Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

[bilby]

A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations.

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.

Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.

Yes, the billions of years theory.

Yes. The age of the Earth is known to be 4,540,000,000 ±50,000,000 years.

A large number of independent lines of evidence agree with this hypothesis, thereby qualifying it as a theory.

It's possible that we might discover new evidence that says that the actual age is (for example) 4,585,418,009 years. Or 4,493,629,528 years. So it is correct to say that we don't know exactly how old the Earth is.

However, it's not possible that we will discover new evidence that says that the actual age is 6,000 ±30 years, any more than it's possible that we might discover new evidence that says rocks actually fall upwards. Or that the Earth is actually flat. Uncertainty doesn't imply 'anything goes'.

The evidence for the age of the Earth is extensive, and a number of completely different methodologies and techniques give answers that agree with each other. This overwhelmingly convincing evidence cannot be overturned by a conjecture or notion that perhaps a bunch of Bronze and early Iron Age clerics had a hotline to a god (a god for whose existence we have no convincing evidence at all).

In order for this theory to be wrong, a lot of related technologies on which we rely would have to not work. But they do work. So the theory isn't wrong (within the defined margin of uncertainty).

 

[Learner]

Yes but when a theory is updated or another takes its place, the previous theory wasn't correct but yet, the previous theory as you say, would have been relied on and working at the time.

Hence my BAWG word, I am agreeing with you here.

 

[Learner]

I imagine theist science bashers when on a takeoff roll on a jet must be praying awful hard when the pilot pulls back the yoke to lift off. Aerodynamics might just not work this time.

Arguing science is fundamentally flawed yet relying on what science provides 24/7 is one of those cognitive disconnects. To debunk science is to ignore what science has provided. Cut off electricity and most will die in short order.

These Christians contributed quite considerably, and made way for quite a bit of the science, that is not at all ignored- that bit you (plural) ignored lol.

Also goes to Biby's post # 55 and Abaddons post # 57

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes but when a theory is updated or another takes its place, the previous theory wasn't correct but yet, the previous theory as you say, would have been relied on and working at the time.

Wel, the previous theory wasn't COMPLETE. But as has been pointed out, it may remain 'reliable and working' for certain applications, within known limits.
Pythagoras' law for triangles did not stop working the first time someone drew a triangle, with three right angles, on a sphere.

Four-color map theory may not apply to a torus, but that doesn't limit it's applicability in drawing maps of human countries on the surface of a globe.

This pretending that science may SOME DAY be discovered as incomplete is just god-of-the-maybe-there-will-be-gaps.

 

[Keith&Co.]

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

Dude, you were the one pretending science is the atheist side of the conversation.

Plenty of Christains have contributed to science, but NOT by taking their god to work with them. If they contributed, they obeyed the strictures of science, and produced evidence for their hypotheses, which were reviewed, and stood up to scrutiny.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sorta true.

Theists appear to believe that scientists view scientific theories the same way theists believe the Bible. While theists tend to believe every word of the Bible is the absolutely infallible true word of god, "not a jot or tittle" in error, science views theories as reliable descriptions of observations that can reliably be used for predictions of future observations - until an error is found or a better description is formulated.

A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop.

Really?

What new finding has religion made in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.
Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.

Yes, the billions of years theory. Science is neutral, people use science and "theories" get updated.

Updated doesn't mean the old was wrong. It only means it was made more precise.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I imagine theist science bashers when on a takeoff roll on a jet must be praying awful hard when the pilot pulls back the yoke to lift off. Aerodynamics might just not work this time.

Arguing science is fundamentally flawed yet relying on what science provides 24/7 is one of those cognitive disconnects. To debunk science is to ignore what science has provided. Cut off electricity and most will die in short order.

These Christians contributed quite considerably, and made way for quite a bit of the science, that is not at all ignored- that bit you (plural) ignored lol.

Also goes to Biby's post # 55 and Abaddons post # 57

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

It's quite okay if one is religious and understands science and the scientific method. It's also quite okay if one is scientific and understands religion. What you've just demonstrated is that it is not desirable to be a religious person who does not understand science and the scientific method. That is called scientific illiteracy and your post is an example of same. It is not a good thing.

 

[Learner]

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

Dude, you were the one pretending science is the atheist side of the conversation.

Plenty of Christains have contributed to science, but NOT by taking their god to work with them. If they contributed, they obeyed the strictures of science, and produced evidence for their hypotheses, which were reviewed, and stood up to scrutiny.

I was addressing the "theory" that religious people "ignore" science.

 

[Learner]

Really?

