Dinosaurs in the bible?

POSTED BY: midori
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 19:10
VIEWED: 14206
PAGE 4 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

SERGEANTX

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Folks, pick your answer but understand that both are faith based.

That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?

Quote:
All of the discussion we as a nation have had on this topic have changed exactly 0 minds.

Lots of minds get changed on this issue every day. Considering exactly 0 people were convinced of the validity of evolution to begin with and now millions do, it's pretty clear minds can change.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:55 PM

Regression

Quote:
It makes up for the shortfalls of science. And yes, there are shortfalls, according to a recent textbook, and many biologist friends, evolution is not such solid fact... So, it basically comes down to whether we believe that science has explained everything sufficiently, or not

Anyone who claims that "shortfalls" in scientific knowledge invalidate the scientific method clearly doesn't know anything about science! Scientists do not claim to know everything, nor do they make the claim that all hypotheses are correct. In fact, I would be very wary of any scientist or any branch of science that claims to have the "final answer" or that DOESN'T have any shortfalls. I leave that particular hubris to religion.

Here is a gloss of the scientific method.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION0212
1000000000000000

FIVVER

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:00 PM

Quote:

SergeantX:
That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?

By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove. Take the origin of life. Science says that at some unknown time in the past in some unknown enviromnent and for some unknown reason, a molecule started replicating, then increasing in organization and structure and then the rest is evolution. The only example we have of a self replicating moleucle is DNA which needs a highly specialized cell structure around it to keep if from being destoyed (darn it, why couldn't Captian Morgan Spiced Rum molecules be the counter example!).

Even the sub-cellular life forms we know of, viruses and prions, are parasitic in nature and rely on a cellular hosts DNA to replicate.

As far as minds being changed, I'm talking about the national discourse. Once someone comes to the table with an opinion, I think the odds of it being changed are slightly less than that of finding Nessie.

Fivver

SERGEANTX

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Quote:

SergeantX:
That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?

By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove.

Ok. I understand how you're saying they're the same, but I'm particularly interested in how you think science and religion differ, if at all. I mean, if they're the same thing, then why not teach religion alongside science?

It seems to me they are different, but I'm not a Christian. I was curious what you, or any other Christians willing to weigh in on the issue, see as the differences between science and religion.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:39 PM

Quote:
By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove

This isn't much of an explanation. First of all, you're using one synonym to explain the other: belief= faith. Second, you're ASSUMING that scientists "believe" (whatever that is) their hypotheses in the same way that religious "believe" their doctrines. For example, you assume that scientists "believe" the abiotic origins of life the same way the religious "believe" in creation. That particular statement is a hypothesis, not a fact, and there is a great deal of speculation going on about chemical reactions around hydrothermal vents, subsurface chemistry and even "seeding" by comets or meteors. I'm not a biologist and I'm not up on the latest thinking, but my understanding is that scientists think that life came from simpler chemicals (which places the origins of life in the non-supernatural realm) nobody has had an AHA! moment that encompasses all facts. Perhaps a real biologist can weigh in the the state of the science.

But even for well-established hypotheses (like the theory of gravity) any good scientist will tell you: it is impossible to entirely "prove" a hypothesis. The only thing you can do to a hypothesis is to keep testing it until it breaks. So, as far as scientists are concerned, a hypothesis is only as good as its latest test.

The difference between science and religion is what happens when "shortfalls" are noted. One of the interesting points about the religious is that they never put their own precepts to the same rigorous test that they expect of science. Most Biblical stories are immediately disproveable, at least if read literally. Even the quasi-religious ("god done it") expect more out of scientific explanation than they do out of their own belief system.

SERGEANTX

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:53 PM

Maybe the difference is the types of things each addresses. Science tends to focus on things that can conceivably be proven true or false - like specifically predicting results or explaining observable processes. Whereas religion tends to focus on things that can't - like metaphysical questions on the nature of existence, the soul, the beginning of time etc.

But as scientific inquiry has broadened, the range of things it attempts address has begun to overlap with questions that were traditionally considered the realm of religion. Then we get things like the ID/evolution flap.

I see know reason why they can't coexist, as fivver was suggesting. And the more flexible religious pov's seem to be adopting and adapting to a changing scientific understandings, but others are less interested in changing and see science as an assault on their convictions...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIVVER

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:00 PM

I believe the universe and the life in it were deliberately created by God. As to what that purpose was, maybe some day He'll tell me. I think the Cliff Notes answer to your question is design vs happenstance.

Do I want science classes to teach the religious viewpoint? Absolutely not. However I also don't want them teaching random vacuum flucuations and self-replicating molecules as established fact. Maybe there is room in the curriculum for a comparative religion course.

Whenever I read Genesis 1, I am amazed at how way too well it seems to track with the big bang and evolutionary theories. Take our modern theories, explain them to someone who has no clue about science and then tell him to put it into poetry...

Fivver

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:10 PM

Hey, Signy, I've been thinking about something for a while now, and this delightfully goofy thread affords me an opportunity to clarify some of my thoughts about modern scientific arrogance. Many scientists seem to think that science has adequately described most of the observable world with which we interact on a day to day basis; according to them, the world, for the most part, behaves the way they describe it as behaving. Many scientists acknowledge that there are things which science has yet to fathom, but there seems to me to be an underlying value judgment in their thinking: that what science does not yet know is somehow esoteric/fringy or nigh on unknowable to anyone at the present time.

Take the notion of life after death; science credits such a thing not at all, and our whole culture believes that there is no way of knowing what happens after you die (you know, 'cause you're dead, heh-heh). But all kinds of people have information about what happens after you die. I died when I was a little shy of 3 years old; a neighbor girl dropped me on my head and I was in a coma for three days, during which time my heart stopped for several minutes and then I came back. My memory of the experience reads like a new age cliché: I found myself standing in an indistinct space, more or less before a bunch of folks who were backlit by an astonishing brightness who told me to "GO BACK." Apparently I did. When I woke up, I had the first conscious thoughts that I remember ever putting into words. A nurse was showing me a pair of puppets, one in each hand. They were both in the style of Little Red Riding Hood, but for the fact that one of them was all in black & white plaid instead of red. She shook them and chanted, "Which one do you like, which one do you like...?" I remember thinking the words, "Of course I like the red one, the other one is wrong." Anyway, that all happened before I was 3, before I read a single book by Whitley Strieber or saw a single episode of In Search Of, and yet my experience coincides with the reports of millions from all over the world.

Most scientist whom I've had the pleasure of knowing do not imagine that their fundamental beliefs about everyday reality might be erroneous, or so flawed as to cripple any attempt to truly understand what's going on. My daily existence is full of phenomena which, I dare say, mainstream science would not credit. So, with constant proof of mainstream science's limitations, I conclude that mainstream scientists are, in some respects, a foolishly arrogant lot.

Here's something that might be worth discussing. You will prolly be able to clarify this to me. Thinking about UFO phenomena and your gloss on the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
People claim that they were abducted by aliens
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Aliens abduct people.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
People will continue to be abducted by aliens
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
Okay, no experiments yet, but lots of further observation, interviews with millions of people world wide with some varying results but several key elements of the abduction phenomenon consistently repeated
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Roger that!

I've never understood why scientists so often insist upon throwing out testimony from millions of witnesses simply because their testimony does not square with their beliefs. It seems unreasonable to assume that every last one of these folks is either flat wrong, deluded or lying.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:18 PM

I guess scientists would like to examine something other than "self-report" because it is essentially subjective?

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess scientists would like to examine something other than "self-report" because it is essentially subjective?

But that doesn't make it "wrong." On the contrary, to my mind, it makes it "likely."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE