Bible IS SCIENCE, exposing misnamed 'science' today

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I don't know. Probably the most scientifically proficient poster in this section is sjastro, who professes to be a Christian. I have no idea of the depth of his or her beliefs, or the rationale for them, and it is none of my business. I've met some people during my scientific studies who profess to be Christian only in the sense that they believe Jesus Christ existed (I don't), and that his teachings are worthy of following. Nothing about being the son of God, or resurrection stuff.

He may have one. And clearly not all Christians have trouble reasoning rationally. Sadly we do not see it very often on forums.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your idea of scientific evidence...is faith.

*Except, what "science" can only hold in idea...faith has grasped through thought, words, and action...to become substance.

**The reason why that type of science cannot encompass all things, is because it has failed to include the Bible in its scope, and is thus fragmented.

Nope. Clearly you have no clue when it comes to the sciences. Would you like to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dad, your logic is faulty again. I never said that God was wrong. Where did you get that crazy idea from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In recent decades the most dramatic example of that was in 1989, when electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made the stunning announcement at a press conference at the University of Utah that they had tamed the power of nuclear fusion in an electrolysis cell. It was greeted with both excitement and skepticism. Scientists all over the world rushed to their labs to replicate the experiment. They couldn't. Their reputation was destroyed. Perhaps their biggest mistake was to prematurely announce their "discovery" before publishing after having gone through the peer review process.

Yes, physicists that understand fusion could have quickly told them why what they observed was not fusion. I know because I asked one. I don't understand fusion either which is why I asked. Jumping to conclusions about a never before seen discovery in an area outside of one's field is quite often embarrassing.

 

[Tone]

He may have one. And clearly not all Christians have trouble reasoning rationally. Sadly we do not see it very often on forums.

Nope. Clearly you have no clue when it comes to the sciences. Would you like to learn?

I don't see any substance here...only a false claim that "Christians" are not reasonable, yet, if you research the backgrounds of the vast majority of the giants of science, who actually brought real tangible, and practical applications to the table,you will find that they were either raised Christian, "Christians" themselves, or certainly influenced by the Christian worldview.

 

[Tone]

Jumping to conclusions about a never before seen discovery in an area outside of one's field is quite often embarrassing

This is the fragmented, locked in a box thought that I was speaking of...who said you have to compartmentalize your "field"? Maybe this is true if you are worried about maintaining some position as a mediocre faculty member, but all the groundbreaking ones opened up in an attempt to swallow the world...and they came away with some substance.

"Einstein famously said that: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.""
Great ideas: Is imagination more important than knowledge?

*Sometimes you got to embarrass yourself, to progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see any substance here...only a false claim that "Christians" are not reasonable, yet, if you research the backgrounds of the vast majority of the giants of science, who actually brought real tangible, and practical applications to the table,you will find that they were either raised Christian, "Christians" themselves, or certainly influenced by the Christian worldview.

Can you reason properly? So far you have failed at that in this thread. All I can see from you is logical fallacy after logical fallacy.


Some of the giants of science did come from Christian upbringing, but they did not let the errors of the Bible affect them negatively. That is one of the reasons that they became giants.

 

[dad]

So, that tells me that Genesis 1, for example, isn't a scientific treatise.

And it tells us that any pathetic so called science treatise you can come up with cannot cover eternity, or creation. Rather than call science origin hunches/guesses/theories a treatise, they should call them a 'clueless stab in the dark, with attitude'.

It's a bit history, a bit poetry, a bit moral lesson, etc. In fact, if you look at the structure of Genesis 1, you'll note it was written in a parallel verse style.

Hint: Write this is parallel verse style..God created the heaven and the earth and all creatures. Write it in ant language. Write it in capitol letters. Write it with a crayon. Write is on a burger menu with a pencil...etc etc. Doesn't change the fact of what is said.

Numbers in the Old Testament also aren't to be taken literally. The numbers had more significance to Old Testament writers than just quantifying objects. The number 7 was holy and represented completeness. The number 40 appears many times in the old and new testament and just represents a long and trying duration in many instances.

Just because God has numbers that have deeper meanings does not mean He fudges numbers!

That's a bit beside the point. If the claim is that the Bible is the only True Science® book, then its claims must be testable. Otherwise it isn't science.

They are. People are asked to test Him and His word. It tells us how even.

It's another kind of knowledge.

Wrong. Being knowledge, the bible is different than fables that are wholly made up of the cloth.

Maybe my Bible is incomplete, but it doesn't have the error codes for my Ford truck or how to replace the main seal

It says we will fly one day. Top that!

I disagree that science hasn't discovered a reasonable approach to dating the age of the universe. However, Young Earth Creationists are free to continue to try to prove a different dating!

When we see that it is not known by science, then of course people are free to disregard the dream dates.

Jesus' resurrection, which I affirm literally did occur, is wholly separate from how we interpret Genesis 1. Even Adam and Eve weren't around to witness Creation, whether you take the YEC view or the Old Universe view.

Jesus rising from the dead proved He is God and can do anything and that the bible was very true. Jesus was around to witness it.

There's some wiggle room there. God does not have hands, as He is incorporeal.

He showed Thomas the holes in His hands.

Nor did God sit and dictate the Bible to the writers.

Much of Scripture is Him doing just that, and He even wrote it Personally for Moses on the mountain.

Physics, for instance, gets pretty close. Relativity, for example, is used to program GPS satellites, since the speed and gravitational fields in which a GPS satellite lives require the clocks to be adjusted in order to be accurate.

No satellite was programmed in Noah's day. Nor in the world after the kingdom comes. Present rules do not apply there.

The fact that GPS works is evidence that Relativity is a very good approximate theory.

It is fine here in the fishbowl on earth. and right now in this time. Period.

From relativity, the age of the universe can be more accurately dated.

No. In no way is that true. Show us!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the fragmented, locked in a box thought that I was speaking of...who said you have to compartmentalize your "field"? Maybe this is true if you are worried about maintaining some position as a mediocre faculty member, but all the groundbreaking ones opened up in an attempt to swallow the world...and they came away with some substance.

"Einstein famously said that: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.""
Great ideas: Is imagination more important than knowledge?

*Sometimes you got to embarrass yourself, to progress.

I am sorry, but once again you demonstrate not only an ignorance of science, but in the history of science as well. Even greats such as Newton failed when he got out of his specialty.

 

[Tone]

Can you reason properly? So far you have failed at that in this thread. All I can see from you is logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

I'm beginning to think that you do not know what reason is...

 

[Tone]

And it tells us that any pathetic so called science treatise you can come up with cannot cover eternity, or creation. Rather than call science origin hunches/guesses/theories a treatise, they should call them a 'clueless stab in the dark, with attitude'.

Hint: Write this is parallel verse style..God created the heaven and the earth and all creatures. Write it in ant language. Write it in capitol letters. Write it with a crayon. Write is on a burger menu with a pencil...etc etc. Doesn't change the fact of what is said.
Just because God has numbers that have deeper meanings does not mean He fudges numbers!
They are. People are asked to test Him and His word. It tells us how even.
Wrong. Being knowledge, the bible is different than fables that are wholly made up of the cloth.
It says we will fly one day. Top that!

When we see that it is not known by science, then of course people are free to disregard the dream dates.

Jesus rising from the dead proved He is God and can do anything and that the bible was very true. Jesus was around to witness it.

He showed Thomas the holes in His hands.
Much of Scripture is Him doing just that, and He even wrote it Personally for Moses on the mountain.

No satellite was programmed in Noah's day. Nor in the world after the kingdom comes. Present rules do not apply there.
It is fine here in the fishbowl on earth. and right now in this time. Period.

No. In no way is that true. Show us!

You got the wrong guy...I didn't do it!

*Your post says "Tone said".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm beginning to think that you do not know what reason is...

No, that clearly applies to you. You had a major fail when you used a dictionary to try to discuss a scientific term. But to ahead, try to make a point.

 

[Tone]

I am sorry, but once again you demonstrate not only an ignorance of science, but in the history of science as well. Even greats such as Newton failed when he got out of his specialty.

Which is why you are failing in a Christian discussion forum...

 

[Tone]

No, that clearly applies to you. You had a major fail when you used a dictionary to try to discuss a scientific term. But to ahead, try to make a point.

Well, this is how I feel about your dialogue so far...and the fact that you refuted none of my substantive posts:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is why you are failing in a Christian discussion forum...

Not even close. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, this is how I feel about your dialogue so far...and the fact that you refuted none of my substantive posts:

You made no substantive posts. A wall of text consisting largely of logical fallacies is far from that.

 

[Tone]

Not even close. Try again.

"...shhhhh...I'm listening to reason..."

 

[Tone]

You made no substantive posts. A wall of text consisting largely of logical fallacies is far from that.

What is your field of study, logic? I still haven't seen you do anything, but make claims...

 

[Subduction Zone]

"...shhhhh...I'm listening to reason..."

That is not how you do it.

 

[Tone]

That is not how you do it.

It is when you're speaking...

*Did you watch the Pee Wee Herman clip...you can learn a lot there...even about "science"...