To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Making the Case for The Bible w Scientific evidenc
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

SoLoved
biggrin.gif Making the case for The Bible – a whole new ball game:

Using only the Bible and 21st century scientific knowledge.


The following statements are well accepted scientific facts of the 21st century. Can anyone find scientific evidence that disagrees with the next ten statements? If so, speak now or forever hold your peace.

1. Eating fat is bad for your health.
2. Working 7 days a week can be bad for your health.
3. Many different language families can be traced to back to a tiny group of distinct proto-languages.
4. NASA has a Near Earth Object Program and it is believed that objects such as the object that hit Siberia in 1908 can have catastrophic effects.
5. 18th century scientists had little knowledge of the topography of the ocean floors.
6. The Universe had a beginning.
7. Nobel prize winning Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA, and an atheist), in his 1981 book Life Itself, insists that the probability of life's chance origin simply defies calculation. "What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."
8. No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.
9. Sauropods and Kronosaurus’ are dinosaurs.
10. A large sperm whale can have an esophagus that measures as large as a foot and a half wide.



smile.gif Now, here is the Biblical evidence supporting the above ten statements:


1. "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat." Leviticus 7:23
2. The Law of Moses has a provision for a weekly day of rest. Exodus 20: 8-10) This law applied to everybody in the land including slaves. The medical historian, Karl Sudhoff, said: "Had Judaism given nothing more to mankind than the establishment of a weekly day of rest, we should still be forced to proclaim her one of the greatest benefactors of humanity."
3. This is consistent with God's confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel.
4. "And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed." - ( Revelation 8:8-9)
5. “The waters compassed me about, [even] to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars [was] about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.” (Jonah 2:5-6)
6. In the beginning, God… Genesis 1:1
7. In a modern context, the Bible shows Bible scientific foreknowledge regarding the origin of life which it states was a miracle
8. In the current science community environment which embraces the macroevolutionary position, creationism could be seen as Bible scientific foreknowledge.
9. The book of Job is considered to be the oldest book of the Bible by many scholars. The book of Job describes a large creature called behemoth who has a tail like a cedar and leviathan, which is said to be a sea monster. There are sound reasons to identify behemoth with a Sauropod dinosaur and leviathan with the Kronosaurus.
10. Whales are a suspect for the fish that swallowed Jonah and they are still spotted in the Mediterranean Sea.


Feel free to add more biblical facts to support scientific knowledge and vice versa. I will post more as time permits.

Hopefully only well thought out and researched responses that include evidence to support your statements will be included. Poorly trained pit bulls should stay home. Just the science, man, just the science.


Have a great day,
rolleyes.gif SoLoved
birdan
SoLoved,

The most important attribute of science is that it is rigorous. I can make the statement "any integer multiplied by any other integer results in a positive number". I can then proceed to give examples, 2*2, 12*12, -3**-12, etc. I can give a whole bunch of examples, an INFINITE number of examples in fact. However, since science is RIGOROUS (in the formal sense of the word), all someone has to do is say "What about 2 * -1?" and poof, my statement is disproved, gone from the realm of science forever. Taking a dozen or so loose analogies of bible verses to science 'facts' doesn't even approach the rigor test of science.

Taking just your examples, 1/3 of the sea became blood? What does 21st century science have to say about that? 3 days and 3 nights in a stomach? 21st century science would say the strong acid secretions of the stomach would render Jonah to pulp or worse.

Be careful what you are advocating here. You may bite off more than you can chew. Pres. Bush and Sen. Frist recently voiced support for teaching ID in schools. Sen. Frist said, "I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith". And, intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

Fact, science, faith. Fact (empirical testing and observation) and science build on each other. Faith encompasses that which cannot be empirically tested. Just because God cannot be empirically measured or observed doesn't negate a person's belief in God. They are very different animals. Science is rigorous, faith is internal. If we are to use Frist's thinking for deciding what is to be taught in schools, then why don't we teach that there is evidence that the brains of homosexual people are compositionally different than brains of heterosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is not a choice of the individual but rather just like hair or eye color? Why don't we teach the healing power of crystals since we can easily come up with a dozen or so testimonials of people who swear they were healed by crystals? Psychics? We don't because there is no rigorous proof of these ascertains. Just as ID has failed the rigor test. Just as your handful of bible examples fail the rigor test. Without rigor, science ceases to be, and a whole lot of topics (many of which I'm sure you do not want your children to be taught) would qualify for teaching in schools under the new definition of 'science'.

Science is faith-neutral. By definition, science is only concerned about empirical observation and hypotheses and theories which best explain those observations. A single instance of an observation countering a theory or hypostesis negates that theory or hypothesis. Science is not equipped for nor interested in matters of faith, personal beliefs. Trying to make science adhere to one's personal beliefs is to dissolve the very tenets of science, and it ceases to be.

Thought and no pit bulls. No bull either.
Max Power
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 23 2005, 10:49 PM)
1. Eating fat is bad for your health.

Eating unsaturated fat is actually very good for your health.

In fact, a lot of people supplement their diets with omega 3 fatty acids, or flaxseed oil, because it's good for you.
SoLoved
QUOTE (Max Power+Sep 25 2005, 08:21 PM)
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 23 2005, 10:49 PM)
1. Eating fat is bad for your health.

Eating unsaturated fat is actually very good for your health.

In fact, a lot of people supplement their diets with omega 3 fatty acids, or flaxseed oil, because it's good for you.

wink.gif Max Power,

More affirmation - please see #1:

1. "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat." Leviticus 7:23

birdan,

I appreciate your response.

The goal here is to show that even though the Bible was written thousands of years ago - it contains facts which have been validated by 21st century science.

You could come up with some goofy laws that might not make sense - but when put under the microscope they reveal scientific truths - truths that they already knew thousands of years ago. The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

As far as #4 - the point being made was in regards to NASA claiming that a large object hitting the earth could do catastrophic damage. The Bible, in the Book of Revelation - speaks about 'a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea'
(an asteroid?). The Book of Revelation reveals many secrets about the coming 'destruction' of the earth. John wrote down the vision he was given in terms that he could relate to - the only secret is figuring out what was meant by John's terminology. The Book of Revelation is very confusing - but also a very interesting book to study.

You're right, I may be biting off more than I can chew. The problem arises when people try to take goofy, irrelevant quotes out of context and use them against me (you did not do this, thank you). I'm hoping that people will take the topic seriously. It seems that anti-religionists have a hard time focusing on science whenever religion or the Bible come up - because they don't believe it they don't want to believe anything it says.

Also, this topic is not about intelligent design vs evolution. This topic is about Science vs the Bible. My posts in the various forums are trying to accomplish two things: First, intelligent design can be taught without the G word.....and second, the Bible is scientifically accurate and scientists should take notice.

By the way, evolution fails your rigor test.

rolleyes.gif SoLoved
jesus shark
indian mythology also has lots of ideas/statements that appear to fall in line with currently accepted scientific theory. physicists recently hypothesized that the big bang may have been the death throes of the universe's previous incarnation, and the asymmetries that cause the structure of the universe may be caused by the asymmetries of the universe's previous incarnation. most indic traditions hold that the universe is beginningless and endless, and only goes through cycles of transformation (rise, decay, catastrophic destruction, rebirth from the products of this catastrophic destruction) forever. when scientists talk of the big bang, they don't necessarily imply that it's the "absolute beginning." just that it's the beginning of the universe AS WE KNOW IT. buddhist sutras (the vimalakirti sutra comes readily to mind) sometimes portray scenes in which the buddha sits at the top of the universe and looks upon cosmological objects and worlds whose descriptions line up very well with galaxies, solar systems, and planets. but, of course, those religions don't take the bible as their sacred text, so there's no possible way they can be right

you can draw whatever correlations you like between scripture and the scientific canon, but regardless of their superficial or literal similarities, the sayings of the bible came out of an entirely different world than we live in today and are thus only curious coincidences when they line up with current theory. the bible has made a number of proclamations that, if taken literally, as you're interpreting these ones, are seen as very wrong by any modern scientist. no respectable scientist believes that the earth is six thousand years old, or that the earth is the center of the universe.

you can extoll the virtues borne of religion to the high heavens, but the abuses in God's name at least equal the benefits, if not outweigh them. how many nations have slaughtered innocent people in the name of God? how many people spit fiery condemnation at everyone that makes a certain choice without knowing anything of why they made that choice?
birdan
QUOTE
This topic is about Science vs the Bible. My posts in the various forums are trying to accomplish two things: First, intelligent design can be taught without the G word.....and second, the Bible is scientifically accurate and scientists should take notice.


SoLoved,

As far as evolution goes, I don't have a dog in that hunt, as they say. I am not well read on evolution beyond 10th grade (which did include Teilhard de Chardin, but then again I was in a Jesuit high school). Besides, what with global warming, those arguments just seem to produce lots of hot air with no one listening.

As for the Bible being "scientifically accurate", I don't know what you mean by that. A more precise definition (this IS a science forum) of that would be helpful.

As far as ID goes, my interest in that is not so much its contents or intent, but the impact on public policy relating to the sciences: training, public education, funding, etc. So I have read up on ID and from my reading ID seems based on three tenets: irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and probabilities. All the examples of irreducible complexity I've read about (eyes, flagellum, beetles, clotting, etc.), turn out to be (from multiple sources) not irreducibly complex. Ditto for CSI, with examples of drug-resistant bacteria, nylon eating bacteria, etc. The problem with probabilities (which relates to CSI) appears to be the use of simple combinatorics in calculating that, with atoms randomly bumping into each other, it would take a gazillion years to produce a protein. But when a star goes supernova, it produces whole gobs of organic molecules, including a rich variety of amino acids, which simple combinatorics would say is highly improbable, so that argument doesn't work either, because ..... there they are. ALL observed remnants of supernovae contain decent quantities of organic molecules.

Which reminds me of a story .... an atom is walking down the street and bumps into another atom.
"Darn! I lost an electron."
"Are you sure?"
"I'm positive!"

Anyway ... since claims of IC, CSI, and probabilities are unfounded, ID doesn't seem to offer anything from a scientific viewpoint. To teach ID as science (at least at this point) would be to revise the definition of science and the methodologies of science that have made it so fruitful. And then all sorts of topics could be taught or funded as 'science'. (See my first post).

Also, since I have read other posts in the ID/Evolution/Creation forums, please note: I am NOT talking about evolution, have no real interest in evolution. ID cannot be justified on the basis of perceived lacks, shortcomings, gaps, holes, etc. in something else. EVERY scientific theory (and they are ALL theories) has its shortcomings. A theory is simply the best model yet devised to fit the observations and data. We still teach Newton's physics in high school even though it has holes, gaps, shortcomings, etc. It's no secret that quantum physics has its problems, along with general relativity, both of which address shortcomings in Newton. In fact, they can't co-exist in a lot of situations. If someone where to come up with a theory of 'spiral gravity' to address these shortcomings, it would have to be justified on its own merits, not simply because quantum and relativity physics have 'holes'. Ditto for ID. The short of it is, I DON'T have to know anything about evolution when looking at ID as a valid theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of ID seems to be, if there is IC, CSI, and because of stated probability calcuations, there must be an intelligence.

Bruce
Guest
I thought this info would be helpful:

Bible scientific foreknowledge

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?t...c_foreknowledge
Steban_Jigs
I only have a small little blurb to put in here but why do you think the bible is accurate SoLoved? Do you not think that the evolution of the bible by "MAN'S" hand cannot skew the context at all, the fact that there is NO recordable evidence of a so called "BIBLE" before roman times is something to consider. I mean what is the best way to control the people?.... fear of the unknown ie:death, and with that fear comes religion and faith, by controlling these things people can control the masses. In my opinion I don't see how a book written by fallible "MEN" could keep perfect consistency for over 2000 years, I mean look at the dictionary.... we ad new crap all the time.

Stebs out.
RealityCheck

Hello Steban_Jigs.

You said it!

Not only are these 'fallible' men, they ARE MEN ONLY...why do you think SoLoved can't see the obvious: that WOMEN WEREN'T IMPORTANT THEN (and even NOW in many religions)...they weren't invited/welcome to be involved in the interpretations/translations etc...mainly because of accident of history/evolution where the 'stronger' male heirarchy treated females as chattels and 'slaves' and used scripture/religion to justify their subjugation...I mean, it was only in the last couple of hundred years that women got the vote and were no longer part of their spouse's 'legal property' etc....so much for those reliable/unbiased MALE hands to entrust something so important as GOD to, heh? I wonder where GOD (and the 'SoLoved' type) was when MEN distorted religious tenets to justify horrendous cruelties/injustices against 'witches' and other 'independent-thinking' but otherwise innocent women as well as many a brave and true man?

Regards from: RealityCheck.
SoLoved
In regards to the comment about women - not only is the Bible scientifically correct, it is politically correct.

Judges 4:4-6
4Deborah was a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth. She was judge over Israel at that time. 5She held court under Deborah's Palm between Ramah and Bethel in the hills of Ephraim. The People of Israel went to her in matters of justice.


and....

Galatians 3:28-29
28In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ. 29Also, since you are Christ's family, then you are Abraham's famous "descendant," heirs according to the covenant promises.


and.....here is a good example of how Jesus felt about women, versus how men felt/feel about women. It is obvious that women were important to Jesus. Because of the culture at the time, and even to this day, women are treated as inferior. This is MAN'S doing - as I have said again and again - WE are responsible for our actions. WE can change. We must strive to be like Jesus - not like the people around you.

Mark 14:3-9
3Jesus was at Bethany, a guest of Simon the Leper. While he was eating dinner, a woman came up carrying a bottle of very expensive perfume. Opening the bottle, she poured it on his head. 4Some of the guests became furious among themselves. "That's criminal! A sheer waste! 5This perfume could have been sold for well over a year's wages and handed out to the poor." They swelled up in anger, nearly bursting with indignation over her.

6But Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why are you giving her a hard time? She has just done something wonderfully significant for me. 7You will have the poor with you every day for the rest of your lives. Whenever you feel like it, you can do something for them. Not so with me. 8She did what she could when she could--she pre-anointed my body for burial. 9And you can be sure that wherever in the whole world the Message is preached, what she just did is going to be talked about admiringly."



Note to Steban_Jigs,

Regardless of when you think the Bible was written and by whom - the fact remains that it is scientifically and spiritually relevant to this day. God never changes - He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (the Bible says that too)

The goal here is to show that even though the Bible was written thousands of years ago - it contains facts which have been validated by 21st century science.
How is it that something written so long ago is so knowledgeable about things we are just learning scientifically. Just imagine where science would be today if they had viewed the Bible as a science book as well as a book of salvation.

There are times I wonder if the Bible was skewed to benefit males, but the Bible also states that my ways are not His ways, and I accept that. If I try to figure out why - my funny little brain comes up with this: Maybe men are so lazy that if God didn't make them do something - women would be in charge of everything. I mean just look at most married households - ask men who's in charge.

note to birdan,

What does 'The Bible is scientifically accurate' mean:

Science is knowledge. It is what we know. With this definition, science and the Bible are in perfect harmony. There is no evidence to suggest the Bible is inaccurate in any of its statements regarding creation or scientific facts. In fact, the more advances are made in science, the more it has proven the truth of the Bible!

The Bible is most definitely scientific--it is totally accurate and has often demonstrated that God obviously knows more about science than man. (This would make sense, seeing that God is the One who invented science itself!) Read Job 38-42.


cool.gif Back to the topic:

11. The Bible said that the earth was round 1600 years before man figured it out.

Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


12. The Bible said that the earth is suspended in space 3600 years before man discovered it.

Job 26:7
7He spreads the skies over unformed space,
hangs the earth out in empty space.


13. The Bible said that the universe is wearing out 2500 years before modern science figured it out. Global warming anyone?

Isaiah 51:6,
6Look up at the skies,
ponder the earth under your feet.
The skies will fade out like smoke,
the earth will wear out like work pants,
and the people will die off like flies.
But my salvation will last forever,
my setting-things-right will never be obsolete.

Psalm 102:25-27
25You laid earth's foundations a long time ago,
and handcrafted the very heavens;
26You'll still be around when they're long gone,
threadbare and discarded like an old suit of clothes.
You'll throw them away like a worn-out coat,
27but year after year you're as good as new.

Romans 8:20-21
20Everything in creation is being more or less held back. God reins it in
21until both creation and all the creatures are ready and can be released
at the same moment into the glorious times ahead. Meanwhile, the joyful
anticipation deepens.

(note: Read before and after in Romans - very interesting, but of course it's all interesting)


14. The Bible said that blood sustains life 3300 years before man would agree.

Lev. 17:11
11for the life of an animal is in the blood. I have provided the blood for you to make atonement for your lives on the Altar; it is the blood, the life, that makes atonement.


15. The Bible said the stars produce sound 4000 years before man found out.

Job 38:7
7While the morning stars sang in chorus
and all the angels shouted praise?


Many people spend their lives attempting to discredit the Bible. So far, they have failed. The Bible is consistent, both in its concepts about God and in its details. If you find yourself doubting the reliability of the Bible, read it for yourself.

rolleyes.gif SoLoved
jesus shark
umm... the ancient greeks knew that the earth was round. ever since the age of seafaring began, people would see a ship rise as it came over the horizon, and fall as it passed the horizon. Eratosthenes was the first to estimate the earth's circumference (in 240 BC)

the biblical passage you selected makes no reference to global warming in the earth "wearing out". the Gita (ancient hindu text preceding the old testament) contained a passage that, by your logic, could be a reference to the age of nuclear weapons

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

would you say the Pali Canon is scientifically accurate? how about the Gita, or the Quran, or the Avesta? i want a serious comment on the works of other faiths
RealityCheck

Hello SoLoved.

Regarding MEN: Irrespective of your attempts at 'rationalisation', the fact remains that THE SAME 'MEN' WHO ACT IMPROPERLY FOR PURPOSES OF 'CULTURAL' EXPEDIENCY ALSO ACT IMPROPERLY FOR PURPOSES OF POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS EXPEDIENCY...so you can't trust ANY HUMAN BEING TO BE 'ABSOLUTELY' CORRECT/UNBIASED/DISINTERESTED WHEN IT COMES TO SUCH MATTERS...or haven't you been paying attention to what is going on around you even as we speak, as these ID/CS MEN do a snowjob on obviously kind and well-meaning people such as yourself. It is also salutary to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions...just imagine the PAVED EXPRESSWAY you are helping to construct for any poor unfortunate choosing your ignorance-before-thinking 'blind faith' approach to life, the universe and everything. If there IS a 'god', I certainly wouldn't like to be in your shoes when it came to justify my thinking tenure on planet Earth. And their ARE people who are AT LEAST, IF NOT MORE, WORTHY than you or any other 'religious book' believer, and they attained that worthiness WITHOUT your or any other brand of religious subservience to some MALE DOMINATED oft-addended text whose relevance is due to constant 'updating' of old truisms that APPLIES TO THE HUMAN CONDITION irrespective of 'beliefs. When you allude to the 'prescience' of bibles and such, remember that they say the same about that non-sensical much-addended NOSTRADAMUS manuscript (what a laugh that the same form of gullibity is the common thread that binds those that 'believe' in such mercenary-pushed rubbish, regardless of provenance, haha...only it's too, too sad for me to think about too much...what a waste of potential!).

Please, please, please, SoLoved...NO MORE TRANSPARENT AND PATHETIC RATIONALISATIONS....you either believe in your 'book' implicitly, or you don't...you can't have it both ways and expect reasonable folk to treat you as anything more than a 'puppet'/'parrot' for the MAN MANDATED 'TRUTH' that you seem to have abandoned all reason in order to comply with these MALE DOMINATED ID/CS 'cult' movements.


And when you say that MOST people who try to discredit the bible have never read it, then what do you say to THOSE THAT HAVE READ IT...and STILL think that, despite all the 'religious' additions/mumbo-jumbo, it's original purpose was that of a public health/education document meant to retain 'societal/health/agricultural' 'wisdom' across the ages despite the tenuous nature of knowledge/communications/societies in the times in question? Are these people too just ignorant? Or are your CS/ID 'overlords' the only people who can know anything, and who can think for you. Wake up and start thinking...it doesn't mean you have to stop being kindly, generous, well-meaning etc...but that you can carry on doing these things in 'knowledge' rather than 'belief' that what you were doing was GOOD because your intellect tells you so, not because someone else tells you so.


Best of luck SoLoved.

Regards and sympathy from: RealityCheck.
.
SoLoved
QUOTE (jesus shark+Sep 28 2005, 06:36 AM)
umm... the ancient greeks knew that the earth was round. ever since the age of seafaring began, people would see a ship rise as it came over the horizon, and fall as it passed the horizon. Eratosthenes was the first to estimate the earth's circumference (in 240 BC)

the biblical passage you selected makes no reference to global warming in the earth "wearing out". the Gita (ancient hindu text preceding the old testament) contained a passage that, by your logic, could be a reference to the age of nuclear weapons

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

would you say the Pali Canon is scientifically accurate? how about the Gita, or the Quran, or the Avesta? i want a serious comment on the works of other faiths


You're not going to get one. I'm just not into religion bashing like you are.

rolleyes.gif SoLoved
GeneSplicer
Questioning something is not bashing unless you are stating we must blindly accept and follow any and all claims made.

The question stands SoLoved. Quit avoiding the issue with your fluid faith. If the xian bible is the infallible word of the xian god and these other holy books contain information contrary to the infallible work of the xian god, then what does that say about these other books in your opinion?

You cannot claim the xian book is without question and absolutely correct and not also claim that other religious and mythical tomes that contradict the xian bible are in error and not the word of god.

There’s that ever-present simplistic “with us or against us” xian mentality. I’m not saying that such mentality is not relevant or applicable at time, but it just seems to always be the mindset of the xians.
SoLoved
rolleyes.gif Faith is a journey, and a personal decision. I believe God holds us accountable for what we know. I believe the person in the most danger is the one who rejects God.

