Acceptable Science

[Skaloop]

That I reject a conclusion drawn, does not mean I reject science.

The conclusion comes from science. So yes, you are rejecting one aspect of science. I'm wondering how you decide which science to reject and which to accept.

 

[Key]

The conclusion comes from science. So yes, you are rejecting one aspect of science.

Not really true. One can reject the conclusion drawn by a Scientist, or a person involved in the "Fields of Science" with out rejecting the science behind the Conclusion.

IE: One can accept that the evidence by which the Conclusion is drawn from is real and viable, but, at the same time believe that the conclusion is incorrect.

Hence why Many Theories get revamped, like the different models of evolution, and the different methods by which it is put forth. Evolution as a Theory is in constant change, because the conclusions as they were drawn and as they are being drawn, are not correct as they stand currently.

As such, one could reject the Theory as a Whole, because they do not believe it reflects the evidence correctly.

I see no support for your claim, that to reject a conclusion drawn from evidence, as rejection of science, in any form.

She could simply believe that have not got it right, and not be incorrect in her assessment, with out any rejection of Science on any level.

Just as I could reject the inverse universe theory, and not reject science, or even the evidence by with the theory was derived from.

Just as I could have rejected the Theory that Nuclear Reaction was a fable and a false hood, and not reject the evidence by which the theory was built on.

But then again, that is the nature of Science, it is supposed to be tested, challenged, and looked at, and even rejected, to keep it healthy. If people had the mentality that one MUST accept a theory as fact or as Science, Science itself would become stagnant, with nothing but mindless followers, with no point in correction. Once this step is taken, and this mentality is set, then science in it's pure form, and it;s very ideal and purpose, becomes dead, from the inside out.

I reject the Conclusion, because I have to reject the conclusion, because if I do not reject the conclusion, then Science as a whole will suffer.

So I do a service to the Purity of what is Science, by my rejection of the Conclusion.

God Bless

Key.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists to God: " Given enough time we can make a man out of dirt too."

God to Scientists: "Get your own dirt."

All of these arguments assume that there was material present in some form in the beginning. God says that he created the material universe out of invisible things, and upholds them by his word. Isn't 'string theory' the study of really sub atomic composition of matter? If science discovers that everything is made of pure energy that spontaneously generates itself, what happens to all other theories concerned with matter?

If no one here has an answer it's ok. No one else does either.

 

[climb8b]

Hmm, some interesting responces so far.

I find it worrying that Christians cannot tell the difference between a "theory" and a "hypotheisis" and an "established fact" and that some christians indeed think that there is a scientific coverup when it comes to Darwinian natural selection. if it werent so worrying i would laugh.

As for the bible being historically accurate and showing things like the air has mass, that the world is a sphere, and gravity. there are sites that show the biblical inaccuracies and absurdities but i am not allowed to post the link.

there are verses in the bible sending people to the four corners of the earth, corners cannot exit on a semi eliptical sphere, therefore the world is flat. on the building of a temple there are verses that where the diameter of a circle is one third of the circumference, therfore Pi = 3.

In Genesis 1 beasts are made before man and in genesis 2 beasts are made after man.
Gen 1 man and woman are made at the same time, Gen 2 woman is made from mans rib at different times.

In Mathew jesus rides into Jeruselem on an ass and a colt, in Mark and Luke he rides only on a colt, and in John he rides only on an ass.

there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.

 

[climb8b]

I am also wondering if the christians on this site that are rubbishing the science quoted realise who Francis Collins is???

Francis Collins the most promenet scientist that is a christian (i had to say it that way or i would call him a christian scientist and that would cause further ambiguity) FC is the head of the human genome mapping project and he is a devout christian and he manages to fit his faith in god around the science he endorces. FC believes that science cannot prove god and i am inclined to agree with him, though while not being able to prove god conclusivly, every time god intervenes in this world through supposed answered prayer he intevenes in a way to alter circumvent natural forces and it is then that scientists can look at these alledged inteventions and scruitinising them scientifically.

