Science seems a bit behind on things...

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by OldDude49, May 15, 2019.


  1. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    it seems... these are all opinion pieces... I guess but...


    5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. Ecclesiastes 11:5


    can anyone prove due to the need to combine with the flesh as it grows to become one with it... that there is no being there from the moment of conception on... ?



    and you have the food laws...

    Bible's dietary laws convinced doc that 'God is a cardiologist' | God Reports



    anyways...






    and this one...



     
  2. duane

    duane Monkey+++

    Don't claim to know where it came from, but Moses said God told him the rules. Still make a lot of sense and I have no idea where they decided that pork had worms, mold, reset to restore economy instead of recessions. ETC. Read Leviticus and ignore at your own risk, not politically correct today and some people in the Jewish faith take it a little to far today. Still some of the best doomer porn I have read is Lamentations, the country is gone, the few left free have hid in the wilderness, their allies deserted them and left them holding the bag, there is no one to blame but themselves as they ignored God and lost his protection as things were going so well that the old religion was no longer respected. Haven't quite figured out yet if the date was about 586 BC or 2020's AD. Time will tell.
     
    Gator 45/70, SB21 and UncleMorgan like this.
  3. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I eat vegetables. My friends are not vegetables.

    Religion is a risky thing to discuss, except when everyone in the conversation is a member of the same congregation.

    That being said, I just have to point out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been thoroughly disproved. There aon't no such animal.

    I n addition, I have personally disproved Newton's Third Law of Motion. That's the one about equal and opposite reactions. Nope. 'Tain't necessarily so.

    In another hundred years we probably won't have any of our beloved "Natural Laws" left.

    Just the "Unnatural" ones...
     
  4. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    It's not so much that "science seems a bit behind things". but that some theists are making unwarranted claims as to the "Bible" demonstrating scientific fore-knowledge. The two You tube video clips featured in the thread's opening post try to fly a number of Christian apologetic canards, but they are unconvincing, except to some of the theist choir, who merely accept them without critical thought or evaluation; Some theists also find them unconvincing, and wish that their fundie brethren would cut it out.

    If by opinion pieces, you are referring to the posted You Tube clips, then, yes...but they are poor opinions without much merit.

    The author of this text from Ecclesiastes / Qohelet (Tanakh) is making an appeal to mystery Appeal to mystery - RationalWiki in explaining away questions about "the way of the spirit", and how a fetus develops in utero. What the author is essentially saying is...'don't trouble yourself about these questions; god works in mysterious ways...how can you, an insignificant mortal, expect to understand these things???' So much for ancient obstetric scientific knowledge. :rolleyes:

    Depends what you mean by 'being'. A human zygote is formed at the moment of conception, and, potentially it may develop further during the gestation process. Your question is a theological / philosophical question, not a scientific / medical question; in which case the answer will be a matter of YMMV, depending upon one's theological / philosophical stance and commitments..


    Which laws most Christians totally ignore....if indeed they are even aware of them at all....I mean to say, that's just for kashrut kommandos.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  5. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    everyone is entitled to their own opinion... you have stated yours... they have stated theirs... all good.
     
    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  6. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Not all opinions are of equal value, and the YouTube Christian apologetic video clips spruiking biblical scientific fore knowledge, claimed as factual truth, are at best, unintentionally misleading, and at worst dishonestly deceptive. God(s) if he/she /it /they exist, don't need theistic carny barkers doing what they ought, unequivocally, be able to do themselves, without 3rd party intermediaries doin' the godsplainin'.

    Muslims, do the same kind of theistic legerdemain with their deity / prophet, using the same style / method of 'scientific' fore knowledge truth claims, but derived from references to the Qur'an. Why ought anyone accept the 'scientific' fore knowledge claims of either faiths, as convincing evidence of divine existence / truth?

    There are a number of problems associated with claims of theistic scientific foreknowledge....

    "...
    • Scientific knowledge necessarily must detail every process as accurately and precisely as possible, propose an explanationfor the results that makes falsifiable predictions and reproducible tests, refine the explanation, and make all information public to allow others to repeat the cycle. It is not scientific merely to make vague assertions, such as, "the body is made of the same things as the earth," or "rain falls and waters our crops".
    • Very few religious texts actually aim to provide detailed, scientific knowledge about the world. The vast majority of statements from the Bible, and most other religious texts, are religious messages to followers, moral rules, or statements aimed at converting heathens.
    • Even if some of the claimed "scientific foreknowledge" is true, there are a vastly greater number of statements in the Bible with no basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Even if every one of the claims below were correct (which they manifestly are not), they would still be vastly outnumbered by the scientific absurdities.
    • It's also interesting that scientific discoveries are very rarely "predicted" by the Bible until after science has made the discovery. One would imagine that a book so full of scientific foreknowledge would be used to predict future scientific discoveries, while it appears that the Bible can only vaguely predict currently existing science....." Biblical scientific foreknowledge - RationalWiki