Hopefully that answers your question genesplicer and jesus shark.

sad.gif Realitycheck,

You sound bitter.
I am not a puppet for anyone - I make up my own mind - much to the disappointment of those around me sometimes.

Just what is it you would like me to talk about under this forum entitled "Making the Case for The Bible w Scientific evidence"?

Hmmmm? You know what they say.....if you don't like the music, change the station.

Thanks,
rolleyes.gif SoLoved
Guest
Hello SoLoved.

Why is everyone who sees your position for what it is ('scientifically' untenable) automatically labelled 'bitter' and/or 'ignorant' by you?

And as for your position, you have just pulled the 'rationalising rug' from under yourself with your opening paragraph of your last post...it is replete with 'faith' and 'I believe', but totally devoid of 'scientific' thoughts/ideas/evidence. It summarises your whole position as a well-meaning but brainwashed monomaniac in denial because of the psychological damage that might ensue if you faced up to the reality of your position. But BE BRAVE, face reality and get through it to be a 'thinker' not a 'repeater'.

And rest assured, SoLoved, that if I WAS bitter (as you seem to think anyone is who disagrees with you...a 'defence-mechanism' kneejerk-response, perhaps?), YOU WOULD BE LEFT IN NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, since I am perfectly capable of articulating the state of my emotions, I certainly need no innuendoes from you to express my OWN mind...unlike yourself, who apparently must depend on vicarious 'understandings' in order to function as you do.

SoLoved, DON'T MISTAKE 'PITY' FOR 'BITTERNESS', for there is a vast difference as to 'intent' on the part of the possessor/expressor of these two emotions. Take a break and get out from under. That's the only cure for what ails your mind at this stage of your intellectual evolution. So please, no more dismissive innuendoes. Only produce 'real' (not 'faith' or 'I believe') science or bow out gracefully. Get well soon, but retain your well-meaning nature...it is the only thing going for you at this stage.

Fare thee well regards from: RealityCheck.

RealityCheck
Hello again SoLoved!

That last "GUEST" was "I", of course, RealityCheck.
birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks for the response. I have no interest in yelling back and forth (I did raise 3 kids through their teenage years), but am only trying to understand your position in this forum.

I am still confused though as to what you mean by 'scientifically accurate'. I was looking more for an explanation on the criteria or methodology used to evaluate this statement. Part of the confusion is that on the one hand, with your point that sperm whales can have a 30" wide esophagus, the Jonah story is possible and therefore literal? But the first creation story in Genesis is of course not 'scientifically accurate' if taken literally, compressing billions of years into 6 days, not quite getting the order of things right during those days, and making space full of water. Thus my confusion. Genesis read allegorically but Jonah read literally? I know the main literary motif of people in that area was allegory, and to a large extent still is, so I have no problem seeing the writings as such. But it's not too scientific trying to draw 'facts' from allegory. My impression at this point is that parts are literal and parts are allegory, as the 'need' arises, and using a mish-mash or criteria like that is the antithesis of scientific methodology.

Also, at the end of my last post, summarizing my readings on ID:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of ID seems to be, if there is IC, CSI, and because of stated probability calculations, there must be an intelligence.

Bruce
jesus shark
you didn't attempt to respond to a single one of my points. when i say that the bible is not a scientifically sound document, i'm not "bashing" it. i'm saying that its references to the workings of the physical world are not consistent with the findings of science. unless you're willing to take the bible metaphorically instead of literally, the earth is not the center of the universe, the earth is billions of years old, not several thousand years old, and life changed gradually rather than not changing at all.

would it be an admission of defeat to say "i have faith in my religion, so my beliefs don't need to be validated by science."? you're fighting a fruitless battle that you can't win, soloved. the bible cannot pass the gauntlet of scientific inquiry. therefore, the question you must ask yourself is "does it need to?"

i personally like a lot of the lessons in the bible. love thy neighbor, forgive the sinner, turn the other cheek, judge not, lest ye be judged... as much as i like these stories, i don't feel obligated to swallow the book whole. when i criticize the scientific merit of the bible, i'm not criticizing the practical value of the book. i'm simply saying that one cannot take the book as a guide to the workings of the physical world. when Galileo was defending his findings in support of the Copernican model, he said "the bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." is that not good enough for you?

a monk approached the buddha one day and said that he would not follow the buddha any longer if the buddha didn't teach him the workings of the universe. the buddha replied he did not teach the workings of the universe because it would not help them on their way to salvation (enlightenment is a better word, but this fits more in this context)

when you say that the greatest danger is the rejection of god, does that mean that all hindus, buddhists, atheists, and people of other religions are forever damned to hell?
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
Faith is a journey, and a personal decision. I believe God holds us accountable for what we know. I believe the person in the most danger is the one who rejects God.

Hopefully that answers your question genesplicer and jesus shark.


How could this answer the question when it does not address the question?

Again, if the xian bible is the infallible word of the xian god and these other holy books contain information contrary to the infallible work of the xian god, then what does that say about these other books in your opinion?

You cannot claim the xian book is without question and absolutely correct and not also claim that other religious and mythical tomes that contradict the xian bible are in error and not the word of god.

So answer the question rather than avoiding it.
SoLoved
QUOTE
Quote by RealityCheck:
Why is everyone who sees your position for what it is ('scientifically' untenable) automatically labelled 'bitter' and/or 'ignorant' by you?


dry.gif Not everyone is. This is the first time I expressed my opinion in this way.

Ignorant - because all they want to do is argue and they don't take time to look at the (what I call) facts.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Quote by RealityCheck:
Why is everyone who sees your position for what it is ('scientifically' untenable) automatically labelled 'bitter' and/or 'ignorant' by you?


dry.gif Not everyone is. This is the first time I expressed my opinion in this way.

Ignorant - because all they want to do is argue and they don't take time to look at the (what I call) facts.

Quote by RealityCheck:
And as for your position, you have just pulled the 'rationalising rug' from under yourself with your opening paragraph of your last post...it is replete with 'faith' and 'I believe', but totally devoid of 'scientific' thoughts/ideas/evidence. It summarises your whole position as a well-meaning but brainwashed monomaniac in denial because of the psychological damage that might ensue if you faced up to the reality of your position. But BE BRAVE, face reality and get through it to be a 'thinker' not a 'repeater'.


huh.gif You mean this one?
"Faith is a journey, and a personal decision. I believe God holds us accountable for what we know. I believe the person in the most danger is the one who rejects God."

That was my answer to a question about the beliefs of other religions, asked by genesplicer and jesus shark.
These two are looking for a fight - looking for me to bash other religions. That's not what I do.

My answer clearly articulates my opinion.


QUOTE
Birdan states:  I am still confused though as to what you mean by 'scientifically accurate'. I was looking more for an explanation on the criteria or methodology used to evaluate this statement. Part of the confusion is that on the one hand, with your point that sperm whales can have a 30" wide esophagus, the Jonah story is possible and therefore literal? But the first creation story in Genesis is of course not 'scientifically accurate' if taken literally, compressing billions of years into 6 days, not quite getting the order of things right during those days, and making space full of water. Thus my confusion. Genesis read allegorically but Jonah read literally? I know the main literary motif of people in that area was allegory, and to a large extent still is, so I have no problem seeing the writings as such. But it's not too scientific trying to draw 'facts' from allegory. My impression at this point is that parts are literal and parts are allegory, as the 'need' arises, and using a mish-mash or criteria like that is the antithesis of scientific methodology.

Also, at the end of my last post, summarizing my readings on ID:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of ID seems to be, if there is IC, CSI, and because of stated probability calculations, there must be an intelligence.



smile.gif birdan,

Regarding your last paragraph first....
Could you define IC and CSI? I'm not familiar with those terms. Thanks.

Regarding the creation story in Genesis - creation in 6 days is possible. Because we cannot test 'creation of the universe' we would have to make a plausible theory based on things that we can test, little things.

cool.gif Example #1:

1. Filling a home swimming pool using a garden hose takes approximately 2-3 days depending on the size of the pool and pressure flow from the hose.

2. Filling the pool using a pressure hose connected to a fire hydrant takes about 2-3 hours.

Is it plausible that there could be an even quicker method designed to fill a home swimming pool? Well, of course.

Because we cannot envision how God created the universe, we think it impossible. However, based on the little things that we can test, is it not reasonable to suppose that He/It is capable of designing a method to create the universe in 6 days?

cool.gif Example #2:

NASA has a Near Earth Object Program and it is believed that objects such as the object that hit Siberia in 1908 can have catastrophic effects.

An asteroid could hit earth and cause catastrophic effects.

They say that new stars are created all the time - they say that we are the stuff of stars.

Can we not envision that stars or asteroids or some other organic material can be directed, intelligently, to form an object (like the earth), quickly and in order?

Because some cannot envision how this could happen, some might think it impossible. If there is a God who created the universe - is it not reasonable to suppose that He is capable of designing a method to create the universe in 6 days?

No one knows what God looks like or what, entirely, He is capable of. We are limited by what we have seen and what we can imagine.

cool.gif Example #3:

Now, some things are more difficult to believe than others:

Grass is green. Almost everybody believes this because they can see it with their own eyes.

The Bible said that the earth was round 1600 years before man figured it out.

Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


This is the 21st century and of course we know that the earth is round. But do you think the average person alive at the time the book of Isaiah was written would believe it without faith? I think not.

wink.gif So, as you know:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unkowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know.
But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.
-- (Quote by Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfied knows how to knowingly confuse his knowledgable Audience at a Pentagon briefing)


While I'm on the Rumsfeld kick - here's two more that are relevant:

"If you try to please everybody, somebody's not going to like it."

"Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is "bold, exciting, innovative, and new." There are many ideas that are "bold, exciting, innovative and new," but also foolish."


Yeah, like evolution.


Gotta go for now,
rolleyes.gif SoLoved



birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks for the reply. IC is Irreducible Complexity and CSI is Complex Specific Information.

As to the rest of the reply, I'm not sure where to begin. "Making the Case ... with Scientific Evidence" is the topic, but you seem to be advocating the annihilation of science. I agree the creation (big bang) of the universe is not observable, because the universe was opaque for its first 300,000 years and thus no observable light can exist. But galaxies have been observed back to less than a million years after the big bang. If you're saying that all this was just 'put in place' a few thousand years ago to look really really old, then why bother with science? We can just as easily save of lot of classroom time in our schools by replacing history, science, etc. with a showing of the Matrix movies and say, "Well, it COULD be true." It just seems disingenuous to me to negate the entire conceptual framework of science and then talk about 'scientific evidence'.

A lot of the roots of our science came from the ancient Greeks. This seat of learning gradually disappeared from Europe and migrated to Arabic countries. Europe went through its 'medieval' period which was codified and kept in place by the theocracy that was the catholic church in Rome. As this early Christian rigidity of thought rose, so the learning and science in Europe declined. It headed south.

Meanwhile learning flourished in places like Alexandria Egypt, and Baghdad Persia. People like Ptolemy and Plotinus. It wasn't until the 13th century that this knowledge began creeping back into Europe. Our 'Arabic' numerals have that name because that's where we got them. (Though the Arabic people called them Indian numerals because that's where THEY got them.) Algebra is also an Arabic word. The works of the ancient Greeks did not survive in Europe but were kept alive in Alexandria. They were translated back into Greek from Arabic. Anyway, it took the plague to shake up the theocracy in Europe and allow free thought to begin again which led to the Renaissance.

Meanwhile, back in the middle east, Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise, and the centers of learning there were eventually squashed, and haven't really existed since.
Do we detect a pattern here? Fundamentalist societies and real science don't co-exist too well? I am not saying anything about one's personal beliefs, but when science has to start towing that line, it ceases to be.

Today we have the Kansas State Board of Education deciding whether to teach ID in schools, we have a court case in PA over a school district teaching ID, and I just heard on the news the other night my state legislature is joining 8 other legislatures in introducing bills requiring or allowing the teaching of ID in schools. If this trend continues, my prediction is the 'seat of learning' that America has occupied for a short period of time will move on, to China and India, and we will become a backwater country just like Egypt, Iraq, and Iran.

So that's my take on all this, and why it's important to me. Here's my question to you:

Pretend you are the Director of the National Science Academy, and someone comes to you with a proposal to build an orbiting telescope that will be able to detect the universe (distant galaxies) as it looked 14.5 billion years ago. How do you respond to that proposal?

Bruce
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
That was my answer to a question about the beliefs of other religions, asked by genesplicer and jesus shark.
These two are looking for a fight - looking for me to bash other religions. That's not what I do.



Again, you show that you can follow a logical argument. JesusShark and I were just using your claim and taking it to its logical conclusion.

If your mythic tome is the definitive word of the one true god, then logically other tomes that contradict yours must be in error.

Simple logical argument.

The fact that your claim of infallibility has backed you into conundrum is obvious. You cannot claim to be following infallible ideology without declaring that everything else, including other religions, are flawed.

It is not a fight as you simplistically claim. The fact that you cannot or will not follow a logical argument based on your presumptions shows either a lack of your conviction or a lack to admit what your convictions fully are.

Also, using your arguments here, is it not your claim that evolution is a religion? And are you not "bashing" it?

Rather selective about the lines you cross, aren't you SoLoved?
adoucette
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 29 2005, 10:28 PM)

The Bible said that the earth was round 1600 years before man figured it out.

Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


This is the 21st century and of course we know that the earth is round. But do you think the average person alive at the time the book of Isaiah was written would believe it without faith? I think not.


Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God as the One sitting above the CIRCLE of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which implies anything more than the circularity of a flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'

Isaiah 40:22 describes God as seated on the zenith, the highest point directly overhead. Thus the verse implies that earth's dwellers, all mankind according to Psalm 33:13, 14, are clearly visible from a very high point directly overhead. This imagery fits most naturally the conception of the earth below as a flat disc, not a globe. For if the earth were a globe, part of all mankind namely earth's dwellers in Australia, Argentina, South Africa, etc... could not be seen from a point directly overhead. One could force the issue by appealing to God's omniscience, but Isaiah 40:22 (as well as the other verses which mention God looking down) is focused on God's height above the earth; and his seeing all mankind is derived from that height. That phrase "the circle of the earth" in no way implies sphericity is confirmed by the fact that in Egypt this phrase was used to refer to the earth as a flat circular disc. So when interpreted within its historical and biblical context Isaiah 40:22 implies that the earth is circular in shape but also that it is flat.

In fact the bible is FILLED with images of a FLAT earth.

Job 37:33 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? NOTE: Not stretched a line AROUND it

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? NOTE A BALL has no ENDS

Then of course there are references to the PILLARS that hold the earth up

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

So I would say the bible is not a good scientific reference.

Arthur
SoLoved
QUOTE
Pretend you are the Director of the National Science Academy, and someone comes to you with a proposal to build an orbiting telescope that will be able to detect the universe (distant galaxies) as it looked 14.5 billion years ago. How do you respond to that proposal?


My reply would be to say 'ask someone else', because I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Maybe you could be a little more up front and clear about the motive for the question.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Pretend you are the Director of the National Science Academy, and someone comes to you with a proposal to build an orbiting telescope that will be able to detect the universe (distant galaxies) as it looked 14.5 billion years ago. How do you respond to that proposal?


My reply would be to say 'ask someone else', because I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Maybe you could be a little more up front and clear about the motive for the question.

Also, at the end of my last post, summarizing my readings on ID:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of ID seems to be, if there is IC, CSI, and because of stated probability calculations, there must be an intelligence.


To me, the gist of ID is that cells, on their own, are not capable of anything grand. It is when each cell is connected to another with amazing precision, accuracy, and purpose, that intelligence and design are evident. The theory of Intelligent Design gains greater strength when the whole picture is viewed. ID covers not only the complexities of combined cells, but also the complexities of the mind. ID is the theory (and reality) of everything.

Intelligent Design is science, not religion. Creationism can be quite different from ID - depending on where the science takes you. Creationists may hope that ID takes them to Genesis - but ID theories make no such promises.

The insights into the biochemical complexity cells, made possible by modern microbiology, have undermined the claims for natural selection, the mechanism at the center of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionists believe that theirs is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena--a limitation known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism). Since evolution does not seek to explain origins (as they repeatedly remind me) then it is reluctant (to put it mildly) to incorporate the possibility of the phenomena known as design since it does not fit with their theory of naturalism.

Well known scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, were open to the evidence for design, and the field of science did not suffer for it. Between the theories of evolution and Intelligent Design lies a path of reason. We can be open to the possibility of design and continue to be measured, looking hard for new and exciting discoveries in nature that were heretofore a mystery.

Here is one of the many theories for ID being used in the current Dover PA school board case:

"It has been discovered that the structure of information in living systems is mathematically identical to that of written language. Since both written language and DNA have that telltale property of information carried along by specific sequences of 'words,' and since intelligence is known to produce written language, is it not reasonable to identify the cause of the DNA's information as an intelligence too? (Of Pandas and People, page 57) "

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=8...1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The source also proves not only that there IS a theory for Intelligent Design, but that it has been tested, and is testable.

On a lighter note....We have to be careful how we word things around here - I've heard we're related to chimps and more so gorillas - the above statement that our information structure is mathematically identical to that of the written language might make evolutionists conclude that we are all pencils.


QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God as the One sitting above the CIRCLE of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which implies anything more than the circularity of a flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'


And now, comes a word from the final authority on the Bible in the form of the above quote. (joke)

user posted image

Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


The only assumption I can gather from this verse is the the earth is a round ball. Keep in mind that man is speaking these words, trying to describe what he believes God is doing. And yes, the Bible is the inspired word of God - but both man and God speak to each other.

It is quite obvious that the rotation of the earth would give even an astronaut with a good telescope a vantage point from which to view the entire earth while sitting in space. We can, like the verse above, imagine what God can do. If you did it, would you be accurate? Not necessarily. Is the person speaking these words accurate? Yes. Why? Because God allowed these words to become Scripture.

If any of you infer from the above photo that I am inferring that God is sitting on the sun, or that there are two earths - then you guys are being

fa·ce·tious (fə-sē'shəs)
adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.


OR.....................

stu·pid (stū'pĭd, styū'-)
adj., -er, -est.
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
n.
A stupid or foolish person.


Take your pick.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)


A reference to North - South - East - and West, not flatness.

As is 'to the ends of the earth'.

So when you sail 'across' the Atlantic Ocean - you're saying that you never sail around the curvature of the earth? Yeah, right.

Pillars of the earth ......Hmm.....I wonder what would happen if we removed the guts of the earth.

Pillars tremble.......another indication that pillars refers to guts.

So, I would say the Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate. Once scientists realize this and more scientists begin to take advantage of it - the possibilities for new discoveries are wide open.

So now, instead of trying to cooperate with the ID group, we'll hear more of 'What about this' and 'What about that'. Booooorrrriiiinnng.

Da Da Daaaaaa....Da Da Daaaaaa
That's the Rocky theme song playing. I've been called so many names - that my alias' are 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer', and now 'Punch Drunk Boxer' .........but I prefer Rocky, because he always wins in the end.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God as the One sitting above the CIRCLE of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which implies anything more than the circularity of a flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'


And now, comes a word from the final authority on the Bible in the form of the above quote. (joke)

user posted image

Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


The only assumption I can gather from this verse is the the earth is a round ball. Keep in mind that man is speaking these words, trying to describe what he believes God is doing. And yes, the Bible is the inspired word of God - but both man and God speak to each other.

It is quite obvious that the rotation of the earth would give even an astronaut with a good telescope a vantage point from which to view the entire earth while sitting in space. We can, like the verse above, imagine what God can do. If you did it, would you be accurate? Not necessarily. Is the person speaking these words accurate? Yes. Why? Because God allowed these words to become Scripture.

If any of you infer from the above photo that I am inferring that God is sitting on the sun, or that there are two earths - then you guys are being

fa·ce·tious (fə-sē'shəs)
adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.


OR.....................

stu·pid (stū'pĭd, styū'-)
adj., -er, -est.
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
n.
A stupid or foolish person.


Take your pick.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)


A reference to North - South - East - and West, not flatness.

As is 'to the ends of the earth'.

So when you sail 'across' the Atlantic Ocean - you're saying that you never sail around the curvature of the earth? Yeah, right.

Pillars of the earth ......Hmm.....I wonder what would happen if we removed the guts of the earth.

Pillars tremble.......another indication that pillars refers to guts.

So, I would say the Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate. Once scientists realize this and more scientists begin to take advantage of it - the possibilities for new discoveries are wide open.

So now, instead of trying to cooperate with the ID group, we'll hear more of 'What about this' and 'What about that'. Booooorrrriiiinnng.

Da Da Daaaaaa....Da Da Daaaaaa
That's the Rocky theme song playing. I've been called so many names - that my alias' are 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer', and now 'Punch Drunk Boxer' .........but I prefer Rocky, because he always wins in the end.


If your mythic tome is the definitive word of the one true god, then logically other tomes that contradict yours must be in error.

You cannot claim the xian book is without question and absolutely correct and not also claim that other religious and mythical tomes that contradict the xian bible are in error and not the word of god.


Are you saying that Christianity is the only true religion and that all others must be in error? Or are you saying that I'm saying that? I'm confused - have you had a change of heart? Good.

I said......and I quote me:

"Faith is a journey, and a personal decision. I believe God holds us accountable for what we know. I believe the person in the most danger is the one who rejects God."

Let's break down MY statement and tell you what I said.

Faith is a journey.......
Each person was created by God and is loved by God. God gives each person a purpose and we set out 'on a journey' to find that purpose.
Some people find their purpose early in life, others don't.
Some people have blinders on, so they do not see God. This may be God's plan and it may not.
His ways are not our ways. Sometimes things happen that no one understands - but they work for the good of many in the end. A good example would be adoucette's seemingly racist remarks concerning how black people that suffered in Louisiana during the recent hurricane will now benefit because their sorry state has come to light. (whether I agree with adoucette or not is irrelevant - but I figured you might accept adoucette's statement more readily than my own).

