Video debates and Interviews

[DogOnPorch]

The Bible story of Creation contradicts modern science in many, many ways. Among them:

A) Figures given by the Bible allow one to calculate that the universe was created approximately 6000 years ago. Science calculates the age of the universe to be between 10 billion and 20 billions years. (Many stars exist which are so far away that it has taken far longer than 6000 years for their light to reach us.)

B] The Bible says everything was created in 6 days. Science says that things have been continuously created (and destroyed) for billions of years.

C) The Bible says that things were created in their present form and have not significantly changed since their creation. Science says that both living and non-living things have evolved, changing their forms many times over the eons, and often spinning off whole new forms.

D) The Bible says that the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day. Since a day is defined as the time between sunrises (or between sunrise and sunset), there is no logical basis on which to distinguish the first three days. Similarly, there is no basis for saying that there was a morning and an evening on each of these first three days of creation as the Bible says there was.

E) The Bible says that the Earth was created before the sun. Science says that the sun came before the Earth.

F) The Bible says that vegetation was created on the third day and the sun on the fourth. Science says that the sun came into existence long before vegetation.

G) The Bible says that vegetation was created on the third day and that life arose in the sea on the fifth day. Science says that life existed in the sea long before it existed on land.

H) The Bible says that fish and birds were both created on the fifth day. Science says that fish appeared long before birds did.

I) The Bible says that creeping reptiles were formed on the sixth day – one day after the birds. Science says that birds appeared after such reptiles and most likely evolved from them.

J) Genesis 1:30 says that all animals were created as plant-eaters. Where then did the carnivores come from? (Note: Exodus 20:11 says that everything was created in the first six days.)

K) The Bible says that water was one of the first things God created and that it existed before the sun and stars. Science says that oxygen – one of the basic chemical components of water – didn’t exist for possibly a billion years after the Big Bang and was made (like most elements) within stars.

L) The Bible says that God separated Earth’s land from its seas on the third day. Science says that it took about 250,000,000 years after the formation of the Earth for the Earth to cool enough for water to exist on it in liquid form.

How old was Methuselah again? Oh right...over 900 years old. You young Earth Creationists are sooooooo....stupid? Perhaps that's not the right word. Ah, yes...ignorant.

:lol:

Edited June 25, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[betsy]

So were all dinosaurs on the planet at the same time? Did your demi-god Adam name them? How about your Earth Mother demi-goddess, Eve? Was she made out of your demi-god Adam's "extra rib"?

RIBS!

Thanks for reminding me!

[DogOnPorch]

RIBS!

Thanks for reminding me!

Still afraid of dinosaurs (et al), I see. So what's the deal? You're not a fan of Mary Anning? Deride her as that crazy woman selling sea shells by the sea shore?

[betsy]

The Bible story of Creation contradicts modern science in many, many ways. Among them:

So?

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Then that means, your view of science is very limited indeed.

My view of science is limited precisely by the definition of science. Science is based upon the natural, not the supernatural.

[g_bambino]

RIBS!

Thanks for reminding me!

Could you answer his question, please?

[betsy]

My view of science is limited precisely by the definition of science. Science is based upon the natural, not the supernatural.

Correction. There are also such things as formal sciences, you know.

Let me post this again for your benefit, in case you accidentally overlooked it:

As opposed to empirical sciences (natural, social), formal sciences presuppose no knowledge of contingent fact, they do not describe the real world and do not involve empirical procedures. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.

Although formal sciences are conceptual systems with no empirical content, this does not mean that they have no relation to the real world. But this relation is such that their formal statements hold in all possible worlds – whereas, statements based on empirical theories, such as, say, General Relativity or Evolutionary Biology, do not hold in all possible worlds, and may even turn out not to hold in this world.

That is why formal sciences are applicable in all domains and useful in all empirical sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Mathematics is absolutely certain. Irrefutable.

Furthermore, how do you form your hypotheses, theories and laws without logic?

Where do your empirical evidences stand without formal science?

Since the natural is restricted to only the material, therefore you limit yourself to the narrower sense of science.

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Then that means, your view of science is very limited indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Even social science comes up with testable observable hypotheses and has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. I'm not sure if you actually read what you copy and paste, but it had absolutely nothing to do with supernatural "science".

[DogOnPorch]

So?

So...there's some big problems with your desert deity's version of reality.

[betsy]

Even social science comes up with testable observable hypotheses and has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. I'm not sure if you actually read what you copy and paste, but it had absolutely nothing to do with supernatural "science".

Come again?

As opposed to empirical sciences

(natural, social),

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

The Sun, according to your mythology, was created after the Earth. Do you believe this? What is star metallicity and what does it say about our star in relation to all stars?

[betsy]

deleted.

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

deleted.

Yes..it's a difficult question to answer if you believe you're the centre of the universe.

Let's make sure you don't pave it under...again.

"The Sun, according to your mythology, was created after the Earth. Do you believe this? What is star metallicity and what does it say about our star in relation to all stars?"

[betsy]

Yes..it's a difficult question to answer if you believe you're the centre of the universe.

Let's make sure you don't pave it under...again.

"The Sun, according to your mythology, was created after the Earth. Do you believe this? What is star metallicity and what does it say about our star in relation to all stars?"

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

[g_bambino]

Since the natural is restricted to only the material, therefore you limit yourself to the narrower sense of science.

