[
Replying to Quantrill in post #108]
Pluto used to be a planet, but science has changed it's mind. But, guess what. A few years from now, Pluto may be a planet again.
This is just a classification adjustment. Pluto is still exactly the same rock it was before humans decided to reclassify it, and the science surrounding the rock and everything we know about is orbit and other properties did not change because it was reclassified by humans.
I don't take scientific consideration out of the debate. Science says it didn't happen. Ok, so? Guess what, I believe it occurred just like the Bible says. You have your faith in science. I have my faith in God and the Bible.
This is probably the most common thing theists do when confronted with science being at odds with a biblical story ... try to claim they are both faith based. It is a weak argument and never works. Science is not based on faith, but on observations, measurements, reproducibility, consistency, etc. It doesn't require faith to accept that the heliocentric theory of our solar system is correct. People used to believe the earth was the center of the universe and anyone who claimed otherwise risked threats and possibly execution by the church. But science showed that this interpertation was wrong by observing planetary movements and working out the math and dynamics of massive bodies which proved that the planets orbited a central star. There is no faith involved in accepting that an acid mixed with a base will produce a salt plus water, and there are countless other examples. Religious faith has no similar analogies ... it is belief
without evidence and that is the gigantic difference. You take scientific consideration out of the debate by ignoring it in favor of the biblical narrative.
You say science disagrees with me....but science doesn't have all knowledge at this time. Does it? No, of course not. But your are willing to believe science because that is where your faith is.
Same weak argument that science is faith based. It isn't. Science does not set out to disprove biblical myths as some goal. But science can be applied to investigate the validity of a bible story like Noah's flood, and ask whether such an event is consistent with what we see in the world today (eg. the distribution and diversity of plant and animal life), and whether it could have happened based on the feasibility of the various circumstances required for it to happen (eg. where did the water come from). Looking at these items from a science perspective it is very easy to demonstrate that the event did not happen as described in the bible. To believe that it did happen, despite unambiguous scientific proof that it did not, is simply ignoring the science because you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts the bible story which you do want to believe. I don't "believe science" as a subjective choice (like religion). I believe the aspects of it which have been
demonstrated to be correct, and there is no faith required.
Of course science does not have "all knowledge", and probably never will. It is a process of continuously learning about nature and refining what we do know to try and better understand the natural world and how it works. If something isn't yet known by science that just means it is still an open problem requiring further research. That is how the process works. And if science cannot yet answer a question or explain something, that does not mean that the answer defaults to the action of a deity of some sort. Science requires evidence, religion does not. A key fundamental difference.
You see, you have your faith, which is science. And I have mine which is God.
And yet again, the worn out retort that science is faith based just like religion. How do you think this helps your argument in any way? It is so clearly and obviously wrong that I'm surprised theists still use it.
