What is Science?

[katerinah1947]

Does not matter, a Phd is a Phd and if you do not have one then you are not qualified. The door swings both ways and this applies to science and theology. if they want to quote from an infidel web site and count that as authority then they have to accept the creationist web sites as absolute authority. Otherwise it is a double standard.

I am smart enough to know that Dr Dino does not know what he is talking about when it comes to science. They do not seem to know that infidel dot com does not know what they are talking about when it comes to religion. As Peter says: ignorant and unstable people distort, ...Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2pet3:16)

The infidels, scoffers, apostate or whatever you call them will distort the scriptures then when you explain to them the true meaning they will accuse the Bible scholar of doing the twisting and distorting. They never seem to get tired of going around and around that same may berry bush. No one is forcing anyone to believe in anything. It is logical for a person to be agnostic, lazy but logical. It is logical for people to not accept what science can not verify. What I am referring to are the people that go beyond logic and even make a mockery of science in their attack on God and the written word of God. They almost verify that there must be a God simply because of their venomous attack on the God of the Bible.

Again I am not saying anything at all about their attack on God or on the Bible. I am only talking about their abuse and misuse of science. The very thing that they claim to support but it is just a tool they misuse to reach their real objective. Real men of science should take a stand to support science. If science shows the Bible is accurate and true then they have to let the chips fall where they may because that is what science is all about. You have to go where science takes you. Even if you had no idea that science was going to take you where it does. I had no idea that Noah's flood was NOT a world wide flood. That is where science takes us and so that is where we need to go. If you want to accept science and the Bible.

Hi,

Some of the best researchers although rare, are technicallly autodidactic. They are self learners, but. But, with those self learners like Ramanujan, there is always a problem with some of their work, although the problems are so slight as to be understandable and never an issue with the person or his/her work in general.

Other than that, I have nothing to say, about your rather extraordinarily good work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Unfortunately God did not leave us a complete compendium on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or whatever succeeds them. Presumably he did not think that it was necessary for our spiritual welfare to do that, but he is still quite happy for us to do it for ourselves.

Hi,

Yes. Yes. Oh by the way, Yes. Consider the Genesis 1:28 Scriptural Passage. If you do, and know that a Blessing By God is also a Command you can actually see your statement, in that form.

It is your statement of, He is still quite happy for us to do it for ourselves, that I am talking about. Subding the earth requires science, not that that is possilbly the only place that Command is given to us in That Book.

Subduing the earth, A Blessing by God to all mankind, is the Command to do Science by all mankind, as it equivalent to your statement of:

Unfortunately God did not leave us a complete compendium on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or whatever succeeds them. Presumably he did not think that it was necessary for our spiritual welfare to do that, but he is still quite happy for us to do it for ourselves.

Just an FYI, that you in fact may already know.

LOVE,

 

[AV1611VET]

and keep that bible close because it's all you have.

It's all I need.

I don't need Strong's this, and an interlinear that, and Masoretic this, and Textus that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's all I need.

I don't need Strong's this, and an interlinear that, and Masoretic this, and Textus that.

Is there a dictionary or concordance that you do use? Vines, Smith or something like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there a dictionary or concordance that you do use? Vines, Smith or something like that?

No ... nothing.

I don't use a concordance to interpret the newspaper.

I don't use a concordance to interpret the phone book.

I don't use a concordance to interpret a menu at McDonald's.

I'm certainly not going to use a concordance to interpret the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,

Some of the best researchers although rare, are technicallly autodidactic. They are self learners, but. But, with those self learners like Ramanujan, there is always a problem with some of their work, although the problems are so slight as to be understandable and never an issue with the person or his/her work in general.

Other than that, I have nothing to say, about your rather extraordinarily good work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

LOVE,

The Bible tells us that we do not need people to teach us the word of God. The Holy Spirit of God can guide us and lead us into the truth. When it comes to Science the skeptics and scoffers tell me to look at this and look at that. So I look and I just do not see what their objection is. All their attempts fail and yet they keep on trying.

