The Bible is Scientific and you atheists should know it! {Moved to AvT}
Offline Since the dawn of time YECers have been claiming that the Bible contains scientific statements and that the Bible simply IS scientific. Kent Hovind does it. Those of you on youtube know Kent Hovind Jr., aka VenomFangX, does it. Others do it, too.
To them, science equals Truth. They envy the legitimacy that its title seems to impart onto statements about the world. This is why they are so quick to slap that label on their Bible without considering the philosophical pitfalls of doing so.
To them, science is not a process. It is merely a rather shallow bucket of facts: water is one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, the Earth is held in its orbit by gravity, E=MC^2, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, a global flood occured 4000 years ago, etc... If they can get some of the statements of the Bible into that bucket of Science then they can feel that they have justified their beliefs.
Most of you are probably familiar with some of the issues of the Philosophy of Science and already know that science is not really about proofs or 100% certainty. That is reserved for mathematics and logic. Ideas that are scientific are generally regarded as tentative and have less than 100% probability of being true. The conclusions that a YECer should draw from the idea of the Bible being scientific should really make them cringe:
The Bible is the word of God. Some statements in the Bible are scientific. Scientific statements are tentative and have less than 100% probability of being true. Therefore, the word of God is sometimes tentative and has a less than 100% probability of being true, QED.
The next time a theist insists on the scientfic nature of the Bible, let them have it.
- Login to post comments
If the Bible is scientific, how is it that light came about before any light producing objects? Why does the Bible call the moon a light when it produces none, it only reflects? How is it that it took 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan when the journey only takes 10 days and no archaeological evidence exists from said journey? Why does the Bible say that the Earth rests upon pillars?
Don't atheist say their views are based on science? >_______>
The OP seems to be saying this:
1. Christians use the word "scientific" to give their arguments an air of credibility.
2. Christians claim the bible provides absolute truths.
3. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.
4. If the bible is scientific, it doesn't deal in absolutes.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
AnointedHeathen, did you even bother to read my fucking post?
PS - you are stupid.
Urban Elf:
Please avoid the ad hom attacks. What AnointedHeather did happens from time to time to the best of us.
Thanks
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Ahoy there, Cpt Pineapple!
Some of them say that some of their views are based on science. Does this seem to have a problem to you? I'm not omniscient so I feel totally comfortable admitting to you that I'm not 100% certain of any of my beliefs, especially scientific ones.
It's fine Nero. Besides he's right, I am stupid. Tell you what, just remove my posts and let's forget I ever visited this site. The RRS obviously doesn't need me getting in the way.
Urban Elf, I must admit that due to sleep deprivation and delirium setting in that I only scanned your post before replying. My apologies.
I think I'm the bigger idiot. I felt pretty stupid cutting you like that. You were tired, but I was just being mean. Damn it! Can't we be friends now?
Hm. I've used falsifiability as a defense of science before, but I'd never considered using it against someone who claims a scientific basis for an absolute belief.
I think it's safe to say that not all theists hold absolute positions, so this probably only works for fundies.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
No.
I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. There are some things which science knows absolutely, most of which come from mathematics. Mathematics is a science. In turn, mathematical proofs follow the form of deductive logic. In order to disprove, say, discrete integer arithmatic you would have to find an area in discrete middle size euler space where 1+1 does not equal 2. The important thing to notice is that I have ruled out all the other spaces in which 1+1 might not equal two (discrete binary space, hidden variables, concrete approximates where 1=0.9999..., etc.). This is an absolute scientific truth.
We can extrapolate this form of reasoning to other areas by deductively ruling out conditions. Newtonian physics are absolutely true for the situations in which they were devised. Evolution is absolutely true in the sense that if you have a random set and keep deleteing members of that set which match a given rule you will end up with an entire set that matches the counter-rule.
The probablistic nature of science comes in when trying to discover new things. Newtonian physics are highly improbable on the quantum scale. Some things at the scale can act in a newtonian way, but it is very unlikely.
Dammit...
Can we please use this as an example of why we should count to at least a hundred and seventy three, take six deep breaths and smoke a cigarette before posting an angry response? It really pisses me off that someone with 9 posts can run off someone who's been around for 56.
Could we try to remember that we're here to try to help people? I can't remember the last time I called someone stupid and it helped anything.
Sheesh.
Urban, thank you for apologizing, and for admitting your mistake publicly. I assume it won't happen again, so it's cool, but geez...
Would everybody please try to be respectful? There are people on the other ends of these posts, you know?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I do mention mathematics and logic in my OP, but I assume them to be outside the field of science. If mathematics is a science then I learned something new today.
Still, I feel uncomfortable saying that a mathematical theorem is an absolute scientific truth. It seems like a person can apply science in mathematics, creating hypothese and testing them, but what scientific principle makes a mathematical theorem 100% true? A theorem is axioms and logically deduced conclusions, neither one of which is science.
Could mathematics be a scientific field in that you can readily apply science to it, but the truth statements in mathematics don't make any reference to anything scientific?
What thinkest thou?
Mathematics is a science, but not a natural science, since it is purely deductive without inductive elements.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
What thinkest thou? umm
I think I can hear the buddhist laughing at us ....
Can you prove it scientifically with 100% certainty ?
No guys, you atheists got it all wrong. Just the other day I found an original copy of the OT and found the Hebrew translation for "Entropy". I also found an AMA study in the NT explaining how human flesh survives rigor mortis and also a medical reviewed explination of how a ghost knocks up a girl.
REPENT REPENT!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This is an interesting assertion. Personally, I never assert that the Bible is a science book. I would make the claim that the Bible is a religious book, however, as it contains absolute truth, one can make predictions of a scientific nature, and know that they will not be disproved by science.
Disclaimer: Above are my personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs may not involve belief in a God. Those are your own. A debate of the veracity of my claims regarding the truth of the Bible can be held elswhere.
With regard to inspectormustard, math is not science. Math is a language, which is carefully constructed and monitered so that one can make discoveries through it. In addition, Newtonian physics is not absolutely true for all areas for which it was derived. Newtonian physics is a close approximation of the manner in which objects will interact. It is less accurate than Relativistic physics, which is in turn less accurate than the true laws of physics. All of our science is approximations that are based off of observed phemonena, and our experiments regarding these phenomena. I personally doubt that we will ever come up with a theory that will exactly model all of the laws of physics perfectly.
... it's all evolution and it hurts
, really fucking hurts, so we change, thanks god .... there is hope after all ! ....
and thanks GOD, for the beer ....
Atheism Books.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
As I said, these are my personal beliefs. You can believe something else. However, examples of absolute truth that from the Bible are:
God is real.
Jesus is His Son.
Jesus died for our sins.
We inherited sins from Adam.
Man is not inherently good.
Murder is a sin.
etc.
We are not evolved from monkeys.
Death and Suffering did not bring man into the world, man brought death and suffering into the world.
A worldwide flood destroyed all but 8 of the people on the earth.
The world was created in 6 days approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago.
My calim is that science will not disprove these claims. If "science" disagrees with these claims, it is science, not the Bible, that is wrong. This is my personal belief, however, it has been upheld many times before.
Several of these are:
Evidence that questions the validity of radiometric dating, and supports a date of approximately 10,000 years.
http://www.icr.org/rate/
A prediction of the strength of magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, before they were measured, and performed much better than the "scientific" theory.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
{FIXED}
Because this thread is not talking about real science but rather YEC "science" I think it would be better to place it in a more fitting forum for discussion. Especially considering the last several posts.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
It's not science if you are starting with a conclusion and forcing the evidence to suit your conclusion and writing off all evidence that does not support your conclusion as flawed.
