BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:19 AM

", it is hard not to be considered a Christian, if you follow the directions of Christ."

But these days, if you say that out loud, the psychologists may chase you - unless you are the President of the USA...

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 10:09 PM

No, Bill, of COURSE not ALL science. ;-) And you should know by now that I don't speak in all-or-nothing terms when I am discussing the fallibilities and various tendencies of the human race. I see in shades of gray. People who speak in all-or-nothing terms only seem to be willing to see things in black and white, and that's one of the things I frequently object to on this forum.

You are really being quite obstinate, Bill, in repeatedly trying to paint me as an absolutist when I am not. It is partly because of you that I take much pains to include many little qualifying words and phrases in my posts such as "tend to", "some of", "on average", "in general", "in some cases", "on occasion", and so on...just so you won't leap on something I said and pretend that I mean that ALL of whoever I'm talking about are ALWAYS thus and so... ;-D Couldn't you ease up a little on this sort of pedantry and give me some benefit of the doubt now and then? Surely by now you would know that I am not speaking in absolutes?

Ed - You may have just given Don an orgasm there by telling him "you win"! ;-) If so, he'll probably need to rest for a bit before responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

OK you win...Feel better now?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:18 PM

""For example, it is hard not to be considered a Christian, if you follow the directions of Christ. But, that does not put you under a human constructed religion.""

Oh puhlease!

Christ may or may not have been either divine or human. He may even have been both.

The followers of Christ were, as far as I know, human, and every Christian sect arises out of the writings of those original followers.

If that is not a human construct, perhaps you can tell me how, in the absence of humans, those writings would have existed?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:10 PM

""In addition, you may be confusing those following an organized religion, (a human construct) from those only following directions thay see as being given from a God.""

Do try to keep up. Who do you suppose supplies those directions?

As far as I know not one of our current correspondents is claiming to have been directly contacted by God, so the only reasonable assumption is that, in the absence of humans, they would never have received those directions at all.

Now do you understand what I am saying?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:53 PM

"Faith may be inspired by a divine spirit which humans may choose to call God, but religion is a human construct in which groups of men claim to know "God's Purpose" and profess to be his messengers, in order to control adherents."

I suspect others may interpret this differently than you, especially the word inspired.

In addition, you may be confusing those following an organized religion, (a human construct) from those only following directions thay see as being given from a God. For example, it is hard not to be considered a Christian, if you follow the directions of Christ. But, that does not put you under a human constructed religion.

As to your second comment, yes, that is "somewhat" what I was referring to in the original post (the one I commented you did not get).

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:40 PM

""according to many, religion was and is inspired by a God, not humans""

Faith may be inspired by a divine spirit which humans may choose to call God, but religion is a human construct in which groups of men claim to know "God's Purpose" and profess to be his messengers, in order to control adherents.



""Additionally, the human interpretation of scientific findings, (you seem to be calling scientific facts) have (and still do) change from trime to time. Are facts subject to change and reinterpretation?""

The "findings", or more accurately the interpretion of results, may have to change to accommodate our increasing knowledge and ability, but the underlying facts remain the same whether we know them or not, and whether we exist or not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 06:13 PM

"I was simply making the point that the scientific community is composed of fallible human beings..."
Yes...and I was simply making the point that that 'sounds' like a suggestion that it affects their 'science' as a general principle, and I claim that is not usually the case.

"Science is also made to serve as a handmaiden to various worldly power..."

ALL science?

".....that usually depends on WHO is funding them! ;-D "

No...*grin*...it is SOMETIMES true. More generalizations for my target practice...

I admit, it is tedious to have to work overtime to explicate your chatty opinions, but it often changes the whole tone of what is meant.
Perhaps you are intentionally testing my resolve to be pedantic?.....naawwwww..., I don't really think so..

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

"What is the real agenda of a modern scientific lab? Well...that usually depends on WHO is funding them!"