So, we are on a journey......to discover our purpose.........that will hopefully lead us to faith.

Faith is a journey, and a personal decision......
We are each free to decide our faith. God, the ultimate mathematician, may have calculated to the last degree which circumstances would lead YOU to faith in HIM. In other words, He has made conditions ripe for you to believe. But, in the end, it is still your personal decision.

Faith is a journey, and a personal decision......I believe God holds us accountable for what we know.
There are many people in many locations that have not had the opportunity to hear about God through the inspired words of the Bible. I believe these people are accountable to God for what they do know. All people instinctively know that there is a higher power of some sort - if they accept this, then I believe they have accepted God. I believe that if people read the Bible and accept it, they have accepted God.

and finally.....

Faith is a journey, and a personal decision. I believe God holds us accountable for what we know. I believe the person in the most danger is the one who rejects God.
The person in the most danger is the one who rejects God. Since I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I also believe that rejection of this book is a rejection of God, which puts that person in danger of being seperated from God. If a person has never read and tested the Bible, but still rejects it - does that person reject God? Not necessarily. The person may be rejecting the Bible out of fear - and since they do not know what it says - they fall under the 'God holds us accountable for what we know' line.
God has presented Himself to you through the Bible. If you read it and still reject it - then you are rejecting the idea of God as presented in the Bible. At this point, it is between you and God. Here on earth, everything that can be done - has been done to introduce you to your Maker (short of personal miracles - and that's always possible).

Now if other people believe that their vision or version of a Higher Power is the right way - then that falls under the 'personal decision' line.

You specifically want to know if I believe that a Hindu or Buddist, etc. will go to heaven. You may, if you wish, conclude that it is based on what they know, and then on whether they rejected the Bible before or after they read it, and finally on God's judgement.
birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks for your reply.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Pretend you are the Director of the National Science Academy, and someone comes to you with a proposal to build an orbiting telescope that will be able to detect the universe (distant galaxies) as it looked 14.5 billion years ago. How do you respond to that proposal?


My reply would be to say 'ask someone else', because I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Maybe you could be a little more up front and clear about the motive for the question.


I was trying to be up front with this question, and wanted you to think about the situation. I'm assuming you would have no problem with the Director being a creationist? If so, and if this person were a person of integrity (which I assume you would also have no problem with), what response other than "that's a waste of taxpayer's money, since the universe is only thousands of years old" could be possible? If you have other hypothetical responses to posit, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Bruce
birdan
SoLoved,

One question per post, so you can answer each question.

QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God as the One sitting above the CIRCLE of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which implies anything more than the circularity of a flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'


I would be interested in this being addressed directly, not as a "joke". The Torah, the first 5 books of the 'bible', still exist in their original Hebrew. If modern translations take into account discoveries in science (e.g., replacing or 'updating' the original meaning of the Hebrew word (hug) circle) becuase we now know it's not true, where is the 'inerrancy' in that? Using scientific knowledge to change words in a scientifically inerrant document is circular logic at best.

Bruce
birdan
SoLoved,

And finally,

QUOTE
So, I would say the Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate. Once scientists realize this and more scientists begin to take advantage of it - the possibilities for new discoveries are wide open.


As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding creationists from being scientists. Nor have there for the past 2,000 years. In fact, there have been hundreds of years where there were laws prohibiting scientists from being anything BUT creationists. So I don't understand your "Once scientists realize this" in the quote above.

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints? (I know that Kepler, upon completion of his Astronomia Nova wrote a hymn of praise to God for being such a master clockmaker. Is this what you mean? However, his discoveries had nothing to do with inspiration or insight from the bible, but were based on observations recorded by Tycho de Brahe. Being religious and being a scientist are not mutually exlusive. But being religious does not mean believing the Bible is literally inerrant and scientifically accurate.) What are some of these "possibilities for new discoveries" that you mentioned?

thanks,
Bruce
SoLoved
QUOTE (birdan+Oct 1 2005, 08:05 AM)
SoLoved,

Thanks for your reply.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Pretend you are the Director of the National Science Academy, and someone comes to you with a proposal to build an orbiting telescope that will be able to detect the universe (distant galaxies) as it looked 14.5 billion years ago. How do you respond to that proposal?


My reply would be to say 'ask someone else', because I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Maybe you could be a little more up front and clear about the motive for the question.


I was trying to be up front with this question, and wanted you to think about the situation. I'm assuming you would have no problem with the Director being a creationist? If so, and if this person were a person of integrity (which I assume you would also have no problem with), what response other than "that's a waste of taxpayer's money, since the universe is only thousands of years old" could be possible? If you have other hypothetical responses to posit, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Bruce

If I were the Director of the National Science Academy I would be interested in the advancement of knowledge through science. I would have no problems with a request to build a telescope to view distant galaxies. My goal would be to learn everything and not hide anything.

Incomplete theories, such as evolution, however; would never be promoted to innocent school kids on my watch, for the simple reason that it is an incomplete theory that does not explain the originis of life. We have history to rely on for this, and this will have to stand until it's proven wrong.
SoLoved
QUOTE (birdan+Oct 1 2005, 08:14 AM)
SoLoved,

One question per post, so you can answer each question.

QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God as the One sitting above the CIRCLE of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which implies anything more than the circularity of a flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'


I would be interested in this being addressed directly, not as a "joke". The Torah, the first 5 books of the 'bible', still exist in their original Hebrew. If modern translations take into account discoveries in science (e.g., replacing or 'updating' the original meaning of the Hebrew word (hug) circle) becuase we now know it's not true, where is the 'inerrancy' in that? Using scientific knowledge to change words in a scientifically inerrant document is circular logic at best.

Bruce


My previous response should have answered your question. Most of the translations I looked up say ball, or circle, or vault. There are numerous websites out there that address your hebrew translation and basically affirm these translations.
Whatever the translation, the meaning is clear. The main point this verse wishes to infer is that God sits above the earth. Inferring a flat earth would certainly be a ridiculous assumption when compared to inferring that it says circle or ball.

This is a generally agreed upon statement of those who believe in the Bible:

The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure. This means that through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world even approaches the accuracy of transmission found in the biblical documents.
The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
birdan
Hi SoLoved,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

QUOTE
Incomplete theories, such as evolution, however; would never be promoted to innocent school kids on my watch, for the simple reason that it is an incomplete theory that does not explain the originis of life. We have history to rely on for this, and this will have to stand until it's proven wrong.


What history do we have for the origins of life, if not evolutionary evidence?

Bruce
birdan
P.S.

QUOTE
Inferring a flat earth would certainly be a ridiculous assumption when compared to inferring that it says circle or ball.


Circles are flat. 2 dimensional.
SoLoved
QUOTE (birdan+Oct 1 2005, 09:25 AM)
SoLoved,

And finally,

QUOTE
So, I would say the Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate. Once scientists realize this and more scientists begin to take advantage of it - the possibilities for new discoveries are wide open.


As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding creationists from being scientists. Nor have there for the past 2,000 years. In fact, there have been hundreds of years where there were laws prohibiting scientists from being anything BUT creationists. So I don't understand your "Once scientists realize this" in the quote above.

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints? (I know that Kepler, upon completion of his Astronomia Nova wrote a hymn of praise to God for being such a master clockmaker. Is this what you mean? However, his discoveries had nothing to do with inspiration or insight from the bible, but were based on observations recorded by Tycho de Brahe. Being religious and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. But being religious does not mean believing the Bible is literally inerrant and scientifically accurate.) What are some of these "possibilities for new discoveries" that you mentioned?

thanks,
Bruce

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, I would say the Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate. Once scientists realize this and more scientists begin to take advantage of it - the possibilities for new discoveries are wide open.


As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding creationists from being scientists. Nor have there for the past 2,000 years. In fact, there have been hundreds of years where there were laws prohibiting scientists from being anything BUT creationists. So I don't understand your "Once scientists realize this" in the quote above.

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints? (I know that Kepler, upon completion of his Astronomia Nova wrote a hymn of praise to God for being such a master clockmaker. Is this what you mean? However, his discoveries had nothing to do with inspiration or insight from the bible, but were based on observations recorded by Tycho de Brahe. Being religious and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. But being religious does not mean believing the Bible is literally inerrant and scientifically accurate.) What are some of these "possibilities for new discoveries" that you mentioned?

thanks,
Bruce

As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding creationists from being scientists. Nor have there for the past 2,000 years. In fact, there have been hundreds of years where there were laws prohibiting scientists from being anything BUT creationists. So I don't understand your "Once scientists realize this" in the quote above.


Consider the plight of this man: (I don't know his personal beliefs i.e. Christian, Jewish, etc.)

Immanuel Velikovsky was a scientist who tried to present his ideas to the establishment scientific community - he was vilified, misrepresented and dismissed as a crank - even though some of his views were proven to be correct. Generally, Velikovsky's theories were vigorously rejected by the scientific community (Not that I believe in this guy - just trying to make a point). He's not the only one either.

Conversely, there are literally thousands of scientific inaccuracies that when compared to the accuracy of the Bible make science look like gambling.

QUOTE
What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints?


Although this is not something I keep track of, maybe you do. Here is a partial list of scientists who are Christian, along with a list of their claims to fame:

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the following scientists do not necessarily reflect the views of this poster - me.

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy

Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Kepler was persecuted for his faith, banished from two cities and forced to give up his property.

Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light

Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
In 1656 he wrote the famous 18 Lettres provinciales (Provincial Letters), in which he attacked the Jesuits for their attempts to reconcile 16th-century naturalism with orthodox Roman Catholicism.

Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
James Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynamics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages

Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the priest who showed us the universe is expanding
His ideas forever altered astronomy. He had helped science catch up with Scripture.

George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

Secular thought often portrays religion as the enemy of science, but the truth is that many of the world's greatest scientific discoveries were made by persons of faith, seeking to honor God and His creation.

Now a couple of serious questions for you.....

Please explain why a society would change their entire date system based on one man, Jesus Christ.

Please explain why Jews and Greeks both acknowledge Jesus Christ and then explain how you can reject everything Jesus Christ says about himself in the gospels, but not reject that the Jews and Greeks admit that he existed.

You know what they say....Jesus was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.
SoLoved
QUOTE (birdan+Oct 1 2005, 09:54 PM)
What history do we have for the origins of life, if not evolutionary evidence?


The Bible, and other scientific discoveries that agree with the Bible. My guess is that if it doesn't agree with the Bible - it will not stand the test of time and will eventually be proven wrong.


Circles are flat?

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but that's an example of linear thinking on your part.

If you are in space looking at the earth, do you see a circle or a ball? I suppose it depends on the shadows, etc., but it's pretty easy to see a circle, don't you think?

Like I said before, the Bible is the inspired word of God - both God and man speak through the Bible. If man, speaking through the Bible, is told by God that the earth is a round ball, you could not blame this man for stating that the Lord sits above the circle or ball of the earth, could you?

But you contradict other statements made about this - is it flat and sqaure or flat and round - what about the 4 corners of the earth?

You see, your logic doesn't fit with every verse, mine does.

I say it can be a circle or ball - as far as the translation.
I say the four corners of the earth means north-south-east-west.

This makes it scientifically accurate. Not because I said so - but because it agrees with the Bible in every case.

SoLoved
I just thought of something - this entire argument about the ball or circle of earth is stupid.

Man, on the earth, can obviously see the sun and the moon quite easily - why the heck would they think the earth is flat?

birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks again for the reply.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding creationists from being scientists. Nor have there for the past 2,000 years. In fact, there have been hundreds of years where there were laws prohibiting scientists from being anything BUT creationists. So I don't understand your "Once scientists realize this" in the quote above.


Consider the plight of this man: (I don't know his personal beliefs i.e. Christian, Jewish, etc.)

Immanuel Velikovsky was a scientist who tried to present his ideas to the establishment scientific community - he was vilified, misrepresented and dismissed as a crank - even though some of his views were proven to be correct. Generally, Velikovsky's theories were vigorously rejected by the scientific community (Not that I believe in this guy - just trying to make a point). He's not the only one either.


I had not heard of Velikovsky until a few days ago. Psychiatrist by trade. He showed up on another Evo/ID thread the other day (someone said his book was found on Einstein's nightstand after Einstein died). So I had to do a little research. Apparently his 'claim to fame' is his book Worlds in Collision. And indeed, I did verify from more than one source that Einstein read the book (actually the manuscript), the main premise of which, as I understand the commentary without having read the book, is that Venus is only about 3,500 years old, having been dislodged from an orbit around Jupiter and nearly colliding with Earth. V. and E. corresponded back and forth a bit, and I'm copying two of Einstein's replies (translated from German) here:

Translation:

July 8, 1946

Dear Mr. Velikovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus. There is much of interest in the book which proves that in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is evident to every sensible physicist that these catastrophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and that also the direction of the inclination of the terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have undergone a considerable change without the total destruction of the entire earth’s crust. Your arguments in this regard are so weak as opposed to the mechanical-astronomical ones, that no expert will be able to take them seriously. It were best in my opinion if you would in this way revise your books, which contain truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this, then what is valuable in your deliberations will become ineffective, and it may be difficult finding a sensible publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy fiasco upon himself.

I tell you this in writing and return to you your manuscript, since I will not be free on the considered days.

With friendly greetings, also to your daughter,

Your

Albert Einstein


Translation:

27th August, 1952

Dear Dr. Velikovsky:

The reason for the energetic rejection of the opinions presented by you lies not in the assumption that in the motion of the heavenly bodies only gravitation and inertia are the determining factors. The reason for the rejection lies rather in the fact that on the basis of this assumption it was possible to calculate the temporal changes of star locations in the planetary system with an unimaginably great precision.

Against such precise knowledge, speculations of the kind as were advanced by you do not come into consideration by an expert. Therefore your book must appear to an expert as an attempt to mislead the public. I must admit that I myself had at first this impression, too. Only afterwards it became clear to me that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you.

With friendly greetings,

Yours,

Albert Einstein


A true gentleman, that Albert. So, SoLoved, what's your point? That it's wrong that scientists use scientific principles to reject ideas presented as 'science' when in fact they are mere unsubstantiated speculations?


QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints?


Although this is not something I keep track of, maybe you do. Here is a partial list of scientists who are Christian, along with a list of their claims to fame:



Of course they were all Christians. That was not my question, which (you will see above) did not even use that word. I know many people who are researchers, science teachers, mathematicians, etc. who are Christians. And knowing some quite closely I would say they are very good and sincere Christians. I hope you don't think all Christians are creationists? My point in asking that specific question was motivated by you saying the "inerrant and scientifically accurate" bible can used as the motivation and basis for scientific research and discovery. So, SoLoved, again I ask the question:

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints?

QUOTE
Now a couple of serious questions for you.....

Please explain why a society would change their entire date system based on one man, Jesus Christ.

Please explain why Jews and Greeks both acknowledge Jesus Christ and then explain how you can reject everything Jesus Christ says about himself in the gospels, but not reject that the Jews and Greeks admit that he existed.


Serious questions always deserve serious and to the point answers. First question:
Having done programming, I know that at first the Julian calendar was used in European society, and then the Gregorian (current) calendar superseded that one. There is nothing too mysterious about its history. The Catholic Church was the dominant social force from about 200AD until the 1500s, and the Catholic Church adopted first the Julian calendar, and then (by Pope Gregory, coincidentally) the Gregorian calendar. It's the same reason that everyone in Europe was Catholic during that time period, went to mass every Sunday, and the official 'language of science' was Latin. The dominant social force gets its way, I guess. Chinese, Jewish, and Islamic cultures all use their own calendars, by the way, so in that regard the Gregorian calendar is in the minority. But since European culture has been the dominant culture economically and militarily, the Gregorian calendar is used by all countries on the global level.

For the second question, I have no idea. I don't mean to duck the question, but I am not sure what you mean by 'acknowledge', and I take personal offense at 'how can you reject everything Jesus Christ says about himself' (which I don't). To hazard a guess, do you mean that people acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure but reject his divinity? That seems like a topic for a different thread than this one.

Thanks again,
Bruce
birdan
On to the next post .....

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
(birdan @ Oct 1 2005, 09:54 PM)
What history do we have for the origins of life, if not evolutionary evidence?


The Bible, and other scientific discoveries that agree with the Bible. My guess is that if it doesn't agree with the Bible - it will not stand the test of time and will eventually be proven wrong.


I will refer you to Mr. Einstein's letters above, since he is so gentlemanly about it. I think at this point I can objectively say that: scientific discoveries that disagree with the bible and ID get rejected or ignored out of hand; and your 'guess' is not quite scientific methodology. It would be easier if we just changed the definition of science, wouldn't it? But if we're going to teach the 'origins of life' based on the bible, since constitutional law says the state cannot promote one religion over another, we would also have to teach the following creation (origin of life) stories:

Aboriginal, Ainu, Algonquin, Altaic, Apache, Assyrian, Aztec, Babylonian, Chelan, Cherokee, Chinese, Chinook, Choctaw, Comanche, Crow, Digueno, Eqyptian, Gaiac, Greek, Guarani, Gundungurra, Hungarian, Hawaiian, Hindu, Hmong, Hopi, Huron, Ijo Orunmila, Inuit, Iroquois, Islam, Japanese, Judaic, Korean, Lakota, Latvian, Luiseno, Mande, Maori, Mayan, Mesopotamian, Mik'Maq, Miwok, Mohawk, Mojave, Mongol, Navajo, Nea Perce, Norse, Obatala, Olori, Paiute, Persian, Pima, Polynesian, Potawatomi, Roman, Romanian, Salish, Samoan, Shilluk, Shinto, Sikh, Sumerian, Tahitian, Vodoun, Yokut, Yoruba, Zoroastrian.

(My apologies to anyone who I left out.)

When will the kids have time to eat lunch? And are all these going to be on the test?

Bruce
SoLoved
QUOTE
A true gentleman, that Albert. So, SoLoved, what's your point? That it's wrong that scientists use scientific principles to reject ideas presented as 'science' when in fact they are mere unsubstantiated speculations?


I do not profess a belief in Velikovsky, I have read a little bit about him and his World in Collisions book. Many of his theories turned out to be true according to what I've read. If you get a chance you should read up on a 1974 AAAS Velikovsky Symposium - which turned out to be an all out attack on the man.

My point was that evolutionists reject intelligent design because it does no fit into their way of thinking - just like Velikovsky didn't fit into their way of thinking.

Your Einstein quotes were genuinely appreciated. As you said, what a gentleman. His response to Velikovsky showed that he took a serious interest in his ideas, he responded with respect and even gave him suggestions. Just imagine how pleasant this board would be if others responded like Einstein.

You did catch the fact that Einstein sees that Velikovsky has no intention of trying to mislead anyone, right?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A true gentleman, that Albert. So, SoLoved, what's your point? That it's wrong that scientists use scientific principles to reject ideas presented as 'science' when in fact they are mere unsubstantiated speculations?


I do not profess a belief in Velikovsky, I have read a little bit about him and his World in Collisions book. Many of his theories turned out to be true according to what I've read. If you get a chance you should read up on a 1974 AAAS Velikovsky Symposium - which turned out to be an all out attack on the man.

My point was that evolutionists reject intelligent design because it does no fit into their way of thinking - just like Velikovsky didn't fit into their way of thinking.

Your Einstein quotes were genuinely appreciated. As you said, what a gentleman. His response to Velikovsky showed that he took a serious interest in his ideas, he responded with respect and even gave him suggestions. Just imagine how pleasant this board would be if others responded like Einstein.

You did catch the fact that Einstein sees that Velikovsky has no intention of trying to mislead anyone, right?

I think at this point I can objectively say that: scientific discoveries that disagree with the bible and ID get rejected or ignored out of hand;


Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?

QUOTE
But if we're going to teach the 'origins of life' based on the bible,


Intelligent Design does not try to identify the designer It is not based on the Bible. Although I'm sure many Christians hope that it leads us to Genesis - that discussion should and will take place outside the classroom.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But if we're going to teach the 'origins of life' based on the bible,


Intelligent Design does not try to identify the designer It is not based on the Bible. Although I'm sure many Christians hope that it leads us to Genesis - that discussion should and will take place outside the classroom.

What are some of the discoveries over the past two millenia that you would attribute to scientists because of their creationist / "Bible is still inerrant and scientifically accurate" viewpoints?


I do not keep track of whether a scientist is a Christian or not, or whether they are a creationist or a Bible thumper. I am not biased against scientists and see no reason why I would single out these individuals.

My Velikovsky example is supposed to illustrate to you that what you're asking may not be possible. If one is going to be ostracized for presenting opposing theories, then how will any other views ever get into the organized science establishment?

In a previous post I asked:
Please explain why Jews and Greeks both acknowledge Jesus Christ and then explain how you can reject everything Jesus Christ says about himself in the gospels, but not reject that the Jews and Greeks admit that he existed.

You, doesn't necessarily mean you in particular.
The point here is that no matter how much evidence is presented - it is rejected the moment God enters the picture.
In another topic there was a discussion of the parting of the Red Sea, newguy provided a nice link to compelling evidence for this miracle - including a photo of a chariot wheel found at the bottom of the sea, that was believed to belong to the Egyptians who were killed in that event. An evolutionist dismissed it right off the bat and said it wasn't old enough.
The theory of irreducibly complex as a basis for ID is rejected on this forum just by saying - oh, we've already shot that one down, so bring us another idea.
amok
QUOTE
The theory of irreducibly complex as a basis for ID is rejected on this forum just by saying - oh, we've already shot that one down, so bring us another idea.


Because the idea of IC has already ineed been invalidated, and not just by people on this forum. If you require links and references they can be provided.

- Amok
J. Wensveen
QUOTE
Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?


In regards to that question, does ID acknowledge the following two Theories?

1. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and limited.
2. Basic Geometry, as in using angles and and know distances to calculate distances.

