(August 16, 2016 at 10:12 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 9:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And you would just believe these scientific writings?

What if the cow died after 10 months (eaten by a crocodile).  Would you believe that this cow existed?  Based on what???

We can discover verifiable evidence of that.

 I am no longer taking you seriously because nobody is that stupid. Heh... no, I took you for a fool in the first place anyway.

Before you scream "ad hominem", I am not calling your arguments terrible because you are a fool. I am calling you a fool because your arguments are terrible.

Which arguments? Do you feel the same, about those making the same arguments against Christianity and the bible? Or do you have some sort of special pleading, where these principles only apply in certain circumstances?

(August 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: If results from a scientific study cannot be reproduced, then there was  a problem with the original study design, problem with data interpretation/extrapolation, or a problem with the hypothesis.  This is not a hit against science itself as you are implying.  That is the beauty of the scientific method: it is a self-correcting process.  Christians have no such process.  If they did, their book would implode.  

I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth. Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process. Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.

Okay, now I am thoroughly convinced that you have no idea how science actually works. In all seriousness, I would recommend you sit in on a few college courses or something. It would be completely worth your time.

Quote:I count three claims in the above statements.

So the rest of your quote was just a joke, but I will clarify this part.

I don't make any claims about what happened in the bible. That stands. What we do know is that none of it is verified yet because we have no actual reports from eye witnesses. That's a claim from outside the bible, not inside. If I were to make a claim about the actual contents of the bible, I'd say that it's all fantasy. I may believe that for now, but that's not a claim I care to back up. Reading comprehension is a useful tool.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: If results from a scientific study cannot be reproduced, then there was  a problem with the original study design, problem with data interpretation/extrapolation, or a problem with the hypothesis.  This is not a hit against science itself as you are implying.  That is the beauty of the scientific method: it is a self-correcting process.  Christians have no such process.  If they did, their book would implode.  

I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth.  Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process.   Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.

Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth.  Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process.   Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.

Okay, now I am thoroughly convinced that you have no idea how science actually works.  In all seriousness, I would recommend you sit in on a few college courses or something.  It would be completely worth your time.

Why is that (that you don't think I understand how science actually works)? Are you saying that scientist can change the data? I don't think that is very ethical. Please..... what comment of mine, lead you to this conclusion. I really want to know.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth.  Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process.   Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.

Okay, now I am thoroughly convinced that you have no idea how science actually works.  In all seriousness, I would recommend you sit in on a few college courses or something.  It would be completely worth your time.

Looking at the history of science, it's an evolution process of paradigm change that is constantly growing in apprehension of "Truth" as we gather more evidence and make better/more elegant predictive models. It is constantly growing and for the most part self pruning.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:42 pm)Jesster Wrote:

Quote:I count three claims in the above statements.

So the rest of your quote was just a joke, but I will clarify this part.

I don't make any claims about what happened in the bible. That stands. What we do know is that none of it is verified yet because we have no actual reports from eye witnesses. That's a claim from outside the bible, not inside.

Actually there are a couple of places that claim this from within the Bible. By your rules of evidence.... what would you accept as evidence, that someone was an eyewitness? Not just about the bible, but about anything?

(August 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:42 pm)Jesster Wrote: So the rest of your quote was just a joke, but I will clarify this part.

I don't make any claims about what happened in the bible. That stands. What we do know is that none of it is verified yet because we have no actual reports from eye witnesses. That's a claim from outside the bible, not inside.

Actually there are a couple of places that claim this from within the Bible.  By your rules of evidence.... what would you accept as evidence, that someone was an eyewitness?   Not just about the bible, but about anything?

Show me what you've got.

Not that I'm expecting anything from you. All I hear is claims that I won't accept evidence.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Okay, now I am thoroughly convinced that you have no idea how science actually works.  In all seriousness, I would recommend you sit in on a few college courses or something.  It would be completely worth your time.

Why is that (that you don't think I understand how science actually works)? Are you saying that scientist can change the data? I don't think that is very ethical. Please..... what comment of mine, lead you to this conclusion. I really want to know.

Science makes no assertions. Scientists follow data. Religion starts with the asserted conclusion and works backwards from there.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

---

I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth.  Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process.   Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.

---