The Church Vs. Science

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Ok, you don't like Genesis? How about Exodus? What ever happened to Moses' magic walking stick? People go on and on about the Ark, The 10 Commandments (or however you want to count them depending on your religion) or the Holy Grail, but what of the magic walking stick? What happened to that?

Or should we just stick with Genesis and talk about the Ark and all that water?

We already discussed this Quade when you said the Bible would be more credible if the creation story was scientific....

I replied:

Quote

Even if it were written at tedious length to your scientific standards with 15 syllable words, you know you'd still have to get passed the fact that we still believe in rising from the dead and all that jazz...right?

"All that jazz" meaning things like magic walking sticks, surviving walks through burning furnaces, floating zoos, giant mamal fish that regurgitate living humans, talking donkies, walking on water, flying, turning water into wine and on and on and on...

Like I said, I believe in an infinte universe where all things are possible...don't expect us to be ashamed of that.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Well you'd be wrong Professor...This isn't a thread about gravity, but I'll have a report on your desk by Friday.

Get over yourself already...it's pathetic. You're an old silvered hair wise man of noble stature...very unbecomming of you Sir.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Do you really think infinity and zero fall in the realm of mythology?

Do you think they don't?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Fine, I'll concede my inference to biblical writers having some type of transcendant divine knowledge about evaporation since it may have been common knowledge around 1500 BC considering that that knowledge was being used as an analogy to convey a spiritual truth...

true, but the analogy to convey the character of God IS meaningful to those who believe.

Oh right, so when you originally tried to make the point that the Bible contains an unprecedented for the time level of accurate scientific knowledge, what you actually meant was simply that the bible contains spiritual analogies.


Riiiiight.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

True, trying to explain something as obvious as an apple falling off a tree was the challenge...and I bet you still don't fully understand it...

No one fully understands gravity yet.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

This is getting even dumber than the usual religion arguments here,

The Bible is a religious book. It is intended for believers, and contains some history, and some morality, and some organizational info. It's not a science book, and it's silly to expect it to be accurate. That's akin to saying that Apollo 13 was an awful, awful movie because they got the orbital speed wrong in one of the scenes.

The Principia is a science book, and represents some early attempts at understanding the natural laws that make up our universe. It would be just as silly to expect morality out of the Principia as it would be to expect science out of the Bible.

Thank you billvon.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[antonija 0]

Quote

Do you really think infinity and zero fall in the realm of mythology?

They actually do... there is no zero or infinity in nature. Zero (and infinity) were "invented" to help human brain process certain problems more easily. However they do differ from religious myths in that they were clearly defined from the very beginning, the reason for "inventing" them was well documented and is still known and their purpose was well defined.

Quote

Since science is blind to what it can't measure

Science is blind to what it can't detect (not measure). But then again we all are. And just because someone gets an idea that he can indeed see the great spaghetti monster and talk to it every day, thus granting himself a passage into eternal life among fellow pasta lovers, it doesn't mean he's right. Doesn't mean he's wrong either but if you can't see it, hear it, touch it, or see any effect whatsoever on the world around you (even the smallest, tiny changes) then it really makes no sense to introduce the great spaghetti monster into your explanations of everyday life and nature.
You still could do that tho...

While we're on subject of bashing, I'd like to share my favorite quote about modern religion:

Quote

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

Bill Maher, Religulous

Oh and BTW: Science and religion are two completely different things. Apples and oranges. One is based on evidence and other is based of beliefs. Each has its pros/cons. But at most one of them is correct, maybe none

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Well you'd be wrong Professor...This isn't a thread about gravity, but I'll have a report on your desk by Friday.

Get over yourself already...it's pathetic. You're an old silvered hair wise man of noble stature...very unbecomming of you Sir.

Ha ha, nice attempt at weaseling out of your previous statement on the scientific accuracy of the bible. Well, it actually was a pathetic attempt, and along the way you proved that you really know nothing substantive about science or the history of science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Do you really think infinity and zero fall in the realm of mythology?

They actually do... there is no zero or infinity in nature. Zero (and infinity) were "invented" to help human brain process certain problems more easily. However they do differ from religious myths in that they were clearly defined from the very beginning, the reason for "inventing" them was well documented and is still known and their purpose was well defined.

Infinity wasn't clearly defined from the very beginning. Cantor's theory, based on the theory of ordered sets, only dates from the 1880s, and prior to that there was no workable definition of the various infinities.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[antonija 0]

Quote

Infinity wasn't clearly defined from the very beginning. Cantor's theory, based on the theory of ordered sets, only dates from the 1880s, and prior to that there was no workable definition of the various infinities.

Well, not really. Mathematicians were writing stuff about infinity long before that. Leibniz wrote about it in 17th century but did not give it equal properties as other numbers, Leibnitz and Newton also used infinity for their calculations, etc. Granted they worked with infinitesimal quantities (1/inf) but the principle of "something that's bigger than everything else" was already there and was being used as a concept, not as a universal truth. Just something we made up to make things a bit easier to understand (not determine, understand). And so far the myth of infinity has been able to withstand every test possible and is very much applicable in the limits set by the "inventors".

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Infinity wasn't clearly defined from the very beginning. Cantor's theory, based on the theory of ordered sets, only dates from the 1880s, and prior to that there was no workable definition of the various infinities.

Well, not really. Mathematicians were writing stuff about infinity long before that. Leibniz wrote about it in 17th century but did not give it equal properties as other numbers, Leibnitz and Newton also used infinity for their calculations, etc. Granted they worked with infinitesimal quantities (1/inf) but the principle of "something that's bigger than everything else" was already there and was being used as a concept, not as a universal truth. Just something we made up to make things a bit easier to understand (not determine, understand). And so far the myth of infinity has been able to withstand every test possible and is very much applicable in the limits set by the "inventors".

Your words were "clearly defined". The various infinities were NOT clearly defined until Georg Cantor came along. In fact some of the best mathematicians of the day took a lot of convincing that Cantor was right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Google "new covenant" and endeavor to know as much as you claim to.

Google, "don't give a flying fuck" and see how much I care about your pathetic attempts to make sense out of the bible.

OK, so I'm bored, and did google the phrase. Funny stuff.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Oh right, so when you originally tried to make the point that the Bible contains an unprecedented for the time level of accurate scientific knowledge, what you actually meant was simply that the bible contains spiritual analogies.

Riiiiight.

Well there were several implications that I would've liked to discuss along with examples other than hydrology without having to reply to multiple nit picks about how scripture uses the wrong terminology or how it's not 100% accurate according to today's scientific standards and that I'm just an incompetent liar.

When I make a provocative statement I'm hoping to have somewhat of a civil conversation and certainly open to meaningful scrutiny, but often some people just use it for an orgasmic display of ego masturbation.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

True, trying to explain something as obvious as an apple falling off a tree was the challenge...and I bet you still don't fully understand it...

No one fully understands gravity yet.

That was exactly my point, but John seems to know everything.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

you proved that you really know nothing substantive about science or the history of science.

Well like I said, this isn't a thread about gravity nor did I personally present any substantial claim about it, so your scientific scrutiny is unwarranted and of little import.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Well there were several implications that I would've liked to discuss

Then why not mention one of them? I wasn't aware this was like twenty questions where you dish out clues and we have to guess what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote

When I make a provocative statement I'm hoping to have somewhat of a civil conversation and certainly open to meaningful scrutiny,

The meaningful scrutiny is that the bible is not "scientifically accurate in it's claims regarding the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics, hydrology, Astronomy, Isostasy, Meterology (wind circulation & air pressure), Physiology (The Circulatory System & Psychosomatic Illness) and geodesy" and any such claim is false.

Now since you seem to have shifted into saying that any such physical descriptions in the bible are only ever meant to be allegories for spiritual matters and were never meant to be accurate then the question is what in god's name was your point in bringing it up in the first place?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

That was exactly my point, but John seems to know everything.

What was your point?

You started off by suggesting that Newton did nothing more impressive than noticing that gravity happens. This is obviously ridiculous and unsupportable. At exactly what point do you think you managed to get the upper hand in the conversation?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Then why not mention one of them?

I already told you why...

But to add to that...I decided to refrain from adding to the fire because of several things you and Maadmax said:

You:
"the 'claims' you refer to are so vague"

Max:
"Problems arise when passages are read with a superficial glance and then attributed a meaning that may never have been intended."

I figured if I continued with any specific detail, I would be doing a disservice to both scripture and science.

I may have also started to tread dangerously close to contradicting my original statement that the Bible is not a science book.

Quote

The meaningful scrutiny is that the bible is not "scientifically accurate

No, the meaningful scrutiny was when you said that the bible was only "vaguely and superficially" consistent with science.

I can live with that...thanks.

Is that enough concession for you?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

At exactly what point do you think you managed to get the upper hand in the conversation?

Probably the part where I noted that the professor's auto erotic ego stimulation was of little import.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I may have also started to tread dangerously close to contradicting my original statement that the Bible is not a science book.

See, how this reads to me is that you tried to make out that the bible has some kind of credibility by trotting out a tired old argument about its level of scientific knowledge. Then, when it became apparent that you weren't going to be able to get away with that you've backed away from it by saying you never meant to imply that anyone should look for scientific accuracy of any kind in the bible and that's not what you meant at all, despite the fact that you have not provided any other explanation for bringing the subject up in the first place and now refuse to do so because we're being mean to you.

You guys can give politicians a lesson in evasiveness.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Niki1 1]

...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

See, how this reads to me is that you...

Meh, you're about 50/50 Dr. Freud...

Not bad!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[maadmax 0]

See, how this reads to me is that you tried to make out that the bible has some kind of credibility by trotting out a tired old argument about its level of scientific knowledge. Then, when it became apparent that you weren't going to be able to get away with that you've backed away from it by saying you never meant to imply that anyone should look for scientific accuracy of any kind in the bible and that's not what you meant at all, despite the fact that you have not provided any other explanation for bringing the subject up in the first place and now refuse to do so because we're being mean to you.

[Coreece 190]

It's pointless to even try and have a reasonably respectful conversation and expect some viable insight when talking to some people here. They'll just ignore your earlier points in an attempt to twist your words for the sole pupose of name calling because they don't like what you stand for.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[DanG 1]

Quote

They'll just ignore your earlier points in an attempt to twist your words for the sole pupose of name calling because they don't like what you stand for.

Or they'll actually hold you to your earlier points no matter how much you want to pretend you didn't make them.

- Dan G