Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[waitasec]

The scriptures have been tampered with over the centuries, but the life saving doctrines remain intact.

:biglaugh:
how convenient...

 

[waitasec]

Science constantly evolves and in many cases contradicts it's self.

Science said we where headed for an ice age not too long ago.

Science said we where headed for global warming.

Science said we now have climate change.

Right or wrong, the Bible remains unchanged for thousands of years.

The bottom line is, science does not know many things they declare they do.

They speak of the big bang but cannot explain the cause of the bang.

When you speak from authority about things you have no clue about, it discounts your position.

Science never says, "We have no idea". Science does however always take a stab at answering everything in a best guess fashion.

Evolution would be much more believable if we had fossils of animals in transition.

I'm not saying evolution did not occur. I'm saying belief in the unprovable is not much different than religion.

My position is, science is a religion.

The advantage science has over religion is, it is constantly evolving which on the surface makes it more relevant until you consider the fact that every time science changes it's theory, they are admitting they where wrong before.

Back then however, they refuse to admit they where wrong.

I believe the current science theory will be proven wrong later by something else.

This is why I have little respect for something that is constantly wrong while remaining condescending and stilted.

People can poke fun at religion all they like but until we can read thousand year old science books that are still correct, I remain unimpressed.

yet you listen to your doctor
get weather forecast
use the internet
use gps
take meds
have surgeries
fly
drive
hurricane advisory's
tsunami advisory's
fly to the moon, mars and the outer rim if our solar system...

 

[waitasec]

Actually, it's people of the greatest faith who are intimidated by those who disagree with them.

or people with a greatest sense of insecurity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The scriptures have been tampered with over the centuries, but the life saving doctrines remain intact.

... if only the life taking docrtines would be weeded out...:candle:

 

[Reverend Rick]

yet you listen to your doctor

He is wrong many times. Medicine is taken off the market every year because it hurt us more than it helped.

get weather forecast

This is helpful, but not always correct.

use the internet
use gps
take meds
have surgeries
fly
drive
hurricane advisory's
tsunami advisory's
fly to the moon, mars and the outer rim if our solar system...

Get viruses.
Lose contact at a crucial moment or even worse get incorrect positioning
Have side affects
Die
crash
crash
Which are sometimes correct and many times not.
Where do I book my ticket to Mars?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

People can poke fun at religion all they like but until we can read thousand year old science books that are still correct, I remain unimpressed.

I'm similarly unimpressed with thousand-year-old scriptures that weren't correct in the first place.

-Nato

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm similarly unimpressed with thousand-year-old scriptures that weren't correct in the first place.

-Nato

Artless people make the best judges.

 

[otokage007]

Science constantly evolves and in many cases contradicts it's self.

Science said we where headed for an ice age not too long ago.

Science said we where headed for global warming.

Science said we now have climate change.

Science isn't a book like the Bible, all those things were said by scientist not by science. Also, I don't know why did you say it like it was false. Are those statements false? Well, don't answer, I bet you have FAITH they are false.

Right or wrong, the Bible remains unchanged for thousands of years.

The Bible remains unchanged because if it changed, the very basis of Christianity would collapse. However, the Vatican has changed his interpretation of the Bible since it was wrote.

And as you have said "right or wrong it remains unchanged". I'm happy that you understand that being unchanged doesn't mean it is right.

The bottom line is, science does not know many things they declare they do.

They speak of the big bang but cannot explain the cause of the bang.

When you speak from authority about things you have no clue about, it discounts your position.

Science never says, "We have no idea". Science does however always take a stab at answering everything in a best guess fashion.

Science never sais it knows something, because science has to do with probabilities supported by evidence. Nothing more.

Science have explained the cause of the Bang, however, that's just a hypothesis, as science CAN'T produce a statement 100% true without the proper evidences. And also, it takes a very high and developed technology to demonstrate some things, and we are in 2011 not in 3000 where science is super developed. If more people dedicated their lifes to study engineering, physics and biology, instead of loosing time worshipping God, maybe science could advance faster.

Evolution would be much more believable if we had fossils of animals in transition.

We have, or maybe they flew when I wasn't looking.

My position is, science is a religion.

The advantage science has over religion is, it is constantly evolving which on the surface makes it more relevant until you consider the fact that every time science changes it's theory, they are admitting they where wrong before.

Back then however, they refuse to admit they where wrong.

The only reason that can make science admit it is wrong, is because a scientist demonstrate it is wrong. So, science is constantly auto-improving itself.

People can poke fun at religion all they like but until we can read thousand year old science books that are still correct, I remain unimpressed.

Precisely the stupidity of some religious people comes because they believe in a book writen two thousand years ago.

 

[idav]

Science constantly evolves and in many cases contradicts it's self.

Religions that do not evolve along with science will die off. Science is means of finding the truth but it is still a search. It has proven to be the best method of finding the truth once people get over their superstitions. Everyone wants huge break throughs and we have certainly been getting there.

Also to your comment of current theories being proven wrong. Theories are in such a way that they can't be completely wrong and isn't in the same realm as convicting a person of muder on circumstantial evidence.

 

[waitasec]

He is wrong many times.

