I would like to know why...

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I agree that science has a long, long way to go before it can perfectly describe the physical world, but this does not mean that at least some of the things that have been shown by science are not in fact true.

We know that cells have a nucleus for example. We know that the nucleus has DNA in it. We are always developing new ways to look more c ...[text shortened]... act created them to do this, this would be an example of how the laws of science are God’s laws.

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? How can you deny relevance to God's word because it is inconsistent with some principles we think might be true?
A second point: If you cannot be debunked from this outrageous view that scientific law is God's law, why are you convinced that God's workings must be coherent with scientific law? As an all-powerful being who created these laws (according to your standing), He cannot possibly be subject to them and forced to work under them. As creator of physical principles, He is not subject to his own creation; it is quite the other way around, I think.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, I still haven't recieved a satisfactory (or, in fact, any) response to why the bible states that land plants (first showed up in the fossil record ~400 million years ago) were created before the sun (c. 6 - 10 billion years, as a guess). Or that birds (150 million years old, the first being archaeopteryx) were created before land animals (again probably ~ 400 million years ago).

God is not subject to natural laws.

Originally posted by yousers
God is not subject to natural laws.

Which, translated from Christian fundamentalist to english, means 'I cannot answer this question using data or other sensible debating techniques so will simply use my catch-all cop-out'.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I agree that science has a long, long way to go before it can perfectly describe the physical world, but this does not mean that at least some of the things that have been shown by science are not in fact true.

We know that cells have a nucleus for example. We know that the nucleus has DNA in it. We are always developing new ways to look more c ...[text shortened]... act created them to do this, this would be an example of how the laws of science are God’s laws.

I agree with your posts generally, but I'm not letting others away with sloppiness so I can't really let you away with it either. Can't be seen to not correct errors on both sides, otherwise I have no integrity.

Not all cells have a nucleus, only eukaryotic (or eucaryotic, if you're american) cells have a nucleus, like those in 'higher' plants, animals and the fungi. Prokaryotic (procaryotic, for our american friends) cells (i.e. microbes and the archaea) do not have a nucleus. Most organisms have DNA, but not all. Some primative bacteria, and viruses make do with RNA, a close associate of DNA (a little less chemically stable, but otherwise very very similar).

I agree though, that whilst our ability to study these things improves there is unlikely to be a large scale shift away from current thinking.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Which, translated from Christian fundamentalist to english, means 'I cannot answer this question using data or other sensible debating techniques so will simply use my catch-all cop-out'.

Well now, we have discovered who is the fundamentalist here. If one were to have any conception of God in the Christian sense (humor me), that idea would undoubtedly include omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Omnipotence implies LIMITLESS power. He, if he exists, could not possibly be subject to anything within the world (anything natural); otherwise, He would not be omnipotent or supernatural.
It is absolutely ridiculous to talk about God needing to agree with science when the very conception of Him, regardless of whether he exists, includes limitless power.
Now, if you want to question whether He exists (as I can see you have already made up your mind), then science is the wrong way to go about it. The former is supernatural, and the latter is natural. Of course they don't agree!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Which, translated from Christian fundamentalist to english, means 'I cannot answer this question using data or other sensible debating techniques so will simply use my catch-all cop-out'.

Please review my previous posts if you want to see some debate. I simply stated my conclusion.

Originally posted by yousers
Please review my previous posts if you want to see some debate. I simply stated my conclusion.

So, you have decided to not answer the question. I understand what you are saying about god having limitless power, and therefore not needing to be bound by the rules, there IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest anything other than the conclusion that I reach, that the bible is in error. You will need to come up with something better than this hand-waving exercise you've embarked upon so far.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, you have decided to not answer the question. I understand what you are saying about god having limitless power, and therefore not needing to be bound by the rules, there IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest anything other than the conclusion that I reach, that the bible is in error. You will need to come up with something better than this hand-waving exercise you've embarked upon so far.

Looking for natural evidence to explain a supernatural concept is like beating one's head against the wall.

Originally posted by yousers
Looking for natural evidence to explain a supernatural concept is like beating one's head against the wall.

So, basically I have evidence for what I believe to be the truth and you have none.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, basically I have evidence for what I believe to be the truth and you have none.

You have natural evidence for the way that the physical world works, yes. I am a scientist and I endorse its usefulness (I make a living at it). But when you say God is in conflict with your evidence, you extrapolate your evidence to a domain in which it has no relavance. But I am tired of reiterating my point. You seem to have asked a question which you did not want to hear answered.

Originally posted by yousers
You have natural evidence for the way that the physical world works, yes. I am a scientist and I endorse its usefulness (I make a living at it). But when you say God is in conflict with your evidence, you extrapolate your evidence to a domain in which it has no relavance. But I am tired of reiterating my point. You seem to have asked a question which you did not want to hear answered.

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?

Originally posted by yousers
You have natural evidence for the way that the physical world works, yes. I am a scientist and I endorse its usefulness (I make a living at it). But when you say God is in conflict with your evidence, you extrapolate your evidence to a domain in which it has no relavance. But I am tired of reiterating my point. You seem to have asked a question which you did not want to hear answered.

You claim to be a scientist? Why then did you not catch Chess Engine's basic mistake that not all cells are eukaryotic? I have not extrapolated anything, I have merely stated that the bible makes two claims that can be scientifically rebutted. I have asked how these two things can co-exist and you have refused to answer. You merely say that God need not follow rules. That's fine, but my point is that the bible is in error.

Originally posted by yousers
Well now, we have discovered who is the fundamentalist here. If one were to have any conception of God in the Christian sense (humor me), that idea would undoubtedly include omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Omnipotence implies LIMITLESS power. He, if he exists, could not possibly be subject to anything within the world (anything natural); otherwise, He woul ...[text shortened]... about it. The former is supernatural, and the latter is natural. Of course they don't agree!

You've made a foolish assumption here, my friend. You've misread my post and are trying to say that I am trying to prove or disprove the existance of god. Re-read the post and you will see that I am trying t do nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that the bible makes an erroneous statement.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That's fine, but my point is that the bible is in error.

This, of course, presumes that the Bible is being read literally.
That is, the story of Creation is not an account of what actually,
historically happened, but a reflection upon the nature of humanity,
that people often have a disaffinity for rules and a desire to be
bigger than they are. In which case, science and the Bible can both
be true, but in totally different realms.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This, of course, presumes that the Bible is being read literally.
That is, the story of Creation is not an account of what actually,
historically happened, but a reflection upon the nature of humanity,
that people often have a disaffinity for rules and a desire to be
bigger than they are. In which case, science and the Bible can both
be true, but in totally different realms.

Nemesio

Well, if one part of the bible (an allegedly immaculate document, the WORD of GOD as blindfaith would say) can be shown to be wrong, then what other parts are incorrect?