Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Evolution is founded on a theological/philosophical assumption... not a scientific one. It is founded on the assumption that God is not necessary to account for what we see in nature. That assumption simply cannot be tested or falsified therefore it is not scientific... by the definition provided by naturalists themselves.

Wrong again. Science is founded on the assumption that some things can be found out by confining our quest to naturalistic means of investigation and these, at least, can be verified and built upon by scientists around the world regardless of their religous or philosophical convictions. It turns out that it works that way, sad though it may be for some erronious religious dogmas.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Likewise evolutionists ignore such contradictions and call them anomolies... and if you are honest you will acknowledge that this is true.

Scientists of all stripes, including evolutionists, welcome anomolies as fruitful areas for further investigation. Dogmatists sweep them over with verbal constructions designed to hide them.

You accused someone of God in the gaps earlier in different words. But evolution is guilty of "naturalism in the gaps". Any explanation is good enough no matter how unlikely or far-fetched so long as it supports evolution overall and does not depend on anything other than natural forces.

Scientists will propose tentative explanations that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate God, it is the way science works.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
This is not a sinister plot to eliminate God, it is the way science works.

Call it what you want but the basic premise is that nothing that exists in the natural world required God. I didn't use the word sinister but I would say that it rightly applies.

Stealing glory from God for something that He claims to have done in His Word is what evolution does whether it does so with acknowledged antagonism toward Him or not.

God said He created. Evolutionists from Darwin til today say that it was natural processes... so going back to the original question, which is more reliable?

And don't give me the ridiculous non-sense about God using evolution as a "method". If a "method" discounts the necessary effort of the employer of the "method", you can hardly call it "his method". The method doesn't need him/Him.

That argument is very similar to saying that the sun rising in the morning is Scott J's method of lighting the world. Standing by and watching it happen doesn't make it mine... no more than being an unnecessary observer or evolution can ever make that "His method".

 

[Scott J]

Scientists will propose tentative explanations that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate God, it is the way science works.

Creationists will propose tentative explanations for how God might have directly created something that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate legitimate scientific investigation, it is the way science works.

 

[Scott J]

Scientists will propose tentative explanations that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate God, it is the way science works.

IDer's will propose tentative explanations of how intelligence may account for the complexities in nature that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate science, it is the way science works.

 

[Scott J]

My point Paul is that you have done exactly what I suggested. You fill the gaps with naturalism. You assume naturalism in all of the gaps... then cry foul when someone else assumes intelligence or the supernatural.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
This is not a sinister plot to eliminate God, it is the way science works.

Call it what you want but the basic premise is that nothing that exists in the natural world required God. I didn't use the word sinister but I would say that it rightly applies.</font>[/QUOTE]The basic premise for some atheistic scientists is that nothing that exists in the natural world required God. The basic premise for agnostic and Christian scientists is that the study of observable natural processes can give us valuable information regarding the natural world and its origin. Obviously even if a scientist should desire to peer into the supernatural realm no amount of weighing and recording observations of the physical universe would be the slightest bit useful. You don't see much research into the supernatural for the same reason you don't see much research into superluminary particles--it's not a sinister plot; we can't observe either.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Creationists will propose tentative explanations for how God might have directly created something that are then areas for further investigation. This is not a sinister plot to eliminate legitimate scientific investigation, it is the way science works.

Yeah, you can propose a young earth from 6000 years ago, but then when you go look for evidence, it just doesn't fit. There is no sensible explanation for a young earth universe that is consistent with the data showing the earth is old. So what happened, did God make the earth and then purposefully try to mislead us to thinking it wasn't made brand-new practically yesterday? Young-earthers say that God made light in transit from the stars, which interestingly enough means that when he made the universe, he included light from make-believe supernovas that never actually existed, since they would have had to explode billions prior to creation.

So my new Young Earth theory for this weeks is that stars further than ~6,000 to [insert age at end of world here] light years away do not actually exist. Our solar system is floating here alone in the middle of nothingness, and God just simulated starlight for us because he couldn't be bothered waiting for galaxies to grow. The closer stars may actually exist, or maybe God just makes new light for them all the time!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Now, as I understand it, you have no argument with my assertation that the Scriptures are 100 percent reliable. Are you honestly insisting that science is 100 percent reliable too?"

The Bible is completely reliable. God's general revelation in the Creation is also completely reliable. Both are subject to the ambiguous interpretations of fallible man. So the same problems are experienced when looking at either.

I am so glad we agree on the Bible. Thank GOD for that. It makes me feel good that you share my faith in Christ and in his word.

So what you are saying is that science is our understnding of "GOD's general revelation in the creation." And that that general revelation is 100 percent reliable but the science (which interprets it) is not 100 percent reliable. And you are holding that the Scriptures are 100 percent reliable but our understanding of them is less than 100 percent. Is that a fair representation of your opinion?

A.F.

 

[JWI]

I do not see how people can claim to believe evolution AND the Bible.

The first chapter of Genesis is very easy to read and understand. The Bible says the earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars. The first animal mentioned by name is the whale. This is the modern whale we know today. It did not evolve from some earlier form. The Bible says God created the fowls before the land animals. All of this is in direct contradiction to the theory of evolution.

If God had created life through evolution, he could have easily said so. I challange any here to show verses that indicate evolution.

Evolutionists like to draw people into long pseudo-scientific discussions. They use jargon that only someone who has studied evolution can understand. This gives a false air or impression of intellectualism.

But if what they say does not agree with God's word then they are wrong.

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[just-want-peace]

But if what they say does not agree with God's word then they are wrong.

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

So simple that some just cannot accept it.

Pity!!!!

 

[Plain Old Bill]

In the Bible when something is not to be taken literally it says something like,and Jesus spoke in parables,like unto,as if,and words along those lines.Some here tell us the accounting in Genesis is a middle eastern poem or fairy tale.If that were so I think God would have given us a hint as He did in all of the other cases.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, I think that the nearest - the very nearest - galaxy being 2.9 million light years away and obviously having been gloriously created complete with a lot of stars at that time is a kind of hint. Scripture itself says we should pay attention to the message of the stars. They were put there for signs.

Nature is infallible, having been made directly by God.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JWI:
[
Evolutionists like to draw people into long pseudo-scientific discussions. They use jargon that only someone who has studied evolution can understand. This gives a false air or impression of intellectualism.

Whale embryos actually grow feet which are then re-absorbed into the body.

This is evidence that way back in the past the whale ancestors actually had real legs and could walk.

There, that wasn't so hard to understand, was it?

By the way, if it is a sin to use jargon that outsiders don't understand, what about using terms like "trinity" and "pre-millinial dispensationalism" and "plenary verbal inspiration"?

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Hmmm - how many times have mortal men around here called evolution foolish?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Nature is infallible, having been made directly by God.

Nature is infallible.
Human beings are part of nature.
Human beings are infallible.
I am a human being.
I am infallible.

Since I am infallible I proclaim the statement "nature is infallible" to be wrong.

Whew! Now things are back to normal......

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I said:
"For regular objects Newton's is exact with the limits of measurement. Einstein is only needed for things that are outside normal experience. We are pretty sure about Relativity but it hasn't been fully verified. The distinction between a law and a theory is real."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


The orbit of a planet is outside normal experience?

For most of us it is!

A.F.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
Human beings are part of nature.
Human beings are infallible.
I am a human being.
I am infallible.

Since I am infallible I proclaim the statement "nature is infallible" to be wrong.

Whew! Now things are back to normal......

A.F.

I think you're equivocating on the meaning of "nature."

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
[ </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Now, as I understand it, you have no argument with my assertation that the Scriptures are 100 percent reliable. Are you honestly insisting that science is 100 percent reliable too?"

The Bible is completely reliable. God's general revelation in the Creation is also completely reliable. Both are subject to the ambiguous interpretations of fallible man. So the same problems are experienced when looking at either.

I am so glad we agree on the Bible. Thank GOD for that. It makes me feel good that you share my faith in Christ and in his word.

So what you are saying is that science is our understnding of "GOD's general revelation in the creation." And that that general revelation is 100 percent reliable but the science (which interprets it) is not 100 percent reliable. And you are holding that the Scriptures are 100 percent reliable but our understanding of them is less than 100 percent. Is that a fair representation of your opinion?

A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]Morning Brother.

Do we wish to retire now that we found some sort of common ground?

Yes, I think that the Bible is completely reliable. That should be easy enough to understand.

Allow me to broaden my statement about the creation a bit. Here is what I mean by it being reliable. Some suggest that what we think is evidence of great age is merely an appearance of age. Now there is no doubt that if the world was recently created, there would be some appearance of age necessary. Soil would need to already be present, rivers would need bed in which to flow and there would have been a necessity that some plants and animals be in a mature form at creation. However, I am unwilling to extend this indefinately as some do where even the ratio of atomic isotopes in the rocks are an appearance of age. In my opinion, once you allow that kind of thing in, you have given up all ability to know what around you is real or not.

Ultimately, our disagreements come because we are human and are unable to correctly kow everything about both the Bible and the Creation. Those uncertainties in what we know and in what we think we know give rise to the possibility of a multitude of opinions on various matters. And I know that such a statement can as easily support my position as oppose it.

