SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Bonky]

On 8/5/2017 at 11:17 PM, Tristen said:

Hi Bonky. Just a few points on your comments.

 

You said “I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all”

 

Firstly, I don’t think it’s logically possible to falsify a claim about the unobserved past (either Biblical creation or Common Ancestry). But if it were possible, given that there are only really two viable models proposing the origins of life on earth (three if you include panspermia), such a falsification of a secular model should force a serious consideration the Biblical model. It only doesn’t impact you when you presuppose the secular model. But if the Biblical model is ultimately true, you definitely have “skin in the game personally”.

Common ancestry could be false and so could Christianity, I don't see how the fall of one would prop up the other.  If we would find out for sure that Christianity is false [find the body of Christ] would that strengthen evolution?  I don't see how.   I would agree that if common ancestry is not true then something else must have been at play in the past to get us where we are now.  

On 8/5/2017 at 11:17 PM, Tristen said:

The current problem confronted by creationists is that the secular paradigm so thoroughly saturates the scientific conversation, that the secular paradigm is considered to be the only valid scientific perspective by many scientists (an impression which is subsequently adopted by the general community). As a result, there is widespread failure to even consider the possibility of other paradigms – which are often ridiculed as unscientific.

This is just a thought of mine, I think one reason for this may be that scriptures haven't given us any insight to the natural world that a secular scientist couldn't achieve.  I think we also see so many examples of how scripture is put ahead of anything else no matter the discovery.  In religion that is viewed as a virtue, in science that is viewed as a weakness.   I've seen Christians often comment about how science "changes it's views".  I'd rather side with people who can admit they were wrong than side with people who can't imagine being wrong.   To be clear, I'm more referring to young earth creationist Christians that seem to be much more staunch in their views, this wouldn't apply to Christians who are not as certain about such matters.

Nice to chat with you again.

[Unfailing Presence]

I think there is no better evidence for the spiritual quest that has become modern science than the ever growing desperate search for some / any alien antecedent interplanetary form of life , to solve all problems , and answer all questions .

I'll never forget when a certain president of the United States was informed (  ill -informed actually )  by NASA that positive proof of Alien life had been found , the very 

first words out of his mouth at a hastily arranged press conference were   "  Well  I guess God did not tell us everything "  .

No better testament can ever be found as to the true spiritual quest that is the  core of billions and billions of tax dollars  being spent by government under the guise of " science " .

 

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, Bonky said:

Common ancestry could be false and so could Christianity, I don't see how the fall of one would prop up the other.  If we would find out for sure that Christianity is false [find the body of Christ] would that strengthen evolution?  I don't see how.   I would agree that if common ancestry is not true then something else must have been at play in the past to get us where we are now.  

This is just a thought of mine, I think one reason for this may be that scriptures haven't given us any insight to the natural world that a secular scientist couldn't achieve.  I think we also see so many examples of how scripture is put ahead of anything else no matter the discovery.  In religion that is viewed as a virtue, in science that is viewed as a weakness.   I've seen Christians often comment about how science "changes it's views".  I'd rather side with people who can admit they were wrong than side with people who can't imagine being wrong.   To be clear, I'm more referring to young earth creationist Christians that seem to be much more staunch in their views, this wouldn't apply to Christians who are not as certain about such matters.

Nice to chat with you again.

Hey Bonky,

“Common ancestry could be false and so could Christianity, I don't see how the fall of one would prop up the other”

I technically agree – but that wasn’t really what I claimed. If there are two competing models and, as is the case with many people, you have only ever given serious consideration to one, if that model is falsified, you would be intellectually obligated to consider the remaining model. But as I said, I don’t think models of the unobserved past can be falsified – so I guess it’s a kind-of pointless point in this context.

 

“If we would find out for sure that Christianity is false [find the body of Christ] …”

How could we ever be certain it was actually His body – especially in such a religiously and politically charged context?

 

“I would agree that if common ancestry is not true then something else must have been at play in the past to get us where we are now”

Yes. I was not trying to imply an obligation to the remaining model, but an intellectual obligation to consider it.

