How do geologists view rock layers? Wouldn't organisms that died recently be on top. Oldest layers (time line wise) on top, because of how things burred. If dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, how come footprints and other evidences are on top? Two Examples: Rockford, IA fossils: http://www.fossilcenter.com/ (click on fossil id tips to download the pdf)
Utah Dinosaur tracks: http://www.utah.com/stgeorge/johnson_farm.htm
, http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wi...rTracks,00.html
Can someone explain this? Thanks for your time.
There are two ways to deal with this.
1; More evidence (said in my best Tim Allen voice.)
2; Start with a conclusion and make everything fit that conclusion never changing it.
Why are there sea shell fossils on top of mountains?
1; More evidence (said in my best Tim Allen voice.)
2; Start with a conclusion and make everything fit that conclusion never changing it.
Why are there sea shell fossils on top of mountains?
On top of mammal fossils? Or exposed in the modern day environment? If they were buried, and then the rocks exposed to erosion, we'd see them nowadays in some locations.
If they're 'on top' of a mammal fossil, you'd need to look for an inversion in the rock.
If they're 'on top' of a mammal fossil, you'd need to look for an inversion in the rock.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 20 2009, 01:21 PM)
On top of mammal fossils? Or exposed in the modern day environment? If they were buried, and then the rocks exposed to erosion, we'd see them nowadays in some locations.
If they're 'on top' of a mammal fossil, you'd need to look for an inversion in the rock.
I can think of probably scores of ways for an inversion in rock to happen in such a way that a person studying the rock after the fact would have no way of actually "proving" such an inversion took place.
Since this is the case, one cannot necessarily exclude inversion from ANY strata's history.
There are a lot of ways in which older fossils could end up on top of newer fossils without even considering inversions, most notably would be simple erosion and deposition. One could concieve of a dino fossile being unearthed upstream and deposited downstream on top of a mammal corpse, etc.
This is why studying and dating fossils based on their relative depths in the strata is fallacious. You can't actually "prove" which fossil is older simply by its position in the rock.
Additionally, most fossils are formed during catasrophism or in tar pits. Animal remains do nt normally lie around until mummification or fossilization occurs. Normally, even the bones are eaten by scavengers or micro-organisms. Since most fossils are formed in catasrophism, and since we have absolute proof in modern times of catastrophes which overturn rock layers, and in general move, erode, or overturn entire islands or mountains (Hog Island 1893 Hurricane, Mt. St. Helens, etc,) This tells me that when looking at remains from past epochs, one cannot really say which came first, because the soil almost certain HAS been overturned one or more times in its history. In one dig site you might be looking at remains of animals from thousands of miles apart, all deposited on top of one another over time from different parts of a basin. They may have lived at the same time, or they may have lived eons apart.
If they're 'on top' of a mammal fossil, you'd need to look for an inversion in the rock.
I can think of probably scores of ways for an inversion in rock to happen in such a way that a person studying the rock after the fact would have no way of actually "proving" such an inversion took place.
Since this is the case, one cannot necessarily exclude inversion from ANY strata's history.
There are a lot of ways in which older fossils could end up on top of newer fossils without even considering inversions, most notably would be simple erosion and deposition. One could concieve of a dino fossile being unearthed upstream and deposited downstream on top of a mammal corpse, etc.
This is why studying and dating fossils based on their relative depths in the strata is fallacious. You can't actually "prove" which fossil is older simply by its position in the rock.
Additionally, most fossils are formed during catasrophism or in tar pits. Animal remains do nt normally lie around until mummification or fossilization occurs. Normally, even the bones are eaten by scavengers or micro-organisms. Since most fossils are formed in catasrophism, and since we have absolute proof in modern times of catastrophes which overturn rock layers, and in general move, erode, or overturn entire islands or mountains (Hog Island 1893 Hurricane, Mt. St. Helens, etc,) This tells me that when looking at remains from past epochs, one cannot really say which came first, because the soil almost certain HAS been overturned one or more times in its history. In one dig site you might be looking at remains of animals from thousands of miles apart, all deposited on top of one another over time from different parts of a basin. They may have lived at the same time, or they may have lived eons apart.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jul 22 2009, 01:53 PM)
There are a lot of ways in which older fossils could end up on top of newer fossils without even considering inversions, most notably would be simple erosion and deposition. One could concieve of a dino fossile being unearthed upstream and deposited downstream on top of a mammal corpse, etc.
Umm, ok. Assuming that the dino fossil wasn't completely destroyed by the erosion process, it would be blatantly obvious to anyone digging it up that the dino fossil is made out of a very different kind of rock compared to the surrounding strata. It would be obvious that older rocks were broken off somewhere else and carried to that spot.
It's not fallacious. The rock strata has recognizable layers that are obvious to anyone familiar with the region. Inverted rock would have strata that are the opposite of the surrounding rock.
It's not fallacious. The rock strata has recognizable layers that are obvious to anyone familiar with the region. Inverted rock would have strata that are the opposite of the surrounding rock.
Additionally, most fossils are formed during catasrophism or in tar pits. Animal remains do nt normally lie around until mummification or fossilization occurs. Normally, even the bones are eaten by scavengers or micro-organisms. Since most fossils are formed in catasrophism, and since we have absolute proof in modern times of catastrophes which overturn rock layers, and in general move, erode, or overturn entire islands or mountains (Hog Island 1893 Hurricane, Mt. St. Helens, etc,) This tells me that when looking at remains from past epochs, one cannot really say which came first, because the soil almost certain HAS been overturned one or more times in its history. In one dig site you might be looking at remains of animals from thousands of miles apart, all deposited on top of one another over time from different parts of a basin. They may have lived at the same time, or they may have lived eons apart.
This stinks of creationist misinformation.
1) No catastrophes involve strata inversion. Strata inversion is a very slow process. When catastrophes of earth-moving magnitude occur, the rock is de-stratified before it settles again. Any fossils would be obliterated.
2) MOST fossils are not caused by catastrophes or tar pits. Most fossils are sea-creatures that have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and are buried under the silt. In fact, I would say that 99% of all fossils are formed in the ocean. We have seen thousands and thousands of diatom fossils in single samples of ocean bedrock.
3) Go study geology before you spout off more nonsense.
2) MOST fossils are not caused by catastrophes or tar pits. Most fossils are sea-creatures that have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and are buried under the silt. In fact, I would say that 99% of all fossils are formed in the ocean. We have seen thousands and thousands of diatom fossils in single samples of ocean bedrock.
Volcanoes cover up rocks, magma; They talk about drowning animals in tar the Labrea Tar pits in Los Angelos. The geological column makes a good logical model, but it doesn't fit reality. Mudslides, erosion, hurricanes, glaciers are all examples of how rocks get mixed up. You say most are sea creatures, I agree in that: it can be explained by flood(haven't catalogued all fossils personally yet
), no offense. I've picked up snail fossils with my bare hands.
You don't even know what a geological column is. It's a worldwide phenomenon. Across the entire world, there is a geological stratification of fossils. Older creatures are ALWAYS found in lower layers than newer creatures.
Agreed! And new (evolutionist/OECs) say old)dino tracks on top....
Get it? Google:Dinosaur Tracks and Dinosaur POOP
Umm, ok. Assuming that the dino fossil wasn't completely destroyed by the erosion process, it would be blatantly obvious to anyone digging it up that the dino fossil is made out of a very different kind of rock compared to the surrounding strata. It would be obvious that older rocks were broken off somewhere else and carried to that spot.
QUOTE
This is why studying and dating fossils based on their relative depths in the strata is fallacious. You can't actually "prove" which fossil is older simply by its position in the rock.
It's not fallacious. The rock strata has recognizable layers that are obvious to anyone familiar with the region. Inverted rock would have strata that are the opposite of the surrounding rock.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is why studying and dating fossils based on their relative depths in the strata is fallacious. You can't actually "prove" which fossil is older simply by its position in the rock. |
It's not fallacious. The rock strata has recognizable layers that are obvious to anyone familiar with the region. Inverted rock would have strata that are the opposite of the surrounding rock.
Additionally, most fossils are formed during catasrophism or in tar pits. Animal remains do nt normally lie around until mummification or fossilization occurs. Normally, even the bones are eaten by scavengers or micro-organisms. Since most fossils are formed in catasrophism, and since we have absolute proof in modern times of catastrophes which overturn rock layers, and in general move, erode, or overturn entire islands or mountains (Hog Island 1893 Hurricane, Mt. St. Helens, etc,) This tells me that when looking at remains from past epochs, one cannot really say which came first, because the soil almost certain HAS been overturned one or more times in its history. In one dig site you might be looking at remains of animals from thousands of miles apart, all deposited on top of one another over time from different parts of a basin. They may have lived at the same time, or they may have lived eons apart.
This stinks of creationist misinformation.
1) No catastrophes involve strata inversion. Strata inversion is a very slow process. When catastrophes of earth-moving magnitude occur, the rock is de-stratified before it settles again. Any fossils would be obliterated.
2) MOST fossils are not caused by catastrophes or tar pits. Most fossils are sea-creatures that have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and are buried under the silt. In fact, I would say that 99% of all fossils are formed in the ocean. We have seen thousands and thousands of diatom fossils in single samples of ocean bedrock.
3) Go study geology before you spout off more nonsense.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 22 2009, 07:07 PM)
2) MOST fossils are not caused by catastrophes or tar pits. Most fossils are sea-creatures that have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and are buried under the silt. In fact, I would say that 99% of all fossils are formed in the ocean. We have seen thousands and thousands of diatom fossils in single samples of ocean bedrock.
Volcanoes cover up rocks, magma; They talk about drowning animals in tar the Labrea Tar pits in Los Angelos. The geological column makes a good logical model, but it doesn't fit reality. Mudslides, erosion, hurricanes, glaciers are all examples of how rocks get mixed up. You say most are sea creatures, I agree in that: it can be explained by flood(haven't catalogued all fossils personally yet
), no offense. I've picked up snail fossils with my bare hands.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 1 2009, 11:50 AM)
Volcanoes cover up rocks, magma; They talk about drowning in tar the Labrea Tar pits in los angelos. The geological column makes a good logical model, but it doesn't fit reality. Mudslides, erosion, hurricanes, glaciers are all examples of how rocks get mixed up. You say most are sea creatures= explained by flood
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAA
You really know nothing do you? Your idea of an explanation is one word: "flood." That is so ridiculously stupid.
Magma doesn't modify the fossil record. New rock simply sits on top of old rock. If there are any fossils created by volcanoes, they are the organisms that were buried in volcanic ash.
You don't even know what a geological column is. It's a worldwide phenomenon. Across the entire world, there is a geological stratification of fossils. Older creatures are ALWAYS found in lower layers than newer creatures.
You are so unbelievably stupid that there is really no way to help you. You have chosen to reject science because your literal interpretation of an archaic text says that living, breathing, intelligent people of the modern era aren't as smart as a bunch of ignorant, superstitious shepherds from the bronze age. Where is your sense?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAA
You really know nothing do you? Your idea of an explanation is one word: "flood." That is so ridiculously stupid.
