Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

verysincere · Dec 10, 2012

mzungu said:
I jest thee not for to claim that science and the Bible agree is tantamount to calling the Earth flat!

Since you made the claim then the onus is on you to prove it.

Science has not and does not deal with the unfalsifiable and the Bible is a book of spirituality and faith and thus unfalsifiable. Apples and oranges anyone?

So which is it?? Does the Bible get the science wrong OR is it not a science book at all? Pick a side and go with it before you tell me that I'm wrong. ALSO, basic logic is on my side: All I have to do is find ONE topic upon which the Bible and Science do not disagree and that will demonstrate the silly "Everywhere!" or "ALWAYS!" statement below [to which I reacted] false.

You are WAY over your head here. I'm retired from the classroom after spending a lifetime teaching sure-of-themselves undergrads (there's at least one in every intro course) who think they are going to teach the professor about the Bible while fulfilling their humanities requirement or picking up three elective credits. Go out and buy a clue, learning something about Biblical hermeneutics, and then perhaps we'll talk someday. I don't have time for dilettantes.

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

verysincere said:
Does the Bible get the science wrong OR is it not a science book at all?

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

good brother · Dec 10, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

Maybe, but expecting the Bible to be absolutely free of any and all scientific context is like expecting not to get burned when you touch a hot stove.

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

good brother said:
Maybe, but expecting the Bible to be absolutely free of any and all scientific context is like expecting not to get burned when you touch a hot stove.

I'll agree with that.

mzungu · Dec 10, 2012

verysincere said:
So which is it?? Does the Bible get the science wrong OR is it not a science book at all? Pick a side and go with it before you tell me that I'm wrong. ALSO, basic logic is on my side: All I have to do is find ONE topic upon which the Bible and Science do not disagree and that will demonstrate the silly "Everywhere!" or "ALWAYS!" statement below [to which I reacted] false.

You are WAY over your head here. I'm retired from the classroom after spending a lifetime teaching sure-of-themselves undergrads (there's at least one in every intro course) who think they are going to teach the professor about the Bible while fulfilling their humanities requirement or picking up three elective credits. Go out and buy a clue, learning something about Biblical hermeneutics, and then perhaps we'll talk someday. I don't have time for dilettantes.

The Bible is not a science textbook and it has nothing of scientific value. It is a spiritual guide and falls in the realm of the supernatural which is not a realm science indulges in. Over my head That is a bit arrogant don't you think!

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

mzungu said:
It is a spiritual guide and falls in the realm of the supernatural which is not a realm science indulges in.

Then why was I told they looked for a global flood at one time?

Why did science study ESP and telekinesis in the 70s?

Why does science propagandize against prayer?

mzungu · Dec 10, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Then why was I told they looked for a global flood at one time?

Creationists looking for biblical evidence of a global flood do not constitute as scientists.

Why did science study ESP and telekinesis in the 70s?

Both were given the benefit of the doubt until they were proven to be unfounded and discarded. None of the two have anything to do with religion. ESP had a theoretical basis due to the brain using electrical signals in order to function and all electrical circuits create radio signals and it was assumed that those radio signals could be perceived by some peoples brains. As for telekinesis it was totally debunked.

Why does science propagandize against prayer?

Science does not propagandise about anything. Science is a process of acquiring physical knowledge. People propagandise.

Mr Strawberry · Dec 10, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Why does science propagandize against prayer?

Does it really? I've never heard about that. Sounds like a news story I would have remembered.

I seem to remember the only bit of experimental research into the power of prayer that even vaguely showed anything resembling a positive result was one that showed a very slight negative correlation between praying for a sick person's health to get better and the sick person's subsequent chances of recovery. Maybe that's what you are referring to. Yes? No? Maybe?

good brother · Dec 10, 2012

mzungu said:
The Bible is not a science textbook and it has nothing of scientific value.

Proverbs 30:33 "For the churning of milk produces butter, and twisting a nose draws blood, and stirring up anger produces strife."

Scientific observation right there.

So I guess there ARE things of scientific value in the Bible.

OllieFranz · Dec 10, 2012

good brother said:
Proverbs 30:33 "For the churning of milk produces butter, and twisting a nose draws blood, and stirring up anger produces strife."

Scientific observation right there.

So I guess there ARE things of scientific value in the Bible.

