|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The very fact that the religious see the need to resort to such arguments tells us that the evidence is not truly on their side.
And the fact that there are some 4,000 world religions, and perhaps 40,000 sects, denominations, or "flavors" of Christianity suggests that there is no empirical evidence to address competing claims. If there was evidence, instead of faith and belief, the claims of these various religions and denominations could be compared and the one supported by the evidence could be identified. But religion doesn't rely on evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Thanks for your post Huntard and sorry to send this into a radiometric dating thread...that wasn't my intent but I opened the door.
We should take this to another thread, as there are some good ones not too far back. And several of us are somewhat knowledgeable in that field. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and would love to discuss those issues with you. Others here are more qualified in the longer half-life methods. Please bring your concerns to one of those threads, or begin a new one. I think we can help you with your concerns. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Do you claim that there are NO presuppositions that underlie science?
What do you mean by "presuppositions?" Science begins with the working assumption of methodological naturalism. Is that what you are referring to as a "presupposition?" If not, please clarify what you are referring to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Thanks for the clarification.
I would suggest that there is a difference between a "preposition" and a "working assumption." A working assumption is something that is taken as tentative, and used to the extent that it proves useful. If it is contradicted, then it will have to be reevaluated. So far, the working assumption of methodological naturalism in science has not been shown to be erroneous or insufficient. Certainly the divine revelations and scriptures relied upon by religions have not done so. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Logic and reason are tools.
They can be applied to all manner of data. If the data is good, then you should get good results. If the data is unsubstantiated (divine revelation, scripture, etc.) then you can't expect to get good results. In that case you are doing religious apologetics, not science. Edited by Coyote, : No reason given. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The analogy is between Scripture and nature. Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.
They do! And that is why we have some 40,000 different denominations, sects, and branches of Christianity. Sorry, religion is not like science and all the apologetics in the world will not make it so. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And what do logic and reason tell us about the biblical claims of a worldwide flood?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think what kbertsche is saying is that logic and reason will tell you what the Bible means in those passages. Is it talking about a worldwide flood ? a local flood ? other humans survived ? everybody perished ? etc. Since the author had one intended meaning, the passage can only have this one meaning in reality. He is saying you use reason and logic to determine what that meaning is. That's nice. But what do you do when empirical evidence contradicts the "logic and reason" that the bible leads you to? That is the real question we have here. All the logic and reason in the world can't make the biblical flood story agree with the facts produced by scientific investigation. The early creationist geologists seeking to "prove" the global flood gave up just about 200 years ago. It's been downhill ever since. So what do logic and reason lead you to in this case? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You like to liberally sprinkle your opinions with appeals to science words such as "empirical evidence" but you have yet to demonstrate what is empirical about your claims and evidence is a matter of interpretation. Sorry, scientists tend to use scientific terms. And by empirical we mean that it can be demonstrated and verified. And no, not all interpretations are equal. Some follow directly from the evidence, while others are a great stretch.
Seeing as you are much more an evangelist for evolution rather than a scientist, I am not surprised. What I want to know is why you get a pass on it here. I can present evidence. In the case of the global flood purported to have happened about 4,350 years ago, I can also present some evidence from my own archaeological research.
To say it didn't happen on a certain date, that's easy just pick a date and go with it. You might even sidle up with Biblical scholars because its convenient for you, although you reject everything else they have to say as worthless. To say it didnt happen at all, that's a whole nuther matter, so you avoid that one like the plague. Not so. It didn't happen at all. There is no evidence that the earth was entirely under water at any time in the past. Certainly not at any time in human history.
You are not doing science, you are simply a fellow using his credentials on a personal crusade against the Bible. If you look at my posts you will find that I contradict only those parts of the bible for which there is good empirical evidence that the bible is inaccurate. The global flood is one of the ones I deal with most because: 1) the date is put during historic times, most often about 4,350 years ago;2) this is a time period in which I have done dozens of archaeological excavations, as well as many more, both earlier and later; 3) thousands of archaeologists, geologists, and other -ologists have produced evidence pertaining to the existence of a global flood; and 4) the evidence is clear; there is simply no empirical evidence for a global flood. My conclusion, based on the work of many scientists as well as my own personal investigations is that the story of a global flood did not happen as written in the bible. It is a myth. Now, what would you have us do? Censor our findings for your convenience? Accept "divine" revelation as empirical evidence? Change how science works? You criticize science for contradicting your beliefs; perhaps you could examine your beliefs in light of the evidence science has produced. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And of course, the matter of if the biblical flood (your seemingly favorite biblical topic) is a possible reality in the light of the evidence, it's another subject which would of course also require logic and reason.
I have answered some of this in the previous post. And no, scientific evidence does not point to a global flood in historic times. The early creationist geologists gave up trying to find evidence of a global flood about 200 years ago. Since then the case for a global flood has been disproved time and time again by repeatable, empirical evidence. DNA is just the latest field that disproves the flood at about 4,350 years ago. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024