Because if they do, how do they explain away the age of the Universe based on the traveltime of light and the distance light from faraway galaxies has to travel to reach earth?
birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks again for the posting.
QUOTE
You did catch the fact that Einstein sees that Velikovsky has no intention of trying to mislead anyone, right?


Again, from one of the letters:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You did catch the fact that Einstein sees that Velikovsky has no intention of trying to mislead anyone, right?


Again, from one of the letters:
Against such precise knowledge, speculations of the kind as were advanced by you do not come into consideration by an expert. Therefore your book must appear to an expert as an attempt to mislead the public. I must admit that I myself had at first this impression, too. Only afterwards it became clear to me that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you.


The misleading information was not, in Einstein's opinion, deliberate, but misleading none the less. In his letters, Einstein clearly told V. that the book was not scientific and would not be accepted, and he was right.

QUOTE
Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?


To answer this to your satisfaction I would need to better understand who you think 'knowledgable Christians' are. The knowledgable Christians I know do not have any problems with evolution. If by 'knowledgable Christians' you mean biblical literalists, then not only evolution would be rejected, but also paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, etc. And since these sciences are built on other sciences, at least parts of those would have to be rejected too.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?


To answer this to your satisfaction I would need to better understand who you think 'knowledgable Christians' are. The knowledgable Christians I know do not have any problems with evolution. If by 'knowledgable Christians' you mean biblical literalists, then not only evolution would be rejected, but also paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, etc. And since these sciences are built on other sciences, at least parts of those would have to be rejected too.

My Velikovsky example is supposed to illustrate to you that what you're asking may not be possible. If one is going to be ostracized for presenting opposing theories, then how will any other views ever get into the organized science establishment?


In fact, people aren't ostracized 'for presenting opposing theories'. That is not the criteria. It's what's IN the theories. Velikovsky's problem was not that it was 'an opposing theory' but rather the contents of the theory, as Einstein politely pointed out several times.

A young patent clerk in Switzerland, who had an abysmal college career (with letters in his school record from his advisors saying don't ever hire this guy), wrote a paper on his theory to account for some of the current unexplained paradoxes in physics. His paper, if accepted, would upset the careers of some of the big politically important muckity-mucks in physics. But his paper's theory of special relativity was accepted and it turned physics on its head. Again, to be clear, it's not that a theory opposes current views, it's the content of that theory that is evaluated. Einstein told V. in his letters the theory was not good science and at best unintentionally misleading. And consequently the theory was rejected, based on its contents.

QUOTE
The point here is that no matter how much evidence is presented - it is rejected the moment God enters the picture.


The reason a theory gets rejected the moment God enters the picture is fairly straightforward and has nothing to do with a value judgement on God. God is, by definition, unprovable by the laws of science. Science does not say God is either good or bad, existent or non-existent. Science says nothing about the topic. If a theory is presented which is, by definition in the theory, unprovable, it will be rejected simply because it is not in the realm of science. Since God, by definition, can violate any law of science (creation violates the law of conservation of mass and energy), then science has no tools for addressing the topic and the topic is outside the scope of science. If I say 'brocoli tastes good', and present a theory backing up my claim, it would be rejected because there is and never will be a way to prove or disprove that 'brocoli tastes good'.

This is happening, to some extent, right now in physics with string theory. Which has nothing to do with God. There are many people who feel that string theory, in its present state, is basically unprovable one way or the other, and thus not really a theory. An avenue of research that may bear fruit down the road if it can actually be tested, but at the current time it isn't. There is a currently accepted 'Standard Model' in physics, and string theory is not a part of that.

So, if you tell me the universe was created 5,500 years ago to look exactly as we see it, with fossils in the ground 'apparently' looking old, earth strata 'apparently' looking old, light already in transit in the 'apparently old' universe from distant stars, etc., that will never be embraced by science. It does not mean science says its false, it simply means it is not something that can be addressed with the tools of science. The universe (and all these posts and our memories of these posts) could have been created just yesterday, looking just as we see it today. What is science supposed to do with that? How can science decide between these two 'theories', that a 'snapshot' of the universe was put in motion 5,500 years ago or just yesterday? It's neither provable or unprovable by science, and has to be looked at by meta-physicists, philosophers, and theologians.

Bruce
Grumpy
To soloved

QUOTE
I do not profess a belief in Velikovsky, I have read a little bit about him and his World in Collisions book. Many of his theories turned out to be true according to what I've read. If you get a chance you should read up on a 1974 AAAS Velikovsky Symposium - which turned out to be an all out attack on the man.


Once again you admit YOU KNOW NOTHING and that what you post as fact is actually hearsay. Despite the politeness Professor Einstein showed for V's manuscript(not book), he in essence told him(V) that he should remove the pearls of truth from the pile of crap that constituted the bulk of his(V's) theories. V had some insights that had merit but the core of his hypothesis was scientifically invalid and was RIGHTFULLY rejected by his peers. His popularity with the lay public is irrelevant(as is ID's) to the merits of his Hypothesis. That is why his hypotheses were rejected, that is why ID is rejected. If V was unable to defend his work at the Symposium or elsewhere, his work is not valid. Science is a ruthless business, rigid adherrance to the scientific method is required of everyone, no exceptions. Peer review(the Symposium) is often harsh and judgemental but the attacks are on the validity of the evidence, not the person presenting them unless that person is deliberately trying to commit a fraud(as many on the CSBS side do).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I do not profess a belief in Velikovsky, I have read a little bit about him and his World in Collisions book. Many of his theories turned out to be true according to what I've read. If you get a chance you should read up on a 1974 AAAS Velikovsky Symposium - which turned out to be an all out attack on the man.


Once again you admit YOU KNOW NOTHING and that what you post as fact is actually hearsay. Despite the politeness Professor Einstein showed for V's manuscript(not book), he in essence told him(V) that he should remove the pearls of truth from the pile of crap that constituted the bulk of his(V's) theories. V had some insights that had merit but the core of his hypothesis was scientifically invalid and was RIGHTFULLY rejected by his peers. His popularity with the lay public is irrelevant(as is ID's) to the merits of his Hypothesis. That is why his hypotheses were rejected, that is why ID is rejected. If V was unable to defend his work at the Symposium or elsewhere, his work is not valid. Science is a ruthless business, rigid adherrance to the scientific method is required of everyone, no exceptions. Peer review(the Symposium) is often harsh and judgemental but the attacks are on the validity of the evidence, not the person presenting them unless that person is deliberately trying to commit a fraud(as many on the CSBS side do).

My Velikovsky example is supposed to illustrate to you that what you're asking may not be possible. If one is going to be ostracized for presenting opposing theories, then how will any other views ever get into the organized science establishment?


One is not ostracized for presenting opposing theories, that happens all the time(S.J.Gould is very prolific, as an example). Even presenting hypotheses later found invalid will not get you "booted out" of the scientific community, most hypotheses are later found to be invalid. Clinging to an invalidated hypothesis, forging evidence in support of same or any other fraudulent activity will. Permanently. I think that is the main reason that very few papers are submitted by perveyors of the CSBS for peer review. They wish to maintain at least a whiff of scientifc respectability which would vanish if subjected to true scrutiny by real scientists.
They would then be faced with the choice of abandoning the CSBS or losing what little credibility they have in the scientific world.

QUOTE
The theory of irreducibly complex as a basis for ID is rejected on this forum just by saying - oh, we've already shot that one down, so bring us another idea.


Wrong again!!! We have all presented copious evidence debunking the false premise of IC. It is not a case of our just saying so. IC has been thouroughly discredited here and in other fori many times, you just ignore this inconvienient evidence. But you know it exists, so your statement is a knowing falsehood, a lie. Lying, in your own religious belief system, is sin(bearing false witness), even if you feel you are doing it in aid of your cause. We're tired of repeating what we know you have already seen so you get short answers to your constant repeating of discredited postulates. Repeating a falsehood time after time will never make it true unless your a right wing politician.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The theory of irreducibly complex as a basis for ID is rejected on this forum just by saying - oh, we've already shot that one down, so bring us another idea.


Wrong again!!! We have all presented copious evidence debunking the false premise of IC. It is not a case of our just saying so. IC has been thouroughly discredited here and in other fori many times, you just ignore this inconvienient evidence. But you know it exists, so your statement is a knowing falsehood, a lie. Lying, in your own religious belief system, is sin(bearing false witness), even if you feel you are doing it in aid of your cause. We're tired of repeating what we know you have already seen so you get short answers to your constant repeating of discredited postulates. Repeating a falsehood time after time will never make it true unless your a right wing politician.

My point was that evolutionists reject intelligent design because it does no fit into their way of thinking - just like Velikovsky didn't fit into their way of thinking.


A tiny ray of truth in the darkness of missinformation that are the bulk of your posts. We reject ID and V because they do not meet the requirements of the scientific method(our way of thinking). They are both ludicris, false pseudo-science formulated to promote an agenda. ID to promote religion in the public schools, V to promote his flawed hypothesis. Neither is creditable science.

QUOTE
Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?


The age of the Earth(geology)and the age of the universe(cosmology) are just two that immediately popped into my head. I'm sure there are others.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Other than evolution, and in the last 25 years, which scientific discoveries have knowledgable Christians rejected?


The age of the Earth(geology)and the age of the universe(cosmology) are just two that immediately popped into my head. I'm sure there are others.

Intelligent Design does not try to identify the designer It is not based on the Bible.


More lies.

QUOTE
Circles are flat?

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but that's an example of linear thinking on your part.


Do you have some kind of problem with linear(logical) thinking??? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting who it is I'm talking to. To those who believe in magic I guess logic doesn't mean much. Never mind.

Grumpy mad.gif
SoLoved
Most of your responses, especially those of GeneSplicer and Grumpy, show a complete lack of Biblical and/or Intelligent Design knowledge. You may have read 10 beelion pages on the Bible and another beelion on ID - but you do not appear to have grasped very much of what you have read.

Your 'answers' are ridiculous and have gone beyond the scope of these forums. Your answers are not answers at all, they're nothing but insults.

It's obvious you are living by the dogma of the pseudo theories of evolution. Life is not about evolution. The reasons your theories are not accepted by beelions and beelions of people is because they do not answer the hard questions. Anybody can dissect a human body and tell you that it is made up of organic materials - but that answers nothing as far as Life is concerned.

Hopefully, you will reconsider your responses and give us all relevant answers so that we can debate in a friendly manner. If you don't want to debate in a friendly manner - then you should not post any comments. It's your choice.

This is a Creation/Evolution forum. There are many other topics in the PhysOrg forums that are more open to your kind of science. If you don't want God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, Creation, and Intelligent Design mentioned here - then you have a few options: 1. You could get us kicked off the boards so that you could only talk to like minded people. 2. You could ask the administrators to shut down the Creation/Evolution boards so that this talk is not permitted at all. 3. You could start your own closed forum here and invite only certain people. 4. You could ignore the Creation/Evolution boards altogether. 5. You could respect people that have opposing views. It's your choice.

You don't need to set us straight - that's not why we're here. We're here to try to understand how you think and to hear your ideas, and we hope you'll try to do the same for us. It's your choice.


J. Wensveen
REPOST
birdan
Frankly, I'm all for discourse. I really don't understand all this vehemence. If it were Behe or Dembski in the forum, then maybe I could see it. I find merit in the exchange of ideas, even when apparently talking apples and oranges. At the least, I learn more of the viewpoint of those I deeply disagree with. The most dangerous adversary is the unknown adversary. To wit, here is Einstein's last letter to Velikovsky:

QUOTE
    Dear Mr. Velikovsky!

    Remarks on the part of your manuscript “poles displaced.”

    The first impression is that the generations of scholars have a “bad memory.” Scientists generally have little historical sense, so that each single generation knows little of the struggles and inner difficulties of the former generation. Thus it happens that many ideas at different times are repeatedly conceived anew, without the initiator knowing that these subjects had been considered already before. In this sense I find your patience in examining the literature quite enlightening and valuable; it deserves the attentive consideration of researchers who according to their natural mentality live so much in the present that they are inclined to think of every idea that occurs to them, or their group, as new. The idea of a possible displacement of the poles as an explanation of the change of climate in any one point of the earth’s crust is a beautiful example. Even the idea of the possibility of a sliding of the rigid crust in relation to the plastic, or fluid deeper strata of the earth, was already considered by Lord Kelvin (and was in fact rejected).

    The interpretation of the vote mentioned on pp. 159-1601 as an attempt at a dogmatic fixation of the “truth” is not obvious to me. It is simply interesting for the participants of a congress to see how opinions concerning an interesting question are divided among those present. I don’t think that the underlying idea was that the outcome of the voting would somehow insure the objective correctness of the outcome of the vote.

    From p. 182 on starts a wild robbers’ story (up to p. 189) which seems to rely more on a strong temperament than on organized considerations. Referring to p. 191: Blacket’s idea is untenable from a theoretical point of view. The remark about the strength of magnetization seems to be unjustified (p. 192); it could for example depend essentially upon the speed of cooling as well as on particle shape and size. The direction of the magnetic field during solidification must however quite certainly determine the direction of magnetization. Bottom 192 etc.: wild fantasy! from here on marginal remarks with pencil in the manuscript.

    The proof of “sudden” changes (p. 223 to the end) is quite convincing and meritorious. If you had done nothing else but to gather and present in a clear way this mass of evidence, you would have already a considerable merit. Unfortunately, this valuable accomplishment is impaired by the addition of a physical-astronomical theory to which every expert will react with a smile or with anger—according to his temperament; he notices that you know these things only from hearsay—and do not understand them in the real sense, also things that are elementary to him. He can easily come to the opinion that you yourself don’t believe it, and that you want only to mislead the public. I myself had originally thought that it could be so. This can explain Shapley’s behavior, but in no case excuse it. This is the intolerance and arrogance together with brutality which one often finds in successful people, but especially in successful Americans. The offence against truthfulness, to which you rightly called my attention, is generally human, and in my eyes, less important. One must however give him credit that in the political arena he conducted himself courageously and independently, and just about carried his hide to the marketplace.

    Therefore it is more or less justified if we spread the mantle of Jewish neighborly love over him, difficult as it may be.

    To the point, I can say in short: catastrophes yes, Venus no. Now I ask you: what do you mean when you request of me to do my duty in this case? It is not clear to me. Be quite frank and open towards me, this can only be good in every respect.

    With cordial greetings to both of you,

    Your

    A. Einstein.



I'm still interested in comments on my last post.

Bruce
amok
QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


Like others here, this one has been bugging me. What version of the bible are you reading? I have been unable to find any verse in any version that matches the above quoted scripture. Unless of course you are referring to 'The Message' of which I would somehow not be surprised.

Anyhow, I think that trying to say that the bible states that the earth is a globe is a moot point, there's nowhere near enough proof either way.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


Like others here, this one has been bugging me. What version of the bible are you reading? I have been unable to find any verse in any version that matches the above quoted scripture. Unless of course you are referring to 'The Message' of which I would somehow not be surprised.

Anyhow, I think that trying to say that the bible states that the earth is a globe is a moot point, there's nowhere near enough proof either way.

It's obvious you are living by the dogma of the pseudo theories of evolution. Life is not about evolution. The reasons your theories are not accepted by beelions and beelions of people is because they do not answer the hard questions. Anybody can dissect a human body and tell you that it is made up of organic materials - but that answers nothing as far as Life is concerned.


Does not answer the hard questions? Indeed it answers just those! Where did we come from? Well we have point A and point B, and evolution is how we got to point B. That's the hard question. The easy question, or the easy way out is to say 'Because God did it'. For most people, and I'm not sure about how many 'beelions' it may be, but the easy way is not enough. Granted it may be more comforting, but oh well.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts.

- Amok


Anyhow, what's up with 'beelions' anyhow?
SoLoved
QUOTE (birdan+Oct 3 2005, 07:37 AM)

QUOTE
The point here is that no matter how much evidence is presented - it is rejected the moment God enters the picture.


The reason a theory gets rejected the moment God enters the picture is fairly straightforward and has nothing to do with a value judgement on God. God is, by definition, unprovable by the laws of science. Science does not say God is either good or bad, existent or non-existent. Science says nothing about the topic. If a theory is presented which is, by definition in the theory, unprovable, it will be rejected simply because it is not in the realm of science. Since God, by definition, can violate any law of science (creation violates the law of conservation of mass and energy), then science has no tools for addressing the topic and the topic is outside the scope of science. If I say 'brocoli tastes good', and present a theory backing up my claim, it would be rejected because there is and never will be a way to prove or disprove that 'brocoli tastes good'.

This is happening, to some extent, right now in physics with string theory. Which has nothing to do with God. There are many people who feel that string theory, in its present state, is basically unprovable one way or the other, and thus not really a theory. An avenue of research that may bear fruit down the road if it can actually be tested, but at the current time it isn't. There is a currently accepted 'Standard Model' in physics, and string theory is not a part of that.

So, if you tell me the universe was created 5,500 years ago to look exactly as we see it, with fossils in the ground 'apparently' looking old, earth strata 'apparently' looking old, light already in transit in the 'apparently old' universe from distant stars, etc., that will never be embraced by science. It does not mean science says its false, it simply means it is not something that can be addressed with the tools of science. The universe (and all these posts and our memories of these posts) could have been created just yesterday, looking just as we see it today. What is science supposed to do with that? How can science decide between these two 'theories', that a 'snapshot' of the universe was put in motion 5,500 years ago or just yesterday? It's neither provable or unprovable by science, and has to be looked at by meta-physicists, philosophers, and theologians.

Bruce


I'm going to start out with a funny....
What happens if you drop a piece of food on the floor - can you still eat it?

Well sure, you just follow the 5 second rule - if it's on the floor for less than 5 seconds, no harm is done, and you can enjoy it without worrying.

What happens if it's on the floor for 8 seconds?

...Well then you have to switch to the 10 second rule.

(I was watching Jay Leno while writing this)

------------------------------

Anyway, to follow up on your post....

Like your example of the string theory- first of all.....how is it that this is called a theory when it doesn't qualify? If they actually are calling it a theory, and the scientific elite are calling it a theory - what is the basis for this?

I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.

What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.

God can violate any law of science, however, He does not normally do this, which means we can generally depend on them - but perhaps we should consider the divine intervention when these laws are violated. But now I must ask you, have you see these laws violated in the last 2000 years? He would do this though, to serve His purpose, which is always good (there's no point in arguing this last sentence because none of us can comprehend His ways, and besides - I've already heard it.)

Humans also violate laws of science and nature. (remember, we were created in His image)
For example......in the area of animals that are bred to produce certain qualities or features.........in the area of vegetation.................in the area of human cloning and female reproduction..............in the area of drugs, plastic surgery, psychiatry (haha).
Humans have their purpose for violating these laws as well. Some are good and some are bad.

Back to the string theory....you say it may bear fruit down the road if it can be tested. What is the process that the string theory is going through right now to qualify for this hightly esteemed position? Why is research allowed in this area but not in the area (presumably) of ID?

As far as the age of the universe, fossils, beelions of years (I say beelions because my brother always used to say that, with feeling, and I think it's funny)....

Science may not say it's false, but if this forum is any indication, the only reason for that is duct tape.

I believe the Bible - as you say - God can violate any rule of science - so if He said He did it in 6 literal days - I believe Him.

In my opinion, it is up to science to prove that He did - if they're up to the task. Perhaps some day in the future they will be. I'm not kidding and I'm not being difficult, I'm very serious. Surely we will be more advanced in the years to come - especially if we study intelligent design.

I believe the search for proof of God lies in the design of everything we see.

Evolution leaves more questions than it answers. For example:

SEX: If an organism can reproduce by splitting in two - then why do we have sex? Assuming evolution - woman must have evolved first and then somehow a seed evolved in her and she gave birth to a boy or girl.....and eventually the natural urge for sex evolved to bring the two together and thus evolved a new way to reproduce and that made them stronger, because sex was fun. Yeah right, and I'm Santa Claus, no...actually I'm Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (because they laught and call me names).

BE NICE: Why should we be nice to each other? Now I've already heard several responses on this - but the psyche is just too complicated to have evolved, so I just don't accept this. I think research into our own intelligence will lead us to the Designer. So much information is coming out over the Internet now - it's an exciting time we live in. Tons of information is being gathered (no doubt by Google) and amazing things are being learned from so much information in one place.

LIFESPAN: Why does the average lifespan of the human fluctuate so much? Plants and trees can potentially live forever - and they grow really big, why don't we? I believe the answer lies into researching the aging process. Not much has been discovered in this area. If we assume the body is capable of living a lot longer because of its design, then we are looking at the body from a different perspective. Different conclusions will result - just from this simple change in perspective.

There are other questions, but you get the idea.

SoLoved
SoLoved
QUOTE (amok+Oct 4 2005, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


Like others here, this one has been bugging me. What version of the bible are you reading? I have been unable to find any verse in any version that matches the above quoted scripture. Unless of course you are referring to 'The Message' of which I would somehow not be surprised.

Anyhow, I think that trying to say that the bible states that the earth is a globe is a moot point, there's nowhere near enough proof either way.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Isaiah 40:22
22God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas--
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.


Like others here, this one has been bugging me. What version of the bible are you reading? I have been unable to find any verse in any version that matches the above quoted scripture. Unless of course you are referring to 'The Message' of which I would somehow not be surprised.

Anyhow, I think that trying to say that the bible states that the earth is a globe is a moot point, there's nowhere near enough proof either way.

It's obvious you are living by the dogma of the pseudo theories of evolution. Life is not about evolution. The reasons your theories are not accepted by beelions and beelions of people is because they do not answer the hard questions. Anybody can dissect a human body and tell you that it is made up of organic materials - but that answers nothing as far as Life is concerned.


Does not answer the hard questions? Indeed it answers just those! Where did we come from? Well we have point A and point B, and evolution is how we got to point B. That's the hard question. The easy question, or the easy way out is to say 'Because God did it'. For most people, and I'm not sure about how many 'beelions' it may be, but the easy way is not enough. Granted it may be more comforting, but oh well.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts.

