[gt702]

Originally Posted by onevcs

Not saying that you are one of them but, there, fix it for you.

Now you have a premise that holds water

[steingar]

A day is 24 hours. If that is paraphrased then the entire document is useless as factual material. You can explain anything with sufficient paraphasing ("this means that"). There is a ton of non-factual material in both the old and new testaments (e.g. look up my earlier comment on the Ark and Earth's biota, for starters). This does not obviate your religion, unless your religion abslutely depends on literal interpretation of scripture. If so you are in conflict with easily observable fact. Those "scientists" who believe in the literal creation myth are nothing of the sort, but are mostly people who were mediocre students who managed to get the doctoral degree and use it to shamlessly promote an almost-antiscientific doctrine. I personally know one of them, and she is a true embarrasment for myself and my department. Calling them Scientists is like calling recently converted Christians Jews.

[gt702]

[quote=steingar;548086]A day is 24 hours.quote]

Only if your reference is this earth. There is a lot more out there.

[quote=steingar;548086]I personally know one of them,quote]

One doesn't make a population. Watch the stereotyping, or you open yourself up to be typed.

That's all

[steingar]

Lat I checked, it was the creation of earth that was under discussion, where a day is 24 hours.

A "scientist" who promotes literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth is nothing of the sort. Just because someone who has an advanced degree believes something doesn't make it true. The facts that I generate are demonstrable. The "facts" that creation scientists generate are little more than biblical parapharasing and out-of-context naysaying.

[gt702]

Originally Posted by steingar

Lat I checked, it was the creation of earth that was under discussion, where a day is 24 hours.

Not arguing that; however, as you note, the Bible isn't always litteral, and there is nothing saying the observer, which in this case would be God, is sitting on said earth. His reference is different.

[quote=steingar;548100]
Just because someone who has an advanced degree believes something doesn't make it true. quote]

This we agree on, and I'll even go further saying someone with a theological background doesn't always have a firm grasp on understanding what is in the Bible. That is why there is debate and changing views over the years.

Originally Posted by steingar

A "scientist" who promotes literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth is nothing of the sort. ... The facts that I generate are demonstrable. The "facts" that creation scientists generate are little more than biblical parapharasing and out-of-context naysaying.

This is where we diverge. Maybe not so much on the "facts", but on the interpretation. There are many well educated, knowledgable, and level headed people who disagree on interpretation. Much of the interpretation of facts, and how they apply to things we can't see all of, depends on your point of observation.

[CBR929RE]

Originally Posted by leelover

If they could prove that Noah's ark had been found would you believe the Bible is true? I am just wondering.

but then you have to prove who Noah is. and you still have to prove there was a worldwide flood.

let's say that the whole store gets proved when the Ark is found. that doesn't mean I have to believe the rest of the stories.

so the answer is no I wouldn't believe the Bible is true.

Originally Posted by leelover

but it seems to me none of these "sciences" conclusively prove that the Bible is false or irrelevant.

I don't believe you can actually prove or disprove God's existence. and I don't think you can even prove or disprove without a doubt any of the stories in the Bible. It doesn't really matter what artifacts are found, any info on them will be subjective.

Originally Posted by Zeeman

My point exactly. I see no reason why science and religion need to be "enemies". If just about everything else is metaphorical (or whatever-cal)why should the days taken to create the Earth be any different? I'm pretty sure most would agree the Earth is pretty obviously older than 6000 years and 7 days...

Each to their own, ask questions, confirm your point of view to yourself, but don't make the mistake of believing either sides bullshit without checking facts for yourself.

Z..

go out, do your own research and make up your own mind.

Originally Posted by steingar

Religious fundamentalism is a bad thing, whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or anything else. It often leads to intolerance and violence. The saddest thing is that you don't have to believe that every last word of the bible is written history to believe in God. The bible read metaphorically is full of tremendous wisdom, but does not have to be the definitive history of Mankind on Earth. What is so horrible about a creator who set the Universe in motion with the big bang and created humans through Evolution? All science does is examine the workings of the Almighty, getting small insights into the plan. No one is rejecting religion. Does the explorer who discovers a new land reject religion because he found a place not mentioned in the Bible?

I think fundamentalism is always a problem. Don't let fundamentalists cloud your own better judgement and certainly don't let them be what you base your opinions of religion as a whole on.

Originally Posted by gt702

(and why haven't we seen new species develop to meet the current situations ... or human babies in the jungle?).

simple. we don't have a million years of first hand experience. ask that question again in a million years and you'll have the answer you seek.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

And if there is not a God, and we couldn't explain or comprehend the origin of the Universe, could the human mind create God?