Medicine is taken off the market every year because it hurt us more than it helped. This is helpful, but not always correct.

well i know of a quite a few people who have been saved thru medicine...and i'm sure you do too

Get viruses.

get a mac :yes:

Lose contact at a crucial moment or even worse get incorrect positioning

haven't experienced that

Have side affects

true, but wouldn't you rather have dry mouth over depression?

Die

we all do

crash

user error

crash

user error

Which are sometimes correct and many times not...

better than none at all

Where do I book my ticket to Mars?

i hear some private company in california is working on it...

 

[Reverend Rick]

Precisely the stupidity of some religious people comes because they believe in a book writen two thousand years ago.

I feel the same way about people who believe in unproven theories.

Just so we understand each other, I never said I believed the Bible to be 100% correct.

If you look at science with an open mind, you can see the ignorance everywhere.

If people where not ignorant, there would be no need for science.

All science is people making educated guesses. Some are right, many are wrong and updated.

It is the belief in theories that makes science a religion. The people are just like the stupid Bible readers you mentioned. No difference between the two groups that I see.

The difference between us is, I can readily see the faults of the religious where you turn a blind eye to educated ignorance.

 

[otokage007]

The difference between us is, I can readily see the faults of the religious where you turn a blind eye to educated ignorance.

I don't like to repeat myself, but here you got:
"Science never sais it knows something, because science has to do with probabilities supported by evidence. Nothing more." - Otokage007

I don't believe in science, no scientist or atheist is required to believe on anything. Science just gives probabilities based on evidence. You can support an hypothesis or other, but that's not believing in science, because "hypothesis" means it isn't true, because it isn't demonstrated. So the "blind eye to educated ignorance" you speak, doesn't exist.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Artless people make the best judges.

Care to explain what you mean here?

I should clarify what I said. I'm frequently impressed with scriptures on the level of human literature, the way ancient people defined their place in the universe. I find mythology fascinating.

But that doesn't excuse comparing Bronze Age mythology to the process of empirical evidential inquiry. Apples and oranges.

-Nato

 

[Reverend Rick]

get a mac :yes:

I like that suggestion, but I have heard about recent mac attacks.

haven't experienced that

You won't in a car most likely, the problems occur in boats navigating at night and a cloud blocking a satelight so you have only one or two instead of three showing your position. Bread crumbs that are normally 5 foot correct can become 20 or 30 feet off which can cause you to hit something. My friends found this out at high speeds. Yes, alcohol was involved.

I love the technology but don't trust my life to it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Care to explain what you mean here?

I should clarify what I said. I'm frequently impressed with scriptures on the level of human literature, the way ancient people defined their place in the universe. I find mythology fascinating.

But that doesn't excuse comparing Bronze Age mythology to the process of empirical evidential inquiry. Apples and oranges.

-Nato

I agree that in many ways, it's comparing apples to oranges.

However, you should appreciate the difference between the Bronze Age (from which *very* little, if any of the Bible originates) and the Iron Ages (where most of the Bible originates).

And very importantly, not everything in the Bible is myth. Just because the authors were not writing from a scientifically enlightened post-modern atheistic point of view does not mean that their understanding of the natural world is completely useless or wrong.

As one of many examples.... Very few of us could survive even in the Roman Empire, whose cities were quite sophisticated. But the Romans developed military strategy, medicine, and architecture that we still use today.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

And very importantly, not everything in the Bible is myth. Just because the authors were not writing from a scientifically enlightened post-modern atheistic point of view does not mean that their understanding of the natural world is completely useless or wrong.

I'm using the term mythology to mean a community's narrative about its history and its place in the universe. Even though what we currently believe about the Big Bang, evolution by natural selection, and quantum mechanics is much more informed by the scientific method, it's still mythology in the sense that it defines who we are, where we came from, and our place in the perceived order of things.

So the Bible was ancient people's best guess at explanations for phenomena they probably never dreamed we'd have the means to explain in more reliable ways. Fascinating, yes. But generally wrong.

-Nato

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the Bible was ancient people's best guess at explanations for phenomena they probably never dreamed we'd have the means to explain in more reliable ways. Fascinating, yes. But generally wrong.

This kind of thinking, I believe, stems from historical illiteracy.

I've realized that people judge the ancient world in light of a comparison between the European Dark Ages and post-modern scientific achievement. This makes sense because the classics aren't taught in school (including undergrad degrees) but science is taught as correcting the church's interpretation of Scripture in the Dark Ages.

But that's incomplete and wrong. The Persians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans were far more sophisticated and had a more correct knowledge of themselves and their world than the Church and the early scientists. In fact, the Dark Ages were Dark because Greek and Roman literature was in a state of horrible neglect, and the recovery of these writings cause the Enlightenment.

Assuming that the natural understanding of the ancients to be "mostly wrong" simply demonstrates one's neglect of history.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Assuming that the natural understanding of the ancients to be "mostly wrong" simply demonstrates one's neglect of history.

I thought we were talking about the Bible here. As poetic as the Genesis myths are, they don't represent what we'd consider reliable information on such subjects as the origin of the universe, linguistic diversity, or the origin of modern species, do they?

-Nato

 

[waitasec]

I love the technology but don't trust my life to it.

but you do travel by plane, train, car and by boat.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought we were talking about the Bible here. As poetic as the Genesis myths are, they don't represent what we'd consider reliable information on such subjects as the origin of the universe, linguistic diversity, or the origin of modern species, do they?

-Nato

Genesis isn't the Bible.