Science and philosophy forum:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible does not state that the Earth is the centre of the universe and its well known that he regarded contemporary religious organisations and doctrine as corrupt, after he made a diligent study of scripture. Why you seems to hold that these very same organisations and doctrines are of any consequence in the quest for Biblical truth I cannot say ...[text shortened]... logical nor rational to do so.

Sir Isaac and the Bible 1: Religious and scientific dogma:0

The Bible does not state that the Earth is the centre of the universe

That didn't stop the religious like you in the past from insisting that the Earth is the centre of the universe -and your kind where proven wrong by science.
And the Bible does not state that the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. So Isaac newton certainly didn't get that from the Bible! He got it through his OWN reason, NOT the bible.
That also didn't stop and still doesn't the religious like you in the past from insisting that the Earth is not millions of years old and life evolved -and your kind where proven wrong by science.
Stupid religious dogma doesn't stop at the bible.

Religious dogma 0; science 3.

Originally posted by humy

The Bible does not state that the Earth is the centre of the universe

That didn't stop the religious like you in the past from insisting that the Earth is the centre of the universe -and your kind where proven wrong by science.
And the Bible does not state that the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. So Isaac newton certainly d ...[text shortened]... by science.
Stupid religious dogma doesn't stop at the bible.

Religious dogma 0; science 3.

Hardly! had they examined the scriptures they would see that it contains no such reference and no one is claiming that Sir Isaac got these ideas from the Bible Meester Strawman! I have not insisted that the earth is not millions of years old nor do I think it can be deduced from scripture as there is no necessity for assuming that the creative days were a literal 24 hour period making your assertions super hyper conducting straw!

Now I understand that it must grieve you deeply, but the fact of the matter is Newton was a very deeply religious man and his religious convictions motivated him to explore the natural world, you can cry about it all you like, produce as much straw from your straw factories as you like, it will not change the facts!

Sir Isaac and the Bible: 10^50 : religious and scientific dogma : 0

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hardly! had they examined the scriptures they would see that it contains no such reference and no one is claiming that Sir Isaac got these ideas from the Bible Meester Strawman! I have not insisted that the earth is not millions of years old nor do I think it can be deduced from scripture as there is no necessity for assuming that the creative days ...[text shortened]... ll not change the facts!

Sir Isaac and the Bible: 10^50 : religious and scientific dogma : 0

I have not insisted that the earth is not millions of years old

So do you believe the earth is millions of years old?
If yes, that is because it was disproved by science and now even much of religious authority admits it was once wrong about that.
If it wasn’t for science, you will probably be saying and believing that the Earth is definitely not millions of years old.

nor do I think it can be deduced from scripture as there is no necessity for assuming that the creative days were a literal 24 hour period making your assertions super hyper conducting straw!

I didn't say this. I didn't even mention “24” anything.

and his religious convictions motivated him to explore the natural world,

Again, that may be true and I wouldn't deny it. But why would I deny it for, as I have already told you, it is still irrelevant. Reminder:

you said: " it seems that Sir Isaac was motivated by his religious beliefs "

and I said:


"That may have been so. So what? That's irrelevant because he still didn't let that interfere with his interpretation of his observation. For example, he concluded that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the centre of the solar system. If he didn't think for himself and just consulted the bible or religious authority or religious dogma prevailing at the time for the answers, he would probably have erroneously concluded that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system and understood nothing correctly!."

Do you deny this?

Originally posted by humy

I have not insisted that the earth is not millions of years old

So do you believe the earth is millions of years old?
If not, that is because it was disproved by science and now even much of religious authority admits it was once wrong about that.
If it wasn’t for science, you will probably be saying and believing that the Earth is defini ...[text shortened]... d I wouldn't deny it. But why would I deny it for it is still irrelevant -see my previous posts.

yes I do believe that the earth is millions of years old.

But he did not conclude anything of the sort Humy, he also rejected the doctrines of the trinity after having made a careful examination of scripture and no amount of hypothetical posturing can change the empirically established facts. Your insistence that anyone who is spiritually inclined should be influenced by contemporary religious belief and thus rendered incapable or unable to make objective decisions concerning the natural world is unscientific and will be rejected as irrational and dogmatic. The shame of it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes I do believe that the earth is millions of years old.

-and that is because science has proven it. But, if all we had was religious dogma and no science, we will probably be stuck with the old belief that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. I am just curious, why do you think many creationists insist that the Earth is just a few thousand years old? isn't that because of religious dogma?

But he did not conclude anything of the sort Humy,

I didn't say he did

Originally posted by humy
-and that is because science has proven it. But, if all we had was religious dogma and no science, we will probably be stuck with the old belief that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. I am just curious, why do you think many creationists insist that the Earth is just a few thousand years old? isn't that religious dogma?

Why do they insist? its a rather easy question to answer! simply because they have an erroneous perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days. For example if I say, 'back in Newtons day', to what do I refer? a specific duration of time or an unspecified epoch of time? That is correct its the later. The assumption (and it is an assumption) is that the Biblical creative days are of a specified duration, they are not and that is why they make antiBiblical and unscientific assertions.

Originally posted by humy
-and that is because science has proven it. But, if all we had was religious dogma and no science, we will probably be stuck with the old belief that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. I am just curious, why do you think many creationists insist that the Earth is just a few thousand years old? isn't that because of religious dogma?

But he did not conclude anything of the sort Humy,

I didn't say he did

oh but Hummy the very quotation that sonhouse produced insinuated that very thing! that if someone is religiously inclined it prevents them from gaining understanding, which makes no sense! and is unsubstantiated in the case of one of histories greatest scientists! and if I dig deeper I am sure there are more! but I have caused you enough grief, I dont want to overturn your entire belief system, its enough to be going on with.

