Should Christians accept the judgement of scientists on Biblical things?

AV1611VET · Jul 20, 2009

Since science is myopic compared to the universe (1), and since scientists in general prefer using terminology that relegates occurances in the Bible to myth status, which could interfere when they apply the Scientific Method to something in the Bible, should it be found; should we trust them?

For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood
Thinking the Ark is a ship
Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

Hespera · Jul 20, 2009

Suppose you have biblical literalists who insist that a water tank was made and measured, accurate to an infinite number of decimal places using the primitive technology of thousands of years ago.

(this is not a ridiculous hypothetical about how people would unanimously act if they found something that does not exist)

Could such people be trusted on things that are of the real world?

uberd00b · Jul 20, 2009

Christians need accept the judgment of scientists only if they're honest, the Christians that is, science is inherently honest.

Washington · Jul 20, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Should Christians accept the judgement of scientists on Biblical things?

Yes, particularly when the Bible is wrong, such as its claim that an object can have a diameter of 10 cubits, a circumference of 30 cubits, and is a hand breadth thick. Sad! sad! sad!

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Thinking the Ark is a ship

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

Ah, how much fun you must be having painting with such a brroad brush. But, of course, if that's the only way you can cover up the truth then I guess you have to use it.

Hespera · Jul 20, 2009

Washington said:
Yes, particularly when the Bible is wrong, such as its claim that an object can have a diameter of 10 cubits, a circumference of 30 cubits, and is a hand breadth thick. Sad! sad! sad!

Ah, how much fun you must be having painting with such a brroad brush. But, of course, if that's the only way you can cover up the truth then I guess you have to use it.

I think this thread was set on auto-pwn. Kinda like the one about Pi and the one about the Mariana trench, and....

Washington · Jul 20, 2009

Hespera said:
I think this thread was set on auto-pwn. Kinda like the one about Pi and the one about the Mariana trench, and....

I think you're right on here. In fact, the term "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" springs to mind.

uberd00b · Jul 20, 2009

Didn't you know? The more you get pwned the more correct you are!

Nathan Poe · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 75 x 45 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Then you'll be the first one to tout "science" as supporting the Bible. But since we all know neither of these things is going to happen, the point is moot.

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Thinking the Ark is a ship

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

And why should they be? Science is a study of the natural world, and the events you're describing did not happen in the natural world.

ReverendDG · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Since science is myopic compared to the universe (1), and since scientists in general prefer using terminology that relegates occurances in the Bible to myth status, which could interfere when they apply the Scientific Method to something in the Bible, should it be found; should we trust them?

considering that science is useful and has been shown millions of time to help us understand reality, yes
why are you dissing mythology? mythology is awesome, it just happens to not be useful to understand reality, and the bible has a lot of mythology in it.
how would being myth interfere with applying the scientific method to the bible AV? why shouldn't we trust scinece

For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 75 x 45 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles,

Thinking the Ark is a ship

denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

uh dude if they found an ark on mount ararat(which they wouldn't anyway, it was the mountains of ararat) it still wouldn't prove the bible is true, since theres no evidence of a flood or anyway to see gods hand in the event.
the ark is a ship AV! go look up what a ship is and stop with that nonsense.
what else would you call a floating ocean going vessel that isn't a boat?

if there was enough evidence to leave no doubt to whether there was a flood(stuff you know people really would accept since people have posted it) only denalists would have issues with it.

Freodin · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Since science is myopic compared to the universe (1), and since scientists in general prefer using terminology that relegates occurances in the Bible to myth status, which could interfere when they apply the Scientific Method to something in the Bible, should it be found; should we trust them?

For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 75 x 45 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Thinking the Ark is a ship

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

The key phrase here: "Should we trust scientists' findings..."

Well, what did they find? Perhaps they found the "ark" to be build of carbon fibres and the log was written on a notebook with a Micky Mouse themed title?

Would you still have faith in the documentation?

WilliamduBois · Jul 21, 2009

Ah, AV's hypotheticals. Should we trust someone that invents a new challenge everyday, keeps getting "pwned" in that thread, and then /threads out?

Perhaps just point and laugh?

Hespera · Jul 21, 2009

WilliamduBois said:
Ah, AV's hypotheticals. Should we trust someone that invents a new challenge everyday, keeps getting "pwned" in that thread, and then /threads out?

Perhaps just point and laugh?

Proverbs 26:11

MrGoodBytes · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Since science is myopic compared to the universe (1), and since scientists in general prefer using terminology that relegates occurances in the Bible to myth status, which could interfere when they apply the Scientific Method to something in the Bible, should it be found; should we trust them?

For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Thinking the Ark is a ship

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

But you do trust them when they say that the Hittites existed, right?

AV1611VET · Jul 21, 2009

MrGoodBytes said:
But you do trust them when they say that the Hittites existed, right?

Not as much as I trust the Bible saying they do.