Perhaps good comes out of the debate because I have studied a lot of science that I otherwise would not have studied. But most people I know tend to avoid controversy and it could be they get less involved in science then they would if there were more unity and less arguments, contentions and divisions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm certainly not going to use a concordance to interpret the Bible.

The concordance does not interpret the Bible. The concordance tells you all the Bible verses that uses that word or words. So for example you can look up: "God's Love" and read all the different verses in the Bible that talks about God and the Love that He has for us.

You can take the first word in the Bible: "Beginning" then you can look to see the other verses in the Bible that uses that word. So we see the word "beginning" is sometimes translated "firstfruits". From one perspective the seed is in the fruit, so that is the beginning of a new fruit tree. Yet the fruit is produced when the tree is mature. Are we a Christian before we produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in us or do we become a Christian when we begin to produce the fruit of the Spirit.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law".

Gen 1:1

In the beginning H7225 God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 10:10

And the beginning H7225 of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Gen 49:3

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning H7225 of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Exo 23:19

The first H7225 of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Exo 34:26

 

[StanMann]

The Bible tells us that we do not need people to teach us the word of God. The Holy Spirit of God can guide us and lead us into the truth. When it comes to Science the skeptics and scoffers tell me to look at this and look at that. So I look and I just do not see what their objection is. All their attempts fail and yet they keep on trying.

That's because you have blind faith, you would believe anything just as long as it had Gods name on it, good luck with that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's because you have blind faith, you would believe anything just as long as it had Gods name on it, good luck with that.

My faith is not blind at all. I have spent years to verify what I believe is true. As I have repeatedly said. AT one time I believed that Adam and Eve were the first people. I believed the earth was 6,000 years old. One day a Christian Geologist convinced me that I should look into that and so I did some research. I found out the earth is much older then 6,000 years. That Adam and Eve were real people that lived 6,000 years ago, but there were people from Africa that they descended from. I found out that Noah's flood could not have been a real world flood. So I went to the Bible to see what the Bible said about the flood. NOT the translation but the original Hebrew. I did not find any substantial conflict between the Bible and Science. Now knowledge and new information from Science helps us to better understand the Bible and God's message for us today. I did some research and found out the Bishops Usshers book is a wonderful history book and there is not conflict between that and modern science. Even though he may have believed Adam and Eve were the first people, his book says nothing about what took place before Adam and Eve.

There are people here doing everything they can to shake me. Yet they have failed. In a way that is what makes for good science. You test everything to see if it can be shaken or if it is going to stand. I can assure you the Bible will continue to stand as it has for 3500 years now. The skeptics, scoffer, infidels and even the revisionists are helping us to show the Bible is accurate and true because they have failed to show the Bible is NOT accurate and true. They have tested the Word of God and the Word of God has survived their test. The Bible continues to stand the test of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The concordance does not interpret the Bible.

What it does, is it gives about four different definitions for a particular word; or it will give about for verses where that word is translated as another word; and that makes the user begin to doubt the qualifications of the King James translators.

The concordance tells you all the Bible verses that uses that word or words.

Yes, I'm familiar with how the concordance works.

I used one for years after I got saved, until I started reading the works of Peter S Ruckman & Gail A Riplinger.

So for example you can look up: "God's Love" and read all the different verses in the Bible that talks about God and the Love that He has for us.

No, you can't.

You can look up individual words, but that's all.

Unless you are referring to a topical concordance.

Then that's a different story.

You can take the first word in the Bible: "Beginning" then you can look to see the other verses in the Bible that uses that word. So we see the word "beginning" is sometimes translated "firstfruits". From one perspective the seed is in the fruit, so that is the beginning of a new fruit tree. Yet the fruit is produced when the tree is mature. Are we a Christian before we produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in us or do we become a Christian when we begin to produce the fruit of the Spirit.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law".

That's nice and all, but try that now with "badgers'" in Exodus 25:5, and you'll see that it says, "Probably a species of antelope."

Gimme a break!

There's a big difference between a badger and an antelope.

 

[justlookinla]

What it does, is it gives about four different definitions for a particular word; or it will give about for verses where that word is translated as another word; and that makes the user begin to doubt the qualifications of the King James translators.Yes, I'm familiar with how the concordance works.

