No but when you haven't answered my questions and refute others queations with logical fallacies it would seem that your intentions for a real conversation relating to your original question were bogus.
Close it. Majority wins, huh?
I see what happens to those who don't share the same world view...
No but when you haven't answered my questions and refute others queations with logical fallacies it would seem that your intentions for a real conversation relating to your original question were bogus.
You provide evidence not reliant on scientific data, and I will exclude the Bible.
It's the equivalent to your scientific data for me. We use it to defend or faith, you use science to defend your position.
You provide evidence not reliant on scientific data, and I will exclude the Bible.
It's the equivalent to your scientific data for me. We use it to defend or faith, you use science to defend your position.
This is a problematic line of reasoning, in that scientific experimentation and observational data is purposefully done in a method that makes it reproducible by anyone with access to the proper equipment, whereas the Bible is a single source written thousands of years ago and interpreted through several iterations over the years. If I point to a study that says that scientists have used gene splicing to show that DNA is interchangeable between different species, you could question it, and then we could try to recreate the results ourselves in a lab. If you pull out a fact from the Bible, there's no opportunity for fact-checking; it's presented as truth without the ability for us to test it ourselves. That's a pretty major distinction; you have a single source, science has millions. You can believe in God as presented in the Bible and still accept the scientific method. But if you're unwilling to concede that the Bible has some factual errors within it, then you're not willing to engage in a rational conversation about science and religion.
This is a problematic line of reasoning, in that scientific experimentation and observational data is purposefully done in a method that makes it reproducible by anyone with access to the proper equipment, whereas the Bible is a single source written thousands of years ago and interpreted through several iterations over the years. If I point to a study that says that scientists have used gene splicing to show that DNA is interchangeable between different species, you could question it, and then we could try to recreate the results ourselves in a lab. If you pull out a fact from the Bible, there's no opportunity for fact-checking; it's presented as truth without the ability for us to test it ourselves. That's a pretty major distinction; you have a single source, science has millions. You can believe in God as presented in the Bible and still accept the scientific method. But if you're unwilling to concede that the Bible has some factual errors within it, then you're not willing to engage in a rational conversation about science and religion.
Well, of course it's problematic -- we simply can't go back and "test" anything. However, I've found the Bible to be historically accurate which is a basis...and so have many. There are plenty historical places and people (Rome, ceasars, Babylon, Greece, Patmos, Jerusalem, for instance, Egypt, Pharoah's,) so I am not clear as to where you're going. You can actually vist these places, can you not? What's not factual about that?
If you don't believe what's in it, that's another whole debate -- that doesn't make anything inaccurate. It's unbelievable.
If you point out these "factual errors", then that's reasonable.
This is my "fact checking", as you put it.
A Spider Man comic also contains Factual details. Does Spider Man exist?
Ok this thread just went full retard. You are seriously suggesting that we prove something with evidence but not use science. Do you want us to just make shit up like the bible?
Hehe, nice.
I saw that Facebook thing too!
It would be comparable if the spider man book was actually presented as non fiction.
Don't know much else to say.
I watched a debate the other night "Does science Refute god"
they were careful not to say science disproves god but rathe rit refutes it.
In the end the popular opinion was that science does refute God. they did so by demonstrating that bio chemical reactions in the brain can produce the same effects of spiritualism, out of body experiences life after death memories and other findings tranditionally in the God camp. Same aruguments I have seen here also that science in fact is very open to be proven wrong in fact science depends on being wrong to a degree.
In the end its reproducible results vs. results that have never been reproduced. I stand by my notion that even if we have a creator he will look nothing like outlined by man in ancient texts written by man. In my opinion the religious have the extra burden of not just proving the existance of god but also proving how they have interpreted God is accurate.
Seeing is how they cant prove #1 they will never be able to prove #2
Hehe, nice.
I saw that Facebook thing too!
It would be comparable if the spider man book was actually presented as non fiction.
Don't know much else to say.
Every religion is founded on a text that is presented as non-fiction, and yet some of those texts don't agree with each other. According to Genesis, we came from a single pair of humans who were crafted out of dirt and a spare rib. According to Scientology, Xenu stuffed billions of people into volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. The Norse religion offers that Odin, Lodur and Hnir found a couple tree-beings walking the landscape and endowed them with the traits of humanity. Why do you reject the creation of man from dirt by Prometheus but support it by Jehovah? Because you have faith. But everyone has faith that their religion is correct; that's not an argument, it's a rationalization in place of a logical reason. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to pull much weight with people who don't share your view of the Bible as fact.
I hope I don't hear a Genetic Fallacy coming...
I believe the Bible because I've seen it as a prophetic book (though there is much debate on the validity of these), and some information not knowable at the time was revealed (such as the earth being round and not being held up by anything which was contrary to the flat-earth folks) and things like the water cycle being revealed thousands of years before science verified this.
This is not to say what others believe is false, but I am just speaking of my own.
OK. But what about places where the Bible is demonstrably false? For example, you mentioned Adam and Eve earlier. We know that humans weren't crafted from dirt and ribs, we know that humans have been on Earth longer than the time allotted for through a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve (and tracing their genealogy through scripture)
Do you treat stories like this as a parable, not meant to be taken literally, or do you ignore anything that stands as a challenge to a view of the Bible as 100% literal?
Hehe, nice.
I saw that Facebook thing too!
It would be comparable if the spider man book was actually presented as non fiction.
Don't know much else to say.
You provide evidence not reliant on scientific data, and I will exclude the Bible.
It's the equivalent to your scientific data for me. We use it to defend or faith, you use science to defend your position.
Rob you believe in both the old and the new testament, yet they were written over a period of what, 1000 years, and by multiple people. Do you believe that the people who wrote the bible were infallible and divine?
Quite frankly your last couple posts have ended the thread since you've basically told us you'll believe anything the bible tells you or come up with an excuse that fits the scientific truth. You seem to not understand science. The bible coming up with something before science "proved" something is irrelevant. Even science does that. Einstein's theories were in many cases proved after his death.
No. Only stupid people thought the earth was flat. You can tell that the earth is round by standing on a hill. They either thought it was a dome or round. Never flat. It was mathematically proven thousands of years ago, hundreds of years before jesus, by the greeks. They calculated the circumference of the earth hundreds of years before jesus. Pythagoras (550 years before jesus) is the first person credited with the mathematical idea of a spherical Earth.
What exactly are you talking about with the water cycle btw? Is there something about the movement of water and how it relates to the atmosphere and tidal forces from the moon in the bible? Does it explain how it changes state through thermodynamic properties? You're not going to link me something that says "and the water moves" are you?
Yeah just in case anyone else thinks that people actually thought the earth was flat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Seriously, only complete morons thought this. Even in ancient times.