• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

the origins of the bible

Discussion in 'Exploring Christianity' started by rainycity, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    There's only one theory of evolution. Intelligent design and creationism aren't scientific theories. They make no testable predictions, and they don't have sufficient evidence.

    Being presented with an abundance of evidence for an idea, and being unable to grasp what the evidence implies, means that you're either unable to link facts together to form a coherent framework, or you're simply denying what you're presented with. Gravity is a fact, if you jump into the air you'll come back to the ground again, that's a fact, if you can't see how facts point to reality, then I can't understand where you're coming from at all.

    That's not how it works. Somebody makes an observation, and develops hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they see. They test the hypothesis to see whether it explains the phenomenon. A good hypothesis allows you to make additional predictions, i.e. if evolution is true, we'd find progressively modified fossils in chronologically ordered strata (and that's EXACTLY what we find). The more predictions you verify, the stronger the hypothesis becomes.

    When there's no more doubt left that the hypothesis explains the phenomenon, it becomes a scientific theory. There's no faith required to accept the explanation, unless you have some serious issues with nihilism.
    Go and read the reams and reams and reams written about the creationist misuse of the term "scientific theory" - it's not the vernacular "theory" you're trying to mischaracterize it as.

    How much more proof do you need?

    Already dealt with.

    Who's contesting it? Certainly nobody with the scientific credentials qualified to do so, is contesting it. The only "contest" is coming from creationists who don't know the science anyway, but nobody cares what they think. Before something can be taught in a science classroom it undergoes a process of scrutiny, creationists want a free pass, because creationism would never pass the test, they want special consideration so what isn't science can be taught in a science classroom.

    What exactly do you want, you don't value facts and scientific theories, you think science is a religion and if it was a religion, it couldn't be taught in american schools. So you want students to stop learning about science? history? do you use facts to support your beliefs and claims? to establish the historicity of the gospels?
  2. Harry3142

    Harry3142 Regular Member

    Even though this thread seems to have gone offtrack, let me put my two-cents worth in.

    The theory of evolution, as it has been described in numerous documentaries, states that there was an Extinction Level Event 65 million years ago. This event wiped out those animals which endangered mammals to such an extent that the mammals could not progress up the evolutionary ladder. Since that time there has been a steady progression of mammals, culminating in man.

    The problem with this theory is that it states that the planet has never encountered an ELE since that time. This is not in accordance with scientific discoveries. This planet has had numerous ELE's since then, both from meteorites and from violent activity emanating from the planet itself. Here are a few examples that have already been established:

    1. A meteor hit Canada circa 38 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 17.36 miles.

    2. Meteor hit Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 53 miles.

    3. Meteor hit Canada 23 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 15 miles.

    4. Meteor hit Germany 15 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 15 miles.

    5. Meteor hit Tajikistan 10 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 32.25 miles.

    6. Meteor hit Ghana 1.5 million years ago. Diameter of crater is 6.5 miles.

    7. Magnetic poles completely reversed numerous times. The last time was 700,000 years ago. This caused a complete collapse of the electromagnetic field that surrounds the earth and protects it from UV and microwave radiation. Result; every living thing 'fried'.

    8. Supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park erupted 600,000 years ago. Worldwide temperatures in northern and southern hemispheres plunged by 50 degrees farhenheit, and plunged at the equator by 86 degrees farhenheit. This lasted for 3 to 5 years, with accumulations of snow on the earth's surface yearround.

    9. Mount Toba, a supervolcano in Indonesia, erupted 70,000 years ago. Again the temperatures plunged worldwide as in #8.

    These are a few of the events which have occurred in the timeperiod claimed by evolutionists as the time when mammals enjoyed an uninterrupted period so that they could evolve. When pressed for an explanation as to how any living thing could have survived, they have fallen back on a circular argument, namely, that some animals had to survive in order to evolve. If they admit the obvious, which is that all life has been wiped out on numerous occasions, then the theory of evolution collapses.
  3. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    Not according to the "National Academy of Sciences." They state that all theories lead to evolution, but there is much debate in the details. I posted a paragraph from the NAS explaining all of this earlier.

    Because there can only be one truth, and because there is a multitude of theories that means, something, someone believes, is wrong. It also means that because no one can definitively prove what they believe to be correct, thus ending the debate and proving everyone else wrong, it takes a measure of faith to simply believe what you think happened to be true.

    And so Goes Faith in a theory..

    the theory of gravity was constructed to explain an unknown force that can be experimented with, and constantly tested yielding the same results. Theories in evolution do not share these qualities. If they did, there wouldn't be any debate in the manor in which things evolved. How many theories of gravity are they? Because there are multiple, constantly changing theories about evolution one must excessive faith in order to believe, what they believe to be true.

    Where else can changing truths not require faith to be excepted?

    evidently not.

    I want you to see that no matter what you believe, it takes the same kind of faith to except and integrate your doctrine as it does ours.

    Albeit you have been trained to think it does not. You have been lulled to sleep by genuine working theories, and just swallow everything else you have been taught with the same title.. As evidenced by your reference to gravity.. to you they are the same and may not need a conscience act of faith, but again because there isn't any discernible reliable or conformable truth, there is indeed at least a sub conscience effort of faith being expended.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2009
  4. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    you should read it more closely

    There is only ONE theory of Evolution. There are many theories regarding certain SPECIFIC DETAILS that pertain to the theory, for example, the origin of organelles in eukaryote cells. There's the endosymbiont theory and the symbiogenesis theory (amongst others). These are separate theories within their own domain. Just because they pertain to evolution on a general level, doesn't mean they create multiple copies of the theory of evolution.
  5. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    My point is, the "facts" in your theory Change. Truth, real truth Does not.
    In order to believe a constantly changing fact as truth, it takes a measure of faith.

