Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy would you say that a 'fundamentalist Christian' who believes
So now there is no differnce between the position of a fundamentalist christian who believes that the world is flat and was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago - irrespective of all the evidence to the contrary, and a scientist who uses the word 'believe' to say "all available evidence suggests" that the world is 4.53 billion years old, is spherical and orbits the sun?
that the world is flat? I submit to you that as long as reality and
someone’s beliefs match, it is fine. The scientist can be wrong about
things too, being a human makes him as capable of error as the
next guy.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAbsolutely, scientists make mistakes all the time - but through those mistakes we learn. There are lots of scientists, sharing their knowledge, and by carefully examining lots and lots of data, and lots of experiments, we see general patterns emerging. Those patterns are what become theories, such as gravity, relativity and evolution.
Why would you say that a 'fundamentalist Christian' who believes
that the world is flat? I submit to you that as long as reality and
someone’s beliefs match, it is fine. The scientist can be wrong about
things too, being a human makes him as capable of error as the
next guy.
Kelly
My fundamentalist christian and scientist are, as I see it, at different ends of a spectrum of viewpoints on how the world came about.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree (and it is a moot point) that we need to present testable and falsifiable hypotheses in order to interrogate reality in a scientific sense (Karl Popper and the Vienna circle) and no good scientist would disagree however I disagree with you that we need complete information (no such dataset exists to my knowledge) on everything between data points (what you call dots) before we make meaningful inferences and conclusions that themselves are falsifiable and testable so the process is essentially iterative. This demand of yours for total information before we can draw conclusions is a unrealistic and impractical council of perfection and is unrealiasable I say to you and is my primary problem with your position as you also present no alternative. Clearly the more data points the better and no sphere of human knowledge would possess as much as evolutionary biology I daresay. You are correct however science does not PROVE things and is indeed the "art of the soluble" in Medawar's apt phrase. If you want certainties look elsewhere and this is the essential difference between science and the world's great religions.
There isn't anything wrong with connecting the dots, it is a good
way to attempt to understand; however, it does mean that we
have all necessary information to grasp what some dots mean
inorder to know if they are really what we think they are. I'm
telling you that when we start making claims about things that
cannot be shown to be wrong, it is faith and belief, and if you
want to call that science too, that is up to you.
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
So, all I'm reading are theories, and conjecture and a heck of a lot
of sarcasm.
Well, to be incredibly serious: why is it that NO ONE can prove the
Bible wrong....maybe it's because God's Word is............TRUE!!!
There's a non theory for you.
C'mon read the Bible, prove me wrong.
You know that God Loves you.
Jesus Christ didn't die for me he died for EVERYONE!
So that we all may have eternal life, if we choose the correct path.
Just watch 'The Passion of the The Christ'!
If you can't prove me wrong, watch the movie!
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and your
families.
Originally posted by NosracDisproving a negative statement can be quite a harrowing task. Why is it that no one can prove "the inside of a watermelon is purple until the skin is pierced" wrong?
So, all I'm reading are theories, and conjecture and a heck of a lot
of sarcasm.
Well, to be incredibly serious: why is it that NO ONE can prove the
Bible wrong....maybe it's because God's Word is............TRUE!!!
There's a non theory for you.
C'mon read the Bible, prove me wrong.
You know that God Loves you.
Jesus Christ didn't die for ...[text shortened]... wrong, watch the movie!
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and your
families.
The burden of proof should rest with the one making the positive claim.
Originally posted by NosracProve to me that Narnia doesn't exist, and I'll prove to you the bible is wrong.
So, all I'm reading are theories, and conjecture and a heck of a lot
of sarcasm.
Well, to be incredibly serious: why is it that NO ONE can prove the
Bible wrong....maybe it's because God's Word is............TRUE!!!
There's a non theory for you.
C'mon read the Bible, prove me wrong.
You know that God Loves you.
Jesus Christ didn't die for ...[text shortened]... wrong, watch the movie!
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and your
families.
Of course you can't do that. nor can I. All your rantings demonstrate nothing other than what you firmly believe. It doesn't make the bible true. And it doesn't matter how many christians or jews spout eternal praises to our lord or whatever - that doesn't make it true either.
But I can't prove that.
Nor can you prove it to be true.
Originally posted by NosracEver heard of the hydrological cycle?
Ok, you spoke of water?
Where did the water from the flood come from?
Please explain in GREAT DETAIL FOR ALL TO KNOW
thank you
Probably not since your ignorance is pretty much palpable.
Where does the water in any flood come from?
Rain ... falls ... water runs off the land into the ocean ... evaporation ... rain ... etc. Get too much rain and run off and you've got a flood.
Originally posted by NosracI already told you (twice), the biblical creation story is inconsistant with the physical evidence. As far as I'm concerned, in a document that claims infallability, that pretty much seals the proverbial deal that the biblical claims are false.
So, all I'm reading are theories, and conjecture and a heck of a lot
of sarcasm.
Well, to be incredibly serious: why is it that NO ONE can prove the
Bible wrong....maybe it's because God's Word is............TRUE!!!
There's a non theory for you.
C'mon read the Bible, prove me wrong.
You know that God Loves you.
Jesus Christ didn't die for ...[text shortened]... wrong, watch the movie!
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and your
families.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe physical evidence as you describe it, it is simply the universe
I already told you (twice), the biblical creation story is inconsistant with the physical evidence. As far as I'm concerned, in a document that claims infallability, that pretty much seals the proverbial deal that the biblical claims are false.
as it is around us, how you paint the universe doesn't allow for
creation to be true when you look at it all. It doesn't mean that
you are without fault in getting it right, unless you are making some
claims about infallibility?
A document that claims infallibility? Which book makes that claim,
the book of Mormon?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayC'mon Kelly, you know no book claims infallibility. It's the people who read and interpret the book. The thing that annoys me is the way so many people can use the bible in a respectful and satisfying (to them that is) way, while a few fundamentalists need for some reason to have a complete literal interpretation of it.
The physical evidence as you describe it, it is simply the universe
as it is around us, how you paint the universe doesn't allow for
creation to be true when you look at it all. It doesn't mean that
you are without fail, getting it right, unless you are making some
claims about infallibility?
A document that claims infallibility? Which book makes that claim,
the book of Mormon?
Kelly
Can you explain this?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayLets settle this point, the one about small changes adding up
There are small changes, you can draw a line, but unless you know
where those lines are taking you, how do you know many of these
changes are not keeping us on track, instead of turning us into
something else?
Kelly
to something new and improved.
As I have said before, we see small changes, but the question
I have is, does that mean that they are doing what evolutionist
believers claim they are, adding up to something new?
Seeing small changes in a flight of something can either mean
one or two things occuring, one the flight is drifting off course,
or two the flight is always keeping itself on course.
Seeing small changes within DNA can mean one of two things
as well, one that life is changing, or two that is always correcting
itself so that it does not drift into something completely different.
The assumption that one knows the answer to that suggests
knowledge I don't believe anyone has, they may claim it, but
it is quite beyond us. No one has witnessed these changes to
that degree, the claims that are being suggested that it does
occur to that degree, where we can go from a small cell into vast
array of life we see today, is a belief, a faith.
Kelly