Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

  • Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date
  • #51
seycyrus
You make a claim
And are shown very clearly how to calculate it, thus being proven wrong. Then you claim to know you are right? I'm sorry but I don't follow your reasoning.
Wait a sec. How long did Moses pause between when he (supposedly) parted the Red Sea and when he started to cross? How long did it take him? My bible doesn't talk about that. Do you have the teacher's version or something?
 
  • #52
299
1
Wait a sec. How long did Moses pause between when he (supposedly) parted the Red Sea and when he started to cross? How long did it take him? My bible doesn't talk about that. Do you have the teacher's version or something?
Why are you putting up strawmen?
 
  • #53
seycyrus
Why are you putting up strawmen?
It is not a strawmen. It is exposing a strawman!

Because the bible does NOT claim to record every moment of time. Since it does not record all moments, the claim that bible can be used to accurately date the universe is incorrect.

This viewpoint has been accepted by christians for some time, and is a coherent.

To claim that judeo-christian-islamic belief is flawed due to an argument that they do not support is creating a strawman.

Actually, I don't know what the majority of muslims believe, so I'll back out of that part.
 
  • #54
2,985
15
How could you consider it falsified- because you don't believe it? The Big Bang is falsifiable you obviously haven't looked very deeply into it. If the Big Bang DID happen how do you get from there to life. If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?
Obviously, YOU dont know what the hell you're talking about.
 
  • #55
2,985
15
Wow this is ridiculous. I am clearly just getting shot down on what I know is right so I am done here.
You're clearly wrong and instead of admitting it, you deem yourself right. Thats the definition of a fool.

In all honestly, dont bother coming to this form and asking people for help if you dont have the integrity to learn and understand science and what it means to be a scientist.

Im not saying anthing about being religious. But do NOT waltz in here and think you can say, 'no its not a true', 'no, its not a valid theory', only because you hear what you want to hear, and not what is true.
 
  • #56
seycyrus
Obviously, YOU dont know what the hell you're talking about.

How are you guys usig the term "falsifiable"?

A scientific theory HAS to be falsifiable to be scientific. Einstein's theory is falsifiable, doesn't make it wrong.
 
  • #57
299
1
Because the bible does NOT claim to record every moment of time. Since it does not record all moments, the claim that bible can be used to accurately date the universe is incorrect.
You are correct that the bible does not claim to record every moment of time. But we don't need to know every moment in time to calculate the age. If the ~6000 yr date is innacurate, then one of the ages listed in the geneologies in the bible must be innaccurate.

To illustrate, I could give you a list of major events which happened in my lifetime, and the amount of time which passed between each. Using this information, without having a second by second recording of my life, you can make a reasonable approximation to my age. A similar thing can be done with the geneologies in the bible.

That is why your claim that the bible does not record all moments is a strawman.
 
  • #58
Vid
401
0
Exactly, one does not need to know how long it took Moses to part the red sea if the bible say Moses was 120. The whole is the sum of its parts.
 
  • #59
664
3
*SIGH*

The bible does not ever claim to be a second by second, minute by minute relation of events that have happened.

It is easy to bypass whis by simply stating that not all "facts" are meant to be taken literally, but are meant to convey a different message. Such as, in this case, a lineage.
How do you know what to take literally and what to interpret as mere symbolism? Is Christ dying on the cross only symbolic? If the genealogies are not literal, but symbolic, then the notion that Christ is from the house of David is not true. That pretty much screws up much of new testament doctrine.
 
  • #60
seycyrus
You are correct that the bible does not claim to record every moment of time. But we don't need to know every moment in time to calculate the age. If the ~6000 yr date is innacurate, then one of the ages listed in the geneologies in the bible must be innaccurate.
The data set is incomplete, as you have admitted. There is nothing to suggest tha tthe event depicted are nothing, but snapshots in time, with perhaps a given exposure, but not a known interval. Perhaps T0 is defined, but there is no criteria given as to the time interval between frames.

Btw, some of the ages listed in the genaologies are undoubtedly incorrect.


To illustrate, I could give you a list of major events which happened in my lifetime, and the amount of time which passed between each. Using this information, without having a second by second recording of my life, you can make a reasonable approximation to my age. A similar thing can be done with the geneologies in the bible.
You are positing a complete data set. You know the time "between".

That is why your claim that the bible does not record all moments is a strawman.
This all boils down to the fact that not everyone who is religous believes those "facts" are literal.

The bible is not meant to be a chronological record. You can claim that the part about the age is incorrect, but you cannot claim that the whole thing is necessarily incorrect due to that one fact.

It is much more logical to just say that you don't believe in Kermit, than to say you don't believe in Kermit because Kermit's book has some incorrect items.

My Nuclear physics book had some of it's historical details wrong. At least according to my Nuclear physics proffessor. Does this mean that one of them is not a reputable source of information about nuclear physics? Surely not.
 
  • #61
seycyrus
How do you know what to take literally and what to interpret as mere symbolism? Is Christ dying on the cross only symbolic? If the genealogies are not literal, but symbolic, then the notion that Christ is from the house of David is not true. That pretty much screws up much of new testament doctrine.
Oh, just the time could be screwed up. The parental relationships could be correct.