Magma doesn't modify the fossil record. New rock simply sits on top of old rock. If there are any fossils created by volcanoes, they are the organisms that were buried in volcanic ash.
You don't even know what a geological column is. It's a worldwide phenomenon. Across the entire world, there is a geological stratification of fossils. Older creatures are ALWAYS found in lower layers than newer creatures.
You are so unbelievably stupid that there is really no way to help you. You have chosen to reject science because your literal interpretation of an archaic text says that living, breathing, intelligent people of the modern era aren't as smart as a bunch of ignorant, superstitious shepherds from the bronze age. Where is your sense?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 1 2009, 04:01 PM)
You don't even know what a geological column is. It's a worldwide phenomenon. Across the entire world, there is a geological stratification of fossils. Older creatures are ALWAYS found in lower layers than newer creatures.
Agreed! And new (evolutionist/OECs) say old)dino tracks on top....
Get it? Google:Dinosaur Tracks and Dinosaur POOP
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 1 2009, 04:07 PM)
Agreed! And new (evolutionist/OECs) say old)dino tracks on top....
Get it? Google:Dinosaur Tracks and Dinosaur POOP
Is there anything below them?
That is the real question not what is above them.
Having nothing added on top does not mean anything.
Get it? Google:Dinosaur Tracks and Dinosaur POOP
Is there anything below them?
That is the real question not what is above them.
Having nothing added on top does not mean anything.
TracerTong, please check out the Burgess Shale deposits, which are 500m + years old, and reside near and on the surface.
From Wiki:
http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/
This is a great treatise on fossil formation of truly ancient and fantastic creatures, discovered on the surface, in the early 1900's. The Wiki article isn't bad either.
From Wiki:
QUOTE
The Burgess Shale Formation — located in the Canadian Rockies of British Columbia — is one of the world's most celebrated fossil fields,[2] and the best of its kind.[3] It is famous for the exceptional preservation of the soft parts of its fossils. It is 505 million years (Middle Cambrian) old,[4], one of the earliest soft-parts fossil beds.
The rock unit is a black shale, and crops out at a number of localities near the town of Field in the Yoho National Park.
The rock unit is a black shale, and crops out at a number of localities near the town of Field in the Yoho National Park.
http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/
This is a great treatise on fossil formation of truly ancient and fantastic creatures, discovered on the surface, in the early 1900's. The Wiki article isn't bad either.
>>> please check out the Burgess Shale deposits, <<<
MY NOTES 11:14 AM 2/2/05...www.crisismagazine.com/
"The sharpest rocks to dash the expectations of Darwinism were quarried in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, and the fossils taken from this wonderful site, called the Burgess Shale, lay entirely misinterpreted for almost three-quarters of a century....
The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism. For an ID approach, it indicates the presence of causal intelligence."
CSC - Does Science Point to God?:
Of course, one would have to be insanely wedded to materialism and have more
faith in the powers of chance than any theist has in the powers of God to ...
http://www.discovery.org/a/1422 - 43k - Cached -
"When I first went into geology, we all thought that in science you create a solid layer of findings, through experiment and careful investigation, and then you add a second layer, like a second layer of bricks, all very carefully, and so on.
Occasionally some adventurous scientist stacks the bricks up in towers, and these towers turn out to be insubstantial and they get torn down, and you proceed again with the careful layers. But we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...iew=getlastpost
MY NOTES 11:14 AM 2/2/05...www.crisismagazine.com/
"The sharpest rocks to dash the expectations of Darwinism were quarried in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, and the fossils taken from this wonderful site, called the Burgess Shale, lay entirely misinterpreted for almost three-quarters of a century....
The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism. For an ID approach, it indicates the presence of causal intelligence."
CSC - Does Science Point to God?:
Of course, one would have to be insanely wedded to materialism and have more
faith in the powers of chance than any theist has in the powers of God to ...
http://www.discovery.org/a/1422 - 43k - Cached -
"When I first went into geology, we all thought that in science you create a solid layer of findings, through experiment and careful investigation, and then you add a second layer, like a second layer of bricks, all very carefully, and so on.
Occasionally some adventurous scientist stacks the bricks up in towers, and these towers turn out to be insubstantial and they get torn down, and you proceed again with the careful layers. But we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...iew=getlastpost
So...
A biased article from an ID website without the faintest shred of proof or relevance to the subject at hand...
And a link to your own post.
Not much to see there...
Just your normal random BS.
A biased article from an ID website without the faintest shred of proof or relevance to the subject at hand...
And a link to your own post.
Not much to see there...
Just your normal random BS.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 3 2009, 05:58 AM)
The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism. For an ID approach, it indicates the presence of causal intelligence."
How so?
It's simply another claim based on starting with the conclusion.
How so?
It's simply another claim based on starting with the conclusion.
Bats
Actually, the several million years of rapid evolution following the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis. The slow development of single celled life suddenly accelerated as organisms explored the myriad pathways opened by cooperation as opposed to conflict.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian... represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism.
Actually, the several million years of rapid evolution following the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis. The slow development of single celled life suddenly accelerated as organisms explored the myriad pathways opened by cooperation as opposed to conflict.
Grumpy
Sir Robin....excuse me.... Mr. Belfry:
That was nauseatingly vacuous.
If anything, life has shown that via evolutionary ability, myriad forms appear. Complex and well-working genetic mechanisms see to that. Some forms are very short in their tenure, others like tortoises and crocs/caymans get through even the toughest climactic changes with flying colors. Such is the richness and variety of life. No faith is needed to believe this; only data, data that reveals a mechanism, and an ongoing one. Science can decipher evolutionary trends via wonderful fossils like those in the Burgess shale. We were able to find , for instance, that the nodal cord, which first appeared in Picaya, led to the development of the spine in the vertebrates which appeared much later. Most if not all the Burgess pre-Cambrians made way for new forms, but that nodal cord was a great construction, and it persisted, and evolved, even though Picaya may not have. If you wonder why all that happened 'back then', remember we are looking back at hundreds of millions of years of records all at once; all of that squeezed into fossil remains, squeezed into one look. Just one million years is a short time for the planet, for evolution, for diversity increase. It's not a short time in our tactile perception. If you could see the planet's surface time-lapsed, it would appear to be boiling.
We are finding forms of life new to us even now, though they aren't exactly 'new'. Anywhere we go that we know little of, we find life we haven't seen yet. Evolution continues, but in present terms we don't 'see' the advance; it's very slow. ie, our knee joint is still primitive. It is currently evolving, as it has done for hundreds of thousands of years. Same with the sacra-iliac joint and the lumbar vertebrae refitting themselves to stand upright. There are lots of knee problems today due to the developing joint not handling too well the excess weight of obesity, a condition that for the most part didn't exist when we foraged and scavenged. Even now, with animals, the only fat ones we see are those domesticated or in zoos.
If you want to prove Creationism, you won't do it by trying to beat science, you have to attempt it by joining science. That entails a far different approach. Good luck.
That was nauseatingly vacuous.
If anything, life has shown that via evolutionary ability, myriad forms appear. Complex and well-working genetic mechanisms see to that. Some forms are very short in their tenure, others like tortoises and crocs/caymans get through even the toughest climactic changes with flying colors. Such is the richness and variety of life. No faith is needed to believe this; only data, data that reveals a mechanism, and an ongoing one. Science can decipher evolutionary trends via wonderful fossils like those in the Burgess shale. We were able to find , for instance, that the nodal cord, which first appeared in Picaya, led to the development of the spine in the vertebrates which appeared much later. Most if not all the Burgess pre-Cambrians made way for new forms, but that nodal cord was a great construction, and it persisted, and evolved, even though Picaya may not have. If you wonder why all that happened 'back then', remember we are looking back at hundreds of millions of years of records all at once; all of that squeezed into fossil remains, squeezed into one look. Just one million years is a short time for the planet, for evolution, for diversity increase. It's not a short time in our tactile perception. If you could see the planet's surface time-lapsed, it would appear to be boiling.
We are finding forms of life new to us even now, though they aren't exactly 'new'. Anywhere we go that we know little of, we find life we haven't seen yet. Evolution continues, but in present terms we don't 'see' the advance; it's very slow. ie, our knee joint is still primitive. It is currently evolving, as it has done for hundreds of thousands of years. Same with the sacra-iliac joint and the lumbar vertebrae refitting themselves to stand upright. There are lots of knee problems today due to the developing joint not handling too well the excess weight of obesity, a condition that for the most part didn't exist when we foraged and scavenged. Even now, with animals, the only fat ones we see are those domesticated or in zoos.
If you want to prove Creationism, you won't do it by trying to beat science, you have to attempt it by joining science. That entails a far different approach. Good luck.
>>> If you want to prove Creationism, you won't do it by trying to beat science, <<<
Exactly. Truth is not superadded. It changes not.
Now for Grumpy's idiocy:
"the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
RobDegraves tries to be ignorant,
"A biased article ..."
Exactly. "Probability Does Not Exist"-Bruno DeFinetti
MrB.
Exactly. Truth is not superadded. It changes not.
Now for Grumpy's idiocy:
"the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
RobDegraves tries to be ignorant,
"A biased article ..."
Exactly. "Probability Does Not Exist"-Bruno DeFinetti
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 4 2009, 11:44 AM)
Now for Grumpy's idiocy:
"the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please explain.
How is the Cambrian explosion a crises for Evolution?
It does not fit the story of Creation but does fit the Theory of Evolution.
Can you answer the birthday question?
I don't think I"ve met a Creationist that had any real clue about probability.
"the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please explain.
How is the Cambrian explosion a crises for Evolution?
It does not fit the story of Creation but does fit the Theory of Evolution.
Can you answer the birthday question?
I don't think I"ve met a Creationist that had any real clue about probability.
>>> How is the Cambrian explosion a crises for Evolution? <<<
That should be in the article. Let me know if that link doesn't say(to your satisfaction). I don't even know if "crisismagazine" still exists! {My computer is slow and I am not 'wasting' my time on what you should be doing, Buttershug.}
That should be in the article. Let me know if that link doesn't say(to your satisfaction). I don't even know if "crisismagazine" still exists! {My computer is slow and I am not 'wasting' my time on what you should be doing, Buttershug.}
QUOTE (Ref. some other Showtopic(s)+)
Can you answer the birthday question?
QUOTE (cc Showtopic= 26395+)
"Probability Does Not Exist"-Bruno DeFinetti
Yes the Math is interesting, but that is not what I am after. Notice the added bold please. This is from some Australian education institute:
Conclusion
Feller (1957, 19) writes: “All possible definitions of probability fall short of the actual practice.” Certainly, a lot is asked of the concept of probability. It is supposed at once to capture a quasi-logical notion, a subjective notion, and an objective notion instantiated in the mind-independent world. Perhaps one would do better to think of these as distinct concepts of probability. Each of the leading interpretations, then, attempts to illuminate one of these concepts, while leaving the others in the dark. In that sense, the interpretations might be regarded as complementary, although to be sure each may need some further refinement. Clearly, much work remains to be done on the philosophical foundations of probability. Equally clearly, we have come a long way since the Port Royal Logic.
>>> Feller (1957, 19) <<<
My Oxford Dictonary of Statistics "says" that is probably Wm. Feller(1906-70). I have tried looking up de Finetti in several books but have struck out except in one case. His argument is about forty years old and Feller died about the same time!
I find the philosophy MORE important then any actual calculation! But that is just me.** It could be that Bruno De Finetti has not died yet and that is why he is left out?
De_Finetti biography
Probability does not exist. which conveys his idea that probability is an expression of the observer's view of the world and as such it has no existence
of ...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biogra...De_Finetti.html -
I think I will re-boot here soon and find some more info on the guy and his fascinating argument that breaks the logic with mathematics and any calculated number that could quantify one's faith.
MrB.
Port Royal Logic is not in the Oxford dictionary either. Of course, Pascal has a short bio. And (i am) guessing this should work as a link...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Pascal.html
**I am not one to "shut-up and calculate" as if...
physics and quantum mechanics is suppose to be unknowable and meaningfully unteachable.
Conclusion
Feller (1957, 19) writes: “All possible definitions of probability fall short of the actual practice.” Certainly, a lot is asked of the concept of probability. It is supposed at once to capture a quasi-logical notion, a subjective notion, and an objective notion instantiated in the mind-independent world. Perhaps one would do better to think of these as distinct concepts of probability. Each of the leading interpretations, then, attempts to illuminate one of these concepts, while leaving the others in the dark. In that sense, the interpretations might be regarded as complementary, although to be sure each may need some further refinement. Clearly, much work remains to be done on the philosophical foundations of probability. Equally clearly, we have come a long way since the Port Royal Logic.
>>> Feller (1957, 19) <<<
My Oxford Dictonary of Statistics "says" that is probably Wm. Feller(1906-70). I have tried looking up de Finetti in several books but have struck out except in one case. His argument is about forty years old and Feller died about the same time!
I find the philosophy MORE important then any actual calculation! But that is just me.** It could be that Bruno De Finetti has not died yet and that is why he is left out?
De_Finetti biography
Probability does not exist. which conveys his idea that probability is an expression of the observer's view of the world and as such it has no existence
of ...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biogra...De_Finetti.html -
I think I will re-boot here soon and find some more info on the guy and his fascinating argument that breaks the logic with mathematics and any calculated number that could quantify one's faith.
MrB.
Port Royal Logic is not in the Oxford dictionary either. Of course, Pascal has a short bio. And (i am) guessing this should work as a link...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Pascal.html
**I am not one to "shut-up and calculate" as if...
physics and quantum mechanics is suppose to be unknowable and meaningfully unteachable.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 4 2009, 01:57 PM)
....
**I am not one to "shut-up and calculate" as if...
physics and quantum mechanics is suppose to be unknowable and meaningfully unteachable.
Your saying that probability is relative to us? If you are how could we prove that?
**I am not one to "shut-up and calculate" as if...
physics and quantum mechanics is suppose to be unknowable and meaningfully unteachable.
Your saying that probability is relative to us? If you are how could we prove that?
Misterbelfry,
Probability has nothing to do with philosophy. It is a science, therefor it is definitely something that you cannot/will not understand.
Tracerthong,
Shut up.
Probability has nothing to do with philosophy. It is a science, therefor it is definitely something that you cannot/will not understand.
Tracerthong,
Shut up.
Mr.B,
Ok you're not being too cryptic for once.
You the person choose whether you view probability as objective or subjective.
I find the philosophy MORE important then any actual calculation!
Why? Philosophy is opinion at the outset. If large amounts of people end up believing in that philosophy, safety in numbers turns it incorrectly into truth. Faith is now required because it can't be proven. We live in a world where proof comes via tactile sense: it can be observed, measured, repeated. That's what we need to do to prove things objectively, that is, for all, not one. A single person can have an insight into something, and that experience may be rich and resonant enough that the person makes a philosophy into truth, but until it's a proven truth for all, it remains a proprietary therefore subjective belief. Einstein was pretty darn sure of his thinking, but it didn't become real (for our part) until the calculations, and their testing, showed his idea was workable. And it's still a theory, because scientific thinking is very careful; it seeks truth, not wishes. There should be no opinionated interest in any outcome, only the disinterested data that comes in. Science has never tried to prove that creationism, God, any of that, doesn't exist. It only tries to bring data. When science brings no data concerning ID, it is attacked, but science is innocent.
Ok you're not being too cryptic for once.
You the person choose whether you view probability as objective or subjective.
QUOTE
I find the philosophy MORE important then any actual calculation!
Why? Philosophy is opinion at the outset. If large amounts of people end up believing in that philosophy, safety in numbers turns it incorrectly into truth. Faith is now required because it can't be proven. We live in a world where proof comes via tactile sense: it can be observed, measured, repeated. That's what we need to do to prove things objectively, that is, for all, not one. A single person can have an insight into something, and that experience may be rich and resonant enough that the person makes a philosophy into truth, but until it's a proven truth for all, it remains a proprietary therefore subjective belief. Einstein was pretty darn sure of his thinking, but it didn't become real (for our part) until the calculations, and their testing, showed his idea was workable. And it's still a theory, because scientific thinking is very careful; it seeks truth, not wishes. There should be no opinionated interest in any outcome, only the disinterested data that comes in. Science has never tried to prove that creationism, God, any of that, doesn't exist. It only tries to bring data. When science brings no data concerning ID, it is attacked, but science is innocent.
QUOTE
Why? Philosophy is opinion at the outset.
Yes, and God's opinion doesn't count?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why? Philosophy is opinion at the outset. |
Yes, and God's opinion doesn't count?
And it's still a theory,
And it's still a theory,
And some will say Einstein's SR is philosophy and the theory of GR is very expensive to test, so it is still philosophically open.
MrB.
MrB.
QUOTE
any calculated number that could quantify one's faith.
MrB.
Port Royal Logic is not in the Oxford dictionary either. Of course, Pascal has a short bio.
Pascal's most famous work in philosophy is Pensées, a collection of personal thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains 'Pascal's wager' which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument.
If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
With 'Pascal's wager' he uses probabilistic and mathematical arguments but his main conclusion is that
...we are compelled to gamble...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Pascal.html
Born: 19 June 1623 in Clermont (now Clermont-Ferrand), Auvergne, France
Died: 19 August 1662 in Paris, France
MrB.
Port Royal Logic is not in the Oxford dictionary either. Of course, Pascal has a short bio.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| any calculated number that could quantify one's faith. MrB. Port Royal Logic is not in the Oxford dictionary either. Of course, Pascal has a short bio. Your saying that probability is relative to us? If you are how could we prove that? |
Pascal's most famous work in philosophy is Pensées, a collection of personal thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains 'Pascal's wager' which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument.
If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
With 'Pascal's wager' he uses probabilistic and mathematical arguments but his main conclusion is that
...we are compelled to gamble...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Pascal.html
Born: 19 June 1623 in Clermont (now Clermont-Ferrand), Auvergne, France
Died: 19 August 1662 in Paris, France
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 4 2009, 12:48 PM)
Yes, and God's opinion doesn't count?
The opinions of an imaginary being are worth surprisingly little.
Both of those theories HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT. Philosophy doesn't enter the equation anywhere.
Both of those theories HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT. Philosophy doesn't enter the equation anywhere.
Pascal's most famous work in philosophy is Pensées, a collection of personal thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains 'Pascal's wager' which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument.
If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
Which god should I bet on then? Vishnu? Cthulhu? Jesus? Alah? Thor? Zeus? Coyote? Ahura Mazda? Sounds more like roulette than anything else. How about I just abstain from this little game? Sounds good to me.
The opinions of an imaginary being are worth surprisingly little.
QUOTE
And some will say Einstein's SR is philosophy and the theory of GR is very expensive to test, so it is still philosophically open.
Both of those theories HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT. Philosophy doesn't enter the equation anywhere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And some will say Einstein's SR is philosophy and the theory of GR is very expensive to test, so it is still philosophically open. |
Both of those theories HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT. Philosophy doesn't enter the equation anywhere.
Pascal's most famous work in philosophy is Pensées, a collection of personal thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains 'Pascal's wager' which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument.
If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
Which god should I bet on then? Vishnu? Cthulhu? Jesus? Alah? Thor? Zeus? Coyote? Ahura Mazda? Sounds more like roulette than anything else. How about I just abstain from this little game? Sounds good to me.
Oh... I don't think you want to get into Pascal's wager with me. It's too darn easy and I've been there already.
That is incorrect as has been pointed out by innumerable philosophers since.
1. Which God
In order for the wager to be correct, it would have to include every possible God (s) ever posited as well as every God (s) not yet posited or ever posited. This destroys the wager's numerical basis. There is no evidence of which God you should root for, therefore the wager is useless.
2. God rewards faith.
There is no such evidence. Maybe God rewards reason and logic, since it's our prime attribute and He (She/It) can reasonably be assumed to have given it to us.
3. Benefit does not equal proof.
This was pointed out by Voltaire. Just because someone offers me money to believe that the sky is green does not make it so, even though it's in my interest to believe it.
(Oops, I didn't see flyingbuttressman's post while I was writing mine. A bit of duplication there.)
Lastly...
That is incorrect as has been pointed out by innumerable philosophers since.
1. Which God
In order for the wager to be correct, it would have to include every possible God (s) ever posited as well as every God (s) not yet posited or ever posited. This destroys the wager's numerical basis. There is no evidence of which God you should root for, therefore the wager is useless.
2. God rewards faith.
There is no such evidence. Maybe God rewards reason and logic, since it's our prime attribute and He (She/It) can reasonably be assumed to have given it to us.
3. Benefit does not equal proof.
This was pointed out by Voltaire. Just because someone offers me money to believe that the sky is green does not make it so, even though it's in my interest to believe it.
(Oops, I didn't see flyingbuttressman's post while I was writing mine. A bit of duplication there.)
Lastly...
Yes, and God's opinion doesn't count?
Contrary to Flyingbuttressman, I do believe it should count. Now all you have to do is prove to me what God's opinion is. That doesn't mean just what you think it is... or what the bible says it is, unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, and we have been over that one before and we all know that you can't.
Oh.. if you could get Him to write us a note on this forum... I would accept that as proof.
Conclusion
Feller (1957, 19) writes: “All possible definitions of probability fall short of the actual practice.” Certainly, a lot is asked of the concept of probability. It is supposed at once to capture a quasi-logical notion, a subjective notion, and an objective notion instantiated in the mind-independent world. Perhaps one would do better to think of these as distinct concepts of probability. Each of the leading interpretations, then, attempts to illuminate one of these concepts, while leaving the others in the dark. In that sense, the interpretations might be regarded as complementary, although to be sure each may need some further refinement. Clearly, much work remains to be done on the philosophical foundations of probability. Equally clearly, we have come a long way since the Port Royal Logic.
Feller needs to work on HIS understanding.
His not understanding does not make it wrong.
If you flip a fair coin you have a 50% probability of it being heads.
That is just the start and no philosophy needed.
You then add to probability and at no point is there the problem of what this guy is talking about. He is starting in the middle with his understanding.
So of course he doesn't understand. He doesn't have the foundation.
And what if the Pope is right? What if you need AS?