Certainly not, at least not God as the Bible describes. The truths taught therin are beyond human ability.
Not to mention the motivation behind these truths.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by onevcs

Premise: In discourse, a premise (also "premiss" in British usage) is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. The accuracy or truth of the conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.



Since your premise is wrong, all the reasonings you made assuming it are also wrong.
Everything can and will be proved scientifically eventually if it has not been proved yet.

That's what I get for taking NavyDeviDoc's word for it that that I have a premise!
Maybe "premise" is not the right word, maybe it is and you believe it's not true.
One, I think you are right, everything will be proven!
And if you really think you don't employ faith in your life, you aren't very self aware, IMO.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

There is an element of faith in even the most scientific of disciplines, the faith that the facts that have been reported are true and can be demonstrated repeatedly.

To argue against the existence of a creator you must have faith that the world is indeed explicable; that every facet of existence is capable of being worked out by a rational mind.

The first comes quite easily once you get to know some scientists. The second is obviously quite personal, but is not a prerequisite to becomming a scientist, or a highly intelligent thinker, for that matter.

Believing observable facts from the world over religous doctrine is indeed a prerequisite to being a scientist, and to my mind an intelligent thinker. Someone who ignores facts because they are inconvenient does themselves and those around them a true disservice.

steingar, thanks for explaining yourself in all your posts!
I don't think that science and religion have to contradict one another.
I am suspicious about a lot of scientific conclusions (particularly about age of things like the Earth and the universe, the formation of geologic layers, etc.), because the slice of time we have observed using science is comparatively small. And while my knowledge of science is small, it was my impression that if a fact is even a small bit off it creates an extremely large discrepancy when time or distance increase. Do we really have enough data to give credence to all the assumptions science makes?
I am not saying this proves a earth age of 6k or 6mil k.

[leelover]

CBR929RE, Thanks for your response too!
I agree with you thinking about the Noah's Ark thing, actually the rest of your post, also.
I think you have some really good ideas and ask good questions with honesty.
Even though you are a Masshole!

[CBR929RE]

Originally Posted by leelover

CBR929RE, Thanks for your response too!
I agree with you thinking about the Noah's Ark thing, actually the rest of your post, also.
I think you have some really good ideas and ask good questions with honesty.
Even though you are a Masshole!

yay someone agrees with me.
I ask questions because I can't see blindly not believing in something just as I can't see blindly believing in something.

Masshole and proud of it.

[Puddleglum15]

Those who think the bible tells the literal truth have rejected obervable reality,a nd are not to be taken seriously.

Observable reality? I think that any well-educated, logically thinking person should be able to explore the intricacies of nature and be awe-struck by the overwhelming evidence of a divine creator.

If the shot of a small section of infinite space shown in the Hubble picture doesn't make you pause and think, I don't know what would. Perhaps the strands of DNA and RNA that are made of so many different chemicals coming together perfectly to continue a genetic code. If anyone has ever taken microbiology or genetics you know what I'm talking about. There is evidence of a creator all around you, all the time. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

[steingar]

That may be, but none of this proves the veracity of a literal interpretation of Western Scripture, which is the topic under consideration. Indeed, much of it invalidates such an interpretation.

I must stress that critical scientific discourse and discovery in no way obviates religious belief. Only the most didactic interpretations of cannonized literature conflict with the more commonly prumulgated secular view of the cosmos.

[sheepofblue]

This proves it.

Of course if he does exist and created our galaxy with enough stars (let alone the rest of the detail) that it is beyond comprehension that would be impressive. And if he created all the other galaxies also.... In a week... could he have not put the photons in the needed place also? Of course my statements do not prove anything, just a thought.

[steingar]

Not 6K years ago

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

That may be, but none of this proves the veracity of a literal interpretation of Western Scripture, which is the topic under consideration. Indeed, much of it invalidates such an interpretation.

I must stress that critical scientific discourse and discovery in no way obviates religious belief. Only the most didactic interpretations of cannonized literature conflict with the more commonly prumulgated secular view of the cosmos.

Ok, ok, steingar you get the big word score!
Science doesn't take into account the miraculous, which God is certainly capable of.
On second thought, I don't know if you do get that score, Spell Check isn't agreeing with your spellings!

[gt702]

[quote=steingar;553812]That may be, but none of this proves the veracity of a literal interpretation of Western Scripture, which is the topic under consideration. Indeed, much of it invalidates such an interpretation.

quote]

Steingar,
This helps me understand what you were trying to say earlier, and I must admit I still have some confusion on what you are really arguing.

If it is just the literal interpretation, then I think that is a moot issue and not what I understood the original statement to imply, which to me was that being able to see things beyond our current knowledge obviates (I'm going for a Steingar big word score too ) the belief in God.