    This is the same type of faith Christians get blasted for using. Just because your system of belief has relabeled this type of faith as "Scientific Theory" doesn't mean the truth of your faith dries up.. It's still faith..
  6. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    Science and any assumptions made are made within the boundaries of reason and with what is permitted by the evidence at hand. That is not equivalent in any way to faith. Science is about reaching the best answer with the data available; the data available pretty much unanimously supports the fact of evolution. Any slight arguments that might exist in the scientific community are within very specific details that do not refute the fact of evolution, and you pretending they do is nothing short of intellectually dishonesty. It's tantamount to suggesting that because historians might not agree how many troops died in X battle (e.g. 10,000 or 11,000) then the battle didn't happen. That's inane.

    All the silly buzz words you can throw (e.g. "corporately owned", "Big Thinkers"...post #12 'Evolution' thread) aren't going to change the fact Science is the most rigorous, most tested, most productive, most self-correcting methodology known to man. Those "corporately owned" scientists not only pass on numerous opportunities to get rich by working in private non-Academic industries, but are peer-reviewed by "rival" scientists that would like be able to refute their scientific research. It's essentially survival of the fittest in the realm of experiments and idea, which is one of the many reasons why Science works so well.

    The theory of evolution is just as certain as the Laws of thermodynamics, Newton's second law, and Gravitation. How certain is that? Not absolutely necessarily 100% true, and may possibly have flaws. By your logic, all of these theories are superstition. If you care about truth at all, you'll properly consider the theory of evolution.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  7. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    In this statement and the rest of the fodder you have left you are proving my thoughts left in post number 12 in the evolution thread. That the religion of Science and History is nothing more than a religious sect devoted to a anti God existence, that has an equivalent or even greater demand for devotion to it's complete doctrine than a medieval church would have.

    Otherwise why can't my profession of faith (That I don't know what happened, or how God went about creation) be accepted? Why do I have to accept in full, your version of events? I have neither claimed that your theory to be true or false. I have only ever addressed the manner in which one comes to acceptance of any version of creation..

    I believe that in your faith, it is paramount to trust and defend the facts, and the whole scientific "process" even above and beyond the need to believe in truth in any form, that the process hasn't approved of. Otherwise why the need to pad your responses with so much "fact" just to avoid addressing a simple truth?

    Your Facts have changed, they change all of the time, and yet for you, somehow belief in ever changing facts doesn't equate to any type of faith...

    For instance the age of the earth.. In order for your theory to work the earth has to be X number of years old. Until someone some where finds something else that can not be brushed aside or ignored, and needs to be worked into the current theory. then the whole evolutionary model has to be changed and earths age has to be pushed back several hundred million years more. How old do leading scientists say the earth is now? What about 20 years ago? What did they say in the 50's?

    This to everyone outside your faith is a far greater detail than how many casualties one particular battle may yield. This is like someone teaching the battle of Pearl Harbor happened during WWI, then the civil war, then the revolutionary war. Whether the battle happened or not, is not the primary issue. the real issue is amount of faith one would need to continue to sit in that class.

    But evidently for you, no matter how far the Battle of Pearl Harbor gets pushed back or moved forward in time, it is somehow not a matter of faith, but a solid understanding in the evidence and the interpretation of that evidence by the current big thinker.
  8. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    Ok, I'm not exactly sure what ''a anti God existance" is, but you can believe in God, and you can 'believe' in science at the same time. Science and religion (or a belief in God or christianity or whatever), are not mutually exclusive. There are religious scientists, and lots of well known influential scientists of the past believed in God. To answer one of your rhetorical questions in another thread

    "If one wants to work with in that society or a related Field aren't they forced to publicly denounce a Christian system of belief in favor of the doctrines laid out by the scientific communities?"

    No. There are christian scientists and they don't have to publicly denounce their belief system. You could even be an evolutionary biologist and a creationist if you wanted, and your work will still be accepted if its sceintifically valid. You could write papers on evolutionary biology, and publicly announce that you're a creationist and you don't believe in evolution. Other sceintists would be baffled, amused, critical of your opinions, but that doesn't mean they'd be critical of your facts.

    And If creationists actually wrote scientifically valid papers on creationism or intelligent design and presented valid evidence and a theory, their work would be taken seriously by the scientific community. Ditto for an evolutionist writing a sceintifically valid paper on intelligent design.

    There is no demand for devotion. Not even a little bit. Scientists don't revere what scientists say, in fact, like you had pointed out already, there is debate regarding the details of many theories! "Science" isn't a system of beliefs, "science" is a method of discovering facts i.e. "truth", about anything at all. If you or anyone discovers facts about God, that's science. "Science" is just a word which is used to point to something, you're using it to point to something which doesn't exist; some sort of faith or religion, a dark ages church which is going to start burning christians at the stake soon. Usually when someone talks about "science" they're pointing to the scientific method, and or the body of knowledge acquired with the scientific method. "Science" is not an institution, not a person or a group of people, science is a discipline. It means literally knowledge, and can even be used to refer to methods or bodies of knowledge which aren't a part of the western discipline of science. A method for acquiring knowledge has been developed in the west which takes basic rationality we all recognise and use, and carries it into more complicated matters.

