|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The relevence of Biblical claims to science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Quetzal,
quote: I would appreciate a thread for doing that. But...are we then in agreement that if A is true then B follows, therefore, trying to prove A is a worthwhile endeavor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6873 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
---------Those answers have no business in a science classroom or a discussion about scientific matters.----------
I agree with this. And, not even in a religious school. Confusing issues is detrimental to achieve maximum results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I did go back to message 83. This is the challenge from Quetzal as you quoted it:
quote: Since you have yet to show that the answers offered by the Bible are better or correct you have not met the challenge. Moreover your point about debate only shows that you don't want real debate - you want the rules changed to permit the creationists to automatically "win" by begging the question. That lowers the standard required of creationists to the point where there can be no useful discussion. The problem is that you are wrong to say that science as a whole is on trial. The general approach of science is not and should not be. Nor should the majority of the data used by science. It is particular scientific conclusions that are on trial not the whole edifice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
PaulK,
I appreciate the response. I am standing firm to my claim, but you raise some questions which perhaps I can use to clarify the point.
quote: I have showed that the answers are different. And, since we assumed that the Bible's answers were true, by default, they are better. In reality, this seems like a no-brainer, worthless debate, but let me reiterate again why I think it is important.
quote: If what is in question on this forum at large is evolution vs creation, we have the following: "THE BIBLE" claims creationism and lays out in limited detail the way in which we were created "SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY" has concluded evolution is true. Therefore this is a trial between "THE BIBLE" and "SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY" That is what I am pressing to show through this seemingly pointless debate. Evolutionists are demanding we use only "SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY" to come to any conclusions, but IT IS ON TRIAL! Hence, creationists are held to a higher standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
WRONG!
In Message 18 Quetzal states:quote: In Message 83 Maestro232 states:quote: Quetzal did not accept the Bible as true. He accepted that the Christian Bible is an accurate representation of God's word. He didn't accept that the Bible is right. So if science and God do not agree, how does God present more information to prove he is correct? A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
Therefore this is a trial between "THE BIBLE" and "SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY" Isn't it a bit arrogant ot ignore all the other creation myths out there, I mean who is to say that the Bible is any more accurate that the Pan Ku myth, or the Hindu creation story? So, maybe we should have a Bible V. Veda debate first then determine which creation story is best suited to challenge science? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
purpledawn,
quote: The thread title is "The Relevence of Biblical Claims to Science." I am showing that they are relevent because they challenge science. Proving the claims are right should not be a part of this debate, though we can make a new thread for that which I will be happy to participate in. You are assuming yourself that "scientific methodology" is right, and thus, your answers to the questions science concerns itself with is right. I am doing no different. I am assuming "The Bible" is right, and thus, its answers to the questions it concerns itself with is right. Now, if the question is "Are Biblical claims relvent to science" all I need to do here (and I have done it), is show that the Bible concerns itself with some of the same things that science does. It is thus relevent. We can go somewhere else to discuss if it's true, but what I am saying is that to demand its trueness be proven only with scientific methodology is unfair if the two are on trial here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your claim to have "won" is at this stage still false. If all the Bible has is a collection of wrong answers then it has nothing to offer.
Your claim that scientific methodology is on trial only makes sense if you accept that the empiricial evidence DOES strongly support evolution and contradict creation. Yet if that is true the first problem for you to explain why that should be within your paradigm - and then provide some reason why your paradigm produces more correct answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Brian,
quote: You make a good point. It is more correct to say this is a debate between: (SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY) vs. (THE BIBLE) and (PAN KU MYTH) and (HINDU CREATION STORY) and (ETC...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
quote: It is no less true than scientific methodology. And, at the moment, there seems to be a record of wrong answers coming from science. And, using "We correct ourselves and move closer to the truth" is a cop out. Either scientific methodology has produced incorrect things or it hasn't. If it has, then scientific methodology should be handled with the same grain of salt as the Bible in terms of its ability to bring us truth. My claim is that the Bible is not just a collection of wrong answers, and thus, feel it has something to offer. You tell me to defend it. Fair enough. Are you willing to accept the wrong answers science is giving you? No. You just call it progress toward the truth. I say the truth has already been written. And it is waiting to be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6467 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
No, you aren't. Your proposition is false, so therefore your conclusions are invalid. The bible is not inerrant. It has no bearing on how the world works. So, any discussion of the ramifications of it's truths is flawed and worthless, since such truths do not exist. You're wasting your time trying to prove this nonsense you keep repeating.
