Quote# 26961

Now, I leave it up to those with more scientific experience and desire to argue it than me to debate the ins and outs of what happened in scientific history. But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact.

I've browsed through a great deal of the TalkOrigins website. All of the arguments there have one thing in common -- that all evolutionistic study proceeds from presuppostion that evolution is a fact. It's really a horribly dishonest, circular and unscientific way to do science when you think about it.

Dave, evolutionfairytale.com 44 Comments [7/4/2007 8:45:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Username:
Comment:



1 2 | bottom

anevilmeme

"But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific fact directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientits need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact."

Fundieism in a Nutshell Award!!

Scientists don't "come up with facts," the facts exist independent the scientists or anyone else. When the Bible contradicts a known scientific fact the Christians need to go back to the bible and come up with an interpetation of the bible that does not contradict reality.

Oh, and evolution is a fact, get over it. The theory of evolution a.k.a. our understanding of evolution has changed and will continue to change as new and better evidence is discovered. However that doesn't change the fact that evolution happens, all it changes is our understanding of the process.

7/4/2007 9:12:32 PM

Osiris

So you want scientists to change what they're saying to fit your miscopic world view devoid of wether or not the original facts are actually right?

7/4/2007 9:35:11 PM

Anonymous Coward

I'm baffled...

So if the bible states that Pi is 3 (and it does), but the "facts" show it's not, the "facts" are wrong, the bible is true and Pi really is 3?

O_o

7/4/2007 9:35:11 PM

Owen

Shiny mirror award anyone?

7/4/2007 9:40:38 PM

Dirac

Why don't you browse through a few semesters of graduate level quantum mechanics and get back to us.

7/4/2007 9:45:38 PM

Aagcobb

Here, let me fix this for you:

"if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact.
. . . It's really a horribly dishonest, circular and unscientific way to do science when you think about it."

There, thats better!

7/4/2007 10:18:03 PM

PhantasyElementz

From what I understand, even though evolution is technically a theory, it is a rather useful one. It's functional and practical, and good at explaining what we observe. It may not be 100% true yet, but it's the best we have at the moment, certainly better than "GODDIDIT." That's why most scientists work from the presupposition that evolution is true - of course, if we found something that made no sense in the scheme of evolution, it would be adjusted or scrapped as a theory.

7/4/2007 10:18:38 PM

MM

That was a masterpiece of self-contradiction.

7/4/2007 10:22:16 PM

JM

"But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact."

...What? I just... but that... that just... what? I...what?

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

7/4/2007 10:44:47 PM

Patches

All scientific arguments have one thing in common - that all physical science proceeds from presupposition that the physical world exists.

7/4/2007 10:46:48 PM

Beccs

So your bible is disproved and instead of accepting that and adjusting your beliefs to fit the reality of the situation you decide that the scientists are wrong?

Fundy in a nutshell, definitely.

7/4/2007 10:47:35 PM

Adrian

Keep polishing that mirror, Dave...

7/5/2007 12:36:03 AM

Mr Smith

So what am I supposed to do? Keep counting the legs of insects until they equal four? Maybe pull two legs off each and every insect?

I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave
/HAL

7/5/2007 2:57:53 AM

Johnny

The I guess scientist have to to go back to using the geocentric model because that also contradicts the bible. It's funny how he accuses scientist of basing thier arguments on assumptions when he's the one basing all of his assuption on a 2,000 year old fairy tale.

7/5/2007 3:40:43 AM

Thundersqueaks

"I've browsed through a great deal of the TalkOrigins website."

I'm sure you did. And I bet you kept chanting the mantra--"nope, goddidit!" to protect your faith from all that "satanic knowledge."

7/5/2007 4:18:09 AM

Freboy

Now, I leave it up to those with more scientific experience and desire to argue it than me to debate the ins and outs of what happened in scientific history.
I'm a biologist. I think I qualify.

But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact.
Uhm, I thought there was some real mind-work to do here. How disappointing.
We don't come up with facts. We make observations based on hypothesies and form theories.

All of the arguments there have one thing in common -- that all evolutionistic study proceeds from presuppostion that evolution is a fact.
Bzzzzt.
Okay, now you owe me a new hypocrisy meter. An study should be discarded if it disagrees with the bible, but we can't even base studies on evolution?

It's really a horribly dishonest, circular and unscientific way to do science when you think about it.
Oh, if you knew how right you are.

7/5/2007 6:10:55 AM

Mister Spak

"But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact."

That's really a "horribly dishonest, circular and unscientific way to do science when you think about it."

7/5/2007 6:15:07 AM

NonProphet

"But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact."

----------------Translating...-------------------

"But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists should lie to me to make me feel less insecure about my faith."

7/5/2007 8:12:40 AM

Nameless

"So what am I supposed to do? Keep counting the legs of insects until they equal four? Maybe pull two legs off each and every insect?"

No, you just write something, anything, and conclude that insects do indeed have four legs. It doesn't really matter what you write. As long as it looks remotely plausible and doesn't offend the religious leaders, you'll be fine. In any other case, you won't be fine. It's not like anyone is going to really read what you wrote in any case, except perhaps some historian.

Or.. people could not let these guys to power.

7/5/2007 9:03:01 AM

Nameless

"From what I understand, even though evolution is technically a theory, it is a rather useful one."

What you don't understand, apparently, is what a theory is.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

7/5/2007 9:16:44 AM

Nameless

It might be a good idea to say "in principle" instead of "in theory" in everyday use.

7/5/2007 9:23:40 AM



Okay, I went back to the lab, and I came up with a new fact:

Dave is a blathering moron with the brain-power of a bacteria colony.

I checked the Bible against this fact I came up with. It does not contradict anything in the Bible.

Tada!

7/5/2007 11:55:31 AM

Berny

After reading the Bible. I've come to the conclusion that it is a book written 2000-3000 years ago by men with absolutely no knowledge of biology, physics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, mathematics, etc. In short, they were primitive superstitious ignorant tribesmen.
Hardly a book I would expect to find any science of any kind, and not one I would consult as a comparative source for anything useful.

7/5/2007 12:19:18 PM

Raistlin

Oh god. This has to win some irony award. Death by Irony Overdose Award? Irony Meter Overload?

7/5/2007 1:54:04 PM

Pix

If your scientific fact contradicts what's written in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, you need to go back to the lab and come up with a new fact.

Meanwhile, I'm due for dinner at 12 Grimmauld Place.

7/5/2007 2:11:31 PM

1 2 | top: comments page