 

[climb8b]

Scientists to God: " Given enough time we can make a man out of dirt too."

God to Scientists: "Get your own dirt."

All of these arguments assume that there was material present in some form in the beginning. God says that he created the material universe out of invisible things, and upholds them by his word. Isn't 'string theory' the study of really sub atomic composition of matter? If science discovers that everything is made of pure energy that spontaneously generates itself, what happens to all other theories concerned with matter?

If no one here has an answer it's ok. No one else does either.

You have a "god of the gaps", scientists cant explain it therefore god did it.

Sorry just cos scientists cant explain it doesent mean that scientists wont explain it.

 

[climb8b]

And if a Christian agrees with all of those scientific theories, what then? Would you still show him disdain?

No, i would show them the greatest of respect, just the same respect that i have for Francis Collins.

I respect any christian that is more interested in reality and the truth over fantasy and lies.

 

[ebia]

You have a "god of the gaps", scientists cant explain it therefore god did it.

Sorry just cos scientists cant explain it doesent mean that scientists wont explain it.

... and just because scientists can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. "God of the gaps" completely misses the point of the Judeo-Christian God. It's wierd that some Christians go to such great lenghts to defend a view of God that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[climb8b]

... and just because scientists can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. "God of the gaps" completely misses the point of the Judeo-Christian God. It's wierd that some Christians go to such great lenghts to defend a view of God that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

GOD???

Those that make the positive assertion hold the burden of proof, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Christians cannot prove their god, and god hasnt proven him/her self. No one can disprove god, so where is god, does he exist, if so prove it, otherwise there is no god or any reason to believe in god.

 

[ebia]

GOD???

Yep. You know - Creator dude. Made everything.

Those that make the positive assertion hold the burden of proof,

You assume that I'm trying to prove something about God. I was simply observing that "God of the gaps" is as much about bad theology as it is about bad science.

it is impossible to prove a negative.

Not always true. In lots of cases it's the negative that could be proven and the positive that could not - hence the idea of falsifiability.

The burden lies with whoever is trying persade the other. Scientific/modernist proof is not always the appropriate way of doing that. It certainly isn't the appropriate way of talking about God, since it includes some fundamental assumptions that aren't appropriate when talking about God.

Christians cannot prove their god, and god hasnt proven him/her self. No one can disprove god, so where is god, does he exist, if so prove it, otherwise there is no god or any reason to believe in god.

God's existance (or not) is not dependent upon whether or not you see reason to believe in him.

I don't accept the scientific notions of evidence are the applicable ones for considering God.

And, just to top it all off, it would be off topic to the original question.

 

[arunma]

GOD???

Those that make the positive assertion hold the burden of proof, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Christians cannot prove their god, and god hasnt proven him/her self. No one can disprove god, so where is god, does he exist, if so prove it, otherwise there is no god or any reason to believe in god.

I didn't know that it's impossible to prove a negative. I suppose this means that the recent proof of Fermat's Theorem must be incorrect, because Fermat's Theorem is a negative statement.

The idea that "it's impossible to prove a negative," is just not true. I'm often surprised that atheists, who effectively worship logic, are unaware of the rules of logic to the extent that they don't know this. Mathematics alone abounds with negative statements that can be logically proven. It's true that there are some negative statements that can't be proven, just as there are positive statements that can be proven. But when this is the case, it is at least possible to prove that no proof exists. It's also true that negative statements tend to be more difficult to prove than positive ones, but this is more a matter of semantics given that a negative statement can easily be rewritten as a positive one. I suppose the fact that negative statements can be proven goes to show that the usual atheist line on burdens of proof (and the second most popular one on pink unicorns) is simply a means to avoid the fact that they have no proof of their religious belief.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hmm, some interesting responces so far.