    How do you think the laws of physics were figured out? How about gravity? Take any random object, hold it out at shoulder hieght above the ground, and drop it.

    How do you want it to be accepted? Do you want it to be accepted as science? it can't be accepted as science because it's not science.

    you don't.

    I think you have claimed evolution is false, and that scientific theory in general is false.

    Science is not a faith, but other then that you're basically correct - scientists trust facts, because they're facts, any sane person does. And of course they're going to defend the facts. But then you say, ''above and beyond the need to believe in truth in any form''. How can we know truth apart from facts? Facts are truth, and they're discovered with the scientific method. If you don't agree with the scientifc method, then you don't agree that gravity exists. Scientists don't accept truth by revelation, you seem to be saying they should. Why should they?

    what "fact" are you reffering to here? the refutation of your basic argument? you've also said that facts aren't truth, so by putting fact in inverted commas implying its not really fact, you're now showing me that you do put stock in facts...so which is it? facts aren't really facts like you originally said, or facts do point to reality?

    and what exactly are these "facts" you're refering to which I've padded my responses with to avoid addressing a simple truth? what's the simple truth I've avoided addressing?

    Because scientists don't lay any belief in "ever changing facts". This is the point you don't seem to grasp: scientists don't believe in any set thing. There is no "belief", at least, not in the context in which you envision. Instead science is continually in search of the truth.

    Gravity is a fact that hasn't changed, along with all of the other facts that innumerable technologies and luxuries which you benefit from are established on.

    Faith is belief without evidence. These scientific theories and hypotheses are by definition not faith since they have evidence to support them. When there's debate among which explanation is correct, the debate is because different lines of evidence seem to support different explanations. That's a gap in our knowledge which we're trying to fill with experimentation, study, and evidence. That's not faith.

    But you know what? There is a kind of faith. You're kind of right about one thing: scientists have more faith in the scientific process then of the facts themselves, why? because it works.

    What, you don't know? you're challenging major scientific theory without even knowing what it says? 20 years ago, 50 years ago, no scientists were claiming the earth is too young for evolution.
    The Earth doesn't have to be X number of years old. There is no set amount. It should, however, be "old" (i.e. whatever that number is, and it can be many different numbers ) and not "young". In other words, it should be enough time for all the diversity we see here to take place. The current approximation for the age of Earth is plenty of time. If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all.

    That certain details change does not mean that the whole theory must change, which is what you keep failing to understand. Science is all about giving the best answer it can with the resources/evidence it has at the moment. That's a good thing. What do you want us to do? Give the worse answer we can? Or not give an answer at all even though there's ample evidence supporting one?

    You're mangling the analogy. It would be illogical to say Pearl Harbor occurred during the civil war because we know the civil war happened before Pearl Harbor. In the analogy it would be like claiming the formation of Earth happened before the formation of our Galaxy, which is utterly ridiculous and no scientist has ever done. You're purposely making it sound absurd.

    The analogy I offered worked fine: It's like saying that just because the detail of a battle turned out to be wrong, that no battle took place. It's ridiculous, which explains why you've resulted to mangling it instead of refuting it.
  9. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    So how many Christian scientists have made "factual" contributions to the current version of evolutionary theory? Can you name them?

    Which validates my original point. in that one would have to substitute deeply held religious belief in order to be taken seriously in realm of science and history. Because in the church of Science and History "faith" is based on facts (Facts are statements that can be proved true or false. Facts are not always true.)

    The Christian's faith is one based in just that, Faith. Simple belief in something beyond one's comprehension.

    You're saying all a Christian has to do to be come a legitimate scientist is to prove what he believes. And I'm telling you, to do so, would undermine that persons foundation of belief.

    The end result is the same no matter how you try and spin the facts. True Christianity has to be sacrificed in order for one to obtain real accreditation in your faith.

    If there is absolutely NO demand for devotion then what are you doing here? Why spend so much time trying to seek and save the lost? Why put forth the effort? Have you honestly looked at all the work you have put into this one thread? Why not just be wronged or take it on the chin when we speak against what you believe?

    I would like my profession of faith to be accepted at it's face value.. Do you know what it is I even believe?
    I said:
    Why do I have to accept in full, your version of events?
    Then why does this conversation continue? Why do you counter my statements with your own doctrinally correct statements?

    You are arguing what it is you think all of Christianity would argue. I have made points very clear and have carefully worded my responses to not attack the facts of evolution nor have I made any assertions that all or most of scientific theory to be false. If you can prove otherwise Cut and paste and i will either explain what you have misunderstood or retract my statements.

    This shows me you want to be involved in an argument that you are prepared for so badly that you are over looking what it is I am saying, or you are simply not able to comprehend what it is I am trying to communicate.

    In this instance I am trying to communicate that just because Science and History has labeled something a Fact does not make it true. Again a fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved, it has little to no bearing on "truth." Because fact are not necessarily synonymous with truth, it takes a measure of faith to believe your favorite facts to be true.. That's it, no more or no less.