I used one for years after I got saved, until I started reading the works of Peter S Ruckman & Gail A Riplinger.No, you can't.

You can look up individual words, but that's all.

Unless you are referring to a topical concordance.

Then that's a different story.That's nice and all, but try that now with "badgers'" in Exodus 25:5, and you'll see that it says, "Probably a species of antelope."

Gimme a break!

There's a big difference between a badger and an antelope.

What underlying, non-English, text do you believe the KJV interpreters used?

 

[AV1611VET]

What underlying, non-English, text do you believe the KJV interpreters used?

I believe they used those pieces of junk called the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus.

BUT ... only as reference tools.

 

[justlookinla]

I believe they used those pieces of junk called the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus.

BUT ... only as reference tools.

The Hebrew word "Tor tor" is allegedly used several times in the Old Testament. Sometimes it's interpreted as 'turtledove', other times it's interpreted as 'turtle'.

In the following scripture, do you view it as speaking of the 'voice' of turtle or turtledove?

Son 2:12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

 

[joshua 1 9]

You can look up individual words, but that's all.

I mostly use google now. There are different referance books that show up on a google search.

 

[StanMann]

My faith is not blind at all. I have spent years to verify what I believe is true. As I have repeatedly said. AT one time I believed that Adam and Eve were the first people. I believed the earth was 6,000 years old. One day a Christian Geologist convinced me that I should look into that and so I did some research. I found out the earth is much older then 6,000 years. That Adam and Eve were real people that lived 6,000 years ago, but there were people from Africa that they descended from. I found out that Noah's flood could not have been a real world flood. So I went to the Bible to see what the Bible said about the flood. NOT the translation but the original Hebrew. I did not find any substantial conflict between the Bible and Science. Now knowledge and new information from Science helps us to better understand the Bible and God's message for us today. I did some research and found out the Bishops Usshers book is a wonderful history book and there is not conflict between that and modern science. Even though he may have believed Adam and Eve were the first people, his book says nothing about what took place before Adam and Eve.

There are people here doing everything they can to shake me. Yet they have failed. In a way that is what makes for good science. You test everything to see if it can be shaken or if it is going to stand. I can assure you the Bible will continue to stand as it has for 3500 years now. The skeptics, scoffer, infidels and even the revisionists are helping us to show the Bible is accurate and true because they have failed to show the Bible is NOT accurate and true. They have tested the Word of God and the Word of God has survived their test. The Bible continues to stand the test of time.

Sadly it doesn't, apart from a few place names the bible is just another book as far as history is concerned, but please don't let that bother you, if you want to think it's a complete history record then you keep thinking that, all we can hope for is the only one to get hurt will be you but I doubt it very much.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sadly it doesn't, apart from a few place names the bible is just another book as far as history is concerned, but please don't let that bother you, if you want to think it's a complete history record then you keep thinking that, all we can hope for is the only one to get hurt will be you but I doubt it very much.

Archeology and science has done an amazing job in the last 100 years coming up with rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible and there is NOTHING you can say or do that will change any of that. In fact your request for evidence substantiates the fact that it is now well know that an amazing amount of scientific evidence now exists and your efforts to pic at that with your tiny little tooth pick is doomed to failure. Swing and a miss, strike two, you have one more chance at bat.

 

[StanMann]

Archeology and science has done an amazing job in the last 100 years coming up with rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible and there is NOTHING you can say or do that will change any of that. In fact your request for evidence substantiates the fact that it is now well know that an amazing amount of scientific evidence now exists and your efforts to pic at that with your tiny little tooth pick is doomed to failure. Swing and a miss, strike two, you have one more chance at bat.

There is so much evidence showing that everything in the bible is true I am surprised there are still any other religions in existence, all the other religions must be blind, why don't you tell them where they can find the evidence that has been found in the last 100 years that shows the rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible? they can then drop their religions and turn to being Christians, I would tell them but I seem to have mislaid it all, could you help me out with finding the evidence again? please.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is so much evidence showing that everything in the bible is true I am surprised there are still any other religions in existence, all the other religions must be blind, why don't you tell them where they can find the evidence that has been found in the last 100 years that shows the rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible? they can then drop their religions and turn to being Christians, I would tell them but I seem to have mislaid it all, could you help me out with finding the evidence again? please.

