

The pitting of science against revelation is certainly odd. For, a certain state of affairs is needed for the scientific endeavor to be meaningful or fruitful. The scientist must believe that the state of affairs is conducive to science, or he would not venture into the scientific enterprise. He must believe that there is a world of things and processes that can be known, and that he himself sustains a relationship to this world that allows him to know these objects and events. But then, what reason can the scientist give for his belief that the state of affairs is actually conducive to science? Why is the world such as it is and not otherwise?

The Predicament for Science

Here the scientist, who depends on the self-sufficiency of his logico-empirical procedures, is in a predicament. His response is usually to make various hypotheses about the world and then point to the beneficial results that flow from such hypotheses; he gives, can give, no reason for those hypotheses -- they just are, because they work. If pressed, or if he is philosophically inclined, he may even go so far as to say that his "working hypotheses" have no reason unless it be "chance."

In other words, the consistent naturalistic scientist seems to hold to an irrational set of beliefs about the state of affairs simply in order that his "rational" scientific endeavor may get off the ground. It is rather obvious that prior to any scientific endeavor we must begin either from speculation (about "chance" hypotheses) or from revelation. The Scriptures (of the one Person who knows) reveal how it is that this world, and man in it, are such as to make scientific endeavor meaningful. The state of affairs that exists is due to the creation and providence of the sovereign God. If science (so-called) could actually refute the truths of Scripture, then there would be no actual basis for science at all. The desire of the scientific community to pit its enterprise and conclusions against Christian revelation is ultimately suicidal...

Source: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Another interesting [and related] article:

Revelation, Speculation and Science
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

It is one of those embarrassing historical ironies that modern science could not have arisen except in the atmosphere of a Christian world-and-life view. Nevertheless, the scientific community today persists in playing the prodigal by assuming an antagonistic stance against the Christianity of divine revelation. Hypnotized by Darwin's evolutionary scheme and enchanted with the products of scientific technology, modern man has granted science a secularized godship and bows before it in fetish idolatry.

What a bunch of self-serving bogus glop. I don't think one thing in that introductory paragraph was accurate.

Science was popping up in a lot of cultures besides christian europe, including China, India and the Middle East. Just because the dominant modern aspects of science happened to arise from christian europe doesn't mean it *needed* christianity to arise. It could be argued that churches actually hindered the development of science more than they helped it (Galileo certainly felt hindered). Perhaps the dark ages would never have happened if it weren't for the church.

And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion. Science just says what it says. It's the church, and the religious who feel threatened by science, and who keep trying to polarize the two views. Science actually has nothing to do with religion. The only time science conflicts with religion is when religion tries to ground itself in physical realities, which is a stupid thing for religion to do anyway. Religion is supposed to be about spiritual things, not molecules and geology and evolution.

Science only threaten religion in the way rain threatens to ruin your day: If you let it, it will.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion...

Sure about that?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion...

Sure about that?

Yes. Science and Religion are based on different philosophies of reality. You can not measure the validity of one from the perspective of the other. People who understand Science and/or Religion understand this. People who don't, cause trouble.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion...

Sure about that?

Actually quite sure. There are numerous studies about scientists who are religious. Google it up sometime.

I'll give you a starter ...

Quote:

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Quote:

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

0 Replies

Ros:

One answer to your assertion; ...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

def: antagonistic (antagonism): opposition of a conflicting force, tendency, or principle

And thanks to ehbeth for helping to provide links with additional answers to the title of this thread.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Ros:

One answer to your assertion; ...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

Herbert Hauptman's personal opinions don't define the stance of science or the scientific community, even if he did win a Nobel prize.

0 Replies

Baddog1, we have shown that parts of the Bible ARE scientifically inaccurate (such as the Biblical verses that supposedly support the first and second laws of thermodynamics) but it seems that you ignore any arguments that disprove your contentions.

I see that you have not posted any more of the drivel from the site you referenced in your first post. Too bad. I would have enjoyed debunking that as well. And what about Jacob's wacky methods of genetic engineering?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

One answer to your assertion; ...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

Herbert Hauptman's personal opinions don't define the stance of science or the scientific community, even if he did win a Nobel prize.

Let me clearly understand you.

One of the (chosen, Nobel laureate) scientific panelists at a recent scientific conference at City College of New York makes a clear, concise statement that goes against your belief - and you claim that his opinion should be dismissed.

Since your requirements are clearly more stringent than requirements for the NY conference; please share with us your list for who would qualify to represent science. What is your criteria for this list?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Baddog1, we have shown that parts of the Bible ARE scientifically inaccurate (such as the Biblical verses that supposedly support the first and second laws of thermodynamics) but it seems that you ignore any arguments that disprove your contentions.

I see that you have not posted any more of the drivel from the site you referenced in your first post. Too bad. I would have enjoyed debunking that as well. And what about Jacob's wacky methods of genetic engineering?

Terry:

I've ignored nothing. 'You' (et al) have provided no evidence of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible simply because 'you' have not provided an equitable definition of evidence. Once 'you' provide this fair definition - we can proceed from there.

As to more of the information from my 1st post - provide the unbiased definition of evidence and we'll revisit it ASAP.

0 Replies

wikipedia:

Evidence in science
Main article: Scientific evidence
In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis. When evidence is contradictory to theoretical expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process the theory is rejected: in that case we call that refutation of the theory. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence: nonetheless even one anecdotal evidence when possible to replicate is enough to reject a theory incompatible with that evidence.

dictionary.com:

ev·i·dence
-noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Just trying to help Smile

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

One answer to your assertion; ...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

Herbert Hauptman's personal opinions don't define the stance of science or the scientific community, even if he did win a Nobel prize.

Let me clearly understand you.

One of the (chosen, Nobel laureate) scientific panelists at a recent scientific conference at City College of New York makes a clear, concise statement that goes against your belief - and you claim that his opinion should be dismissed.

Since your requirements are clearly more stringent than requirements for the NY conference; please share with us your list for who would qualify to represent science. What is your criteria for this list?

Science standards are never the opinion of one man BD. Nor are they the defined by the opinions of various minorities. Scientific standards are represented by a much larger base than that.

Also, it's possible for even the most un-scientific of people to understand that science and religion are rooted in different philosophies, just look at the definitions.

Science is only antagonistic to specific religious concepts by virtue of defining physical realities which are in conflict with specific religious dogma. So it would be more accurate to say that reality is antagonistic to religion. And between the two, I'm not surprised that religion is the one taking the beating.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

I've ignored nothing. 'You' (et al) have provided no evidence of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible simply because 'you' have not provided an equitable definition of evidence. Once 'you' provide this fair definition - we can proceed from there.

You trotted out some hilarious horseshit about hydrology in the bible. The bible doesn't mention the word hydrology. The passages of scripture your brain-dead web site source quoted don't mention ground water, they don't mention the polar ice caps, they don't mention evaporation as a part of the process which produces precipitation. When it comes to evidence, it's pretty damned scarce on the ground. Yet you want to claim that people here have not provided you with a reasonable definition of evidence.

Why don't we start with saying that evidence would involve your book of fairy tales actually, unambiguously saying what you claim it means, without tortured interpretations?

0 Replies

Baddod resembles "real life" more and more as time goes on. The member "real life" has his mantras which he repeats endlessly, without reference to the number of times it is shown that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The member "real life" plays with the definitions of words, making wild, extravagant claims about the meanings of words constantly, ignoring the hundreds of incidences when it is shown that he mis-applies definitions in making his arguments.

Baddog has now adopted this pattern with regard to "evidence." In this thread, and in the thread about proof for creationism, he is whining about what constitutes evidence. In the other thread, he himself stated that lots of evidence had been provided for creationism. When he was asked to link posts in which that evidence was given, he reverted to whining about what constitutes evidence. I suspect we'll have this whine served us again and again from Baddog. After all, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he is learning the "real life" technique of diverting embarrassing discussions by quibbling about what the meaning of "is" is.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Baddod resembles "real life" more and more as time goes on. The member "real life" has his mantras which he repeats endlessly, without reference to the number of times it is shown that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The member "real life" plays with the definitions of words, making wild, extravagant claims about the meanings of words constantly, ignoring the hundreds of incidences when it is shown that he mis-applies definitions in making his arguments.

Baddog has now adopted this pattern with regard to "evidence." In this thread, and in the thread about proof for creationism, he is whining about what constitutes evidence. In the other thread, he himself stated that lots of evidence had been provided for creationism. When he was asked to link posts in which that evidence was given, he reverted to whining about what constitutes evidence. I suspect we'll have this whine served us again and again from Baddog. After all, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he is learning the "real life" technique of diverting embarrassing discussions by quibbling about what the meaning of "is" is.

Ad hominems, non sequiturs, strawman tactics, ad nauseums, cherry picking... but no answer!

You do not care to be pinned down to a standard definition do you set? Must you always maintain the ability to move that bar to suit your position? Gotta keep the deck stacked don't you? Tango, Lindy hop, Balboa - what's your favorite?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

...Also, it's possible for even the most un-scientific of people to understand that science and religion are rooted in different philosophies, just look at the definitions...

Please provide the definitions you speak of.

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know