Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[The Cadet]

I didn't know about it, and after visiting their website for a brief statement of what they believe...I didn't find a simple answer...so I still don't know about them.

Um, just FYI: this is a good thing. A statement of faith is a surefire sign that whatever website you're visiting has an agenda beyond "find the truth and convey it". When CMI says something like:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
​

It is stating outright that it will not accept any correction on their position, no matter what the evidence leads to. This is a fundamentally dishonest position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to claim they were the same the burden is on you...fess up you don't know. We all may safely trust God.

Wrong, you are the one that is claiming there was a change. I am pointing out that there is no evidence of a change, therefore you use the same rates.

Here is a simple example, you have been writing to a fried for years. He writes back. All of a sudden without any evidence at all you decide that his address is changed. Would you be surprised when you letters no longer reached your friend? He did not tell you that his address was going to change, neither did anyone else. Just some crazy man yelling on the corner.

Dad, you have no clue as to how the burden of proof works. Or you do and you know that it makes you wrong.

 

[dad]

Wrong, you are the one that is claiming there was a change.

Wrong you claim there was no change and the bible indicates otherwise. You lose and you cannot begin to prove your story.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to claim they were the same the burden is on you...fess up you don't know. We all may safely trust God.

Wait a sec, dad.

Back then there was:

1. no death
   
2. no thorns or thistles
3. no pain in childbearing

Are you saying it's different today!?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wait a sec, dad.

Back then there was:

1. no death
   
2. no thorns or thistles
3. no pain in childbearing

You were there?

 

[ScottA]

Um, just FYI: this is a good thing. A statement of faith is a surefire sign that whatever website you're visiting has an agenda beyond "find the truth and convey it". When CMI says something like:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
​

It is stating outright that it will not accept any correction on their position, no matter what the evidence leads to. This is a fundamentally dishonest position.

I agree. The problem is, that world-bound evidence...is...only part of the information on many subjects that exceed those bounds, and no consideration is given to what is beyond the scientific evidence, to those who have expertise beyond. It is all sorely one-sided. While the spiritual experts give credence to the scientific experts, the scientific experts do not give credence to the spiritual experts. "Our way, or the highway" (our form of evidence only) is the only comeback from the scientific crowd.

PS, We can't even have a discussion without this kind of comeback:

"Exactly, and nothing wrong with rendering woo-woo unto Deepocket Chopra what is Chopra."

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree. The problem is, that world-bound evidence...is...only part of the information on many subjects that exceed those bounds, and no consideration is given to what is beyond the scientific evidence, to those who have expertise beyond. It is all sorely one-sided. While the spiritual experts give credence to the scientific experts, the scientific experts do not give credence to the spiritual experts.

I don't believe you.

 

[dad]

Wait a sec, dad.

Back then there was:

1. no death
   
2. no thorns or thistles
3. no pain in childbearing

Are you saying it's different today!?

Yes, I am stepping out on a limb there. But I would add that even Noah's day and the flood year seemed different. Birds finding a fresh tree leaf only weeks after it dried up, so they all knew it was safe and there was food now. The rainbow that no one ever seemed to see before probably signaled a different climate system of some kind. The tropical animals and plants now found in polar regions shows also that climate was different. The continued long lifespans into several centuries of people after the flood. Then looking at science we see there was an ice age and continental movements, and all that has to be fit in somewhere since Adam. The evidences suggest that some animals were sort of isolated after the land moved, so it seems certain it had to be after the flood and release of all animals....but hey, I know you were being light hearted, no need to get too detailed....

 

[dad]

I don't believe you.

So was Darwin into reducing population and eugenics?

 

[dad]

You were there?

Before the world was...He knew us all.

 

[ScottA]

I don't believe you.

You don't have to. But if you have any intention of coming to the table to discuss the greater potential for truth, then you do have to offer equality of position.

 

[HitchSlap]

You don't have to. But if you have any intention of coming to the table to discuss the greater potential for truth, then you do have to offer equality of position.

I don't believe this.

 

[HitchSlap]

So was Darwin into reducing population and eugenics?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

....but hey, I know you were being light hearted, no need to get too detailed....

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to claim they were the same the burden is on you...fess up you don't know. We all may safely trust God.

That error is called "special pleading". It is no more valid when a Hindu or Muslim uses it than when you use it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong you claim there was no change and the bible indicates otherwise. You lose and you cannot begin to prove your story.

Sorry but the Bible does not do so. That is only your own personal flawed interpretation. The Bible says nothing about the rate of radioactive decay changing, or the speed of light changing.

As you have said "chapter and verse". Odds are that you will simply quote unrelated verses out of context.

 

[Davian]

You don't have to. But if you have any intention of coming to the table to discuss the greater potential for truth, then you do have to offer equality of position.

Equality of position? All you are doing is saying that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Who can't do that?

 

[The Cadet]

I agree. The problem is, that world-bound evidence...is...only part of the information on many subjects that exceed those bounds, and no consideration is given to what is beyond the scientific evidence, to those who have expertise beyond.

How can we establish that the world-bound evidence is not all there is? What mechanism can we use to establish the validity of spiritual claims? How do we know?

While the spiritual experts give credence to the scientific experts, the scientific experts do not give credence to the spiritual experts.

Well... Yeah. There's a reason for this. Science works. It demonstrable produces useful, verifiable results, and the scientific method has pretty much completely reshaped almost every aspect of our lives - usually for the better. When scientific experts speak, we listen because they built the world we live in.

By contrast, spiritual experts have provided extremely little of any tangible value. Countless countradictory philosophies, all with very little backing them up, with nothing tangible to show for it. And worse yet, we don't even know how we would quantify this - how in the world do you determine a "spiritual truth"? I have yet to see any method that makes any sense. So when you say this:

You don't have to. But if you have any intention of coming to the table to discuss the greater potential for truth, then you do have to offer equality of position.

You miss one crucial point: it's not an equality of position. Science works. Science provides demonstrable, testable, reliable results, and we can show over and over and over again that, how, and why it works. With spirituality, I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that there's even a "there" there in the first place. It's not "equal footing" to take validated scientific data - data that is demonstrably true and which we can use to make our world a better place - and place it on equal footing with claims for which there is not even a method of establishing their truth value.

Until you can provide a reliable method for establishing which spiritual claims are true and which are false, and then demonstrate that that method actually is reliable, there can be no even footing.

 

[dad]

No.

So supposed quotes from him were planted on the net in a conspiracy? Bill Gates is another man of modern science that is quoted as wanting to limit population. Seems to be a pattern with some.

 

[dad]

Equality of position? All you are doing is saying that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Who can't do that?

He should get into the climate change racket!