QUOTE
If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
That is incorrect as has been pointed out by innumerable philosophers since.
1. Which God
In order for the wager to be correct, it would have to include every possible God (s) ever posited as well as every God (s) not yet posited or ever posited. This destroys the wager's numerical basis. There is no evidence of which God you should root for, therefore the wager is useless.
2. God rewards faith.
There is no such evidence. Maybe God rewards reason and logic, since it's our prime attribute and He (She/It) can reasonably be assumed to have given it to us.
3. Benefit does not equal proof.
This was pointed out by Voltaire. Just because someone offers me money to believe that the sky is green does not make it so, even though it's in my interest to believe it.
(Oops, I didn't see flyingbuttressman's post while I was writing mine. A bit of duplication there.)
Lastly...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing. |
That is incorrect as has been pointed out by innumerable philosophers since.
1. Which God
In order for the wager to be correct, it would have to include every possible God (s) ever posited as well as every God (s) not yet posited or ever posited. This destroys the wager's numerical basis. There is no evidence of which God you should root for, therefore the wager is useless.
2. God rewards faith.
There is no such evidence. Maybe God rewards reason and logic, since it's our prime attribute and He (She/It) can reasonably be assumed to have given it to us.
3. Benefit does not equal proof.
This was pointed out by Voltaire. Just because someone offers me money to believe that the sky is green does not make it so, even though it's in my interest to believe it.
(Oops, I didn't see flyingbuttressman's post while I was writing mine. A bit of duplication there.)
Lastly...
Yes, and God's opinion doesn't count?
Contrary to Flyingbuttressman, I do believe it should count. Now all you have to do is prove to me what God's opinion is. That doesn't mean just what you think it is... or what the bible says it is, unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, and we have been over that one before and we all know that you can't.
Oh.. if you could get Him to write us a note on this forum... I would accept that as proof.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 4 2009, 01:57 PM)
Conclusion
Feller (1957, 19) writes: “All possible definitions of probability fall short of the actual practice.” Certainly, a lot is asked of the concept of probability. It is supposed at once to capture a quasi-logical notion, a subjective notion, and an objective notion instantiated in the mind-independent world. Perhaps one would do better to think of these as distinct concepts of probability. Each of the leading interpretations, then, attempts to illuminate one of these concepts, while leaving the others in the dark. In that sense, the interpretations might be regarded as complementary, although to be sure each may need some further refinement. Clearly, much work remains to be done on the philosophical foundations of probability. Equally clearly, we have come a long way since the Port Royal Logic.
Feller needs to work on HIS understanding.
His not understanding does not make it wrong.
If you flip a fair coin you have a 50% probability of it being heads.
That is just the start and no philosophy needed.
You then add to probability and at no point is there the problem of what this guy is talking about. He is starting in the middle with his understanding.
So of course he doesn't understand. He doesn't have the foundation.
And what if the Pope is right? What if you need AS?
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble----------->Showtopic= 21911
CHAPTER 1
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;
3 The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not consider."
4 Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward.
5 Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been closed or bound up, or soothed with ointment.
7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
8 So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a hut in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
(NKJ)
Yes, that is my gamble----------->Showtopic= 21911
CHAPTER 1
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;
3 The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not consider."
4 Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward.
5 Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been closed or bound up, or soothed with ointment.
7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
8 So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a hut in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
(NKJ)
Bats
You really are Batty.
They're coming to take you away, haha.
They're coming to take you away, hehe, haha, hoho.
To a place where life is happy and gay
They're coming to take you away.
I was unaware that insane laughter trumps scientific facts, silly me.
Grumpy
Does Shiva actually say anything, or does she simply destroy?
Maybe she turned over the rock layers...
No, that is most unfortunate. That is why this discussion is not a rational one. Considering all the events recorded in the OT and how involved God was with the people of the Middle East, for not an iota of that to be present now does not aid your argument that God's opinion is valid, that God has an opinion, that God exists. That the OT is not wholly consistent with itself philosophically further damages credibility, especially since The Bible is regarded by many to be the most important book for our spiritual welfare; a book whose directions directly conflict, even from the same 'mouth'.
Look, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. Which means you have a better chance with me than some here. But not trying to be arrogant, I am way past the arguments you are trying to find and present. If you can't give me some food for thought, you're going in reverse with the rest. You have to do better. Remember, you are in effect saying, "The Bible is true because the Bible is true." That simply won't fly. Do you think you would have all the convenient gadgets etc etc etc if scientific reasoning/method took an approach based on faith instead of learning? Thats why rockets stopped falling over (even with the Russians). Religion is faith in what you don't know; science is learning what you don't know.
Just look at those two outcomes, just look.
Ironic that science is so heavily employed by mongers of religious wars. What do you think, Mr. B: science being so in the clutches of religion's rich hands; utilized and bent to the destruction of those going to hell anyway?
There sits the Temple in Jerusalem, the holy point of Judaism Christianity and Islam alike, the region of the world where all three faiths still war in the three names of one deity. Mr. B, scientists from all different specialties get along just fine. They are seeking knowledge, they see themselves as spokes on the wheel of discovery. They know that science works best when shared, knowledge increases as it is given away, and science has near perfect fidelity to it's premises. What can the religious learn from this? Patience, tolerance, camaraderie? How about brotherhood? Have you ever noticed great scientists decrying war; have you ever heard of scientists going to war? Have you ever noticed that some scientists are atheist and some are believers in God - but they don't care what each other believe, they are only interested in working towards a common goal? What is your prognosis of a religious common goal in the M.E.? If you were a boy just walked out of the bubble with no prior knowledge of either, and were shown the manners in which the global scientific and religious communities each got along with themselves, which would you pick?
Mr. B, you might think this is getting off topic. I don't think so. I think these ideas are at the crux of a lot of the threads concerning God, the Bible, faith, integrity, and realism. I seem to remember a sentence: "The tree is known by it's fruit."
You really are Batty.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "the first development of multicellular life is the confirmation of Darwin, not a crisis" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
They're coming to take you away, haha.
They're coming to take you away, hehe, haha, hoho.
To a place where life is happy and gay
They're coming to take you away.
I was unaware that insane laughter trumps scientific facts, silly me.
Grumpy
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 4 2009, 06:26 PM)
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble----------->Showtopic= 21911
Why did you pick that "word of God"?
Why not the Koran? It's newer and was dictated instead of inspired.
Or maybe you should be quoting Shiva?
Yes, that is my gamble----------->Showtopic= 21911
Why did you pick that "word of God"?
Why not the Koran? It's newer and was dictated instead of inspired.
Or maybe you should be quoting Shiva?
Does Shiva actually say anything, or does she simply destroy?
Maybe she turned over the rock layers...
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 4 2009, 08:23 PM)
Does Shiva actually say anything, or does she simply destroy?
Shiva sez: Heeeeeey! Look at my arrrmmsssss! I have 4 of them!
Jesus sez: Heeeeeey! Look at my skin! For some reason despite my Middle-Eastern lineage I look just like a European white man!
Shiva sez: Heeeeeey! Look at my arrrmmsssss! I have 4 of them!
Jesus sez: Heeeeeey! Look at my skin! For some reason despite my Middle-Eastern lineage I look just like a European white man!
Reclaiming Biblical Jerusalem
http://www.aish.com/jw/j/48961251.html - 87k - Cached
>>> Showtopic= 21911 <<<
Mazar snickers at the idea that she is some sort of divine emissary revealing the eternity of David's kingdom. "I am a scientist, not a philosopher. My focus is on how magnificent and enduring these complex structures are, that they were preserved and protected for so many generations. In truth, when I began to excavate, I had to be prepared for any result. I even had to be prepared to accept Finkelstein's hypothesis if that's what the facts indicated. Still, I am a Jew and an Israeli, and I feel great joy when the details on the ground match the descriptions in the Bible. Today it's become fashionable to say there was no David, no Solomon, no Temple, no prophets. But suddenly the facts on the ground are speaking, and those outspoken voices are stammering.
http://www.aish.com/jw/j/48961251.html - 87k - Cached
>>> Showtopic= 21911 <<<
Mazar snickers at the idea that she is some sort of divine emissary revealing the eternity of David's kingdom. "I am a scientist, not a philosopher. My focus is on how magnificent and enduring these complex structures are, that they were preserved and protected for so many generations. In truth, when I began to excavate, I had to be prepared for any result. I even had to be prepared to accept Finkelstein's hypothesis if that's what the facts indicated. Still, I am a Jew and an Israeli, and I feel great joy when the details on the ground match the descriptions in the Bible. Today it's become fashionable to say there was no David, no Solomon, no Temple, no prophets. But suddenly the facts on the ground are speaking, and those outspoken voices are stammering.
MisterBelfry
Oddly enough... Israel Finkelstein as well as several experts from the same university of Tel Aviv, disagree with her interpretation.
Abstract
Don't get me wrong, these are fascinating discoveries.
However.....
Even if it's proven that the bible incorporates real history, which personally I am convinced that it does, it does not make it the word of God in any way, shape or form.
Cyrano De Bergerac, one of my favorite French epic, contains a lot of real history. That does not mean that it's all true.
Here's a great example....
The Iliad and the Odyssey
For centuries, millenia even, the Iliad and the Odyssey were believed to have been completely fictional. Then an industrialist by the name of Heinrich Schliemann attempted to find Troy based solely on the Iliad's text.
He found it.
Does that mean that Zeus really exists?
If so... we should start keeping a closer eye on our women. In a manner respectful of the Deity that is... of course.
No one wants Zeus angry.
By your logic, having found that the Iliad reflects real history, it must be all true.
So... ready to become a pagan then are you?
Oddly enough... Israel Finkelstein as well as several experts from the same university of Tel Aviv, disagree with her interpretation.
QUOTE
Abstract
Recent excavations at the City of David have revealed a set of massive walls
constructed of large undressed stones. Excavator Eilat Mazar has presented them
as the remains of a single building, which she labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’.
Mazar interpreted the ‘Large Stone Structure’ as part of a big construction
complex, which had also included the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ on the slope. She
dated her ‘Large Stone Structure’ to ca. 1000 BCE and identified it as the palace
of King David. We argue that: (1) the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to
a single building; (2) the more elaborate walls may be associated with elements
uncovered by Macalister and Duncan in the 1920s and should possibly be dated
to the Hellenistic period; (3) the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ represents at least two
phases of construction— the lower (downslope) and earlier, possibly dating to the
Iron IIA in the 9th century BCE, and the later (which connects to the Hasmonaean
First Wall upslope) dating to the Hellenistic period.
Recent excavations at the City of David have revealed a set of massive walls
constructed of large undressed stones. Excavator Eilat Mazar has presented them
as the remains of a single building, which she labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’.
Mazar interpreted the ‘Large Stone Structure’ as part of a big construction
complex, which had also included the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ on the slope. She
dated her ‘Large Stone Structure’ to ca. 1000 BCE and identified it as the palace
of King David. We argue that: (1) the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to
a single building; (2) the more elaborate walls may be associated with elements
uncovered by Macalister and Duncan in the 1920s and should possibly be dated
to the Hellenistic period; (3) the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ represents at least two
phases of construction— the lower (downslope) and earlier, possibly dating to the
Iron IIA in the 9th century BCE, and the later (which connects to the Hasmonaean
First Wall upslope) dating to the Hellenistic period.