- Amok


Anyhow, what's up with 'beelions' anyhow?

Hi run amok,

We have debated this one using both translations - ball or circle. The point is, any ding dong can look in the sky and see both the sun and the moon, which are round - plus it is obvious that they are a ball - not a flat circle. So this discussion is irrelevant. If you still don't understand it - enter Isaiah 40:22 and a word like controversy into your search engine - you'll get explanations on both sides of the ball (pun).

You do not answer the hard questions, instead you get stalled on piddly questions like the Isaiah one.
The hard questions ' Where do we come from' are not answered by telling us we evolved from poo soup over beelions and beelions of years.

What amazing force caused it all? Beelions of years doesn't answer it, micro organisms doesn't answer it, and the big bang doesn't answer it (except for when God said Bang and there it was)

What's with beelions? My brother used to say that all the time - with feeling - and I just think it's funny.

QUOTE
Because the idea of IC has already ineed been invalidated, and not just by people on this forum. If you require links and references they can be provided


Well that's news to all the ID folks. No I don't require any links - heard it all. Just because you say it 10 times real fast doesn't make it true.

If you want to see the latest debates - visit the websites that are talking about the Dover trial. There's a lot there. Unqualified people can sit and say the theories are no good - but some people are staking their life's work on them.

SoLoved
RealityCheck
Hello SoLoved.

Oh dear, oh dear. Not long ago you rebuked me and others for daring to question/test the reality/rationality or otherwise of 'god' and his 'works'; AND NOW YOU REBUKE US FOR NOT WISHING TO QUESTION/TEST THE THE REALITY/RATIONALITY OR OTHERWISE OF 'GOD' AND HIS 'WORKS'.

EVERYONE IN THESE FORA: I submit that, because of the self-evidently confused, contradictory and irrational state of SoLoved's thought processes, SoLoved should BE EXCUSED FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PRESENT ANY COGENT POSTINGS WHATSOEVER...and that whatever SoLoved posts from now on should be met with a 'stock reply' to the effect "MAKE UP YOUR MIND, SOLOVED...THEN WE CAN TALK".

The benefits of this course of action are obvious...it would save much time and trouble for those who have more important things to do than 'nursemaid' a (seeming) halfwit who is the perfect advertisement for the truth of that old saying: "A little 'knowledge' is a dangerous thing (in the hands of fools and idiots)".

I for one am exasperated almost to distraction by the daily exhibition of want of understanding on the part of SoLoved for what 'scientific method' MEANS. I don't know about anyone else here, but is there any law that says one MUST put up gladly and without demur such obvious non compos mentis babbling ad infinitum? If there IS such a law, can we repeal it 'for heavens' sake!

There it is, SoLoved; not 'bitterness', just 'frustration' born of having to suffer through incoherent/dishonest postings presented as supposed 'scientific' debate. PULL THE OTHER ONE!

RealityCheck.
J. Wensveen
Lets see what I can do tis time

QUOTE

Like your example of the string theory- first of all.....how is it that this is called a theory when it doesn't qualify? If they actually are calling it a theory, and the scientific elite are calling it a theory - what is the basis for this?


Good question, and one I can not readily answer. It is a theory in the field of theoratical physics, the place where mathematicians and physicists come together. They are building formula's around ideas that somehow start to match up. It is Mathematics though, the formula they made covers the hypothesis, making a mathematical theory.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Like your example of the string theory- first of all.....how is it that this is called a theory when it doesn't qualify? If they actually are calling it a theory, and the scientific elite are calling it a theory - what is the basis for this?


Good question, and one I can not readily answer. It is a theory in the field of theoratical physics, the place where mathematicians and physicists come together. They are building formula's around ideas that somehow start to match up. It is Mathematics though, the formula they made covers the hypothesis, making a mathematical theory.




I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.

What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.


You can present your theory, you can provide your way of measurement, and everyone should be able to hook up the equipment and get the same results. After enough people have done your same experiment and the result is always the same, your hypothesis might become a theory.

But there are only a very few scientists on this world that do real theory testing. Mostly what the scientists do is on a very small scale on very defined issues and they get their reseach granted based on the nesessety of finding out that question that their predecessors ran into.

QUOTE


God can violate any law of science, however, He does not normally do this, which means we can generally depend on them - but perhaps we should consider the divine intervention when these laws are violated. But now I must ask you, have you see these laws violated in the last 2000 years? He would do this though, to serve His purpose, which is always good (there's no point in arguing this last sentence because none of us can comprehend His ways, and besides - I've already heard it.)


The Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence discussion ? Or the footprints in the Dust?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


God can violate any law of science, however, He does not normally do this, which means we can generally depend on them - but perhaps we should consider the divine intervention when these laws are violated. But now I must ask you, have you see these laws violated in the last 2000 years? He would do this though, to serve His purpose, which is always good (there's no point in arguing this last sentence because none of us can comprehend His ways, and besides - I've already heard it.)


The Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence discussion ? Or the footprints in the Dust?



Humans also violate laws of science and nature. (remember, we were created in His image)
For example......in the area of animals that are bred to produce certain qualities or features.........in the area of vegetation.................in the area of human cloning and female reproduction..............in the area of drugs, plastic surgery, psychiatry (haha).
Humans have their purpose for violating these laws as well. Some are good and some are bad.


Who defines Good from Bad in these cases? And how do we violate the laws of science if we use these same laws to reach our goal? If the laws of science do not want something to be done, it will not be possible. Cloning is not breaking any laws of science for example, it is using our scientific knowledge on the way things work to our own wishes.

QUOTE


Back to the string theory....you say it may bear fruit down the road if it can be tested. What is the process that the string theory is going through right now to qualify for this hightly esteemed position? Why is research allowed in this area but not in the area (presumably) of ID?


Research is done based on pure mathematical equasions, in the hope that one day an equasion is established that can create a device able to test that equation. As in, put something in, get something out conform the equations set up to explain the string hypothesis.

What formula's describe ID, how do you propose to test and measure ID? Submit your hyphotesis, your testing methods and the formula's connecting them. Then find yourself funding, like every scientist that looks for funding for their research. And as it stands now, you will probably have it alot easier to get funding then people researching strange deseases.

And after you have done your tests, publish it in a research paper, and there will always be some people that will have a look at it. And if everything is valid, and they can not discredit you in anyway based upon your paper, some will repeat your experiments to see if they get the same results. (see cold fusion)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


Back to the string theory....you say it may bear fruit down the road if it can be tested. What is the process that the string theory is going through right now to qualify for this hightly esteemed position? Why is research allowed in this area but not in the area (presumably) of ID?


Research is done based on pure mathematical equasions, in the hope that one day an equasion is established that can create a device able to test that equation. As in, put something in, get something out conform the equations set up to explain the string hypothesis.

What formula's describe ID, how do you propose to test and measure ID? Submit your hyphotesis, your testing methods and the formula's connecting them. Then find yourself funding, like every scientist that looks for funding for their research. And as it stands now, you will probably have it alot easier to get funding then people researching strange deseases.

And after you have done your tests, publish it in a research paper, and there will always be some people that will have a look at it. And if everything is valid, and they can not discredit you in anyway based upon your paper, some will repeat your experiments to see if they get the same results. (see cold fusion)



As far as the age of the universe, fossils, beelions of years (I say beelions because my brother always used to say that, with feeling, and I think it's funny)....


Science may not say it's false, but if this forum is any indication, the only reason for that is duct tape.


Speed of light + basic geometry + observation := beelions of years

It is a crossword puzzle, there are still holes, some words are wrong, but the words that are linked do give a nice indication on the remaining questions to fill in.

QUOTE


I believe the Bible - as you say - God can violate any rule of science - so if He said He did it in 6 literal days - I believe Him.

In my opinion, it is up to science to prove that He did - if they're up to the task. Perhaps some day in the future they will be. I'm not kidding and I'm not being difficult, I'm very serious. Surely we will be more advanced in the years to come - especially if we study intelligent design.

I believe the search for proof of God lies in the design of everything we see.


If this is true, science will find that answer, but it will do it according its own set of rules.

My mathematics teacher never awarded me points if I put in the answer of the equation, he wanted to see if I could do the steps inbetween. Cheating is also a way to put in the right answer, but to see if I understood the questions and the method, the intermediate steps were the items I got credited for.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


I believe the Bible - as you say - God can violate any rule of science - so if He said He did it in 6 literal days - I believe Him.

In my opinion, it is up to science to prove that He did - if they're up to the task. Perhaps some day in the future they will be. I'm not kidding and I'm not being difficult, I'm very serious. Surely we will be more advanced in the years to come - especially if we study intelligent design.

I believe the search for proof of God lies in the design of everything we see.


If this is true, science will find that answer, but it will do it according its own set of rules.

My mathematics teacher never awarded me points if I put in the answer of the equation, he wanted to see if I could do the steps inbetween. Cheating is also a way to put in the right answer, but to see if I understood the questions and the method, the intermediate steps were the items I got credited for.



Evolution leaves more questions than it answers. For example:

SEX: If an organism can reproduce by splitting in two - then why do we have sex? Assuming evolution - woman must have evolved first and then somehow a seed evolved in her and she gave birth to a boy or girl.....and eventually the natural urge for sex evolved to bring the two together and thus evolved a new way to reproduce and that made them stronger, because sex was fun. Yeah right, and I'm Santa Claus, no...actually I'm Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (because they laught and call me names).


Viability and survival. It is easy to split in two as one cell, or a small cell cluster, but when you have specialised cell clusters, it gets harder. And one cell splitting might seem nice, but it is better to share your genes with others to stabalize your species and its benefits.

Your evolutionary steps here though are based toward the ridiculous. read a basic book about evolution of sex and there you will find a more fitting answer, because even you know your example is crap, that is also why you chose it, but you use it for the wrong reason.

QUOTE


BE NICE: Why should we be nice to each other? Now I've already heard several responses on this - but the psyche is just too complicated to have evolved, so I just don't accept this. I think research into our own intelligence will lead us to the Designer. So much information is coming out over the Internet now - it's an exciting time we live in. Tons of information is being gathered (no doubt by Google) and amazing things are being learned from so much information in one place.


No need to be nice, kill every competition, but others will try to do the same to you, and they will work together and that working together gives them an advantage over you.

Social evolution. Those social structures that work best toward having as much offspring as possible under the current enviromental pressure are those that survive, and are therefore promoted.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


BE NICE: Why should we be nice to each other? Now I've already heard several responses on this - but the psyche is just too complicated to have evolved, so I just don't accept this. I think research into our own intelligence will lead us to the Designer. So much information is coming out over the Internet now - it's an exciting time we live in. Tons of information is being gathered (no doubt by Google) and amazing things are being learned from so much information in one place.


No need to be nice, kill every competition, but others will try to do the same to you, and they will work together and that working together gives them an advantage over you.

Social evolution. Those social structures that work best toward having as much offspring as possible under the current enviromental pressure are those that survive, and are therefore promoted.


LIFESPAN: Why does the average lifespan of the human fluctuate so much? Plants and trees can potentially live forever - and they grow really big, why don't we? I believe the answer lies into researching the aging process. Not much has been discovered in this area. If we assume the body is capable of living a lot longer because of its design, then we are looking at the body from a different perspective. Different conclusions will result - just from this simple change in perspective.


Aging process: caused by the degradation of the endparts of the DNA strands every time a cell devides to refresh itself (is about every 7 years that most of the non-neural cells of the human body are refreshed) For the rest of the time, cells are bombarded by radiation, have to cope with alot of chemicals and are subjected to all kinds of stress. This will damage them untill they are so damaged that certain functions no longer work.
Grumpy
To soloved

QUOTE
I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.


First, why should I, as a scientist, waste my valuable(to me) time trying to provide evidence for your theory??(soloved, this is a question, see the little mark?)

Second, why should I waste my research money(also valuable,and rare)trying to provide evidence for your theory??(another question)

Third, is your brain damaged so you cannot do your own work??(ditto)

Your abysmal lack of understanding of how science works never ceases to amaze me. It isn't as if you've never been informed of the facts, I myself have spent considerable time and effort explaining the facts of life to you. I am forced to consider several scenarios to explain this puzzling situation:

1. You have had a terrible accident which has destroyed your ability to learn anything new. Every day, when you wake up your brain resets to what you knew yesterday when you awoke, wiping out any new knowledge.

2. You have been kidnapped by evil CSBS purveyors, who removed your brain, gave it a good scrub and rinse and replaced it, but got some of the wires crossed.

3. You are actually a computer programmed by ICS(Institute of Crazy Scumbags) and must follow your programming, no matter how stupid it makes you look.

4. You are deliberately being obtuse, dishonest and deceitful in hopes of furthering your hopeless cause.

I could understand and overlook the first three.

Grumpy mad.gif
birdan
SoLoved,

Thanks again for the reply. OK, clarification time ...

QUOTE
Like your example of the string theory- first of all.....how is it that this is called a theory when it doesn't qualify? If they actually are calling it a theory, and the scientific elite are calling it a theory - what is the basis for this?


The basis of this is simply a vagary of language. String theory is primarily an endeavor of mathematics, and mathematics uses the term differently than applied science. If you think back to high school geometry class, you were proving theorems all the time by taking a given situation, going through a set of logical steps, and proving an outcome. This is what 'theory' means in mathematics. There are LOTS of 'theories' floating around in the theoretical physics / mathematics area about the structure of the universe. String theory, in fact, is a misnomer in another sense in that there are actually several string theories being bandied about. But when it is looked at by an applied physicist as 'a model of the objective universe', then it is just an hypothesis. It is a case of one word being used by two different groups in slightly different ways, which I can see could be confusing. A lot of confusion results from the word 'theory' used differently in science than in everyday life. All those 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact' bumper stickers. But there is NO confusion that these mathematical models are simply hypotheses at this point. I hope you didn't get hung up on that one word and miss the point of this example: ID is not being 'picked on'. There are lots of hypotheses that are unprovable and thus remain just hypotheses.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Like your example of the string theory- first of all.....how is it that this is called a theory when it doesn't qualify? If they actually are calling it a theory, and the scientific elite are calling it a theory - what is the basis for this?


The basis of this is simply a vagary of language. String theory is primarily an endeavor of mathematics, and mathematics uses the term differently than applied science. If you think back to high school geometry class, you were proving theorems all the time by taking a given situation, going through a set of logical steps, and proving an outcome. This is what 'theory' means in mathematics. There are LOTS of 'theories' floating around in the theoretical physics / mathematics area about the structure of the universe. String theory, in fact, is a misnomer in another sense in that there are actually several string theories being bandied about. But when it is looked at by an applied physicist as 'a model of the objective universe', then it is just an hypothesis. It is a case of one word being used by two different groups in slightly different ways, which I can see could be confusing. A lot of confusion results from the word 'theory' used differently in science than in everyday life. All those 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact' bumper stickers. But there is NO confusion that these mathematical models are simply hypotheses at this point. I hope you didn't get hung up on that one word and miss the point of this example: ID is not being 'picked on'. There are lots of hypotheses that are unprovable and thus remain just hypotheses.

I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.

What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.


If you refer back to that same post by me, I offered an example of 'science' not rejecting a theory that ran counter to the whole of physics at the time. This is only one of many. I don't agree that the theory would be rejected if it were an actual scientifically provable theory. I don't understand why science would be 'idealism' if it cannot address the existence of God. It is a discipline that looks at the physical world, not the spiritual world. Modern science has never pretended to be anything else. You don't ask your dentist to remove an aneurism from your aorta, and you shouldn't ask science to delve into personal beliefs. Neither is equipped to do a good job, and lots of fatalities would result. Your microwave oven, your PC, your cellphone, your car, antibiotics, airplanes, etc. all work REGARDLESS of your personal beliefs.

QUOTE
God can violate any law of science, however, He does not normally do this, which means we can generally depend on them - but perhaps we should consider the divine intervention when these laws are violated. But now I must ask you, have you see these laws violated in the last 2000 years?


No, I haven't seen any violation of the laws of physics in the past 2,000 years. I haven't seen any for the past 14.7 beelions of years. How does one objectively account for 'divine intervention'? What is your model of science that would be able to do this?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
God can violate any law of science, however, He does not normally do this, which means we can generally depend on them - but perhaps we should consider the divine intervention when these laws are violated. But now I must ask you, have you see these laws violated in the last 2000 years?


No, I haven't seen any violation of the laws of physics in the past 2,000 years. I haven't seen any for the past 14.7 beelions of years. How does one objectively account for 'divine intervention'? What is your model of science that would be able to do this?

Humans also violate laws of science and nature. (remember, we were created in His image)
For example......in the area of animals that are bred to produce certain qualities or features.........in the area of vegetation.................in the area of human cloning and female reproduction..............in the area of drugs, plastic surgery, psychiatry (haha).


Again, the vagaries of language. By 'laws' I meant physical laws, not moral laws. Laws of physics - conservation, equality, etc. A physical law is something that can be tested and verified by ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the world. A moral law depends on one's personal belief, and is not in the realm of science.

QUOTE
Back to the string theory....you say it may bear fruit down the road if it can be tested. What is the process that the string theory is going through right now to qualify for this hightly esteemed position? Why is research allowed in this area but not in the area (presumably) of ID?


First question, answered above. Second question: I haven't seen ANY evidence for research in ID being disallowed. Anyone, as far as I know, can feel free to pick up the ID torch and run with it. Do the research, objectively gather the relevant data, and submit the theory for peer review. Science is used to having its world turned upside down by 'breakthroughs', so I don't doubt it would be accepted if it were actual science and not a political agenda. You have mentioned several times that research on ID is being disallowed. Could you be more specific? As far as I know, only the federal government, by passing a law, could do this.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Back to the string theory....you say it may bear fruit down the road if it can be tested. What is the process that the string theory is going through right now to qualify for this hightly esteemed position? Why is research allowed in this area but not in the area (presumably) of ID?


First question, answered above. Second question: I haven't seen ANY evidence for research in ID being disallowed. Anyone, as far as I know, can feel free to pick up the ID torch and run with it. Do the research, objectively gather the relevant data, and submit the theory for peer review. Science is used to having its world turned upside down by 'breakthroughs', so I don't doubt it would be accepted if it were actual science and not a political agenda. You have mentioned several times that research on ID is being disallowed. Could you be more specific? As far as I know, only the federal government, by passing a law, could do this.

In my opinion, it is up to science to prove that He did - if they're up to the task. Perhaps some day in the future they will be. I'm not kidding and I'm not being difficult, I'm very serious. Surely we will be more advanced in the years to come - especially if we study intelligent design.


This seems to be in direct contradiction to the press release you posted regarding the Dover case. Science should be allowed to go where the evidence leads. That is the only thing science should be 'up to' doing. Again, there are no laws disallowing the pursuit of the theory of ID. But it seems you want science to work backwards. Here's the result, now go find the evidence. That is NOT science following the evidence.

QUOTE
We have debated this one using both translations - ball or circle. The point is, any ding dong can look in the sky and see both the sun and the moon, which are round - plus it is obvious that they are a ball - not a flat circle.


I believe Run Amok was simply asking for what version of the Bible you got that translation from? (since he was unable to find it in the several versions he consulted). As far as 'any ding dong', I ask you to remember back to grade school history. Columbus' sailing west to the 'New World' was a big deal because back in the 15th century the consensus opinion was that the world was flat, and most people felt he would fall off the ends of the earth. Remember that? What is obvious to us today was not so hundreds of years ago. As time allows, I will look into versions of the bible used at that time, and their translation of the infamous Hebrew word 'hug'. I have had passing curiosity about this before, since the ancient Greeks (among others) knew the world was round, but by the 15th century everyone in Europe was of the opinion the earth was flat. My curiosity is how this information got lost. I have a hypothesis, but need to do some research before I present a theory.

Bruce
birdan
RETRACTION

It's amazing what one can learn when they 'go where the evidence leads them'. I wish to retract the last paragraph of my previous post, excluding the first sentence. After doing some reading (from what seem to be reputable sources - I skip the www.atheist, www.genesis, etc. websites and tend to go with .edu's) there seems to be fairly wide consensus the 'Columbus story' we were taught in grade school is NOT TRUE. In the story I remember, Columbus went before the council of Salamanca in 1485 (OK, I don't remember all these details from grade school, just the gist of it) to convince the local 'scholars' and church leaders that the earth was spherical, not flat.

What really happened at the council was a debate between Columbus and the scholars about whether he could sail 15,000 miles on the open sea and not starve to death. The 15,000 mile figure was arrived at because 8,000 miles was known territory, and the CIRCUMFERENCE of the earth was 23,000 miles. So the grade school story is pure myth. In tracing back this myth, historians came to a strange source: Washington Irving! Yep, Mr. Rip Van Winkle, Headless Horseman himself. Irving had written a 'historical novel' (similar to today's DocuDramas) about the exploits of Columbus and it was in this novel that the myth arose. Is this still taught in schools today? It shouldn't be.

Prior to Irving (and a possible source for Irving, though this connection is not clear) Andrew Dickson White had written The Warfare of Science with Theology, which is completely discredited today. In his book, White cites Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius (both early Christian leaders) as believing the earth was flat, which they did state in their writings. Apparently White had an axe to grind and the book was written to show that the church of the middle ages was a detriment to science. However, Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all considered the earth to be a globe.

As far as the original topic in these posts, I could only find two bibles that were in use in the middle ages prior to 1500 - the Latin Vulgate which was the 'official' bible, and the Wycliffe english translation of the Latin Vulgate. This seems to be due to the extreme homogeneity of society at the time. The Wycliffe has not widely used since supporters of it were burned at the stake using their English translation as kindling. Anyway, The Isaiah 40:22 in the Latin Vulgate is:

"qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum",

with the operative word being 'gyrum' which means: circle, ring; circuit; course; circular course for training/racing horses.

The Wycliffe:

22 Which sittith on the cumpas of erthe, and the dwelleris therof ben as locustis; which stretchith forth heuenes as nouyt, and spredith abrood tho as a tabernacle to dwelle.

