Oh the irony. You typed this on a computer, connected to the Internet. Which is both a product and a demonstration of science’s ability to reason.
3 Likes
Science is a tool of reason applicable to nature. Math and logic are tools of reason. Language itself is a tool of reason.
You want to see bias? Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith…
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
…now there is bias.
Given your hand waving away evidence as corrupt, I might ask if science is your Devil?
Science is not reality. Reality informs science by observation and experiment.
Is that supposed to be some sanctimonious tract against honesty and integrity in science?
4 Likes
Yes, Adam. Science is biased.
It is biased against fudging measurements. It is biased against quote mining. It is biased against misrepresentation of evidence. It is biased against exaggerating the extent and significance of error bars. It is biased against portraying outliers as if they were representative of the norm. It is biased against imprecise terminology, lowering of standards, and anti-intellectualism. It is biased against logical fallacies. It is biased against wilful ignorance. It is biased against sloppy thinking, falsehood, unjustified assertions, and resistance to critique.
Adam, preaching Biblical truth is something to be commended. But weaponising Biblical truth and placing it in opposition to scientific truth is exactly the kind of bad attitude to science that this thread was originally about.
5 Likes
It’s always interesting about that binary–Luke 9:50 seems to contradict that.
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
I agree that law is an outgiving. I think you agree that a love of truth leads to equal measures.
Thanks.
2 Likes
Well, then the beach is a lab, glaciers are labs, the dunes are labs, flower pots are labs, compost piles are labs . . . and those are just some from things I do.
Because that isn’t true. When DNA mapping became possible, I know that in botany at last everyone expected that all sorts of prevailing ideas were going to be overturned. Not a single one of the articles we read for upper-level botany classes was using DNA analysis to prove anything, they were all asking, “What will this tell us?”
Definitely not – I remember some scientists that insisted there was no such thing.
Which reminds me of the numerous predictions about what DNA would surely show about common ancestry that turned out wrong.
You do not understand science or scientists. Have you ever taken a university course that required wading through actual published papers and participating in research? One thing you would find is that there are not uncommonly vendettas between researchers who are out to prove each other wrong. Two of my botany professors, and one biology professor with an oceanology professor, regularly aimed research at finding exceptions to common ancestry!
Bullpucky. I knew two professors whose response to some results of DNA analysis was “Carp” or “Boring” because they hoped it would tell us a lot more, but the vast majority of it just confirmed what was already believed.
Nope. There’s this thing called statistical analysis and it works in geology, meteorology, and other fields – so when it is applied also to biology, why would anyone expect it to suddenly not work?
Take a couple of terms of statistics, plus a couple in linear algebra, and you’ll understand why this objection is just silly. Heck, nuclear engineers were working with the results of statistical analysis quite nicely before the theorists had figured out the actual mechanisms.
His claim is that we don’t know the precise cause of any specific mutation. It strikes me as not dissimilar to the instance where some auto mechanics said there was no way I could tell what was wrong with my car’s motor because I wasn’t a mechanic – but I told them exactly what was wrong and what sort of part had to be the problem, and I was right because given how an internal combustion engine (back then) worked the symptoms my car was showing had to be from that one thing and from that sort of part.
Exactly how I knew what was wrong with my car! Part X of the motor was supposed to produce behavior x, but since it was producing x’ I knew it wasn’t behaving properly.
2 Likes
Science has scientists. In that sense “science” is a system consisting of all the scientists and methods and how these interact. So science does have an “ability to reason”.
YEC practitioners aren’t scientists, as every article on AiG’s website demonstrates: scientists do not misrepresent, ignore, and lie about data, but every article at AiG does – and I have found no exceptions to that at Creation-dot-com either.
You have a very small and weak idea of God.
None of which is in the least relevant to this discussion. Stop mixing science and faith!
2 Likes
The irony is that YEC ignores historical-grammatical interpretation, as has been demonstrated here multiple times by YECers.
Amen, and amen!
1 Like
that is a rather stupid question because you simply don’t get my point…to make it clearer for you, let me ask you one…
When you go to seek medical treatment, are you receiving said treatment from a doctor or science?
If your answer is science, can you send me a photo…id like to meet “science” face to face. Also, can you ask science if they are in a relationship or married? Do they have kids? Have they ever done any missionary work? Where did they do their medical internship (at what hospital)? what is science’s favourite music? Do they have any hobbies? What do they do for exercise? How about pets? Are they vegetarian and if so, are they vegan?
So the fool who liked your comment above clearly did not recognise the dilemma i presented…that’s rather unfortunate as it highlights exactly why most individuals who follow TEism have such lousy biblical theology. If they cannot comprehend the notion that science in and of itself is not intelligent, how could those individuals recognise sound theology?