    Truth can be found in facts, but that is not to say all facts are true. If this were the case not one innocent man would ever see the inside of a jail. All trials are based on the interpretation of facts and evidence (much like scientific theory) Even so, in the pursuit of truth facts are misinterpreted, falsified, or not completely known. If an innocent man gets a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, but the facts in the case do not support His innocents then does that mean in truth, the man is guilty? According to your faith it does. Because apparently Things (facts) are considered true until proved differently..

    ..and that is why your system of belief is in fact a faith.. Because blind belief in facts despite truth, is a simple belief in something beyond your immediate comprehension. Which is a definition of faith. I know science is marketed as an educated man's faith and therefore is not a faith at all, but a chain of logic based in what you perceive to be complete truth..

    But as you have attested it is not.

    Again, if science is a progressive enlighten search for the truth then why are you as it representative in this thread so bent in the conversion of all of our lost souls?
    Why not just let things be? why must you prove what it is you believe?

    Actually Einstein changed newton's original theory, and i believe Hawkins has improved on what Einstein stated. Or so says my recollection of a documentary I watched on the subject a few weeks ago. (Which featured Hawkins)

    And again as I said in the past people of your faith tend to take more solid theories and pair them with theories of solid interpretation to help lend legitimacy.. One has nothing to do with another, All theories stand alone.. Unless your saying the next time the age of the world is pushed back, Gravity will be turned off.

    your argument has completely missed the point, and this example is far too gone for me to try and salvage. I have restated my points in other paragraphs. And FYI I did not state the earth was too young for evolution. If you manage to research your favorite theory alittle more you will find that the age of the earth has for the most part been pushed back, but there are some takes on evolution that refute a really really old earth. So that would mean that some believe the earth to be younger than others.. Hence my original statement.

    Only History will be able to determine whether or nor there was/is ample evidence to form a proper theory. At the time there was ample evidence to prove the world was flat, but where are those people and their evidence now?
    I simply suggest that a "theory" be presented as a theory, and not a true fact.. what is wrong with that? Why must all who subscribe to your faith represent what little you know as all truth?

    Why, because it no longer paints the picture you wanted to see?

    Perhaps that was my intention. Maybe I wanted you to see that for those who sit in a class room that these "apparent" falsehoods were being taught, the student did not truly know the legitimacy of the facts being presented, and that because they (you) only had the word of those who teach these changing "facts." This places you in the reality not learning truth, Because truth does not change. but in fact you were exercising a measure of the same faith we use.

    The reason I did not originally "refute" your analogy is because analogies are like fine art or even a scientific theory. It is a purposely painted picture or theory that details a point that the artist is trying to make. Your picture paints of an argument that I am only involved in by proximity. It has little to nothing to do with the direction in which I am going. but in an attempt to include you in the direction i am going, I took your "theory" and added to it. I thought you might enjoy me participating in that aspect of your faith. Like evolution and Gravity i have taken your basic principle and made it read More "true" given my interpretation of the evidence available.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2009
  10. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    Francis S. Collins, leader of the human genome project, christian, and accepts evolution.

    ....no that's not what I said at all. If creationists with scientific training and credentials presented evidence for creationism it would be taken seriously. Do you have to substitute deeply held religious belief to present or acknowledge evidence for your beliefs? do you ignore historical evidence for jesus and biblical events because its against your religion?

    In order to believe in christianity, you need to actually believe that jesus existed. If you refuse to acknowledge historical evidence altogether, why believe in christianity over any other religion?

    No, actually, thats not what I said. Any christian can be a legitimate scientist without having to prove what they believe. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who are christians.

    It depends on what your definition of ''True Christianity™" is. I think it's pretty clear most christians don't share your definition.

    I'm here to learn more about the bible and christianity. Then you started saying some stuff about science in this thread which isn't true, and now we're arguing about it, we're the only two people posting in this thread now. So this thread kind of went off topic, but I'm ok with that. But you have a skewed idea of what science is, once again science is not a group of people, a person, or an institution, or a faith. It's a discipline and practice and a body of knowledge acquired through that discipline and practice. For scientists, there is no demand for devotion, it's just irrelevant to what they do. There's also no demand for common peoples' devotion. It doesn't matter if I have faith in particular scientific theories, or if anybody does. I am not a scientist.

    But it doesn't even matter if scientists have faith in particular theories, or a particular religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. Because faith has nothing to do with their work. You could go around surveying people and find out that a lot of people have faith that an unproven scientific theory is true. But that wouldn't matter because science is not a faith. What matters is the work that scientists do.

    You've contradicted yourself by claiming that science is a faith, and also claiming that scientific theories are always changing and being updated. If science really were a faith, then it's theories wouldn't change. But science is the search for the truth, and as such is capable of admitting when it is wrong (justifiable as it never claimed to be true beyond all doubt) and then looking for a more effective theory. Is it really faith when you acknowledge that something has a chance to be wrong? Scientists use theories and acknowledge their weaknesses as they go along, I don't call that faith, really, because the level of confidence is proportional to the evidence.

    Here's a diagram which will help you understand how science works as opposed to faith:


    yeh, I think I have a fairly good idea of what you believe but there are some things which I'm confused about.

    We're not talking about doctrine. You're making a bunch of statements about science which aren't true.

    Do you mean "you are arguing against"? in that case I don't think most christians share your sentiments at all, I think you're on the fringe.

    Ok, you do not know what a fact is. A "Fact" is an unconditional truth, a fact is something that cannot be disproven because it's already been proven as truth!

    hold on, I am not a representative of science, and do you think science acknowledges the existence of souls?