From all the reading, it's my opinion that a spherical earth was a well known phenomena in the Middle Ages, especially among seafarers, but was not known by the Hebrews, who viewed the earth as a 'hug', 'gyrum', or 'cumpas'. It's also my opinion that (via White directly and maybe Irving innocently) deliberate falsities were propagated in the 1800s to vilify the church of the Middle Ages as regards its role in science by propagating a 'flat earth' myth. However, Galileo was indeed under house arrest for the rest of his life by the church after publishing his helio-centric theory of the solar system, and apparently Copernicus avoided conflict by dying on the day his work was published.

That's all I know about this, and way more than I ever thought I wanted to know.
Bruce
SoLoved
J.Wensveen,

Thank you for your decent reply. I appreciate the tone and wish to commend you for acting in an Einsteinian manner.

Some of the posts in this and a few other threads seem to be more relevant lately - which means I have a little more work to do in order to respond to them all. This is a good thing.

I can appreciate your viewpoint.

Regarding the sex question......
SEX: If an organism can reproduce by splitting in two - then why do we have sex? Assuming evolution.

At what point did there become a male and female?

If a human evolved - why would you need both a male and female? Why is it possible to have one member of a sex without the other?

This question is one of the biggest problems for the evolution theory. Does anyone else care to comment on this?


Thanks,

SoLoved
SoLoved
[QUOTE][COLOR=gray]QUOTE by soloved,
I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.
What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.
quotes by birdan,

If you refer back to that same post by me, I offered an example of 'science' not rejecting a theory that ran counter to the whole of physics at the time. This is only one of many. I don't agree that the theory would be rejected if it were an actual scientifically provable theory. I don't understand why science would be 'idealism' if it cannot address the existence of God. It is a discipline that looks at the physical world, not the spiritual world. Modern science has never pretended to be anything else. You don't ask your dentist to remove an aneurism from your aorta, and you shouldn't ask science to delve into personal beliefs. Neither is equipped to do
SoLoved
The above post was posted in error......following is the complete post. (sorry)

QUOTE
QUOTE  by soloved,
I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.
What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.
quotes by birdan,

If you refer back to that same post by me, I offered an example of 'science' not rejecting a theory that ran counter to the whole of physics at the time. This is only one of many. I don't agree that the theory would be rejected if it were an actual scientifically provable theory. I don't understand why science would be 'idealism' if it cannot address the existence of God. It is a discipline that looks at the physical world, not the spiritual world. Modern science has never pretended to be anything else. You don't ask your dentist to remove an aneurism from your aorta, and you shouldn't ask science to delve into personal beliefs. Neither is equipped to do a good job, and lots of fatalities would result. Your microwave oven, your PC, your cellphone, your car, antibiotics, airplanes, etc. all work REGARDLESS of your personal beliefs.


Birdan,

Certain scientists have a certain doctrine that they follow - and there is no room for a Designer or God.

If there is a God and science does not accept this because they cannot prove it, how can science be accurate then?

If, as has been mentioned in these forums, God violates natural laws to perform miracles from time to time - and science doesn't take this into account; how will science accurately explain how such things could happen?

You may not have seen the violations of natural laws yourself - but there were witnesses to the miracles in the Bible - how does science explain these miracles - they explain it by saying it's a myth (so they believe that instead of believing there's a God).

Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE  by soloved,
I do not accept the premise that God is unprovable. If science cannot figure out a way to prove the existence of God, then it is not science at all, but idealism.
What I read from your statement is that if I presented the scientific elite with a theory that God exists and I can prove it, they would reject it. Therefore, you have qualified science to be involved in idealism.
quotes by birdan,

If you refer back to that same post by me, I offered an example of 'science' not rejecting a theory that ran counter to the whole of physics at the time. This is only one of many. I don't agree that the theory would be rejected if it were an actual scientifically provable theory. I don't understand why science would be 'idealism' if it cannot address the existence of God. It is a discipline that looks at the physical world, not the spiritual world. Modern science has never pretended to be anything else. You don't ask your dentist to remove an aneurism from your aorta, and you shouldn't ask science to delve into personal beliefs. Neither is equipped to do a good job, and lots of fatalities would result. Your microwave oven, your PC, your cellphone, your car, antibiotics, airplanes, etc. all work REGARDLESS of your personal beliefs.


Birdan,

Certain scientists have a certain doctrine that they follow - and there is no room for a Designer or God.

If there is a God and science does not accept this because they cannot prove it, how can science be accurate then?

If, as has been mentioned in these forums, God violates natural laws to perform miracles from time to time - and science doesn't take this into account; how will science accurately explain how such things could happen?

You may not have seen the violations of natural laws yourself - but there were witnesses to the miracles in the Bible - how does science explain these miracles - they explain it by saying it's a myth (so they believe that instead of believing there's a God).

Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.

Anyone, as far as I know, can feel free to pick up the ID torch and run with it.


Amen. And so we shall.

As far as your comment about Columbus... I don't doubt there were people, both scientists and religious people, who thought the earth was flat. But that is no different than a person who doesn't believe in a God.
Sometime in the future we will be laughing at them as well.

And now it is the science community that has become a detriment to itself.

Thank you for the retraction, .....I think.

SoLoved
SoLoved
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 5 2005, 05:22 AM)

First, why should I, as a scientist, waste my valuable(to me) time trying to provide evidence for your  theory??(soloved, this is a question, see the little mark?)

Second, why should I waste my research money(also valuable,and rare)trying to provide evidence for your theory??(another question)

Third, is your  brain damaged so you cannot do your own work??(ditto)


Grumpy,

First question - because that's your job, or at least the job of scientists.

Second question - you wouldn't have to. I'm sure the ID group is proceeding nicely without your assistance.

Third question - The jury's still out on that one.


SoLoved
amok
QUOTE
Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.


Science seems to be moving forward just fine on it's own, with or without the existance of a designer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.


Science seems to be moving forward just fine on it's own, with or without the existance of a designer.

Regarding the sex question......
SEX: If an organism can reproduce by splitting in two - then why do we have sex? Assuming evolution.



To quote a good resource:

QUOTE
Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). Offspring inherit one allele for each trait from each parent, thereby ensuring that offspring have a combination of the parents' genes. This recombination of genes every generation leads to strong selective pressure for good genes for survival in the organism's environment. Further, by having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, deleterious alleles can be masked, an advantage believed to have led to the evolutionary development of diploidy (Otto and Goldstein).


Basically it's the whole concept of a gene pool, the more there is to pull from the better off you are.

Also, for having asexual and sexual reproduction...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). Offspring inherit one allele for each trait from each parent, thereby ensuring that offspring have a combination of the parents' genes. This recombination of genes every generation leads to strong selective pressure for good genes for survival in the organism's environment. Further, by having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, deleterious alleles can be masked, an advantage believed to have led to the evolutionary development of diploidy (Otto and Goldstein).


Basically it's the whole concept of a gene pool, the more there is to pull from the better off you are.

Also, for having asexual and sexual reproduction...

Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially. However, because they rely on mutation for variations in their DNA, all members of the species have similar vulnerabilities. Organisms that reproduce sexually yield a smaller amount of offspring, but the large amount of variation in their genes makes them less susceptible to disease.

Many organisms can reproduce sexually as well as asexually. Aphids, slime molds, sea anemones and many plants are examples. When environmental factors are favorable, asexual reproduction is employed to exploit suitable conditions for survival such as an abundant food supply, adequate shelter, favorable climate, disease, optimum pH or a proper mix of other lifestyle requirements. Populations of these organisms increase exponentially via asexual reproductive strategies to take full advantage of the rich supply resources.

When food sources have been depleted, the climate becomes hostile, or individual survival is jeopardized by some other adverse change in living conditions, these organisms switch to sexual forms of reproduction. Sexual reproduction insures a mixing of the gene pool of the species. The variations found in offspring of sexual reproduction allow some individuals to be better suited for survival and provide a mechanism for selective adaptation to occur. In addition, sexual reproduction usually results in the formation of a life stage that is able to endure the conditions that threaten the offspring of an asexual parent. Thus seeds, spores, eggs, pupae, cysts or other "over-wintering" stages of sexual reproduction ensure the survival during unfavorable times and the organism can "wait out" adversarial situations until a swing back to suitability occurs.


I hope that explains things well enough.

- Amok

P.S. I Love wikipedia smile.gif



Grumpy
To soloved

According to your logic it is my job to make money to support your children???
Why??? Are you unwilling or unable to support your own offspring??? I have offspring of my own that I work hard to support, why should I give a hoot about yours??? If they follow the same logic as you, what is my interest in thier existance??? How do I know that they are real and not some figment of your imagination??? Have you any proof of thier existance??? Beyond thier names in a fairy tale book or because you say so???

Silly, isn't it. Substitute Hypothesis for children and offspring in the above paragraph and it isn't any less silly. If you are unwilling or ,as I suspect, unable to support your own "brain child", don't hold your breath waiting for us to do it for you, blue is not your best color.

Grumpy mad.gif
SoLoved
The onus is on the biologists to describe in minute detail every step in the evolution of a biochemical system - ideally documenting every DNA mutation that led to such changes - despite the absence of a biochemical fossil record. I would also like to see a complete record of the human lineage all the way down to the first micro-organism.

I am very interested in this sex thing. I'd like to see some sort of chart or layout that shows how and when a male and female appear on the scene.
Since humans do not share the DNA of the many organisms that can reproduce sexually as well as asexually - such as your examples of aphids, slime molds, sea anemones and many plants - then you'll will need to come up with a better example to describe how the human came to be - including thought, feeling, and other emotions, and even something as simple as breast feeding (the idea of evolution creating a natural system of feeding their young will not be so easiy explained, but please try). Again charts and pictures are always appreciated.

ID proponents, on the other hand, can dispense with such grunt work, because if Intelligent Design is responsible for the biochemical system in question, then ID proponents are free to move forward with discoveries that could only be possible in a system that relies on the dependability of the Designer and our natural laws. It also serves to create new research opportunities for science - who can make new discoveries based on design and reliability, rather than random chance of success.

ID is a mechanistic and methodical theory, that can be tested and confirmed repeatedly in thousands of ways. Something that scientists can make use of. ID proponents do not advocate labeling an object as being Intelligently Designed and then halting all research. On the contrary, this takes us in an entirely new direction that leads to new discoveries.

Scientists are capable of doing this, as long as they are not afraid of bucking the established science community.

Thanks for the decent and well thought out response run Amok - very Einsteinian.

More humor .... most of you should get a kick out of this site:

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom...y_id=3169&page=

(I have no idea what it says - other than it's for some type of commercial - I just thought it was funny).

SoLoved
birdan
Hi SoLoved,

Thanks for your post.

QUOTE
Certain scientists have a certain doctrine that they follow - and there is no room for a Designer or God.


And lots of scientists don't have that doctrine. The nice thing about the scientific community in general is that it is broad and diverse. The scientific community AS A WHOLE is not trapped into a single mindset which precludes looking at all possibilities. Science is also a very competitive field. If there is a topic worth pursuing that one scientist does not pursue because of their doctrine, mindset, or prejudices, there will be many others who will take it up.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Certain scientists have a certain doctrine that they follow - and there is no room for a Designer or God.


And lots of scientists don't have that doctrine. The nice thing about the scientific community in general is that it is broad and diverse. The scientific community AS A WHOLE is not trapped into a single mindset which precludes looking at all possibilities. Science is also a very competitive field. If there is a topic worth pursuing that one scientist does not pursue because of their doctrine, mindset, or prejudices, there will be many others who will take it up.

If there is a God and science does not accept this because they cannot prove it, how can science be accurate then?


I've tried to explain this before, I'll try to do a better job this time. Science neither accepts nor rejects God. Science does not, cannot, address areas that are unprovable. Science is accurate, very accurate, when dealing in areas it's supposed to be. Done to beelionsth and beelionsth of a meter.

Please explain to me how science could be science and accept unprovable tenets. Who gets to decide which unprovable tenets get accepted? Besides you? Why not 10,000 Hindu deities? Why not the Buddha? Should we take a vote? I know that the conservative right is always ranting about 'moral relativism' as supposedly espoused by those leftist liberals. What you are proposing is 'scientific relativism', where there are no longer any absolute scientific truths.

All someone has to do is scientifically prove there is a God. And no one is stopping anyone from making that attempt. Again, science neither accepts nor rejects God. Nor does science attempt to define what art is, what makes a good novel, or define beauty. Science has well-defined boundaries in which it works and works well. It is not and has never been the be-all know-all source of truth. Science just deals with science. It seems to me that neutrality means to you that science is 'atheistic'. All it really means is that science does not have the 'tools', is not qualified, to have an opinion on the subject. Because science cannot define what beauty is DOES NOT mean that science says beauty doesn't exist, it means science has no ability to address the question 'What is beauty?'. Does that make sense to you?

QUOTE
If, as has been mentioned in these forums, God violates natural laws to perform miracles from time to time - and science doesn't take this into account; how will science accurately explain how such things could happen?


Science works on physical evidence. When science has physical evidence of a phenomena that does not fit into a current model or theory, then science has to alter its models and theories (or come up with brand new models and theories) to accomodate that physical evidence. But science, again, only works with the physical. It does not work with the psychic, spiritual, aesthetic, or religious. That is not in the realm of science, and again, that is NOT a value judgement on any of those things. If there is real physical evidence of something, then it can be addressed by science.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If, as has been mentioned in these forums, God violates natural laws to perform miracles from time to time - and science doesn't take this into account; how will science accurately explain how such things could happen?


Science works on physical evidence. When science has physical evidence of a phenomena that does not fit into a current model or theory, then science has to alter its models and theories (or come up with brand new models and theories) to accomodate that physical evidence. But science, again, only works with the physical. It does not work with the psychic, spiritual, aesthetic, or religious. That is not in the realm of science, and again, that is NOT a value judgement on any of those things. If there is real physical evidence of something, then it can be addressed by science.

You may not have seen the violations of natural laws yourself - but there were witnesses to the miracles in the Bible - how does science explain these miracles - they explain it by saying it's a myth (so they believe that instead of believing there's a God).


You seem to be confusing personal views of people who happen to be scientists with actual science. Science does not say miracles are myths. Science says nothing about miracles. Some scientists may say that, stating their personal viewpoint. Unless they were planning an imminent career change, they would never publish that viewpoint in a scientific article. They may state their views in other venues (like for instance these posts), but those views mean nothing in the realm of science.

If a miracle has physical evidence associated with it, science has the tools to look at the physical evidence. Science may not have seen a meteor crash into the earth thouslions and thouslions of years ago, but it can look at the physical evidence of that meteor crash.

QUOTE
Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.


There is nothing stopping anyone from pursuing this proof. And that is the beauty of science having the boundaries it does. It simply goes where the evidence leads it.


OK, my turn. Einstein was a big proponent of 'thought experiments'. These were mental exercises where one would do an 'experiment' in their head that couldn't actually be performed in the real world. I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's assume you've just moved to Utopia, IL and science is just as you would like it to be. Please understand I mean no disrespect to your personal beliefs in the following.

1. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community prayer session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and a miracle has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

2. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community meditation session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and Buddha has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

3. An archeologist comes to you and tells you that he has just returned from a dig, where he discovered Babylonian clay tablets which were calendars, and there were literally thouslions of them, sequentially dated going back tens of thouslions of years. In fact, he's got them in his truck parked out back. He would like you to peer review the draft of the publication he's preparing on his find. What would be the gist of your review?

I know you can't give detailed answers, but this is a thought experiment, and it's not being devious. What I'm saying is you are proposing that science be different, but that 'difference' would make science a completely unworkable discipline. I'm trying to find out how it can have the differences you say it needs and still be science. That should be the point of your replies. And please don't duck the questions by saying something like you're not a qualified M.D. or archeologist. What I want to know is how the structure of the new science you're proposing would work in these situations.

Thanks again,
Bruce

P.S.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Science must find a way to prove the existence of a Designer (if He exists) so that it can move forward. You may disagree with this, but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.


There is nothing stopping anyone from pursuing this proof. And that is the beauty of science having the boundaries it does. It simply goes where the evidence leads it.


OK, my turn. Einstein was a big proponent of 'thought experiments'. These were mental exercises where one would do an 'experiment' in their head that couldn't actually be performed in the real world. I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's assume you've just moved to Utopia, IL and science is just as you would like it to be. Please understand I mean no disrespect to your personal beliefs in the following.

1. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community prayer session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and a miracle has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

2. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community meditation session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and Buddha has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

3. An archeologist comes to you and tells you that he has just returned from a dig, where he discovered Babylonian clay tablets which were calendars, and there were literally thouslions of them, sequentially dated going back tens of thouslions of years. In fact, he's got them in his truck parked out back. He would like you to peer review the draft of the publication he's preparing on his find. What would be the gist of your review?

I know you can't give detailed answers, but this is a thought experiment, and it's not being devious. What I'm saying is you are proposing that science be different, but that 'difference' would make science a completely unworkable discipline. I'm trying to find out how it can have the differences you say it needs and still be science. That should be the point of your replies. And please don't duck the questions by saying something like you're not a qualified M.D. or archeologist. What I want to know is how the structure of the new science you're proposing would work in these situations.

Thanks again,
Bruce

P.S.
but I believe this is due to an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief.


OK, assume an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief. Would you enlighten me please?
birdan
Grumpy,

I just read in another string that you live in Cary? I used to live down 64, across the 'pond' in bucolic Chatham County. Small world .....

Bruce
Grumpy
Soloved

Let me get this straight. You want us to write a book explaining everything about evolution, with charts and pictures, which you will then blithely dismiss since CSBS/ID don't have to do any work, since all you need is belief, no science involved??? And what's so dependable about a designer who can drop in at any time and change all the rules???(another question for you to ignore like my last post, to this point that is ten questions I have asked that you have not answered in the last two posts alone)

QUOTE
ID proponents, on the other hand, can dispense with such grunt work, because if Intelligent Design is responsible for the biochemical system in question, then ID proponents are free to move forward with discoveries that could only be possible in a system that relies on the dependability of the Designer and our natural laws. It also serves to create new research opportunities for science - who can make new discoveries based on design and reliability, rather than random chance of success.


No, you cannot dispense with all the grunt work!!! This grunt work is the rock you build your science on. Without doing the grunt work your science is built on the shifting sands and is useless and invalid. Without the grunt work how will you show that design is responsible instead of evolutionary forces??? And, again, what is dependable about an outside force(designer) which can appear at any time to change all the rules??? Scientific endeavors become useless with such undependability and you will be reduced to sitting around waiting for a miracle to occur. Or is the designer under your control and you can reliably order a morale to occur??? Are you able to predict or control the changes your designer will make???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
ID proponents, on the other hand, can dispense with such grunt work, because if Intelligent Design is responsible for the biochemical system in question, then ID proponents are free to move forward with discoveries that could only be possible in a system that relies on the dependability of the Designer and our natural laws. It also serves to create new research opportunities for science - who can make new discoveries based on design and reliability, rather than random chance of success.


No, you cannot dispense with all the grunt work!!! This grunt work is the rock you build your science on. Without doing the grunt work your science is built on the shifting sands and is useless and invalid. Without the grunt work how will you show that design is responsible instead of evolutionary forces??? And, again, what is dependable about an outside force(designer) which can appear at any time to change all the rules??? Scientific endeavors become useless with such undependability and you will be reduced to sitting around waiting for a miracle to occur. Or is the designer under your control and you can reliably order a morale to occur??? Are you able to predict or control the changes your designer will make???

breast feeding


Modified sweat glands. Simple enough for you???

QUOTE
ID is a mechanistic and methodical theory, that can be tested and confirmed repeatedly in thousands of ways. Something that scientists can make use of. ID proponents do not advocate labeling an object as being Intelligently Designed and then halting all research. On the contrary, this takes us in an entirely new direction that leads to new discoveries.


CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.

We are now up to 16 questions I have asked in my last two posts that you have yet to answer. You said you were unaware of any so I will keep track for you.

I've had to don my waders to slog through the yard full of crap in this post. It's all blather, probably quoted or paraphrased from the websites that excrete this manure by the barnful.The odor is making me dizzy and nauseated and I'm really not interested in trying to educate a hopeless child.

Grumpy mad.gif
RealityCheck
Hello Adoucette.

If I had more free time (which alas, I don’t) I would ALSO explain in detail to SoLoved the existence/function/benefits of the HERMAPHRODITE (self-fertilising, NOT cloning/dividing) reproductive system/strategy; as well as the SEX-CHANGE (female-to-male, especially in certain fish) reproductive strategy; both of which of course evolved early on in the piece. I would also have tried to point out that, since the organs/genes necessary to the existence/refinement of these sexual strategies/capabilities were ALSO converged-upon/perfected by the relevant organisms early on in the piece, the question as to when the ‘first human 'male/female’ arrived on the scene is a non-sequitur...as whatever pre-humans we evolved from HAD ALREADY EVOLVED THE NECESSARY MECHANISMS/STRUCTURES/STRATEGIES which, via the ensuing Natural Selection process, were ‘fixed’ as the most advantageous for that particular series of pre-anthropoid/anthropoid developments that led to the ‘first’ ‘true’ humans (male & female) and eventually to ‘modern’ humans.

In short, the male + female sexual structures/capabilities/strategy were there long before humans evolved to the 'Adam & Eve' stage (humorous allusion, SoLoved, NOT acceptance of 'bible' story, hehehe), and so was ‘inherited’ by the earliest mammalian life forms that ‘fixed’ on sexual reproductive strategies/organs as part of their survival ‘toolkit’ (which so far seems to have been the right evolutionary path for Natural Selection Process to ‘steer’ us onto, hehehe!).

Also it might be worth exploring how hermaphroditism and sex-changeism, and the ability/technology for modern human females to ‘clone’ themselves, sit with SoLoved's ‘bible-as-inerrant-science-reference-book’ view of things; since as far as I recall, none of these reproductive strategies were ‘scientifically’ treated by whoever wrote/rewrote that ‘book’ (then and since).

