Scientifc accuracy in the Scriptures.

[bluethread]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

[dad]

Then you're kinda stuck because the only thing that claims the bible itself is authoritative is the bible itself.

It doesn't matter if the bible is authoritative as far as this forum goes or not in the least. What is NOT authoritative is the comments of posters who speak evil of it here. Nor has science any ability to substantiate the bible or deny it. So when (as has been done here many many many many times) it is shown that science relies on beliefs regarding origins issues, ANY other belief is just as good or better!

[benchwarmer]

Then you're kinda stuck because the only thing that claims the bible itself is authoritative is the bible itself.

It doesn't matter if the bible is authoritative as far as this forum goes or not in the least. What is NOT authoritative is the comments of posters who speak evil of it here. Nor has science any ability to substantiate the bible or deny it. So when (as has been done here many many many many times) it is shown that science relies on beliefs regarding origins issues, ANY other belief is just as good or better!

First sign argument is lost, resort to 'shouting'. Using a large font does nothing to help your case.

As for your comment about science being unable to substantiate or deny the bible, I assume you mean the contents of the Bible. Of course science can be used for many things in the Bible. It may not provide conclusive answers or the answers you 'believe', but it can certainly be used. You do realize science is just a method and a body of knowledge right?

[dad]

As for your comment about science being unable to substantiate or deny the bible, I assume you mean the contents of the Bible.

Angels, creation, the flood, God, the spiritual, etc etc.

Of course science can be used for many things in the Bible. It may not provide conclusive answers or the answers you 'believe', but it can certainly be used. You do realize science is just a method and a body of knowledge right?

You talking about the belief set of origins sciences??? Good luck with that..pure religion. A religion that some forums allow and call science, while excluding other beliefs I noticed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 82 by dad]

Good luck with that..pure religion. A religion that some forums allow and call science, while excluding other beliefs I noticed.

Science is not religion, nor is it "a" religion. It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison, or how you phrase it, it doesn't change the facts or boost your clearly hopeless position. I believe this forum recognizes science for what it actually is, based on universally accepted definitions such as this one from Dictionary.com:

Science (noun):

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

Your own, personal, alternative definition counts for exactly zero, and repeating it ad nauseam is just annoying.

[benchwarmer]

As for your comment about science being unable to substantiate or deny the bible, I assume you mean the contents of the Bible.

Angels, creation, the flood, God, the spiritual, etc etc.

Ok, let's take the first one. Angels. In order to move forward with any inquiry, we will need a precise definition of what an angel is and what it can do. Once we have that, then we can try some experiments or at least look for some evidence of them.

Example, many claim the existence of 'guardian angels'. One would assume that they are actually intervening in earthly matters and thus producing some 'effects' that we should be able to observe. i.e. Christians with these protecting angels should show a statistically higher life span, lower occurrence of being victims of crime, etc. Something measurable.

At the end of the day, if there is nothing observable or measurable, then we are just trading camp fire stories.

You talking about the belief set of origins sciences??? Good luck with that..pure religion. A religion that some forums allow and call science, while excluding other beliefs I noticed.

No, I'm talking about the word 'science'. It appears you don't really know what it means. It's not a religion, it's a method. There are no weekly worship meetings or commandments from supernatural deities involved in performing science. Those who simply state it is a religion clearly don't understand what it is. That's like me calling Christians cotton candy dispensers. I can keep stating that, stomping my feet, and even reply in large font, but without evidence to back up my statement it would just be hot air. Like calling science a religion.

[H.sapiens]

Then you're kinda stuck because the only thing that claims the bible itself is authoritative is the bible itself.

It doesn't matter if the bible is authoritative as far as this forum goes or not in the least. What is NOT authoritative is the comments of posters who speak evil of it here. Nor has science any ability to substantiate the bible or deny it. So when (as has been done here many many many many times) it is shown that science relies on beliefs regarding origins issues, ANY other belief is just as good or better!

The bible is not authoritative in any fashion, it is a collection of bronze age fairy tales. If you find that evil, that's you problem, your mistake, your failure and your loss. Your attempt to raise religion to the level of science is a massive face plant.

[brianbbs67]

As for your comment about science being unable to substantiate or deny the bible, I assume you mean the contents of the Bible.

Angels, creation, the flood, God, the spiritual, etc etc.