    I can't prove what I believe, but I'm not talking about my beliefs, I'm talking about facts.

    1. I didn't say "theory of gravity" I said "gravity". I'm referring to the fact of gravity and to the fact of evolution: both things we've observed and that are highly unlikely that will ever change. Things have gravitational attraction. Things evolve.

    2. There is no faith involved here. You can keep repeating yourself and it's not going to change the fact that we are not believing in things without evidence - but in things substantiated with evidence, experimentation, and reason, which is not faith. They are two very different things.

    What does that have to do with anything I said? At all? If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all. That's the important bit.
    If you're trying to make the point that some scientists postulate different theories to others - so what if they do?

    That you even begin to compare the "evidence to prove the world was flat" to the evidence that evolution is true is utterly laughable. There is no comparison. It's like comparing a molehill to a mountain.

    Not everything is presented as a fact, just the fundamentals which we have staggering amounts of evidence for - just like for the existence of gravity. We've observed things evolve with our very eyes, we've observed natural selection with our very eyes, we've observed genetic change with our very eyes. These are facts. No new theory is going to make that not true.

    "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

    --Stephen Jay Gould

    Why? Because it doesn't paint any rational view. You are making making it seem as if scientists were postulating that it might have occurred before it's even possible. You've taken a analogy that's supposed to relate to reality, and made it so that it doesn't at all! You haven't made it "more true" you made it absurd! No scientist claims the age of the Earth is older than the age of the Milky Way, or the age of the universe. So how is changing the analogy to say historians believe it pearl harbor occurred before the civil war make any sense? It doesn't.

    Again, scientists do not use faith in their work. Science has facts, and theories with evidence, Christians have belief without evidence. Not the same. You can keep repeating yourself but this is not going to change.

    Science is about giving us the best answer with the resources/evidence available at the time. It is already explained to students in the classroom that anything in the Science class - laws, theories, hypotheses, facts - could potentially change. That's a good thing., Self-correction, is a good thing. Correcting yourself when you see new evidence that contradicts your original positions isn't bad, it's good!
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2009
  11. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    My point here, and the one you refuse to acknowledge is "Science" is a faith built on "facts" But again not all facts are true. A fact is a statement that can be true or false. Fact, Lightening is a cloud to ground event. Or Fact lighting is ground to cloud event. Both statements contain 100% fact, that's not to say both are true. Both statements can either be proved or disproved.
    To believe one scientifically based fact over another does take a measure of faith.

    I did not say science is a religion because the theories do not change. I have simply stated the it takes a measure of "Faith" to believe what ever it is you believe. especially in the presents of multiple theories, because you know one of them if not both will be wrong.

    This is the crux of the issue, and because everything kinda hinges on this statement, and the fact that one of us must be running out of legitimate "scientific material" so his argument is turning to the mental stability of the other..

    I have decided to focus on simple "facts." (as crazy as that may sound to you)

    If you wish to continue I ask that you do the same.. If not, just continue with the personal attacks and you may have the last word.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  12. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    what personal attacks ? :scratch:

    that's not what a fact means at all. A fact is something established to be true. In Science, since it always allows the possibility of being wrong (which is a good thing), a fact is taken as Gould defined it:

    "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

    --Stephen Jay Gould



    something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
    5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.


    Before you jump on 4., only 1. - 3. define scientific facts.

    fact: tires are made of rubber
    fact: the ocean is full of salty water
    fact: wood comes from trees

    If either/or is might be true, and we haven't figured out what the correct answer is, then it isn't a fact yet, it's a theory.

    If they're both facts, then they cannot be changed. Only more facts can be added to them to explain those facts already in place.

    Your analogy doesn't even support what you're claiming. In a trial facts are presented yes, and if an innocent man is sent to prison, it's not the facts that are wrong, it's the conclusion we're making that was wrong. Two very different things.

    Juries have to make decisions with incomplete sets of knowledge. That they make an erroneous decision (i.e. it happens that they convict an innocent man) does not mean the knowledge they had was incorrect, it means that it's incompleteness might have given a different impression. If the crime scene investigators found - among other things - blood on the floor ( which would be a fact), and they jury reached a guilty verdict but it turned out he was innocent it doesn't magically mean there was no blood on the floor; the fact stays the same: there was blood on the floor. It just means they were missing other facts (like he had cut himself with a knife, or had an accident, etc.). The facts aren't changing, the conclusion is simply getting better as new facts/information comes to light.
  13. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    ...And that's my point. There is only one truth. If a person can misinterpret a fact then it is a matter of faith to believe your version of the known facts. (especially if the facts are constantly changing.)

    So does science.

    Again either way you are placing faith in the "fact" that you have enough evidence to convict.. Or in your case represent a theory as truth...

    Your definitions are all possible definitions of the word. albeit they all lean heavily toward the definitions of "true facts," rather than a fact in general.

    Lets look at the Etymology and usage of a "Fact"

    The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete. The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.
    Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact, and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
    Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").
    Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English
    Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").
    Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

    Which would make a Fact:
    a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

    I know we both can site source material and quote men smarter than the both of us put together to back our versions of what a Fact is. Even so, one "Fact" remains. No matter which version of the definition of Fact you believe, you are still excising a measure of faith if you hold your favorite version of Fact to be true. Just like you do with your favorite Scientific theories.
  14. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    Correct. So? Nobody denies that. The point, which you avoided completely, is that Science makes the decisions (or reaches the conclusions) with the best evidence available at the time, keeps striving to find more evidence in the future, and has a very robust methodology to guide this whole process. That is nothing close to what christianity does. They are not comparable.

    Which is not "faith" (belief in something without evidence") at all, since we can base that conclusion on evidence as well (e.g. the track-record for previous convictions) and since part of the methodology is to gather more and more evidence to support or refute our conviction! Both of these are completely lacking from superstition and your faith, which is something you keep avoiding. You are trying to equate Science to religion and superstition, and its just not true. They are not comparable. Even if you magically manage to show that Science has the teeniest, tiniest bit of faith involved, it would be like saying a baby is a strong as a bodybuilder, just because they both have muscles.

    Germ theory has mountains of evidence supporting its veracity, and thus believing that it represents the truth does not take faith (belief without evidence) but material empiricism (belief with evidence).

    they're not my definitions actually Fact Definition | Definition of Fact at Dictionary.com

    How does this contradict what I'm saying?

    What's your point? facts can be checked and confirmed, but they can't be disproven, otherwise they wouldn't be facts.

    It doesn't matter what my "favorite version of Fact" is. What matters is the definition of scientific facts, how a fact is defined in science. Facts don't change, theories change. If you think scientific facts can be disproven or changed you're going to have to demonstrate that. Gravity is a fact, and it will never change or be disproven.

    In a way, your argument has weakened to saying there's no way to prove things one way or another, since everything is based on faith. If this is what you think, then why you are so certain of your own beliefs is beyond me.

    Do you use evidence of any kind to come to your conclusions or is that against your beliefs?

    Once again, I'm arguing against your claim that scientists use faith in their work. It doesn't matter whether or not I have faith in certain scientific theories. Having faith in scientific theories contradicts what science is in the first place.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2009
  15. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    If you think I have denied or avoided this point you've misunderstood what been saying, or haven't been saying. "Science is a fact based Faith and Christianity is a Faith or trust based faith." I believe I said that back in the beginning of this mess.

    I see when dictionary.com doesn't suit your argument your not so ready to quote it. So allow me this time.
    faith (fāth) [​IMG]
    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.
    Faith is not always "blind" belief. As I have said a number of times before You exercise a measure of Faith when you believe your version of your Favorite theory. It is a confident belief in the trustworthiness of an Idea..

    Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").
    Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy").

    And with this statement your mind closes to anything that does not suit your version of Fact. You seem to need to Herold all Fact as truth. Again Fact can be true, but not all facts are.. I guess there is nothing more to say from here. If you don't want to see past your Faith in Facts then you never will.

    Evidently this is what you see my "faith" and argument to be. I have a deep and profound respect for science and some of it's products. But I also see agenda, profit, and greed as motivators behind alot of the "science" being pushed on us.

    Where we differ is I don't see "faith" an evil word or a foolish endeavor. In my life it is OK to have faith in something beyond my comprehension.. and evidently it is OK in yours as well. Because no matter how you slice it, you can not have a mastery over the whole of Science, and all the term would encompass. At some point you have to simple trust the science in avionics, or electronics or whatever it is you do not full comprehend.
  16. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    You've said that science or evolution is superstition


    So you are saying that science is on the same level as religious belief and superstition.


    when in fact there are not different versions of evolution.

    you've also claimed that scientific facts aren't truth:

    And you've confused theories with facts, claiming that facts can change.
    The theory of gravitation may have changed, but the fact of gravity cannot change because it is a FACT.

    '2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.'

    confident belief in facts like gravity and evolution is completely different to belief in something for which there is no evidence. You're just using the same word with two completely different meanings.

    If your point is that science trust things, then your point is quite simply insignificant. It's meaningless. Trivial. Unimportant.

    Trusting something is not something that atheists or scientists, or "evolutionists" have a problem with. "Trusting something without evidence" is what they have a problem with.

    If what you managed to show is just that Science trust things based on mountains of evidence, experimentation, and mathematical proofs, while your faith is trust in things without any evidence, then you haven't shown how they are the same, you've shown how staggeringly different they are.

    And this is a context which has nothing to do with science...in science, allegations or stipulations which may or may not be true are never considered fact.

    dude, it's not my version of fact, its science's version of fact. You're claiming that scientific facts can either be proven or disproven. In science, something isn't a fact until its been proven.

    Do you have any evidence for that? or is this one of those things you believe in without any evidence?

    neither do I.

    electronics and avionics are within my comprehension, and I don't need faith (belief without evidence) to know they're based in truth, since I use electronics everyday, and I know avoinics is being used all the time...you and I and everybody uses science everyday.

    I think I've made everything pretty clear; scientic facts cannot be disproven, they are only considered fact because they've been proven. In science, allegations or stipulations which may or may not be true are never considered facts. Scientific facts don't change, theories change but they are not the same as facts. Not everything in science is presented as a fact, just the fundamentals which we have staggering amounts of evidence for. Evolution and natural selection are both scientific facts. Faith is not used by scientists in formulating theories or any other part of their work. Scientists use theories and acknowledge their weaknesses as they go along, the level of confidence is proportional to the evidence.

    Science is the search for the truth, and as such is capable of admitting when it is wrong, and then looking for a more effective theory. Science is about giving us the best answer with the resources/evidence available at the time.
    Science makes the decisions (or reaches the conclusions) with the best evidence available at the time, keeps striving to find more evidence in the future, and has a very robust methodology to guide this whole process.

