Science Proves Creation

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

And you say that science is myopic....

 

[AV1611VET]

And you say that science is myopic....

Scientists say it too.

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

 

[expos4ever]

Scientists say it too.

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

We see this line of reasoning often - that there is something "wrong" with science because scientific models / knowledge change. And since "religious" knowledge is presumably eternal and immutable, such knowledge is therefore superior specifically due to such immutablity.

Good grief - is it not painfully obvious what is wrong here?

The fact that scientific knowledge evolves is a sign of the strength of science, not an indicator of caprice. Unless one lives in utter delusion, the real world is mesy and complex and we should expect our knowledge of the world and how it works to be subject to constant revision and improvement as we gain more raw data about the world and develop improved methods of analyzing such data.

Now let's talk about "religious" knowledge, for want of a better term. While I certainly embrace the idea that there are unchanghing truths about God, we have every reason to be deeply suspicious when deeply flawed human beings proclaim that their pronouncements about religious truths are essentially infallible. We know the history, and it is not pretty.

 

[Astrid]

We see this line of reasoning often - that there is something "wrong" with science because scientific models / knowledge changes. And since "religious" knowledge is presumably eternal and immutable, such knowledge is therefore superior specifically due to such immutablity.

Good grief - is it not painfully obvious what is wrong here?

The fact that scientific knowledge evolves is a sign of the strength of science, not an indicator of caprice. Unless one lives in utter delusin, the real world is mesy and complex and we should expect our knowledge of the world and how it works to be subject to constant revision and improvement as we gain more raw data about the world and develop improved methods of analyzing such data.

Now let's talk about "religious" knowledge, for want of a better term. While I certainly embrace the idea that there are unchanghing truths about God, we have every reason to be deeply suspicious when deeply flawed human beings proclaim that their pronouncements about religious truths are essentially infallible. We know the history, and it is not pretty.

Switch it around with "because" imstead of "unless "

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that scientific knowledge evolves is a sign of the strength of science,

I have no argument with that whatsoever.

As long as they realize science is myopic and not omniscient.

It's interesting that, as soon as I bring up science's myopia, academians want to treat that as if I'm saying something negative about it.

Then they turn around and say the same thing themselves, only in different terms (as you just did).

I said science is myopic, you said scientific knowledge evolves -- same thing, different words.

Now let's talk about "religious" knowledge, for want of a better term.

So you can mention 'scientific knowledge' without any fanfare; but you have to put 'religious knowledge' in quotes?

Fair enough.

I can see which side of the bread your butter is on.

While I certainly embrace the idea that there are unchanghing truths about God, we have every reason to be deeply suspicious when deeply flawed human beings proclaim that their pronouncements about religious truths are essentially infallible.

I know of no one who does that, save the pope; and I'm not catholic.

We know the history, and it is not pretty.

Are you looking forward to the time someone shows you Jesus didn't walk on water, or raise the dead, or wasn't born of a virgin?

If scientific knowledge, as you say, evolves; what about, as you called it, religious knowledge?

Will you consider that a "strength of theology"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless one lives in utter delusin,

Switch it around with "because" imstead of "unless "

I feel sorry for you, Estrid.

I really do.

You must have a troubled soul, and I pray for your salvation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientists say it too.

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

Yes, gaining new information and new understanding of the world is definitely the definition of myopic, Mr. "No matter what, the Bible cannot be contradicted", along with "Science is a gift from God, unless it says something I don't like then science can take a hike."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Scientists say it too.

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

Which is why I found religion boring even when I believed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why I found religion boring even when I believed it.

Standing around waiting for basic doctrine to get changed would be boring, wouldn't it?

 

[driewerf]

Scientists say it too.

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

No, this is not the same with different words.

