Reconciling Genesis with Science : The Sticking Plaster Argument

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

I don’t have a problem with the process.  My issue lies in the arrogance when you dismiss anecdotal evidence and say it has no place in the process.  We are dismissing observation??

 

You, as a lab technician, should be well aware that your anecdotal evidence means nothing if it doesn't follow the correct scientific rules of observation.

 

You must also be aware that if an observation cannot be reproduced elsewhere, by others following the same procedures and protocols, then it doesn't make the cut.

 

And that is the whole problem with scripture, Ed.

 

None of what is written there can be reproduced.  Nobody can go back and see what the disciples saw.  No one has access to the what the tribes of Israel saw in the wilderness.  The subjective experiences of dead people do not qualify as objective evidence.  Even if a trillion people agree by faith that Jesus rose from the dead, that is not acceptable evidence either.  

 

The point you are not getting is that science requires evidence that can be independently checked, tested and verified.  Nothing in the Bible reaches that standard.

 

That's why science and religion will never overlap, no matter how much you want them to.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Sure there is, you ultimately only have faith in your certainty….

 

No.  Secular confidence is not faith.

 

Faith has to do with what is unseen, remember?

 

I do not have any religious faith in anything.

 

If I have confidence in something that I cannot see, then that is because I use logical inference and extrapolation on the basis of what I can see.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How do you really call yourself a scientist when you are unable to submit to faith ultimately…

 

Faith has to do with what is unseen, remember?

 

Science only works on evidence, which is seen.

 

Theoretical science employs logical inference and extrapolation to deal with events and regions that we cannot see.

 

That is not an act of faith based on no evidence.

 

That is an act of secular confidence in the process of science.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.  Secular confidence is not faith.

 

Faith has to do with what is unseen, remember?

 

I do not have any religious faith in anything.

 

If I have confidence in something that I cannot see, then that is because I use logical inference and extrapolation on the basis of what I can see.

Glad you separated the two.  Inference and extrapolation are better words apparently…. My bad.

[walterpthefirst]

Let me give you a worked example so that you can how this works, Ed.

 

I have faith that my wife loves me.  This faith is not based upon anything unseen.  On the contrary, it's only based upon what I have seen and observed.  The two years when we courting and our twenty two years of marriage are the evidence base that I use to have faith that she loves me.  She exists.  She is real.  I did not read about her in ancient book.  I see her every day.  We interact.

 

But Christians have never seen Jesus, never seen any of the miracles described in the bible.  Their love for Jesus is based upon evidence-free faith.  They have no evidence base for him outside of scripture and their own feelings.  They do not see Jesus as I see my wife.  They do not hear Jesus talking as I hear her talking.  They do not feel his touch as I feel her touch.  They have nothing physical, tangible or real, but I do.

 

See the difference now?

 

Religion is based on zero evidence.

 

Science is based only on evidence.

[Edgarcito]

Answer me this Walter.  Every step of scientific movement/contribution is a result of the process alone? 

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Glad you separated the two.  Inference and extrapolation are better words apparently…. My bad.

 

And I can go further.

 

I can infer and extrapolate that my wife Audrey will be there besides me in the morning.  I can do the same about where she will be and what she will do for most of the week.  I can do that same again about her love for me.  On the evidence base of our twenty four years together I have (secular) faith that she will love me tomorrow and the days after that.  Unless some tragedy tears us apart.

 

Science works in a similar way.

 

On the evidence base of what we know about the gas hydrogen, here on Earth, we can infer that hydrogen anywhere else in the universe will behave in the same way.  So far, with hundreds of years of astronomical observations, we have seen NOTHING to the contrary.  Hydrogen gas in Jupiter's atmosphere behaves just like hydrogen gas in the Orion nebula or in galaxies billions of light years away.

 

All of the above require evidence and is based on evidence or extrapolates from a base of evidence.  Not so, with religion and matters of faith.  Religious faith demands belief WITHOUT verifiable and testable evidence.

 

Do you see the difference now, Ed?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Answer me this Walter.  Every step of scientific movement/contribution is a result of the process alone? 

 

Yes.

 

Science tries to eliminate subjectivity and the best way to do that is for all scientists to stick to the same methods, procedures, protocols and units of measurement.

