Royd 0
QuoteDo you also regard all other compilations of the history of antiquity as bogus? I'm sure that they have all been reinterrpruted from their original language.
Would you please also answer the question?
Royd 0
Quote
It wasnt written by the apostle Paul. Just becuase it is written in the front of a book doesnt make it true. I need more evidence than a single source to believe something.
As I recall, science demands absolute proof, not just biased assumptions, before coming to a conclusion. You, as a scientist, must be the one to prove your hypothesis.
I'm sure that with some serious research, it could be proven that the Apostle Paul was who he said he was, collaborated by secular sources, which seems to be your ticket to the truth.
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>From most of the threads I've read, the atheist, agnostic,
>community claims science as their final authority on all things. They also
> claim that their moral compass is as good as the Christians.
No, they don't. Treating science as a moral guide is as silly as treating the bible as a science or astronomy textbook. All science can do is tell you with great accuracy what _did_ happen, and give you probabilities about what _will_ happen.
There is a small but finite possibility that your computer will not start up the next time you try to use it, for very simple reasons based on science. (Quantumn effects, basic materials science.) Odds are that it will. If it doesn't, that doesn't "prove science wrong" any more than the example of a christian like Timothy McVeigh "proves religion wrong."
>Therefore, that which they claim to be the highest authority in all things,
>must also be held to the highest standard in right and wrong.
To do that you must first understand what they are saying. Often, people don't.
>Forget business. Someone has to step up to the plate and say
>something is right or wrong. Sometimes, things truly are black and white.
And that attitude is why so many people don't understand science. At a very fundamental level, not only are things never black and white, the moral judgement associated with that statement doesn't even apply.
>community claims science as their final authority on all things. They also
> claim that their moral compass is as good as the Christians.
No, they don't. Treating science as a moral guide is as silly as treating the bible as a science or astronomy textbook. All science can do is tell you with great accuracy what _did_ happen, and give you probabilities about what _will_ happen.
There is a small but finite possibility that your computer will not start up the next time you try to use it, for very simple reasons based on science. (Quantumn effects, basic materials science.) Odds are that it will. If it doesn't, that doesn't "prove science wrong" any more than the example of a christian like Timothy McVeigh "proves religion wrong."
>Therefore, that which they claim to be the highest authority in all things,
>must also be held to the highest standard in right and wrong.
To do that you must first understand what they are saying. Often, people don't.
>Forget business. Someone has to step up to the plate and say
>something is right or wrong. Sometimes, things truly are black and white.
And that attitude is why so many people don't understand science. At a very fundamental level, not only are things never black and white, the moral judgement associated with that statement doesn't even apply.
Quote
Besides, drug companies are not 'run by science'. They are run by extremely rich businessmen who employ chemists to get the maximum possible results with the minimum possible investment. Sometimes that means the bottom line takes precedence over doing completely exhaustive testing before general release. Blame capitalism, not the scientific method.
sorry, man, that's bullshit.
You only need look at the biotech corridor in the Bay Area (and I suspect San Diego) for the counter proof. Genentech and the dozens of splinter companies from former employees are run by science. They certainly don't ignore the business aspect of the game. But I'd say they're driven more by a god complex than pursuit of the dollar.
Quote
It seems many people want absolute proof before they believe. That's not faith.
They could find Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat filled with petrified animal dung, and it still wouldn't make a beleiver out of a God-hater.
He'd probably say that it was put there as a hoax by Christians.
My mom, despite being a non believer, was happy to visit "Noah's Ark" on her way to climbing Ararat. But the site is only proof that the Turks know how tourism as well as anyone else. You have to stretch your imagination (or faith) just to see an ark.
It's interesting that some of the great events described in the Bibles may have ordinary geological explanations. The Flood being a 100 year flood. The parting of the Red Sea being a spring tide exposing a shallow sand bar.
micro 0
QuoteBesides, drug companies are not 'run by science'. They are run by extremely rich businessmen who employ chemists to get the maximum possible results with the minimum possible investment. Sometimes that means the bottom line takes precedence over doing completely exhaustive testing before general release. Blame capitalism, not the scientific method.
PAH!! Oh, the ignorance of this statement! Come to my company, my friend. Come tour my company. Teva Neuroscience, in Horsham Pennsylvania. We make Copaxone, an MS drug and just got FDA approval for a Parkinsons drug. And we're the world's largest generic drug manufacturer in the world. You won't be making that ridiculous statement after witnessing the science behind our drugs.
furthermore, I've done contract work for many other pharmaceutical companies, and while there are some unethical ones out there, by and large they ARE run by science. SOUND science.
and let's not even get into the cost of bringing a novel agent to market and all of that... let's just say you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
micro 0
QuoteQuote
It seems many people want absolute proof before they believe. That's not faith.
They could find Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat filled with petrified animal dung, and it still wouldn't make a beleiver out of a God-hater.
He'd probably say that it was put there as a hoax by Christians.
My mom, despite being a non believer, was happy to visit "Noah's Ark" on her way to climbing Ararat. But the site is only proof that the Turks know how tourism as well as anyone else. You have to stretch your imagination (or faith) just to see an ark.
It's interesting that some of the great events described in the Bibles may have ordinary geological explanations. The Flood being a 100 year flood. The parting of the Red Sea being a spring tide exposing a shallow sand bar.
the turks let people climb ararat? didn't know! i thought they didn't do that sort of thing.
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
QuoteAgain, the content of the Bible that you have in your hand has been through a number of translations and edits... how can we pull the truth out if it's current contents?
You mean like all these?
QuoteRomans 5:10 (New American Standard Version) For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:10 (New International Version) For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Romans 5:10 (New Living Translation) For since we were restored to friendship with God by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be delivered from eternal punishment by his life.
Romans 5:10 (King James Version) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Romans 5:10 (New King James Version) For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:10 (21st Century King James Version) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:10 (English Standard Version) For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Romans 5:10 (Contemporary English Version) Even when we were God's enemies, he made peace with us, because his Son died for us. Yet something even greater than friendship is ours. Now that we are at peace with God, we will be saved by his Son's life.
Romans 5:10 (American Standard Version) For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
Romans 5:10 (Young's Literal Translation) for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life.
Romans 5:10 (New Life Version) We hated God. But we were saved from the punishment of sin by the death of Christ. He has brought us back to God and we will be saved by His life.
Yeah, just LOOK at how the meaning of this verse has completely changed throughout the course of time and number of translations!
Translations/versions remain awfully constant, don't they? No matter how/when you translate it, its meaning remains the same. The bible is dependable no matter which version you use.
QuoteIt wasnt written by the apostle Paul. Just becuase it is written in the front of a book doesnt make it true. I need more evidence than a single source to believe something.
The book of Acts is believed to have been written by Luke, a physician and historian who was a close associate of Paul. Seeing the following intro. to the book, why would you doubt it was written by someone other than Luke?
Acts1:1 "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God..."
Note that he mentions a "former" report, and he mentions that the recipient of the report was a guy named Theophilus. If you look at the gospel which Luke wrote, you'll recognize that it is the "former" report he was speaking of at the beginning of the book of Acts. Here's Luke 1:1-4--
Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught..."
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Royd 0
QuoteBut I'd say they're driven more by a god complex than pursuit of the dollar.
I can't tell by your posts where you actually stand on the main issue, but as a whole, I believe that statement is correct.
Alot of what the scientific community does in done under the guise of benifiting mankind, when, in truth, they believe that there is nothing or noone more powerful or intelligent than them.
Believe me, if they had free rein to do as they pleased, there would be some horrific things done in the name of science, and all without the least tinge of conscience.
This is the line of thinking behind much of the atheistic, scientific community.
No God
No moral law
No right or wrong
no repercussions
This is also the thinking behind the liberal left within politics. They walk hand in hand.
Hi Royd
<science religion>>
- Let's show some balance here.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
<
- Let's show some balance here.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Royd 0
Quote<
>
- Let's show some balance here.
You've got to admit that if someone wasn't putting a thumb on the scientific community, things would run amuck quickly.
There would be experiments that would equal or exceed those of the Nazis.
jakee 1,489
QuoteYou've got to admit that if someone wasn't putting a thumb on the scientific community, things would run amuck quickly.
There would be experiments that would equal or exceed those of the Nazis.
Examples please?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Absolutely agree. I think that you call it oversight, in the US... but public accountability is dream. There will always be certain works that are carried out behind closed doors... we then need to trust our governments (yeah right!) to peform that task on our behalf.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
You could argue against such things as...
(1) Designer babies (Genetic engineering)
(2) Bio Weapons research
etc...
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(1) Designer babies (Genetic engineering)
(2) Bio Weapons research
etc...
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
That is absolutely correct. It is a compilation of accounts over a period of about 2,000yr.
I would challenge you to read the beginning of the Book of Acts, and tell me that it wasn't written in the first person by the apostle Paul.
Do you also regard all other compilations of the history of antiquity as bogus? I'm sure that they have all been reinterrpruted from their original language.
As for people trying to rewrite history, we see it in this country amongst the liberals who just don't like the way things turn out. Everything from Columbus to the war in Iraq.
It wasnt written by the apostle Paul. Just becuase it is written in the front of a book doesnt make it true. I need more evidence than a single source to believe something.
------
Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh.