Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
MexicanHotChocolate
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 331 (116317)
06-18-2004 4:45 AM


I bet their are Norse scientist out there right now trying to prove that the Earth is carved outta giant bones...I mean if Christians can prove a literal flood, anything is possible...

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2004 11:40 PM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 331 (117505)
06-22-2004 11:56 AM


Do you think there should be extra crtedit for performing an animal sacrifice?

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 331 (120237)
06-30-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by almeyda
06-16-2004 12:55 AM


quote:
I have yet to see real science support the belief of a religon besides the Bible.
Actually, REAL science disagrees with much of the Bible, and certainly with the literal reading of Genesis 1.
Anyway, if you want scientific description of how we got here, then you would have to use science, rather than ANY religion. If you want to use religion, then you are not using science, and therefore it doesn't matter how scientifically aligned the stories are; the only thing that matters is whether they are religious or not.
Are you trying to say that you want creation myth taught in school, but only YOUR version thereoff? That would directly violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. If that is what you want, then it has to happen in another country.
quote:
Creationists show how fossils, young earth, natural selection, complexity, flood evidence, dinasaurs, design, uniqueness of the Bible & Jesus etc are all consistent with the Bible.
Actually, they don't. They make CLAIMS tot hat extend, but what they have showed us sofar is merely wishful thinking, evidence in the form of "because I say so" or in the form of "it is so because I wish it to be so, and that should be enough evidence." As such, your claim of creationists showing this is frankly outright false.
quote:
If there is Muslim or Hindu qualified scientist doing this also then they should have a right to teach scientific creation.
Given that there are no qualigfied creationist scientists doing so either, your argument essentially is that creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach either. Hmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by almeyda, posted 06-16-2004 12:55 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM Steen has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 331 (121736)
07-04-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Steen
06-30-2004 1:43 AM


quote:
Actually, REAL science disagrees with much of the Bible, and certainly with the literal reading of Genesis 1.
Anyway, if you want scientific description of how we got here, then you would have to use science, rather than ANY religion. If you want to use religion, then you are not using science, and therefore it doesn't matter how scientifically aligned the stories are; the only thing that matters is whether they are religious or not.
Actually, no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution which is a theory on how things have came to be through natural processes without a designer. Creation is the science of a religion, We can use real science to see if our Bible relates to the facts of reality and is consistent with the facts of reality.
quote:
Given that there are no qualigfied creationist scientists doing so either, your argument essentially is that creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach either. Hmm...
Ahh yes the old creationists are not scientist argument. Have a quick check of this link and then tell me there are no real scientist who believe in creation. Creationism has been pushed away from mainstream science as it deals with a designer. A bias has arisen since Darwin which is strictly naturalism. Therefore anything about a designer is considered supernatural and not science. This is a biasness, not a take on what science is and what science isnt.
Bios | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 1:43 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2004 6:24 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 21 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 6:32 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2004 11:46 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:15 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 331 (121793)
07-04-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


A bias has arisen since Darwin which is strictly naturalism.
Actually, that "bias" predates Darwin by several centuries, and is responsible for every scientific development of the last 400 years. It's called "methodological naturalism", and its development marks the birth of true science.
There is no way to do science except by methodological naturalism, by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 331 (121894)
07-04-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