As you know religion itself is not what saves us. It is Jesus that saves us. I do tell as many people as I can, as often as I can that Jesus is the only way to salvation. That is what I am doing right now. Taking a stand for the truth. People from all religions can be saved because it is Jesus that saves them, not their religion. There are seven christian churches and seven Spirits in the seven churches. They give a witness and a testimony for God. Salvation is not by works though. It is through Faith that we are saved, not of ourselves so that we can not boast. It is a gift of God, one we can do nothing to earn or deserve. We can only freely accept what has been freely given.

Again it is not the Church or Religion that saves people. Jesus is the only way to be saved no matter what Religion you are or what Church you attend. Of course during the tribulation it will be a different story, but this is still the time of Grace. Now is the time and today is the day of salvation. Soon the day will end and God's gift will no longer be available. So now is the time to decide if you want to accept and receive what Jesus purchased for us at Calvary.

 

[lucaspa]

Most scientists would say that "science is a way of knowing".

As a scientist, and one that teaches philosophy of science to graduate students, I would disagree with "most scientists". Science is the study of the physical universe.

People have tried to tie science to a "method" -- "a way of knowing" -- but that has failed. The reason is that science has many methods, and that other disciplines use the same hypothetico-deductive method ("scientific method") as science. Two famous examples of this can be found in religion:

1. Trinity. Trinity is not explicitly stated in genuine scripture. (The one passage turns out to be a marginal note on early manuscripts that a later copyist inserted into the text.) However, going back to Tertullian, Origen, etc., you find that they started on the way to Trinity by asking the question: What does Christ have to be in order for me to be saved? They tried several hypotheses as an answer to the question. The hypothesis that survived was Trinity. They made deductions from the hypothesis Christ is God and then tested those deductions vs scripture (and there are passages that say this), against monotheism (which they considered a "law" of theology), and against their own personal experiences of salvation.

2. Documentary Hypothesis. This is a hypothesis on the authorship of the Pentateuch. The original hypothesis was that Moses wrote all of the text. However, the Documentary Hypothesis was that there was more than 1 author. They tested the hypothesis against the original Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. In its current form, the DH has 3 authors and an editor.

So, science is not a "way of knowing". Science is the study of the physical universe. The essentials of the "scientific method" are as follows:
"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they really are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Because of those 2 limitations, science is a limited form of knowledge. Within its limitations, science is very reliable. So reliable that there is constant temptation to extend science beyond its limitations. In particular, there is temptation to use science is the atheism vs theism debate and declare that science either 1) "proves" God does not exist or 2) science "proves" God exists. Science does neither. Science (as opposed to individual scientists) is agnostic.

 

[lucaspa]

Archeology and science has done an amazing job in the last 100 years coming up with rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible and there is NOTHING you can say or do that will change any of that. In fact your request for evidence substantiates the fact that it is now well know that an amazing amount of scientific evidence now exists and your efforts to pic at that with your tiny little tooth pick is doomed to failure. Swing and a miss, strike two, you have one more chance at bat.

Joshua, archaeology has been able to confirm some of the historical claims in the Bible. An example would be the inscription of David's name, thus indicating that David really existed. Another example would be evidence that a very severe local flood wiped out a civilization in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But this is very different from evidence for the theological claims of the Bible.

Let me take this out of Christianity. Over the past 100 years, archaeology has confirmed many of the historical claims of the Iliad: the existence of Troy, of the Greek city states mentioned in the Iliad, many of the Greek men mentioned (such as Agamemnon), that there was a war at Troy, and that Troy was destroyed by conquest.

The kicker, however, is whether, in your mind, all this is enough to show the Greek gods existed. Does all that archaeological evidence tell us that Athena, Apollo, Poseidon, and all the other Greek gods existed? Since you are Christian, I'm pretty sure your answer is "no". The exact same situation applies to archaeology and the Bible.