Science today
-
John Carson wrote:
The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't.
I can. If a passage is telling you about the nature of God, or what God would like you to do, then that's the core message.
John Carson wrote:
But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
The Bible was written by people of the day. It is filtered through their understanding, when it comes to natural things. I am not saying it's not inspired by God, I am saying that if God told someone to write down the sort of science you're asking for, they would not have understood it, and others would have seen no value in keeping it around.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
I can. If a passage is telling you about the nature of God, or what God would like you to do, then that's the core message.
So the passage banning the eating of shellfish is part of the core message? Or is the core message only to be found in the New Testament? That includes all the rules telling women what to do (cover their heads, keep silent in church, obey their husbands...)? The parts telling slave owners what to do? What about the passages in the Old Testament where God orders the slaughter of whole tribes of men, women and children. Do they count as passages about "the nature of God". Do we take all the instructions on "what to do" in the Sermon on the Mount literally? I don't accept that your boast is true. I don't think you can offer any coherent criteria specifying in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value. It is interesting that you seem unwilling to commit to a belief in the accuracy of anything historical in the Bible --- unless perhaps it gets in under cover of revealing the nature of God. Again, I wonder why, in such a case, you think the Bible reliable on anything.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible was written by people of the day. It is filtered through their understanding, when it comes to natural things. I am not saying it's not inspired by God, I am saying that if God told someone to write down the sort of science you're asking for, they would not have understood it, and others would have seen no value in keeping it around.
1. You haven't answered my question: why believe any of it? 2. So what if they would not have understood it and others would have seen no value in keeping it around. This is God we are talking about. Are you saying it is beyond the power of God to have ensured the preservation of his word on any subject that he chose?
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, then the answer is no. And, you're free to define love any way you like. But, the fundamental is free will. Everyone who asks, receives.
Asks for what? To know the truth? Not everyone who seeks the truth receives proof of God's existence. Does everyone who is determined to believe in God manage to do so? Possibly. Likewise everyone who is determined to believe in Hindu gods --- or almost anything else --- may succeed. This is not evidence of a benevolent God.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Asks for what?
The Holy Spirit, who is given with evidence to the individual.
John Carson wrote:
Does everyone who is determined to believe in God manage to do so?
I don't think so, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can. If a passage is telling you about the nature of God, or what God would like you to do, then that's the core message.
So the passage banning the eating of shellfish is part of the core message? Or is the core message only to be found in the New Testament? That includes all the rules telling women what to do (cover their heads, keep silent in church, obey their husbands...)? The parts telling slave owners what to do? What about the passages in the Old Testament where God orders the slaughter of whole tribes of men, women and children. Do they count as passages about "the nature of God". Do we take all the instructions on "what to do" in the Sermon on the Mount literally? I don't accept that your boast is true. I don't think you can offer any coherent criteria specifying in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value. It is interesting that you seem unwilling to commit to a belief in the accuracy of anything historical in the Bible --- unless perhaps it gets in under cover of revealing the nature of God. Again, I wonder why, in such a case, you think the Bible reliable on anything.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible was written by people of the day. It is filtered through their understanding, when it comes to natural things. I am not saying it's not inspired by God, I am saying that if God told someone to write down the sort of science you're asking for, they would not have understood it, and others would have seen no value in keeping it around.
1. You haven't answered my question: why believe any of it? 2. So what if they would not have understood it and others would have seen no value in keeping it around. This is God we are talking about. Are you saying it is beyond the power of God to have ensured the preservation of his word on any subject that he chose?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
So the passage banning the eating of shellfish is part of the core message?
It's not bad advice, in the context of the times. And, the food laws are explicitly voided in the NT.
John Carson wrote:
Or is the core message only to be found in the New Testament?
It's mostly in the NT, yes.
John Carson wrote:
That includes all the rules telling women what to do (cover their heads, keep silent in church, obey their husbands...)?
Some of the rules given, are given in the context of the times, and come down to a fundamental that persists - do your best not to offend other people. And yes, wives should obey their husbands, so long as the husband also cherishes the wife and would die for her. Too many bible belt wife beaters forget that bit.
John Carson wrote:
The parts telling slave owners what to do?