Personally i think science is rather appropriately summed up by a famous statement in the "Pirates of the Caribbean movie when commenting on the “Pirates code”
“they are more like guidelines anyway”
I understand that the same could be said of the 10 commandments…the exception being, the morality of pirate code and Gods code are two very different points of view.
examples please? (because as far as i can recall, your claim there has never stood up to the tests applied to it)
Also, one really big problem with the notion of historical grammatical interpretation…it is almost always falsified by a normal reading of language (a fact that is universally proven across the globe today). So given the fact that you like to apply the “uniformitarian” view that what we see today must be indicative of ancient times…we have the normal reading of ancient language in the text already across two distinct and disconnected sources and both say exactly the same thing…these are the critical and majority texts! (eg’s Sinaticus and KJV) So where’s your consistency there?
The truth is, you use this defense because its convenient and on the surface appears to you to be largely untestable by either side (because none of those individuals are alive to actually ask). The trouble is, that is where biblical cross referencing with other writers in different bible times resolves any uncertainty…and that destroys your hypothesis there St Roymond.
No he doesn’t. He’s saying that science was devised and is used to counter biases.
4 Likes
You are receiving care from a doctor based on scientific research. I have even done some of that research as it relates to multi-drug treatment of gram positive infections. My work informed the standard of care that doctors base their decisions on.
It’s the scientific community. Here’s a picture of an ASM (American Society of Microbiology) meeting which I attend off and on.
When you go to the doctor you are receiving care based on scientific research. In fact, I bet you wouldn’t have it any other way. And yet, you try to trash science in these threads. Why?
4 Likes
I exactly how Scripture presents itself.
This is not to condone the attacks on science, just to say that if you are going to base everything on scripture you will have no problem weoponising it.
Your cries of “unfair” are lost in the way you weoponise Science.
Richard
That sounds like a fun meeting!
1 Like
Does the gentleman in the bottom right corner referee papers? 
4 Likes
I think I need a microscope to see that well!
2 Likes
I see what you did there- they are microbiologists after all!
3 Likes
Funnily enough, it looks like the picture I posted is not from ASM. It appears to some sort of body building thing. Weird.
That’s better.
The conference is actually pretty big. Here is a pic of an opening session:
4 Likes
Yes.
You’re committing a linguistic fallacy: restricting the use of a given word to the definition that best serves you.
As far as I can tell from this forum, they have much better theology than any YECer, especially when it comes to their Christology.
Well, that certainly applies to the major YEC websites, since they feel free to ignore, misrepresent, and lie about data as it suits them.
YEC ignores the historical facts that
- the first Genesis Creation account employs the Egyptian creation story as its framework.
- the first Genesis Creation account’s structure matches the ancient literary type called temple inauguration
- the first Genesis Creation account’s structure also matches the ancient literary type called ‘royal chronicle’
and YEC ignores the common use of grammar when it comes to various aspects of the Ark account, such as ignoring the ordinary use of the words כֹּל (kol) and אֶרֶץ (eretz).
LOL
Grammar is the backbone of language – your statement boils down to “the actual structure of language is falsified by a normal reading of language”.
And that reveals one more way in which YEC lies: it ignores the true ordinary use of language, replacing it with whatever works best for them.
Linguistics has a uniformitarian view? The closest thing I can think of is that the meaning of language uniformly adheres what its common users intend by it.
Is not an excuse to ignore grammar and the meaning of language.
1 Like
omg …cant help stupid.
Do you not understand the question?
show me a photo of science (the person)!!!
You have shown me a photo of intelligent minds who use the tool called science…they are not science but representatives of the notion of science.
Its very clear from your image, that even you recognise that science is not a person…so you simply posted an image of people who engage in scientific activities…they are the intelligence performing the tasks obviously
The fact that 4 people liked your response there indicates that their thinking is equally shallow that they do not understand the dilemma at all. Its no wonder this forum has members with such poor biblical theology because if they cannot appreciate the dilemma i have presented to you with science, what hope have they got of surviving the depths of apologetics discussions on biblical theology?
this is a copout.
here’s why:
-
you refuse to accept a global flood (a miracle as depicted in the bible by its most prolific writer. Moses)
-
you accept the new testament miracles of Christ and the apostles despite the fact they also are unscientific.
do you not see the vast chasm between the two there and the untenable dilemma it presents to you as a TEist?
Any Christian who actually studies bible theology will immediately recognise the serious fundamental problem in the above…
clearly you do not!
Now whilst you throw “flatearther” argument at me, which i do not even believe in that theology, because it simply isn’t biblical nor was it universally accepted outside of cultures such as the Greeks, i respond with cross referenced biblical dilemmas to your believes and you appear completely oblivious to the religious problems you face.