My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[Kylie]

To sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand anything about what science actually is.

Or can you provide a source where scientists are discussing how they may succeed in their plan to "sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible"?

Not only that, but its version of reality excludes the spiritual realm.

Well, if the spiritual realm can be demonstrated to have any influence on reality, scientists would be happy to include it.

Science follows the evidence. If there is evidence for the spiritual realm, then science will follow it. If there is evidence for God, then science will follow it.

I know Someone who can though.

Maybe if he'd actually do it, things would be different. I know it would convince me! But all we have are this guy's fan club grooving about how great he is while the guy in question is a total no-show.

 

[florida2]

Not accepting eternity and He who has it in His hand; is a very poor place to be.

Science would accept it as soon as there's evidence for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is about observable reality not stories in books.

Is that why they do experiments on prayer and conclude there's no difference or, at best, it's a placebo?

Do you think that when they are setting up experiments and investigations think 'what part of the bible are we sterilising this time?'

No.

I think it's done subconsciously.

What about scientists from, say, Muslim or Hindu backgrounds - why would they care about the bible?

They wouldn't.

But in accepting science, they're accepting a craft that combats the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand anything about what science actually is.

And you demonstrate that you don't know what science is doing.

Or can you provide a source where scientists are discussing how they may succeed in their plan to "sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible"?

It's done subconsciously; guided by the nine muses.

In my opinion, of course.

Well, if the spiritual realm can be demonstrated to have any influence on reality, scientists would be happy to include it.

Oh, I'm sure they would.

Just so they can deny it consists of what the Bible says it consists of.

I'm on record here as saying I'm glad they can't find Noah's Ark, else they'd conclude it was unseaworthy, and the Noah's Ark story is a myth.

As it is, they have to conclude it is a myth due to conjuring up the idea that it was just a local flood.

Science follows the evidence.

No, it doesn't.

If there is evidence for the spiritual realm, then science will follow it.

They might follow it somewhere, but not where the Bible says it would go.

If there is evidence for God, then science will follow it.

Then why don't they?

We have songs, hymns, carols, iconography, edifices, greetings, books, bumper stickers, debates, and you name it.

Why aren't they following those?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science would accept it as soon as there's evidence for it.

Then science is going to Hell and taking unbelievers with it.

 

[mnorian]

Science would accept it as soon as there's evidence for it.

It's not science that needs to accept it; but man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

That's conspiracy nonsense.

Not only that, but its version of reality excludes the spiritual realm

"not including x" is not the same "excluding x".

The "spiritual realm" (whatever that is) isn't included in scientific explanations, because those things have no measurable manifestation or impact on anything.

I know Someone who can though.

You can believe what you wish, off course.

But the fact remains: if reality contradicts your beliefs, the rational thing to do is to change your beliefs to fit reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not accepting eternity and He who has it in His hand; is a very poor place to be.

The reason why not accepting science is a poor place to be, is because it is independently testable and verifiable. It actually has explanatory power.

Your "eternity" and "His hand" - that's just a religious statement to be taken at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not science that needs to accept it; but man.

And for man to be rationally justified in accepting it, he would require evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Is that why they do experiments on prayer and conclude there's no difference or, at best, it's a placebo?

No. They do experiments on prayer and conclude there's no difference or, at best, it's a placebo because prayer has no measurable effect on the people being prayed for.

No.

I think it's done subconsciously.

How lucky for us we have you to tell us the truth.

They wouldn't.

But in accepting science, they're accepting a craft that combats the Bible.

Wow, I don't even know where to start on this.

You claim it combats the Bible, and yet you are perfectly happy to reap the benefits of science.

You get around this by claiming that you are happy to accept the benefits of science as long as that science does not contradict the Bible, yet this is not true either, since antibiotics and other treatments for infection need to take into account evolution or they just don't work - and you just don't accept evolution.

And you claim that science combats the Bible, despite the fact that science actually works, and praying never made anyone's severed arm grow back.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not accepting eternity and He who has it in His hand; is a very poor place to be.

