Replies

Me: "By your logic, I could say you should not use math in the physics class because this is a science class not a math class."

You: "That is about the DUMBEST statement I have ever seen."

Well, even if it is one of the dumbest things you have ever seen, I am in good company. Because Einstein asked a similar question in the first chapter of his book on relativity (by that title).

You are correct that math is a model. In fact, you are right in believing math to be a type of science itself, maybe the purest one.

But science concerns itself primarily with three things: ideas, observations, and logical reasoning.

To arbitrarily exclude the Bible from scientific endeavors is unscientific.

You may present a scientific argument or proposition wherein you may assert that all reality can be comprehended through our five senses. From that proposition (axiom) you may assert particular "truths" that logically follow. However, you cannot limit all scientific inquiry to this arbitrary rule.

It has already been demonstrated that some scientific inquiry required our ability to explore beyond the bounds of our five senses. Relativity (the general theory) required that. Some of the conclusions Einstein made could not be verified by experiment during his lifetime. Later, they were confirmed to be true.

Again, I refer you to Einstein's writing. "The question of the 'truth' of individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the 'truth' of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning.... The concept of 'true' does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because the word 'true' we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a 'real' object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves."

The problems of the evolution-creationism debate is that the views are different axiomatically.

This is why I keep coming back to the primary issue of how a person can know anything.

Evolutionists constantly claim that they rely only on science. Nonsense. I have never met one person, no matter how smart, resourceful and knowledgeable, who had personally learned the disciplines they use to make their case for evolution. They all rely on the trustworthiness of other scientists. They all rely on peer review. Are all scientist to be trusted (axiomatically)? Or does the majority vote on who is correct? Is it impossible for scientists to let their personal biases affect their research?

How do you know what you know?