In the context of a slave owning society, I would totally defend the bible's advice to be a fair master, yes.
John Carson wrote:
Do they count as passages about "the nature of God".
Yes, in that they talk about God's desire to seperate His people.
John Carson wrote:
Do we take all the instructions on "what to do" in the Sermon on the Mount literally?
Which parts are you thinking of ? The sermon on the mount was, strictly speaking, part of the OT, but I can't think off hand of any bad advice in there.
John Carson wrote:
I don't think you can offer any coherent criteria specifying in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value.
OK, well, I did, so, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.
John Carson wrote:
It is interesting that you seem unwilling to commit to a belief in the accuracy of anything historical in the Bible --- unless perhaps it gets in under cover of revealing the nature of God. Again, I wonder why, in such a case, you think the Bible reliable on anything.
I didn't say that, either. Not at all. I said that things like Gen 1-2 are not designed to be total scientific truth, and that a science journal is not what the Bible is about. (rest not answered for time, I
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
I don't think that there's a difference.
Oakman wrote:
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Oakman wrote:
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
It might. Should all inquiry cease at the merest possibility of the answer not swaying me?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for proving my point, Tim
No, Stan, it is you who have proved his point many times over and when called on it have proudly proclaimed that you indeed want a country where majority dicatorships and thought police rule.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
No, Stan, it is you who have proved his point many times over and when called on it have proudly proclaimed that you indeed want a country where majority dicatorships and thought police rule.
No, he proved my point. We all want dictatorship and thought police. You, and Tim no less than I. Its just that you want different thoughts to be policed and you want it governed by a elite ruling class (which would include yourself, of course). Libertarianism is the greatest lie of all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't see it as odd at all. The various branches of science are not all equal. Some have more directly observable and measurable means of providing supporting evidence than do others.
Then again: Why pick the most subjective evidence of evolution to compare to the objective evidence of relativity when a better comparison exists? Perhaps it's just that I'm not entirely clear what this comparison was meant to accomplish.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the hell did I reject any conclusions out of hand?
Well, when you said: The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature. It might well have been a biological dead end. There is absolutely no way to know (unless, of course, genetic material could be extracted from it). And to suggest otherwise does, in fact, suggest that you wish to use this evidence for purposes haveing nothing at all to do with science one way or another. It sure sounds like you're rejecting their conclusion that this fossil is a common ancestor of humans and other primates.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that the media is advancing with the tone of the report linked to.
I must agree that journalistic reporting of scientific and health research is (with few exceptions) an abysmal disgrace.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Why pick the most subjective evidence of evolution to compare to the objective evidence of relativity when a better comparison exists?
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Fisticuffs wrote:
It sure sounds like you're rejecting their conclusion that this fossil is a common ancestor of humans and other primates.
No it doesn't. It sounds like I'm questioning the motives of those promoting subjective scientific conclusions as absolute fact.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I disagree with that completely.
Unless it's illegal to express the opinion of opposing same sex marriage (just using this as an example) which is an easily verifiable fact then I dont see how you can argue your point. Any society will have a majority held moral opinion on issue like this and these will always change over time. The fact that in the last 30 years the position of the majority may have moved away fro your own is no reason to scream conspiracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
I dont keep up with the US media but I cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
Josh Gray wrote:
Unless it's illegal to express the opinion of opposing same sex marriage (just using this as an example) which is an easily verifiable fact then I dont see how you can argue your point.
The point is proven on a daily basis. Just look a the evolution of hate crimes legislation. It will not be long before expressing negative feelings about homosexualy will be a hate crime in and of itself. That is the direction everything is heading.
Josh Gray wrote:
Any society will have a majority held moral opinion on issue like this and these will always change over time. The fact that in the last 30 years the position of the majority may have moved away fro your own is no reason to scream conspiracy.
What we are witnessing is nothing less than the development of a new religion. A religion that changes from monothesitic to anti-theistic. It grows in the urban areas, becomes taken up by the upper classes and than becomes invested in the media, educational, political and legal institutions and finally envelopes an entire society. This is not a normal or a natual evolution of public sentiment. It is very much being imposed by a top down enforcment of legal and cultuarl paradigms. Western civilization has become engulfed in a moral authoritarianism not seen for over five centuries.
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont keep up with the US media but I cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
That notion entirely validates my point. Supporting what? The audacious view that marriage should be between a male and a female?!!! :wtf:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
There were mainstreamer liberals defending her as well. Not quite everyone has fallen into the I hate everyone who disagrees wi9th me camps.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
liberals defending her as well
From what?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
No, Stan, it is you who have proved his point many times over and when called on it have proudly proclaimed that you indeed want a country where majority dicatorships and thought police rule.
No, he proved my point. We all want dictatorship and thought police. You, and Tim no less than I. Its just that you want different thoughts to be policed and you want it governed by a elite ruling class (which would include yourself, of course). Libertarianism is the greatest lie of all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, I really don't care what you think. Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want. By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:23 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
liberals defending her as well
From what?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
From what?
Geeze, Stan, keep up with the news, will yah? From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
From what?
Geeze, Stan, keep up with the news, will yah? From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan, I really don't care what you think. Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want. By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:23 PM
Oakman wrote:
Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want.
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Oakman wrote:
By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
From Paris Hilton's boyfriend.
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely, and thank you. Who precisely was out defending Hilton's boyfriend?
Ilion. They all stick together, you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Even if you think you have the right to use force or the right to threaten to use force to make me do things I don't want to do, as long as you don't act on your beliefs, you can have all the fantasies you want.
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Oakman wrote:
By now, you should be really used to no-one caring what you think.
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think I have at least as much right as you do.
Absolutely.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Odd that you would feel compelled to point that out.
why should I be the only one?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Why pick the most subjective evidence of evolution to compare to the objective evidence of relativity when a better comparison exists?
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Fisticuffs wrote:
It sure sounds like you're rejecting their conclusion that this fossil is a common ancestor of humans and other primates.
No it doesn't. It sounds like I'm questioning the motives of those promoting subjective scientific conclusions as absolute fact.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet and, frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Becasue its subjective, dude. (subjective is actually a stronger word than I would have picked, but I'll run with it)
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet and, frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data. The theory of evolution will always have a tougher time providing irrefutable, directly objectifiable evidence to support it. Thats not my fault.
Fisticuffs wrote:
frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself
As would I.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly - so you're specifically downplaying the objective evidence for evolution in order to prove some kind of point on the internet
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data. The theory of evolution will always have a tougher time providing irrefutable, directly objectifiable evidence to support it. Thats not my fault.
Fisticuffs wrote:
frankly, I would expect more rigorous evidence of thought and balance from someone who has a scientific background such as yourself
As would I.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I'm not. I was merely asserting that the evidence lacked the same force as more objectifiable data.
If you wanted to demonstrate a point about subjective versus objective, why not compare it directly to the more objective data of evolution itself instead of that in an entirely different branch of science? Words. Mean. Things. Public opinion on the strength of evolutionary science is bad enough as it is, fostering the illusion that the fossil record is the bulk of evolutionary theory is irresponsible at best.
- F
-
Synaptrik wrote:
The Land of Nod. Q.E.D.
In the absence of any quoted passage, I have no idea what this refers to.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Asks for what?
The Holy Spirit, who is given with evidence to the individual.
John Carson wrote:
Does everyone who is determined to believe in God manage to do so?
I don't think so, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
The Holy Spirit, who is given with evidence to the individual.
So saying out loud: "I want the Holy Spirit" is all that is needed to get proof? I'm sure the answer is no. I think this is all just sophistry. As a practical matter, people who ask for the Holy Spirit are generally already more or less convinced. Proof is not freely available to everyone who asks for it at all. At best, "proof" is available to those who already more or less believe and want to be more convinced. What they may end up with, of course, is merely inner conviction, not proof in any remotely scientific sense. Suppose there is some fact that it is of vital interest to your children to believe, e.g., that being hit by a car is bad for your health. Are you going to do all in your power to convince them of that fact? Or are you going to play silly games about proof being available to those who want it. If you did the latter, I wouldn't believe for a second that you loved your children. Equally, should God exist, I don't believe for a second that he loves people. This has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with being provided accurate information as a basis for decision making.
John Carson