The Best Tool

[DaneaFL]

Ok, the "serpent" "said". The word: "said" is used often in Gen Ch 1 when "God said" things like "let there be light".

Science has nothing to say one way or the other about that. Clearly the Bible does says: "the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die". Also we read "the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

I really do not know of anyone that understands what is going on here. According to Matthew Henry: "1. It is certain it was the devil that beguiled Eve. The devil and Satan is the old serpent (Rev. xii. 9)". So clearly we are told in the book of Rev who the serpent was. Do we want to spend our time trying to figure out the serpent when we got so many other things going on here?

Then you go to the flood and that is exactly what happens. People think they have it all figured out and science comes along and tells them they got it wrong and you have to go back to the drawing board and do it all over again. When it comes to Noah and his flood science helps us a lot to figure out what is going on. In fact science goes a long way to help us understand Eve. Because science tells us that clearly there were people around before 6,000 years ago, before the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden in the Euphrates river valley. Which is still a very rich farm land today. Why? Because of all the floods they have had there.

When you are talking about Science or the Bible there is a lot that we just do not understand or we just have not figured it out. Does it make Science any less true because there are things we do not understand or can not explain? I could read and study the Bible for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week for my whole life and I would just be starting to understand when my life was finished.

Well you are definitely right that science can't say anything about that... and since science is the only way for us to tell if something is true or not, then those bible stories have no basis in reality.

unless you can think of something that has a visible impact on the universe but isn't observable or testable. There is nothing... anything that affects us in some way whether it be god, prayer, or dark matter, should always observable and testable.

You seem like a rational person since you are willing to reinterpret your beliefs based on new evidence; but I don't know why you would start with the bible and then try to make the evidence fit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with nothing and let the evidence take you where it will?

It's the total opposite of how science works. you don't start with a presupposition like "the bible is true" and then look for evidence to support it, you look at the evidence first and draw conclusions from it.

If the evidence leads you to talking snakes, global floods, zombies, unicorns, leviathans, behemoths, giants, magic mud, spirits, demons, angels, and god, then so be it! But the time to believe in something is when you have the evidence for it, not before.

 

[Radagast]

so you are saying that science can't prove math?

Exactly: it can't.

Science uses experiments to prove empirical statements about the physical universe.

Mathematics uses proofs to prove necessary statements about mathematical objects. These are statements that would be true even in a different universe. The ancient Greeks were extremely good at this, even though they were relatively poor at science.

Two very different methods. We don't use experiments to decide if Fermat's Last Theorem is true -- we try to prove it. And we don't use proofs to decide what the speed of light is -- instead, we measure it.

Mathematics is not part of science. Instead, science uses mathematics. Which makes mathematicians even cooler than scientists.

Of course, I may be biased. I am a mathematician.

 

[DaneaFL]

And until I can prove it -- you'll deem it 'crazy' -- right?

Is everything that's pending-proof 'crazy' to you?

If so, then everything must be 'crazy' to you, because even an Internet scientist will admit that science doesn't 'prove' anything.

if you want to play word games then i'll change my word "prove" into "reasonably assume"

of course you can't absolutely PROVE anything unless it's in math. I think you know what I mean when i say "prove" and you are just playing word games to avoid the real issue.

So yes, if you can't "reasonably assume" it, then it's 100% crazy. definitely.

 

[DaneaFL]

Exactly: it can't.

Science uses experiments to prove empirical statements about the physical universe.

Mathematics uses proofs to prove necessary statements about mathematical objects. These are statements that would be true even in a different universe. The ancient Greeks were extremely good at this, even though they were relatively poor at science.

Two very different methods. We don't use experiments to decide if Fermat's Last Theorem is true -- we try to prove it. And we don't use proofs to decide what the speed of light is -- instead, we measure it.

Mathematics is not part of science. Instead, science uses mathematics. Which makes mathematicians even cooler than scientists.

i think the word "science" today has become synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’. This isn't a full definition.

Wikipedia defines science as " a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

...and when you define math "(from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning)" they appear to be the same thing.

I don't really care how you define math and science but I see where the whole "math is a non-physical concept" is going! Theists are going to say "God is like math, both are non-physical concepts that exist."

I say, fine. Prove god like you can prove math and I'll believe you.

 

[Jazer]

Well you are definitely right that science can't say anything about that... and since science is the only way for us to tell if something is true or not, then those bible stories have no basis in reality.