Even assuming the bible is the perfect truth, it is not scientific. Science proceeds from observation to theory to further observation to confirm or invalidate the theory. The bible proceeds from revelation of truth, requires no theories, and observations are irrelevant. It can't be god's word and be scientific as well.
My Artwork
Hey guys, sorry for messing up the post above. I don't seem to still have what he'd posted in my history. I'll be much more careful in the future about pressing "quote" vs. "edit"
However the point i was trying to make was that saying that "God is real" is an absolute truth is pretty bold considering that this god apparently doesn't say or do anything, and is only the subject of stories written by people.
I use a clipboard buffer (PTHPasteboard), which allows me to copy text multiple times without losing previously copied data, when working with posts. Before I alter anything, I select and copy all as a reflex, and continue doing this as I edit. It's saved my skin a few times. Another option is copying and pasting the text into a text editor, which can be easier than working in Drupal/TinyMCE anyway.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Most people are ignorant measured with philosophical and scientific measures.
Therefore it is most likely you to be ignorant.
Have it in mind next time you say something.
It is parallel logic to your logic.
Yeah, *smacks forehead.* I will now fall in love with the "Preview comment" button before everything i post.
I agree, but I feel I've deprived you all of some quality mockery.
Tell me about it. I spent 20 minutes on Google trying to find a cached page of it.
*sigh* Oh well.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I don't see your point... I think it's more like this...
Some people are elves.
All elves are stupid.
Therefore, some people are stupid.
My point is similar...
The statements in the Bible are the word of God.
Some statements in the Bible are scientific.
Scientific statements are tentative and less than 100% true.
Therefore, some of God's statements are less than 100% true.
The point is that if God's statements match scientific ones, it only affects science, because not all God's statements are scientific.
Which would mean that God's statement stand bigger chance than scientific.
I think there's a difference between matching science and being scientific.
I could guess that Mars is made of 52% iron. Someone else could come along and use experimental data and inductive inference, etc... to show empirically that Mars is 52% iron. That doesn't make my original guess scientific, merely that it matches by luck.
If the bible merely matches science then it's not scientific and has nothing to do with my OP.
i don't understand the point of this argument. if a statement is tentative then it's still either true or false. saying that a statement is tentative doesn't put it into a category somewhere between true and false or somewhat less than true. i don't think a person who believed the bible was accurate would be swayed by that sort of argument. why not just say that some things in the bible are false?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Hey, Gauche. I'm not sure I agree with that. When I say tentative I mean that I'm admitting that it could be wrong tomorrow, so in a sense the probability must be less than 100% truth.
Also, I think of most scientific thinking as being Bayesian. This reflects a scientist who tries to approach a problem as if he is uncertain, she doesn't know what answer is true. If one of two competing theories has a 100% truth value then no experimental data will affect the Bayesian results. A YECer starts by saying that Young Earth theory is 100% and NOT Young Earth theory is 0%. No matter what experimental results you plug into the Bayesian equation you can never change those percentages. It seems like a scientist should start by saying, "Maybe there is a young earth, maybe not."
thats a generalization as mine are based on a combination of Social structure, Philosophy and science but science only backs up the first 2 for me.
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..
you can't say X created Y, Y exists, therefore X exists
but in your OP you claimed Bible science as an absolute and then re-itterated it in a few of the following. And now you are stating it as "Tentative" which leads me to believe you doubt the sanctity you are trying to back up this leads you towards weak theism, which tells me you are questioning your own religion. the burden of proof was on you to your claim but apparently you decided to settle leaving us all empty without conclusion. so you must argue your OP to the Death in Mortal Kombat.
oh and by the way it was wrong today and the day before that so it will remain wrong tomorrow I mean sorry to knock you downso early in your RRS Career, but God cannot exist even to you if you question it now.
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..
.... All words and equations are god, what isn't GOD ?
, so what's that tell ya ?
It tells me all religion is words and equations !
, now what ?
Atheism Books.