This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Creation according to the Bible.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Surely this very thread is an example of the compromise. To take the bible literally is to discount vast swathes of cosmological and geological science. To take evolution as fact is to discount Adam and Eve.
My aged universe idea supports both without discounting either. Don't be so quick to jump onto the "no way no how" train.
Post by
Gone
It always bugs me when people try and say that science (or worse logic) and faith contradict each other. Yes they do clash at some points, but you can still be devout to both without making any comprimises. And if one cant then prove me wrong.
If they clash at some points then surely you can't have a consistent system with no compromise?
Unless you just pick and choose the bits that you like?
Surely this very thread is an example of the compromise. To take the bible literally is to discount vast swathes of cosmological and geological science. To take evolution as fact is to discount Adam and Eve.
First of all clash =/= contradict.
And looking at the world in absolutes is a bad idea. I never look at science as an absolute because scientific laws and theories are always evolving or changing. Nor do I take everything in the Bible to be literal, I just said earlier I dont think that the world was created in 6 days, more like 6 periods of time, possibly millions of years. Which can take evolution and the 6000 year time distance into account.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Even the ideas of the Bible can't be entirely true: if all of the population came from Adam and Eve, which would mean there is a lot of inbreeding, since A) Eve was actually made from Adam, and then B) they speak of sons but no daughters which means the sons did the nasty with Mom. Even after the Flood, there's 6 pairs; so even accounting for breeding among them, there would still be a lot of half-siblings/daughter-mother's and father-son's in those groups.
Post by
gamerunknown
God (in his omniscience) decided Noah was the last good man, so immediately after the flood Noah decided to get drunk and !@#$ his daughters.
Post by
Skreeran
God (in his omniscience) decided Noah was the last good man, so immediately after the flood Noah decided to get drunk and !@#$ his daughters.No, that was Lot. Noah did get drunk though.
And Ryja, science never predicts anything that isn't extrapolated from another theory or observation. Yes, at one time there was no direct evidence for black holes, but we didn't start looking for them until relativity predicted them. Science isn't about "I believe X, so let's look for evidence to support it," but rather "I observe X, so what hypothesis can I come up with to explain it. Now that I have a hypothesis, what experiments can I perform to attempt to disprove it? If I fail to disprove it, what implications might it have for nearby theoretical models? Does it predict anything? If so, then we can start looking for evidence of those predictions."
That may be an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Post by
MyTie
God (in his omniscience) decided Noah was the last good man, so immediately after the flood Noah decided to get drunk and !@#$ his daughters.No, that was Lot. Noah did get drunk though.
And Ryja, science never predicts anything that isn't extrapolated from another theory or observation. Yes, at one time there was no direct evidence for black holes, but we didn't start looking for them until relativity predicted them. Science isn't about "I believe X, so let's look for evidence to support it," but rather "I observe X, so what hypothesis can I come up with to explain it. Now that I have a hypothesis, what experiments can I perform to attempt to disprove it? If I fail to disprove it, what implications might it have for nearby theoretical models? Does it predict anything? If so, then we can start looking for evidence of those predictions."
That may be an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
So I hypothesis that God created an aged universe. What experiments can I perform to attempt to disprove it?
Post by
gamerunknown
What experiments can I perform to attempt to disprove it?
Parsimony. Is there any theoretical or material support for the existence of God? If not, the concept can be rejected.
Oh and cheers for the correction Skreeran!
Post by
Skreeran
Precisely what I'd like to know. If it cannot be falsified through experiment, then it is known as unfalsifiable, and has no place in science.
Post by
Adamsm
I'd still like to know why a religion that has only been around for about 2 thousand years, is the one that get's to determine the age of the existence; I mean, does that mean that all of the religions that came before it were obviously wrong? And where did those other ones come from?(long as you don't believe the utter crap that the KKK spews in regards to Lilith and the other races....)
Post by
Monday
I'd still like to know why a religion that has only been around for about 2 thousand years, is the one that get's to determine the age of the existence; I mean, does that mean that all of the religions that came before it were obviously wrong? And where did those other ones come from?(long as you don't believe the utter crap that the KKK spews in regards to Lilith and the other races....)
Unless, of course, you believe Christianity to be an extension of the earlier Judaic religions, thus making it much older than 2000 years.
Post by
Skreeran
Judaism (where Genesis originated) is actually one of the oldest religions.
Although I agree with you on the rest.
Post by
MyTie
What experiments can I perform to attempt to disprove it?