You JUST contradicted yourself. Science can not tell us that there is no basis in reality. Science can not tell us one way or the other. Science is neutral on the subject. It is what you call an unknown. Because we just do not have enough information to go by.

You seem like a rational person since you are willing to reinterpret your beliefs based on new evidence; but I don't know why you would start with the bible and then try to make the evidence fit.

That is why science in some cases can not say the Bible is true. But science can say it is possible and it could have happened that way. We do not know if the common ancestor for the Hebrew people were named Adam and Eve or if they even lived at the same time. But they could have lived at the same time and they could have lived 6,000 years ago. So science can verify that the Adam and Eve and all the other people we read about in our Bible COULD be real historical people.

Either way yes there are lots of things that Christians accept on faith that you can neither prove nor disprove. There is no scientific evidence to verify all of what we read in the Bible. But perhaps the weakness is with science. Perhaps Science is just to limited in what Science can do or accomplish.

 

[Jazer]

If the evidence leads you to talking snakes, global floods, zombies, unicorns, leviathans, behemoths, giants, magic mud, spirits, demons, angels, and god, then so be it! But the time to believe in something is when you have the evidence for it, not before.

There are lots of things we do not understand.
I am busy with what we do understand and
what science does help us to explain.

 

[Radagast]

i think the word "science" today has become synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’. This isn't a full definition.

Wikipedia defines science as " a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Well, I would discourage you from building an argument on Wikipedia. And my point, as I think you understand, is that mathematical objects are outside the physical universe. I'm with people like Roger Penrose there.

...and when you define math "(from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning)" they appear to be the same thing.

Yes, I do know Greek, actually. From the same word, the disciples of Jesus were called μαθηταὶ. And if you are going to say science is "learning," then you have to wander over to the other side of the campus and bring the historians in. They have another set of methods all of their own.

Prove god like you can prove math and I'll believe you.

I wasn't going to. It's been tried before, by another mathematician, but I don't think much of that attempt.

 

[DaneaFL]

You JUST contradicted yourself. Science can not tell us that there is no basis in reality. Science can not tell us one way or the other. Science is neutral on the subject. It is what you call an unknown. Because we just do not have enough information to go by.

My point is that if science can't tell one way or the other, then that thing has no basis in reality. name one thing that DOES have a basis in reality but cant be explained by science. even dark matter can be indirectly observed.
If I could see god's invisible influence like I can see dark matter then god would be scientifically provable. If prayer had a noticable effect then prayer would be scientific. I'm not contradicting myself. If it's not scientific then it's not REAL. plain and simple.

That is why science in some cases can not say the Bible is true. But science can say it is possible and it could have happened that way. We do not know if the common ancestor for the Hebrew people were named Adam and Eve or if they even lived at the same time. But they could have lived at the same time and they could have lived 6,000 years ago. So science can verify that the Adam and Eve and all the other people we read about in our Bible COULD be real historical people.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't know why you would rather believe what is POSSIBLE rather than what is PROBABLE. A huge list of things are POSSIBLE but I doubt you believe even a fraction of them. what makes you believe some POSSIBLE things like bible stories but reject other POSSIBLE things like bigfoot, toothfairy, santa clause, and all the other religions of the world?

Either way yes there are lots of things that Christians accept on faith that you can neither prove nor disprove. There is no scientific evidence to verify all of what we read in the Bible. But perhaps the weakness is with science. Perhaps Science is just to limited in what Science can do or accomplish.

Faith is the problem. How can faith lead to knowledge? Faith allows you to believe in any number of contradicting things. Faith would have me believe in your god the same as Allah. Faith would make me believe in all the religions and all the crazy claims about monsters and UFOs.

Science is not weak... unless you can prove where science stops being predictive and where faith is more predictive. can you show me any time where faith is more predictive than science?

Faith isn't scientific and therefore not part of our reality. unless you can prove that your faith is preferable to science... like maybe prayer is better than medical treatments or something like that.

Well, I would discourage you from building an argument on Wikipedia. And my point, as I think you understand, is that mathematical objects are outside the physical universe. I'm with people like Roger Penrose there.

Ok, as long as you don't take "mathematical objects are outside the physical universe" as a segway into saying god exists somehow then fine. i don't care how you define anything. I just see a lot of logical proofs for god's existence that are internally consistent like math but have no basis in physical reality.

