The relevence of Biblical claims to science

We asked you for the knowledge. I suspect that your prayer would work better than mine. I suggest you pray cause so far anything else you've tried has bombed. You were asked for examples of how your methods were better. You gave one. You are wrong about it.Perhaps instead of looking up careless and dishonest material on creationist sites you would do better to pray. We'll wait for the results.

Thread Topic: The Relevence of Biblical claims to scienceWebster: Relevence - a : relation to the matter at hand b : practical and especially social applicabilityThe Bible's relation to science: It answers some of the same questions science does.Is this so hard?

Fine, good, ok, why on earth did we bother with this thread then?It is totally silly if that is all you're trying to say. We know it answers some of the same questions. Sheesh how silly.However, you've moved a bit. I do seem to recall that you were somehow convinced that it was better or at least could add to what we learn from science about the natural world. Are you now saying that you never claimed such a thing???This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 01:51 PM

Nice side step!The point of the message is that you are not correct in your parameters when you state that for the purpose of this discussion the Bible is accepted as true. It was not!Are you making the assumption (Message 83) that no scientist has ever considered the Bible to be true; or that no scientific theory was ever initiated because of something written in the Bible?You have determined that what is written in Genesis 1 does not agree with what scientist have learned about the development of our planet. Great! We already knew that before the thread started.You wrote Quetzal's question in Message 26:

quote:

---

Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?

---

What other truth can scientists learn if they bring spirituality into this research?
Will they be able to discern which scenerio is correct?
How can they show that spirituality lead them to their conclusion?Now your question in Message 26:

quote:

---

Are scientists missing truth by rejecting what the Bible says about the Physical?

---

Are you assuming that because scientists come up with a different answer that they are rejecting what the Bible says about the physical?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Did you ever hear of argumentum ad numerum? You might want to look it up. Asserting that a thing should be believed because a lot of people believe it or that a lot of people have believed it for a long time is a common error.You made the claim. You defend it. Until you do, (and having heard the same thing countless times) I will protray it as the stupidity it is.

No, it is rather simplistic. The bible may answer the same questions as science, but what relevance is there to that? Where it and science disagree, where the bible is shown to be wrong, it must be disregarded.

quote:

---

However, you've moved a bit. I do seem to recall that you were somehow convinced that it was better or at least could add to what we learn from science about the natural world. Are you now saying that you never claimed such a thing???

---

No, I am still claiming that. What I was saying is that the first step is to show that the Bible is relevent to science if it is true to the extent that (if it is true), it sheds light on science that science cannot itself attain.If you agree, then we can move on to talk about whether the Bible is true or not. But geeze, if people only attack everything I say, how am I supposed to know they agree with me. I thought I was crystal clear about what I was trying to show. I thought Quetzal was clear in granting me my paradigm of the Bible's truthfulness. I thought I made my point but met nothing but negative reaction. To me, that means I haven't made my point yet. Can we agree on this point or not?Claim 1: The Bible is relevant to science if it is true, and relevant specifically in that (if it is true) it sheds light on science that science cannot itself attain.If we cannot agree on that, then I'm not ready to move forward. And it has only appeared from the enormous number of attacks that I have received, that we cannot agree.

Why would you expect anyone to agree to a conditional proposition that is patently false?

Maestro is only, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, going step by step in very small steps. He isn't asking us to agree to the proposition just the statment that IF the bible is true then it has some relevance to questions of scientific interest.In my opinion, he muddled that badly. Of course it is relevant if it says something that is true.So there are 4 cases:
The Bible and science agree.
The Bible and science disagree.
The Bible has something to say on the topic, science doesn't.
Science has something to say, the Bible doesn't.Only the second case seems to be interesting. Right?

quote:

---

Why would you expect anyone to agree to a conditional proposition that is patently false?

---

Fair question.Because I do not want to take the time to show that the Bible is more trustworthy than scientific methodology if at the end of me showing it to be true, you wave it off as irrelevent.You can see how much work it is for me to get folks to agree with a rather simple concept. Showing the Bible is more trustworthy than scientific methodology is a more difficult thing to prove. I'm not keen on going through all the work with none of the payoff at the end.