As I said, there are too many other calls on my time right now, which is why I am forced to impose on yours (but ONLY if you can spare the time yourself!); and in any case I could never be as thorough as you and some others in answering SoLoved’s request for info in this field (the physical sciences and technology are my forte; just as evolutionary biology seems to be most obviously yours! hehehe).

Would it be possible for you and others to follow up on these aspects for SoLoved’s sake, if not mine? Thanks in anticipation of what will doubtless be a most excellent treatment by yourself and others!


Best rushed regards from: RealityCheck.
SoLoved
HaHaHa......man, I couldn't hit the reply button fast enough after I read your last post Grumpy.....there were some great lines in that one - I'll have to remember them for my next highlights of the week post. Dang, you're good!

I have lots of people to respond to - I think I'll have to call in the National Evangelical Association of Intelligent Design Debaters - because I can only spend so much time on this forum, so many posts - so little time.

So, I guess I'll just have to choose - but I sure will try to get to as many as I can.
You guys have been asking way to many questions and haven't given enough answers. You usually duck the questions and respond with sarcasm. Especially my last post - yes I want to see you write a brief summary at least - and please - plain english - I'm not up on the hip lizards and so forth.

(note to birdan and steveo - sorry I haven't responded yet - I know I'm doing last in first out - but Grumpy is just way too funny)

QUOTE
And what's so dependable about a designer who can drop in at any time and change all the rules???


Come on now, you know better than that. I know you kinda believe something - so I'm sure you'd welcome an unexpected visit from the designer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And what's so dependable about a designer who can drop in at any time and change all the rules???


Come on now, you know better than that. I know you kinda believe something - so I'm sure you'd welcome an unexpected visit from the designer.

No, you cannot dispense with all the grunt work!!!


Whattsa matter fella, hit a nerve?

QUOTE
Scientific endeavors become useless with such undependability and you will be reduced to sitting around waiting for a miracle to occur.


Wrong. The evidence shows that He is very reliable. He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right. Miracles occur when God wants them to occur, not necessarily when we do. Just for the record, I've waited for miracles before and have done just fine. Probably a coinkydink, I know. But there is definitely a lot of these coinkydinks in my life.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Scientific endeavors become useless with such undependability and you will be reduced to sitting around waiting for a miracle to occur.


Wrong. The evidence shows that He is very reliable. He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right. Miracles occur when God wants them to occur, not necessarily when we do. Just for the record, I've waited for miracles before and have done just fine. Probably a coinkydink, I know. But there is definitely a lot of these coinkydinks in my life.

Are you able to predict or control the changes your designer will make???


No, although the Bible does give us some pretty good clues about a lot of things. Can you predict what will happen to you tomorrow? Because you cannot, does that mean you don't exist, or that you cannot be explained scientifically? (well maybe that part is true - haha). But if you say that because we can't control these changes - then it means there is no God - then science is not science at all, but idealism. Idealism meaning that it has preconceived notions about how things should work - and because this system has worked so well for science so far, then it applies to everything - that's idealism.

QUOTE
QUOTE  by SoLoved
ID is a mechanistic and methodical theory, that can be tested and confirmed repeatedly in thousands of ways. Something that scientists can make use of. ID proponents do not advocate labeling an object as being Intelligently Designed and then halting all research. On the contrary, this takes us in an entirely new direction that leads to new discoveries.

QUOTE by Grumpy
CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.


Well, I guess we could agree to disagree. It seems that you have a hard time imagining how you could conduct science experiments on something you don't know. It can be tested - and will not necessarily change in midstream. God is much more consistent and dependable than you give Him credit for. Remember, the same stable universe that you rely on for your science is the same universe that God controls. Not bad so far, huh? You don't know whether any of the new directions will be a science or not.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE  by SoLoved
ID is a mechanistic and methodical theory, that can be tested and confirmed repeatedly in thousands of ways. Something that scientists can make use of. ID proponents do not advocate labeling an object as being Intelligently Designed and then halting all research. On the contrary, this takes us in an entirely new direction that leads to new discoveries.

QUOTE by Grumpy
CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.


Well, I guess we could agree to disagree. It seems that you have a hard time imagining how you could conduct science experiments on something you don't know. It can be tested - and will not necessarily change in midstream. God is much more consistent and dependable than you give Him credit for. Remember, the same stable universe that you rely on for your science is the same universe that God controls. Not bad so far, huh? You don't know whether any of the new directions will be a science or not.

breast feeding

Modified sweat glands. Simple enough for you???


No, it's not. Sweat comes out of sweat glands. Nutritious food comes from breast feeding. Maybe they look like modified sweat glands (breasts look like sweat glands? Eeew) - but that's just like saying that a star looks like a pretty white light.
No, you'll have to do better than that. The time frame in which breasts started to produce milk in the evolutionary tree would be helpful as well.

QUOTE
The odor is making me dizzy and nauseated and I'm really not interested in trying to educate a hopeless child.


Hmmm, that's an interesting way to duck the questions. Besides, I'm not a hopeless child...I'm a happy, excited, curious, and joyful child of a loving, patient, and kind Heavenly Father.

Thank you in advance for the knowledgeable, thoughtful, Einsteinian response that I just know is forthcoming,

SoLoved
SoLoved
RealityCheck,

Thank you so much for your new and improved tone.

I also appreciate the content. I guess it makes sense from your point of view.

It would be nice if someone could explain exactly how this male female thing came to be - in other words why not just one sex.

More specifically....
Since humans do not share the DNA of the many organisms that can reproduce sexually as well as asexually - such as your examples of aphids, slime molds, sea anemones and many plants - then you'll will need to come up with a better example to describe how the human came to be - including thought, feeling, and other emotions, and even something as simple as breast feeding (the idea of evolution creating a natural system of feeding their young will not be so easiy explained, but please try). Again charts and pictures are always appreciated.

I'll look at your post more closely, but I did not immediately see an answer to the issue above.

Thanks,
SoLoved
birdan
With this ongoing discussion on reproduction evolution, I was reminded of a quote I once heard (I forget the source), which I give permission to SoLove to use as a respone:

"Sex is God's consolation prize for making us mortal."
Grumpy
Soloved

QUOTE
No, it's not. Sweat comes out of sweat glands. Nutritious food comes from breast feeding.


Not after evolution has modified them, then they produce milk.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
No, it's not. Sweat comes out of sweat glands. Nutritious food comes from breast feeding.


Not after evolution has modified them, then they produce milk.

The time frame in which breasts started to produce milk in the evolutionary tree would be helpful as well.


Before the various species of mammal differentiated since they all(and only they) produce milk. The first mammals lived in the time of the dinosaurs some 70+ million years ago. They were small and rat like. This was the common ancestor for all the milk producers on Earth.

QUOTE
Come on now, you know better than that. I know you kinda believe something - so I'm sure you'd welcome an unexpected visit from the designer.


I believe in the laws of nature. There is no evidence of your designer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Come on now, you know better than that. I know you kinda believe something - so I'm sure you'd welcome an unexpected visit from the designer.


I believe in the laws of nature. There is no evidence of your designer.

Whattsa matter fella, hit a nerve?


No, you cannot do science without doing the grunt work. The grunt work is the rock you build your theories on, without it your theories disappear into the sand of irrelevance.

QUOTE
He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right.


You evolved on a world that orbits its sun at the distance it does, so of course you evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been different you would have evolved to fit that. There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right.


You evolved on a world that orbits its sun at the distance it does, so of course you evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been different you would have evolved to fit that. There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water.

No, although the Bible does give us some pretty good clues about a lot of things. Can you predict what will happen to you tomorrow? Because you cannot, does that mean you don't exist, or that you cannot be explained scientifically? (well maybe that part is true - haha). But if you say that because we can't control these changes - then it means there is no God - then science is not science at all, but idealism. Idealism meaning that it has preconceived notions about how things should work - and because this system has worked so well for science so far, then it applies to everything - that's idealism.


soloved, you understand nothing. Science has no preconceived notions about God or anything else. Science can predict the outcomes of experiments, unless your designer decides to change the rules, then all bets are off and we've entered la-la land. Idealism is a philosophy, science is a discipline, one cannot morph into the other. To say that science is idealism is babble.


CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.

This paragraph stands on it's own merit, it was true when I first posted it, it is true now, it will be true despite anything you say soloved. You are trying to sell snake oil and I'm not buying. You don't understand what science is, how it works or the hard work it takes. Since you are unwilling or unable to support your hypothesis with any evidence it is not a science and, at the present rate, it will never be.

Grumpy mad.gif


SoLoved
QUOTE
There is nothing stopping anyone from pursuing this proof. And that is the beauty of science having the boundaries it does. It simply goes where the evidence leads it.


Birdan, and evolutionists,

Amen, and so we shall.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
There is nothing stopping anyone from pursuing this proof. And that is the beauty of science having the boundaries it does. It simply goes where the evidence leads it.


Birdan, and evolutionists,

Amen, and so we shall.


OK, my turn. Einstein was a big proponent of 'thought experiments'. These were mental exercises where one would do an 'experiment' in their head that couldn't actually be performed in the real world. I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's assume you've just moved to Utopia, IL and science is just as you would like it to be. Please understand I mean no disrespect to your personal beliefs in the following.

1. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community prayer session two weeks ago, and
though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks
and a miracle has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome
would you expect to have?

2. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community meditation session two weeks ago, and
though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks
and Buddha has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome
would you expect to have?

3. An archeologist comes to you and tells you that he has just returned from a dig, where he discovered Babylonian
clay tablets which were calendars, and there were literally thouslions of them, sequentially dated going back tens
of thouslions of years. In fact, he's got them in his truck parked out back. He would like you to peer review the
draft of the publication he's preparing on his find. What would be the gist of your review?

I know you can't give detailed answers, but this is a thought experiment, and it's not being devious. What I'm s
aying is you are proposing that science be different, but that 'difference' would make science a completely
unworkable discipline. I'm trying to find out how it can have the differences you say it needs and still be
science. That should be the point of your replies. And please don't duck the questions by saying something
like you're not a qualified M.D. or archeologist. What I want to know is how the structure of the new science
you're proposing would work in these situations.


Birdan,

1. Would you consider a medical doctor to be qualified to answer this question? If you do, then their answer
has always been that it is a miracle. You can verify that it is a miracle and conclude that they are the happy
recipients of a gift from above. You have evidence that they had diabetes, you saw it, you tested it and you believed
your tests. Then you saw and tested that they were free of diabetes, and although in shock, you believed that, too.
So now you have evidence for a miracle. You could test this by surveying everyone who has had a similar miracle
to see if there is a pattern. You would think that there would be a pattern, but I know already that this has
been done and no fascinating pattern seems to exist.
It is true that those who pray seem to have more miracles - but not by a big margin. The problem for the evolutionist
surfaces right here in this spot. The idealism of the evolutionist tells him that this is just a fluke of nature,
random chance...he does not allow for the possibility of a Designer - WHICH is what prevents him from advancing
the cause of science. If he took his evidence of diabetes, then no diabetes, then the fluke of nature and tried
to duplicate this - he just might have a measure of success. A completely workable discipline of science that is
testable and repeatable. But he will never know now, will he?

Question number two takes on a much more spiritual nature...but you asked, so...

2. This can be answered in pretty much the same way as the first question. Hopefully you saw my answer to GeneSplicer's question about
how I feel about other religions. I told him that Faith is a Journey...and a personal decision....and that God
holds people accountable for what they know. The person in most danger is the one who rejects God.
God loves everyone equally, whether they are a terrorist....non believer.....everything in between.....other religions.........or a Christian.
But like I said, prayer yields a slightly higher miracle quotient, but it is not the significant reason for the miracle.
I believe God and God alone is the significant reason for the miracle. He works everything for good.

3. If I was an archeologist, I would be one with a Christian view - I would have trouble with the tens of thousands of years.
When you say sequentially dated tens of thousands of years, I don't know of any such find that exists. But other than that - I would be as
excited as anyone to get a good look at them. As far as my review - I bet I would conclude that they are a great historical record
that will back up the Bible, as most archaeology has done. Certain ethic groups and religions will disagree, but
that's OK. To give him a peer review would require seeing his draft first, of course.
Just a side note - Believing in a young earth is not such a bad thing when it comes to all the archaelogical finds like
drawings and writings. The first one thousand years of life produced a lot of people that split off into
different groups, which in turn developed new ways of thinking, new laws, etc.


It's not new science at all - it's just a new way of thinking - you can still conduct your science in the same way - but
you'll have to be much more dilligent, persistent and open minded.

I hope this works for you. Thanks for the nice tone of your posts.

I like this game of 'thought experiments'. I could help you even further here if you or one of the evolutionists would put together a brief outline for the theory of evolution in a simple format - so that I could see exactly how y'all think in this forum - then perhaps I could put one together for either your first question, or for Intelligent Design. Since it would be on an equal footing, maybe they would understand ID better.

SoLoved

QUOTE
"Sex is God's consolation prize for making us mortal."

...on earth as it is in Heaven.


SoLoved
Grumpy, you must type 200 words a minute. Go to bed.
RealityCheck
Hello SoLoved.


In answer to your question “...why not just one sex...”?

Please ‘Google’ or ‘Wikipedia’ the term “HERMAPHRODITE” across as many species as you have time for. Also ‘Google’ the phrase “FISH SEX CHANGE”.

Even such 'light' research should lead to the insight that, very very EARLY ON in the piece, there WERE species in which the DEFAULT OPTION was 'FEMALE' until environmental ‘triggers’ re-set/activated certain biochemical/biophysical pathways/structures to develop ADDITIONAL self-differentiating egg-/sperm-producing processes that gave the relevant organism the EXTRA ‘MALE’-ROLE OPTION (in the same, formerly ‘female’, individual!) which had evolved as LATENT component/capacity of the reproductive system in the various species in question.

Again, these ‘traits’ came in handy for handling certain environmental situations which might otherwise have ‘killed off’ those species; hence its retention in many cases due to the intermittent (but nonetheless crucial when required) advantage conferred by those traits/structures/strategies.

I hope that helps.


Now SoLoved. Since you appreciate my “...new and improved tone...” , for my part I would respectfully/cordially ask for, and would much appreciate, a “new and improved willingness” on your part to do some fair amount of research BEFORE putting questions which you may readily/initially answer for yourself to some efficacious degree by ‘Googling’ and/or ‘Wikipediaing’ the operative terms/phrases. This would be especially appreciated in threads such as THIS one, whose TITLE is:

.......... "Making the Case for The Bible w Scientific evidence"......

...meaning that it is up to the would-be case-maker (your ‘side’) to present the ‘evidence’ in the forum in which the ‘case’ is proposed to be made. I am not being unreasonable/unco-operative in any way when I observe that, although all here are generally happy to oblige, there is, strictly speaking, no obligation whatsover on our ‘side’ to answer any of your questions here, since it is NOT our ‘side’ trying to make the case in question; and therefore our main duty is to ( if we can, based on ‘scientific’ argument/evidence only) rebut hopefully equally-‘scientific’ arguments/‘evidence’ presented by your ‘side’ in support.

Again, this is not intended as criticism in any way; it is merely a polite reminder of the ‘general/scientific debating rules which must apply if the debate is to be fair, cordial and constructive on both sides.

Looking forward to debating you as and when the occasion arises, and time permits.

Regards from: RealityCheck.
adoucette
QUOTE
It would be nice if someone could explain exactly how this male female thing came to be - in other words why not just one sex.


Well different sexes took awhile to evolve. The first sexual reproduction was simply between ANY two members. Keep in mind that in normal cellular reproduction (mitosis) the chromosomes first double, they migrate to either side and then the cell splits. Thus each cell has a pair of chromosomes (diploid). Drop the doubling and you get a gamete cell (meiosis) with but one set of chromosomes (haploid). When two gametes meet (just floating around in the pond) they join to form a diploid cell and begin the process of creating a new member.

The initial advantage was that the original organisms (like hydra) were sessile and though they could reproduce by budding, this creates identical members, close by competition and limited range (not good if the pond water drops where you are), in contrast the floating gametes could meet up some distance away thus much more widely distributing the species and thus also increasing the species chance of survival. Sexual dimorphism took much longer to develop but if you think about it, it is also an evolutionary benefit to more social creatures, as each takes on a subset of parental roles.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It would be nice if someone could explain exactly how this male female thing came to be - in other words why not just one sex.


Well different sexes took awhile to evolve. The first sexual reproduction was simply between ANY two members. Keep in mind that in normal cellular reproduction (mitosis) the chromosomes first double, they migrate to either side and then the cell splits. Thus each cell has a pair of chromosomes (diploid). Drop the doubling and you get a gamete cell (meiosis) with but one set of chromosomes (haploid). When two gametes meet (just floating around in the pond) they join to form a diploid cell and begin the process of creating a new member.

The initial advantage was that the original organisms (like hydra) were sessile and though they could reproduce by budding, this creates identical members, close by competition and limited range (not good if the pond water drops where you are), in contrast the floating gametes could meet up some distance away thus much more widely distributing the species and thus also increasing the species chance of survival. Sexual dimorphism took much longer to develop but if you think about it, it is also an evolutionary benefit to more social creatures, as each takes on a subset of parental roles.

you'll will need to come up with a better example to describe how the human came to be - including thought, feeling, and other emotions, and even something as simple as breast feeding (the idea of evolution creating a natural system of feeding their young will not be so easiy explained, but please try).


I'll stick to breast feeding for this example as thought, feeling and emotions are all clearly evident in primates (you did see the recent videos shot of Gorillas making and using various tools?). (the following is taken from multiple sources and edited together to make it coherent)

While Darwin devised a plausible scenario for the evolution of breast feeding, new information later proved it false. Subsequently, biologists have proposed at least ten hypotheses, but none of them were entirely satisfactory, according to a recent review by National Zoo scientist Olav Oftedal. In two papers published in 2002 in the Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia, Oftedal offers a new scenario to explain, in his words, “How could such an intricate process, involving radical innovation in both mother and suckling young, come into being?”

It is no easy matter to trace the evolution of a structure like the mammary gland and a process like lactation because it does not fossilize. Through painstaking examination of fossils, paleontologists have been able to “see” progressively more mammal-like forms evolve by following gradual changes in teeth and bones.

No such luck with mammary glands and lactation. Instead, to develop his scenario, Oftedal had to review mammalian evolutionary history as revealed by changes in bones and teeth, as well as amass evidence on the nature and evolution of skin glands, the difference between the eggs of birds and reptiles and those of the few mammals that lay eggs, ecological changes over evolutionary time, embryonic development of mammary glands, the functions of scales, skin, and hair, and more. In addition, he looked for clues in parental care exhibited by various vertebrates.

While lactation occurs only in mammals today, lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive trait that predates the origin of mammals. The synapsid branch of the amniote tree that separated from other taxa in the Pennsylvanian (>310 million years ago) evolved a glandular rather than scaled integument. The ancestors of birds and some other groups solved this problem with the evolution of a hard, calcified egg shell, eventually the typical chicken egg. The synapsids appeared to have solved it by keeping the eggs in contact with skin kept moist by secretions from skin glands. Glandular skin was present in the ancestors of the amniotes and proved handy to meet this new need. And, it turns out that mammary glands are specialized skin glands, most similar to apocrine glands and both likely evolved from the same ancient gland type. Some apocrine glands make and secrete lipids and other complex organic molecules, and mammary glands also secrete lipids and the other complex organic components of milk.

How, though, did animals get from secreting a glandular substance to keep eggs moist to feeding their young the secretions of mammary glands?

The behavior of modern amphibians provides a clue to how this might have occurred. Some amphibians that nest in dry habitats carefully tend their eggs and may keep them moist through glandular secretions; glandular secretions may also provide protection from fungus and bacteria. Further, there are hints that the hatchlings of some caecilian species (legless amphibians) feed on their mother’s skin or skin gland secretions. As Oftedal says, “If verified, this remarkable discovery might provide a direct analogy for a transition from skin secretions as egg supplements to skin secretions as hatchling food.”

Closer to home than amphibians, however, are the monotremes—one species of platypus and two species of echidnas that are the only egg-laying mammals. And, of course, by definition, female monotremes lactate. The ancestors of the living monotremes split off very early on from those of the rest of the mammals, indicating that lactation had evolved before that split, which occurred about 150 million years ago. The modern monotremes are certainly not identical to the first ones, having evolved their own unique specializations. But they may reveal a link between the waterers and feeders.

Female platypus and echidnas lay eggs, which they incubate for about 12 days. When the young hatch, they feed on milk produced by the mother’s mammary glands. In a significant departure from all other mammals, however, the mammary glands do not open into a nipple from which young suck milk. Instead, the glands open in a hairy patch and the young suck the milk from the hair and skin.

During incubation, monotreme eggs are covered with a moist, sticky substance of unknown origin. Moreover, before they are laid, the eggs have three eggshell layers; afterwards, a fourth layer appears that is quite different from the earlier layers, and it seems to be applied to the egg surface in a fluid form. Thus, it is entirely possible that both the sticky substance and the fourth eggshell layer are secretions of the mammary glands.

This dual mammary gland function of coating the eggs and feeding young may also help explain why the monotremes lack nipples: secretions from a largish, flat patch might more easily coat an egg than secretions from the single point of a smallish nipple.

Repeated radiations of synapsids produced a gradual accrual of mammalian features. The mammary gland apparently derives from an ancestral apocrine-like gland that was associated with hair follicles. This association is retained by monotreme mammary glands and is evident as vestigial mammary hair during early ontogenetic development of marsupials. The dense cluster of mammo-pilo-sebaceous units that open onto a nipple-less mammary patch in monotremes may reflect a structure that evolved to provide moisture and other constituents to permeable eggs. Mammary patch secretions were coopted to provide nutrients to hatchlings, but some constituents including lactose may have been secreted by ancestral apocrine-like glands in early synapsids. Advanced Triassic therapsids, such as cynodonts, almost certainly secreted complex, nutrient-rich milk, allowing a progressive decline in egg size and an increasingly altricial state of the young at hatching. This is indicated by the very small body size, presence of epipubic bones, and limited tooth replacement in advanced cynodonts and early mammaliaforms. Nipples that arose from the mammary patch rendered mammary hairs obsolete, while placental structures have allowed lactation to be truncated in living eutherians.