 

[Michael]

Well you are definitely right that science can't say anything about that... and since science is the only way for us to tell if something is true or not, then those bible stories have no basis in reality.

unless you can think of something that has a visible impact on the universe but isn't observable or testable. There is nothing... anything that affects us in some way whether it be god, prayer, or dark matter, should always observable and testable.

Sometimes only the "effect" is "observable". The mainstream theory about the universe offers no way to empirically "test" over 95 percent of their beliefs on Earth. Where do I get any "dark matter" to test in a lab? Dark energy? Inflation? This is what passes for "science" to this very day. We might observe rotation curve "mysteries", but there is no correlation between that mismatch between observation and theory and "exotic" types of matter. The "EFFECT" becomes "scientific/observable", but what about the CAUSE? Is acceleration really CAUSED by "dark energy" in any EMPIRICAL test on Earth? Is God really the CAUSE of the all "personal experiences" of humans on Earth throughout recorded human history? How do we empirically go about testing the CAUSE of something in an ORGANIZED manner, with REAL and EMPIRICAL control mechanisms here on Earth?

You seem like a rational person since you are willing to reinterpret your beliefs based on new evidence; but I don't know why you would start with the bible and then try to make the evidence fit.

The ultimate weakness of that argument lies in the fact that different 'Christians' interpret that book SUBJECTIVELY and uniquely. Catholics (the single largest 'sect' of "Christians") all embrace an ancient planet and the theory of evolution in their "interpretation' of that particular book. As a Christian, I value the Bible, but I don't "interpret" that book to support YEC in any way, shape or form. Other "Christians" seem to find interpreted (SUBJECTIVE) evidence in that one particular book, but fail then to look outside themselves (their subjective interpretation of that one book) and outside of that one single book itself. The universe is a LARGE place. There should be LOTS of physical evidence to choose from and to present OUTSIDE of any single book, and outside any subjective interpretation of any single book.

 

[AV1611VET]

and since science is the only way for us to tell if something is true or not, then those bible stories have no basis in reality.

You mean like Phlogiston being the source of heat, Pluto being our 9th planet, or Thalidomide being a prenatal wonder drug?

Where was scientific truth at just before the Challenger was pronounced, 'go for throttle-up'?

 

[Tiberius]

You mean like Phlogiston being the source of heat, Pluto being our 9th planet, or Thalidomide being a prenatal wonder drug?

Where was scientific truth at just before the Challenger was pronounced, 'go for throttle-up'?

Oh, and here we go again!!!

The scientific truth was that the people who gave it the go ahead were lacking information.

Another thing that makes me think you are a poe, AV. You keep using the same PRATTs over and over!

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh, and here we go again!!!

The scientific truth was that the people who gave it the go ahead were lacking information.

Another thing that makes me think you are a poe, AV. You keep using the same PRATTs over and over!

Dunning-Kruger, you think?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, and here we go again!!!

Yes, indeed -- here we go again.

The scientific truth was that the people who gave it the go ahead were lacking information.

Yes, it's obvious it was lacking.

Did you read my question?

Where was it?

If you asked where your car keys were, and were told you're lacking your keys -- is that a valid response?

Another thing that makes me think you are a poe, AV.

I honestly don't think you give things much thought, Tiberius.

You keep using the same PRATTs over and over!

Like 'scientific truth' and 'scientific proof'?

How about you correct her statements, before you correct my questions?

Then I might take your points with a little more than a grain of salt -- (but I doubt it).

 

[Tiberius]

I go along with Science. Adam and Eve were historial people that lived in the Garden of Eden in the middle East 6,000 years ago. Science more exact the science of DNA and population genetics clearly shows us that this could be true. After all evolution is a science based on common descent and common ancestors. Adam and Eve are common ancestors for the Muslim and Hebrew people today. Of course to define what is a Hebrew could be quite a task to do. Just like science clearly shows us that a world wide flood could NOT be true. Noah's flood would have HAD to be what we call today a local flood.

My goodness...

First of all, you say you go along with science, but then you say that you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, because it's based on some genetic evidence (which doesn't support what you are saying, and doesn't actually have anything to do with Adam and Eve apart from the choice of name), and then you even reduce this to saying it COULD be true?

This is you going along with science? Guesswork based on misinterpretations of real science?

No wonder you have things so wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, indeed -- here we go again.

Round and round the merry-go-round...

