Science and Notscience

[corvus_corax]

If science is constantly changing, and new 'evidence' is disproving 'old evidence' then what's the point of using general term "science" as an argument for proving anything. Since all that you say now will be disproved later because science is evolving, it seems absured that the term is counted as evidence enough to refute anything. The christian faith is not science and that is why science will never be able to refute nor destroy it.

Science doesnt attempt to destroy Christian faith, or any other faith.
The two are (IMO) mutually exclusive.
The only thing that science demonstrates (regarding christianity, for example) is that a literal reading of certain sections of the bible flies in the face of established evidence. Now before anybody jumps on that last statement, many christians and jews accept that the bible isnt a science book, but rather a book that demonstrates spiritual truths, and thus shouldnt (in many instances) be read as literal fact (Truth yes, fact no)

 

[At Peace Without God]

If science is constantly changing, and new 'evidence' is disproving 'old evidence' then what's the point of using general term "science" as an argument for proving anything. Since all that you say now will be disproved later because science is evolving, it seems absured that the term is counted as evidence enough to refute anything.

You seem to be implying that all of science changes all the time and in a way I guess it does. But the more we measure stuff the more we know about it and how it works. If scientists discard a theory they usually replace it with a better one (one that is harder to refute). As time goes on, science gets better and better at explaining why things are and how they work. It's not perfect and never will be as a perfect system would accurately describe every event througout all of time. (sound like God to you?). But the longer we stick at it, the closer we get.

The reason it is so good at refuting things is because thats its driving mechanism. A lot of the refuting has already been done.

The christian faith is not science and that is why science will never be able to refute nor destroy it.

Agreed but in the end it will simply make it obsolete (already has in the opinion of many)

 

[JohnR7]

The only thing that science demonstrates (regarding christianity, for example) is that a literal reading of certain sections of the bible flies in the face of established evidence.

If you read Hugh Ross book on Genesis he will take you verse by verse though the Bible and show you that there is no conflict between the Bible & Science.

 

[corvus_corax]

If you read Hugh Ross book on Genesis he will take you verse by verse though the Bible and show you that there is no conflict between the Bible & Science.

I'll see if my library has the book.
So do you actually subscribe to Progressive Creationism?

 

[JohnR7]

The things you point out constitute a tiny fraction of 1% of the work done by thousands of highly intelegent and well qualified individuals over centurys of time. This is the nature of science.

Ok, so you take 1% that you admit is outright fraud and mix it in with 98% babble, and you still only end up with 1% truth.

The other aspect of science is that it welcomes criticism of findings because its quest is knowledge, not justification.

Why do you keep going on about science when it is evolutionary theory that I have a problem with. I said a lot of it was not science, so how could you interpret that as an attack on science?

Saying 'evolution is not scientific' is like saying 'christianity is not a religion'

Christianity is NOT a religion. I personally have no problem with religion. But I do know Christians that do have a problem with religion and they would be very offended if you told them that they were religious.

 

[JohnR7]

I'll see if my library has the book.
So do you actually subscribe to Progressive Creationism?

What is Progressive Creationism? I think that Ross is a good teacher. Not as good as Ernest Angley, but Rev. Angley does not know much about science.

 

[JohnR7]

The christian faith is not science and that is why science will never be able to refute nor destroy it.

Gen Ch 1 is wide open to investigation by Science though. It says some very explicit things like the Earth started off covered with water and there was no sunlight on the surface of the earth. How do you suppose that Moses knew that 3500 years ago?

 

[At Peace Without God]

Ok, so you take 1% that you admit is outright fraud and mix it in with 98% babble, and you still only end up with 1% truth.

I am starting to question your rationality...

Why do you keep going on about science when it is evolutionary theory that I have a problem with. I said a lot of it was not science, so how could you interpret that as an attack on science?

... I am beginning to think you have no idea...

Christianity is NOT a religion. I personally have no problem with religion. But I do know Christians that do have a problem with religion and they would be very offended if you told them that they were religious.

... sold

 

[JohnR7]

Denial is among the most powerful tools of the human psyche.

Is that why you continue to deny the truth in order to believe in theorys that have been proven to be wrong?

 

[JohnR7]

I am starting to question your rationality...

So there is still hope for you then.

 

[corvus_corax]

Christianity is NOT a religion. I personally have no problem with religion. But I do know Christians that do have a problem with religion and they would be very offended if you told them that they were religious.

Ah, now we have it.
It seems that you dont understand the terms you are using.
religion-
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

What is Progressive Creationism?

