How, if at all, should science relate with Christianity?: an open exploration thread

[juvenissun]

The legs on the ground about to take off are not pushing, they are being lifted up. All three legs have to be lifted up by the insect, or they wouldn't come off the ground.


All six legs are lifted up in sequence.


Only by a definition that would describe human walking as 'going about on one foot', or a horse as bipedal.

You do not get it and are confused on the definition.

We push forward by one alternate foot, so we walk on two legs. If we had three legs, we are still walk on two legs, not three.

 

[Assyrian]

You do not get it and are confused on the definition.

It's your definition. That is the problem, you are trying to make up a new definition of walking so you can say insects go about on all fours. It is hardly surprising it has such problems fitting the real world.

We push forward by one alternate foot, so we walk on two legs.

And if we don't move our other leg forward we fall over. We use both legs to walk, insects use six.

If we had three legs, we are still walk on two legs, not three.

Dogs with three legs use all three to walk, not two. Unless we were to drag the useless leg behind us we would establish an efficient rhythm with three legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJleJbn9G6Y

It is much easier to use all your legs in sync rather than limp, whether you are a two legged human or a millipede. It is interesting how one of Rolf's strides is similar to the ripple stride of insects. It is a natural rhythm, even with an unnatural number of legs.

 

[Mallon]

Out of curiosity, does anyone else here support juvenissun's redefinition of 'walking' as an apologetic for the Bible's statement about four legged insects? And if so, why?

 

[juvenissun]

It's not the act of pushing, it's the act of WALKING



Can't you see how absurd you are? You have to stretch so much of reality. Can you really not see this?

If you think I am stretching, you aren't see anything yet.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ml.wibaux/insect-walk-0.4.py

 

[juvenissun]

We use both legs to walk, insects use six.

If you answer a science test this way, you flunk.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You do not get it and are confused on the definition.

We push forward by one alternate foot, so we walk on two legs.

You got it!!!!

 

[theFijian]

If you answer a science test this way, you flunk.

The only way you can get away with this is more postmodernist word usage. I suppose you're now redefining the meaning of the word 'walk'?

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that you can just as easy find also 100 sentences that appear to contradict a today's scientific observation or mathematical fact, such as the value of Pi.

So one such "contradiction" has been debated (the 4-leg vs. 6-leg stuff). It does not show the Bible is "obviously" in error.

What is the second one in your mind?

 

[Scotishfury09]

So one such "contradiction" has been debated (the 4-leg vs. 6-leg stuff). It does not show the Bible is "obviously" in error.

What is the second one in your mind?

One of your problems is that you assume because we don't take the Bible literally that we somehow view it as fake, but nonetheless, let's try another. You yourself said that two was too many, and since that's the closest we're ever going to come to you conceding a point, let's try another!

And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep: so the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

Also at the same time Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt. And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days.


2 Chronicles 7:5,8-9


142,000 sacrifices in 7 days.
That's 20,286 sacrifices per day
845 sacrifices per hour
14 sacrifices per minute - 1 sacrifice every 4 seconds.


Explain away.


P.S. Mallon gave two links to sites back in post #59 that you might want to check out.

 

[theFijian]

So one such "contradiction" has been debated (the 4-leg vs. 6-leg stuff). It does not show the Bible is "obviously" in error.

Right so the error might not be 'obvious' as you put it but it is inaccurate, insects don't have 4 legs they have 6, they don't walk on 4 legs they walk on 6.

So why do you think the bible says 4 and not 6?

 

[Molal]

... just answer the question above, whatever your positions or presuppositions on the subject. Have fun!

Science should not and cannot relate to christianity. Christianity is a belief system based upon faith for which there is no evidence - it is entirely supernatural.

Science is a mode of enquiry that ignores the supernatural since it is unrefutable - no evidence can be sort to refute it. Science thrives on being refutable.

 

[juvenissun]

One of your problems is that you assume because we don't take the Bible literally that we somehow view it as fake, but nonetheless, let's try another. You yourself said that two was too many, and since that's the closest we're ever going to come to you conceding a point, let's try another!

We do not even have ONE yet. This one is not the second one, it is the first one.

B]2 Chronicles 7:5,8-9[/B]


142,000 sacrifices in 7 days.
That's 20,286 sacrifices per day
845 sacrifices per hour
14 sacrifices per minute - 1 sacrifice every 4 seconds.


Explain away.

What is wrong with this? They could even do 100 sacrifices every second.

 

[juvenissun]

Science should not and cannot relate to christianity. Christianity is a belief system based upon faith for which there is no evidence - it is entirely supernatural.

Science is a mode of enquiry that ignores the supernatural since it is unrefutable - no evidence can be sort to refute it. Science thrives on being refutable.

If the Bible said the sun comes up from the west, are you going to debate it? If you do, you ARE talking about science in Christianity.

OK, the Bible does not say that. But the Bible says a whole of other things of similar nature. In addition to faith, would you be bothered if someone attacked those messages in the Bible? If you do, you are dealing with science in Christianity. If you don't, you are simply close your eyes to them. If that is OK to you, that is fine. But scientific contents DO exist in the Bible.

 

[Scotishfury09]

So one such "contradiction" has been debated (the 4-leg vs. 6-leg stuff). It does not show the Bible is "obviously" in error.

What is the second one in your mind?

We do not even have ONE yet. This one is not the second one, it is the first one.

You're the one who said second, not me.

What is wrong with this? They could even do 100 sacrifices every second.

100 sacrifices every second? Please, O Wise One, explain the semantics behind this one.

 

[juvenissun]

You're the one who said second, not me.





100 sacrifices every second? Please, O Wise One, explain the semantics behind this one.

All you need is a lot of people and a lot animals. They certainly have both. (you better not ask the calc: some like 5000 man kill 5000 chicken, how long does it take?)

 

[Molal]

If the Bible said the sun comes up from the west, are you going to debate it? If you do, you ARE talking about science in Christianity.

OK, the Bible does not say that. But the Bible says a whole of other things of similar nature. In addition to faith, would you be bothered if someone attacked those messages in the Bible? If you do, you are dealing with science in Christianity. If you don't, you are simply close your eyes to them. If that is OK to you, that is fine. But scientific contents DO exist in the Bible.

I did not say that some scientific concepts may or may not appear in the bible.

Would I be bothered if someone attacked these messages in the bible? Why is that important?

The fact is that science (today) does not concern itself with the supernatural. It cannot because the supernatural cannot be proven with observable, repeatable evidence.

Remember, science is a mode of enquiry - a logical progression of deduction rooted in empirical evidence. I think you are forgetting this notion.

 

[Mallon]

What is wrong with this? They could even do 100 sacrifices every second.

I'll remember that next time evolutionary creationists are accused of making God a blood-thirsty tyrant, zealous of death.

 

[juvenissun]

I did not say that some scientific concepts may or may not appear in the bible.

Would I be bothered if someone attacked these messages in the bible? Why is that important?

The fact is that science (today) does not concern itself with the supernatural. It cannot because the supernatural cannot be proven with observable, repeatable evidence.

Remember, science is a mode of enquiry - a logical progression of deduction rooted in empirical evidence. I think you are forgetting this notion.

So you do not mind if people said that your Holy Book is full of scientific errors. Right?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is a little puzzling as to where they might do those sacrifices. I would have assumed that they were or should have been on the brazen alter ... of which there was only one. If they improvised and built alters of 12 stones all about the temple, they might have been able to pull it off.

 

[Molal]

So you do not mind if people said that your Holy Book is full of scientific errors. Right?

Right - the book isn't science - it's theology. It contains theological truths.