Yes, it's obvious it was lacking.
Did you read my question?

Where was it?

If you asked where your car keys were, and were told you're lacking your keys -- is that a valid response?

Maybe it was behind your sofa cushions, AV. You keep asking the silliest questions.

I honestly don't think you give things much thought, Tiberius.

Not when it comes to you, because most of what you say is silly anyway. Like you asking where information is, like it had been hiding somewhere.

Like 'scientific truth' and 'scientific proof'?

You never use that stuff...

How about you correct her statements, before you correct my questions?

You mean her statement that science is the only way to tell if something is true or not? No, I won't correct it because it doesn't need to be corrected. Science IS the only tool we have to determine whether something is true or not.

Then I might take your points with a little more than a grain of salt -- (but I doubt it).

You'll never do that unless I start agreeing with you, AV. You dismiss everything you disagree with on the basis that you disagree with it.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.

For the record though, what's the difference?

The difference between what and what?

Do try to be clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is science the best tool for finding out and learning about the universe? If you don't think it is, what do you think is the best tool? Can you explain how this alternative tool works?

Yes.

For the record though, what's the difference?

The difference between what and what?

Do try to be clear.

LOL -- thank you for practically admitting you weren't clear.

What is the difference between 'finding out about the universe' and 'learning about the universe'?

 

[Jazer]

No wonder you have things so wrong.

You are not even in the ball park. You have not put any time, effort, energy, work or study into this at all. So you are not qualified to tell me if I am right or wrong. Because you know nothing about what we are talking about. In fact NO ONE on this board has shown me that they have any knowledge at all in regards to the Adam and Eve we read about in our Bible. No one has even shown me that they know anything about the work science is doing in regards to the most recent common ancestor of the Hebrew people that we read about in our Bible. They are not aware of the work they have done on population genetics at Jerusalem University and around the world.

Do you know what founder effect is? If we have not found it then we are hot on it's trail when it comes to Adam and Eve IN THE BIBLE. Not the out of africa time magazine adam and eve.

"The most compelling genetic evidence of founder events in the
AJ population is the elevated frequency of at least 20 rare recessive
diseases attributed to genetic drift following bottlenecks"

http://genetics.emory.edu/labs/docs/labdocs/warren/Bray_2010.pdf

Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population Steven M. Bray, Jennifer G. Mulle, Anne F. Dodd, Ann E. Pulver, Stephen Wooding, and Stephen T. Warren
a,d,1 Departments of Human Genetics and Pediatrics and Biochemistry, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322; Department of Psychiatry andBehavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

My brother teaches at the John Hopkins School of Medicine. He completed his Pediatric Residency at the University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, and achieved Board Certification in Pediatrics in 1981. His training includes the completion of a competitive fellowship from Johns Hopkins Neurodevelopmental Pediatrics Program. He specializes in the care of the child with learning disabilities, attention disorder, mental retardation, and autism spectrum disorder. Dr. R recently received an MBA degree in Medical Services at Johns Hopkins University. He is an attending physician, part-time, at Kennedy Kreiger Institute at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

 

[Jazer]

I

 

[Jazer]

I understand what you are saying. I just don't know why you would rather believe what is POSSIBLE rather than what is PROBABLE. A huge list of things are POSSIBLE but I doubt you believe even a fraction of them. what makes you believe some POSSIBLE things like bible stories but reject other POSSIBLE things like bigfoot, toothfairy, santa clause, and all the other religions of the world?

I have studied bigfoot, the toothfairy, santa clause and so forth. I am sorry, if that is the best you can do then we really do not have a conversation here. You just do not know enough about what we are talking about. If you want to talk about myths then tell me: Was Helen of Troy a real person? Did her boyfriend and husband really fight a war over her? Did her boyfriend kidnap her or did she run off with him? Was Troy a real city? Was their really a Trojan war? How about the story of the Trojan horse. Was that a real story or something that someone made up?

Ancient stone with carving in Troy city, Turkey

Troy is a legendary city and center of the Trojan War, as described in the Epic Cycle, and especially in the Iliad, one of the two epic poems attributed to Homer. Trojan refers to the inhabitants and culture of Troy.

Today it is the name of an archaeological site, the traditional location of Homeric Troy, Turkish Truva, in Hisarlık in Anatolia, close to the seacoast in what is now Çanakkale province in northwest Turkey, southwest of the Dardanelles under Mount Ida.