 

“I think one reason for this may be that scriptures haven't given us any insight to the natural world that a secular scientist couldn't achieve”

I would suggest that scripture provided the fundamental premise of the scientific method – namely a rationally ordered universe in which the laws of nature are consistent throughout space and time. If it wasn’t for the assumption of a rationally ordered universe, all experimentation would be meaningless. I consider this the reason that science has flourished under the Christian paradigm, but stalled under previous cultures (such as the ancient Greeks and Chinese). After Darwin, the premise of scientific investigation gradually switched from investigating God’s creation to explaining the natural world without God. But save for extreme good fortune, the secular premise makes no provision for a rationally ordered universe. So I don’t think modern science could exist without Christianity laying the foundation.

I also personally think the reason for secular saturation in science is confirmation bias. People are more inclined to give weight to evidence for the paradigm they want to be true. Secularists have been very successful in portraying themselves as intellectuals, whilst portraying all dissenters as lacking intellectual capacity. It’s logically spurious, but has been highly effective.

 

“I think we also see so many examples of how scripture is put ahead of anything else no matter the discovery.  In religion that is viewed as a virtue, in science that is viewed as a weakness”

I see the same dogmatic attachment to the Common Ancestry paradigm. When asked if evolution could be falsified, some have suggested ‘finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock’ – i.e. a fossil so far out of place that it falls outside the capacity of Common Ancestry to explain. Yet there are several examples of such finds (e.g. the 1960s find of fossilised pollen spores in Mt Roraima rock dated to 1.3 billion years before pollen existed – according to the Common Ancestry story). In such cases, the reality of Common Ancestry is never called into question. How evolution occurred from a common ancestor might be called into question, but never that it occurred.

 

“I've seen Christians often comment about how science "changes it's views".  I'd rather side with people who can admit they were wrong than side with people who can't imagine being wrong”

I think comparing them that way speciously assumes what is termed conflict myth. The two systems are not mutually exclusive, but can be complimentary. Science updates its information by logical design. The Bible is claimed to be the Word of God. I am convinced (i.e. have faith) that the Bible is God’s Word, and consider it inerrant (in the autographic texts). However, the scientific method makes no logical provision for certainty. The only problem I have is when people exaggerate confidence in scientific claims beyond the logical scope of the scientific method. In such cases, it is appropriate to point out that science isn’t designed to be trusted in the same way as faith.

And when it comes to unfalsifiable (and therefore possibly even non-scientific) issues (such as claims of the unobserved past), neither side will ever be logically obligated to set aside their current paradigm – regardless of how good the opposing argument is.

 

“I'm more referring to young earth creationist Christians that seem to be much more staunch in their views, this wouldn't apply to Christians who are not as certain about such matters”

I am a young-earth creationist. I am happy to hear and give fair consideration to any evidence and argument. That same respect is rarely afforded to me from the secular side. I even had a zoology lecturer tell the class, “It’s ok to be a creationist, but don’t become a biologist”. So from my perspective, such staunchness is more (or at least equally as) virulent among secularists.

[Bonky]

44 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“If we would find out for sure that Christianity is false [find the body of Christ] …”

 

How could we ever be certain it was actually His body – especially in such a religiously and politically charged context?

I have to smile because I used this example based on the question "How can you falsify Christianity".  I was given that response and inside my head I'm thinking "How could we possibly know it was really Christ, it's not like we have his dental records".

46 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I would suggest that scripture provided the fundamental premise of the scientific method – namely a rationally ordered universe in which the laws of nature are consistent throughout space and time. If it wasn’t for the assumption of a rationally ordered universe, all experimentation would be meaningless.

We can measure things though to find out that there is order, whether religion or religious people were involved we would end up discovering the same things.  Ricky Gervais was on a late night show and he said [paraphrasing] "If we were to start over, religions would evolve and probably not look like what we have today, science would show us the same exact things we detect today."  I'm not focusing on the first part but the latter.  

 

51 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I see the same dogmatic attachment to the Common Ancestry paradigm. When asked if evolution could be falsified, some have suggested ‘finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock’ – i.e. a fossil so far out of place that it falls outside the capacity of Common Ancestry to explain. Yet there are several examples of such finds (e.g. the 1960s find of fossilised pollen spores in Mt Roraima rock dated to 1.3 billion years before pollen existed – according to the Common Ancestry story). In such cases, the reality of Common Ancestry is never called into question. How evolution occurred from a common ancestor might be called into question, but never that it occurred.

I can't remember the details of that pollen issue but I have to ask, how does pollen have anything to do with whether we're related to other primates?

