Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 182

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

  1. Top | #71
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,731
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,707
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    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?

  2. Top | #72
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,491
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    39,991
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    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.

  3. Top | #73
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,716
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post


    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.

  4. Top | #74
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #75
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,142
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,619
    Rep Power
    81
    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?

  6. Top | #76
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    2,316
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    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!

  7. Top | #77
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,592
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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_o...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.

  8. Top | #78
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    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.

  9. Top | #79
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,491
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    39,991
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    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.
    There may be no meaning to this world, but that does not mean that what I do is meaningless.
    -Mark Lawrence

  10. Top | #80
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,731
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,707
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    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?
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 07-18-2019 at 02:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •