Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Actually, and this is a significant point, i say that you are fond of alleging that a strawman argument has been advanced against you, but unable to prove the case...

Not much of a quibble to say that you didn't use it 65 times, and only used it 58 times. Of course, now i'm sure that you'll dance around saying that you were just quoting someone else. You haven't provided any data, though, on how often you are quoting someone else, and how often you were alleging it against others.

The point, which you are avoiding, is that you allege this logical fallacy against people when it is not true. Now it appears that BD is attempting to copy his hero, "real life," and he has today alleged that a strawman argument was used against him, but has provided no example thereof.

Like two peas in a pod.

That's rich, coming from the whiner who wants to discuss what is is, rather than providing the evidence he claims he has.

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.

Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.

Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said.

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown, said his students were often surprised to find that he was religious, especially when they realized that his faith was not some sort of vague theism but observant Roman Catholicism.

Dr. Miller, whose book, "Finding Darwin's God," explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with his religious faith, said he was usually challenged in his biology classes by one or two students whose religions did not accept evolution, who asked how important the theory would be in the course.

"What they are really asking me is "do I have to believe in this stuff to get an A?,' " he said. He says he tells them that "belief is never an issue in science."

"I don't care if you believe in the Krebs cycle," he said, referring to the process by which energy is utilized in the cell. "I just want you to know what it is and how it works. My feeling about evolution is the same thing."

(although there is no good reason to assume that it is a working, consensual definition)...

I don't have to provide a definition. You have claimed you have evidence--therefore, you must have a definition of evidence already. There is no need for me to provide you one.

'science doesn't agree with your definition no matter what it says...'

...language doesn't function for communication unless definitions are agreed upon, or people explain what definition they are attempting to use...

You won't provide a definition for evidence, either, so your position is no more credible than you claim mine is...

I can provide a definition of evidence, but there is no reason for me to do so.

You have claimed you have evidence (and since it seems you are confusing two different threads, this is the idiotic thread in which you claim the Bobble is "scientifically reliable" scripture), but have not provided it.

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.

Terry posted a claim by the bible that is easily debunked by science in his post here.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3019046#3019046

It was ignored by BD and RL.

It is not a question of choosing in which to "believe" when it is a well-established principle of physics that the earth revolves around the sun. It is quite simply impossible for the universe to revolve around the earth, and to believe that the entire universe came to a screetching halt then started back up a few hours later with no physical aftereffects is ludicrous. The only way anyone can believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is to close their eyes to the Truth in favor of ancient superstition and comforting lies.

maporsche wrote:

Terry posted a claim by the bible that is easily debunked by science in his post here.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3019046#3019046

It was ignored by BD and RL.

I suppose you are referring to this statement:

Terry wrote:

It is not a question of choosing in which to "believe" when it is a well-established principle of physics that the earth revolves around the sun. It is quite simply impossible for the universe to revolve around the earth, and to believe that the entire universe came to a screetching halt then started back up a few hours later with no physical aftereffects is ludicrous. The only way anyone can believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is to close their eyes to the Truth in favor of ancient superstition and comforting lies.

You make an assumption about time that may not be in harmony with the the Creator's view of time. I've posted several times that our perception of space and time is simply that - a perception

. . . The bible says that the sun stood still, STOOD STILL. Tt claims that the sun revolves around the earth (which we know is false).

maporsche wrote:

. . . The bible says that the sun stood still, STOOD STILL. Tt claims that the sun revolves around the earth (which we know is false).

Joshua recorded things as he saw them. But where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?

I mean, other than references which we use when describing what appears from our point of reference.

Ever sit with your honey and watch a sunset? You know it is not the sun which is setting, right?