53 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The only problem I have is when people exaggerate confidence in scientific claims beyond the logical scope of the scientific method. In such cases, it is appropriate to point out that science isn’t designed to be trusted in the same way as faith.

I agree.  I have trust that biologists, paleontologists etc know what they're doing, but not undying trust.  

54 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I am a young-earth creationist. I am happy to hear and give fair consideration to any evidence and argument. That same respect is rarely afforded to me from the secular side. I even had a zoology lecturer tell the class, “It’s ok to be a creationist, but don’t become a biologist”. So from my perspective, such staunchness is more (or at least equally as) virulent among secularists.

There are some creationist authors, professors, organizations that openly state they would not accept anything that jeopardizes scripture.  I know there are scientists or professors out there that betray the spirit of scientific discovery, but I don't think we'd be where we are today if generally speaking scientists were afraid to change their mind with new data. 

[Tristen]

44 minutes ago, Bonky said:

I have to smile because I used this example based on the question "How can you falsify Christianity".  I was given that response and inside my head I'm thinking "How could we possibly know it was really Christ, it's not like we have his dental records".

We can measure things though to find out that there is order, whether religion or religious people were involved we would end up discovering the same things.  Ricky Gervais was on a late night show and he said [paraphrasing] "If we were to start over, religions would evolve and probably not look like what we have today, science would show us the same exact things we detect today."  I'm not focusing on the first part but the latter. 

I can't remember the details of that pollen issue but I have to ask, how does pollen have anything to do with whether we're related to other primates?

I agree.  I have trust that biologists, paleontologists etc know what they're doing, but not undying trust.  

There are some creationist authors, professors, organizations that openly state they would not accept anything that jeopardizes scripture.  I know there are scientists or professors out there that betray the spirit of scientific discovery, but I don't think we'd be where we are today if generally speaking scientists were afraid to change their mind with new data. 

Bonky,

“We can measure things though to find out that there is order, whether religion or religious people were involved we would end up discovering the same things.  Ricky Gervais was on a late night show and he said [paraphrasing] "If we were to start over, religions would evolve and probably not look like what we have today, science would show us the same exact things we detect today."  I'm not focusing on the first part but the latter.”

I don’t think there is any basis for that conclusion. It seems to assume that we would have eventually come to the scientific method regardless of how history unfolded. I think this underplays the role of the importance to science of the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. How could we know how to “measure things” in the first place if we don’t assume order? The Greeks tried, but their capricious god’s could change the rules without notice. So experimentation could not be trusted to yield consistent results. Upon what basis could we ever assume that the same rules apply everywhere and for all time?

Regardless whether or not you think we would have got there in the end (I don’t think we can assume that, but either way), historically, Christianity provided that premise to science.

 

“I can't remember the details of that pollen issue but I have to ask, how does pollen have anything to do with whether we're related to other primates?”

Nothing. You made a comment about how Christians dogmatically adhere to scripture over any conflicting discovery. I, coming from the opposing perspective, noticed that same dogmatic approach from secularists when it comes to adherence to Common Ancestry. In an attempt to make a distinction between religion and secular science, you implied that such dogma is exclusive to religious faith, but I think it is common to everyone across all beliefs (including secular beliefs).

 

“I have trust that biologists, paleontologists etc know what they're doing, but not undying trust.”

I trust that they generally know what they are doing, but we are not supposed to simply “trust” them or their scientific conclusions. Not because there is anything wrong with them, but because science is not designed to be trusted that way. Scientifically, we are supposed to employ critical reasoning to subject every scientific claim to intense scrutiny. This common practise of uncritically accepting what “scientists say” is contrary to the intention of scientific logic.

 

“There are some creationist authors, professors, organizations that openly state they would not accept anything that jeopardizes scripture”

I approach the issue from a different perspective. Since claims about the past are unfalsifiable, neither model is in any actual jeopardy. Advocates of both models have the right, in the sight of apparently contrary facts, to say “I don’t currently know how to reconcile this data to my model. Perhaps some future discovery will shed further light on the subject” – as with the out-of-place pollen spore fossils, which was concluded to be “an intriguing geological mystery” and henceforth ignored.

[JohnD]

On 7/13/2017 at 9:06 PM, JohnD said:

Gravity is the opposing pushing forces of space against mass.

IMHO whatever black holes are they do exist, but they are not what we suppose they are. The result of some super collapse of mass where endless absorption of mass takes place. The math falls apart here. 