Originally posted by humy
-and that is because science has proven it. But, if all we had was religious dogma and no science, we will probably be stuck with the old belief that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. I am just curious, why do you think many creationists insist that the Earth is just a few thousand years old? isn't that because of religious dogma?

But he did not conclude anything of the sort Humy,

I didn't say he did

you hypothesised it humy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why do they insist? its a rather easy question to answer! simply because they have an erroneous perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days. For example if I say, 'back in Newtons day', to what do I refer? a specific duration of time or an unspecified epoch of time? That is correct its the later. The assumption (and it is an assumption ...[text shortened]... ified duration, they are not and that is why they make antiBiblical and unscientific assertions.

Why do they insist? its a rather easy question to answer! simply because they have an erroneous perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days.

No, because there is no “correct” “perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days” because the bible is not based on logic nor on scientific method and therefore, even if you obtain a conclusion from the bible that just happens to be correct by coincidence, it would be using a false inference.

I break my watch. I irrationally still insist it can say the correct time. I look at my watch and it says 2pm. So I say it is 2pm. But, by coincidence, it just happens to be 2pm at that exact moment when I looked at it. So the conclusion is "correct". But my inference is not correct but false because my watch is not a reliable indicator of time if it is broken.

antiBiblical and unscientific assertions

You can have that. But, unless you are just asserting known history as opposed to a superstitious interpretation of the bible, you cannot have the converse i.e. you cannot have “biblical and scientific assertions” i.e. an assertion that is both.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh but Hummy the very quotation that sonhouse produced insinuated that very thing! that if someone is religiously inclined it prevents them from gaining understanding, which makes no sense! and is unsubstantiated in the case of one of histories greatest scientists! and if I dig deeper I am sure there are more! but I have caused you enough grief, I dont want to overturn your entire belief system, its enough to be going on with.

that if someone is religiously inclined it prevents them from gaining understanding

No, not merely “religiously inclined” but rather let religious dogma determine their beliefs rather than think for themselves. Pay attention to what I say!

Originally posted by humy

Why do they insist? its a rather easy question to answer! simply because they have an erroneous perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days.

No, because there is no “correct” “perspective of the Biblical length of the creative days” because the bible is not based on logic nor on scientific method and therefore, even if you obt ...[text shortened]... nverse i.e. you cannot have “biblical and scientific assertions” i.e. an assertion that is both.

wow humy what have I done for you to treat me like this?

either the creative days were of a fixed duration or they were not? its not a matter of the Bible is illogical, to say so is irrational, its a simple boolean expression, either they are, which returns a value of true, or they are not which returns a value of false. Its nothing to do with whether you consider the Bible to be rational or otherwise and I find it hard to believe that a true man of science would say so. Indeed what is more according to the scientific method it can actually be demonstrated that they are not of a fixed duration, for the apostle Paul speaks of still being in 'Gods rest day' thousands of years later.

Now this is enough for present for i dont want to be accused of preaching and I am conscious that this is the science forum, so I will leave it there.

Originally posted by humy

that if someone is religiously inclined it prevents them from gaining understanding

No, not merely “religiously inclined” but rather let religious dogma determine their beliefs rather than think for themselves. Pay attention to what I say!

ok

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow humy what have I done for you to treat me like this?

either the creative days were of a fixed duration or they were not? its not a matter of the Bible is illogical, to say so is irrational, its a simple boolean expression, either they are, which returns a value of true, or they are not which returns a value of false. Its nothing to do with w ...[text shortened]... ccused of preaching and I am conscious that this is the science forum, so I will leave it there.

either the creative days were of a fixed duration or they were not?

You have lost me -I said nothing about that being “fixed” duration, whatever that is supposed to mean. I was referring to what I assumed you where referring to when you said “the Biblical length of the creative days” which is how long it took for the Earth and/or universe to form. So what where you referring to by “the Biblical length of the creative days” if not that? What do you mean by “the creative days” if not the days of creation?

Originally posted by humy

either the creative days were of a [b]fixed duration or they were not?

You have lost me -I said nothing about that being “fixed” duration, whatever that is supposed to mean. I was referring to what I assumed you where referring to when you said “the Biblical length of the creative days” which is how long it took for the Earth and/or uni ...[text shortened]... reative days” if not that? What do you mean by “the creative days” if not the days of creation?[/b]

The Bible describes the process of creation in terms of days, for example , day 1 - God created the heavens and the earth, day 3 God created the fauna etc , these are the creative days of which there are seven.

Now the problem arises when people start to assume that these are literal days or of a pre-specified duration. For example, Seven day adventists say that they are literally seven periods of a 24 hour duration. YEC (Young earth creationists I think believe that they are of a thousand year duration because of a Biblical formula, 'a day with God as if a thousand years elsewhere' or words to that effect. Either way they believe they are relatively short in the scheme of things.

I refuse to assume anything and remain content to simply acknowledge that they are of a mostly unspecified duration, possibly tens of millions of years because there is no reason to assume that they are of a fixed duration, the term 'day', being undefined and clearly symbolic and I have other internal Biblical reasons to demonstrate my stance, one of which I have already mentioned.

Why I find myself being drawn into a theological debate in the science forum I cannot say, this is no place for it and it makes me feel uneasy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... I refuse to assume anything and remain content to simply acknowledge that they are of a mostly unspecified duration, possibly tens of millions of years because there is no reason to assume that they are of a fixed duration...

Do you assert that the Bible was written in the most clear way that it could possibly have been written? Or should the burden be entirely on the reader when it comes to figuring out what to take literally and what to take poetically?