Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The relevence of Biblical claims to science
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 192 (170740)
12-22-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Quetzal
12-22-2004 12:20 PM


Re: Example 1
Quetzal,
quote:
Use specific observations - facts - to show that your model is the correct one
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Quetzal, posted 12-22-2004 12:20 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Quetzal, posted 12-22-2004 2:58 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 107 of 192 (170745)
12-22-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jazzns
12-21-2004 1:07 PM


Re: Picking an example
---------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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2004 1:07 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 192 (170748)
12-22-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 12:24 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
I did go back to message 83. This is the challenge from Quetzal as you quoted it:
quote:
It should be possible to show how real-life questions in the biological sciences have BETTER answers when using recourse to this entity than are available to the "spirit-rejecting" biologist, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, paleobiolgist, ecologist, paleoecologist, paleobotanist, etc. Alternatively, it should be possible to show how the existing answers are incorrect because they failed to account for the actions of the deity.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 12:24 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 12:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 192 (170753)
12-22-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
12-22-2004 12:38 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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:
Since you have yet to show that the answers offered by the Bible are better or correct you have not met the challenge.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2004 12:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Brian, posted 12-22-2004 12:56 PM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2004 1:02 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 110 of 192 (170754)
12-22-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 12:24 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
WRONG!
In Message 18 Quetzal states:
quote:
2. The Christian Bible represents a reasonable facsimile of the Word of God. Close enough so that there are passages within the text that can be used as a guideline for a practical epistemology in regards to the natural world.
In Message 83 Maestro232 states:
quote:
2. The Christian Bible represents a reasonable facsimile of the Word of God. Close enough so that there are passages within the text that can be used as a guideline for a practical epistemology in regards to the natural world.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 12:24 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:00 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 111 of 192 (170755)
12-22-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 12:50 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 12:50 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:04 PM Brian has not replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 192 (170757)
12-22-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
12-22-2004 12:52 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
purpledawn,
quote:
So if science and God do not agree, how does God present more information to prove he is correct?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 12-22-2004 12:52 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2004 1:34 PM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 124 by purpledawn, posted 12-22-2004 2:01 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 192 (170760)
12-22-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 12:50 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 12:50 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 192 (170761)
12-22-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Brian
12-22-2004 12:56 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
Brian,
quote:
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?
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...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Brian, posted 12-22-2004 12:56 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by mikehager, posted 12-22-2004 1:25 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 192 (170779)
12-22-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
12-22-2004 1:02 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
quote:
If all the Bible has is a collection of wrong answers then it has nothing to offer.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2004 1:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by mikehager, posted 12-22-2004 1:29 PM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2004 1:32 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 116 of 192 (170783)
12-22-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 1:04 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:04 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:35 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 117 of 192 (170789)
12-22-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 1:21 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:21 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 192 (170792)
12-22-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 1:21 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:21 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 119 of 192 (170794)
12-22-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Maestro232
12-22-2004 1:00 PM


Use of Reductio ad absurdum
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:00 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Maestro232, posted 12-22-2004 1:44 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 192 (170795)
12-22-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by mikehager
12-22-2004 1:25 PM


Re: I AM CORRECT IN THESE PARAMETERS!
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by mikehager, posted 12-22-2004 1:25 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2004 1:39 PM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 125 by mikehager, posted 12-22-2004 2:02 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024