    I'm not sure if you'll actually read any of that and if you do you'll probably just see 'doctrine'. Not trusting and believing in scientific facts is willing ignorance. It's sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalalala.
    Maybe I was mistaken in thinking there is an argument to be had here.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  17. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    So what.. My "faith allows me to pick and choose what i wish to believe.. I don't have to sell my soul to an Idea or a process to have respect or reverence for it. I simply choose to keep the good stuff and ignore the foolishness. I'm not so locked into "God" that I can't use a computer. (your thinking of the Amish) But at the same time can you say the same thing about your religious beliefs? Can you doubt any part of science, or does your form of "enlightenment" require an unwavering faith in facts?

    According to the article i left on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread from the National Academy of Science there are different versions. It states that Changes in the theory are to be expected... these "changes" in fact make the old version different from the new version... It's like saying that the 19641/2 Mustang is the same as the 2010 Mustang... Other than the Name and the shared History the refinements over the years make the 2010 a completely different car... By your logic because they share a name and both are considered to be a car they must be the same..

    Why do you think are we revisiting this? why do think you have a need to refortify this position when it is evident that your beliefs are incorrect? (According to the NAS)

    You didn't seem to have issue lumping all facts into the truth category just a few posts ago.. Look at you rigorous defense of facts in my Innocent man being convinced by untrue facts, analogy.. What do you think happened between then and now?

    I can tell you what i saw, you were confronted with a truth that you could not spin or ignore, so you simply went to a point in your argument before you were completely committed to this line of reasoning, and then took it in a completely different direction.. you did this by trying to change the argument from "facts" to "Scientific fact."

    Which makes this whole exercise pointless, which is why all of my efforts here are coming to a close.. Truthfully all I'm trying to do here is simply show you the faith you, yourself use, in your belief of science. Which even if you can't admit it to me or yourself, you have acknowledged through your attempts to re define your position of "fact" to "scientific fact", and your re-fortification of the stability of your favorite ever changing theory. Even if the face of an official article to the contrary.

    I believe you know if you gave ground in either of these two points you would have to concede the idea of your usage of Faith in your beloved facts.. The fact that you are struggling or scrambling here shows me that you are well aware of the points I'm trying to make. So again I have completed what it is i set out to do. If nothing else you are aware of the argument.

    that said, all i have set out to do it complete. I'm not looking to be right in your eyes nor am i obligated to explain away every question or comment you have made.. So unless you have any other questions or comments as to "The origins of the bible" I am finished with this topic.
  18. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    1. There are multiple theories of gravity.

    Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There is a theory of gravity at the "macro" level, a theory of gravity at the quantum level, and multiple hypothesis at the fringes of both of those theories.

    2. The reason there is such an issue with evolution is that some religious fundamentalists don't like that it contradicts some of their religious beliefs, and thus have decided to take it upon themselves to fight evolution at every step, regardless of how utterly wrong they are. Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in all of Science.

    3. Evolution has plenty of facts that are tantamount to the existence of gravitational force: genetic change, natural selection, artificial selection, speciation, gene duplication, chromosome duplication... All of those are facts regarding evolution that scientists have observed with their very eyes and have experimented on just like gravitation.

    No. You're not even close.

    The fundamentals of The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (to use your analogy these would be comparable to major things in a car, like the chassis, the body, the engine, the transmission etc.) have stayed the same: genetic changes, natural selection, artificial selection, speciation, gene duplication, chromosome duplication. Those are the fundamentals of evolution and scientists have observed all of them with their very eyes.

    The changes that occur regarding evolution involve minor details. Separate theories from the Theory Of Evolution to do with minor details relevant to the process of evolution*

    They are not comparable to a 1964 mustang changing to a 2010 Mustang. They are comparable to taking that 1964 Mustang and adding some fluffy die on the rear-view mirror. Minor details. Moreover, whenever Science can nail down one of those aspects, the theory is updated and the previous one is discarded. It's not like the previous one keeps bouncing around in the ether. The old theory becomes the new and improved theory; still only one. And I'm talking about theories regarding phenomena relevant to the mechanisms and overall process of evolution, not the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection itself.

    *Please be aware, evolution is an overarching concept encompassing many theories in many different feilds of science. And there is the Theory Of Evolution itself; which is evolution via natural selection. Other theories of evolution, such as lamarckism, which argued offspring will inherit traits derived from the behaviour of parents (eg once upon a time giraffes had shorter necks, they started stretching their necks to reach food so their offspring were born with long necks) have been disproven and discarded for many years now. There are no scientists proposing lamarckism anymore.

    Also be aware that scientists proposing hypotheses' or unproven details of theories (hypotheses' and unproven details of theories are two different things) which are disparate with other hypotheses' or unproven details of theories do not do so out of belief or faith.

    so lets say some biologists observe some phenomena in a lab, which is evidence for a certain hypotheses (an explanation based on what's been observed). Some biologists at a different lab somewhere else in the world might observe something else, and they propose an explanation. That explanation/hypotheses might contradict the other biologists in the other lab's hypotheses, however these hypotheses' are only going on the evidence which is observed. They are not going to argue with the other scientists because they believe their own hypotheses, rather both groups will accept whichever hyopotheses is proven by the most evidence* (read: proven by scientific facts, no not all evidence is scientific facts, however a hypotheses can only be proven by scientific facts). And remember scientific theories (hypotheses' which have been proven) don't grow up into laws - scientific theories already contain laws.