That has nothing to do with science and also nothing to do with what I posted.

As an aside, the overwhelming majority of christians accept science and do not agree with YEC.

Science=pysical reality.

Religious belief=metaphysics.

 

[Kylie]

And you demonstrate that you don't know what science is doing.

No.

I understand something that you don't, so from your point of view it looks like magic.

That does not mean it is magic, nor does it mean it is wrong.

It means that you do not understand what you are talking about when you criticise science.

It's done subconsciously; guided by the nine muses.

In my opinion, of course.

Oh, of course.

And of course,m we know how reliable your opinion about all things science is.

Oh, I'm sure they would.

Just so they can deny it consists of what the Bible says it consists of.

Wow. The hypocrisy of you making scientists out to be demons and then enjoying the fruits of what they develop is quite astounding.

I'm on record here as saying I'm glad they can't find Noah's Ark, else they'd conclude it was unseaworthy, and the Noah's Ark story is a myth.

Of course. Once your beliefs are exposed to reality, they'd quickly fall apart, wouldn't they? The only way you can maintain your myths is to keep them as far from reality as possible.

As it is, they have to conclude it is a myth due to conjuring up the idea that it was just a local flood.

Show the evidence for a worldwide flood and science will accept it.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

At this point you have demonstrated your extreme ignorance of science so many times I have lost count.

They might follow it somewhere, but not where the Bible says it would go.

They will follow it where reality leads them.

If the Bible is an accurate description of reality, then reality and the Bible will lead them to the same place.

Oh of course, I forgot your little conspiracy theory that scientists are preprogrammed to discard any scientific evidence, no matter how well supported, that supports the Bible.

Then why don't they?

We have songs, hymns, carols, iconography, edifices, greetings, books, bumper stickers, debates, and you name it.

Why aren't they following those?

Because those aren't evidence.

If those things are evidence, then this is evidence of Frodo Baggins:

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- I accept science, only insofar as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

This is the same as writing "I accept reality as long as it doesnt contradict the Bible".

A very poor position.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's conspiracy nonsense.

That's the tares outgrowing the wheat.

"not including x" is not the same "excluding x".

I'm sure, in this case, x is excluded until otherwise included.

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

The "spiritual realm" (whatever that is) isn't included in scientific explanations, because those things have no measurable manifestation or impact on anything.

I'm familiar with the justification.

You can believe what you wish, off course.

Thank you.

I plan to.

But the fact remains: if reality contradicts your beliefs, the rational thing to do is to change your beliefs to fit reality.

When I see you accept AD as evidence of Jesus Christ, I'll think twice about my 'conspiracy nonsense.'

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the same as writing "I accept reality as long as it doesnt contradict the Bible".

A very poor position.

When it comes to accepting reality, scientists reject anything that overrides reality -- such as miracles.

They won't even call it "miracles" -- they call it "magic."

Whose reality is larger, Einstein's or the Bible's?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sure, in this case, x is excluded until otherwise included.

Not in this case, not in any other case.

To "not include" something, is not the same as actively "excluding" that something.
If you can't grasp that simple concept, then I'm sorry, but it is what it is.

I'm familiar with the justification

Then you should also be able to understand the difference between "not including" and "actively excluding".

I plan to.When I see you accept AD as evidence of Jesus Christ, I'll think twice about my 'conspiracy nonsense.'

/facepalm

 

[AV1611VET]

To "not include" something, is not the same as actively "excluding" that something.
If you can't grasp that simple concept, then I'm sorry, but it is what it is.

I grasp it alright.

It's just that, in this case, the Bible says otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I grasp it alright.
It's just that, in this case, the Bible says otherwise.

Then you can add that to the long list of things that the bible is wrong about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you can add that to the long list of things that the bible is wrong about.

As I say, eventually it'll be every jot & tittle.

 

[Kylie]

When it comes to accepting reality, scientists reject anything that overrides reality -- such as miracles.

They won't even call it "miracles" -- they call it "magic."

Whose reality is larger, Einstein's or the Bible's?

The bubble of Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium is even larger.