Science VS the Bible

[Hawkins]

Nope, that isn't how science works.

That's exactly how science works. It's basically the falsifiability of science. Get a clue!

 

[Hawkins]

If your prediction becomes true, it supports the theory but doesn't prove it.

NASA won't use an unproved theory to flight humans to outer space. Get a clue!

 

[Hawkins]

Do you mean "evaporates" into water vapor -- (so then still H2O) or do you mean as in electrolysis so then a cathode and anode and getting 2xH and O by volume?

I descriptively mentioned how chemistry works. If it's 100% predictable, you can falsify the formula to get a Nobel Prize. This is how a truth is proved!

 

[Hawkins]

No. It's made stronger, but it isn't proven

It is, or else you can falsify it to get a Nobel Prize!

You don't know how science works, with its falsifiability!

 

[Hawkins]

Do you mean "evaporates" into water vapor -- (so then still H2O) or do you mean as in electrolysis so then a cathode and anode and getting 2xH and O by volume?



I assume you are talking about something like electrolysis.

So then once that observation in nature is made - that experiment gets stuck in a lot of lab text books to be repeated 100's of thousands of times every year by high school students in labs all across the U.S..

Is that what you are talking about??

I am talking about the nature of science. If a theory, such as water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen, is 100% predictably true, it's considered proved!

If you can predict something 100%, what is it. That's the in-depth question in terms of the philosophy of science! The only answer is, you detected a TRUTH! That's what science is doing!

If water can be dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen (H2O = 2H2 + O2) this is 100% predictable before each and every lab, please tell us what it is if it's not a truth!

 

[Hawkins]

Prove it

Already in a not necessarily prolonged exchange.

Read my replies above to know how you have no idea about what science, especially its falsifiability and predictability are!

 

[Hmm]

A good scientist modifies his theories in the light of new information he has received...

 

[Hawkins]

So then once that observation in nature is made - that experiment gets stuck in a lot of lab text books to be repeated 100's of thousands of times every year by high school students in labs all across the U.S

Do you know what it is the falsifiability of science. Do you know that if can do a legit lab with water not dissolving into oxygen and hydrogen, you falsifies the formula and can get a Nobel Prize.

You can actually go back to school to ask a chemistry professor.

 

[Hawkins]

A good scientist modifies his theories in the light of new information he has received...

So what can you modify H2O = 2H2 + O2 to?

It only shows that you don't know what science is!

 

[BobRyan]

Do you know what it is the falsifiability of science. Do you know that if can do a legit lab with water not dissolving into oxygen and hydrogen, you falsifies the formula and can get a Nobel Prize.

You can actually go back to school to ask a chemistry professor.

So then the electrolysis example I mentioned for splitting H2O into h2 o2 .. is going to fail all over the world some day?? Or you are just pointing out that it is testable?

My point is that electrolysis still works - even if you know what God says about creation in Genesis and accept His Word as true.

 

[Root of Jesse]

One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. My point of view on science and religion is this. I apply the scientific method to everything as much as I can even the bible. What I can't explain I take on faith. I'll give you an example.

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect, causing some sort of reaction in atmosphere that would incinerate the cities with enough heat to melt stone. My point is, what's to say God didn't put the meteor on course to do the same thing?

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

Here's a little joke before I go. I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.

The Bible helps us go to heaven. Science helps us understand how the heavens go. I have had "bible scholars" try to tell me that the wind blew the quail off course and into the Hebrews' camp after the Exodus. I've also heard that Jesus didn't actually multiply the loaves and fishes, he inspired people listening to him to share what they had...after 3 days of Jesus preaching.
I agree with you, I don't care so much how it happened, what's important is that it happened.

As for the Big Bang Theory, you know it was a Catholic Priest that proposed it?

 

[Cis.jd]

One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. My point of view on science and religion is this. I apply the scientific method to everything as much as I can even the bible. What I can't explain I take on faith. I'll give you an example.

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect, causing some sort of reaction in atmosphere that would incinerate the cities with enough heat to melt stone. My point is, what's to say God didn't put the meteor on course to do the same thing?

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

Here's a little joke before I go. I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.

Because the Bible's main subject isn't about the natural reality so whatever appears to be scientifically correct or incorrect should not matter at all. God did not give his writers a massive IQ boost and guided the church to assure a canon of 1200 pages to reveal the cosmos. It was to reveal him and connect with us in a spirtual-relationship type of revelation.