I find it worrying that Christians cannot tell the difference between a "theory" and a "hypotheisis" and an "established fact" and that some christians indeed think that there is a scientific coverup when it comes to Darwinian natural selection. if it werent so worrying i would laugh.

As for the bible being historically accurate and showing things like the air has mass, that the world is a sphere, and gravity. there are sites that show the biblical inaccuracies and absurdities but i am not allowed to post the link.

there are verses in the bible sending people to the four corners of the earth, corners cannot exit on a semi eliptical sphere, therefore the world is flat. on the building of a temple there are verses that where the diameter of a circle is one third of the circumference, therfore Pi = 3.

In Genesis 1 beasts are made before man and in genesis 2 beasts are made after man.
Gen 1 man and woman are made at the same time, Gen 2 woman is made from mans rib at different times.

In Mathew jesus rides into Jeruselem on an ass and a colt, in Mark and Luke he rides only on a colt, and in John he rides only on an ass.

there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.

You should use the same care in reading the bible that you use studying science. Because you deny literary devices in scientific writings doesn't give you the right to deny the bible of it ( of course you can, but you are the loser). God's word is rich in these, and they are purposeful: So that the wise and prudent (scientists) won't understand, but the weak and despised of the world will (that be us).

 

[prophecystudent]

The conclusion comes from science. So yes, you are rejecting one aspect of science. I'm wondering how you decide which science to reject and which to accept.

Perhaps you would care to disclose more of the "science" which you claim to prove your belief system.

A number of objections to your conclusions have been raised. Your response has been to denigrate those who ask the questions and refuse to provide legitimate answers to our questions.

Just because a group of scientists, for whatever reason, decide that (in the face of scientific observation) something must be a certain way, does not mean it truly has to be that way.

If the conclusions drawn by those scientists cannot stand up to scrutiny by others, then their conclusions are wrong, at at best, unproven.

I asked a number of questions in my first response to your OP, and you don't seem to have answered them. Perhaps you cannot.

Fred

 

[climb8b]

I suppose the fact that negative statements can be proven goes to show that the usual atheist line on burdens of proof (and the second most popular one on pink unicorns) is simply a means to avoid the fact that they have no proof of their religious belief.

I dont have a religious belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god and therfore no supernatural forces and therfore cannot be designated as a religious belief.

 

[Gukkor]

I dont have a religious belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god and therfore no supernatural forces and therfore cannot be designated as a religious belief.

That is somewhat innaccurate. To actively believe that there is no God or supernatural force is, in fact, a religious belief (perhaps not a religion itself per se, but still a religious belief), as it is belief that deals with a religious subject. Now, if one truly had no opinion on the matter, that would be a lack of religious belief.

That, however, is all beside the point.

 

[Digit]

As for the bible being historically accurate and showing things like the air has mass, that the world is a sphere, and gravity. there are sites that show the biblical inaccuracies and absurdities but i am not allowed to post the link.

Just type it in manually and remove the prefix, we can navigate to it manually ourselves. It's a silly rule which annoys me. >_>

there are verses in the bible sending people to the four corners of the earth, corners cannot exit on a semi eliptical sphere, therefore the world is flat.

That's a large leap of logic there, when sending people to the four corners of the earth is a commonplace phrase to mean, 'scatter'. I don't know why you would wish to take that literally and assume that it truly meant the earth had real literal sharp corners.

on the building of a temple there are verses that where the diameter of a circle is one third of the circumference, therfore Pi = 3.

Again, this isn't true. The passage you are referring to is

1 Kings 7:23
'And hemade a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

and similarly

2 Chronicles 4:2
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 describes the shape to be like the brim of a cup or the rim of a cup depending which bible version you reference. Either way, the top part of the temple was wider than the base. The diameter was 10 cubits around the brim portion of the temple as noted in scripter and the circumferance was 30 cubits around the body, also as noted in scripture.