More creationist falsehoods
quote:
Actually, no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution which is a theory on how things have came to be through natural processes without a designer.
  —"almeyda"
An outright falsehood. Geology disagrees with the Bible. Astronomy disagrees with the Bible. Physics disagrees with the Bible. Biology disagrees with the Bible. Chemistry disagrees with the Bible. And so on. You know, there is no need to lie about science; it merely makes you seem less credible.
quote:
Creation is the science of a religion,...
Not really, "Creation" is a story of the origin of the world and of us. Now, "creationism" is claimed to be a science, but given its near-constant violation of the Scientific Method, that claim is an outright lie. Creationism is claimed to be a science despite violating just about every rule there is to violate about science.
quote:
...use real science to see if our Bible relates to the facts of reality and is consistent with the facts of reality.
Well, THAT has been done, and "real science" has disproved many of the tings in the stories of the Bible
quote:
quote:
Given that there are no qualigfied creationist scientists doing so either, your argument essentially is that creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach either. Hmm...
Ahh yes the old creationists are not scientist argument.
Well, that is a fact, per the creationists violating the Scientific method.
quote:
Have a quick check of this link and then tell me there are no real scientist who believe in creation.
Yes, none of them publish scientific material about evolution or creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
quote:
Creationism has been pushed away from mainstream science as it deals with a designer.
Nope. If you could prove this designer, then there would be no problem with it being mainstream science. It is not that it deals with a designer, but rather that it makes un-scientific claims, claims that can not be proven or disproven. As such, the claims and the foundation for this BELIEF is not scientific. I must conclude that YOU also don't really know what science is, then?
quote:
A bias has arisen since Darwin which is strictly naturalism.
More false claims. The bias is in the mechanisms of science, of working on what can be observed and meassured rather than relying on Faith. This is an advance that dates back to the Greeks, to accepting what could be observed, even if it went against the "The God's made it happen" beliefs of its day. Yes, The antiquity had its fundamentalists as well. We see it later with Kopernicus publicizing the findings of the Earth actually rotating around the Sun, which at that time ALSO was objected to by the fundies, by the creationist literalists. And we have seen it ever since, this objection, every time the Scientific Method of observation of actual data has been applied. All scientific discovery has been made DESPITE the objections by the religious literalists, those whose faith is so weak that it is based on "proof" of God's existence rather than just Faith. They, and apparently you, are the ones who need a tangible God, those who need a "Golden Calf" to justify their faith.
quote:
Therefore anything about a designer is considered supernatural and not science.
Not if you could PROVE a designer. But sofar, the arguments for a designer HAVE BEEN supernatural, and yes, supernatural events are not science. They can not be explored throguh the Scientific Method. Is that a weakness of science, this insistence on facts and observable data? perhaps, but that IS what science does, evaluating observations through the Scientific Method. You might object to the method, but you can not justify calling something "science" if it doesn't confirm to the Scientific Method. As such, your claim is invalid.
quote:
This is a biasness, not a take on what science is and what science isnt.
Nope, your claim is an outright falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 8:14 PM Steen has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 331 (121950)
07-04-2004 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
06-16-2004 3:09 AM


almeyda writes:
I have yet to see real science support the belief of a religon besides the Bible.
more antitheism from almeyda?
the only trouble hindus have is that the scientific age of the universe is not old enough ...
see hindu fundamentalist creationism
Creationism: The Hindu View
buddhism aligns with quantum physics too, and there are several books on the topic. One geared to popular consumption is "The Dancing Wu Li Masters - An Overview of the New Physics," by Gary Zukav.
perhaps the lack of perception of alignment is not due to the understanding of other religions as much as it is due to the lack of understanding of science?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2004 3:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 331 (121952)
07-04-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-18-2004 4:45 AM


Norse it for what it is worth
I like their version of the flood ... (you know that old canard creationists tout about all religions having a flood myth ...)
of blood from a slain giant.
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 4:45 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 331 (121955)
07-04-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


almeyda writes:
no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution which is a theory
actually the science of evolution, geology, physics and astronomy have severe "disagreements" with the bible.
claiming that evolution "is just a theory" does not make it any less of a science than the others mentioned.
this is a back-door self-delusional type argument ... "no science disagrees (but any that do we don't recognize as science so we can tell ourselves this is true) ..."
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 331 (122021)
07-05-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
07-04-2004 11:37 PM


the only trouble hindus have is that the scientific age of the universe is not old enough ...
i seem to remember the hindu theology of constant destruction-rebirth cycles strongly mimicing a scientific hypothesis about big-bang cycles.
i wasn't aware age was a problem, but i never tried to line up the dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2004 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 4:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 331 (122022)
07-05-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


Actually, no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution
which has been observed. not to mention all the previously mentioned sciences that also disagree.
which is a theory on how things have came to be through natural processes without a designer.
evolution includes artifical selection, a process by which humans have input on animal "design" by selecting for various features. how is this NOT intelligent design, exactly?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-05-2004 03:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 331 (122190)
07-05-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
07-05-2004 4:12 AM


hindu branes
the hindu model of the universe would be a lot closer to the Ekpyrotic theory of repeating brane collisions:
"Brane Storm" Challenges Part of Big Pang Theory
"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."
Ovrut said that in modeling a collision of branes, his group found that the result would be a universe that fits neatly with predictions of the Big Bang. It produces similar temperatures and causes the resulting universe to expand, for example, and creates matter with the same uniformity predicted by inflation.
The difference results in one distinctive observational prediction, though: Inflationary cosmology predicts a spectrum of gravitational waves that may be detectable in the cosmic microwave background. The ekpyrotic model predicts no gravitational wave effects should be observable in the cosmic microwave background.
The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek, and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the universe is created in a sudden burst of fire, not unlike the collision between three-dimensional worlds in our model. The current universe evolves from the initial fire. However, in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision.
Who knows, it may be closer to the truth than the standard model ... and multiple "creations" would be a severe problem for some, eh? We'll have to wait and see which "tests out" better.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:12 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 28 of 331 (141885)
09-12-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Steen
07-04-2004 6:32 PM


