Science wins over the bible, because of God

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I am of the position that when science and the bible conflict, science wins. I hold this position because of my faith, not in spite of it. I believe in God, and if God exists then the only thing we can be sure of that he created was the universe. The universe wasnt dictated to anyone it went through no editing and no typos. It didnt pass through a human hand before being revealed to us, it wasnt translated from three dead languages and it wasnt filtered through the scientific ignorance and cultural prejudices of my ancient ancestors. If you believe the bible over nature then you are putting the words of men ahead of the work of God.

We have learned more about God's work from five centuries of science than from five millenia of the bible, shouldnt that tell you something. The universe described in genesis bears no resemblance whatsoever to the universe we live in. pre-fall/post-fall handwaving is just a way of avoiding having to deal with this fact.

You do not do service to God by denying how his creation works, much the opposite it is quite disrespectful to God. Nature is telling us how it works and how it formed. It is beautiful, it is poetic, and it brings me closer to God than any written word ever could. There is more spirituality to be gained from studying the structure of the atom than in all the bible combined. If there was a global flood that killed all but a handful of individuals of every species, if all species coexisted, if the sun was created after light planets days and plants, then nature is lying to us which would mean God is lying to us. I cannot accept that nature or God lie to us to such a profound degree to allow those cases to be true.

So does this mean i think the bible is worthless? No, I think it fails as a science or history textbook is all. These stories can still have value in the moral points that they are trying to teach us. It simply means that when the bible conflicts with science, then we need to review our interpretation of the bible because nature isnt wrong and nature isnt wrong because God isnt wrong.

 

[Danyc]

To some people, their interpretation is the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not do service to God by denying how his creation works, much the opposite it is quite disrespectful to God. Nature is telling us how it works and how it formed. It is beautiful, it is poetic, and it brings me closer to God than any written word ever could.

Interesting --- here's a quote from Adam Clarke, saying basically the same thing --- and just as wrong ---

That there is latent light, which is probably the same with latent heat, may be easily demonstrated: take two pieces of smooth rock crystal, agate, cornelian or flint, and rub them together briskly in the dark, and the latent light or matter of caloric will be immediately produced and become visible. The light or caloric thus disengaged does not operate in the same powerful manner as the heat or fire which is produced by striking with flint and steel, or that produced by electric friction. The existence of this caloric-latent or primitive light, may be ascertained in various other bodies; it can be produced by the flint and steel, by rubbing two hard sticks together, by hammering cold iron, which in a short time becomes red hot, and by the strong and sudden compression of atmospheric air in a tube. Friction in general produces both fire and light. God therefore created this universal agent on the first day, because without It no operation of nature could be carried on or perfected.

Light is one of the most astonishing productions of the creative skill and power of God. It is the grand medium by which all his other works are discovered, examined, and understood, so far as they can be known. Its immense diffusion and extreme velocity are alone sufficient to demonstrate the being and wisdom of God.

There is more spirituality to be gained from studying the structure of the atom than in all the bible combined.

Which model, the Bohr Model, the Cubic Model, the Plum-pudding Model, the Saturnian Model, the Rutherford Model, the Dalton Model, or the Shell Model?

 

[Danyc]

Which model, the Bohr Model, the Cubic Model, the Plum-pudding Model, the Saturnian Model, the Rutherford Model, the Dalton Model, or the Shell Model?

Do you have a problem with learning and studying God's creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a problem with learning and studying God's creation?

No.

 

[Danyc]

No.

You don't act it.

 

[Split Rock]

Which model, the Bohr Model, the Cubic Model, the Plum-pudding Model, the Saturnian Model, the Rutherford Model, the Dalton Model, or the Shell Model?

Each model brings us closer to understanding the true nature of an atom. It is not like they were all completely wrong. A model is just that... a model, and it can only take into account what we know. The shell model is the most recent and thus the closest to reality.

I could ask you which Holy Book are we supposed to follow? The Poetic Edda, the Akilattirattu Ammanai, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Lotus Sutra, the Principia Discordia, the Rasa'il al-hikmah, the Rig Veda, the Qur'an, The Tanakh, the Siddhanta Shikhamani, The Guru Granth Sahib, The Mormon Bible, the Avesta collection, or The KJV1611 Bible? Which one best describes the atom?

 

[consol]

Some of you sound as if you're suitable cases for treatment,
all of you living in your own little worlds with your own little Gods.

Will any of you be visiting earth this year?

 

[AV1611VET]

Each model brings us closer to understanding the true nature of an atom.

That's not what he said --- He said brings Him closer to understanding God.

There is more spirituality to be gained from studying the structure of the atom than in all the bible combined.

 

[AV1611VET]

Will any of you be visiting earth this year?

I'll be leaving soon --- but I'll be back.