If your argument is "I don't believe in the bible because it requires an inconsistant degree of faith.", then I find that argument much more acceptable than the "The bible is wrong because the ages don't add up".

If you wonder how people have resolved these inconsistencies, then I would point out that that is a matter requiring much more deliberate and careful thought. I certainly don't have it all wrapped up in my head at all times.

Again, I would recomend C.S. lewis. His nonfiction stuff. I know I've harped on alot today, but i just recently read his "A grief observed" which he wrote after his wife died. It was very touching.

By the way, you should also read "Why I am not a christian" by Bertrand Russel.
 
  • #62
seycyrus
Exactly, one does not need to know how long it took Moses to part the red sea if the bible say Moses was 120. The whole is the sum of its parts.
Oh yes. I see what you you mean. You are certainly correct on that point.
 
  • #63
664
3
You still have not answered my question. How do you know what to take literally and what is merely symbolical?
 
  • #64
299
1
If your argument is "I don't believe in the bible because it requires an inconsistant degree of faith.", then I find that argument much more acceptable than the "The bible is wrong because the ages don't add up".
The bible is wrong because it is inconsistant, both with itself and with scientific observations (age of universe, origin of life, etc.). That it contains even one inaccuracies would suggest that everything it says should be carefully considered and weighed against any other evidence. I'm not trying to suggest that everything in the bible is false, only that some things are, and some work (other than simply personal intuition) is required to separate fact from fable.

My own particular atheism is due to my own reasoning, separate from the bible or any other holy book. My (or anyone else in particular's) religious beliefs are not the topic of conversation (and I do believe such a conversation would violate guidelines). I think we can get away with discussing the accuracy and consistancy of the bible, as long as we stick to facts.
 
  • #65
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
I think that a soon as science starts to solve problems that it can't then a debate arises. I pose this question to everyone: What happens with the CERN program if NO new information is found after full operation of the LHC? Is it a dead end? Or, is there a cover made up for why nothing was found?
You seem to have a very erroneous idea of science. Science is not saying "what is" or "what isn't", science is not about "truth" of "falsehood" ; science is about models which can make predictions, which can be confronted with observations. These models can handle all kinds of concepts and ideas, and in fact, it doesn't matter whether you consider these concepts "true" or not: what counts is the coherence of the model and the predictability of observable facts.

So the LHC is going to make observations, unless the machine is broken in some obvious kind of way. There are going to be Petabytes of data taken, again, unless the machine is broken. That's not "nothing". It is observation. And that will be compared to different models people have set up. Maybe all of them will fail to agree with the data. But for sure, it is not possible that there are no data. In fact, it is not possible that the LHC "doesn't find anything" - I guess, doesn't find new particles, such as the Higgs, because that would be the most astounding discovery in 40 years of particle physics. It would falsify about all models that have been set up.

But in wondering what should be taught in science class, one should wonder what predictability the item has. One should wonder whether, with the taught model, one can predict anything or not, and whether that prediction is going to be observable in some or other way. If the answer is yes, then it is science, if the answer is no, it isn't. This is why creationism isn't science, and why evolution is. With evolution, you can make predictions. With creationism, you can't. With evolution, you can make predictions of observations that ought to be in the fossil record, and you can make predictions about what will happen to certain populations under certain environmental pressures. That doesn't mean at all that evolution is "true", it only means that it is a good model, and a good summary of a lot of data. Creationism can't do such a thing, because whatever happens, it can be the will of the gods. So creationism has no predictability. In its naive versions, it makes wrong predictions, but in its more sophisticated versions, it can adapt to any observation and its converse. Such flexibility is what makes a set of statements unscientific.

For instance, if we have a population of bacteria, and we expose them to a certain poison, let the survivors colonize again, expose them again to a certain poison and repeat this over and over, then evolution makes a clear prediction: the mortality under the poison should decrease, or at best, remain stable. It cannot increase. Creationism can't say anything, one way or another: it could be that it is the gods' will to make the bacteria stronger, or it can be that it is the gods will to do the opposite.

In the same way, the biblical story of creation in 6 "days", but which leaves of course no observable record anywhere, has no predictive value. However, as others pointed out, the big bang model does. That doesn't mean that the universe is "truly" 15 billion years old - this is only within that model that such concept has a meaning. What I'm concerned, the universe is just a few seconds old, for that matter. However, even if the universe is only a few seconds old, and it was the divine desire to have it the way we see it now, still then the big bang model is a good model of it, in the sense that it summarizes a lot of data, and can make a lot of observable predictions of it.

So science is about model building that summarizes observational data, and that allows to make observable predictions. All the rest is not science, and doesn't belong in a science class. Science is also about ways to make observations, ways to build models, ways to test models against observations and everything that turns around that. Science is not about "truth". (Absolute) Truth is in fact a pretty meaningless concept, but those who want to play with it, are not doing science.
 
  • #67
seycyrus
You still have not answered my question. How do you know what to take literally and what is merely symbolical?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was conceding that, when I said that I found that argument much more logical and acceptable.