What new finding has religion made in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The studies continues so that there is a beter understanding in contexts where the bibles concerned. The list I provided above of Christians who helped in the last fifty years to revolutionize life.

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.
Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.



Updated doesn't mean the old was wrong. It only means it was made more precise.

I don't disagree with the idea but the word "precise" depends on where its applied regarding a whole range of different theories.

 

[Keith&Co.]

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

Dude, you were the one pretending science is the atheist side of the conversation.

Plenty of Christains have contributed to science, but NOT by taking their god to work with them. If they contributed, they obeyed the strictures of science, and produced evidence for their hypotheses, which were reviewed, and stood up to scrutiny.

I was addressing the "theory" that religious people "ignore" science.

Who has made that claim, Learner? Seriously who has tried to say that science is atheist and all religious people are creationists?

Anyone?

I think this is a strawman. In general, the number of scientists who identify as religious is proportional to the density of the population in the country they survey. The number of people who think God is necessary for a specific thing, like the diversity of life on Earth, drops dramatically in the biology sciences, and spikes in engineering, but nowhere is any scientific branch exclusively populated by atheists.

But if anyone's going to make any headway, make any discoveries AND get people to accept them, they need to use the science, not their faith.

 

[skepticalbip]

Really?

What new finding has religion made in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The studies continues so that there is a beter understanding in contexts where the bibles concerned. The list I provided above of Christians who helped in the last fifty years to revolutionize life.

That wasn't the question. Very good scientific work can and is done by scientists who also hold religious beliefs. But that very good science is not based on the Bible... it is based on science and the scientific method. Someone can be an excellent chef and also believe in Big Foot but their abilities in the kitchen has nothing to do with cryptozoology.

The question was what has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.
Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.

Updated doesn't mean the old was wrong. It only means it was made more precise.

I don't disagree with the idea but the word "precise" depends on where its applied regarding a whole range of different theories.

Does that sentence really mean anything?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does that sentence really mean anything?

Not precisely.


He's just trying to pretend there's a hope for a gap to slip god into.

 

[ronburgundy]

I dunno. We seem to have done pretty well going from “cubit” to “meter” where the one was pretty ambiguous and bad and the other is precise and has a definition that includes that precision.

But the scientific definition of those terms are already very precise. I doubt a "new word" could be made more precise.

The problem is that those terms also have non-scientific definitions as well, which are far more known and commonly used in public discourse. When most people say and hear "law", it does not mean what it does in science. So, correctly interpreting it's use in science requires actively suppressing the terms common more dominant meaning and making a special context-dependent exception to how it is interpreted. It is similar with "theory", though a the scientific and non-scientific uses might be more similar in frequency of use.

Also, I would argue that the scientific definition of theory is far from "very precise". It actually says nothing about the level of existing evidence in support of the idea. "Theory" in science is used constantly to refer to any set suppositions intended to explain something, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it. Discussions in science refer to "competing theories" and "alternative theories", which are all still "theories" despite that some are far weaker and less supported by evidence than others. "Scientific theories" are merely theories that could be empirically tests, not theories that have already passed rigorous testing.

IOW, there actually is no particular word in science for an explanatory theory that has strong supporting evidence and consensus acceptance among relevant scientists. Many people wrongly think that is what a "law" is, but "laws" in science don't actually "explain" anything. Rather laws are mathematical descriptions of how particular variables covary under highly prescribed ideal/controlled conditions, not explanations of why variables covary. Theories do not become laws and laws are atheoretical.

 

[Learner]

That wasn't the question. Very good scientific work can and is done by scientists who also hold religious beliefs. But that very good science is not based on the Bible... it is based on science and the scientific method. Someone can be an excellent chef and also believe in Big Foot but their abilities in the kitchen has nothing to do with cryptozoology.

The question was what has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

I knew what you were leading to... the bible is not a science manual and so you thought there was an argument there but the topic of religious people and science has been discussed.

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.
Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.

Updated doesn't mean the old was wrong. It only means it was made more precise.

( I don't disagree with the idea but the word "precise" depends on where its applied regarding a whole range of different theories.)

Does that sentence really mean anything?

Pinpoint accuracy and very rough variable estimates.

 

[bilby]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

 

[Half-Life]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

There was a whole list of things that were known in Biblical times and took science hundreds of years to catch up. For example, the Bible mentions the "springs of the deep" in the oceans and it wasn't until recently they found the underwater hydrothermal vents.

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.


4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

 

[steve_bank]

I imagine theist science bashers when on a takeoff roll on a jet must be praying awful hard when the pilot pulls back the yoke to lift off. Aerodynamics might just not work this time.