Abstract
Don't get me wrong, these are fascinating discoveries.
However.....
Even if it's proven that the bible incorporates real history, which personally I am convinced that it does, it does not make it the word of God in any way, shape or form.
Cyrano De Bergerac, one of my favorite French epic, contains a lot of real history. That does not mean that it's all true.
Here's a great example....
The Iliad and the Odyssey
For centuries, millenia even, the Iliad and the Odyssey were believed to have been completely fictional. Then an industrialist by the name of Heinrich Schliemann attempted to find Troy based solely on the Iliad's text.
He found it.
Does that mean that Zeus really exists?
If so... we should start keeping a closer eye on our women. In a manner respectful of the Deity that is... of course.
No one wants Zeus angry.
By your logic, having found that the Iliad reflects real history, it must be all true.
So... ready to become a pagan then are you?
>>> Israel Finkelstein as well as several experts from the same university of Tel Aviv, disagree <<<
Naturally.
Isaiah one, two through six:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;
The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not consider."
Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints.
From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been closed or bound up, or soothed with ointment.--------->MORE @ Showtopic= 26390 "Did God Create The Jewish As Superior?"
>>> Even if it's proven that the bible incorporates real history, which personally I am convinced that it does, <<<
We were all pagans once or at least had the heart of a pagan.
This after all is more serious than a stopped clock being right twice a day.
1 Peter 1:13-20
13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work,
pass the time of your sojourning here in fear[conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;(NKJ)]:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
(KJV)
MrB.
Naturally.
Isaiah one, two through six:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;
The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not consider."
Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints.
From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been closed or bound up, or soothed with ointment.--------->MORE @ Showtopic= 26390 "Did God Create The Jewish As Superior?"
>>> Even if it's proven that the bible incorporates real history, which personally I am convinced that it does, <<<
We were all pagans once or at least had the heart of a pagan.
This after all is more serious than a stopped clock being right twice a day.
1 Peter 1:13-20
13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work,
pass the time of your sojourning here in fear[conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;(NKJ)]:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
(KJV)
MrB.
Hmmmm.... so based on the bible, you claim that one person is right and the others are wrong, even though the argument is actually based on archeology?
I can't tell you how silly an argument that is but it's pretty darn silly.
The rest of your post I can't make heads or tails of. In any case, you have not even begun to demonstrate that anything in the bible is the word of any God whatsoever.
I can't tell you how silly an argument that is but it's pretty darn silly.
The rest of your post I can't make heads or tails of. In any case, you have not even begun to demonstrate that anything in the bible is the word of any God whatsoever.
This is the same Eilat Mazar who is funded by people pre-commited to a point of view, and who can't substantiate to others in her field that what she finds is what she claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeolog..._King_David.pdf
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=944
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeolog..._King_David.pdf
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=944
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1216
>>> Naturally. <<<
I bolded for this thread<-----Showtopic= 26304
Showtopic= 25268 ----------->
Posted MisterBelfry March 23 2009
QUOTE (El_Machinae)
I'm under the impression that King David is still (historically) in the 'mythical' status, since we're not very convinced he actually existed.
------------>Showtopic= 21911
"Mazar snickers at the idea that she is some sort of divine emissary revealing the eternity of David's kingdom. "I am a scientist, ..."
ALSO
The Bible's Buried Secrets
PBS Airdate: November 18, 2008
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: So David and Solomon did not rule over a big territory. It was a small chiefdom, if you wish, with just a few settlements, very poor, the population was limited, there was no manpower for big conquest, and so on and so forth.
NARRATOR: This would make David a petty warlord ruling over a chiefdom, and his royal capital, Jerusalem, nothing more than a cow town.
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: These are the results of the radiocarbon dating. He or she who decides to ignore these results, I treat them as if arguing that the world is flat, that the Earth is flat. And I cannot argue anymore.
NARRATOR: But it's not so simple. Other teams collected radiocarbon samples following the same meticulous methodology. According to their results, Mazar's palace and Tappy's alphabet can date to the 10th century, the time of David and Solomon.
How can this discrepancy be explained? The problem is that these radiocarbon dates have a margin of error of plus- or minus-30 years, about the difference between the two sides.
NARRATOR: Pottery and radiocarbon dating alone cannot determine if the Kingdom of David and Solomon was as large and prosperous as described in the Bible.
Fortunately, the Bible offers clues...
---------
Don't forget to watch "Kings" on NBC(the USA and export markets) Sundays.
MrB.
I bolded for this thread<-----Showtopic= 26304
Showtopic= 25268 ----------->
Posted MisterBelfry March 23 2009
QUOTE (El_Machinae)
I'm under the impression that King David is still (historically) in the 'mythical' status, since we're not very convinced he actually existed.
------------>Showtopic= 21911
"Mazar snickers at the idea that she is some sort of divine emissary revealing the eternity of David's kingdom. "I am a scientist, ..."
ALSO
The Bible's Buried Secrets
PBS Airdate: November 18, 2008
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: So David and Solomon did not rule over a big territory. It was a small chiefdom, if you wish, with just a few settlements, very poor, the population was limited, there was no manpower for big conquest, and so on and so forth.
NARRATOR: This would make David a petty warlord ruling over a chiefdom, and his royal capital, Jerusalem, nothing more than a cow town.
ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: These are the results of the radiocarbon dating. He or she who decides to ignore these results, I treat them as if arguing that the world is flat, that the Earth is flat. And I cannot argue anymore.
NARRATOR: But it's not so simple. Other teams collected radiocarbon samples following the same meticulous methodology. According to their results, Mazar's palace and Tappy's alphabet can date to the 10th century, the time of David and Solomon.
How can this discrepancy be explained? The problem is that these radiocarbon dates have a margin of error of plus- or minus-30 years, about the difference between the two sides.
NARRATOR: Pottery and radiocarbon dating alone cannot determine if the Kingdom of David and Solomon was as large and prosperous as described in the Bible.
Fortunately, the Bible offers clues...
---------
Don't forget to watch "Kings" on NBC(the USA and export markets) Sundays.
MrB.
Did you have a point that is relevant to the discussion or are you just going on mindlessly?
I really can't tell at this point.
The issue is... can you prove that the bible is the word of God... not .. is the bible historical. Though if you want to go with that I can play there too, much better than yourself I would wager.
I really can't tell at this point.
The issue is... can you prove that the bible is the word of God... not .. is the bible historical. Though if you want to go with that I can play there too, much better than yourself I would wager.
QUOTE
Fortunately, the Bible offers clues...
No, that is most unfortunate. That is why this discussion is not a rational one. Considering all the events recorded in the OT and how involved God was with the people of the Middle East, for not an iota of that to be present now does not aid your argument that God's opinion is valid, that God has an opinion, that God exists. That the OT is not wholly consistent with itself philosophically further damages credibility, especially since The Bible is regarded by many to be the most important book for our spiritual welfare; a book whose directions directly conflict, even from the same 'mouth'.
Look, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. Which means you have a better chance with me than some here. But not trying to be arrogant, I am way past the arguments you are trying to find and present. If you can't give me some food for thought, you're going in reverse with the rest. You have to do better. Remember, you are in effect saying, "The Bible is true because the Bible is true." That simply won't fly. Do you think you would have all the convenient gadgets etc etc etc if scientific reasoning/method took an approach based on faith instead of learning? Thats why rockets stopped falling over (even with the Russians). Religion is faith in what you don't know; science is learning what you don't know.
Just look at those two outcomes, just look.
Ironic that science is so heavily employed by mongers of religious wars. What do you think, Mr. B: science being so in the clutches of religion's rich hands; utilized and bent to the destruction of those going to hell anyway?
There sits the Temple in Jerusalem, the holy point of Judaism Christianity and Islam alike, the region of the world where all three faiths still war in the three names of one deity. Mr. B, scientists from all different specialties get along just fine. They are seeking knowledge, they see themselves as spokes on the wheel of discovery. They know that science works best when shared, knowledge increases as it is given away, and science has near perfect fidelity to it's premises. What can the religious learn from this? Patience, tolerance, camaraderie? How about brotherhood? Have you ever noticed great scientists decrying war; have you ever heard of scientists going to war? Have you ever noticed that some scientists are atheist and some are believers in God - but they don't care what each other believe, they are only interested in working towards a common goal? What is your prognosis of a religious common goal in the M.E.? If you were a boy just walked out of the bubble with no prior knowledge of either, and were shown the manners in which the global scientific and religious communities each got along with themselves, which would you pick?
Mr. B, you might think this is getting off topic. I don't think so. I think these ideas are at the crux of a lot of the threads concerning God, the Bible, faith, integrity, and realism. I seem to remember a sentence: "The tree is known by it's fruit."
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 5 2009, 04:27 PM)
Fortunately, the Bible offers clues...
MrB.
And yet you don't question that.
Why does the Word of God "offer clues"????????
Why not give facts?
That goes against free will. To have free will you must have accurate definite information.
That the Bible "offers clues" is a strong indication that it is NOT the word of God.
The Iliad also offers clues to history. As does Robin Hood and King Arthur.
And in a thousand years archaeologists might find indications of the cities mentioned in Independence Day.
Newguy was complaining that only a couple of people on here have seriously searched for God and Jesus. If you have to start with the conclusion to find the conclusion, that is circular logic. I don't think he will ever understand that.
OTOH with evolution all you have to do is study without starting with the conclusion that it is wrong. You don't need to start with the conclusion that is right. In fact studying it starting with a belief in it interferes with learning it.
MrB.
And yet you don't question that.
Why does the Word of God "offer clues"????????
Why not give facts?
That goes against free will. To have free will you must have accurate definite information.
That the Bible "offers clues" is a strong indication that it is NOT the word of God.
The Iliad also offers clues to history. As does Robin Hood and King Arthur.
And in a thousand years archaeologists might find indications of the cities mentioned in Independence Day.
Newguy was complaining that only a couple of people on here have seriously searched for God and Jesus. If you have to start with the conclusion to find the conclusion, that is circular logic. I don't think he will ever understand that.
OTOH with evolution all you have to do is study without starting with the conclusion that it is wrong. You don't need to start with the conclusion that is right. In fact studying it starting with a belief in it interferes with learning it.
Well... those are all good points folks..
However...
I hope no one minds too much if I prefer to be more methodical in my approach.
Central point : Can MrBelfry (or anyone) demonstrate that the bible is the word of God?
If you cannot do so, then we are back to the stage where Pascal's wager is useless, since it could be any God that you have to worship to gain Heaven.
OK.. let's look at the difficulties in doing so.
1. Past prophecies cannot be authenticated.
Let's face it, after several thousand years there is no original documents left. A prophecy might have been written before the event it prophecies, but it could just as easily have been written after. Since religion and politics marched hand in hand, there could have been revisions for very non religious reasons... for example to prove that a popular prophet was genuine, old prophecies might have been rewritten to fit current events. There are thousands of possibilities and no evidence to indicate which way it should go. Most historians, for a variety of reasons, are of the opinion that none of the prophecies in the bible were written before the event they predict. However, even with that being set aside, it remains that the past prophecies cannot be used to validate the bible.
2. Future prophecies cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
Let's face it, prophecies in the bible are vague to say the least. No one really expects a literal beast with 7 heads to rise from the ocean and rule the Earth. I have to say that if that happened I would definitely reconsider my position on the subject.
However, most religious scholars interpret the passages to mean various things. There lies the problem.
Let's say that buttershug and myself both consider ourselves psychic. I predict that Brad Pit will divorce Angelina in 2010. Buttershug predicts that Brad Pit will remain married to Angelina in 2010. One of us is bound to be right. Are we psychic?
There are currently so many different interpretations of what the bible might mean in the way of future prophesies that most world events are likely covered by one or the other interpretation. The surest measure of this is to look at how many modern day prophets got one right, gained a huge number of followers, then tanked when none of their other prophecies came true. Oddly, this often does not discourage their followers; one aspect of human nature I find hard to understand.
Ergo, even if an interpretation of a future prophecy based on the bible happens to be come true, it would still be irrelevant unless all events after follow the same interpretation. Since that has not happened, there is no proof based on future prophecies either.
3. Personal anecdotes cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
You often hear from people that the reason they believe is that they had a personal spiritual experience that convinced them God exists. Even though it's tempting to say that this might validate it for the individual, it does not. Of course, it certainly does nothing of the sort for others.
There are a number of well established circumstances that can spontaneously bring about the appearance of a spiritual event, even without drug use.
Stress, predisposition to religious belief, migraines, certain foods, etc. can all bring about what are often described as ecstatic visions.
If you had a spiritual experience, be honest enough with yourself to know that it could have been false.
If, on the other hand, you have tangible proof... like if the Archangel Micheal (my favorite) left you his burning sword... please do go on Oprah and tell us all about it.
I would watch that.
However...
I hope no one minds too much if I prefer to be more methodical in my approach.
Central point : Can MrBelfry (or anyone) demonstrate that the bible is the word of God?
If you cannot do so, then we are back to the stage where Pascal's wager is useless, since it could be any God that you have to worship to gain Heaven.
OK.. let's look at the difficulties in doing so.
1. Past prophecies cannot be authenticated.
Let's face it, after several thousand years there is no original documents left. A prophecy might have been written before the event it prophecies, but it could just as easily have been written after. Since religion and politics marched hand in hand, there could have been revisions for very non religious reasons... for example to prove that a popular prophet was genuine, old prophecies might have been rewritten to fit current events. There are thousands of possibilities and no evidence to indicate which way it should go. Most historians, for a variety of reasons, are of the opinion that none of the prophecies in the bible were written before the event they predict. However, even with that being set aside, it remains that the past prophecies cannot be used to validate the bible.
2. Future prophecies cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
Let's face it, prophecies in the bible are vague to say the least. No one really expects a literal beast with 7 heads to rise from the ocean and rule the Earth. I have to say that if that happened I would definitely reconsider my position on the subject.
However, most religious scholars interpret the passages to mean various things. There lies the problem.
Let's say that buttershug and myself both consider ourselves psychic. I predict that Brad Pit will divorce Angelina in 2010. Buttershug predicts that Brad Pit will remain married to Angelina in 2010. One of us is bound to be right. Are we psychic?
There are currently so many different interpretations of what the bible might mean in the way of future prophesies that most world events are likely covered by one or the other interpretation. The surest measure of this is to look at how many modern day prophets got one right, gained a huge number of followers, then tanked when none of their other prophecies came true. Oddly, this often does not discourage their followers; one aspect of human nature I find hard to understand.
Ergo, even if an interpretation of a future prophecy based on the bible happens to be come true, it would still be irrelevant unless all events after follow the same interpretation. Since that has not happened, there is no proof based on future prophecies either.
3. Personal anecdotes cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
You often hear from people that the reason they believe is that they had a personal spiritual experience that convinced them God exists. Even though it's tempting to say that this might validate it for the individual, it does not. Of course, it certainly does nothing of the sort for others.
There are a number of well established circumstances that can spontaneously bring about the appearance of a spiritual event, even without drug use.
Stress, predisposition to religious belief, migraines, certain foods, etc. can all bring about what are often described as ecstatic visions.
If you had a spiritual experience, be honest enough with yourself to know that it could have been false.
If, on the other hand, you have tangible proof... like if the Archangel Micheal (my favorite) left you his burning sword... please do go on Oprah and tell us all about it.
I would watch that.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 5 2009, 09:50 PM)
Well... those are all good points folks.. ...
1. Past prophecies cannot be authenticated.
2. Future prophecies cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
3. Personal anecdotes cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
I would watch that.
What is truth?
Your post was alot/too much for me to read/or didn't want to but I looked over the 3 points, I agree with your 2 statements (and 3rd if I unsderstand right?)--
1. History is not oberservable. History Happened.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
(For 3 if someone told a true anecdote, it would support the bible. but I think you mean scientifically, so I would agree too (based on science) [historical science vs. observable science/ past vs present science]
I came to the belief, that there is an unchanging Truth - A His Story if time had a beginning. We can't put history in the scientific method.
- I gather you base your beliefs on "I do not accept the bible as reality?" I use boolean logic from my computer science training. If I tried to prove that “a truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. ( If I tried to prove that “all truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. )Here is the some of the logic I used for the bible:
“The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.”
“Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
God cannot lie, but people in scripture lie. God is truth. (word's in red)
Gods ways aren't ours.
There are absolute truths and relative truths. What is truth then?
1. Past prophecies cannot be authenticated.
2. Future prophecies cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
3. Personal anecdotes cannot be used to authenticate the bible.
I would watch that.
What is truth?
Your post was alot/too much for me to read/or didn't want to but I looked over the 3 points, I agree with your 2 statements (and 3rd if I unsderstand right?)--
1. History is not oberservable. History Happened.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
(For 3 if someone told a true anecdote, it would support the bible. but I think you mean scientifically, so I would agree too (based on science) [historical science vs. observable science/ past vs present science]
I came to the belief, that there is an unchanging Truth - A His Story if time had a beginning. We can't put history in the scientific method.
- I gather you base your beliefs on "I do not accept the bible as reality?" I use boolean logic from my computer science training. If I tried to prove that “a truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. ( If I tried to prove that “all truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. )Here is the some of the logic I used for the bible:
“The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.”
“Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
God cannot lie, but people in scripture lie. God is truth. (word's in red)
Gods ways aren't ours.
There are absolute truths and relative truths. What is truth then?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 5 2009, 09:50 PM)
Well... those are all good points folks..
However...
I hope no one minds too much if I prefer to be more methodical in my approach.
Central point : Can MrBelfry (or anyone) demonstrate that the bible is the word of God?
And the method used must be incapable of showing a contradictory book is the Word of God.
C.S. Lewis uses a trilemma to confirm JC as the Son of God. BUT the same method can be used for Mohammed or even L. Ron Hubbart. Therefore that method is invalidated.
However...
I hope no one minds too much if I prefer to be more methodical in my approach.
Central point : Can MrBelfry (or anyone) demonstrate that the bible is the word of God?
And the method used must be incapable of showing a contradictory book is the Word of God.
C.S. Lewis uses a trilemma to confirm JC as the Son of God. BUT the same method can be used for Mohammed or even L. Ron Hubbart. Therefore that method is invalidated.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 5 2009, 11:23 PM)
What is truth?
Your post was alot/too much for me to read/or didn't want to but I looked over the 3 points
1. History is not oberservable. History Happened.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
I came to the belief, that there is an unchanging Truth - A His Story if time had a beginning. We can't put history in the scientific method.
- I gather you base your beliefs on "I do not accept the bible as reality?" I use boolean logic from my computer science training. If I tried to prove that “a truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. ( If I tried to prove that “all truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. )Here is thesome of the logic I used for the bible:
“The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.”
“Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
God cannot lie, but people in scripture lie. God is truth. (word's in red)
Gods ways aren't ours.
There are absolute truths and relative truths. What is truth then?
Phillip K. *** said
I think that is as good a definition of Truth as anything.
That doesn't mean we can know exactly what it is, but I do believe we can rule out some things.
Your post was alot/too much for me to read/or didn't want to but I looked over the 3 points
1. History is not oberservable. History Happened.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
I came to the belief, that there is an unchanging Truth - A His Story if time had a beginning. We can't put history in the scientific method.
- I gather you base your beliefs on "I do not accept the bible as reality?" I use boolean logic from my computer science training. If I tried to prove that “a truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. ( If I tried to prove that “all truth does not exist is true, – That would be true. )Here is thesome of the logic I used for the bible:
“The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.”
“Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
God cannot lie, but people in scripture lie. God is truth. (word's in red)
Gods ways aren't ours.
There are absolute truths and relative truths. What is truth then?
Phillip K. *** said
QUOTE
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
I think that is as good a definition of Truth as anything.
That doesn't mean we can know exactly what it is, but I do believe we can rule out some things.
Tracer Tong
Your post made no sense at all.
Let's look at what you said based on the criteria I set out.
That's why we study it in a scientific way. It may not be the TRUTH... but it's what we have and it works pretty well.
That's why we study it in a scientific way. It may not be the TRUTH... but it's what we have and it works pretty well.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
No one determines the TRUTH... but we can determine facts.
Actually we do. It's called History or Archeology and it is done in a scientific way.
Actually we do. It's called History or Archeology and it is done in a scientific way.
Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
I could entitle my posts as being the Word of God, but that would not make it so.
Why not?
Wouldn't that depend on the God? Loki lies all the time.
Why not?
Wouldn't that depend on the God? Loki lies all the time.
Gods ways aren't ours.
How do you know?
Spoke to God lately have you?
Easy.
Absolute truth exists but we cannot know what it is.
Relative truth does not exist but we can know what it is.
More to that than meets the eye, because we manage to make the relative an absolute, thereby granting illusions power.
'Revelation' in the true religious sense, if it occurs, occurs on an individual basis. It does not happen en masse. Therefore proof of God is only individual proof; it can't be extended to the public domain. Barring direct and obvious divine intervention, there is no objective proof possible of anyone's God.
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble---------^ ^ I wrote that two days ago!
MrB.
But why THAT book?
Why not another.If you are going to use Pascal's wager, then you can arbitrarily pick and choose.
Maybe Nopeda has it right that God is a space alien.
Maybe George Lucas is God's prophet. Maybe you should be watching Star Wars and Indianna Jones instead of reading the Bible.
BUDDHISTS
By David Brooks
New York Times
May 13, 2008
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate...
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted ... <--------a little more @ Showtopic= 26430
This Showtopic---------->
...we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...iew=getlastpost
Your post made no sense at all.
Let's look at what you said based on the criteria I set out.
QUOTE
1. History is not oberservable. History Happened.
That's why we study it in a scientific way. It may not be the TRUTH... but it's what we have and it works pretty well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. History is not oberservable. History Happened. |
That's why we study it in a scientific way. It may not be the TRUTH... but it's what we have and it works pretty well.