Now aren't you glad you asked?


Arthur
SoLoved
ohmy.gif Get a load of this......profound.....hot off the press...

On the PhysOrg Weblog page is this story dated today, 10/7/05:

NASA exobiology researchers confirmed Earth's oceans were once rich in sulfides that would prevent advanced life forms, such as fish and mammals, from thriving

A team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, working with colleagues from Australia and the United Kingdom, analyzed the fossilized remains of photosynthetic pigments preserved in 1.6 billion-year-old rocks from the McArthur Basin in Northern Australia.

They found evidence of photosynthetic bacteria that require sulfides and sunlight to live. Known as purple and green sulfur bacteria because of their respective pigment colorations, these single-celled microbes can only live in environments where they simultaneously have access to sulfides and sunlight.

The researchers also found very low amounts of the fossilized remains of algae and oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. The relative scarcity of these organisms is due to poisoning by large amounts of sulfide.

"This work suggests Earth's oceans may have been hostile to animal and plant life until relatively recently," said Dr. Carl Pilcher, NASA's senior scientist for astrobiology. "If so, this would have profound implications for the evolution of modern life."

"The discovery of the fossilized pigments of purple sulfur bacteria is totally new and unexpected. Because they need fairly high intensity sunlight, it means the pink bacteria, along with their essential source of sulfide, close to the surface, perhaps as close as 20 to 40 meters," said Roger Summons, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of geobiology. "The sulfide would have come from bacteria that reduces sulfate carried into the oceans by the weathering of rocks."

"The McArthur Basin rocks were deposited over a very large area and over many millions of years, so it's likely they formed under water that was intermittently connected to or actually part of an ocean. In turn, this implies the ocean had an abundant and continuous supply of hydrogen sulfide and must have been quite toxic to any oxygen-breathing organisms," said team member Jochen Brocks. "In fact, for seven-eighths of Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, there was probably little oxygen in the oceans and certainly not enough to support oxygen-breathing marine animals."

This research continued the efforts of NASA and partner institutions to understand the early history of the Earth. Research results were published in the Oct. 6, 2005, edition of Nature magazine.

The research was conducted by a team working in Summons' laboratory. Team members include Jochen Brocks, formerly of Harvard and now at Australian National University; Gordon Love, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stephen Bowden, University of Aberdeen, Scotland; Graham Logan, Geoscience Australia; and Andrew Knoll, Harvard.

Source: NASA

--------------------------------------------------------

See the story here: http://www.physorg.com/news7077.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give 3 cheers to PhysOrg for not hiding this nugget.

Source: NASA - Credible enough for y'all?


Glory, Glory Hallelujah,......Glory, Glory Hallelujah,........the truth is marching on!

(Just another factual statement) Score: 16 zip. (that's two touchdowns and two 2 point conversions in football talk)

An you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
Praise the Lord! Amen

Joyful, joyful, we adore thee, God of glory, Lord of love

Please visit this link for a message:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/o/joyful.htm

rolleyes.gif SoLoved


I hope I didn't go overboard with the glee, but this is cause for major celebration.
Now just go sell all your textbooks on eBay before everybody finds out.
adoucette
Actually this fits in just nicely with what we have been saying.

That's exactly what we would expect to find 1.6 Billion years ago.

You were expecting fish way back then?

Arthur
SoLoved
biggrin.gif tongue.gif Well you can be sure they'll be getting to that next. cool.gif wink.gif

But that sure screws up the evolution time table now anyways, doesn't it?


Glory, Glory Hallelujah,......Glory, Glory Hallelujah,........the truth is marching on!

An you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
Praise the Lord! Amen

Please visit this link for a message:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/o/joyful.htm

rolleyes.gif SoLoved


I hope I didn't go overboard with the glee, but this is cause for major celebration.
Now just go sell all your evolution textbooks on eBay before everybody finds out.
adoucette
Would you please refrain from posting the same material in multiple forums.

The last was asked and answered.

Arthur
SoLoved
I can try, but I'm overwhelmed with joy and a need to spread it.

I know that many people visit different forums for different reasons - and this post is certainly worth spreading.

I wouldn't want anyone to miss out you know.

You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Well I wonder what 'profound implications for evolution' they're talking about.

Glory, Glory, Hallelujah.......la la la la la la..

SoLoved
adoucette
See: What are the "holes" in evolutionary theory?, for the reply.
birdan
Hi SoLoved,

Thanks for taking the time and putting in the effort to do the thought experiment. As I mentioned earlier, I am trying to understand how you think science would work under your system. And have been trying to explain how science currently works and what it's scope or boundaries are. Here's my thoughts so far:

As I've mentioned, science only deals with the physical (that which can be observed, measured, and tested) and has no tools to deal with the non-physical. Picture a box. Everything in the box is the physical, everything outside the box is the non-physical (art, beauty, religion, etc.). Science will have a look at ANYTHING inside the box. I know you've objected to that statement (Velikovsky, etc.), but I've tried to show that it's really true. Your posting of the press release from NASA and reaction to it seems to contradict your earlier feelings, since for you the press release seemed to punch a hole in evolutionary theory, but the science in that press release was done by the very scientists who you said earlier would reject such a finding. So I hope you're seeing that point a little differently, and can accept that science will look at ANYTHING inside that box. And I and many others in these posts have said science cannot look at anything outside the box. It's not a question of science won't look at those things, it's that science can't look at them.

OK. Now I want to look at that same box from the view of your science paradigm. The box is still the boundary between the physical and the non-physical. As I understand it, science is free to roam outside the box. 'Look' at non-physical concepts such as God and emotions. But science is not allowed to look at everything inside the box. Such as anything older than 5,500 years old, or any physical evidence that may contradict biblical passages. When I say 'not allowed to look' I mean that your science would simply reject such items as being impossible. (Ironically, that seems to be what you in the past have accused the current science of doing).

We have two very differenct science constructs now. One can be pictured as box, the inside of which is all colored in black, and anything in black is fair game for science, and anything in white is off limits to science. Black and White. The other science construct has a box, the inside of which is colored in black EXCEPT for certain areas which are left white. The outside of the box is white, except for various patches of black here and there.

In the first case, there is a very simple rule for coloring the box. If something pertains to that which can be observed, tested, measured - the physical - color it black. This is an objective, universal rule.

In the second case, what gets colored black and what gets colored white is governed by what rule? It is not an objective rule, and it is not a universal rule. If it isn't objective, it must be subjective. So you will have your subjective view of the boundaries and rules of science, and the 'old earth' creationists will have their own boundaries and rules of science, as will Catholics and Episcopalians and Taoists and Hopis and Buddhists and Hindus and Moslems and artists and postal workers, etc. etc. Instead of one universal science with well defined boundaries, there would be a multitude of sciences, each with its own set of boundaries and consequently rejection of results by each group of other groups' work. Not to mention the detriments to the science within a group due 'roping off' areas that could be addressed with the tools of science and including areas for which science has no tools to evalute.

That's how I see the differences between what is and what you propose. Your comments, as always, are welcome.

Thanks again,
Bruce
amok
QUOTE
I am very interested in this sex thing. I'd like to see some sort of chart or layout that shows how and when a male and female appear on the scene.
Since humans do not share the DNA of the many organisms that can reproduce sexually as well as asexually - such as your examples of aphids, slime molds, sea anemones and many plants - then you'll will need to come up with a better example to describe how the human came to be - including thought, feeling, and other emotions, and even something as simple as breast feeding (the idea of evolution creating a natural system of feeding their young will not be so easiy explained, but please try). Again charts and pictures are always appreciated.

ID proponents, on the other hand, can dispense with such grunt work, because if Intelligent Design is responsible for the biochemical system in question, then ID proponents are free to move forward with discoveries that could only be possible in a system that relies on the dependability of the Designer and our natural laws. It also serves to create new research opportunities for science - who can make new discoveries based on design and reliability, rather than random chance of success.


Having been trying to be intellectually aloof from taking any offense to anything so far, this one struck a nerve. Can dispence with such grunt work? Not study biochemical systems anymore cause we don't need to and move forward to more important discoveries? Wow, just wow. Taking the view of 'things are the way they are...just because' to me is the downfall of many people nowadays.

From the questions you are asking, and your said believes about ID, we have completely different ends of the spectrum. You ask complex questions about evolution of specific contepts, yet you then say that they don't need to be understood because they don't matter?

Honetly, the best way to learn something is to take it apart. Want to learn about computers? Take one apart. Want to learn about biology? Take the system apart! The grunt work is what it is all about, and you are asking us to do Your grunt work, then you turn around and say that the grunt work does not matter?

My earlier posted response about asexual/sexual reproduction took me a whopping 15 seconds to look up and post.

So basically, if you want to know about it, or try to disprove it? Do your own grunt work!
birdan
QUOTE
ID proponents, on the other hand, can dispense with such grunt work,


That reminds me of a cartoon I saw several months ago. In the first panel, a student is laboring over a math proof, looking very perplexed and stressed. In the 2nd panel, the student is smiling and beaming, and has written on his test "and then a miracle happened". The cartoon was titled "Intelligent Math".
amok
I couldn't help it, I just had to find something to make myself laugh.

uncyclopedia article on intelligent design
SoLoved
What does the Bible say about atheists?

There have been great achievements made by brilliant scientists who are atheists, but when it comes to believing in evolution versus creation - they have dropped the ball.
Perhaps it would help to offer some Biblical assistance in this area:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1).
The fool is the atheist.
Fool + said + no God = atheist

It is foolish to ascribe complexity to random forces and thoughtless processes.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).

But like the thief on the cross, there is hope:

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt;
but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains. (John 9:41)


Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

....remember, faith is a journey, you are accountable for what you know.

.....and then there is hope for all...

I think this verse could apply to the scientist - they would have to be blind in order to do some of the things they do. Seeing things in a strictly scientific way may require blindness to the things of God. Hopefully though, they are not blind even until their end - for that would truly be sad.

"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them."
(John 12:40)


God may have a purpose for our blindness.

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:13)

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7)

rolleyes.gif SoLoved

P.S. Please see my post in the Holes in evolution topic for a new Intelligent Design theory.
Kaeroll
Hi SoLoved,
Perhaps it would be better to not use Biblical quotes to persuade members of this forum that atheism is 'wrong', or evolution is incorrect. The majority of those arguing with you are atheists, as you point out; Bible quotes won't influence them.
Hope you, and all, are well. I won't be around too much this weekend, means I'll have a lot of reading to do on Monday laugh.gif
Cheers
Kaeroll
GeneSplicer
The add Soloved posted before can be found here for download, no membership needed.

http://www.framestore-cfc.com/press/05pr/051003noitulove/
Capn Caveman
Wow, you have got me on the ropes, SoLoved. When put in a scientific context the Bible makes perfect sense! For instance Leviticus 15:19-33
¶ And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.

That is some serious scientific foreknowledge. I mean when did us godless scientists figure out that menstruation attracts large predators such as sharks and bears? Probably not that long ago and you just know we found out the hard way.

Also why aren't pharmaceutical companies checking out the thera peutic value of burning turtles and pigeons?!

Get on the ball people!

Man, there is something liberating about posting Bible quotes on a science forum.
Wicked. laugh.gif
Capn Caveman
Yeah, Leviticus really messes with the whole "infallibility" bit. How did that get into the Canon anyway? Oh yeah, by committee.
The worst part is that Leviticus has more direct quotes from God than any other book in the Bible.
Where'd you go SoLoved? This was your idea... rolleyes.gif
ourmanflint
It doesn't matter if you believe in either creationism or evolution, everyone should make up their own mind.

The usual way to make up your own mind involves asking questions, studying the answers and then asking more questions, and so on and so forth, until you have enough information to make your decision...

The problem with most people who believe in ID and Creationism is that they don't follow this route, instead they take the view of the religious texts, assuming these to be infallible, they then only ask those questions which reinforce their position. When challenged they fall back on their sacred texts to back them up with various vague disclaimers on the nature of reality, ( well actually their reality).

To believe in these sacred texts is to show that you have faith, and to do that you not only believe in them, you defend them to the very end, even when there is a mountain of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is the strength of your faith!!!

IMO just don't respond to those who have already made up their mind in this way.. it's what they want!

I know I just broke my own rule didn't I??
dry.gif
Steveo
QUOTE
It doesn't matter if you believe in either creationism or evolution, everyone should make up their own mind.


I agree entirely with that. Teach evolution in science classes....and tell if people want the religious perspective, let them seek it on their own (the Bible is the best selling, and I think most read book in the world, so getting a hold of a copy should not be much of a problem). Then ask questions....ask your biology teacher questions about evolution, and ask a priest or pastor about (or religious teacher of whatever faith you may be from) questions about religion and choose for yourself. Soloved chose god all on his own, so I think he should let us be free to make our own choices too.
SoLoved
Actually all the verses you just quoted do have considerable medical merit. The methods of the Israelites are what caused them to survive so well. And of course the burnt offerings (turtles and pigeons) were to atone for sin.

This was an age that did not have the modern amneties you are used to - so I can imagine why you find it so humorous - but you really should do your research first.

And Steveo,

This is not the place for discussion of whether ID should be taught in schools - that's in another topic.
Remember - gotta keep the two seperate. ID and CS are not the same.

SoLoved
adoucette
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 14 2005, 10:08 PM)
Actually all the verses you just quoted do have considerable medical merit.

Oh please, enlighten us as to the medical merit of said verses.

Arthur
Grumpy
SoLoved

QUOTE
And of course the burnt offerings (turtles and pigeons) were to atone for sin.


What sin??? The sin of being born a woman in a mysoginist culture???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And of course the burnt offerings (turtles and pigeons) were to atone for sin.


What sin??? The sin of being born a woman in a mysoginist culture???

Remember - gotta keep the two seperate. ID and CS are not the same.


Yes, ID has fewer calories and less taste due to the basic dishonesty at it's base(Intellegent Designer isn't God, wink wink, nudge nudge). ID is CS light.

Grumpy mad.gif

GeneSplicer
Grumpy,

You forgot the "knowwhatImean", but I figure that would be too racy for the likes of SoLoved.
adoucette
QUOTE
The methods of the Israelites are what caused them to survive so well.


Hmmm, I think the Egyptians were surviving a tad better than the Israelites, as I recall they left on foot, the Egyptians chased them on gilded chariots.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The methods of the Israelites are what caused them to survive so well.


Hmmm, I think the Egyptians were surviving a tad better than the Israelites, as I recall they left on foot, the Egyptians chased them on gilded chariots.

And of course the burnt offerings (turtles and pigeons) were to atone for sin.


QUOTE
and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.


So now a woman's monthly cycle is reason for atonement? Well ain't you just swell. How did it go over when you informed your wife that when she has her period she is sinning and must atone for it, and that for 7 days she is unclean and must remain apart from you and can't sit on any chair or lie on any bed in the house?

Arthur
SoLoved
I think y'all should take a Bible Study.

SoLoved
amok
Have taken bible study, agree completely with above said posts smile.gif

- Amok
Grumpy
soloved

QUOTE
I think y'all should take a Bible Study.


Why??? So we too can learn to rationalize away inconvenient crap in the Bible???
What happened to making a scientific argument supporting the Bible??? Take a look at the name of this forum. You have yet to show any credible evidence supporting your position, you can't seem to understand that:

1. It must not use the Bible to support your position, it is not scientific, at best it is hearsay. Besides being a circular argument.

2. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for your position. Only positive credible evidence supporting your position is valid. YOU WILL BE CALLED ON THIS ONE EVERY TIME, so reread your posts prior to posting to eliminate this canard.

3. You must stop using discredited concepts such as Irreducible Complexity(there are none), Information theory(DNA is not a language, it is a living system with much different rules), CSI(Dumbski has been totally discredited, he has never been peer reviewed, and the only valid CSI comes on TV) and probabilities(you don't know initial conditions therefore GIGO). These straw men have been scattered to the winds.

4. Learn about and use the scientific method. Trying to argue science without it makes no more sense than trying to do algebra if you don't understand addition,subtraction, multiplication or division. YES, IT IS THAT IMPORTANT!!!! If it doesn't meet this requirement it isn't science and will be rejected out of hand as invalid. This requirement is not an option, it is not being stubborn, it is not a way to keep you from presenting evidence. ALL SCIENCES MUST MEET THIS REQUIREMENT!!!

So soloved, if you want to be taken seriously, these are the rules!!! They are the same for me, you and everyone. If you can't meet these rules, don't waste our time. They also make you look dumb because we have to keep explaining the basics to you.

Grumpy mad.gif

Guest
QUOTE
NASA has a Near Earth Object Program and it is believed that objects such as the object that hit Siberia in 1908 can have catastrophic effects.

An asteroid could hit earth and cause catastrophic effects.

They say that new stars are created all the time - they say that we are the stuff of stars.

Can we not envision that stars or asteroids or some other organic material can be directed, intelligently, to form an object (like the earth), quickly and in order?


---- and ----

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
NASA has a Near Earth Object Program and it is believed that objects such as the object that hit Siberia in 1908 can have catastrophic effects.

An asteroid could hit earth and cause catastrophic effects.

They say that new stars are created all the time - they say that we are the stuff of stars.

Can we not envision that stars or asteroids or some other organic material can be directed, intelligently, to form an object (like the earth), quickly and in order?


---- and ----

James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynamics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages


ahem... you forgot an important person here - Father of the 21st Century - Nikola Tesla. Google him youll find some information on him. Its a very interesting read.

The Siberia impact in 1908 has another alternative theory that seems in accord with the events that happened at the time - it may have been a result of one of Tesla's inventions trying aim an energy potential elsewhere but overshot his mark by about 2 degrees. There were no nickel or iron minerals left in that area which can possilbly disprove the meteorite theory.


To Grumpy:
QUOTE
Do you have some kind of problem with linear(logical) thinking??? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting who it is I'm talking to. To those who believe in magic I guess logic doesn't mean much. Never mind.


Please dont vilify other people. But keep up the cynicism we all may need it one day.


Back to soloved:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do you have some kind of problem with linear(logical) thinking??? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting who it is I'm talking to. To those who believe in magic I guess logic doesn't mean much. Never mind.


Please dont vilify other people. But keep up the cynicism we all may need it one day.


Back to soloved:
Humans also violate laws of science and nature. (remember, we were created in His image)


I dont believe we were created physically in God's body or 'image'. All I can see is that everything on this planet the animals, the plants and yes humans were created with a sense of order. So loved, have you heard of 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' - its the 'golden section', an irrational number that somehow gives order and beauty to structure including artworks, human body, animal structure, plant symmetry and flower arrangements, seed arrangements and fruit seeds and proportion. This is physical evidence of a geometry in nature, which relates to the pentagram and pentagon. biggrin.gif


QUOTE
The hard questions ' Where do we come from' are not answered by telling us we evolved from poo soup over beelions and beelions of years.


Genesis says that the whole universe was made in 7 days. I believe the universe was made in a very long time. The priests from countless times in the past may have been suspect to error during transmission in the historical timeframe. Therefore i believe that 'days' should be changed to 'eras' to fit more with natural evidence.


Grumpy--
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The hard questions ' Where do we come from' are not answered by telling us we evolved from poo soup over beelions and beelions of years.


Genesis says that the whole universe was made in 7 days. I believe the universe was made in a very long time. The priests from countless times in the past may have been suspect to error during transmission in the historical timeframe. Therefore i believe that 'days' should be changed to 'eras' to fit more with natural evidence.


Grumpy--
Your abysmal lack of understanding of how science works never ceases to amaze me.

I agree - on one point. Soloved is like seeing the 'masses' or ordinary people who are easily convinced by people who can talk alot and really loudly. That includes John Howard and George Bush. And religious control freaks such as Osama bin laden, Pol Pot, Hitler... Question everything!!!


QUOTE
CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus.

Very true very true. It will cause science to stop from progressing because everything can be explained away by using God. That was what religion was like when it was in power. People were satisfied by priests saying 'god did it'. For example gravity is caused by 'God' forcing people to fall to the Earth's surface. And what about the sun? 'God' made it glow with a brilliance that causes it to support life. Therefore nobody will question how 'God' did it because you must not rebel against 'God' as his actions and law are.... 'sacrosanct'.
Planet
The pseudo-science quotes supposedly being made from the bible are nothing more than an interpretation of religious individuals trying to bolster their own beliefs and who feel threatened by the fact that god, gods, spirits are nothing more than the human imagination at work. Religious folk need god or the idea of god because they cannot immediately understand something in nature, therefore mystical nonsense answers their questions.

For people who are resigned to answer life's questions with the answer of, "Thats the way god made it, or does it" is the easy way out in life. As a species we must continue to move away from such ridiculous mystical beliefs and try to realize that the mystery's of the universe are far more complex than the mere ramblings of a few mystical believers. We humans have merely touched the first flake of an enormous iceberg. I have hopes that one day humans will no longer need mystical beliefs to function in life. What we have not answered today we will answer tomorrow. For now everyone enjoy the show of life, laugh, cry, criticize, congratulate, etc... when necessary.

These are just my opinions, if you don't like them then fall off the planet.
Grumpy
To Guest

QUOTE
Therefore nobody will question how 'God' did it because you must not rebel against 'God' as his actions and law are.... 'sacrosanct'.


Besides, he might drop a load of fire and brimstone on you, your family to the tenth generation, on your neighbor and his whole family, on the whole city where you live, on the nation where you live and on your cows, chickens and goats. It seems when God gets mad it's" Kill them all, I'll sort them out later".

Grumpy mad.gif
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.