As I said, my view of science is limited precisely by the definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. That is what scientific theory is founded upon; it does not use the supernatural to understand the universe, it uses information and understanding of the universe gathered through trial and inspection to dispel belief in the supernatural, whether that be misunderstood natural phenomenon (like lightning) or pure myth (like Genesis).

[c/e]

Edited June 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Come again?

[/size][/b]

While you know how to change font sizes and formatting, you seem to omit the hyperlinks back to the original text. I went back and read the post that I quoted (which contained next to nothing, since you don't ever actually have anything to say yourself) and could not find the sentence fragment you posted.

Nevertheless, my point, along with gambino, is that science, whether natural or social, by definition has nothing to do with the supernatural.

[DogOnPorch]

Let's make sure you don't pave it under...again.

"The Sun, according to your mythology, was created after the Earth. Do you believe this? What is star metallicity and what does it say about our star in relation to all stars?"

Here's some 101 stuff to help you. PS your arch enemy, Dawkins, has zero to do with stellar metallicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/metallicity.html

[betsy]

While you know how to change font sizes and formatting, you seem to omit the hyperlinks back to the original text. I went back and read the post that I quoted (which contained next to nothing, since you don't ever actually have anything to say yourself) and could not find the sentence fragment you posted.

Nevertheless, my point, along with gambino, is that science, whether natural or social, by definition has nothing to do with the supernatural.

Never let it be said that good ol Betsy doesn't lend a helping hand! Well I hope this should help you find your way. See that very first part of this clip?

That quote was taken from this posted excerpt:

As opposed to empirical sciences (natural, social), formal sciences presuppose no knowledge of contingent fact, they do not describe the real world and do not involve empirical procedures. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.

Although formal sciences are conceptual systems with no empirical content, this does not mean that they have no relation to the real world. But this relation is such that their formal statements hold in all possible worlds – whereas, statements based on empirical theories, such as, say, General Relativity or Evolutionary Biology, do not hold in all possible worlds, and may even turn out not to hold in this world.

That is why formal sciences are applicable in all domains and useful in all empirical sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=210

Boy, you're like your preacher Dawkins.....full of excuses!

You said previously:

Even social science comes up with testable observable hypotheses and has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. I'm not sure if you actually read what you copy and paste, but it had absolutely nothing to do with supernatural "science".

So I gave you this part in big, bold font.

As opposed to empirical sciences

(natural, social),

Alas, you still didn't get that. Sorry, there's no more larger font than this. Maybe if you put in a request to Mapleleaf....they might oblige you.

Anyway, you really do not need to even read that clip above. You should understand this big bold statement....that is, if you understand science at all.

But of course, you don't understand. You confirmed it by repeating the same mistake.

Psssst. Let me give you a hint. Natural and Social are both in the same category. Both are empirical sciences - meaning, you need observable evidences!

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Well, going back to Dawkins' adamant refusal to face Craig and defend his book, The God Delusion....

It occurred to me that in his book, Dawkins was talking to atheists. He didn't write the book trying to convert religious people....but rather he wrote it trying to keep atheists from converting?

I guess he must know that his book is a goner with Craig....that's why there's no point in trying to defend it?

Anyway, it's a wait-and-see....who knows, maybe he'll get dragged to face Craig in the end.

Edited June 26, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Psssst. Let me give you a hint. Natural and Social are both in the same category. Both are empirical sciences - meaning, you need observable evidences!

And? Science still doesn't observe the "supernatural".

[M.Dancer]

Social science is empirical?

[cybercoma]

Social science is empirical?

Yes.

[M.Dancer]

Yes.

The social sciences are the fields of scholarship that study society.[1] "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, business administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, government, linguistics, international relations, political science and, in some contexts, geography, history, law, and psychology.[2][3]

i have a hard time thinking that business admin, criminology, political science or government are empirical

[cybercoma]

I don't know what to tell you. The research done in those fields is largely quantitative. That's not to say that there isn't qualitative research, but even then it's supposed to be scientific in its approach.

You can read all you ever wanted to (or didn't want to) know about social research here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research

And if you don't want to wade through the entire thing, this paragraph gives a general idea of what social researchers do. Business Administration does a similar thing, but focuses on business structures obviously. Equally obvious are the focuses of political science, sociology, and criminology (which is often considered a branch of sociology, rather than its own field).

Social research involves creating a theory, operationalization (measurement of variables) and observation (actual collection of data to test hypothesized relationship). Social theories are written in the language of variables, in other words, theories describe logical relationships between variables. Variables are logical sets of attributes, with people being the 'carriers' of those variables (for example, gender can be a variable with two attributes: male and female). Variables are also divided into independent variables (data) that influences the dependent variables (which scientists are trying to explain). For example, in a study of how different dosages of a drug are related to the severity of symptoms of a disease, a measure of the severity of the symptoms of the disease is a dependent variable and the administration of the drug in specified doses is the independent variable. Researchers will compare the different values of the dependent variable (severity of the symptoms) and attempt to draw conclusions.

As you can see, social science is a lot more rigorous than people tend to give it credit for. Sure you could go to university and get a sociology degree and just read about quirky sociological facts, get a C for your degree and say you're done. However, actual sociologists and academics do a lot more work than you think.

[M.Dancer]

However, actual sociologists and academics do a lot more work than you think.

Oh I'm am sure...but I fail to see the critical lab testing and reproducing experiments in political science.