Sy Garte - Uniting Christian Science & Faith Streams?

[Andy7 (Andy)]

@adamjedgar

Clearly you are conflating the two and Mary Schweitzers example highlights the problem, the method isnt whats in question there…its the conclusion.

I notice that you did not engage on this posting about the work of Dr. Schweitzer:

What if Veloci-Raptor looked like this

Stop it, Adam. That’s just a lie. Mary Schweitzer herself hates how young earth creationists misrepresent her work. She did an interview with BioLogos, you know. “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and…

Then, you brought up the result of Dr. Schweitzer again here. There was an article that Dr. Schweitzer is not questioning the scientific consensus that non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65 Mya, but rather her research is questioning our understanding of how certain chemical structures seem to have survived in fossils for tens of millions of years. And that further research is needed to understand that better.

Is that because you read the article and completely dismissed it because it doesn’t match your prior worldview? Or, did you not bother to read the article, and so cannot speak to a specific point raised by a forum participant? In either case, do you think you might have difficulty conversing with people while showing them so little respect?

Added in edit:
Adam (@adamjedgar ), I apologize for the tone of this comment.

I still think you were misrepresenting the work of Mary Schweitzer, but I should have left it at that. I think you are a good person. And I am certain that you are loved by God.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

@T_aquaticus

Right. They throw out any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of scripture. That means YEC lacks falsifiability. That makes it pseudoscience.

What about bible miracles then…

Why do you so consistently insist that scripture is to be judged by science?
You’ve never answered the question of where in the scriptures does it say that the Holy Spirit intended to teach science? The thing is, if there is no such assertion, then you are making a claim about the Bible that the Bible doesn’t make – and thus your worldview is not biblical.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

Because we all know its scientifically impossible.

Stop treating the current scientific understanding of things as though they’re inspired truth – they’re not. The correct statement would be that we all know that current scientific understanding cannot (at this time) explain such a thing.

@adamjedgar

the pseudoscience that Christ rose from the dead and went up into the sky

There’s no pseudoscience because there’s no attempt to explain it scientifically – that’s an idol that YEC bows down to, not science.

@T_aquaticus

YEC is a dogma, not a science.

That’s a fair description – and it’s a dogma that can’t justify its own existence on the basis of its primary “data set”.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

claiming Christ died and rose from the dead, rose up into the sky, went off into outer space

“Outer space”? More science fiction. Can’t you manage to stick to the text of the scriptures without making stuff up to explain it? Can’t you stop trying to make the Bible talk science?

@adamjedgar

why are you trying to make the claim YEC science isnt falsifiable?

Because they state up front that they won’t let it be – and they live up to that by lying about the data and making up science fiction that is so bad any movie using it would be a comedy.

@adamjedgar

here is that we have a 3000 year old historical writings that must also be considered (included) in the science

Why must they be considered? What in the Bible tells you to expect scientific observations? Science didn’t inspire the Bible, Yahweh did, so why are you treating it as though it got inspired by science?

@adamjedgar

its pretty obvious the ANE “literary” claim is not supported by the facts…its made up to try to further the ANE belief

There is no “ANE belief” – there’s ancient near eastern studies that tells us what has been found and learned about the ancient near east, of which all Israel, Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Sumer, Akkad, etc. are all a part (they even share words across languages).

[T_aquaticus]

@adamjedgar

You are playimg both sides of the coin there…

You are changing the subject to deflect the obvious fact that YEC is pseudoscience.

@adamjedgar

Personally, i dont think falsifiable is a good definition of determining sound science…

Then what you think is absolutely wrong. Science is hypothesis testing. You can’t test a hypothesis if it isn’t falsifiable. If there is no potential observation that would falsify your claim then your claim is scientifically meaningless.

“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing”
― Karl Popper

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

You can’t test a hypothesis if it isn’t falsifiable. If there is no potential observation that would falsify your claim then your claim is scientifically meaningless.

It frequently strikes me just how true this is of linguistics: when we don’t know what a word means, we try a guess, and then do research to see if the guess fits. Fifty years ago the number of Hebrew words in the OT that we didn’t actually know meanings for was in triple digits, and those have been either pinned down or at least narrowed in the same way a scientist would go about it – the difference being that the Hebrew scholar’s resources are archaeological in nature, finding uses of a word outside the OT text, finding cognates in other ANE languages and their texts.
Which is just one example of a critical point: the idea that the Bible is totally self-interpreting is wrong from the start because without outside studies we wouldn’t know what a lot of it even meant!

[T_aquaticus]

@St.Roymond

Which is just one example of a critical point: the idea that the Bible is totally self-interpreting is wrong from the start because without outside studies we wouldn’t know what a lot of it even meant!

In any meaningful investigation you have to be able to honestly ask yourself, “How would I know if I am wrong?”. It’s a basic bias check and a way of letting yourself know if your are being dogmatic. Of course, there are tenets of faith that are dogmatic in nature, and that’s fine as long as we recognize it as such.

For linguistics I’m sure it is the same. How would I know if I am wrong about an interpretation of a text, or wrong about the connotation of a specific word? Understanding the ways in which you can be wrong is just as important, and perhaps more important, than knowing the ways in which you are right, at least in my opinion.