In the end we must be mindful of how many things we have in common as we discuss our differences.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But there are a few problems. The first, and most important, is that your answer underscores my complaints about arbitrary answers. The evidence was good enough for you to suggest that maybe whales really did come from the land, but then you arbitrarily dismiss other similar evidence from other similar cases. It is not consistent.

Ute, if you go back you will probably find that I refused to call what you proposed impossible. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support it as "fact" or anything close to "fact".

My primary point is that life descends from other life. It derives its information from previous generations through DNA. That in and of itself points away from a general trend toward greater complexity and variability and toward a loss of variability and the "fixing" of genetic traits. </font>[/QUOTE]We have been over this before.

I have presented to you many instances of mutation producing new and useful sequences. I have presented broader information that shows how the whole genome records how it was pieced together largely through duplication and mutation. Here is a more recent thread that discusses that topic only which really has not hooked any dissenters.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

So I suppose it is safe to say that this is a point on which we disagree. I have given you examples and you have denied them.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />" So please tell me why it is unreasonable to accept that God did it."

Because of the arbitrary nature of the response.

UTE, That smells of hypocrisy. Assuming naturalism vice intelligence or supernatural force is arbitrary... and you not only accept it, you demand it. </font>[/QUOTE]Please go back and look at my comments in the second half of this post on the last page.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3155/6.html#000084

You have read it because you have quoted it. You will see that I set aside assumptions about how thinks could have happened and discuss what I think we would expect to find if common descent were true and if recently individually created "kinds" were true. Feel free to go through some of my expectations and show where you would have different expectations and why you would expect such.

So I have opened it up without regard to such assumptions.

As far as science goes, it is not that it makes any statement about the supernatural at all other than it cannot investigate the supernatural. Somehting that is outside of nature is not capable of being investigated through the scientific method. It is not that scientists deny God, about half actually profess to believe in Him in this country, it is that they cannot control Him and reproduce His actions.

But thus far, the natural processes seem to be capable of explaining the current and past diversity of life without the need for intervention. On the other hand, you have had enough conversations with me to know that I am of the opinion that man was God's desired outcome and therefore there must have been some supernatural influence along the way to ensure that outcome. But that interference does not seem crucial tp the general process itself. God seems to have designed a set of natural laws that are capable of being used to accomplish His will just as He did in the laws that control chemistry and physics and everything else that goes on in this universe.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The first observation that gets discussed is morphology. Now if we look at the animals that are alive today and the animals that the fossil record tells us were alive in the past, we see that the form a nested heirarchy.

This is a completely fallacious line of reasoning not at all worthy of your intelligence... except that it is necessary to support evolution.

Take the equines living today. If only the Clydesdale survived and we had nothing but a mix and match of bones and hoof prints from all of the other kinds... you could easily create a "morphology" to explain how the Shetland pony evolved up through the donkey, zebra, Arabian... to finally arrive at the great Clydesdale.

The only place these morphologies come from is the imagination of evolutionists and their artists. </font>[/QUOTE]I think that we have a fundemental misunderstanding here.

First off, please reread the paragraph from which you quoted.

"The first observation that gets discussed is morphology. Now if we look at the animals that are alive today and the animals that the fossil record tells us were alive in the past, we see that the form a nested heirarchy. All by itself this could mean that all of these animals were produced by common descent or by common designer. (As a note, I am not trying to set up a false dilemma here. I recognize that there may be other explanations that could be put forward but I am purposely restricting the discussion to the two possibilities under discussion.) So you have to go to the next observation."

I think that I said that the nested heirarchy could be used to support either side with some basis in logic. I did not claim that morphology was solely support for the OEer.

There is a very weak objection to the nested heirarchy that can be made against YE. And that is that the nesting is followed so very rigidly. You do not see a single aniamal that is mammal in every way other than using feathers instead of fur for warmth. You do not see a single land vertebrate with six limbs instead of four. In other words, there is no deviation from the nesting. If all organisms were unique creations, you might expect some amount of diversity in the distribution of the parts. But, as I said, it is a weak objection. But worth mentioning.

But I think the larger problem here is simply that you do not understand what is meant by nested heirarchies. It just means that we can group organisms into progressively larger groups. My dogs are amoung several breeds of dog. (OK, one is a mutt.) Dogs can be grouped as wolves along with several other species of wolf. These are all canines along with a few other animals like foxes and coyotes. These can be grouped as carnivores along with other animals like cats and bears. Carnivores are placental mammals along with other animals such as primates and rodents. This can be grouped with monotremes and marsupials as mammals. Mammals are tetropods along with reptiles and birds and amphibians. All of these are craniates. All craniates are vertebrates. Which are all chordates. Which are all animals. Which are all eucharyotes.

It is not controversial. I am not sure that I have run into anyone, YE or OE oe TE or anything else, who objects to the nesting.