PDA

View Full Version : Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]

KnightErrant
June 6th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Why is it that when it comes to "understanding" and "thinking" the assumption is that those who hold a literal view are cowering from knowledge?

Because that's all too often been the case.

I would put forward that long ages, evolution etc. are compromises based on faulty man made theories. There is evidence that throws those theories into serious question, yet they are taken as if absolute truth by the supposedly "reasonable" people..

That's why we test all the spirits, including the spirit of scientific inquiry. Science is supposed to be self correcting in the long term, and all results are supposed to be duplicatable. The supposedly reasonable people need to be as skeptical about trendy science as we are about trendy theology, like that fad awhile back about "laughing in the Spirit." In fact, if we were more skeptical, IMHO, we would be a better witness to the lost. We all suffer from a fear of uncertainty, and we all need to have enough Faith to sometimes say, "I don't know. Yet."

Same thing with global warming. If there is concensus(or presumed concensus) it is taken as infallible truth by many. What makes man more wise today than in the past? Because we have invented "great" wonders like airplanbes, computers, nuclear technology? How arrogant our modern culture is. And how is it wise to accept poorly supported theories that are pushed by various motives? How is it "reasonable"? How is it glorifying to God to interpret his word based on what unbelieving men say now? Long ages and evolution, people accept these as fact when they are poorly supported assumptions with atheistic motives.

Won't argue with you about Global Warming. I have been skeptical about it myself from the beginning. And if we could arrange for an open debate, then when the evidence was weighed, the truth would be revealed.

People seem to worship science anymore. They take its word at everything. Look at all the junk science that has been exposed. Look at all the mistakes science has made and had to correct in the last century alone. Each generation thinks it is the most wise, the most knowledgable. Each new generation thinks differently than the last in some way. Man's knowledge is comparable to shifting sands. It is never steady.

Yes the junk science was exposed, that's the point. And it was not exposed by quoting scripture at it, but exposed by practicing honest science. Yes people can make it into a false god, just as some people make football the center of their lives. That does not mean that when science is properly understood, it can't be usefull. And real scientists freely admit that today's dogma is tomorrow's joke. That's why an open mind and a willingness to constantly reevaluate our understanding is a necessary part of science.

And throughout human history, it was more common to believe that each generation was a decline from a former golden age. That's part of why most civilization's never developed the scientific method, it would have meant that what was received from the Ancestors was inferior to today. The myth of inevitable progress is fairly recent, and exists mostly in the West.

It is considered "anti-science" anymore not to fall head over heels with every scientific concensus that comes about. It is considered "anti-science" to hold a literal view of Genesis despite the facts that support this stance. People equate such beliefs as "anti-science" and then use scientific achievments such as computers as an example of the all knowingness of science. It isn't a reasonable assumption. .

If that is considered "anti-science", then those people do not understand what science is in the first place. And if the facts on the ground support your interpretation of scripture, then it will eventually be upheld. Or we may have to rethink some of our interpretations.

Christianity did give birth to modern science. Things in the Bible can be reasonably explained by science. However that doesn't mean we are to accept everything science claims just because it claims it. Science has grown and swelled to such an image in culture as if it were its own priesthood. With the common people waiting for its divinations before they form a position. Reinterpreting their beliefs based on what is said for the time period.

Then those sayings change later down the road. Yet were accepted in their time period as rock hard indisputable fact. Yet the process never ends. The generation that exposed problems with scientific theories of a past generation hold their own inconvertable "truths", and continue the worship of man's knowledge.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Exactly, beliefs change as our understanding grows. And none of this affects the core of our Faith, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. A 6,000 year old Earth is no more essential to my Faith in Him than is the Shroud of Turin. If both are exposed as false, it will mean nothing to me.

Christianity did not give birth to science because people found a lot of scripture that proved to be scientifically accurate, (although I can quote you a few examples myself,*) but it because it permitted a pattern of thought that allowed science to be born.

We are created in the image of our Creator, who created the universe in accordance with His reason, therefore the universe can be assumed to be a reasonable place. (And if you think this is an obvious conclusion, then why did no other civilizaton stumble upon it?) Hence, since our reason was created in the image of His, our reason is capable in at least some degree of following His to understand the rest of His creation. This is not a ground for arrogance, you are quite correct about that, but it is something to be received with Thanksgiving.

*For example, the lost cities of Babylon, Ninevah and Petra were rediscovered by British explorers who were tired of skeptics claiming that since we had no sign of them, and they were mentioned in the Bible, it proved the Bible false. So the explorers went looking and found them.

Iovan
June 6th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Because that's all too often been the case.

