Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

I don't think it's fair to be so coy. I, too, doubt your claim in Message 44 that "Deuteronomy informs us that the stars are simply holes in a vast, solid firmament, through which the sun shines." You should explain that you were only, just as Maestro had done, raising a hypothetical. Just as Maestro's hypothetical included a claim science does not make ("There is no God."), your hypothetical included a claim the Bible doesn't specifically make.--Percy

No, that's according to you guys. You're the ones who have been so careful to define God in such a way that no amount of evidence could disprove his existence. As a result, no evidence can substantiate his existence, either.We're just playing by your definitions, after all. If you don't like that your definition of "God" removes him from scientific inquiry, then come up with a better one. But I can claim that the entire universe and everything in it is evidence against God, and in one fell swoop, we're back where we started - no legitimate evidence for or against God.

quote:

---

Word of advice, fella. Work under the assumption that you're not gonna wow us with a premise. The majority of us have been on this forum for at least a year, and every month or so a newbie comes on telling us that there's such a thing as Christian science, and aren't we shocked by that?

---

That was hardly my point. I am just explaining that religious people are not scientifically impetent. Cut me some slack.

Okay, the other thing to learn... I'm an asshole. It's what I do. But seriously... nothing we've heard on this thread is really new stuff to us. It'd seriously behoove you to go over the archives a while. Ultimately, your arguments will be stronger for it.

quote:

---

So, it follows therefore that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing; and the only people who know anything are those who claim to know everything?

​

How on Earth does that make any sense? You're very hung up on the fact that the body of scientific knowledge changes; I guess some people would rather cling to unchanging fictions than do the work it takes to keep up with the leading edge of knowledge.

---

My words are being twisted. I am not saying that. I am simply addressing a false claim that those who hold fast are inherently more likely to be wrong than those who revise. It is an utterly case by case basis, and we can be right about some aspects of that thing and wrong about some.

quote:

---

The Holy Bible.

---

I did a word search and found no such verse, so I am asking you to tell me what the verse is. Context is important. It could be mere poetry for all I know. So please reference it for me because my search tools did not find it.

quote:

---

Actually, there is a good deal of scientific study that deals with religious claims too. There are Christian scientists and historians and anthropologists, etc... who uncover things which support our claims too, so this is not some blind lemming-like, close-minded brigade of imbeciles.

---

Let's take a step back, shall we?This is going to be tough to keep on topic, but hopefully we can all try. What religious claims, exactly, are being supported? There is a definite separation between confirming a place in the Bible and confirming what happened at a place. For instance, the possible discovery of Troy in no way supports what happened in the Illiad (or is it the Odyssey, I always get those two mixed up). What I need are the scientific findings and how you think they support religious claims. These will only be used as examples of how science can support religion, not a discussion on the veracity religious claims. Get my drift?Next, since you claim that science and religion can mix, can you name one scientific theory used in science today that only works if one accepts religious dogma? For instance, do I have to pray before the Theory of Relativity works? Do I have to accept the Resurrection of the Christ before the Germ Theory of Disease makes any sense?Also, you claim that science is not trustworthy because it changes. Then, according to you, science would be more trustworthy if it still hypothesized that the earth was the middle of the solar system, that animals acquire traits through their life time (Lamarckism), or that electricity moves through an ether. Isn't science trustworthy because it strives to be inline with all of the data, even if it means throwing some theories out or rewriting others? This is why all scientific theories are tentative, because everyone knows that evidence could pop up tomorrow and require a total rewrite of many theories. So what. That is why scientists are still being trained, to rewrite, modify, or add to the theories we have today. If science had already decided that it knows everything we wouldn't need research scientists anymore.And to continue my blabberfest, science is a tool used to discover things about the physical world. Science is not a tool that is used to find philosophical truth. The bigger Truth (with a big T) is dealt with through theology and philosophy. I always forget who said this, but "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". Science deals with the truths of the physical world; theology deals with the larger truths of man's existence and place in the universe.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 05:01 PM

I had thought that it actually said that, but now that I search for the passage, I can't find it.But, yeah. Take it as a hypothetical, then. There's certainly a score of other examples I could have chosen.

From message 59, Be careful, you are are twisting my points too much and mixing my posts. Let me clarify."Science is but a flawed expression of reality" means our understanding of reality is not complete. We have been wrong with science and revised our ideas. We do not claim to completely understand everything even now.There is a difference between a revisionist and an evolutionary biologist. One is a more general term.

How can I be twisting your words when I'm directly quoting your posts? But that claim is false for the same reason your original claim was false: whether or not you revise or change has no bearing on who is right or not. As long as you're backpedalling from your claim in message 8, where you said that we could know that scientific knowledge was flawed because it changes, I'm satisifed. And you appear to be doing just that.

I certainly wouldn't consider that "flawed". Who ever claimed that we did? Why on Earth did you feel the need to utter something so obvious as though it was contentious, or unknown to us?

Loudmouth,I would like to reply to your post...I need to leave for the day..so I will get to it tomorrow. It is an interesting post.

I think you've made some pretty good points, Maestro. Your idea that the changing or non-changing of a proposition has nothing to do with its truth value makes sense to me.

Frog,Your hypothetical was to show that the Bible had errors. Mine was to illustrate an idea about steadfastness not necessarily implying falseness. You need to give me another verse to prove your point..which you may well have..but nonetheless...

I think you're missing the point. Scientists revise their positions based on whether evidence supports their hypothesis or not. The idea is that scientists expand their body of knowledge. You are correct in stating that just because you hold fast to an idea doesn't mean you are wrong. The caveat being that if you hold fast to an idea which isn't supported by the evidence you are most certainly wrong.