    *even if for some reason one or other of the hypothetical groups believed their own hypotheses' and refused to accept the other hypotheses which has more evidence, the evidence for both hypotheses' would be peer reviewed and thus the hypothesis proven by scientific facts would be accepted by the scientific community at large.

    We're revisiting this because you are either ignoring and/or not reading much of what I'm saying, or you have poor reading comprehension (your interpretation of the NAS article also indicates poor reading comprehension):
    I've made it clear more then once that there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, scientific theories can be updated and certain details of scientific theories can change, however those details which can be changed are not scientific facts, and scientific theories themselves are not the same as scientific facts; scientific facts cannot change.
    Evolution and natural selection are scientific facts, and rather then saying I 'believe' in evolution and natural selection, I'd prefer to say I trust them as scientific facts, as any sane person trusts scientific facts. No faith is required.

    I defended scientific facts:

    if the carpet with blood on it was presented in the trial, with results of chemical testing proving its human blood, this meets the standard of a scientific fact. If this is used as evidence to find the defendant guilty of murder, when in fact he is innocent and the blood on the carpet was his own blood, then the conclusion that the defendant is guilty is wrong, but the scientific fact there was blood on the floor doesn't change. The prosecutors missed the fact that the defendant had an accident and it was his own blood. If forensics had tested the blood and found that it was the defendant's blood, they could have presented this scientific fact to the court, and the blood couldn't be used as evidence that the defendant is guilty. No conclusions can change any of these scientific facts, scientific facts cannot change under any circumstances.

    I did not defend allegations or stipulations, only scientific facts.

    I'll quote your very own words:
    Your argument has been about scientific facts from the very beginning. You're the one who's claiming that scientific facts are statements which can be true or untrue, proven or disproven. The only definition of fact that is relevant here is what is considered a fact in science, or scientific fact.
    I showed you the definitions of fact and the specific definitions that describe scientific fact. ie:

    "3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth."
    Fact Definition | Definition of Fact at Dictionary.com

    You are relying on semantic definitions of 'fact' relevant to colloquial contexts, but totally irrelevant to scientific context.

    As far as I know, in the USA and other democracies, a scientific fact (proven, cannot change, cannot be disproven), if presented in a court of law by prosecutors as evidence against a defendant, is treated as an allegation, which is formality, because it is being used to build a case against the defendant....however technically, the scientific fact on its own is not an allegation, the way it's being used/interpreted is the allegation. The scientific fact is, however, considered in a court of law to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's in a court of law though, not in a scientific context.

    In a scientific context, as a formality nothing is treated as absolute certainty, I'll give you that. However, in a science a scientific fact is 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' In other words, proven beyond any reasonable, sane doubt.
  19. rainycity

    rainycity Newbie

    I'm struggling and scrambling? You started out by arguing that science is nothing more then a faith and a religion, and that faith is used in the scientific method; that scientists use faith in formulating theories and discovering facts. Then you went to claiming people outside the scientific community have faith in scientific theory, which happens to have no effect on, or relevance to, the work of scientists and the sceintific method whatsoever. You ended up arguing semantics, quoting colloqial definitions of the word 'fact' which have nothing to do with what facts are in a scientific context, and arguing that there are no definitions to words other then whatever one has 'faith' is the definition :doh:

    Not to mention those "personal attacks" I never made.

    I'm aware of it and I've demonstrated that its wrong.

    You mean those comments refuting your arguments? Actually, you are obligated to take notice of my points if you're looking to make any sort of argument or point here, unless you're fine with being proven wrong.

    no offense, but I don't think you've accomplished much of anything here, you certainly haven't learnt anything. Why did I put so much effort into this argument? That's a good question actually, probably the only good question you've raised in this thread. Actually I sense some sort of personal attack coming in regards to the effort I've put into this and maybe a sarcastic jab at my mentioning accomplishment.

    It honestly looks as though you've either ignored many of the points I've made or not read them altogether. It looks like blind faith, willing ignorance or incomprehension is stopping any of this from ever getting through to you. You might not even read this post since you say you're done with this thread, but something gives me the impression you're working hard to get the last word in. The idea being that whomever has the last word, is right.
    If I'm right about that, I'll let you have the final word, one little stipulation though: anyone who might be reading all of this who's sane and has the capacity to comprehend what's being said knows you're wrong.

    I've made it abundantly clear what science is and isn't, what scientific theories are and how they are different from scientific facts, and what a scientific fact is and isn't. I've laid the truth bare in front of you, but since you already told me that you've chosen ignorance over the knowledge and truth science provides (and accepting this knowledge and truth does not require you to disbelieve in God and/or christianity at all) I probably shouldn't have bothered. I was hoping to educate you since you have some factually incorrect beliefs and claims about science. Otherwise, to educate anybody else who happens to be reading, but since this is meant to be a thread about the origins of the bible, anyone that's viewed this thread who's ignorant of all this information about science has probably not read any of our argument out of disinterest. Hell, this post might even get deleted by a mod, probably ironically for this very comment ^_^.
    With all that said, this has most likely been a massive waste of my time and effort.

    Maybe I've been trolled here, if that's the case, can I just say, tremendous job :thumbsup: