Political Crossfire Forums

[LetsGetReal]

Why is science the marker of truth? Is science ever wrong? To establish it as the the precedent is quite ridiculous if you have not learned from history science is wrong quite alot. And I'll elaborate on my proofs later, it just seems that as long as it doesn't fit your definition/description it won't be the truth which is quite close minded.

[Gryff1nd0r]

LetsGetReal wrote: Why is science the marker of truth? Is science ever wrong?

Yes, science has been wrong before. Scientists have drawn incorrect conclusions because either there was insufficient evidence or evidence yet to be uncovered, and often this was due to technological barriers. Science becomes more and more accurate with time, because it builds on former knowledge and uses information from the many branches of science (centuries ago, one could be an "expert" in all fields, but now the body of knowledge is so huge that scientists must become very specialized).

Here are the ways that science differs from religion, and why it is by far the best marker for truth that we have:

1) The body of scientific knowledge is constantly growing, and theories are formulated and changed based on new verifiable evidence.

2) ALL SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS ARE EXPLICITLY STATED SO THAT THEY CAN BE PROVEN WRONG.

The body of evidence for a particular religion does not change... it remains exactly the same, although interpretations and attitudes of those who practice it change over time. There can be no new knowledge aquired about the Bible or Christ; everything that we can possibly know is already known.

LetsGetReal wrote: To establish it as the the precedent is quite ridiculous if you have not learned from history science is wrong quite alot.

But, I'll reiterate: scienctific hypothesis CAN be wrong, it can be SHOWN to be wrong, and if it is shown to be wrong, it is THROWN OUT. Nobody clings fanatically to a disproved hypothesis, because the purpose of science is to find the verifiable truth, whatever it may be.

LetsGetReal wrote: And I'll elaborate on my proofs later, it just seems that as long as it doesn't fit your definition/description it won't be the truth which is quite close minded.

That sentence doesn't make any sense... but it seems to describe religious people, not scientific people!

Religious people establish the "truth" by irrational methods (a book supposedly written by God, but that is unverifiable, and if you actually read the book, it becomes ridiculous). They then only accept "truth" when it fits their creed (therefore, persecute Galileo for suggesting that the Earth goes around the sun... condemn Darwin for suggesting the origin of species... etc, etc, etc). Then, when they realize they are about to lose all credibility as intelligent human beings, they backpedal and say "Oh those were just FANATICS, but WE can accept reality"... and then they dutifully reinterpret their books.

Science starts with verifiable evidence and knowledge, and builds up from rudimentary truths to disprovable hypothesis, and then when enough hypothesis are proved correct beyond reasonable doubt, they are put together to form theories. If any hypothesis in a theory is shown to be false, then the theory is changed accordingly. If a new hypothesis can add to the theory, then it is added and the theory becomes more refined. If something upset the entire foundation of the theory, it will be discarded, because science does not cling fanatically to disproved theories on faith.

[Headrattle]

LetsGetReal wrote: Why is science the marker of truth? Is science ever wrong?

Science isn't the marker of truth, it is the marker of rationality. Science has been wrong before. Science accepts that and changes its self to adapt. It understands that it can be wrong.


Quote: To establish it as the the precedent is quite ridiculous if you have not learned from history science is wrong quite alot.

As opposed to Religion and the literal Bible that has been PROVED wrong, yet some people still cling to the unchanged version. That is the difference. Science changes with new evidence. It always will. It is rational that way. Religion rarely changes with the new evidence. Usually the parts of the Bible that people don't agree with are ignored, yet those same people talk about how it is inerrant. That is irrational. It is faith. Faith is, by definition, irrational. Not bad. Not Wrong. Just irrational.

Quote: And I'll elaborate on my proofs later, it just seems that as long as it doesn't fit your definition/description it won't be the truth which is quite close minded.
You don't have too. You already named the philosophical or rhetorical arguments that you believe to be "proof." Yet, those arguments are pretty far from proof of anything. They are arguments and for the most part can't be proved. They can only be convincing.

The problem is that you are accusing me of what you are guilty of. Will you accept a science that disproves a passage in the Bible? Will you accept science if it goes against your understanding of the "truth." It doesn't seem so and it is evident in that you are vehemently pronouncing that you have "proof" of God when any understanding of what you call "proof" would reveal that it is no such thing.

Look, I believe in God. I have faith in God. I feel that that faith is very important to me. Yet, I understand that that faith is irrational. That my faith is just that, faith. It is based upon no evidence, and can not be proved. That is why I have faith. But, to say that my faith is "rational" is just false.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. Rationality is important, but so is faith. But you should be truthful about which is which.

[LetsGetReal]

So two billion followers isn't evidence? How about the fact churches/christian organizations do more good in the world then any others? You need exact evidence of proof for it to be rational, yet science is only exact until it is proven wrong. And sorry the bible hasn't been proven wrong..

Have you seen God work his will in your life?

[Headrattle]

LetsGetReal wrote: So two billion followers isn't evidence?
That God exists? No.

Quote: How about the fact churches/christian organizations do more good in the world then any others?
Evidence that God Exists? No.

Quote: You need exact evidence of proof for it to be rational, yet science is only exact until it is proven wrong.
Science is as exact as it can be with the given evidence. If it is given more evidence, then it changes to fit the evidence. This is something that religion usually refuses to do and only does when believing otherwise is completely and obviously wrong.

Quote: And sorry the bible hasn't been proven wrong..

The Literal Bible has. Sorry. It has. The world isn't 6000 years old. There was no global flood. Rabbits don't chew their cud. Insects have more then four legs. You don't need to kill a bird to cure leprosy. There is no Mustard seed that grows into a tree. ect, ect, ect. That doesn't mean that it doesn't preach spiritual truth only that it isn't scientifically accurate and isn't based upon evidence. Thus it isn't rational.


Quote: Have you seen God work his will in your life?

I have seen things that I believe, based upon faith, that is God's work. My children. My wife. Certain aspects of my life. But rationally, it isn't. Rationally it is genetics, circumstance, and coincidence.

You can't disregard science because you don't like it and because it "has been wrong before." Yet then ignore every time that the bible and religion has been wrong. And then pretend that you are being "rational."

[LetsGetReal]

Headrattle wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: So two billion followers isn't evidence?
That God exists? No.

Quote: How about the fact churches/christian organizations do more good in the world then any others?
Evidence that God Exists? No.

Quote: You need exact evidence of proof for it to be rational, yet science is only exact until it is proven wrong.
Science is as exact as it can be with the given evidence. If it is given more evidence, then it changes to fit the evidence. This is something that religion usually refuses to do and only does when believing otherwise is completely and obviously wrong.

Quote: And sorry the bible hasn't been proven wrong..

The Literal Bible has. Sorry. It has. The world isn't 6000 years old. There was no global flood. Rabbits don't chew their cud. Insects have more then four legs. You don't need to kill a bird to cure leprosy. There is no Mustard seed that grows into a tree. ect, ect, ect. That doesn't mean that it doesn't preach spiritual truth only that it isn't scientifically accurate and isn't based upon evidence. Thus it isn't rational.


Quote: Have you seen God work his will in your life?

I have seen things that I believe, based upon faith, that is God's work. My children. My wife. Certain aspects of my life. But rationally, it isn't. Rationally it is genetics, circumstance, and coincidence.

You can't disregard science because you don't like it and because it "has been wrong before." Yet then ignore every time that the bible and religion has been wrong. And then pretend that you are being "rational." Well I guess were going to have to formally disagree, because I could argue again but what is the point. So it was a good debate and glad it remained civil between us.

[adrenalinejunkie]

SaintLucifer wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: SaintLucifer wrote:
The Holy Bible was created as a form of control. What better way to keep people in line than to set up a text full of Holy laws?? In the U.S.A., it is called the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Holy Bible is antiquated and needs to be removed from the human conscience. Religion must be banned from society once and for all. Disorder should not be advanced with the ridiculous notion of an all-powerful being.

You know, someone needs to throw you down and tickle you for half an hour. Preferably a girl of course.

I'm just sayin....

Oh look!! That beam of light!! It must be your God prepared to speak unto you!! Oh wait! Never mind. It's a helicopter with a searchlight.

HOLY BIBLE = FAIRY TALE

The Jewish people were as skilled at propaganda as Goebbels was for the Nazis.

Okay, 45 minutes.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: There is significant error? Here is where I'm supposed to say, "name one" and we launch into an unending debate about this case or that. Every single case has been argued thoroughly by very intelligent people on both sides. Hasn't the inerrancy debate been going on for centuries? Just because you have concluded the Bible is full of error, does not mean anyone who disagrees with you is irrational. Why? Because the debates are all over the actual evidences. Those are rational debates, and those rational debates lead us to the question of....

You don't seem to understand. I said that it irrational to believe that God wrote the Bible. I have not concluded that the Bible is filled with error. However there are significant errors in the bible. To believe that it was written by God is irrational because there is no evidence to support it.

It really is that simple.

Quote: ....whether God wrote it. That question goes to the evidence of the existence of God, the source of creation, the prophetic evidence of the Scripture itself which requires analyzing history as well as the present time, etc... Look you can disagree with me, but it's all a rational, evidence based argument. At least for most of the debate.
Except you are making up the evidence. The more we delve into history the more we know that stuff in the bible simply did not happen as it was written. Take the Global Flood. No evidence of it.

And with that...this discussion is wrapping up because you aren't understanding what I say either. You have concluded the facts that I believe are false. It's more than just an opinion, you have concluded. You are done.

Headrattle wrote:
I have not concluded that the Bible is filled with error. However there are significant errors in the bible.

Which?

Anyway, it's fine. I just disagree.

I would suggest never, ever studying the Great Flood. You will find yourself telling a lot of other scientists they are making stuff up as well. There's a huge thread on this. I gave a bunch of sources that look at the Great Flood in geologic record, but...

We already know all those guys were just making stuff up right?

On another subject, and seriously, have a great week and weekend! I don't get to be on this site enough, but I do enjoy the discussions. Catch ya later on another debate!

