12 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI am NOT saying that science is a bad thing. I am all for science. I am simply against the claim that scientific law, as it stands now, is God's law. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said this:
[b]Yes, some things in science may be true. But can you tell exactly which are going to remain in place and which will not? Not unless you can see the future. So which are "God's laws" and which are not?
Look, we can find out a lot of things about God’s creation through science. Science is simply the method that humans have devised to ...[text shortened]... er then being forced to abide by the laws of science, I think it is just God’s method of choice.[/b]
"The natural, physical laws of the universe are God’s laws. People try to understand them through science."
Now THAT I agree with 100%.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzFrom a scientific point of view, absolutely NOT. Maybe that is the only kind of explanation you are willing to accept.
So basically what you are saying is that you are UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND THE EVIDENCE I HAVE DETAILED? YES OR NO?
I want to spell out my position one more time for clarity, and you can take it or leave it.
If God exists as represented in the Bible, then he is omnipotent.
Omnipotence implies ability to defy all natural law (by definition).
Therefore, if God exists, he is able to defy all natural law.
So, if you want to talk about God in the Christian sense, then you cannot seek to limit him by the laws of science, unless you are talking about a different god. You cannot disprove God or the Bible by means of natural evidence, because the laws just don't apply to them. It is inherent in the concept of God.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashThis is, of course, true. But I do not think that scientists claim that they
It is my belief that science has yet to provide enough data with proper analysis to ascertain the origins of the earth, universe or man kind. There are a vast number of questions left unanswered, and much of the conjecture has varying degrees of flaws.
have more answers than questions. They recognize the limitations of their
study.
That having been said, the vast majority of discoveries points towards
a old universe, old earth (OUOE) conclusion. They may be painting with broad strokes,
but that which has been discovered, reviewed, and repeated results in
our having a relatively strong confidence in this.
We may never have proof, but we are constantly accumulating evidence.
That evidence largely points towards a OUOE and away from either NUNE and
OUNE. Are there bumps in the OUOE standpoint? Yes, of course -- scientists don't
have all the answers. The question is about plausibility and, at this point, the only
reasonably plausible standpoint is OUOE.
Nemesio
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI thnk I'm happy with this thread to new and I don't think I have any more to say really. Yousers (cool name btw) I like your logical constuct about god and I see exactly where you're coming from, even if I don't agree with it!
This is, of course, true. But I do not think that scientists claim that they
have more answers than questions. They recognize the limitations of their
study.
That having been said, the vast majority of discoveries points towards
a old universe, old earth (OUOE) conclusion. They may be painting with broad strokes,
but that which has be ...[text shortened]... t plausibility and, at this point, the only
reasonably plausible standpoint is OUOE.
Nemesio
L
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzGets my rec. I saw in Scientific American pieces about evolution
What absolute crap. If you don't realise that evolution is the truth then you simply don't understand it properly.
Creationists always point to systems as they are now and show how unlikely it would be to evolve. However, these systems never evolve prima facie. Take, for example, the eye. Creationist will describe the fantastic sophistication o ...[text shortened]... ou've already made your closed, shrivelled, mind up, and nothing I can tell you will change it.
that goes against the usual dogma of always going to more
complex types. Sometimes animals or plants DE-evolve too.
Its not ALWAYS to more complexity. Which in no way detracts from
your post, just pointing out one train of thought.
Creationists care nothing about actual science since their goal
is simply to foist their so-called theories on to the ecuation system
with the further goal of taking over the government and turning it into
a theocracy. Rots o ruck on that one but thats their ultimate goal.
I can see it now, President Calamity forming an inner prayer circle
waiting for the wisdom of God to tell them how to deal with the
latest political crisis....
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by yousersWell the law of gravity is a pretty well constructed law, you drop a
I am NOT saying that science is a bad thing. I am all for science. I am simply against the claim that scientific law, as it stands now, is God's law. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said this:
"The natural, physical laws of the universe are God’s laws. People try to understand them through science."
Now THAT I agree with 100%.
a ton of iron 6 feet and it lands on your foot, you can count on
getting a foot replacement pretty much every time.
That is as close to an absolute law as I can imagine and for anyone
to say thats mans law is begging the question. If God invented the
whole universe for some arcane set of reasons then he/she/it
certainly understood the laws of its creation, including the law of
gravity, which would be high on the list of absolutely necessary
laws, without which you don't get a universe in the first place.
So mankind goes through its cultural advancement to the time
when Newton figured out the rules of gravity and Einstein refined those
same rules delving into the idea of how malleable space and time is,
those laws would have by definition been known by the proported
god who begat our universe. Creationists and a lot of other kinds
of fundamentalists outside of christianity don't like the idea of
mankind developing ANYTHING on its own but anything discovered is
only by the grace of some god. Creationists would deny the very
creativity that is one of definitions of human, instead only
theorizing any such delving into the true laws of what makes the
universe run, these manmade theories, if true, therefore, would only
be allowed to be seen by men by the grace of this god dribbling
understanding to us bit by bit rather than just admitting humans,
well, some humans, have near godlike creativity themselves.