Or been assumed by those who fancy themselves "understanding" and "reasonable".


That's why we test all the spirits, including the spirit of scientific inquiry. Science is supposed to be self correcting in the long term, and all results are supposed to be duplicatable.


Yet people latch onto and reinterpret scripture to fit an imperfect scientific theory that could be gone tomorrow? How is that good?


The supposedly reasonable people need to be as skeptical about trendy science as we are about trendy theology, like that fad awhile back about "laughing in the Spirit." In fact, if we were more skeptical, IMHO, we would be a better witness to the lost. We all suffer from a fear of uncertainty, and we all need to have enough Faith to sometimes say, "I don't know. Yet."


This is true. However there are instances when you can say you are pretty sure, based on the evidence. Yet some people will forgo that evidence for poorly supported theories because those theories are more popular.


Won't argue with you about Global Warming. I have been skeptical about it myself from the beginning. And if we could arrange for an open debate, then when the evidence was weighed, the truth would be revealed.
[/QUOTE}

Yet the media, activists, and poloticians won't allow an open debate. They just drill it at everybody. I have seen 5 special global warming reports on CBS nightly news in the past week, and feel I will go insane the next time I hear the "tick, tick, tick" commercial with the children talking about global warming. This is often how poorly supported things become mainstream. Say it enough and it becomes truth.

[QUOTE]
Yes the junk science was exposed, that's the point. And it was not exposed by quoting scripture at it, but exposed by practicing honest science.


You assume that honest science isn't performed by biblical literalists?


Yes people can make it into a false god, just as some people make football the center of their lives. That does not mean that when science is properly understood, it can't be usefull.


I agree. However my point was of people who accept science's statements as unmovable and base their interpretation on those shifting sands.


And real scientists freely admit that today's dogma is tomorrow's joke. That's why an open mind and a willingness to constantly reevaluate our understanding is a necessary part of science.


To certain degrees yes.


And throughout human history, it was more common to believe that each generation was a decline from a former golden age. That's part of why most civilization's never developed the scientific method, it would have meant that what was received from the Ancestors was inferior to today. The myth of inevitable progress is fairly recent, and exists mostly in the West.


We are not talking of most generations. Each successive generation since the last century has been more arrogant than the last. Believing it is the most wise based on its being most modern.


If that is considered "anti-science", then those people do not understand what science is in the first place. And if the facts on the ground support your interpretation of scripture, then it will eventually be upheld. Or we may have to rethink some of our interpretations.


If the facts present it that way, and not just the assumptions based on the facts. The speed of light for example is used to measure age, but it is based on several assumptions.


Exactly, beliefs change as our understanding grows. And none of this affects the core of our Faith, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. A 6,000 year old Earth is no more essential to my Faith in Him than is the Shroud of Turin. If both are exposed as false, it will mean nothing to me.

A 6,000 year old earth is quite different than the Shroud of Turin. The age of the earth affects simple statements in Genesis. If you try to squeeze in long ages based on faulty modern theories then you will have changed Genesis into a lie. Or changed the very fundamentals about the Fall.(you = generality.)


Christianity did not give birth to science because people found a lot of scripture that proved to be scientifically accurate, (although I can quote you a few examples myself,*) but it because it permitted a pattern of thought that allowed science to be born.


Yes. Which has not been carried on by athiests or agnostics exactly.


We are created in the image of our Creator, who created the universe in accordance with His reason, therefore the universe can be assumed to be a reasonable place. (And if you think this is an obvious conclusion, then why did no other civilizaton stumble upon it?) Hence, since our reason was created in the image of His, our reason is capable in at least some degree of following His to understand the rest of His creation. This is not a ground for arrogance, you are quite correct about that, but it is something to be received with Thanksgiving.

*For example, the lost cities of Babylon, Ninevah and Petra were rediscovered by British explorers who were tired of skeptics claiming that since we had no sign of them, and they were mentioned in the Bible, it proved the Bible false. So the explorers went looking and found them.

Exaclty a good point. The scientific concensus of the day was that those cities were myths. Same with the hittites. Then that concensus was proven wrong.

KnightErrant
June 6th, 2007, 05:44 PM
Agreed, my point is that good science will not contradict a correct interpretation of God's Word. The fact that so many people are scientifically illiterate is a tragedy, though not so great as the fact that so many are Scripturally illiterate.

BlessedinHim
June 6th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Agreed, my point is that good science will not contradict a correct interpretation of God's Word. The fact that so many people are scientifically illiterate is a tragedy, though not so great as the fact that so many are Scripturally illiterate.

Very true.:thumb