2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth?
No one determines the TRUTH... but we can determine facts.
QUOTE
We can't put history in the scientific method.
Actually we do. It's called History or Archeology and it is done in a scientific way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We can't put history in the scientific method. |
Actually we do. It's called History or Archeology and it is done in a scientific way.
Word of God” --means God wrote it, the author
I could entitle my posts as being the Word of God, but that would not make it so.
QUOTE
God cannot lie
Why not?
Wouldn't that depend on the God? Loki lies all the time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| God cannot lie |
Why not?
Wouldn't that depend on the God? Loki lies all the time.
Gods ways aren't ours.
How do you know?
Spoke to God lately have you?
QUOTE
There are absolute truths and relative truths. What is truth then?
Easy.
Absolute truth exists but we cannot know what it is.
Relative truth does not exist but we can know what it is.
QUOTE
Absolute truth exists but we cannot know what it is.
Relative truth does not exist but we can know what it is.
Relative truth does not exist but we can know what it is.
More to that than meets the eye, because we manage to make the relative an absolute, thereby granting illusions power.
'Revelation' in the true religious sense, if it occurs, occurs on an individual basis. It does not happen en masse. Therefore proof of God is only individual proof; it can't be extended to the public domain. Barring direct and obvious divine intervention, there is no objective proof possible of anyone's God.
>>> 2. Everyone has a worldview. Who determines truth? <<<
Usually, the winner.
MrB.
God is just playing the underdog.
Usually, the winner.
MrB.
God is just playing the underdog.
Hershel Shanks brought back memories. He is quoted in one(or both?) of the heardworld dot com addresses. Showtopic= 19128 -------->January 25-8, 2008 (in two posts (one partial) in reverse order)-
Please tell us how and where this 2060 event is so well calculated? <
Exactly, Jerusalem maybe the only place to go and find out ! ?
I am led to believe that it did however come from a genuine person that science cannot ignore. So, I am saying until the date passes biblical science is alive and well or ought to be given the benefit of falsification and patience - I am not like below and think there be no method to science {except a golf analogy ...however maybe that is what I have??}.
I have rule E and rule S in another thread and yet rule 3 that re-started this whole Berlinski thing in showtopic= 19241. I am not a Feyerabend where anything goes.
MrB.
… Mr. Berlinski, perhaps you could say something about your attitude toward both the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design movement itself. What you’ve said in print always seems – to me at least – to be rather evasive …
Well, I don’t really think my attitude toward the Discovery Institute has been evasive. I’m all for the place …
… But you are on record as someone who does not support intelligent design – or any creation arguments for that matter …
I agree with some things that my buddies over there at the DI advocate – giving Darwinism a remarkably swift kick in the pants, for example, and I disagree with other things. Why not? The DI is a think tank – the only private institution in the world, I suspect, that has had the nerve to take on the entire Darwinian establishment.
dc:identifier="http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/an_inte-rview_with_david_berlin_2.html" DELETE Hyphen
dc:subject="Views"
dc:description=""The ID movement in its attack on Darwinism has simply articulated what many people instinctively feel. Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.""
dc:creator="Jonathan Witt"
dc:date="2006-03-31T12:36:40-08:00" />
In part one:
… Oh please, isn’t that just clever word play? If the human brain did not arise by evolution, how did it arise? …
DB: I have no idea. It’s not my problem.
… That is an awfully convenient out for you …
DB: Sure. It’s the same out that Darwinian biologists take when it comes to the origins of life. Not our problem. What’s good enough for Richard Dawkins is good enough for me.
------------
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, said that "all modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary. There are other flood stories, but if you want to see the Black Sea flood in Noah's flood, who's to say no?"[/QUOTE]
I am! I once was a subscriber to the sister publication. Routinely, letters would come in asking for a cancellation. The man is too liberal for me too!** Maybe not to the point of calling him an idiot, like I have been tempted to do with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_coming (PARTICULARLY THE SECTION ON DATE SETTING/PREDICTIONS near the bottom!)
What about it? I counted sixteen entries. Newton, Sir I. was not among them!!
MrB.
**If water goes over a mountain, it is not stopping until it reaches the next one and only then if it is high enough AND we don't know [how] high they were. That is, I think it is generally recognized in creationists circles that the highest ranges that exist above sea level today did not exist when Noah & family were left as the bottle neck of homo sapiens.
Please tell us how and where this 2060 event is so well calculated? <
Exactly, Jerusalem maybe the only place to go and find out ! ?
I am led to believe that it did however come from a genuine person that science cannot ignore. So, I am saying until the date passes biblical science is alive and well or ought to be given the benefit of falsification and patience - I am not like below and think there be no method to science {except a golf analogy ...however maybe that is what I have??}.
I have rule E and rule S in another thread and yet rule 3 that re-started this whole Berlinski thing in showtopic= 19241. I am not a Feyerabend where anything goes.
MrB.
… Mr. Berlinski, perhaps you could say something about your attitude toward both the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design movement itself. What you’ve said in print always seems – to me at least – to be rather evasive …
Well, I don’t really think my attitude toward the Discovery Institute has been evasive. I’m all for the place …
… But you are on record as someone who does not support intelligent design – or any creation arguments for that matter …
I agree with some things that my buddies over there at the DI advocate – giving Darwinism a remarkably swift kick in the pants, for example, and I disagree with other things. Why not? The DI is a think tank – the only private institution in the world, I suspect, that has had the nerve to take on the entire Darwinian establishment.
dc:identifier="http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/an_inte-rview_with_david_berlin_2.html" DELETE Hyphen
dc:subject="Views"
dc:description=""The ID movement in its attack on Darwinism has simply articulated what many people instinctively feel. Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.""
dc:creator="Jonathan Witt"
dc:date="2006-03-31T12:36:40-08:00" />
In part one:
… Oh please, isn’t that just clever word play? If the human brain did not arise by evolution, how did it arise? …
DB: I have no idea. It’s not my problem.
… That is an awfully convenient out for you …
DB: Sure. It’s the same out that Darwinian biologists take when it comes to the origins of life. Not our problem. What’s good enough for Richard Dawkins is good enough for me.
------------
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, said that "all modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary. There are other flood stories, but if you want to see the Black Sea flood in Noah's flood, who's to say no?"[/QUOTE]
I am! I once was a subscriber to the sister publication. Routinely, letters would come in asking for a cancellation. The man is too liberal for me too!** Maybe not to the point of calling him an idiot, like I have been tempted to do with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_coming (PARTICULARLY THE SECTION ON DATE SETTING/PREDICTIONS near the bottom!)
What about it? I counted sixteen entries. Newton, Sir I. was not among them!!
MrB.
**If water goes over a mountain, it is not stopping until it reaches the next one and only then if it is high enough AND we don't know [how] high they were. That is, I think it is generally recognized in creationists circles that the highest ranges that exist above sea level today did not exist when Noah & family were left as the bottle neck of homo sapiens.
QUOTE (Soundhertz+)
Remember, you are in effect saying, "The Bible is true because the Bible is true." That simply won't fly. ...
Religion is faith in what you don't know; science is learning what you don't know.
Religion is faith in what you don't know; science is learning what you don't know.
Yes(especially deductive logic), so why should they be mutually exclusive(if that is what you are saying...)? Technology flies. Science has seperate manners.
As regards to your first point that I have quoted—
RobDegraves should take NOTE:
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble---------^ ^ I wrote that two days ago!
Apologetic sites should be on the Internet by the hundreds.
But in my day
I was reading books...
William Graham Scroggie | LibraryThing
Books by William Graham Scroggie: Unfolding Drama of Redemption, The, Guide to the Gospels, A, Is the Bible the Word of God?, The Psalms, The Love Life: I ...
http://www.librarything.com/author/scroggiewgraham - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
Is the Bible the Word of God? by William Graham Scroggie ...All about Is the Bible the Word of God? by William Graham Scroggie. ... to be God's Word (two copies)different publishers(1) Apologetics(4) Bible(2) Bible ...
http://www.librarything.com/work/1018472 - 50k - Cached
And if this is the thin book I remember some thirty years ago, commentary aplenty—
Amazon.com: Know Your Bible (9780720801521): W Graham Scroggie: BooksAmazon.com: Know Your Bible (9780720801521): W Graham Scroggie: Books. ... The more I listen to Christian radio, read apologetic books, and debate with ...
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Bible-Grah...e/dp/0720801524 - 168k - Cached - Similar pages
Whichever book it was, it would be interesting after twenty plus years to see if I find laughers or be as convinced as ever about the reliablity of Scripture. When you are younger, crap may not smell so crappy
MrB.
As regards to your first point that I have quoted—
RobDegraves should take NOTE:
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble---------^ ^ I wrote that two days ago!
Apologetic sites should be on the Internet by the hundreds.
But in my day
I was reading books...William Graham Scroggie | LibraryThing
Books by William Graham Scroggie: Unfolding Drama of Redemption, The, Guide to the Gospels, A, Is the Bible the Word of God?, The Psalms, The Love Life: I ...
http://www.librarything.com/author/scroggiewgraham - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
Is the Bible the Word of God? by William Graham Scroggie ...All about Is the Bible the Word of God? by William Graham Scroggie. ... to be God's Word (two copies)different publishers(1) Apologetics(4) Bible(2) Bible ...
http://www.librarything.com/work/1018472 - 50k - Cached
And if this is the thin book I remember some thirty years ago, commentary aplenty—
Amazon.com: Know Your Bible (9780720801521): W Graham Scroggie: BooksAmazon.com: Know Your Bible (9780720801521): W Graham Scroggie: Books. ... The more I listen to Christian radio, read apologetic books, and debate with ...
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Bible-Grah...e/dp/0720801524 - 168k - Cached - Similar pages
Whichever book it was, it would be interesting after twenty plus years to see if I find laughers or be as convinced as ever about the reliablity of Scripture. When you are younger, crap may not smell so crappy
MrB.
i, yi yi, yi yi....
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 6 2009, 11:20 AM)
>>> unless you can prove that it's really the word of God, <<<
Yes, that is my gamble---------^ ^ I wrote that two days ago!
MrB.
But why THAT book?
Why not another.If you are going to use Pascal's wager, then you can arbitrarily pick and choose.
Maybe Nopeda has it right that God is a space alien.
Maybe George Lucas is God's prophet. Maybe you should be watching Star Wars and Indianna Jones instead of reading the Bible.
Misterbelfry
Seriously, those two last posts were too random and disorganized to actually respond to.
You link books that I don't have. You quote conversations out of context, in random order and without any kind of explanation and you don't actually make any kind of point.
Let's be direct.
Do you have any kind of proof that the bible is the word of God. If not, concede the point. If so, let's see it.
Seriously, those two last posts were too random and disorganized to actually respond to.
You link books that I don't have. You quote conversations out of context, in random order and without any kind of explanation and you don't actually make any kind of point.
Let's be direct.
Do you have any kind of proof that the bible is the word of God. If not, concede the point. If so, let's see it.
BUDDHISTS
By David Brooks
New York Times
May 13, 2008
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate...