 

If something falls outside of the process then it is immediately suspect.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Tomorrow.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Remembering that the Bible makes the comparison of the Spirit to water.  Very quickly, the Cross would be the semipermeable membrane in this scenario, and whether it be Spirit moving through osmosis or driving a person back to the Cross through pressure (reverse osmosis), the result is more Spirit, a closer connection, higher concentration of Spirit.  And then you have Moses purifying the water with his staff.  Seems to fit with wood/water scenarios....i.e. arks, trees, etc.  Just an observation....

You seem to be overlooking the hypertonic and hypotonic principles associated with osmosis.  When there is more concentrate in the water (spirit) outside the cell, then what little water the cell has will diffuse into the environment, causing the cell to shrivel and shrink (hypertonic).  Contrary wise, if there is more concentrate in the water (spirit) inside the cell, water will flow in from outside,, causing the cell to swell and burst (hypotonic).

 

To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, those exposed to too much of the spirit get dried up and turned off from it.  While those who are filled with the drain the environment around themselves until they are of no use.

 

I doubt very much the good lord above intended osmosis as an analogy for the work of his spirit.  If he did, he certainly didn't think it through too well.

[Edgarcito]

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You seem to be overlooking the hypertonic and hypotonic principles associated with osmosis.  When there is more concentrate in the water (spirit) outside the cell, then what little water the cell has will diffuse into the environment, causing the cell to shrivel and shrink (hypertonic).  Contrary wise, if there is more concentrate in the water (spirit) inside the cell, water will flow in from outside,, causing the cell to swell and burst (hypotonic).

 

To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, those exposed to too much of the spirit get dried up and turned off from it.  While those who are filled with the drain the environment around themselves until they are of no use.

 

I doubt very much the good lord above intended osmosis as an analogy for the work of his spirit.  If he did, he certainly didn't think it through too well.

Think that part was addressed in the Bible as well….or am I wrong.

[midniterider]

The Bible is where I learned Javascript and HTML5. Praise the Lord!

 

JSON ... looks a lot like Jesus, Son of God, dont it. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Think that part was addressed in the Bible as well….or am I wrong.

 

Yes, you are wrong again, Ed.

 

As I mentioned yesterday, you are committing the error of biblical eisegesis - the reading into scripture of what you want to be there.

 

No kind of osmosis, either literal, symbolic, metaphorical or any other kind exists in scripture.

 

But, because of your emotional need for it to be there, you see it there.

 

You believe that it is there (without evidence) and this causes you to see it.

 

Which is the opposite of the scientific method.

 

Science works only with what is seen and then infers from that observed data.

 

As I said, no overlap between science and religion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Think that part was addressed in the Bible as well….or am I wrong.

The bible talks about men whose genitals are like horses.  Such men exist.  Therefore the bible is true.  This is what your argument boils down to, End.  It's desperate straw-grasping. 

 

You're willing to overlook all of the times the bible contradicts itself, all the times the bible contradicts reality, all the times the bible is just plain wrong; and instead say, "oh look, here's something the bible got right!  It must be true!  Blessed be!"  Unfortunately, as Walt has pointed out, the bible doesn't get right what you're claiming it does.  It's not even in there beyond what you have read into it to suit your own agenda.

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, you are wrong again, Ed.

 

As I mentioned yesterday, you are committing the error of biblical eisegesis - the reading into scripture of what you want to be there.

 

No kind of osmosis, either literal, symbolic, metaphorical or any other kind exists in scripture.

 

But, because of your emotional need for it to be there, you see it there.

 

You believe that it is there (without evidence) and this causes you to see it.

 

Which is the opposite of the scientific method.

 

Science works only with what is seen and then infers from that observed data.

 

As I said, no overlap between science and religion.

Deny all you want Walter.  You know exactly the comparison I am describing.  It's straightforward.  I don't care whether you believe it or not, but it's there.  And it should be wonderfully scary to you that it is....given celluose membranes.

 

You say this stuff isn't real, yet it is....whether you can define it scientifically or not......which you can't.  You hang out with people with amoral behavior, and then it's normalized for everyone.  You hang out with moral individuals, you practice moral behavior.   Everyone doesn't take a bath, guess what, you don't keep bathing because no one else does.  

 

This is observable evidence and is the truth.

 

What you are doing here is creating your own objective truth based on science because you have rationalized that REGARDLESS of your subjectivity in this Universe.

 

Whatever....it's a weak and shortsighted stance.  

 

Carry on.

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

@Edgarcito,

 

You have either received a personal revelation or you're seeing something that is not indexed in google's vast search repository with respect to anyone who has published such thoughts in a crawlable form online.

