Gideon, dear friend,: : Secular science is that way also. "Verified" science of the past has been overturned by more "verified" science, and on, and on, etc.
: This is the good thing about science. You can show that the axiom X is untrue, thereby making the axiom not-X true; thereby coming closer to an accurate model.
: It's like playing 'higher or lower'; if the experimental data rules out 'higher', you can say 'lower' in the next experiment. Eventually you get to the point of being able to make accurate predictions of physical phenomena; which enables you to do things like use aircraft, cars, plastics, medicine and the like.
So nothing in science can be taken for true, or verifiable. Thanks for the confirmation in relative science.
: : As for verifiable "science", Heisenberg, for an example, had his Uncertainty Theory upgraded to level of "Principle" with no proof other than the observer's predetermined outcome.
: 'Upgraded'?
: Robert, I'm a qualified physicist and there is no difference in 'proved' status between a theory and a principle. A 'principle' is merely a theoretical mechanism within the theory as a whole.
So Heisenberg's "Principle" isn't science. Thanks you very much for conceding that here. I've often seen it in "science" books.
: : The Bible remains today without a provable contradiction.
: Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
: Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.
: The Bible remains without a provable anything, Robert; you've said so yourself.
: If the Bible is infallible, it constitutes proof of God.
: If there is demonstrable proof of God, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Infallibility has nothing to do with constituting proof. We don't have the tools to prove God's Truth. We're limited creatures, bound by our time/space dimensions. Just because we can't prove it all doesn't rule out its infalliblity. It's your misunderstanding here and your blindness to see these two distinct facets. Its like you are always talking past me on this issue.
: Therefore, either the Bible is not infallible or God is not absolute.
Again there is no therefore, you are talking past the issue here. Again, proof and infallibility are two different items.
: You still refuse to see this Robert; because it blows your position away. You cannot even dismiss it. You are simply ignoring it, because it makes you uncomfortable.
: And you will no doubt follow up to this with some vacuous statement that has absolutely no relationship to the previous paragraph.
: : Incidently, it is impossible to be an true aetheist.
: I never said I was an atheist. I cannot prove the absence of God any more than you can prove the existence of God. There may or may not be a God. It doesn't trouble me either way.
: You are quite welcome to believe what you want, Robert - do you believe that the Sun goes around the Earth; or are you prepared to admit that the Church got that one wrong and that science was right?
: But please don't try and use your ultimately unsubstantiated beliefs to try and interfere in the demonstrable and proveable world of physical phenomena. You don't have the education to know Legendre polynomials from Laplace transforms; and your continued efforts to use random bits of science to try and bolster your faith are frankly half-cocked.
: And don't say that I sound distressed or annoyed; I'm neither, right now; I do not need your condescending forgiveness or superior platitudes (neither of which you are in a position to give).
I didn't know that you place my dialogue in such high regard. I certainly don't. I would never take my science that seriously. Perhaps you are indeed a bit tender underneath. Sorry for winding you up.
: If the Bible said it was dark 24 hours a day, would you go against your senses because the Bible said so?
I don't know that the Bible says that, so it is a bit of a red herring.
: Consider the words of good old Protestant Martin Luther; another famous anti-scientist speaking out against Copernicus' heliocentric theory (which is still a theory, by the way);
: ``that fool [who would] reverse the entire art of astronomy. . . Joshua bade the Sun and not the Earth to stand still.''
A standing still of the sun can be accomplished by a rotating of the earth off of its axis. The key here is to see that from the observers frame of reference.
: Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs, Robert, that you would say that red is green if the Bible told it was the case?
I don't know the Bible to say that so it is a bit of a red herring.
: Would you do to Darwin as the Church did to Bruno; burn him at the stake because he threatened your views of the cosmos?
Many times throughout history the biggest obstacle to Salvation in Jesus Christ is indeed organised religion. Those flat earth and geocentric beliefs arose from 1) man's misinterpretation of the Bible, oor 2) man's misunderstanding of science. Jesus did not teach us to be religious. He taught us to love Him. If organised religion is an obstacle to you, it need not be. God Bless.
Robert
