Peez

Yup. The Invisible Pink Unicorn might have created the universe 3.24 minutes ago, giving it the appearance of age (including false memories in each of us). For that matter, the universe might not exist as such (perhaps we are all just figments of your imagination). None of that is useful, however. Science simply cannot address these possibilities, it is limited to testable hypotheses. As it happens, science has been very successful using this approach (replacing exorcisms with antibiotics has been quite an improvement).

Peez

Bait

Don't worry, I'm expecting an avalance....
And don't forget what bait sets on. (would someone please tell me how ya'll put those graemlins on here?)
:-)
R.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
<strong>(Can't... resist...) Watch out Bait, here come the sharks!

Welcome, Ron.</strong>[/QUOTE]

hezekiah jones

Scroll down a bit - they're on the left.

Bait

Hi all,
Yes, this is going to be very interesting and educational indeed. I'm not going to be able to answer/ask/debate everything in one sitting folks...but I thought I'd give a start on something that caught my eye. Please bear with me. I need to also look at some of the sites you've referred me to, before I start putting my big 10-1/2's in my mouth. This is a different set of people, and one thing I've learned from the last go round, is it's better to look first.

Bout me...I'm one who will try to say that there is nothing exact...and the only "absolute truth" I can personally hold to is my personal belief in the existance of God, and my own personal relationship with him. And that I will not push on anyone here (I promise)...because I'm only here to debate...get into a scrap, and have some fun while learning. Hopefully I'll surprise you, and you may learn a little too. I do believe that God created everything...but not necessarily the way that many "bible scholars" etc. surmise, and I also do not think science has all of the answers over and above anything else.

So on to the sharks...:-)


&gt;&gt;&gt;This is just a semantic argument. Technically speaking, all of science is an "educated guess". Scientists don't make claims to absolute truth like creationists do. To paraphrase Gould, a fact in science is something that's been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent. This is pretty much the way it is with the age of the Earth. There is such a massive ammount of evidence of its age that we would be silly not to agree that this is really its true age. There is always the possibility that some evidence will come along to make us think that it's another age, but we will not only have account for that evidence, but for all the other evidence that suggests that it's old. In other words, no one seriously suggests &gt;&gt;&gt;that this is likely to happen...

Ok...first off, and admittedly from on the other thread, I tried to say something was just a semantic argument. Got blasted...told that semantics was what this is all about. If the bible is not absolutely correct in every single word...it's all bogus. Science is absolutely perfect...has all the answers. Why different now?
Other words... The bible can be picked apart, word for word, God called a liar, etc. because Goliath got slain twice...in the same story (the word slew appeared twice). I said semantics in grammer/verbage, perhaps misinterpretation...could have meant knocked out, killed but still moving, etc...then David finished him off with a sword (that's what it says). I was told that's bogus...has to be perfect...semantics is where it's at.

I've keep being told the Bible, creation, etc. is wrong because science has "proved" it so...there is absolute evidence that God did not "create" the heavens and the earth, and that the earth is 4.whatever billion years old, based on solid scientific evidence, using scientific methods that cannot be refuted, and that is so accurate. I'm told that there could be no other explanation than this "science", that the evidence is so overwelming that it cannot be disputed. (Ok...precision...whatever.)
I'm also told that us "creationist" believes the earth to be 6,000 years old etc. (based on adding up generations, but while ignoring gaps in the generations). For the record, I dispute both theories, I don't think anyone is absolutely right...nor is there a way to absolutely prove it, IMHO.

I say that there is no way of knowing exactly how old the earth is...biblically OR scientifically. From the biblical side, I think the generations mentioned was not intended to be used to add up how old the earth is. To try to figure it out either way is GUESSING. I say, like you just did, that science is all an "educated guess"...yes, technically.

Yes, the molusk may have had calcium in it's shell...but THE RESULTS were of the test was wrong, incorrect, in error...a human goofed (as we all tend to do)that's my point. Errors can happen, and there is a possibility or probability(no matter how remote) that the Bible could be right, and science could be wrong. Or it is probable, (or possible) that some "creationist" are misreading the clues given in the Bible. This makes God a liar? To use the same argument used against me...if it's wrong in one place, how can you be so certain it's so correct in another? Or, is there a possibility that they are BOTH right? You (not you personally of course)ask me to prove my points absolutely, then so should you too...right? Or is this to be totally off balance, I have to be exact, but you do not, if I miss one thing...it's all a lie...but your allowed to miss at will, and it's all truth. You can use semantic arguments...but I cannot.
Just trying to get thte ground rules here.

Oh., BTW...if the tone seemed harsh (re-reading it)...it's not intended as such. I really do like to debate light hearted...I'm a fundamentalist at heart...fun before the mental. :-)
Best to all,
Ron

Bait

Bait

I know where they are...just don't know how to get them from there to here. Is there some "scientific" secret? (Joking)
R.

Kosh

Except that for sharks, they just use Chum.

Kosh

See below...

No. Just the people who wrote the Bible and then
claimed it was the word of God. If it was simply
written by fallable people, then they could have
simply been wrong too. But IF it was definitely the
word of God,and we've shown it, through multiple
independent scientific observations, to be wrong,
then yes, God is a liar.

Edited becuase I forgot the big IF...

They both must stand up to the same standards. There are certainly things in the Bible which
we can test and decide that they are true? Why?
Because there is independent verification.
Independent of the Bible that is. The bible says
there was a guy named Pilot. So do the Roman
records. Now we've verified it.

Same goes for science. You can't group all theories or "laws" in science into one category.
Some are better proven than others. Those that
are considered proven have passed the test of
independent verification (from multiple disciplinary sciences). If an untested theory
is shown to be wrong,that doesn't mean you throw
out those which HAVE BEEN VERIFIED.

Now, I know what you're going to say next: Then
why throw out God with the bad parts of the bible?
Because that's the part of the BIble that CANNOT
be tested and proven! We can test things like
existence of some of the characters in the Bible.
But the really unbelievable stuff, can't be.

And then we have some of the unbelievable stuff
in the Bible which has been shown, through science, to be downright ridiculous. The age of
the earth. The Flood. Jonah and his fish ride.
Exodus, and the parting of the [Reed] Sea.

Once we've shown some of those extraordinary claims to be blatantly wrong, we're on a slippery
slope (a frictionaless one, IMHO).

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

Kosh

Ron, I think you missed the point. The point was
that that particular test (carbon dating) was
innappropriate for marine organisms with shells,
duet to the way the shell is composed.

The only human error was in being ignorant of
which test was appropriate. Not the same as saying
that the tests don' work as designed.

bluefugue

"Does that make God a liar?"

If your epistemological priorities are such that you consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God, and you consider it unthinkable that the words in it might be untrue or at least exaggerated, then there is really nothing to argue about. You have made your choice: you consider (presumed) divine revelation to be a more valuable method of gathering information than science. You are perfectly free to feel that way. (Although, some have argued that a strict literalist reading of the Bible also compels belief in a flat earth. I don't read Hebrew, so I am not competent to judge whether that is accurate or not.) Scientists, however, have a different set of epistemological priorities (in their professional lives at least) and they are going to keep on doing science, not because they are absolutely certain it is correct (for those of us without recourse to divine revelation there is no such thing as absolute certainty), but because it has garnered such useful results over the centuries, in so many different fields. Scientists cannot, in their professional capacity, care a fig about whether God is lying or not. It simply has nothing to do with their method and the philosophical constraints of their chosen profession.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>