Well, since they are not quantified, they are not of scientific value. Still they are points where science and the Bible agree, and that is enough to illustrate VerySincere's point.

verysincere · Dec 10, 2012

OllieFranz said:
Still they are points where science and the Bible agree, and that is enough to illustrate VerySincere's point.

Case closed. Point made.

That didn't take long at all. (Only a simpleton gets checkmated by making silly "always" and "everywhere" statements that only need one counter-example to negate.)

It just goes to show that extremist "fundamentalists" exist at all ends of the spectra. Ideology and bigotry takes over and the mind goes into neutral. All logic goes out the window and they dig in deeper.

Split Rock · Dec 10, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Then why was I told they looked for a global flood at one time?

mzungu said:
Creationists looking for biblical evidence of a global flood do not constitute as scientists.

AVET is correct. In the absence of any other hypothesis/ theory, most geologists in the 18th to early 19th century assumed that the flood story was based on an historical event and that it was responsible for at least some of the worldwide sedimentary layers in the geological column. As they began to investigate and categorize these layers (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.), they tried to determine which layers could be the responsibility of a global flood. The answer was (and still is): None. It was then that the flood model was discarded by geologists. See: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

verysincere · Dec 10, 2012

mzungu said:
Creationists looking for biblical evidence of a global flood do not constitute as scientists.

You are wrong.

The very foundations of modern geology were formulated by Bible-embracing scientists who were trying to place their understanding of Genesis within a scientific framework---including those Biblical-creation-embracing scientists (and Noah's flood accepting scientists) of the 1700's and early 1800's. Charles Lyell immediately comes to mind among countless examples. To pretend that science and real scientists are never motivated by questions related to creation and other Biblical topics demonstrates a profound ignorance of history.

The motivations (whether religious or "secular") or the fact that some scientist happens to be a creationist, humanist, pantheist, or atheist is irrelevant to the scientific method. The fact that a scientist may be motivated by some personal belief does not preclude him from pursuing a scientific investigation nor do religious traditions including those associated with the Bible somehow PRECLUDE scientific pursuit of those questions. Indeed, in the history of the west, Bible-related ideas OFTEN influenced the questions which motivated scientists to pursue and even to pioneer entire new fields of modern science. The early history of modern geology is a great example of that FACT.

Lyell and many other scientists intensively studied geologic features in hopes of finding evidence which could provide scientific details about the great deluge described in Genesis. But what they found told a very different story that the prevalent Christian TRADITIONS of their day. In fact, the conclusions of those scientists arose from overwhelming evidence for a very OLD earth and NO evidence for a global flood. And those conclusions even pushed many Biblical scholars to more carefully read the Hebrew text of Genesis to see if that TRADITION of a global flood could be supported. As both the scientific evidence and the scriptural evidence was examined more rigorously (as more data became available in BOTH fields of research over time, as always happens), it became clear that NEITHER planet earth NOR the Bible provided evidence of a PLANET-WIDE FLOOD. But then as now, many choose to IGNORE the evidence and TRADITIONS shout them down, as the EVIDENCES (i.e., data, both scientific and textual) are ignored.

The FACT that REAL SCIENTISTS pursued a LEGITIMATE QUESTION ("Was there a GLOBAL DELUGE some 4000 years ago as SOME Christian traditions about the Bible claim?") and examined all of the evidence and determined the answer was NO is not only reality---their work helped establish the very foundations of modern geology. (The fact that a bunch of evidence-deniers today---whether or not they happen to be legitimate scientists with real Ph.D.'s in some other field---IGNORE the scientific and scriptural evidence against them and carry out "pseudo-science" and promote baseless propaganda and dishonesty does not change the facts of history: real scientists engaged the questions associated with Genesis and made important conclusions about the FACTS of geologic history.

Once again in this thread, we observe emotive declarations and "group think" making bombastic statements to champion a "side" in extreme ways while ignoring the actual FACTS and EVIDENCE.

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

mzungu said:
The Bible is not a science textbook and it has nothing of scientific value. It is a spiritual guide and falls in the realm of the supernatural which is not a realm science indulges in. Over my head That is a bit arrogant don't you think!

AV1611VET said:

Then why was I told they looked for a global flood at one time?

Why did science study ESP and telekinesis in the 70s?

Why does science propagandize against prayer?

mzungu said:

Creationists looking for biblical evidence of a global flood do not constitute as scientists.

Both were given the benefit of the doubt until they were proven to be unfounded and discarded. None of the two have anything to do with religion. ESP had a theoretical basis due to the brain using electrical signals in order to function and all electrical circuits create radio signals and it was assumed that those radio signals could be perceived by some peoples brains. As for telekinesis it was totally debunked.

Science does not propagandise about anything. Science is a process of acquiring physical knowledge. People propagandise.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why did you Chinese whisper "supernatural" to "religion?" so you could make your point, instead of having to deal with mine?

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

Mr Strawberry said:
Does it really? I've never heard about that. Sounds like a news story I would have remembered.

I seem to remember the only bit of experimental research into the power of prayer that even vaguely showed anything resembling a positive result was one that showed a very slight negative correlation between praying for a sick person's health to get better and the sick person's subsequent chances of recovery. Maybe that's what you are referring to. Yes? No? Maybe?

No.

In fact, someone on here bought into the propaganda and started yakking about 'praying to his toaster.'

Loudmouth · Dec 10, 2012

AV1611VET said:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So sayeth fallible men.

AV1611VET · Dec 10, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So sayeth fallible men.

It wouldn't matter, would it?

The Mormons claim an angel left plates and, I take it, you don't believe them either ... do you?

So I'll just take your point with a grain of salt.

mzungu · Dec 11, 2012

verysincere said:
You are wrong.

The very foundations of modern geology were formulated by Bible-embracing scientists who were trying to place their understanding of Genesis within a scientific framework---including those Biblical-creation-embracing scientists (and Noah's flood accepting scientists) of the 1700's and early 1800's. Charles Lyell immediately comes to mind among countless examples. To pretend that science and real scientists are never motivated by questions related to creation and other Biblical topics demonstrates a profound ignorance of history.

/snip/...

Thus according to your line of reasoning; The alchemists were scientists?
Trying to prove religious myths like the global flood is not science although it ended up doing the opposite and the science of geology was born.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms!

OllieFranz · Dec 11, 2012

mzungu said:
/snip/...

Thus according to your line of reasoning; The alchemists were scientists?
Trying to prove religious myths like the global flood is not science although it ended up doing the opposite and the science of geology was born.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms!

Yes, "Creation Science," as coined by the twentieth century evolution deniers is a contradiction in terms, but that is not what that first generation of geologists practiced. What makes them scientists -- and they were scientists -- is that even though they had a pre-concieved idea of what they should find, they were willing to follow the evidence rather than blindly insist on their original assumptions. And all of their follow-up was based on the evidence.

Likewise in the early modern era, there were scientists who were willing to write up exactly what they saw when they ran "alchemical" procedures, and to wonder why the results were often not what they expected. They were surrounded by many more old-fashioned alchemists who believed in the old formulas, but little by little chemistry emerged from the ashes of alchemy. Six centuries of slow emergence from Jibir ibn Hayyan to Paracelsus, and another, quicker century to Francis Bacon may not be as dramatic as the conversion of the geologists in a single generation, but it was steady progress, none-the-less.

mzungu · Dec 11, 2012

OllieFranz said:
Yes, "Creation Science," as coined by the twentieth century evolution deniers is a contradiction in terms, but that is not what that first generation of geologists practiced. What makes them scientists -- and they were scientists -- is that even though they had a pre-concieved idea of what they should find, they were willing to follow the evidence rather than blindly insist on their original assumptions. And all of their follow-up was based on the evidence.

Likewise in the early modern era, there were scientists who were willing to write up exactly what they saw when they ran "alchemical" procedures, and to wonder why the results were often not what they expected. They were surrounded by many more old-fashioned alchemists who believed in the old formulas, but little by little chemistry emerged from the ashes of alchemy. Six centuries of slow emergence from Jibir ibn Hayyan to Paracelsus, and another, quicker century to Francis Bacon may not be as dramatic as the conversion of the geologists in a single generation, but it was steady progress, none-the-less.

I agree totally with your post!

Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

Exegete/Linguist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

good brother

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

INVICTUS

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

INVICTUS

Newbie

good brother

Guest

Senior Member

Exegete/Linguist

Conflation of Blathers

Exegete/Linguist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

INVICTUS

Senior Member

INVICTUS

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency