Science and philosophy forum:

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
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?

Even scientific data is open to interpretation and it must be admitted that the very same data that materialists use to support their stance is also being used by creationists to support their stance, for example the fossil record. To what extent and why remains a matter of conjecture.

In the case of scripture what should happen although it rarely does (for various reasons) is that some kind of consensus is reached as to what constitutes what is literal and what is allegorical. As to its clarity, i leave you with sir Issac's words,

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” - Issac Newton

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Even scientific data is open to interpretation and it must be admitted that the very same data that materialists use to support their stance is also being used by creationists to support their stance, for example the fossil record. To what extent and why remains a matter of conjecture.

In the case of scripture what should happen although it rare ...[text shortened]... sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” - Issac Newton

Even scientific data is open to interpretation

Yes, but the difference is, with scientific data as opposed to mere poetic stories, there often is just one and only one possible interpretation i.e. we can say the evidence actually PROOVES something! Thus that data can ( and does often ) lead to the conclusion of scientific FACTS. And that data can usually be verified by more observation and repeatable experiment -something that cannot be done with biblical tales.
Thus you cannot rationally imply that interpretation of scientific data is anything like the interpretation of the bible. One is usually interpreting verifiable and often irrefutable evidence and the other is interpreting some messy vague poetry that doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all!

Originally posted by humy

Even scientific data is open to interpretation

Yes, but the difference is, with scientific data as opposed to mere poetic stories, there often is just one and only one possible interpretation i.e. we can say the evidence actually PROOVES something! Thus that data can ( and does often ) lead to the conclusion of scientific FACTS. And that da ...[text shortened]... the other is interpreting some messy vague poetry that doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all!

and yet I and Sir Issac beg to differ ! and yes i can imply rationally that the interpretation of scientific data is exactly the same. You form a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis and you draw conclusions based on the empirical evidence. The outcome will be exactly the same, verifiable and often irrefutable. One can for example submit a doctrine like the trinity to falsification, can the same be said of the theory of evolution? In fact, if it cannot be empirically demonstrated then one can question whether it can even be termed science at all! in fact it may even be less scientific than alchemy! but i digress at the risk of getting into another futile evolution v creationism argument or a bible v science argument.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet I and Sir Issac beg to differ ! and yes i can imply rationally that the interpretation of scientific data is exactly the same. You form a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis and you draw conclusions based on the empirical evidence. The outcome will be exactly the same, verifiable and often irrefutable. One can for example submit a doctrin ...[text shortened]... k of getting into another futile evolution v creationism argument or a bible v science argument.

and yet I and Sir Issac beg to differ !

How could you possibly know this? Did he ever explicitly say or imply there can only be ONE rational interpretation of the Bible? If so, please give a link so that I can see this for myself.

and yes i can imply rationally that the interpretation of scientific data is exactly the same.

You mean the “same” as the interpretation of the bible in the sense that there can be only one rational interpretation? Poetry and vague logically incoherent stories generally don't have that property while scientific data can, not always but often, have only one possible rational interpretation.

You form a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis and you draw conclusions based on the empirical evidence.

Yes, for science. The bible is based on stories and mere hearsay, not rationally-based hypotheses based on the empirical evidence. The bible is NOT scientifically based.

One can for example submit a doctrine like the trinity to falsification

Don,t understand your grammar here; “ trinity to falsification”? What does that mean? Are you saying that the trinity hypothesis is falsifiable? If so, look up the definition of “falsifiable” and then come back to me and explain HOW it can be falsifiable if it is false....

can the same be said of the theory of evolution?

If you are asking if it is falsifiable, yes, it IS falsifiable. It makes predictions that other alternative hypothesis don’t make. If evolution is false, we can falsify it by observing if those predictions are false. To date, every single one of those predictions has been demonstrated to be correct.

In fact, if it cannot be empirically demonstrated

Why not? It already has.

Originally posted by humy

and yet I and Sir Issac beg to differ !

How could you possibly know this? Did he ever explicitly say or imply there can only be ONE rational interpretation of the Bible? If so, please give a link so that I can see this for myself.

and yes i can imply rationally that the interpretation of scientific data is exactly the same. [/q ...[text shortened]... quote] In fact, if it cannot be empirically demonstrated

Why not? It already has.

so you have observed one genus becoming another, that's interesting can you cite which one it was, for as far as i am aware there has been no such observation, in fact all you can lay claim to is some strains of e-coli being able to synthesize sugar - wow - is this the science forum or a medieval alchemy convention!

edit: Falsification may refer to: The act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you have observed one genus becoming another, that's interesting can you cite which one it was, for as far as i am aware there has been no such observation, in fact all you can lay claim to is some strains of e-coli being able to synthesize sugar - wow - is this the science forum or a medieval alchemy convention!

edit: Falsification may refer t ...[text shortened]... of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification

so you have observed one genus becoming another,

What a stupid comment! I know that certain other people, that know a lot more about it than you or I do (especially you and by a few orders of magnitude ), have observed evidence for this -that is enough to rationally know that one gene can turn into another.