The bottom line remains for you and for all creationists. Show me any cause why your mythology should be believed and we can go from there. Till then, all you're doing is blowing smoke. It's all such utter stupidity. I grow so weary watching these inane attempts at constructing complex (and ultimately flawed) arguments for creationism or the scientific validity of one holy book or another because the formulators of such arguments invariably take as a given that their mythology is true, just as you are at least implicitly doing. They do this and never consider that the very basis of their arguments is in no way proven or supported. So, put up or shut up. The basis of your argument, it's base assumption, is that the bible is something special in it's knowledge or power. I question that. Prove it and we can move on. P.S. I notice you have grandly moved on from your erroneous claims of an eighth day spike in vitamin K without acknowledging fault. Typical creationist behavior. You need to do better then that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6467 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Do you understand that when you (incorrectly) criticise science for not getting it right all at once, you aren't really supportting the bible?
Are you willing to accept the wrong answers science is giving you? No. You just call it progress toward the truth. I say the truth has already been written. And it is waiting to be found. Give us something, anything, beyond your word. You had this whole vitamin K thing, but you were wrong about it, in several ways. You haven't given one iota of evidence for your claim and I would be surprised if you suddenly did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I guess that you don't understand that scientiifc methodology is a fallibilist epistemology. It doesn't claim to always produce the correct answer - just (we hope) the best answer that fits the available data. So naturally as the available data expands science can correct itself. This isn't a cop-out it's a central feature of science - its how it is supposed to work. And the success of modern technology shows that it DOES work on many occasions.
That you beleive that the answers you get from the Bible is not enough. You have to show that the Bible can offer something genuinely useful to science. Do I have confidence in science ? Yes - and it is justified. And science lives up to my expectations. I've got evidence - you've got your personal opinions. And given your belief that your "vitamin K spike" could be easily verified even when the source you cited did not mention it at all I can't say that anyone - even you - should place great faith in your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You are assuming yourself that "scientific methodology" is right, and thus, your answers to the questions science concerns itself with is right. I am doing no different. I am assuming "The Bible" is right, and thus, its answers to the questions it concerns itself with is right. Now, if the question is "Are Biblical claims relvent to science" all I need to do here (and I have done it), is show that the Bible concerns itself with some of the same things that science does. It is thus relevent. What you have done, unwittingly, is use the method of reductio ad absurdum. Using that method you want to prove A, you then start by assuming notA and show that this leads to an absurd conclusion. You started by assuming that the Bible is correct. You have then shown that this leads to wrong answers about the real world. You have shown that assuming the Bible is correct leads to an absurd conclusion. So we conclude you have proved that the Bible is NOT correct. Congratualations. You seem to say that if you assume the Bible is correct and then say anything it says proves it is correct. This whole thing is utterly laughable. It is astonishing that you would put such a thing forward with a straight face. I thought you had an interesting to discuss. It is clear that his is nonsense.
I am showing that they are relevent because they challenge science. LOL, you may think they are challenging but they have to be right to do that. So far you haven't accomplished a damm thing. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
quote: Ask our creator if it is knowledge and power and perhaps He will answer. Millions and millions of people over all the world over all time have claimed that it is knowledge and power. If you wish to ignore that voice, that is your right, but it's survival and strength over the recorded history of man (Darwinian survival of the fittest?) should at least put it above "utter stupidity" as you suggest. This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-22-2004 01:36 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024