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote:
By the way, Quantum Physics and the workings of much of Molecular Biology aren't fully explained and also have theories in them. Your examples are poor.

Theories aren't the point. Unprovability is the point. It's what generally separates hard sciences from soft sciences. Go to the lab and prove South America used to be attached to Africa. Can't? Then it's irrational according to your previous logic. Science fields aren't all alike. Your generalizations do not accurately reflect science because the fields are varied in their ability to actually use those facts and figures thingies.

[eynon]

as to the global flood....there was significant and sudden flooding all over the world towards the end of the last Ice-Age, roughly 12,000 years ago. To many of the people at that time who survived those flood it may have seemed as if their entire world was flooded.

who's to say G-d didn't help a pious Neolithic herder/hunter and his family survive?

oh, well....as they say they devils' in the details :wink:

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: I would suggest never, ever studying the Great Flood. You will find yourself telling a lot of other scientists they are making stuff up as well. There's a huge thread on this. I gave a bunch of sources that look at the Great Flood in geologic record, but...

We already know all those guys were just making stuff up right?
THe only people making anything up about the Global Flood is Young Earth Creationists. They keep ignoring huge facts and pretending that they have the answer with some crackpot theory that is devoid of any evidence. Sorry. There isn't any evidence of the Global Flood. There are entirely too many logical, geological, archaeological and entirely scientific problems that come up with the flood.

Why is there no trace of it? Don't give me the Grand Canyon either. That isn't trace of a great flood. It couldn't happen in a few days, months, or even years because the Grand Canyon is made up on Granite and such a thing would be impossible.

Why didn't any of the civilizations of the time record it. Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, India, all of these cultures had written word and we understand their history around 3000 to 2000 BC pretty well. Yet there is no blip in their population, no record of lots of rain... nothing. Why?

How did all of the Animals get back to their remote spots? For example Marsupials in Australia?

Sorry. The Flood has been disproven by science. Young Earth Creation has been disproven by science. In order for YEC to be correct, you would have to throw out everything that we understand about the world.

Essentially, YEC or Global Flood has been disproven.

Essentially, it is too late. I already researched the Global Flood. And I have found that scientifically it is impossible. There is just no way around it.

Point me to this Great Flood thread. I would be amused to see the "proof" that you have. It always makes me chuckle when YEC theories ignore vast areas of science or even common sense.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: I would suggest never, ever studying the Great Flood. You will find yourself telling a lot of other scientists they are making stuff up as well. There's a huge thread on this. I gave a bunch of sources that look at the Great Flood in geologic record, but...

We already know all those guys were just making stuff up right?
THe only people making anything up about the Global Flood is Young Earth Creationists.

Simply not true. With all due respect. I'm not a young earth guy, and many of the best Christian men and women who believe in a flood aren't either.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Eynon81 wrote: as to the global flood....there was significant and sudden flooding all over the world towards the end of the last Ice-Age, roughly 12,000 years ago. To many of the people at that time who survived those flood it may have seemed as if their entire world was flooded.

who's to say G-d didn't help a pious Neolithic herder/hunter and his family survive?

oh, well....as they say they devils' in the details :wink:

Ain't that the truth. :-)

[Gryff1nd0r]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well I guess were going to have to formally disagree, because I could argue again but what is the point. So it was a good debate and glad it remained civil between us.

Translation: I am rolling over and sticking my leg up in the air because that is better than continuing the debate and allowing you to uncover the fact that I don't know what I am talking about and I am utterly irrational.

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: Simply not true. With all due respect. I'm not a young earth guy, and many of the best Christian men and women who believe in a flood aren't either.

There is evidence that there was a local flood.
There is no evidence that there was a global flood. There is significant evidence that there was never a global flood like that in the Bible. Science can't prove or disprove God. Science can't prove or disprove that God influanced those who wrote the bible. Science can prove that there was no global flood.

If you are willing to believe the science that proves that the Earth is not 6000 years old, then you should realize that the there is just as much evidence that the Global Flood never happened.

[LetsGetReal]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well I guess were going to have to formally disagree, because I could argue again but what is the point. So it was a good debate and glad it remained civil between us.

Translation: I am rolling over and sticking my leg up in the air because that is better than continuing the debate and allowing you to uncover the fact that I don't know what I am talking about and I am utterly irrational.

Did you notice that no one gave much thought to your post. Would you like to know why? Its probably because your an idiot void of any intelligence and thinks if I just post what I've been told people will believe me. I would love to know what you think, because from this computer it looks like you believe anyone who sees it different then you is just wrong and can't see the facts. And how dare they walk away from the argument when no one is changing anyones mind. I'm not going to keep posting the same arguments with other links or facts when we keep believing the same thing. Why repeat yourself over and over when you can state it once or twice, then if it can't be resolved back up and walk away. I'm sorry I just think your a moron and should be ignored because the more time I waste on responding to your posts the lower quality of life I'm going to have. To be honest with your lack of intelligence I'm suprised you can even use the computer...

[Gus]

Flame fest. Locked.