If all you were trying to extablish was that IF the Bible is true it is relevant why didn't you correct us earlier? Why did you respond with the Vitamin K example? It appeared you were trying to show it was correct. That isn't necessary, as has been shown, to demonstrate your proposition. Some of us, at least, have agreed that if the Bible is correct then it is relevant. Seems so obvious that It is odd that we spent so long getting there.Why, btw, are you now ignoring questions about the Vitamin K example? You don't actually think we will just forget it if you don't reply do you?

quote:

---

...he muddled that badly

---

Fair opinion. Let me try to invite you into my experience here and see if it clarifies why all this happened:I came to EVC. I noted in numerous posts and threads that the Bible was considered to have no relevance to science. Worse yet, I noticed from some who appear to believe in the Bible, that it still had no business interferring with science. This told me it was important to establish that the Bible has many things to say about this physical world and the things that science explores. I think if you look at several of the discussions where I've been, there is a clear sense that this notion is not firmly held. The muddiness arises when people were unwilling to make the small step I encouraged them to make (I wanted it stated for the record very clearly if you will). To their credit, I understand their reluctance, as I am claiming something that is based on something they are already sure isn't true.But, there you have it. I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to cause trouble or just be annoying. I'm trying to get an important idea clarified, declared, and believed. I think we have done that. At least, Nosy has.So, let us agree to move on then. I'm sure we will have to endure a few more posts of knuckling here, but lets see if we can be of one mind on how to move forward.

quote:

---

So there are 4 cases:
The Bible and science agree.
The Bible and science disagree.
The Bible has something to say on the topic, science doesn't.
Science has something to say, the Bible doesn't.

​

Only the second case seems to be interesting. Right?

---

Clearly showing places where the Bible and scientific methodology disagree doesn't mean anything here. Further, to take a claim from the Bible that scientific methodology disagrees with means it will be, by definition, impossible to show you that it is true with scientific methodology.Notice that this is a point I have also been trying to grind home. If I were to take an example where the Bible disagrees with the science community and prove its truth to you with scientific methodology, that hasn't shown at all that scientific methodology is flawed, does it? It just shows that the scientific community applied it wrong up to that point, but a creationist used it correctly to get the right answer.So, where do we go?

quote:

---

Why, btw, are you now ignoring questions about the Vitamin K example? You don't actually think we will just forget it if you don't reply do you?

---

Nosey, I am not interested in another debate here. One is more than I can handle. I was trying to find an example where the Bible gave relevence to a scientific observation that science could not. If I failed with that, fine. The reason it is futile for me to pursue it further is because there is a cordinated, orgasmic attack from the scientific and humanitarian community against circumcision. If you can find a study that shows average specific levels of Vitamin K and prothrombin on the first couple weeks of a newborns life, that would be fabulous. You won't find the exact numbers though, I don't think. There was one study I found in PubMed that might have been relevent, but I only have access to the Abstract.

Maestro,

quote:

---

I do not want to take the time to show that the Bible is more trustworthy than scientific methodology if at the end of me showing it to be true, you wave it off as irrelevent.

---

No, you want to pretend you've shown it to be true, without all the hassle of dealing with valid challenges to your claim. A rational person would understand when he's obliged to face facts. Would you?regards,
Esteban Hambre

The original intent of this thread was for you to propose a methodology and provide examples of how that methodology could be applied to real world issues and/or real questions in science. You insisted that you were to be allowed to utilize the Bible to do so. I granted that stipulation for the sake of discussion. The only thing that we have proven thus far is that, given A, anything can be "proven" - something that would seem to me to be trivially true, and certainly not worth a 100-post thread. After all, if you grant me the use of all of the mythology of mankind, I will surely undertake to prove anything you wish proven.However, you have as yet utterly failed to take the next logical step and compare the results gained from your methodology (which up to now seems limited a series of ad hoc assertions) and provide the substance needed to bolster your truth claim. Using your own example, show how the account you used was valid by referencing specific observations or facts.That was the original intent of this thread. Otherwise what was the point? Your original claim was that science is missing out by not accepting and/or rejecting the Bible and/or spiritual realms. You have not even begun to provide support for this claim.I think your claim of "win" is a bit premature, since you have barely begun addressing the topic.