Hespera · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Since science is myopic compared to the universe (1), and since scientists in general prefer using terminology that relegates occurances in the Bible to myth status, which could interfere when they apply the Scientific Method to something in the Bible, should it be found; should we trust them?

For example, suppose an ark is found on Mt Ararat that is 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, and contains a log, written in a pre-Hebrew language, that identifies the occupants as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives?

Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark, since scientists have a track record of:

Denying a global flood

Thinking the Ark is a ship

Denying God, denying Noah, denying the Bible, denying miracles, denying etc?

I conclude they can't be trusted on Biblical things.

You are the one who says "case closed" without looking at the evidence, arent you?

You really have this backwards. Scientists go with the evidence, not preconceived ideas and "case closed". That is for the theocreos, dont be go projecting that onto other people.

If your "Noah's ark" were found, it would be the subject of intense scrutiny.

Radiocarbon, that dreaded dating method, would place it in the right time period.
Careful measurements would be made, the type of wood tested (even find out what gopher wood is)
Remains of bedding, animals hairs, feces etc would be examined in great detail
Careful examination of the log.
etc etc and etc. How did it get here, how was it built, what tools were used, on and on, every question you could think of. It would be wonderful!

You could expect thousands of reports to come out on every possible detail of it. It would be a worldwide sensation of the highest order; thousands, millions, including me, would be converting to Christianity.

The idea that there would be, of all things "unanimous agreement (from scientists) that it was NOT "Noah's Arkl" is really kind of weird.

And it really says something about you, not about others, that you'd come up with such an insulting and ridiculous idea. (see golden rule again, on this one)

Oh... and of the things you think there is a "track record"? "We" dont think Noahs ark was a ship. You got that totally wrong.

We dont think it was a ship, a boat, a containment vessel, raft, submarine, or dinghy. We think it is a myth.

Now you on the other hand, believe that a PERFECT container could be built and measured by man, exact in all dimensions to an infinite number of decimal places. So why should you be "trusted" with anything that is related to reality?

AV1611VET · Jul 21, 2009

Hespera said:
You are the one who says "case closed" without looking at the evidence, arent you?

What evidence?

I say: God did it --- case closed.

You left that part out.

And when God did it, there's usually no evidence left behind.

Creation --- no evidence.
Parting of the Red Sea --- no evidence.
Walking on water --- no evidence.

Hespera said:
You really have this backwards. Scientists go with the evidence, not preconceived ideas and "case closed". That is for the theocreos, dont be go projecting that onto other people.

No, scientists don't go with the evidence --- there isn't any.

Yet that doesn't stop scientists from saying it didn't happen.

Hespera said:
If your "Noah's ark" were found, it would be the subject of intense scrutiny.

< snip >

You could expect thousands of reports to come out on every possible detail of it. It would be a worldwide sensation of the highest order; thousands, millions, including me, would be converting to Christianity.

I said if they concluded it is not Noah's Ark.

AV1611VET said:
Should we trust scientists' findings, if they unanimously declare that it is not Noah's Ark...

It's a hypothetical.

Hespera said:
The idea that there would be, of all things "unanimous agreement (from scientists) that it was NOT "Noah's Arkl" is really kind of weird.

And it really says something about you, not about others, that you'd come up with such an insulting and ridiculous idea. (see golden rule again, on this one)

Just my opinion again, but I think that if they did find a containment vessel, and DID conclude that it was Noah's Ark, it would only make matters worse.

Once scientists show up and start poking around, it's almost certain that the story is going to get ruined.

Why?

They have preconceived ideas about what does and doesn't exist in this universe, and that interferes with they doing an honest investigation.

In addition, and I can't prove this one, but I think they're taught in class that this stuff doesn't exist.

So I don't think it would really matter if they found Noah's Ark, evidence of a global flood, the tablets that the 10 Commandments were written on, feathered bats and four-legged grasshoppers, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, or the very cross that Jesus was crucified on --- it would only make it worse --- not better.

Hespera said:
Oh... and of the things you think there is a "track record"? "We" dont think Noahs ark was a ship. You got that totally wrong.

Then why is it always called one?

Hespera said:
We dont think it was a ship, a boat, a containment vessel, raft, submarine, or dinghy.

I disagree.

Hespera said:
We think it is a myth.

Interesting word choice.

Usually I hear from you guys: 'We know [this]', or 'We know [that]' --- now you can't even call it a 'ship' in a 'fairy tale'?

Hespera said:
Now you on the other hand, believe that a PERFECT container could be built and measured by man, exact in all dimensions to an infinite number of decimal places. So why should you be "trusted" with anything that is related to reality?

That line of reasoning is getting old.

Notice I completely ignore it now.

You bring it up quite often now --- probably thinking it bothers me or something --- and I promise you --- it doesn't.

Nathan Poe · Jul 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Once scientists show up and start poking around, it's almost certain that the story is going to get ruined.

