Believing scientists you've never met...

[Split Rock]

There's a lot of dissent, disrespect, and sometimes downright hatred that gets generated from what I believe is a mistaken understanding of what the Bible says about creation.

I don't believe there is any support for the idea that the Bible was written as a scientific document. A saying I've picked up from someone I can't remember says science tells us what; the Bible tells us why. There can't be a conflict between science and theology if both are being done "right". I've never seen an example of a Biblical proclamation that conflicts with science. I've seen way too many examples of misunderstood Biblical proclamations being used to discredit science.

Very well said.

One thing, though, is that scientists can also get things wrong. Reality is not limited to our ability to measure and understand it.

True enough, but I believe our understanding of reality is better now than our understanding was back when GEN was written. When it comes to understanding the physical world around us, science is the best tool (even if imperfect). We should never use a book on theology. And that is where most creationists go wrong.

 

[martinlb]

Very well said.

Thanks!

True enough, but I believe our understanding of reality is better now than our understanding was back when GEN was written. When it comes to understanding the physical world around us, science is the best tool (even if imperfect).

Absolutely.

We should never use a book on theology. And that is where most creationists go wrong.

I agree with you 100%. It's like trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail.

Unfortunately many folks seem to have been taught that if the bible can't tell us everything about everything, it's somehow deficient. That was never its purpose and the distortions that get made in order to get the bible to talk about things it doesn't talk about are horrendeous.

 

[Mike Elphick]

You then go on the describe the co-called circular reasoning process that creationists assume geologists and evolutionary biologists are guilty of in dating rocks — namely index fossils. If you look the subject up you'll see that the circular argument is nonsense! Index fossils are used to date rocks in order to locate oil, where they work very well.

Hmmm, let me step in here a moment.

That is true but I think it needs a bit of clarification. The index fossils are unique to specific ages of strata, they don't date it. Geologic strata is dated radiometrically by constitutents within that strata that can be dated radiometrically.

You're splitting hairs here. Before radiometric dating, fossils and strata were assigned positions within an idealised geological column, using the Law of superposition (older layers at the bottom, younger layers at the top).

What makes direct radiometric dating of sedimentary rock, and the fossils it contains, virtually impossible, is the fact that most sedimentary rock is made up of particles of various types of pre-existing rock, so each particle can be of a different age.

It's the radiometric dating of associated igneous rocks, found in the proximity, that allows the sedimentary rock to be dated. However, I'm thinking we're somehow not actually in disagreement .

 

[Delphiki]

So, what's the difference?

The difference is I can go (and have gone) to a museum and see the evidence for myself, or carry out experiments myself. The difference is, with the advances in medicine and agriculture as it is today, which compeltely depend on our scientific knowledge, we can see that it actually works -- unlike prayer and faith.

The difference is, the claims in science aren't incredulous, like talking snakes, walking on water, magically multiplying bread and fish, and resurrection. The claims in science are plausible, demonstrable, and practical.

Those are a few differences.

 

[Delphiki]

If we were to actually test the bible, (which, btw the bible clearly and strongly suggests against doing), particularly prayer, it fails. I've made a challenge on another forum based on Matthew 17:20...

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Since I have no faith, I challenged Christians to pray for me to move Mt Rainier by at least 50 feet, if not to Ohio so I can admire it's majesty. I stated that this would convince me, and millions of other people, that prayer works. They wouldn't even have to be fundamentalists, as they would only need the "faith of... a mustard" seed to move a mountain. This should, convince millions of people, and thereby leading to the salvation of their souls.

Not to my surprise, not only is Mt. Rainier still in the exact spot after a few months that I proposed the challenge, but not one Christian so far has had the humility to lend a few moments of their time to help save millions of souls.

So much for a practical use. I think I'll stay on my side of this Pascal's Wager.