I try to rationalize what I think as the intent of the bible.

Those points which are not neccessary to the intent are, well to put it bluntly, not neccessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
seycyrus
The bible is wrong because it is inconsistant, both with itself and with scientific observations (age of universe, origin of life, etc.). That it contains even one inaccuracies would suggest that everything it says should be carefully considered and weighed against any other evidence.
That's true in your Nuclear physics book too. And I'm not referring to typos. You don't weigh *everything* extra carefully because it got the names wrong on who was present when the first reactor went online. That's not relevant to the intent of the book.

I think we can get away with discussing the accuracy and consistancy of the bible, as long as we stick to facts.
Was this discussion simply about whether everything in the bible is 100% accurate and consistent?

It's not.

Nor is that a requirement for a christian.
 
  • #69
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
May I remind everyone that this is not a religious discussion forum.
 
  • #70
664
3
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was conceding that, when I said that I found that argument much more logical and acceptable.

I try to rationalize what I think as the intent of the bible.

Those points which are not neccessary to the intent are, well to put it bluntly, not neccessary.
So what is taken literally and what is taken symbolically it is basically subjective, varying from person to person and from time period to time period?

This is in stark contrast to predictions made by scientific disciplines. Evolution, for instance, predicts that it must necessarily be the case that humans have a fused chromosome and that you will never ever find a half-mammal, half-bird transitional form. It further predicts nested hierarchies, a fundamental unity of life, shared endogenous retroviruses, atavisms and so on. These are not incidental statements, but necessary predictions. If even one of them turn out to be refuted by experiments, the current scientific theory [scientific theory: a well-supported explanation to any part of the natural world that can incorporate laws, facts, inferences and tested hypotheses] evolution would stand falsified. A similar line of reasoning applies to other scientific theories, such as universal gravitation, quantum mechanics, general relativity, the big bang theory and so on and so forth.

An analogy might help illustrate the difference between science and untestable claims. This is adapted from Sagan (1995). If I claim that I have a dragon in my garage, you might want to see it. After all, dragons occur frequently in mythology. Perhaps you can finally confirm it to the world. We go into my garage and I point vaguely at the corner. You say that you do not see it. Naturally, I forgot to tell you it was an invisible dragon. You suggest that we cover the floor in flour to see the footprints, or through paint around that can stick to it, or test its fire with a heat scanner. What if I then claim that the dragon is actually a flying one? And that it is incorporeal? And that it's fire is heat less? If I counter every suggestion you have to test the dragon hypothesis with some obscure reason why the test will not work, then there is no conceptual or practical difference between the dragon existing and not existing at all. If there is no conceivable experiment that can prove me wrong, then the empirical claim is pretty much useless.

Now, this is not at all subjective in the sense as textual interpretations of old religious scripture, and does not vary from time to time. The earth is not flat just because you are from a different culture or time period.

The strength of a scientific theory is proportional to its explanatory power, practical application and the amount of bold empirical predictions that have been confirmed. Some empirical claim that purports to explain everything but is in no way testable in fact explains nothing at all, especially if it must assume a great number of things, such as gods or magical spirits that cannot be tested. If I claim that F = 3ma, but that every time we try and test that claim and come up with F = ma, it is actually due to the actions of an invisible and incorporeal dragon, then clearly the empirical basis of science just vanished. Technically F = ma is a definition, but set that aside. Allowing supernatural explanations into science is just as unreasonable as allowing contradictions in logical statements. If you allow logical contradictions, you can prove whatever you want, and logic becomes pretty much useless. The same applies to science and the supernatural. Now this is not a philosophical assumption, but a methodological assumption, that has been justified by centuries worth of experiments and theorizing.

dragoninmygarage-1.png


Can you see the dragon? :)

AAAS on evolution -
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
seycyrus
So what is taken literally and what is taken symbolically it is basically subjective, varying from person to person and from time period to time period?
I don't think it is inherently subjective. I mean at some point or another, I am allowed to invoke "faith" and reflection aren't I?

I agree with you that this is a sticky point. At least for christians I think the point of the bible can be summed up as the "jesus story".

<lots science stuff clipped>
Woah, woah woah! What are you up to? :)

I'm not trying to argue the strengths of the bible v.s. scientific theory. I'm a physicist! I believe in science.

I don't think it should be taught except as part of a comparative religion class or litereature.

The bible is not about science!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
664
3
I don't think it is inherently subjective. I mean at some point or another, I am allowed to invoke "faith" and reflection aren't I?

I agree with you that this is a sticky point. At least for christians I think the point of the bible can be summed up as the "jesus story".



Woah, woah woah! What are you up to? :)

I'm not trying to argue the strengths of the bible v.s. scientific theory. I'm a physicist! I believe in science.

I don't think it should be taught except as part of a comparative religion class or litereature.

The bible is not about science!
Whoops, my bad. I had you confused with someone else in this topic.
 
  • #73
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Since Hurkyl's warning has not been heeded to avoid making this into a religious debate, I'm going to lock this thread.
 

Related Threads on Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

Replies
88
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
99
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
88
Views
10K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top