The relevence of Biblical claims to science

Close, but not quite right. The challenge is to produce a methodology that produces accurate, predictive models about the universe better than the scientific methodology does. This methodology can combine any sources of knowledge you prefer, but it has to make better predictions, on all subjects, than science does.

Slow down a bit, Crash. I think you may be asking for too much on a first pass. The methodology of science has been under development for several hundred years. If Maestro can take one or two concrete examples and show that a methodology different from the methodological naturalism of science provides a better explanation for those examples - even if not universally applicable - then we have a very good point of departure for further discussion.Of course, if he does, then he'll be the first creationist in history to do so. Even Philip Johnson hasn't concretized his theistic approach, and he's supposedly one of the "great philosophers" of creationism.

Well, that's really been the question for the past couple days, hasn't it? Are creationists going to be held to the same high standards of science, or aren't they?If Maestro wants us to believe that there's a better way than science, then he needs to show us what it is, and prove to us that it can not only meet the high bar already set by science, but exceed it.

Sure, if he expects to overthrow the reigning paradigm in one go, then he'll have to do exactly as you say. OTOH, I feel utterly frustrated that no creationist ever has bothered to do more than hand wave or assert fallacies. I have some hope that Maestro may be different.(I have another side bet with my daughter - double or nothing that he can't come up with even the limited methodology I'm asking for).

Yes, I am he. You're suggesting faith isn't real. And it does give rise to accurate models. I do believe many scientific discoveries were discovered by religious men. Religion is a lifestyle. If you say lifestyle has no relevance, then you suggest that all science is dependent on an object, or tool--such a picture, or some other materialistic earthly creation. Science is some religion based off of all technology, and all men are dependent on these rotting objects and without them science and understanding would cease to exist. Jesus tells me you can't serve both God and Money. So, excuse me if I tell you science can't prove anything. Since God is the creator, how ignorant and annoyed you might be if all creationists stopped giving you credit and just told you that you can't prove anything because all things come from God.We give you the time of day. I don't understand why your worship of science is superior to my worship of God. My religion tells me you are worshiping an angel, or some other spirit. Possibly a demon. How unfortunate, you demon-worshiper. You can prove nothing.Your own medicine isn't very constructive, nor does it change any minds? Instead, please speak intelligently. You don't anything about the Bible, do you? One might wonder why you bother.
Well, first of all, there is evidence shown about men living with dinosaurs. Your current accepted truth tells you that dinosaurs existed loooooong before humans. So how can you trust a scientific theory based on real archaeological finds over another scientific archaeological find which does not use a theory, but instead eliminates the theory (the lie) and continues the scientific proof?Please delight me in telling me I'm stupid or make no sense. Remind me that of your doubts. What? How can the Bible which plainly tells you the truth in order to lead you to the spirit and eternal life and paradise be nonadvancing? And how can making up a story to something you find in the dirt, or using scientific explanations be advancement? For you who deny heaven, I suppose it would make you happy to continue in your sins. However, for us who work toward that which does not die, nor that which we die and pass away from, I believe the truth offers much hope and advancement. Especially since the Bible never told somebody to create makeup out of fish-urine and stick it on your face to deceive the world and enter into falsehood. Seems religious to me. People have used the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues (foreign languages they did not speak before). Seems a bit more helpful and useful (and much more profound) than believing cavemen called out to one another in weird grunts and sounds, and society evolved up to the point its at now. God gives you the Holy Spirit which if the world today would turn and server God would offer much, much more peace and advancement than the scientific experiment of demonism that is so prevelant today. Tell me the last scientific achievement to allow somebody to speak foreign languages out of nowhere.And don't discredit the well-documented cases. I am going out of my way to give you examples in hopes of educating you, so go read up on these things yourself. Search engines are available. It is called speaking in "tongues".Sorry for calling you so many names...by the way. I don't mean to offend you.

Hi umliak,Welcome to EvC, a debate board. Our board has Forum Guidelines. One of our rules states:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

You will be expected to support your assertions and claims with documentation. You can be called on anything and everything that you claim so be prepared to defend it before you say it. Saying "go google it yourself" will not work here. You make a positive claim you support that claim. That is the way it works around here.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

So you assert, but the very topic of this thread is to determine if this is so, and what models about the universe can be derived from faith. So, by all means, supply examples. Via the scientific methodology, yes. But you've asserted that the faith methodology is just as good. So let's see the examples. You're reading isn't so good. I've already told you that science isn't a religion, and that I don't "worship" it. I realize that you can't comprehend how someone could have no religion, or not worship anything, but that's a shortcoming you're going to have to work on yourself. I'll thank you to dispense with the insults. I've offered none to you. Is this how you follow your God? By insulting those who treat you with respect? More than you, apparently. Did you even read it before you wrote this nonsense? I doubt it. No, there's actually none at all. Instead, there are a few known hoaxes and some "footprints" that weren't even made by feet. But that's not relevant. Please, address my argument. What predictions about language can be derived from the Babel model? You're the name-caller, remember? Not everybody is like you. Maybe, because it doesn't actually do any of those things? I don't understand the question. Clearly, it advances our knowledge about the world when we find out things about the world. In what way? No, actually, they haven't. You mean glossolalia? The problem with glossolalia is that it isn't actually any human language - just nonsense syllables.Much like your posts, in fact. Oh, apology accepted, goatfucker.