I say the literal interpretation issue is moot, because it isn't a universally held belief. Maybe it is the most talked about in the circles you are in, but definitely not in ones I've been in. I've been to several denominations of churches and various ones within denominations. Some are more literal than others, but most I've been in celebrate the rich use of stories to explain Divine things in concepts we can understand, many hinting at what is real without directly stating it. To me, if someone takes a narrow view, that is their right and has no impact on my beliefs.

I agree that science and religion can go together, and believe they must go together. Also, besides science saying there is a lot of "illustration" in the Bible, so does the Bible and the culture of the day.

Thanks for clarifying.

[steingar]

I shoud apologize for the polysyllabic profundity, sometimes its just what comes out of my head.

If have no beef with what anyone does in the privacy of their own house of worship, so long as it doesn't involve blood sacrifice, exploitation of minors, or flagrant illegalities (oops, there I go again).

My problem is that there have been numerous instances of people with very fundamentalist religious persuasions affecting what we teach children in schools, and to a small but growing degree some of our nation's public policies. I object strongly to anyone dictating what I must do or say based on the tenants of their religion.

If someone showed up with a badge, gun, and uniform, would they be considered police? Of course not, being an LEO means being part of an established force that is recognised as such by the community.

It is not dissimilar for scientists, in that to be a functioning scientist one must be part of the scientific community. Most of the "creation scientists" are outside the scientific community, and would not be considered as scientists by anyone within it. These are the people championing the 6K year old origin of the Universe based on scripture.

That is not to say there that there are not profoundly religious scientists. Francis Collins is an excellent example; he is a brilliant geneticist who spearheaded the human genome project, and is also a baptist minister who has performed missionary services overseas. The two are not in any way incompatible.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by steingar

If someone showed up with a badge, gun, and uniform, would they be considered police? Of course not, being an LEO means being part of an established force that is recognised as such by the community.

It is not dissimilar for scientists, in that to be a functioning scientist one must be part of the scientific community. Most of the "creation scientists" are outside the scientific community, and would not be considered as scientists by anyone within it. These are the people championing the 6K year old origin of the Universe based on scripture.

Absolutely idiotic comparison. No intelligent, thinking person would ever make that comparison.
Does this elitist group of scientists that only believe in what you do and therefore count while other scientists don't have some sort of legal authority over anyone or anything?
Does belonging to this elitist group give you some right to claim you're smarter or that your unproved guesses (called theories when your an elitist) are better than anyone else's?
Being an officer of the law does grant you authority to enforce law and police the general citizenry.
Being a member of your elitist group of scientists just means you're a dick.
There are plenty of scientists that disagree with many things you have posted. So I guess that means they aren't real scientists, right?
Just like albert gore's way of thinking.

Then again, I guess this elitist filtering does work. You've never raced and don't ride on the track. Therefore I don't accept you as a motorcyclist.
Even if you did show up at my door flashing a racing license.

[gt702]

Originally Posted by steingar

It is not dissimilar for scientists, in that to be a functioning scientist one must be part of the scientific community. Most of the "creation scientists" are outside the scientific community, and would not be considered as scientists by anyone within it. These are the people championing the 6K year old origin of the Universe based on scripture.

That is not to say there that there are not profoundly religious scientists. Francis Collins is an excellent example; he is a brilliant geneticist who spearheaded the human genome project, and is also a baptist minister who has performed missionary services overseas. The two are not in any way incompatible.

Maybe it is the use of your words, but you do have a way of turning what should be an inoccuous statement and making it confrontational.

There are a lot of very well respected scientists that believe in creation ... so are they part of your "creation scientists"?

There are some very good examples of scientists that hold strong religious beliefs, you note one. There are others who are not so outwardly religious, but hold a strong respect that what we know today was not just an accident, that there was a creator, and their job as scientists is to understand what was created. Einstein was one of these.

I would suggest you take another look at the words you are using and maybe clarify what you mean by pseudo-science and "creation scientists" to avoid some of the backlash you get. Based on your recent posts, and reading between the lines of this one, those people you are bashing are the ones touting scientific theories, but who are not scientists who have studied ... and not the true scientists that believe the scientific truths support a creation story ... just not in the 7 earth days some people hold on to through ignorance.

As for the LEO example, I'm assuming what you meant to say was that just posessing a gun, a badge, and a uniform does not make you qualified to enforce the laws and protect the community, it takes training ... meaning that just because I've read a science book or listened to a radio program doesn't mean I am qualified to refute scientific discoveries. Did I get this correct?

[trippd]

This has been interesting seeing peoples' various opinions. It does seems to me that the Hubble only has increased my awe of the universe & the God who created it. Just think, the creator of the whole universe also created the smallest unit of matter, which resembles the solar system, namely the atom!