The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

Scientific observation != "I saw a thing!"

I agree

[RoadRunner79]

I thought it was in there, but went back, and found it was not.  But what I was referring to is that any science that is not from first hand experience, but is knowledge based on what others observed.  Witnesses are unreliable right?

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable. It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing. In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't. That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.

You're welcome.

But they could be lying, crazy, or made a mistake?

[KevinM1]

I thought it was in there, but went back, and found it was not.  But what I was referring to is that any science that is not from first hand experience, but is knowledge based on what others observed.  Witnesses are unreliable right?

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable.  It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing.  In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't.  That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.  

You're welcome.

Moreover the observations tend to be incredibly detailed, usually after rigorous number crunching and double-checking even before anything is published for further scrutiny.  It is nothing like a layperson observing an event and attempting to remember it later.  And any attempts to equivocate the two stem from either gross ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty.

That it's even a point of contention is ridiculous, and only highlights that certain people have no idea what they're talking about or trying to argue.  Try again.

[KevinM1]

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable.  It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing.  In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't.  That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.  

You're welcome.

But they could be lying, crazy, or made a mistake?

That's where peer review and replication comes in.  Which would be corroborating evidence.

Still waiting for such for the NT.

[Excited Penguin]

Scientific observation != "I saw a thing!"

unless 
Scientific observation && "I saw a thing!"
puts false
else
puts text
text = gets.chomp [...]

[RoadRunner79]

But they could be lying, crazy, or made a mistake?

That's where peer review and replication comes in.  Which would be corroborating evidence.

Still waiting for such for the NT.

I would agree... Multiple testimonies is better

[LadyForCamus]

RR, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads.  Bear with my little experiment here, guys.  I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.

The fallacy:  'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'

So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either.   (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)

*I accept one and not the other.  (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)

*I accept some combination of both anyway.  (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)

Or...

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient evidence, and I accept some combination of both.  

(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research.  So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)
*I accept one over the other.  (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)

Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable?   I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim.  So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge?!  What does it get you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

So you're just going to go ahead and hang on to that fallacy until the tips of your fingers bleed, no matter how ridiculous you appear, huh? That's about what I expected.

And, within the parameters of your 'scientific evidence is nothing more than testimony, just like biblical scripture' fallacy, the most reasonable world view according to YOU as stated above is:

'None of us can be confident in either scientific conclusions or scripture claims since they are both just testimony; that the only thing which qualifies as "sufficient evidence" is physically seeing something with my own eyes.'

Yes?

Do you realize that according to this position accepting bible scripture as true is unreasonable, and accepting that the earth revolves around the sun is EQUALLY as unreasonable? That seems rational to you? That seems logical to you?

[Jesster]

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

So you're just going to go ahead and hang on to that fallacy until the tips of your fingers bleed, no matter how ridiculous you appear, huh?  That's about what I expected.

And, within the parameters of your 'scientific evidence is nothing more than testimony, just like biblical scripture' fallacy, the most reasonable world view according to YOU as stated above is:

'None of us can be confident in either scientific conclusions or scripture claims since they are both just testimony; that the only thing which qualifies as "sufficient evidence" is physically seeing something with my own eyes.'

Yes?

Do realize that according to this position accepting bible scripture as true is unreasonable, and accepting that the earth revolves around the sun is EQUALLY as unreasonable?  That seems rational to you?  That seems logical to you?

Uh oh. If he continues on the same path of arguments after that argument from you, I'm going to toss him in the same pile as the flat earthers.

[RoadRunner79]

So you're just going to go ahead and hang on to that fallacy until the tips of your fingers bleed, no matter how ridiculous you appear, huh? That's about what I expected.

And, within the parameters of your 'scientific evidence is nothing more than testimony, just like biblical scripture' fallacy, the most reasonable world view according to YOU as stated above is:

'None of us can be confident in either scientific conclusions or scripture claims since they are both just testimony; that the only thing which qualifies as "sufficient evidence" is physically seeing something with my own eyes.'

Yes?

Do realize that according to this position accepting bible scripture as true is unreasonable, and accepting that the earth revolves around the sun is EQUALLY as unreasonable? That seems rational to you? That seems logical to you?

No it doesn't... Which I have maintained all along.

[Jesster]