Arguing science is fundamentally flawed yet relying on what science provides 24/7 is one of those cognitive disconnects. To debunk science is to ignore what science has provided. Cut off electricity and most will die in short order.

These Christians contributed quite considerably, and made way for quite a bit of the science, that is not at all ignored- that bit you (plural) ignored lol.

Also goes to Biby's post # 55 and Abaddons post # 57

List of Christians in science and technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

And thats just the list of Christians out of the religious pioneers of science

The fact that Christians contributed to scince does not mean the bible is the source of scince.

The path to European science is clear. Ancent Greece, China, India, Persia, and the Arabs fed into Europe.

None of Newton's ideas of motion were not entirety original. Inertia traces back in print to the Arabs. Newton used Persian astronomical data in his development of his idea of gravity. The Arabs had the first comprehensive written algebra texts. Optics and medicine. At their peak when the Europeans were sleeping with their animals the Arabs had clean cities and hospitals.

Before Europe Persia was the place to be for astronomy. They had the major observatory.

If you look at Medieval colors and music the mid eastern influence is obvious.

It is a modern Christian invention to say science is Christian. As if science and math sprang out of noting in Christian Europe.

And European Christianity always controlled science to mold it to theology. Galileo of course. Science under Christianity always had to fit into theology. It only began to diminish in the 19th century when Christianity lost powers of civil enforcement.

The Creationist objection to evolution and origins of the Earth are silly at best. They still try to bend science to fit interpretation of a few lines on creation in an ancient text of unknown authorship. You are doing it in your post.

The fact that Newton was Christian does not mean his science had a basis in being Christina. In reality he had religious views contrary to orthodoxy that could have gotten him into serious trouble.

In the late 20th century the RCC said officially evolution may be part of god's plan. Again molding science. Other major denominations have followed suit.

Christians who are complete immersed in the bible to exclusion of other things are frightfully ignorant of history.

Another thing comes to mind. When Ben Franklin showed lightning to be a natural phenomena it caused a theological reaction. Many thought lightening which came from above where heaven is was a sign from god. If it hit your barn it was a sign. Franklin's lightening rods were considered an abomination against god.

We se the same Christian irrationality today. Homosexuality seems to be unrelated to environment and related to hormones during pregnancy possibly . Gays as as biologically normal as anything across the spectrum. scientifically speaking.

 

[Learner]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

Research and study is done in both science and religion i.e. finding out more, and thats it. Using the word "new" e.g. new things for revolutionizing life in last fifty years is imo not really a good example to compare science with the bible on that word which is a mislead. Scientists have discovered new things to revolutionize life for "fifty years" yes of course.


The bible has revolutionized life for 2000 years! Love your neihbour as yourself , feed the poor etc.etc.etc. Its not "new" but abiding by Jesus's teachings and being a scientists at the same time is most beneficial, I would think.

You (plural)have not thought it through and I don't profess to be any wiser but Its a mileading illusion to compare *new*as an argument with the bible just as saying in contradiction, in the last fifty years technical advancement has developed the atom bomb and advanced technological weaponry.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

There was a whole list of things that were known in Biblical times and took science hundreds of years to catch up. For example, the Bible mentions the "springs of the deep" in the oceans and it wasn't until recently they found the underwater hydrothermal vents.

but if you're going to try to shoehorn those terms into modern science, you still have to explain the other crap.
The Bible explains recessive genes by saying striped goats are born because theur parents looked at striped sticks while copulating.

The Bible always describes Earth as flat.
The sky as solid.
The Earth's foundations as umnmoving, the sun orbiting around the Earth, with the tiny stars.
Stars are small enough to fall onto Earth.

Can't brag about poetically acceptable claims while ignoring the balls-out-stupid ones.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

There was a whole list of things that were known in Biblical times and took science hundreds of years to catch up. For example, the Bible mentions the "springs of the deep" in the oceans and it wasn't until recently they found the underwater hydrothermal vents.

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

It is "Christians" that write things like the link you provided that really helped drive me away from Christianity. Why the fuck do Christian apologists assume that those who ask questions trying to understand their faith treat them as if they are idiots who will believe anything they are told?

I was raised as a Christian and by the time I reached the age of reason, I wanted to understand, not just accept. Bull shit like your link is all I could find so I looked elsewhere. Why are Christian apologists so incapable of straight, honest discussion? By my late teens I had become an atheist,

I will give you credit for having enough sense to be able to read and understand what those Bible quotes actually said until you demonstrate otherwise. Given that, why would you link to a page that contained such idiotic sophism?