You say that science disagrees with Genesis chapter one
{Please note: I am updating this string before I have looked at any of the replies to it. So I am not replying to new information; just correcting a few mistakes, and adding a stray comment or two. If you have already read this string it is not necessary for you to reread it if you don’t want to. There are no new arguments in it.}
Dear Steen,
You state, REAL science disagrees with much of the Bible, and certainly with the literal reading of Genesis 1
I was wondering what you meant. I have not found any where were, if properly interpreted, science and the Bible disagree. (I.E. are in direct conflict with each other.)
For example: You say that science disagrees with Genesis chapter one.
The first chapter of genesis, and the Bible starts of by proclaiming that God existed before the Universe.
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1: 1
Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it.
In verse two we jump to the face of the Earth. God start off by describing the initial condition of the Earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1: 2)
So, the perspective of the rest of the chapter is from the face of the planet Earth.
Now, over an undisclosed period of time, light started to show through the heavy atmosphere, and God named the lightness day, and the darkness He called night.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. (Genesis 1: 3, 4, 5a)
God closes out the first season of time (relative to Earth) by saying:
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Over a period of time the Earth cooled enough that large amounts of water condenses in to liquid and covered the earth.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. (Genesis 1: 6, 7, 8a)
After this process was somewhat completed God closed out the days work by saying,
8And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1: 8b)
The next day (Here again an undisclosed period of time) God parted the water from the waters and dry land appeared. He then named the land and the waters.
9And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 9, 10)
After another undisclosed period of time, God creates plant life (Grass, Herbs, and trees).
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 11, 12)
Then we have the closer of yet another day.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1: 13)
On the fourth day something wondrous happens {not that what has happened so far isn’t wondrous} Finally, for the first time in history the clouds brake and the sun, stars, and moon could be seen from the Earths surface.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 14, 15, 16, 17)
Please note here that the Bible is not stating that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created on the fourth day; merely that this is the first time that these phenomena would be visible to the observer on the planets surface. {Which, in this case, the only observer at this point would be God Himself. But the vantage point is still from the surface of the Earth}
If you’ll note, in verse ‘16’ is says And God made not And God said let there be. The difference here is that the writer is recapping what God had done previously; this because it has to do with what He is doing at the moment.
Then God closes out the day by stating.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Genesis 1: 19)
Now, God, on a roll here, creates the first animals. Please take into account here that which animals He created first is not specified; only that this group comes into existence before the end of this era of time.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (Genesis 1: 20, 21, 22)
And closing out the day, it states.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Genesis 1: 23)
Now, God starts the final phase of the operation.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 24, 24)
Here, God gets to the point to where He has everything in place; everything is ready for the arrival of man.
So God sets to one of his final tasks in bringing the universe in to existence.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them. (Genesis 1: 26, 27)
Trivia Question here: Why do people talk to their pets, and even to plants?
Because, we where made in the image, after the likeness, of God, and He talked to plants and animals.
After creating Man He gives mankind a few instructions.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1: 28, 29, 30)
And then He closed out the sixth day saying,
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1: 31)
You also state, there is no need to lie about science; it merely makes you seem less credible. And you’re correct; and there’s also not reason to lie about the scriptures either. The Question I have is, where do you get that Geology disagrees with the Bible. Astronomy disagrees with the Bible. Physics disagrees with the Bible. Biology disagrees with the Bible. Chemistry disagrees with the Bible. And so on.?
There are unproven theories and hypothesis out there that disagree with the Bible. Though, I have yet to see a provable fact of science that directly contradicts something that the Bible states is a Geological, Astronomical, Physical, Biological, or Chemical fact.
There are events recorded in the Bible that go beyond our four-dimensional universe; after all, God exists and operates beyond our four-dimensions of height, width, links and space/time. This, in no way, puts the Bible at odds with science; the Bible merely deals with things and events that go beyond the grasp of our scientific study.
The universe itself also has this characteristic. We know, through science that the Earth, and its’ four dimensions of height, width, links and space/time came into existence some time in the finite past. There is no scientific way to scrutinize what happened before our dimension of space/time came into existence.
Instead of responding to each of your remarks I’d like to recommend that you get a copy of The Fingerprint of God authored by Dr. Hugh Ross, Promise Publishing Co., 1991. You can find it and other materials at Home - Reasons to Believe. There is also a lot of free material available on this site.
Ok, before you start writing, lets take into account a few facts, this so that we are correctly interpreting what is going on here. The following has been hobbled together from other posting of mine; I believe them relevant to this posting.
The definition for Day includes:
1a) the period of light between sunrise and sunset 2a) the 24-hour period (mean solar day) that it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis with respect to the sun: the civil or legal day is from midnight to midnight 4[also pl.] a period or time; era; age [the best writer of her day, in the days of old] {Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997}