Didn't Bob Dylan say "you've got to serve somebody:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 05:32 PM

Well, Bill, I was simply making the point that the scientific community is composed of fallible human beings just like any other community is...and human beings who fall under cultural influence, governmental influence, even (in some cases) religious influence. I appreciate the organized nature of the scientific method, but one must remain aware that scientists themselves are subjective in the sense of what they choose to research in the first place, how they go about it, and so on. This means that science, like religion or any other field of human activity sometimes operates on false assumptions, sometimes draws wrong conclusions from available evidence, sometimes misses things entirely, and sometimes makes errors...and sometimes is used toward a harmful purpose.

Therefore, one shouldn't have a childlike faith in the infallibility and dependability of the science community any more than someone should have a childlike faith in any other human authority structure. They are all somewhat undependable, depending on a great variety of factors.

Science is also made to serve as a handmaiden to various worldly powers such as:

the government
the military
private industry

And as such, scientific research is often pre-planned to serve an unstated agenda...perhaps an agenda that is neither in the public interest nor in the real interests of most life on this planet.

As much as we must cast a skeptical eye on religion, we must not forget that science can also be deliberately or accidentally used to mislead people. (depending on who is really in charge of it at a top command level, and what their agenda really is)

The real agenda of the Medieval Church was to control as much money and political power and land as they possibly could, and to shut out all possible competitors in the form of other religions or power structures.

What is the real agenda of a modern scientific lab? Well...that usually depends on WHO is funding them! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 05:14 PM

I re-read what I said, LH, and I do understand it....you however, do not seem to grasp exactly what I am calling 'trivial'. I am NOT calling the totality of our life experiences that partially define who we are as humans 'trivial', but rather the dependence on that general totality as an explanation for specific variations in our belief system. It's 'sort of' true, but it doesn't explain much.
"Some people are mean" doesn't help much in trying to figger out why THAT person beat up that other person. I suppose you'd say, "Oh, all people have the tendency to be mean in them." (best I could do for quick metaphor) "pre-disposition" is way too general to argue a case in court, unless you can show specific examples...

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:47 PM

On a related matter,this is a good read ("Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century"):

Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:35 PM

Facts are undoubtedly subject to reinterpretation. It's not enough just to know facts. You must fully understand the relationships between those facts to make any sense out of them. And you haven't got the whole picture until you know ALL the facts and you understand ALL the relationships between them........

And who does? ;-) Our knowledge of ourselves, the world, and life all around us is only partial, and it will remain so, though we continue to add to it. This is why any holy book, any religion, and any general scientific approach or discipline is imperfect, limited in its application or understanding, and it simply cannot be considered the last word on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:18 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T

I suspect you missed the meaning of that earlier post (in that discussion). However, I as to your interpretation.

Science and religion (according to many, religion was and is inspired by a God, not humans) may be called facts by some. But, humans have to discover and interpret both within their limited abilities (aka as the human filter).

Additionally, the human interpretation of scientific findings, (you seem to be calling scientific facts) have (and still do) change from trime to time. Are facts subject to change and reinterpretation?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:15 PM

pete - If God directed Moses (and I am willing to consider such a possibility), then I think God also has directed innumerable others, and in a variety of other religious and cultural situations. Such a God would, I think, also have directed Krishna, Buddha, Deganawidah (North American Indian prophet), Quetzlcoatl, Zoroaster, indeed uncountable numbers of sages and wise people in many, many cultural traditions. God may, in some measure, direct everyone, but with varying results, because we have free will. We decide.

What I find odd about the Jewish-based religious story is that it is all centered on them and it sets them apart from the rest of humanity. I don't buy that. I don't believe there is any "chosen people" set aside from the rest of the human race...I think that was the usual self-centered mindset common to nations and tribes everywhere. They always think God is their God, first and foremost. That's the arrogance of man, to even think such a thing.