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted ... <--------a little more @ Showtopic= 26430
This Showtopic---------->
...we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...iew=getlastpost
QUOTE (Soundhertz+)
science has near perfect fidelity to it's premises. What can the religious learn from this? Patience, tolerance, camaraderie?
and view=findpost&p=419656 ----------->
Revelation 13:8-10
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
He who has an ear, let him hear
If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
(NIV)
6 January 2001
http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE01/Hickson01.html
Quoting Nietzsche’s own words about “The story I have to tell is the history of the next two centuries [the 20th and 21st]” (98), Wolfe eloquently assembles the German philosopher’s farsighted predictions about “wars” and “guilt”, about how “human beings would no longer have a god to turn to to absolve them from their guilt; but they would still be racked by guilt” (98); and “As a result, people would loathe not only one another but themselves” (98). Wolfe himself is unmistakably stunned by the detailed accuracy of Nietzsche’s predictive understanding.
Moreover, with Wolfe quoting Nietzsche’s own trenchant words, we hear: “If the doctrines…of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal, doctrines I [Nietzsche] consider true but deadly’--he says in an allusion to
Darwinism in Untimely Meditations--‘are hurled into the people for another generation…then nobody should be surprised when…brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers…will appear in the arena of the future’” (99--my emphasis added). In Wolfe’s paraphrase, “The blind and reassuring faith they formerly poured into their belief in God, …they would now pour into a belief in barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods” (99). And may we now add “barbaric scientific and technical brotherhoods”?
Concerning “the riddle of the human mind” and the consequences of its fearsome and soul-congealing self-knowledge, Wolfe goes on to say:
In any case, we live in an age in which it is impossible and pointless to avert your eyes from the truth. Ironically, Nietzsche said, this unflinching eye for truth, this zest for skepticism, is the legacy of Christianity...
Dr. Robert Hickson
Visiting Professor, Joint Special Operations University
U. S. Special Operations Command
and view=findpost&p=419656 ----------->
Revelation 13:8-10
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
He who has an ear, let him hear
If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
(NIV)
6 January 2001
http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE01/Hickson01.html
Quoting Nietzsche’s own words about “The story I have to tell is the history of the next two centuries [the 20th and 21st]” (98), Wolfe eloquently assembles the German philosopher’s farsighted predictions about “wars” and “guilt”, about how “human beings would no longer have a god to turn to to absolve them from their guilt; but they would still be racked by guilt” (98); and “As a result, people would loathe not only one another but themselves” (98). Wolfe himself is unmistakably stunned by the detailed accuracy of Nietzsche’s predictive understanding.
Moreover, with Wolfe quoting Nietzsche’s own trenchant words, we hear: “If the doctrines…of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal, doctrines I [Nietzsche] consider true but deadly’--he says in an allusion to
Darwinism in Untimely Meditations--‘are hurled into the people for another generation…then nobody should be surprised when…brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers…will appear in the arena of the future’” (99--my emphasis added). In Wolfe’s paraphrase, “The blind and reassuring faith they formerly poured into their belief in God, …they would now pour into a belief in barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods” (99). And may we now add “barbaric scientific and technical brotherhoods”?
Concerning “the riddle of the human mind” and the consequences of its fearsome and soul-congealing self-knowledge, Wolfe goes on to say:
In any case, we live in an age in which it is impossible and pointless to avert your eyes from the truth. Ironically, Nietzsche said, this unflinching eye for truth, this zest for skepticism, is the legacy of Christianity...
Dr. Robert Hickson
Visiting Professor, Joint Special Operations University
U. S. Special Operations Command
Dr. Robert Hickson,
will something more complicated come out instead?
Blaming all of christianity is a bit harsh?
will something more complicated come out instead?
Blaming all of christianity is a bit harsh?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 7 2009, 11:39 AM)
BUDDHISTS ...
... U. S. Special Operations Command
I honestly can't tell if a single word in that gawd awful post came from you. You certainly seem to take care when posting tripe from John The Psilocybin Addicted Cave Troll and Seer ... it's such a nice blue.
So um ... In that lovely quote he's telling all the really good adherents that imprisoning and killing all the folks not listed in the Jesus's book takes a really long time so they should pack a lunch. I imagine you never remember to pack a lunch. Um ... And?
That has nothing to do with the rest of the text that you have copied here without any useful attribution.
Anyway ... the real reason I'm bothering to jump into this is to say that this dolt Hickson shows his stripes in the first paragraph ...
Then after an interminable amount of obtuse sophistry ... he ends with
Then after an interminable amount of obtuse sophistry ... he ends with
In light of the powerful influence of modern science--especially the growing sociobiological and neuroscientific view of life and man--and modern science’s increasingly intimate technologies of manipulation, any truly strategic defense-in-depth of our homeland will have to draw upon the depth of our own hearts; and, about the intimate and ultimate matters of moment to man, to draw out, as well, our true convictions. For, we are only as courageous as we are convinced.
No big surprise that early on in the Cheney/Bush administration that religious whackjobs were apparently employed to propagandize morals to the command structure under the guise of evaluting and explaining. Wow. WhatafuckingCUNTTREE. The whole thing is just an extended religious whackjob decrying science.
And religionists act like they are somehow under threat from atheists?
... U. S. Special Operations Command
I honestly can't tell if a single word in that gawd awful post came from you. You certainly seem to take care when posting tripe from John The Psilocybin Addicted Cave Troll and Seer ... it's such a nice blue.
So um ... In that lovely quote he's telling all the really good adherents that imprisoning and killing all the folks not listed in the Jesus's book takes a really long time so they should pack a lunch. I imagine you never remember to pack a lunch. Um ... And?
That has nothing to do with the rest of the text that you have copied here without any useful attribution.
Anyway ... the real reason I'm bothering to jump into this is to say that this dolt Hickson shows his stripes in the first paragraph ...
QUOTE
Neuroscience, the science of the brain and the central nervous system, is on the threshold of a unified theory that will have an impact as powerful as that of Darwinism a hundred years ago. Already there is a new Darwin, or perhaps I should say an updated Darwin, since no one ever believed more religiously in Darwin the First than does he: Edward O. Wilson…. [who] has created and named the new field of sociobiology…. This, the neuroscientific view of life, has become the strategic high ground in the academic world, and the battle for it has already spread well beyond the scientific disciplines and, for that matter, out into the general public…. Here we begin to sense the chill that emanates from the hottest field in the academic world. The unspoken and largely unconscious premise of the wrangling over neuroscience’s strategic high ground is: We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal.
Then after an interminable amount of obtuse sophistry ... he ends with
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Neuroscience, the science of the brain and the central nervous system, is on the threshold of a unified theory that will have an impact as powerful as that of Darwinism a hundred years ago. Already there is a new Darwin, or perhaps I should say an updated Darwin, since no one ever believed more religiously in Darwin the First than does he: Edward O. Wilson…. [who] has created and named the new field of sociobiology…. This, the neuroscientific view of life, has become the strategic high ground in the academic world, and the battle for it has already spread well beyond the scientific disciplines and, for that matter, out into the general public…. Here we begin to sense the chill that emanates from the hottest field in the academic world. The unspoken and largely unconscious premise of the wrangling over neuroscience’s strategic high ground is: We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal. |
Then after an interminable amount of obtuse sophistry ... he ends with
In light of the powerful influence of modern science--especially the growing sociobiological and neuroscientific view of life and man--and modern science’s increasingly intimate technologies of manipulation, any truly strategic defense-in-depth of our homeland will have to draw upon the depth of our own hearts; and, about the intimate and ultimate matters of moment to man, to draw out, as well, our true convictions. For, we are only as courageous as we are convinced.
No big surprise that early on in the Cheney/Bush administration that religious whackjobs were apparently employed to propagandize morals to the command structure under the guise of evaluting and explaining. Wow. WhatafuckingCUNTTREE. The whole thing is just an extended religious whackjob decrying science.
And religionists act like they are somehow under threat from atheists?
Much like uaafanblog, I can't really get much from your post MrBelfry.
However... a few points.
Your opinion is not proof or even any kind of indication that the bible is the word of God.
Verdict... fail.
Your opinion is not proof or even any kind of indication that the bible is the word of God.
Verdict... fail.
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Quoting the bible is certainly not proof of anything.
Verdict... fail.
Dr Robert Hickson's opinion is not proof either. In any case, he is simply going on about the psychological effect of religion or it's lack thereof. This has nothing to do with whether or not the bible is the word of God.
Nothing whatsoever.
Verdict... fail.
I will ask again.
Do you have any proof that the bible is the word of God.
If not... I suggest that we need to go back and reassess two basic questions.
1. Are there any God(s)?
2. Which ones?
I thought his ethos was "Copy and paste paragraphs of text with little to no explanation or context."
red herrings can keep a non sequitur discussion going much longer than nature had intended.
However... a few points.
QUOTE
we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
Your opinion is not proof or even any kind of indication that the bible is the word of God.
Verdict... fail.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other." |
Your opinion is not proof or even any kind of indication that the bible is the word of God.
Verdict... fail.
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Quoting the bible is certainly not proof of anything.
Verdict... fail.
QUOTE
Dr. Robert Hickson
Visiting Professor, Joint Special Operations University
U. S. Special Operations Command
Visiting Professor, Joint Special Operations University
U. S. Special Operations Command
Dr Robert Hickson's opinion is not proof either. In any case, he is simply going on about the psychological effect of religion or it's lack thereof. This has nothing to do with whether or not the bible is the word of God.
Nothing whatsoever.
Verdict... fail.
I will ask again.
Do you have any proof that the bible is the word of God.
If not... I suggest that we need to go back and reassess two basic questions.
1. Are there any God(s)?
2. Which ones?
I think "interminable amount of obtuse sophistry" is not only a brilliant turn of a phrase and summation of Hickson on my part, it is also the primary ethos of MrB.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 7 2009, 12:35 PM)
I think "interminable amount of obtuse sophistry" is not only a brilliant turn of a phrase and summation of Hickson on my part, it is also the primary ethos of MrB.
I thought his ethos was "Copy and paste paragraphs of text with little to no explanation or context."
I thought his ethos was "Copy and paste paragraphs of text with little to no explanation or context."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 7 2009, 04:40 PM)
I thought his ethos was "Copy and paste paragraphs of text with little to no explanation or context."
That's his secondary ethos.
That's his secondary ethos.
QUOTE
I thought his ethos was "Copy and paste paragraphs of text with little to no explanation or context."
red herrings can keep a non sequitur discussion going much longer than nature had intended.
I am a charter member of the Non Sequitur Society.
Our motto is.. "We don't make sense but we love pizza".
Did I mention that I have dogs?
Our motto is.. "We don't make sense but we love pizza".
Did I mention that I have dogs?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 7 2009, 03:36 PM)
Did I mention that I have dogs?
No, but what is your opinion on flying octopi?
No, but what is your opinion on flying octopi?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 7 2009, 07:43 PM)
No, but what is your opinion on flying octopi?
Nachos are a delicious snack alternative that have grown in popularity in the U.S. at a staggering rate since they were first introduced.
Nachos are a delicious snack alternative that have grown in popularity in the U.S. at a staggering rate since they were first introduced.
Closing thread.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.