    How does one evaluate claimed 'scientific' foreknowledge, against actual scientific foreknowledge? A set of criteria may be helpful from separating scientific fact from theological chaff:

    "...In order for a statement to be Biblical scientific foreknowledge, it must satisfy five criteria:
    1. It must be correct. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is incorrect, because the scientific method necessarily eschews incorrect data.
    2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical scientific foreknowledge if it isn't in the Bible, because the only possible source of Biblical scientific foreknowledge is the Bible.[note 1]
    3. It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is ambiguous, both because science is necessarily precise and because ambiguity allows modern science to be shoehorned into ancient religion when none is present.
    4. It must have been outside of contemporary knowledge. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it was already known, because this makes the "foreknowledge" into merely "knowledge" and makes divine intervention unnecessary.[note 2]
    5. It must have been outside of contemporary technology. A statement cannot be considered scientific foreknowledge if it was knowable with the technology of the time, because this makes divine intervention unnecessary..."Biblical scientific foreknowledge - RationalWiki
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019 at 2:49
    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  7. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    interesting... but wiki is not IMHO dependable... as in wikianything...

    has been shown to be tickled with bios by some folks that have a agenda it seems...
     
    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  8. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    You are quite right: those concerns apply just as well to those ancient stone, papyrus, vellum and paper wikis, otherwise known as the Vedas, the Tanakh, the Holy Bible and the Qur'an.

    However, you have not commented on the criteria suggested for evaluating whether claimed scientific fore-knowledge is actual scientific fore-knowledge; or are we just supposed to accept the claims made in the Ray Comfort and the 'Freedom in God' You Tube clips at face value, and 'on faith'?

    I will spend some time evaluating each of the claims made in the Ray Comfort and 'Freedom In God' (F.I.G.)You Tube clips to see how they stack up as actual scientific fore knowledge.

    Before starting with my analysis, it would pay to understand what science is, and how it is done; something that theistic apologists tend not to understand / and or do:

    "...Essentially, the following five steps make up the scientific method:
    1. Observe - Look at the world and find a result that seems curious. As Isaac Asimov put it, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'Hmm... that's funny...'"
    2. Hypothesize - Come up with a possible explanation.
    3. Predict - The most important part of a hypothesis or theory is its ability to make predictions that have yet to be observed. A theory that makes no new predictions is scientifically worthless. Predictions must be falsifiable (theoretically, new evidence can show the prediction to be false) and specific (what is predicted must not be open to interpretation after the experiment begins, or else the only thing you're testing is your ability to reinterpret your incorrect theory).
    4. Test Predictions (in physical sciences this is called Experiment) - Compare the predictions with new[11] empirical evidence (usually experimental evidence, often supported by mathematics). This step is the reason why a hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable — if there's nothing to falsify, then the experiment is pointless because it's guaranteed to tell you nothing new. Information from the experiment can disprove the original hypothesis, which might be refined into a better one.
    5. Reproduce - ensure the result is a true reflection of reality by verifying it with others. "
    Do the biblical references in the F.I.G. / Comfort video clips make observations about the natural world? Do they make hypotheses based on those observations? Do they make predictions based on those hypotheses? Do they test those predictions? Do they replicate their prediction testing to discover whether their predictions are a true reflection of reality? I think that in many instances, the texts do not follow that regime, and therefore could not be considered as scientific fore knowledge, but merely religious dogma.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019 at 0:24
  9. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    I understand science and how it works or applies...

    thing about science that many ignore is it is a METHOD and not a lot else...

    a method for study and discovery laid out with a pattern of things to do...

    theory... = POSSIBLE explanation of the facts found... because they... if honest... don't KNOW what some things mean...

    also noticed far too often the community of said people have this disturbing tendency...

    they try their best to make any new facts fit the old theories... and far too often deny other possibilities...

    thing about theories is they are just that... theories...

    means they are NOT true science but an interpretation of what SEEMS to be at the time... scientific facts...

    as such I have learned to not be overly trusting of what scientist say... they reverse themselves far too often...

    example... how long have we known about nuclear radiation? what maybe 200 years?

    yet they have made claims about measuring time by using half life decay...

    IMHO this has some very serious fallacies...

    and one of the main ones is... time... and the believe that things are the same now as they were in the past...

    and will be the same in the future...

    recently carbon dating has had some disturbing... dating errors?

    so while some can worship at the alter of science... I do not and can not...

    men and women are the problem here... in that they are human and very often create some major errors in reasoning...

    that said... I find I disagree with many of your statements... link all you want... I will look...

    but what you consider proof may not be so to me... I realize vice versa from you to be normal...
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7