Why?

Because scientists deal with facts and evidence, which you've already said doesn't exist.

They have preconceived ideas about what does and doesn't exist in this universe, and that interferes with they doing an honest investigation.

What makes that any worse than your own preconceived ideas?

Usually I hear from you guys: 'We know [this]', or 'We know [that]' --- now you can't even call it a 'ship' in a 'fairy tale'?That line of reasoning is getting old.

Do you know that The Iliad didn't really happen? How about The Odyssey? How about The Wizard of Oz?

ReverendDG · Jul 22, 2009

AV1611VET said:
What evidence?

I say: God did it --- case closed.

You left that part out.

And when God did it, there's usually no evidence left behind.

Creation --- no evidence.

Parting of the Red Sea --- no evidence.

Walking on water --- no evidence.

No, scientists don't go with the evidence --- there isn't any.

thus theres no reason to accept it happened, or if you want to use internet way of speaking: "pics or it didn't happen!"

Yet that doesn't stop scientists from saying it didn't happen.

well when you are claiming a real world event happened, i'd expect scientists to study it, considering thats what they do

I said if they concluded it is not Noah's Ark.It's a hypothetical.Just my opinion again, but I think that if they did find a containment vessel, and DID conclude that it was Noah's Ark, it would only make matters worse.

how so? if they did find such a thing, that still doesn't support a supernatural event, it does however mean that somehow there was a 300 cubit boat that somehow got there and stayed preserved

Once scientists show up and start poking around, it's almost certain that the story is going to get ruined.

gods forbid we get the story right av and not just keep it fodder for nonsense

Why?

They have preconceived ideas about what does and doesn't exist in this universe, and that interferes with they doing an honest investigation.

dude how may times do we have to explain this, unless you have evidence for something theres no reason to accept your claims

In addition, and I can't prove this one, but I think they're taught in class that this stuff doesn't exist.

way to go AV, i thought you were better than bringing up conspiracies to under mine the bible

So I don't think it would really matter if they found Noah's Ark, evidence of a global flood, the tablets that the 10 Commandments were written on, feathered bats and four-legged grasshoppers, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, or the very cross that Jesus was crucified on --- it would only make it worse --- not better.

why do you think that? because we disagree with you? it says nothing about us, but plenty about you.
ironically you go to prove the lament you always end up giving, only we are saying it.
"its not about what we say i,ts about what we are". how can you even make the claim that somehow people wouldn't believe some the stuff?

Then why is it always called one?

i think its an impossible ship that can't ever exist, hows that?

I disagree.Interesting word choice.

it is a myth, a mythological ship

Usually I hear from you guys: 'We know [this]', or 'We know [that]' --- now you can't even call it a 'ship' in a 'fairy tale'?

that is short hand for "this is what we know about a subject using all the developed scientific methods of the last 300 years"

That line of reasoning is getting old.

well then stop making silly claims about maths in the bible

Notice I completely ignore it now.

You bring it up quite often now --- probably thinking it bothers me or something --- and I promise you --- it doesn't.[/quote]
it does bother you, or you wouldn't complain about it. either ignore it for real and show how right people are about how much you know anything, or admit you really don't know anything about the maths in the bible and how wrong they are and prove to us this is about more than just seeing your name on a screen.

Freodin · Jul 22, 2009

AV1611VET said:
So I don't think it would really matter if they found Noah's Ark, evidence of a global flood, the tablets that the 10 Commandments were written on, feathered bats and four-legged grasshoppers, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, or the very cross that Jesus was crucified on --- it would only make it worse --- not better.

I think - and I would be very happy if you would show me wrong here - that it is your own bias that is projected here.

You would not accept anything that goes against your preconceived notions... so everyone else must act the same.

But consider carefully how you - in contrast to scientists - would reach your conclusions about the mentioned "finds".

Let´s say, as in your OP, they found on Mt. Ararat a box of the dimensions 300x50x30 cubits, containing a logbook written in a pre-Hebrew language identifying the crew as Noah and his family.

Would you, automatically, accept that this is the famed Noah´s Ark? Because it fits what you think Noah´s Ark is?

So what if the log was indeed written in a notebook with a Micky Mouse cover? Would you still think this is Noah´s Ark, and invent some kind of story that Micky Mouse already existed in Pre-Flood-Times, and was only rediscovered by Walt Disney? Or would you abandon your previous acceptence?

Would you simply "walk in faith" or base your judgement on evidence?

MrGoodBytes · Jul 22, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Not as much as I trust the Bible saying they do.

But you do trust them on that, no?

Should Christians accept the judgement of scientists on Biblical things?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

The Emperor has no clothes.

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

The Emperor has no clothes.

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET

Devout believer in a theologically different God

BenderBendingRodriguez

Junior Member

Seeker for life, probably

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Seeker for life, probably

Similar threads