Parsimony. Is there any theoretical or material support for the existence of God? If not, the concept can be rejected.
Oh and cheers for the correction Skreeran!
Parsimony? You are speaking about Occom's razor? I understand the theory about the simpilest explaination being the most likely, but that doesn't mean it is always the correct one, and that other theories can be 'rejected'. You made that 'rejected' part up. There is theoretical support for the existence of God. There is no material support, but then there is no material support for the concept of love. Doesn't mean it should be rejected.
Precisely what I'd like to know. If it cannot be falsified through experiment, then it is known as unfalsifiable, and has no place in science.
Agreed. This isn't an argument about how scientific the Bible is, or even a desire to contrast the two, but instead it is an argument about the ability for the two trains of thought to co exist. Religion doesn't belong in science, and I doubt that science contributed much to religion, but they don't necessarily contradict each other.
Post by
Adamsm
Unless, of course, you believe Christianity to be an extension of the earlier Judaic religions, thus making it much older than 2000 years.
Even then, as it is now, it's a different kettle of fish from the older Judaic beliefs.
Though, considering it's out of the Bible the 'greatest story ever told' well...
Post by
Monday
Unless, of course, you believe Christianity to be an extension of the earlier Judaic religions, thus making it much older than 2000 years.
Even then, as it is now, it's a different kettle of fish from the older Judaic beliefs.
Though, considering it's out of the Bible the 'greatest story ever told' well...
That's because it evolved with time. Does that make it separate?
Post by
gamerunknown
Doesn't mean it should be rejected.
From a scientific standpoint, it does. If the previous paper on the flagellum of some virus hypothesised that invisible nanobots were constructing a better one on the back of the virus as the mechanism for the new flagellum, it'd be rejected. It isn't necessarily wrong and may even be observed, but some evidence would need to be forwarded for it to be accepted scientifically.
Edit: I'd also like to know the theoretical support for God. For example, we have no empirical evidence of the first few seconds after the universe's creation since they were subsumed by the event horizon. We can extrapolate from the evidence we do have to understand more about it though.
Post by
Adamsm
Unless, of course, you believe Christianity to be an extension of the earlier Judaic religions, thus making it much older than 2000 years.
Even then, as it is now, it's a different kettle of fish from the older Judaic beliefs.
Though, considering it's out of the Bible the 'greatest story ever told' well...
That's because it evolved with time. Does that make it separate?
Considering the believers think so; I'd say yes.
Post by
Skreeran
There is theoretical support for the existence of God. There is no material support, but then there is no material support for the concept of love. Doesn't mean it should be rejected.I disagree. Simple observation can confirm that some mammals and especially humans are capable of an emotion we describe as "love." How you define love can vary, but it's readily evident that "love," between humans at the very least, exists.
Claiming that an omnipotent intelligence created the universe in 6 days is quite a different claim, one that no evidence would seem to support.
Post by
Monday
Unless, of course, you believe Christianity to be an extension of the earlier Judaic religions, thus making it much older than 2000 years.
Even then, as it is now, it's a different kettle of fish from the older Judaic beliefs.
Though, considering it's out of the Bible the 'greatest story ever told' well...
That's because it evolved with time. Does that make it separate?
Considering the believers think so; I'd say yes.
Considering that Christianity was formed from those Jews who believed that the Jesus of that time period was the Son of God... it's an extension of the Judaic beliefs, and one of the three major Abrahamic religions.
Also since Christianity traces its roots all the way back to Judaism and beyond, it should be considered an extension of Judaism and granted the same history.
Post by
MyTie
Doesn't mean it should be rejected.
From a scientific standpoint, it does. If the previous paper on the flagellum of some virus hypothesised that invisible nanobots were constructing a better one on the back of the virus as the mechanism for the new flagellum, it'd be rejected. It isn't necessarily wrong and may even be observed, but some evidence would need to be forwarded for it to be accepted scientifically.The difference is that I'm not saying that God should be scientifically accepted. I'm not trying to get a paper published. I'm just saying that because empirical evidence of something doesn't exist, doesn't make it false. If what you were saying is true, then Pythagoreum Theorum must be rejected also, since we only have only observed it, and cannot prove it in every instance.Edit: I'd also like to know the theoretical support for God. For example, we have no empirical evidence of the first few seconds after the universe's creation since they were subsumed by the event horizon. We can extrapolate from the evidence we do have to understand more about it though.
I'm saying that it is theoretically possible, though no physical evidence exists, and that the physical evidence that exists, though observable, isn't empirical.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.