“Myopic science” is meant to downgrade science. Myopia is a defect compared to normal vision. While real scientists say that their understanding evolves with better tools to investigate nature, AV1611VET equates it with something that needs a diagnosis, has symptoms and needs to be treated. And he knows that. So his claim that he holds science to a higher standard, that he is saying the same as what scientists say when he uses the phrase “myopic science” is ruminant manure.

e.g; Myopia (nearsightedness) | AOA

Once more we have the creationists hate for science, education and all things intellectual on display.

 

[Astrid]

No, this is not the same with different words.

“Myopic science” is meant to downgrade science. Myopia is a defect compared to normal vision. While real scientists say that their understanding evolves with better tools to investigate nature, AV1611VET equates it with something that needs a diagnosis, has symptoms and needs to be treated. And he knows that. So his claim that he holds science to a higher standard, that he is saying the same as what scientists say when he uses the phrase “myopic science” is ruminant manure.

e.g; Myopia (nearsightedness) | AOA

Once more we have the creationists hate for science, education and all things intellectual on display.

I'm seeing enabling on display.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm seeing enabling on display.

What you're seeing is one person taking one definition of "myopia" to try and make me look bad.

And for the record, aren't you the one who rails against Christians as claiming they "know the mind of God"?

Well, QV please:

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

The author goes on to say:

I’ve often suspected that Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he talked about an “ultimate theory.” The success of Brief History nonetheless inspired lots of similar books by physicists, including Theories of Everything by John Barrow (1991), The Mind of God by Paul Davies (1992) and Dreams of a Final Theory by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.

SOURCE: The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

People love to claim I act like I'm a "know it all," but they need to look at their own intellectuals, don't they?

 

[Ophiolite]

Every time they say they get goosebumps, waiting for the next discovery that will force them to change their models.

You don't see Bible believers standing around saying, "I can't wait until someone shows me that Jesus didn't actually walk on water."

If you are content to leave things as they are, if you have no desire to improve, if you are too uncomfortable to consider that you may be wrong, then you stand in the way of human progress. I'll take the self-doubt and the excitement of discovery over an unshakeable, unchanging belief system based on the writings, two or three millenia old, of a tribe of agriculturalists.

 

[HARK!]

I'll take the self-doubt and the excitement of discovery over an unshakeable, unchanging belief system based on the writings, two or three millenia old, of a tribe of agriculturalists.

How about the latest speculation over recorded history, as witnessed by over a million witnesses?

Never mind. No matter, I'd rather just stay on topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are content to leave things as they are, if you have no desire to improve, if you are too uncomfortable to consider that you may be wrong, then you stand in the way of human progress. I'll take the self-doubt and the excitement of discovery over an unshakeable, unchanging belief system based on the writings, two or three millenia old, of a tribe of agriculturalists.

Maybe if science would have applied its doubt wisely -- (like Frances Kelsey did) -- we wouldn't have had the disasters we had in the past.

 

[Bradskii]

How about the latest speculation over recorded history, as witnessed by over a million witnesses?

Visions of Mary were seen by reportedly over a million people in Zeitoun in Egypt. For hours at a time. Over many months. In the late 60's, so plenty of evidence should be available. Must be available.

Give it your best shot...

 

[HARK!]

Visions of Mary were seen by reportedly over a million people in Zeitoun in Egypt. For hours at a time. Over many months. In the late 60's, so plenty of evidence should be available. Must be available.

Give it your best shot...

I'll look into it....

Here we go!:

Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Empirical evidence...so what constitutes empirical evidence?

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined.

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Never mind. It appears that the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll look into it....

Here we go!:

Here you didn't go. If you want solid evidence then Zeitoun would have it in spades. Let me know what you dig up.

 

[HARK!]

Here you didn't go. If you want solid evidence then Zeitoun would have it in spades. Let me know what you dig up.

How would that prove creation?

 

[Bradskii]

How would that prove creation?

You were talking about evidence and millions of witnesses. Leading to miracles. I gave you the opportunity to use the evidence of millions. Evidence which we can verify. You said you'd look into it.

Guess you changed your mind.