 

[gaara4158]

That's not what he said --- He said brings Him closer to understanding God.

and understanding the structure of creation would in turn help one to understand the creator, would it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

and understanding the structure of creation would in turn help one to understand the creator, would it not?

Which gives you more understanding of an architect: the blueprints of a building he built, or his diary?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Which gives you more understanding of an architect: the blueprints of a building he built, or his diary?

You meant "the blueprints of a building he built or an anonymous diary of questionable origin referring about the architect in third person".

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Which gives you more understanding of an architect: the blueprints of a building he built, or his diary?

if the diary describes a summer home and the blueprints are of a skyscraper that you can visit, how reliable is his diary? is it even his diary?

 

[AV1611VET]

You meant "the blueprints of a building he built or an anonymous diary of questionable origin referring about the architect in third person".

if the diary describes a summer home and the blueprints are of a skyscraper that you can visit, how reliable is his diary? is it even his diary?

Do you guys have an answer, or not?

 

[Split Rock]

Do you guys have an answer, or not?

Which one gives a better understanding of the building he built.... blueprints, or a diary?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

if God exists then the only thing we can be sure of that he created was the universe. The universe wasnt dictated to anyone it went through no editing and no typos. It didnt pass through a human hand before being revealed to us, it wasnt translated from three dead languages and it wasnt filtered through the scientific ignorance and cultural prejudices of my ancient ancestors. If you believe the bible over nature then you are putting the words of men ahead of the work of God.

Public service announcement: the internets will not be available for the next week, since CACTUSJACK has just won them all.



And no, I'm not really adding anything useful to the discussion. But, in my defense, I'm still contributing more than consol and AV combined.

Interesting --- here's a quote from Adam Clarke, saying basically the same thing --- and just as wrong

... followed by something that doesn't say what CACTUSJACK said. Yeah, thanks for that insight, AV. Plus, just saying that something is wrong without explaining why isn't really particularly useful in a debate/discussion. (IOW, F.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

---Which model, the Bohr Model, the Cubic Model, the Plum-pudding Model, the Saturnian Model, the Rutherford Model, the Dalton Model, or the Shell Model?

That's sweet, AV. It's almost like you understand what is implied by any of these models. It almost makes it sound like you technically care about any of the models.

Funny, but in pointing out the history of the establishment of what we understand about the atom, you do a greater disservice to your own point.

Let's talk about the models of the atom, as we look at the data we are often limited by what we know. Before Thompson's experiments firing alpha particles at gold foil, we didn't really know much about the structure of the atom. But that wouldn't have been possible until we had discovered radioactivity. Further we couldn't have gone beyond the Bohr model until people started to understand the wave mechanics of the electron.

The key difference between your faith and the science of the atom is that we get new information which brings us closer to a refined and more accurate model of the atom with each iteration. YOU are stuck with whatever the latest minister thinks for you. The Bible provides only one set of data and it is obsessed over and looked at from numerous different sides, until there's nothing new to see. There's just more "ad hoc" guesses and fun "what-if" scenarios.

The best thing about atoms vs faith is that we can use the ever-improving models of atoms to get closer to workable truths. All you have is new theologies popping up all over the place but never any proof that one is better than another.

We know, from actual data that the plum pudding model is infinitely inferior to the Bohr model, which, is itself, inferior to the modern quantum model. The modern quantum model of the atom explains much more about bonding, energy distribution, and how atoms act. But the Bohr model did that better than the plum pudding model.

But more importantly still, this is something you may never have had experience with, but when you have one tiny block of data, you are more likely to find random chance correlations that have no technical meaning if you overanalyze it.

It's like swimming in a tiny pool. You run out of actual information pretty quickly but you are left with an obsessive overanalysis and meta-analyses until it is just a stagnant pool with more guesses than actual data.

If you guys could get new information about your God, you know, using new techniques or using new sources of improving quality, then maybe you could do as good as science does.

But do, in the meantime, have a go at new models in science...especially since you so vehemently like to point out your sect isn't saddled with any baggage from the older Christian churches that came before and is, itself, new. Or would you like to revisit the debates about the Crusades and Pogroms and how many were promulgated by the Christian churches?

Remember, the same people who murdered and killed thinking they were doing it for God did it with the exact same set of books you use today to say they were wrong in doing so.

What new information did you get that they were denied?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Which gives you more understanding of an architect: the blueprints of a building he built, or his diary?

You meant "the blueprints of a building he built or an anonymous diary of questionable origin referring about the architect in third person".

if the diary describes a summer home and the blueprints are of a skyscraper that you can visit, how reliable is his diary? is it even his diary?

Do you guys have an answer, or not?

we did, quite directly. it's not our problem that u didnt like the answer.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Before Thompson's experiments firing alpha particles at gold foil

You mean Rutherford?