I call it the fish in a bowl dilemma.

We can only observe or even imagine what pertains to our universe, our cosmos, our set of physical laws. Even our conjecture falls apart after a certain point.

Take a cash free society for a minor example. The desire to freely excel would not apply to janitors or other such menial work in order for the greater good (sorry Star Trek fans). Ideally, removing greed would produce the utopia Roddenberry and others imagined for the future. But without this motivation it is as to remove the fuel that  stokes the sun. Eventually it dies down and devolved into debauchery. Now too much greed is just as cancerous for civilization (but that's another thread). 

So here we are in this fish bowl trying to understand or even imagine what lies beyond.

Interstellar made a very good point about wormholes. That they are spheres and not holes or tunnels. Watch the movie. Or I'll try to explain it later.

What if black holes ARE wormholes?

And not pathways to another place in this universe but a doorway or overlap into what we think of as the spirit realm.

Would that not make sense?

And the ultimate gravity wells in the universe were here first (not the result of what happened in this universe first)...

God created this universe from the spirit realm and these wormholes or peepholes from eternity into the cosmos are the engines that fire and fuel this realm causing the elements of this universe to combine and congeal and to ignite and expand. 

 

[JohnD]

The only "scientific difficulties" arise from mankind getting the facts wrong, from inside the fish bowl.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:03 AM, Unfailing Presence said:

I think there is no better evidence for the spiritual quest that has become modern science than the ever growing desperate search for some / any alien antecedent interplanetary form of life , to solve all problems , and answer all questions .

I'll never forget when a certain president of the United States was informed (  ill -informed actually )  by NASA that positive proof of Alien life had been found , the very 

first words out of his mouth at a hastily arranged press conference were   "  Well  I guess God did not tell us everything "  .

No better testament can ever be found as to the true spiritual quest that is the  core of billions and billions of tax dollars  being spent by government under the guise of " science " .

NASA never said they had positive proof of alien life.  And no president uttered the words you quote.  Your post can be dismissed as nothing but lies.

[Unfailing Presence]

23 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

NASA never said they had positive proof of alien life.  And no president uttered the words you quote.  Your post can be dismissed as nothing but lies.

You were either not alive , or living under a meteorite 0n August 8,  1996 when the president of the United States held a press conference on the south lawn of the White House 

solely devoted to NASA's implied  scientific discovery of not only life on mars , but more important the implied ad-hoc , piggy-backed discovery of life traveling through the cosmos to take

up residence on planet earth via the " Allan Hills Meteorite " 

Explaining our very  beginnings .

The holy grail of all googly eyed , bible hating evolutionists ,posing as scientists ,  looking for spiritual confirmation from a green Martian High Priest rather than God .

The length and frequency with which their " discoveries "   on this planet have consistently resulted in their collective scientific  humiliation and ridicule  no longer tolerable to

them , this announcement by president Clinton it is still regarded by these evolutionists  as the  beginning of  " astrobiology "  .

 

              "  This is the product of years of exploration and months of intensive study by the world's most distinguished scientists . 

                   Today , rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles .

                    Even as it PROMISES ANSWERS to some of our oldest questions , it poses still others even more fundamental ."   (  President Clinton  , August 8 , 1996 ) 

 

   " It seems God did not tell us everything . "   ( President Clintons response to a reporter's question as to what rock 84001's discoveries  means for bible believers ) 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Unfailing Presence

[one.opinion]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

I see the same dogmatic attachment to the Common Ancestry paradigm. When asked if evolution could be falsified, some have suggested ‘finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock’ – i.e. a fossil so far out of place that it falls outside the capacity of Common Ancestry to explain. Yet there are several examples of such finds (e.g. the 1960s find of fossilised pollen spores in Mt Roraima rock dated to 1.3 billion years before pollen existed – according to the Common Ancestry story). In such cases, the reality of Common Ancestry is never called into question. How evolution occurred from a common ancestor might be called into question, but never that it occurred.

Sorry for digging out this old post, but a thought occurred to me from our more recent dialogue in the K-t boundary discussion (and I couldn't find that one). The presence of pollen where it shouldn't be is certainly a major consideration. But since there is a plausible explanation of contamination in the rock, what would be much more meaningful (and difficult to explain) would be fossil bones out of place. Do you know of any examples like this?