Ok, let's take the first one. Angels. In order to move forward with any inquiry, we will need a precise definition of what an angel is and what it can do. Once we have that, then we can try some experiments or at least look for some evidence of them.

Example, many claim the existence of 'guardian angels'. One would assume that they are actually intervening in earthly matters and thus producing some 'effects' that we should be able to observe. i.e. Christians with these protecting angels should show a statistically higher life span, lower occurrence of being victims of crime, etc. Something measurable.

At the end of the day, if there is nothing observable or measurable, then we are just trading camp fire stories.

You talking about the belief set of origins sciences??? Good luck with that..pure religion. A religion that some forums allow and call science, while excluding other beliefs I noticed.

No, I'm talking about the word 'science'. It appears you don't really know what it means. It's not a religion, it's a method. There are no weekly worship meetings or commandments from supernatural deities involved in performing science. Those who simply state it is a religion clearly don't understand what it is. That's like me calling Christians cotton candy dispensers. I can keep stating that, stomping my feet, and even reply in large font, but without evidence to back up my statement it would just be hot air. Like calling science a religion.

The subject of Angels is interesting. The Hebrew means messenger of God. So they could be divine or just another person with God's message. As the Jews make no differential to separate them. They are deemed as divine or corporal by what they do.

[dad]

Science is not religion, nor is it "a" religion.

Says you. However, you cannot prove that, for example, the same state existed in the far past on earth, that science uses in all models for the past. It is just believed. Denial is useless. Nothing but a demonstration that it was not a belief, but known could support your shrill claim.

It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison, or how you phrase it, it doesn't change the facts or boost your clearly hopeless position. I believe this forum recognizes science for what it actually is, based on universally accepted definitions such as this one from Dictionary.com:

Science (noun):

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Easy to say, but the general laws it operates in must be shown to apply to the past for them to apply. No one questions the ability of science to pollute the earth, provide nuclear weapons, and a plethora of cancer agents, and abortions, and sex changes and etc etc. That has nothing to do with the creation debate at all. For anything to BE science regarding origins science must also know what general rules applied! If not (as clearly and demonstrably is the case) that aspect of what is called science, is actually religion, regardless of what anyone desires to call it.

2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

None of which happened for the past nature but happens here in this present nature, and is applied to the past by purest blind faith alone.

[dad]

The bible is not authoritative in any fashion, it is a collection of bronze age fairy tales. If you find that evil, that's you problem, your mistake, your failure and your loss. Your attempt to raise religion to the level of science is a massive face plant.

Let's stick to your demonstrated fail to support your religion shall we? I, for one do not care what God haters think in the least. Really.

[dad]

Ok, let's take the first one. Angels. In order to move forward with any inquiry, we will need a precise definition of what an angel is and what it can do. Once we have that, then we can try some experiments or at least look for some evidence of them.

That is well known. Angels can travel the universe in a moment of our time...less actually. Angels can appear and disappear. Pass through physical objects. Take on a physical form if desired. They fly. Etc etc etc.

Example, many claim the existence of 'guardian angels'. One would assume that they are actually intervening in earthly matters and thus producing some 'effects' that we should be able to observe. i.e. Christians with these protecting angels should show a statistically higher life span, lower occurrence of being victims of crime, etc. Something measurable.

No. God's angels do His will. You seem to think His will must always be to live a long time in a bed of roses?

At the end of the day, if there is nothing observable or measurable, then we are just trading camp fire stories.

There is plenty that was observed in every age and today as we speak. Science has never been a party or invited to that party. Science has relegated itself to only the physical.

No, I'm talking about the word 'science'. It appears you don't really know what it means. It's not a religion, it's a method.

In the case of origins, a method that is belief based practiced by a group, which is by definition a religion!

There are no weekly worship meetings or commandments from supernatural deities involved in performing science.

There are meetings where they preach their faith based beliefs.


Those who simply state it is not a religion clearly don't understand what it is.

That's like me calling Christians cotton candy dispensers. I can keep stating that, stomping my feet, and even reply in large font, but without evidence to back up my statement it would just be hot air. Like calling science a religion.

No. It is like denying facts.

The subject of Angels is interesting. The Hebrew means messenger of God. So they could be divine or just another person with God's message. As the Jews make no differential to separate them. They are deemed as divine or corporal by what they do.

The angels n the bible usually were ministering spirits who were separately created by God.