Have you seen the other side of the moon directly with your own eyes? Have you been their yourself? No? So it credibly might not exist then 😛 -same 'logic' -or I should say, 'illogic'.

edit: Falsification may refer to: The act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory

so are now saying that you were saying that the trinity has been proven to be false? Have you already completely lost the thread of your own conversation? Your statements are all over the place and completely logically incoherent.

Originally posted by humy

so you have observed one genus becoming another,

What a stupid comment! I know that certain other people, that know a lot more about it than you or I do, have observed evidence for this -that is enough to rationally know that one gene can turn into another.

Have you seen the other side of the moon directly with your own eyes? Have you ...[text shortened]... ? Have you already lost the thread of your own conversation? You are being logically incoherent.

hardly i am a logic machine my man! so lets get this you have not observed any genus becoming another yet you believe that it happened! what is that Humy my son, but unobserved phenomena! A dirty word to a man of true science like myself! anyhow gotta go to work, so sad 🙁

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly i am a logic machine my man! so lets get this you have not observed any genus becoming another yet you believe that it happened! what is that Humy my son, but unobserved phenomena! A dirty word to a man of true science like myself! anyhow gotta go to work, so sad 🙁

you have not observed any genes become another (spelling corrected )

so you now deny the existence of mutations because you and I have not personally directly observed them? Mutations have been proven to exist. You don't have to personally observe something to rationally know that it exists if it has been proven to exist by other people. If you refute this, then how do you know that the other side of the moon exist?

Originally posted by humy

you have not observed any genes become another (spelling corrected )

so you now deny the existence of mutations because you and I have not personally directly observed them? Mutations have been proven to exist. You don't have to personally observe something to rationally know that it exists if it has been proven to exist by other people. If you refute this, then how do you know that the other side of the moon exist?

Because the moon is spherical Humy and I have taken it upon trust that it is the case, you on the other hand have never observed a transmutation occur despite the fact that there have been literally zillions of permutations of e-coli and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies), its an unobserved phenomena! a dirty word! the shame of it! I fear i have chanced upon a coven of alchemists rather than a science forum!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Because the moon is spherical Humy and I have taken it upon trust that it is the case, you on the other hand have never observed a transmutation occur despite the fact that there have been literally zillions of permutations of e-coli and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies), its an unobserved phenomena! a dirty word! the shame of it! I fear i have chanced upon a coven of alchemists rather than a science forum!

Because the moon is spherical Humy and I have taken it upon trust that it is the case,

WHY do you take it “on trust” that it is spherical if it is irrational to believe something solely on the bases of indirect evidence i.e. without your personal direct observation?
Answer that and you finally get why your rejection of all indirect observation (of mutations etc ) just because it is not accompanied by direct observation is irrational and moronic to the extreme.
Explain to us WHY is all indirect observation invalid?
If I observe X and the only possible logical explanation is Y but cannot observe Y directly, WHY is it still not rational to conclude Y as you claim?
( -answer, it IS rational to conclude Y. Hence we have evidence of mutations and evolution and old Earth etc )

Originally posted by humy

Because the moon is spherical Humy and I have taken it upon trust that it is the case,

WHY do you take it “on trust” that it is spherical if it is irrational to believe something solely on the bases of indirect evidence i.e. without your personal direct observation?
Answer that and you finally get why your rejection of all indirect obse ...[text shortened]... IS rational to conclude Y. Hence we have evidence of mutations and evolution and old Earth etc )

why? because i have not personally examined it and therefore i have no choice but to take it upon trust. Sure i can observe the waning of the moon and understand why it appears so, through direct observation. There has never been a single instance of an observation of a transmutation evah despite millions of permutations and it therefore remains a completely unobserved phenomena and does not even comply with the scientific method and is not science but alchemy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why? because i have not personally examined it and therefore i have no choice but to take it upon trust. Sure i can observe the waning of the moon and understand why it appears so, through direct observation. There has never been a single instance of an observation of a transmutation evah despite millions of permutations and it therefore remains a c ...[text shortened]... ed phenomena and does not even comply with the scientific method and is not science but alchemy!

why? because i have not personally examined it and therefore i have no choice but to take it upon trust.

That doesn't answer my question:
Why do you “ take it upon trust” despite “not personally examined it” if, as you claim, it is irrational to believe something solely on the bases of indirect evidence i.e. without personal direct observation?

Is “personally examined it” not " personal direct observation"?

Reminder of my question:

WHY do you take it “on trust” that it is spherical if it is irrational to believe something solely on the bases of indirect evidence i.e. without your personal direct observation?

the rest of your post is irrelevant because it doesn't answer the question.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://sciencechatforum.com/index.php?nomobile=1

Anyone here post there?

Isn't this the Science and Philosophy Forum for RHP? Or manybe it is really the Science Philosophy Forum.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Isn't this the Science and Philosophy Forum for RHP? Or manybe it is really the Science Philosophy Forum.

Don't you know where you are posting? This Forum is called "Science Forum", just for your information.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Don't you know where you are posting? This Forum is called "Science Forum", just for your information.

I know where I am posting, but everybody posts their opinions and philosophy on science matters here.