How reliable are the findings of science?

[Magic Man]

The only real flaw is assumptions. For instance a classic argument: People like to use Carbon Dating to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old thus proving the bible wrong. The flaw is that you are assuming the bible states the earth is only 6,000 years old which is incorrect. The bible does not state how old the earth is at all. Therefore Carbon Dating as proof the bible is wrong is irrelevant.

Am I missing something? Did someone in here say that science proved the Bible wrong?

In the case you mention it's the fundamentalist's flaw in assuming that's what the Bible says. Those who address that flaw with evidence like carbon dating are only using science to show that fundamentalist their flaw.

 

[Storm]

The only real flaw is assumptions. For instance a classic argument: People like to use Carbon Dating to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old thus proving the bible wrong. The flaw is that you are assuming the bible states the earth is only 6,000 years old which is incorrect. The bible does not state how old the earth is at all. Therefore Carbon Dating as proof the bible is wrong is irrelevant.

No science proves the Bible wrong. Virtually all science proves the Bible is not a science book. Something which, frankly, should be obvious.

 

[Enoch07]

No science proves the Bible wrong. Virtually all science proves the Bible is not a science book. Something which, frankly, should be obvious.

I never claimed the Bible to be a science book. But people do use science to try and prove the Bible wrong. I have seen it repeatedly on these forums, you cannot deny that. If you can show me scripture in the Bible that says "The earth is XXXX years old" or something to that accord. I will withdraw my comment, and give you a lollipop. :drool:

 

[Autodidact]

The only real flaw is assumptions. For instance a classic argument: People like to use Carbon Dating to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old thus proving the bible wrong. The flaw is that you are assuming the bible states the earth is only 6,000 years old which is incorrect. The bible does not state how old the earth is at all. Therefore Carbon Dating as proof the bible is wrong is irrelevant.

Well of course, although it's not actually Carbon dating, but other forms of radiometric dating. The problem is that other people assert that the Bible does say that, and that it is true, and therefore those of us who accept science have to argue against it.

 

[Autodidact]

I never claimed the Bible to be a science book. But people do use science to try and prove the Bible wrong. I have seen it repeatedly on these forums, you cannot deny that. If you can show me scripture in the Bible that says "The earth is XXXX years old" or something to that accord. I will withdraw my comment, and give you a lollipop. :drool:

It's not the people using science who say that the Bible says that--it's the people on the other side. *sigh*

 

[Storm]

I never claimed the Bible to be a science book. But people do use science to try and prove the Bible wrong. I have seen it repeatedly on these forums, you cannot deny that.

I'm sorry, perhaps I got you confused with someone else. Do you not reject evolution and the Big Bang in favor of Biblical Literalism?

If you can show me scripture in the Bible that says "The earth is XXXX years old" or something to that accord. I will withdraw my comment, and give you a lollipop. :drool:

It's not the people using science who say that the Bible says that--it's the people on the other side. *sigh*

What she said.

 

[Nepenthe]

Well of course, although it's not actually Carbon dating, but other forms of radiometric dating. The problem is that other people assert that the Bible does say that, and that it is true, and therefore those of us who accept science have to argue against it.

Spot on.
Carbon dating is useful for organic matter younger than 60,000 years old. So yes, it can establish that the sample in question is definitely older than 6,000 years, but is not a major tool in geochronology. Isochron dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, dendrochronology, varves, etc. are more suited to geochronology.

And as usual, Auto' yet again raises an excellent point. It's not that scientists are particularly interested in debunking Bible myths, but when religious ideologies impinge on the physical world or make testable claims like origins or the earth's age, science will step in and can actually analyze those claims. If its testable, it's capable of being investigated.

 

[Enoch07]

Storm: I do not reject the theory of the big bang. Actually it fascinates me. But then again I believe science and religion can coexist peacefully. I love both subjects very much. It just upsets me that alot of people feel the need to suggest that only one of them is correct and the other utterly wrong.

Autodidact: I see your point. I understand that, and I would like to go ahead and say this as a Christian man. Any Christian that believes the world is only 6,000 years old according to the Bible......is misguided.

 

[Storm]

I do not. I believe science and religion can coexist peacefully. I love both subjects very much.

Then I sincerely apologize.

It just upsets me that alot of people feel the need to suggest that only one of them is correct and the other utterly wrong.

I feel the same way.

 

[Magic Man]

I never claimed the Bible to be a science book. But people do use science to try and prove the Bible wrong. I have seen it repeatedly on these forums, you cannot deny that. If you can show me scripture in the Bible that says "The earth is XXXX years old" or something to that accord. I will withdraw my comment, and give you a lollipop. :drool:

As I said, people don't use science to try to prove the Bible wrong, generally. Generally, they use it to prove people's interpretations of the Bible wrong.

The main point is that your comment was irrelevant to this thread. The findings of science are reliable. How people use them is another matter.

 

[Enoch07]

As I said, people don't use science to try to prove the Bible wrong, generally. Generally, they use it to prove people's interpretations of the Bible wrong.

The main point is that your comment was irrelevant to this thread. The findings of science are reliable. How people use them is another matter.

I don't doubt the findings of sciences reliability. That was never my goal. Just as you said "How people use them".

 

[Im an Atheist]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

Everyone makes mistakes

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

We have to test and do many experiments under controlled conditions before we can draw up a conclusion and finalise an evaluation. Obviously, unforseen problems can crop up and disrupt the results or may be something major we need to take into consderation.

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

So when scientists develop drugs that can sure and save peoples lives, are they doing that for their own benifit? And it's worth the wait if it has such an effect on society.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

"We think this, but there is not enough data to support it", is called a hypothesis. This is when the scienctists go out and experiment to try and get the results.

 

[rockondon]

The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

The criteria for drawing a hypothesis is little but most of the stuff you'll find in high school textbooks (I assume this is the majority of your exposure to science) is well established. Computers operate on circuit theory, should we take it with "a grain of salt" that computers really do function? When science is uncertain of something it expresses its uncertainty, I see this all the time. When something is well-established there is no need to talk this way. Who wants to open a computer manual and see phrases like "It is a commonly held belief that computers function but this has not been completely proven..."

If a scientist draws an incorrect conclusion, other scientists jump with joy and race to publish the error. In science you must convince your competitors, people who do not want to be convinced. Fundies often convince themselves that scientists support one another to protect flawed beliefs but the opposite is true - they're out to prove each other wrong whenever possible. Because of this scrutiny, scientists are highly motivated not to draw incorrect conclusion because this sets them up to be a laughing stock.

But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

I hear it all the time. It is usually preceeded by additional research (often through federal grants) to get that additional data.