Now, as Americans in our hustle and bustle world, we would tend to jump to the conclusion that when this passage speaks of Day it means twenty-four hours, right? I, myself, took this stance for many years; until someone challenged my belief, and I took a closer look at the text.
I then noticed two things. First, verse two {of Genesis chapter one} states that God was, as the Amplified Bible puts it, moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. So the point of view was the face of the Earth {which at that time was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep.}.
Second, I noticed that there is no Morning and Evening for the seventh day; and no indications from the text {other than that} that the seventh day should be any different from the first. After I understood that day could encompass eras and ages I understood that there was really no reason to take the text as 24-hour days. It is still a literal interpretation since the word Day can be used to mean an era, or age.
So, taking those two things into account I was able to understand I could take out the word day from the text and put in its place, for instance, era. Thus verse five could be, just as correctly, interpreted, literally, as, And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one era. {AB modified}
O’ and for those who say OK, but how about the Evening and Morning? according to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 each can be described respectively: Evening: 3the last period, as of life, a career, ect., Morning: 2the first or early part [the morning of life]
Please do not get me wrong, there are thing about the Bible that I do not understand, and things that cannot be tested with the tools we have at our disposal today. On the other hand there are many testable things written in the pages of the Bible. If we test those, and find no error, then it goes a long way to helping us accept the un-testable things, Doesn’t it?
Science does not deal in truth
According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 Truth is defined as follows:
2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect.
I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions.
Fact: 2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]
Science: 1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.
An example:
Arithmetic {note that’s Arithmetic not math} is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2
If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. One could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.
Footnotes:
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.
1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2) Determine the initial conditions.
3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4) Note the final conditions.
5) Form an hypothesis.
6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
Guidelines for Interpreting Scripture
1) Establish the correct Frame of reference.
2) Make no conclusions without examining and considering the whole Word of God.
3) Accept only those conclusions that are consistent with the whole Word of God.
4) Interpret narrative passages in light of didactic, or instructive, passages and illustrations in light of principles.
5) Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically.
6) Accept a symbol definition only if it is defined such elsewhere in scripture.
7) Recognize that many prophecies are fulfilled more than once.
8) Be prepared to draw more that one message or application from a passage.
9) Be alert to occasional problems in translation from the original languages.
Resolving Paradoxes
Contradiction: Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.
Paradox: A seeming contradiction that can be resolved by any one or more of the fallowing means:
1) Establishing the true frame of reference, or point of view, of a given passage or passages.
2) Establishing the correct definition of a given system or systems under consideration.
3) Observing over a longer or shorter range of magnitudes.
4) Observing over more or other dimensions.
5) Gathering more detailed and/or complete information.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Dr. Hugh Ross}
According to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such:
Contradiction: 2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.}
Paradox: 1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.}
Omnipotent: adj. [OFr < L omnipotens < omnis, all + potens: see potent] Having unlimited power or authority; All-powerful — the Omnipotent God (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)
All Scripture references are taken from the King James Version of the Bible, unless other wise stated.
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 09-25-2004 11:53 PM

For God so greatly loved
and dearly prized the world,
that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son,
that whoever believes in
(trusts in, clings to, relies on)
Him
should not perish
(come to destruction, be lost),
but
have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son
in to the world
in order to judge
(to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on)
the world,.
But that the world
might find salvation
and be made safe and sound
through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 6:32 PM Steen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 8:20 PM JRTjr has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 331 (141888)
09-12-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by JRTjr
09-12-2004 8:14 PM


Science does not deal in truth, etc.
Please, jrtjr1, don't repeat arguments for which you have not responded to the rebuttals. I've posted a number of posts that show you why your reasoning is flawed in this thread; it's very dishonest and quite against the forum guidelines to repeat those arguments until you respond to my rebuttals.
I've tried a number of times to engage you in that thread but you persist in ignoring me. I'm quite offended to see you repeat these refuted arguments as though you haven't even read my posts.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-12-2004 07:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 8:14 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by coffee_addict, posted 09-12-2004 8:47 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 31 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 10:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 30 of 331 (141905)
09-12-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
09-12-2004 8:20 PM


If I'm not mistaken, he's just using creationist protocol #37... or was it #31? RAZD?

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 8:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024