That creationists will never accept.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm sorry, you think science is going to be able to show what God
So basically because you cannot explain the reason for the lack of conformity between the bible and science you are choosing to not explain it?
can, and cannot do? You think because I believe in God I now am
forced to know how and why God created the universe the way God
did it? Now if there is an issue with science and what God did, show
me where the issue is, I don't see any as I said before.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I don't believe science can show what god (if god exists, although i do not believe in god) can and cannot do. Yousers argument shows that clearly, it is unknowable. I merely state that science shows what IS, what did happen, and it does not tally with the biblical account of creation. The sun IS older than land plants, birds did not come before land animals. Both cannot be correct. Now I'm willing to accept that the bible may not be taken literally, but it ISN'T FACTUALLY CORRECT ON THIS POINT. If it's incorrect on this, the question begs to be asked, what else is it wrong about?
I'm sorry, you think science is going to be able to show what God
can, and cannot do? You think because I believe in God I now am
forced to know how and why God created the universe the way God
did it? Now if there is an issue with science and what God did, show
me where the issue is, I don't see any as I said before.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
A problem i have is that i don't think science and religion can co-exist without argumet and in this argument people have to take sides. Science can provide infomation on say what will happen if i drop this ball whereas the answers religion provides are about how to live my life and i this is something i can work out for myself. science can be used very productivly it can benift me and without our quality of life would be reduced. I see science as having more benifts easier to understand and to return to what i said if science makes a prediction and this comes true then it adds to its value signifigantly whereas no prediction in the bible seems of any singnifigance and ever some of the claims for me are hard to understand.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not sure how to respond to this except:
Well the law of gravity is a pretty well constructed law, you drop a
a ton of iron 6 feet and it lands on your foot, you can count on
getting a foot replacement pretty much every time.
That is as close to an absolute law as I can imagine and for anyone
to say thats mans law is begging the question. If God invented the
whole universe for some arcane se ...[text shortened]... ell, some humans, have near godlike creativity themselves.
That creationists will never accept.
1. This argument has nothing to do with the point I was making.
2. I am not a creationist of the type you are so bitterly against, so I feel no need to defend their kind.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzNow that is a matter of faith as far as I'm concern, you know that
No, I don't believe science can show what god (if god exists, although i do not believe in god) can and cannot do. Yousers argument shows that clearly, it is unknowable. I merely state that science shows what IS, what did happen, and it does not tally with the biblical account of creation. The sun IS older than land plants, birds did not come before ...[text shortened]... POINT. If it's incorrect on this, the question begs to be asked, what else is it wrong about?
the 'sun' is older than the land plants? You know how it all began,
you know when? I submit you don't know, you are just assuming
you can glean from what you see the age of the universe. If science
is wrong on the age of the universe, what else could it be getting
wrong too?
Kelly
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, if you have so little faith in science you'd better forget going to the doctors the next time you or a family member get ill then.
Now that is a matter of faith as far as I'm concern, you know that
the 'sun' is older than the land plants? You know how it all began,
you know when? I submit you don't know, you are just assuming
you can glean from what you see the age of the universe. If science
is wrong on the age of the universe, what else could it be getting
wrong too?
Kelly
What is it about the phrase 'science uses physical measurements to extrapolate general rules' that you don't understand? We have (and use) evidence when it comes down to science; there is no evidence based system in religion. Are you seriously saying that you believe the sun to be less than 400 million years old? And yes, we can definitively date the colonisation of land by plants to that date. On the other hand the spectrometric emmisions by the sun give it a minimum age of 5 billion years - there is no physical way that it could convert as much hydrogen to helium as it has in a shorter time.
As a scientist I deal in evidence. The evidence in this case is overwhelming, but you simply refuse to acknowledge that, as you know it debases your case to conceed it.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzLeave this with the topic at hand and not attempt to turn this into
Well, if you have so little faith in science you'd better forget going to the doctors the next time you or a family member get ill then.
What is it about the phrase 'science uses physical measurements to extrapolate general rules' that you don't understand? We have (and use) evidence when it comes down to science; there is no evidence based syst ...[text shortened]... ming, but you simply refuse to acknowledge that, as you know it debases your case to conceed it.
something personal, okay? I will not bring your family members
into this discussion, you leave mine out of it too.
I believe in science, but I don't accept everything people within
science tell me. Science uses physical measurments true that
does not mean that what they think is true by taking readings
is always what fits reality. Something simple as rate does not
always mean that you can look at a rate and glean distance or
time. Using a radar gun on a car seeing it was moving at 56 mph
does not mean that one hour before it was 56 miles down the
road heading this way. It only means that the rate of movement
was 56 mph nothing more. The same thing with the sun too,
having never witnessed what a sun does for more than a few
thousand years, how do you know what you think about it is
true or not?
Kelly
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIf, like in the case of radioactive decay, the car from your analogy can only travel at 56 mph, you can infer distance travelled from the journey duration.
Leave this with the topic at hand and not attempt to turn this into
something personal, okay? I will not bring your family members
into this discussion, you leave mine out of it too.
I believe in science, but I don't accept everything people within
science tell me. Science uses physical measurments true that
does not mean that what they think is tru ...[text shortened]... ore than a few
thousand years, how do you know what you think about it is
true or not?
Kelly
Even where we a factor of 10 out (as I say, unlikely), the sun would still be older than terrestrial plants.
Look, the methodology has proved itself, and stood up to peer review. Where is the bibles peer review?