Diameter = cir/pi
30/3.14
9.554... etc

Which is smaller than the brim to brim measurement. Which fits exactly with scripture and is consistent with mathematics. If you wish to read more, go here.

In Genesis 1 beasts are made before man and in genesis 2 beasts are made after man.

No this isn't true either. Genesis 2 doesn't speak of the order of creation from the same persepctive as Genesis 1. In Genesis one we are related the events as from God, in Genesis two we are related things as from Adam. Adam was not created when the animals were created, and so after his creation, it is written that God brought forth the animals he HAD created on day four. It doesn't say he made them after Adam at all. A simple reading will tell us this much, and I fail to see how logical people buy this story of two different creation accounts.

Gen 1 man and woman are made at the same time, Gen 2 woman is made from mans rib at different times.

Same again, the second account does not differ from the first. Man was made first and then woman in both accounts, the focus simply changes. Just like in many narratives in stories, we have the "In a galaxy far far away..." part which gives the overall picture, and then we zoom down to the individual accounts of Princess Eve and Adam Skywalker. It's a common storytelling style used in present day narratives.

In Mathew jesus rides into Jeruselem on an ass and a colt, in Mark and Luke he rides only on a colt, and in John he rides only on an ass.

Again this is not correct. This one is slightly more difficult to work through, yet there are several explanations to it. The only way to arrive at the conclusion you do is to read the passages as literally as possible. There have been entire threads dedicated to this, if you are really interested I will research it again. Let me know.

there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.

There are in 388odd wishful contradictions. Based on out of context readings, solid literal readings with no room for the narrators intent and those based off of translation errors. I put forward that there are in fact zero contradictions, and I can back that up. So if you want to begin working through them, lets go. PM me for my MSN if you will find that easier.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[Digit]

I dont have a religious belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god and therfore no supernatural forces and therfore cannot be designated as a religious belief.

From your other thread about God's literal word, you say you are open to the belief of God. Should you then not be Agnostic? Atheism is the polar opposite of Christianity, and there is no room for a divine foot in the door from my understanding.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Key]

there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.

Did you take the extra 3 minuets in your Internet search of this, to see that there are also hundreds of sites that explain these so called contradictions?

Some links A, B , C , D. just to start you off.

No offense. But, it seems you are limiting your own input.

God Bless

Key

 

[Digit]

Did you take the extra 3 minuets in your Internet search of this, to see that there are also hundreds of sites that explain these so called contradictions?

Some links A, B , C , D. just to start you off.

No offense. But, it seems you are limiting your own input.

God Bless

Key

This is where I feel the problem lies. As really, people claim their open-mindedness yet really all we do is go and find a few links from people in authority about such matters to help clear up the confusion on things we don't have personal experience with. Is this beyond their ability to do? As you say, a few minutes extra to read a contrasting view that puts it all in perspective and context? *sigh*

It's a hard thing to do, as we've all been there I feel - unless we were raised Christian, but it's so very important.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Key]

This is where I feel the problem lies. As really, people claim their open-mindedness yet really all we do is go and find a few links from people in authority about such matters to help clear up the confusion on things we don't have personal experience with. Is this beyond their ability to do? As you say, a few minutes extra to read a contrasting view that puts it all in perspective and context? *sigh*

It's a hard thing to do, as we've all been there I feel - unless we were raised Christian, but it's so very important.

Cheers,
Digit

I have in the past, done the whole "Let me explain that" but, the truth of the matter is, it is not that they are in authority, it is that they have taken the time to place the answers in an easy to read format, and made these answers open to anyone that wants to look them up.

Now I have two choices, I can go dig up my old posts, and sift though them, and see what I have said, and link that way, but that would take quite a bit of time.

Or.

I could link to a site that has already provided the answers.

Now, Why should I have to keep regurgitating what they have already said, and in some cases , better then I could have said it.

Am I getting Lazy.. maybe...

God Bless

Key