The Nazis also thought they were the chosen people, the special people. So did the Aztecs. So did the Iroquois. So have the French and English and Germans and Japanese and Americans...deep in their hearts. They all think they're the most special and valuable nation and way of life that's ever been. They're all wrong about that. No just God would set one people above and apart from the rest, it just isn't right.

Therefore, although the Bible writings may have been inspired by a genuine spiritual source, I don't believe for a minute that those writings were not prejudiced and influenced by the cultural minds of the very people who wrote them down.

Therefore I cannot possibly consider the Bible, as written, to be a very reliable source, because it is culturally biased to set the Israelites apart from everyone else and make them the center of everything, and who made that decision?

The Israelites made that decision!!! ;-D Not God. They made themselves the star of their own cultural and religious story. That's what people (in general) virtually always do. They're self-absorbed.

One thing I like about Buddhism, for example, is that it sees humanity just as humanity. It does not set one nation, race or tribe apart from any other in any respect whatsoever. Any creed that does not see us all as equal is flawed, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

Bill....ummmm, yeah...right. ;-)

It may be trivial to you. (shrug) Yes, I think that even you, Bill, are automatically directed and prejudiced in certain ways...namely...by the culture and the time you grew up in, and by your own personal background. And this is also true of other people. It happens to everyone while they are growing up.

I don't consider it a trivial matter, but you may. I consider it very significant. To comprehend where people are coming from, you must first understand what they have experienced and been exposed to since birth. If you get something approaching a good grasp of that, you will then understand why they do the odd things they do, and why they believe what they believe. You will then develop some compassion for them, even in their greatest states of confusion, negativity, and misdirection. You will then understand that if you had been placed in their shoes, you might also believe as they believe, and do as they do, and not question it.

I think that is an essential part of learning to be human. It's not trivial in the least.

But how many people stringently question their own normal set of assumptions? If they did, they'd learn a lot more about themselves, and probably become more honest and kind, but their attention is usually directed outward at someone else or something else. They're actually afraid to look within themselves, for fear of what they'd find. Thus they hide from the greatest challenge of life which is to "know thyself". Instead they know others, they judge others, they desire (some) others, and they attack others. Their battles are in vain, because they have avoided dealing with the real battleground which is within themselves.

"We have found the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:33 PM

you are not correct entirely in charging me with typing with one hand-it,s one finger!.
i am neither offended nor intimidated by your insults.
your using such tactics is hardly intelligent use of your brain power.

little hawk-thanks for your reasoned responses.so refreshing to have more constructive discussion.
you are quite right[at least in my experience]that churches dont tell it,s people about egyptian virgin stories etc, though i dont think that is deliberate ommision aimed at deception.
rather it may not be appropriate, or involves theological discussion beyond normal sunday preaching.
i have heard this stuff before, having been engaged in mudcat awhile.
even previously,my limited theological reading informed me of the comparisons between mosaic and egyptian shrines,and the layout of the camp of israel being similar to egyptian troop camp.
my own take on that is that God directed moses in accordance with the training moses received as an egyptian prince.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:50 PM

"If you read my statement carefully, and dispassionately, you will see that the only thing I am saying that everybody does is, .." etc...

Yeah, I realize that is 'all you are saying', but I disagree that it IS universally true, and as I have said before about a couple of your sweeping generalizations, IF you define it so broadly that it can't be disputed, it becomes almost trivial. If all you mean is that we can't approach a subject without previous mental constructs...sure...we don't 'think' in a vacuum. That hardly expands to mean we automatically are 'prejudiced' or 'directed' in certain ways. Insofar as we ARE, that merely defines the point at which we begin to consider WHAT our opinions are, and that consideration is what we bring to an issue....and IT may be well-considered or poorly considered. I suspect that you are treating the poorly considered as basic, and many go no further. I just suggest that for your generalization to be true, it is ONLY applicable to that trivial aspect....