The Bible is the word of God, but not the only one. The Bible is how we know of him as a father, savior, and sanctifier, but it is through science we see learn about him as a master designer.

 

[BobRyan]

Because the Bible's main subject isn't about the natural reality .

1. The Bible says Jesus existed -- did HE - or was he invisible in nature?
2. The Bible says Lazarus was bodily resurrected - did that not happen in real life or was he invisible?
3. The Bible says Jesus was bodily resurrected - did that happen or was it merely "spiritual"?
4. The Bible says "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" all life on planet earth (ie. nature) -- did that happen or is nature also invisible?

Some reports that a car drove off a cliff - can they report that "fact in real life" without going through all the science for gravity, rate of acceleration due to the force of gravity, the mechanics and engineering to build the car?

 

[Hmm]

So what can you modify H2O = 2H2 + O2 to?

It only shows that you don't know what science is!

You mean

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy?

i.e. to produce two molecules of water (H2O), two molecules of diatomic hydrogen (H2) must be combined with one molecule of diatomic oxygen (O2). Energy will be released in the process.

And this leads us to ask What is energy? To which the answer is, we don't know. Science is a lot more fuzzier than you think it is.

 

[BobRyan]

You mean

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy?

i.e. to produce two molecules of water (H2O), two molecules of diatomic hydrogen (H2) must be combined with one molecule of diatomic oxygen (O2). Energy will be released in the process.

And this leads us to ask What is energy? To which the answer is, we don't know. Science is a lot more fuzzier than you think it is.

We don't know what chemical energy is?

Out of curiosity what does chemical energy have to do with the topic? just curious.

 

[BobRyan]

Because the Bible's main subject isn't about the natural reality so whatever appears to be scientifically correct or incorrect should not matter at all. .

So then if "observations in nature" say that the dead do not rise up and walk around after three days in the tomb -- then when God says the Christ was raised from the dead, and Lazarus was raised from the dead - we can believe these are facts that happened in nature -- in real life no matter that you can't "do that in a lab experiment"?

 

[Hmm]

We don't know what chemical energy is?

Out of curiosity what does chemical energy have to do with the topic? just curious.

Hawkins asked:
What can you modify H2O = 2H2 + O2 to?

My reply meant that it can be modified to 2H2+ O2 = 2H2O + Energy.

Actually, it must be modified because it's incorrect - it's 2H20 not H20)

I mentioned energy because Hawkins has been arguing that science is about absolute truth but science does not make this claim. He gave that formula because he thinks it is absolutely true and I was trying to show that because it involves energy it is not a statement of absolute truth because we don't know what energy is. We can measure it and describe it mathematically but this is not the same thing as knowing what it is.

 

[Cis.jd]

So then if "observations in nature" say that the dead do not rise up and walk around after three days in the tomb -- then when God says the Christ was raised from the dead, and Lazarus was raised from the dead - we can believe these are facts that happened in nature -- in real life no matter that you can't "do that in a lab experiment"?

You did not understand. As I said, the Word of God is made for the purpose of revealing God on a relationship manner not revealing the details around his design. Your argument about Christ's miracles are in-line to the relationship aspect no the natural one.

Our entire faith is more relied on what Christ did on Earth not on any other "information" given about our natural world. This is clearly not the same context as the physical universe. Our faith is 100% dependent on Christ and what he did, not about scientific details in regards to our universe.

 

[Cis.jd]

1. The Bible says Jesus existed -- did HE - or was he invisible in nature?
2. The Bible says Lazarus was bodily resurrected - did that not happen in real life or was he invisible?
3. The Bible says Jesus was bodily resurrected - did that happen or was it merely "spiritual"?
4. The Bible says "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" all life on planet earth (ie. nature) -- did that happen or is nature also invisible?

Some reports that a car drove off a cliff - can they report that "fact in real life" without going through all the science for gravity, rate of acceleration due to the force of gravity, the mechanics and engineering to build the car?

All these you listed are not about the natural reality. I have clearly stated that the purpose of the Word of God is about his revelation/relationship with man and not a detailed academic of nature. Your enumeration aligns with the earlier.

I will repeat my question again, and hopefully your response is in the actual context of my point. Is the moon an object that reflects light or is itself an actual body of light?

 

[Jipsah]

That's exactly how science works. It's basically the falsifiability of science. Get a clue!

The first clue is that you appear to have a different efinition of "science" than I o. Not sure what yours means.