 

If I can point to other holy books that appear at face value to state more explicitly scientific facts than your implicit osmosis example, will you chalk that up to coincidence?

 

Also, I was taught the holy spirit is another facet of God, is itself a "person", one of the Trinity.  Is it possible to only accept part of a person or are you defining spirit in some other way or context?  It would seem kind of absurd for Jesus to reference sending another, which mainstream contemporary Christianity regards as an entity, yet you can have more or less of that person in you?  That logic gets even weirder if taken to its conclusion.  

 

Also, the Moses example is a non-sequitur, as it is equally applicable to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, & Mormonism.

[walterpthefirst]

Deny all you want Walter.  You know exactly the comparison I am describing.  It's straightforward.  I don't care whether you believe it or not, but it's there.  And it should be wonderfully scary to you that it is....given celluose membranes.

 

I'm not in denial, Ed.

You are the one who made the claim about osmosis and it therefore falls to you to demonstrate that your claim is valid - with evidence.

So, if the comparison you are describing is one you've made by faith, then I don't know exactly what you mean.

I have no such faith, so I cannot see what you claim to see.

That's not denial on my part, that's my inability to see what you see with the eyes of faith.

 

Serious question now Ed...

 

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

 

 

You say this stuff isn't real, yet it is....whether you can define it scientifically or not......which you can't. 

 

True.  I cannot scientifically define things which you see by faith.  That's because faith plays no role in science.  There is no overlap.

 

 

 

You hang out with people with amoral behavior, and then it's normalized for everyone.  You hang out with moral individuals, you practice moral behavior.   Everyone doesn't take a bath, guess what, you don't keep bathing because no one else does.  This is observable evidence and is the truth.

 

Maybe so.  But hanging out with you here doesn't give me the ability to see what you see through the eyes of faith.

Which means that to me and to everyone else here who doesn't share your faith, we cannot see what you claim to see in scripture.

To us you are just reading into it what you want to be there.

 

 

 

What you are doing here is creating your own objective truth based on science because you have rationalized that REGARDLESS of your subjectivity in this Universe.

Whatever....it's a weak and shortsighted stance.  Carry on.

 

No.  That's not correct, Ed.

 

I am trying to minimize my subjectivity by using the same method that is successfully used the world over by billions of people - science.

I cannot eliminate my subjectivity altogether, but I can minimize it enough to join with all those other people in a successful way of understanding the reality - science.

If you think the achievements of science (which you live by and are using now) are weak and short-sighted... then carry on.

 

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Deny all you want Walter.  You know exactly the comparison I am describing.  It's straightforward.  I don't care whether you believe it or not, but it's there.  And it should be wonderfully scary to you that it is....given celluose membranes.

 

I'm not in denial, Ed.

You are the one who made the claim about osmosis and it therefore falls to you to demonstrate that your claim is valid - with evidence.

So, if the comparison you are describing is one you've made by faith, then I don't know exactly what you mean.

I have no such faith, so I cannot see what you claim to see.

That's not denial on my part, that's my inability to see what you see with the eyes of faith.

 

Serious question now Ed...

 

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

 

 

You say this stuff isn't real, yet it is....whether you can define it scientifically or not......which you can't. 

 

True.  I cannot scientifically define things which you see by faith.  That's because faith plays no role in science.  There is no overlap.

 

 

 

You hang out with people with amoral behavior, and then it's normalized for everyone.  You hang out with moral individuals, you practice moral behavior.   Everyone doesn't take a bath, guess what, you don't keep bathing because no one else does.  This is observable evidence and is the truth.

 

Maybe so.  But hanging out with you here doesn't give me the ability to see what you see through the eyes of faith.

Which means that to me and to everyone else here who doesn't share your faith, we cannot see what you claim to see in scripture.

To us you are just reading into it what you want to be there.

 

 

 

What you are doing here is creating your own objective truth based on science because you have rationalized that REGARDLESS of your subjectivity in this Universe.

Whatever....it's a weak and shortsighted stance.  Carry on.

 

No.  That's not correct, Ed.

 

I am trying to minimize my subjectivity by using the same method that is successfully used the world over by billions of people - science.

I cannot eliminate my subjectivity altogether, but I can minimize it enough to join with all those other people in a successful way of understanding the reality - science.

If you think the achievements of science (which you live by and are using now) are weak and short-sighted... then carry on.

 

 

Walter.

Keep playing the game Walter.  Not a big deal.  If you don't wish to validate reality that you can't rigidly define with some level of certainty, that's certainly your choice.  Build a reality defined by science.  I gather it's all most of you can endure at this point.  I understand, but don't agree.

 

Thanks,

 

Ed

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Keep playing the game Walter.  Not a big deal.  If you don't wish to validate reality that you can't rigidly define with some level of certainty, that's certainly your choice.  Build a reality defined by science.  I gather it's all most of you can endure at this point.  I understand, but don't agree.

 

Thanks,

 

Ed

 

Your attempt to 'win' this debate by treating me as the one at fault has failed, Ed.

 

You are the one who made the claim about biblical osmosis and so the onus is still on you to support that claim with objective evidence.

 

If you expect us to accept your subjective, faith-based assertion that it is so, then please think again.

 

Either present your evidence in a way that we can accept or retract it.

 

Since we cannot accept any claim made by faith, you will have to find another way.

 

Or retract your claim as supportable only by faith.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Build a reality defined by science, you say Ed?

 

Sorry, but you seem to be the one in denial here.  In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.

 

You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

If anyone is in denial and conflict here, it is you, not me.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your attempt to 'win' this debate by treating me as the one at fault has failed, Ed.

 

You are the one who made the claim about biblical osmosis and so the onus is still on you to support that claim with objective evidence.

 

If you expect us to accept your subjective, faith-based assertion that it is so, then please think again.

 

Either present your evidence in a way that we can accept or retract it.

 

Since we cannot accept any claim made by faith, you will have to find another way.

 

Or retract your claim as supportable only by faith.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I've always considered it as anecdotal evidence.  It's matches rather well.  Just another example that agrees with your club member.  You disagreed with him and you disagree with me.  

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

So, what about osmosis Walter.  The Bible has a really good example of osmosis that matches science pretty well to my understanding.  Do we think it's a coincidence?

 

This was your initial claim, Ed.

 

If you had made it clear from the outset that you only considered it to be anecdotal evidence, then I wouldn't have pressed you for objective evidence.

 

The fact that you didn't qualify your claim as anecdotal from get go makes me think that what you're doing now is back peddling.

 

 

I also notice that you dodged answering my serious question to you.

 

So, here it is again.

 

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

Please answer.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, what about osmosis Walter.  The Bible has a really good example of osmosis that matches science pretty well to my understanding.  Do we think it's a coincidence?

 

This was your initial claim, Ed.

 

If you had made it clear from the outset that you only considered it to be anecdotal evidence, then I wouldn't have pressed you for objective evidence.

 

The fact that you didn't qualify your claim as anecdotal from get go makes me think that what you're doing now is back peddling.

 

 

I also notice that you dodged answering my serious question to you.

 

So, here it is again.

 

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

Please answer.

 

 

You're adept at looking up my history here.  Over the years I've had many of these analogies.  It's not new to me or my history.  There's several of these same type comparisons to science.  Spiritual osmosis...lol.  Yes, as I said, you hang around with a certain morality, you lean towards that morality.  You put someone near to the Cross and you get the message of the Cross.  

 

Lol, Moses glowed when he was in the presence of God.  Florescence comes to mind.  Bunches of them sir.  The triple point of water, the trinity.  I digress.

 

Have a great day.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're adept at looking up my history here.  Over the years I've had many of these analogies.  It's not new to me or my history.  There's several of these same type comparisons to science.  Spiritual osmosis...lol.  Yes, as I said, you hang around with a certain morality, you lean towards that morality.  You put someone near to the Cross and you get the message of the Cross.  

 

Lol, Moses glowed when he was in the presence of God.  Florescence comes to mind.  Bunches of them sir.  The triple point of water, the trinity.  I digress.

 

Have a great day.

 

The sheer number of anecdotes about something does not mean or imply that any of them are real or true.

 

There was a time when everyone without exception believed the world to be flat.

 

But that global consensus of belief did not make the world flat.

 

Belief doesn't make something true or real.

 

Objective evidence does.

 

 

Now, please answer my question, Ed.

 

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Why do you expect us, who have no faith, to see what you see through the eyes of faith?

 

Please answer.

 

 

Truthfully, I think it's a defense mechanism that you can't or won't answer....to protect your wellbeing.  I'm sorry many people here were hurt terribly by religion, but I'm not sure limiting oneself to not considering the ideas anymore is the best choice.  I don't see it as wise and desire for people to consider the ideas.