It's what Hugh Ross apparently teaches. From AiG "As I have traveled across the USA and other parts of the world, I have been asked many times as to my response to the teachings of Dr Hugh Ross—probably the world’s leading Progressive Creationist."

 

[At Peace Without God]

So there is still hope for you then.

there's hope and then there's hoplessness...

 

[Beastt]

Is that why you continue to deny the truth in order to believe in theorys that have been proven to be wrong?

[SARCASM]Yes, John. That's it exactly. The vast majority of the world is in denial to the truth which is limited to just you and a few other fringe researchers who have to do things like radiocarbon dating air, rocks and other materials which have never been alive to try to demonstrate the inaccuracies of these techniques. The rest of us are foolishly following science through our denial while you wisely place an ancient book, written by ignorant men at the forefront of your scientific knowledge. [/SARCASM]

The very fact that you plucked but one sentence concerning denial from a post of over 1,800 characters should be a clue to you about where your focus lies. You failed to address the fact that none of the portions of evolution you claim to be other than science are even a portion of evolution today nor did you address the fact that evolution today stands totally unfalsified while the ideas you choose to believe were fully falsified over 100 years ago and have continued to be falsified at many levels ever since.

You should know quite well by now that the theories which have been proven wrong are the ones that you repeatedly present and others repeatedly and correctly demonstrate to be purely erroneous and often fraudulent. Assuming the Bible to be the ultimate measure of accuracy, especially in topics of science, is no more valid or reasonable than to use a child's storybook, plucked at random from the shelves of a nursery.

When you can us 3.0 rather than PI to accurately calculate the orbit of a planet, then perhaps you have a leg to stand on. Until that time, you're denying that the Bible is wrong and that science is right because you fear that if you recognize the truth, your entire religious foundation will crumble beneath you.

 

[Beastt]

If science is constantly changing, and new 'evidence' is disproving 'old evidence' then what's the point of using general term "science" as an argument for proving anything. Since all that you say now will be disproved later because science is evolving, it seems absured that the term is counted as evidence enough to refute anything. The christian faith is not science and that is why science will never be able to refute nor destroy it.

Hmmmm... well, where to start?

Certainly the findings of science do undergo changes. But this is the knowledge gained by science being put into practice not a change in science itself. Science is a process to a knowledge base, not the knowledge base itself. The process doesn't change. New evidence sometimes disproves or changes the outcome of older observations because science has but one goal - truth. Science cannot allow itself to hold onto findings once they have been proved inaccurate as does religion. To claim that "all we say now will be disproved" is somewhat beyond a massive exaggeration. Very little about the knowledge base collected through science actually changes to any great degree. But when a change is shown to be necessary, there is no room for sentimental value of falsified ideas. They are replaced whenever it can be shown that they are erroneous. Science has no interest in destroying Christianity or any other religion. It would seem that the fear of the overly religious has allowed them to depict science as anti-religious when in fact, the only interest science has is anti-ignorance. If you prefer ignorance, then focus only on religions born of books written during times of great ignorance. If you prefer to reduce ignorance, focus purely on science. If you're able to find value in both, then do so. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, though to use religious texts as scientific guides is purely an act of futility.

 

[JohnR7]

[SARCASM]while the ideas you choose to believe were fully falsified over 100 years ago

Just what is it that I beleive that was falsified 100 years ago? What I beleive was written 3500 years ago and it still stands true today. That is impossible for man, but it stands as a witness and a testimony for God.

When you can us 3.0 rather than PI

You have to take into consideration the thickness of the vessel.

 

[Vastavus]

You have to take into consideration the thickness of the vessel.

No, not really. Pi is pi, I don't think thickness matters.

 

[At Peace Without God]

No, not really. Pi is pi, I don't think thickness matters.

he may be talking about himself...

 

[Beastt]

Just what is it that I beleive that was falsified 100 years ago? What I beleive was written 3500 years ago and it still stands true today. That is impossible for man, but it stands as a witness and a testimony for God.

You believe in creationism. Creationism has been falsified on dozens of counts. If you're talking about the Bible being written 3,500 years ago, the Bible isn't a testimony to God. The only connection between God and the Bible is the Bible's own, unsubstantiated claim to be the word of God. And it makes this claim despite the fact that we know it was written by men. God has never made any such claim of the Bible.

You have to take into consideration the thickness of the vessel.

I asked that you calculate the orbit of a planet. There is no vessel or thickness to be considered in such a calculation. PI is either 3.0 or it isn't. The Bible claims that it is. Science claims it to be closer to 3.1415927. Who is right; science or the Bible?