I'd like to suggest that Quetzal and I interact in a great debate on our subject when we return from the holidays. I will be using some of that time to form a methodology and examples, and I have been greatful of Quetzal's targeted responses and distracted by other posters.Might this be a good idea?P.S.Might I also suggest that the Admins be a little more even handed and give some strongs words to CrashFrog. It is a bit disconserting to only see Christians get AdminWhipped around here when others use short messages, call people names, don't support arguments, and use excessively sordid and abominable terminology. Thank you.This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-23-2004 10:26 AM

I know Maestro232 called you over to help him in this thread, but unfortunately, IMO, you're undermining your own credibility.Uncharitable names

quote:

---

Your wrote to Crash:
Sorry for calling you so many names...by the way. I don't mean to offend you.

---

Since this is a written forum and we are able to preview our work before we submit our reply, how truly sincere is your apology? Since you didn't delete the names, but merely apologise at the end, the conclusion is that you did intend to offend. Jesus was speaking against character assassination, which was frowned upon in his day. Hopefully you don't consider this to only apply when communicating to other Christians.

quote:

---

How can the Bible which plainly tells you the truth in order to lead you to the spirit and eternal life and paradise be nonadvancing?

---

This thread is discussing, or attempting to anyway, knowledge provided by the Bible dealing with the temporal not eternal life. In my simplistic view science describes knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation.According to the Bible God gave Solomon wisdom and knowledge. Do you assume that God no longer gives wisdom and knowledge to understand what we observe in our temporal lives?When Solomon discerned who was the true mother of the baby (1 Kings 3:16-28), he didn't say God told him who the mother was. He was given the wisdom to devise a way to test the women and then observe the results of that test to discern who the true mother was.

quote:

---

...and just told you that you can't prove anything because all things come from God.

---

If you truly believe that all things come from God, why would you give the impression that you do not believe that the ability to acquire and discern temporal information through observation, study, and experimentation came from God?

quote:

---

There are many languages because the heaven above was being approached by Nim-Rod and his tower of Babel.

---

You propose that God was more threatened or annoyed by the people building a city and tower at that time, as opposed to, today when we fly higher than any building and have sent men and satelites into space. If he did not want mankind to reach great heights, he would have continued to confound our language.

quote:

---

People have used the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues (foreign languages they did not speak before).

---

Over 10 years ago, I witnessed someone supposedly speaking in tongues in a church service. Unfortunately the person speaking didn't know what he said, so we had to wait for someone else to translate. The translation: The Kingdom of God is at hand. Nothing new.Now in the NT the men didn't speak a different language. They spoke their own language and people heard the message in their own individual languages. See Glossolalia.Just because you can't be seen doesn't mean you shouldn't still exude the fruit of the Spirit in your posts.

---

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

Other moderators may disagree, but I don't think this is a good idea. In my opinion, a debate should be between two knowledgable opponents. You concede you're still developing your position (and this was obvious anyway) when you say, "I will be using some of that time to form a methodology and examples." A debater who sets out to defend something just recently thought through is unlikely to fair well, and I couldn't endorse devoting moderator time to an enterprise with poor prospects.I think just sticking around and learning from each other in discussion would be time better spent.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'll accept that Admin, but let me assure you of something. It is not that I do not have a methodology that I am convinced is true, it is that finding a way to present it as convincing to the scientific community takes extra work, because scientists are ... I'll stop here.This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-23-2004 12:21 PM

quote:

---

I'll accept that Admin, but let me assure you of something. It is not that I do not have a methodology that I am convinced is true, it is that finding a way to present it as convincing to the scientific community takes extra work, because scientists are ... I'll stop here.

---

The term you are groping for is "rigorous".

I didn't mean to give that impression, sorry.

contracycle As opposed to flimsy and ill formed.

The short answer: No. In the first place, I value the discussion nature of this board. After all, I am not the be-all and end-all of debaters. I feel I could hold my own in my area of interest, but beyond that... Secondly, the easiest way to avoid being distracted as you say is the one I practice - I simply ignore post/posters that are not central to the topic or that don't effectively contribute to the thread. Of course, I do feel obligated to provide references when challenged - that's a different animal. But things that are peripheral are simply not responded to. If the tangential subject is of interest, then I may suggest a new thread, but rarely start one myself.Anyway, time constraints and Real Life (TM) tend to make my participation here patchy at best. I appreciate the offer, but feel I must decline at this time.