Now, I'll post this...and then re-read it to see if I understand me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:52 PM

""If one could take the human influence out of both science and religion, both would be closer to their roots. But, understanding they are closely connected to these inperfections, it is wise to understand and "factor in" these confounding factors.""

I take issue with that statement.

If you take out the human influence, scientific facts would be influenced not a jot. They would exist whether or not we were there to know it.

Religion on the other hand is purely a human construct, and without human influence would not exist. The reasons for it would still be there, but without human influence the construct would be unnecessary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: ChrisJBrady
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:04 AM

Now THAT would be a great theme for a park - "Primeval" with anomalies and weird creatures from the past and the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: ChrisJBrady
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:13 AM

And more importantly Primeval is back for series 4 on ITV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval
http://primeval.wikia.com/wiki/Primeval_Wiki

"The anomalies are conclusive proof that the past exists, in a fourth dimension as real and solid as those we already know. Our job is to predict and contain them."
―Nick Cutter[src]

http://primeval.wikia.com/wiki/Anomaly

And series 5 is airing in the Autumn 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:45 AM

Bill.... ;-)

I stand absolutely by what I said: "Everyone comes to a subject they are interested in with a whole set of presuppositions, often with a whole set of rather strong prejudices, often with emotional prejudices of various sorts.."

If you read my statement carefully, and dispassionately, you will see that the only thing I am saying that everybody does is, they come to a subject they are interested in with a set of presuppositions.

And they do. I do not imply that those presuppositions are necessarily bad or wrong, I merely say that they are there. And they are. By the time one is interested in a subject, and knows enough to KNOW that they are interested in it, they have developed a set of ideas about it...a framework of understanding about it...a general viewpoint and angle on it. Those are the presuppositions I'm speaking of. Those presuppositions might be good, bad, or indifferent...foolish or wise...that depends on the person.

I was not implying something negative about all scientists. By no means. I was merely saying that they come to their subject with an established mindset, based on their past acquaintance with the subject.

The moment I utter the words "the USA" or "Russia" or "China" or "evolution" or "creator" or any other words....and you hear those words...a host of prior associations and reactions to those words arises in your mind, and that influences your viewpoint. Those are the presuppositions I was referring to. And we ALL have them. Me too. You too. Scientists too. Christians too. Muslims too. EVERYBODY's thinking is affected by prior conditioning, and so are their fears, prejudices, likes and dislikes.

And that's all I was referring to, and I'm saying scientists are affected by that too. This does not equate to an attack on all scientists, it merely points out that scientists, like other people, are affected by prior conditioning. This can cause them to be less than completely objective in what data they choose to pursue, how they view that data when they get it, how they interpret it, and whether they even decide to pursue it at all....or whether they even realize that it's there! They can miss things on account of that. They can misinterpret things on account of that. They are just like other people in that respect, meaing: they are not gods. They are, like you, me, and everyone else....fallible, and capable of error, and capable of espousing incorrect theories at times and resisting new theories which annoy them in some way because they're already wedded to backing some other theory.

And that should be kept in mind at all times.

NO ONE gets a free ride, Bill. No one gets carte blanche. No one is ALWAYS right. Not the Pope. Not your Momma. Not even the science community.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:37 AM

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 09:59 PM

But, what if his hobby is being in the streets?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:54 PM

"I wasn't talking about science, Bill. I was talking about human nature..."

But LH... in that context, following pete's remarks, what you said implies that scientists, ('scientifically minded people') in their role AS scientists, begin with careless presuppositions. That is WHY I say that it is important to be cautious of generalizations. I don't even accept that it is obvious that MOST people think and act the way you suggest. I agree that many do....way too many.... but to the extent that it IS so, the assertion does not seem to me to be relevant to pete's remarks, unless you clarify why!

You said.."Everyone comes to a subject they are interested in with a whole set of presuppositions, often with a whole set of rather strong prejudices, often with emotional prejudices of various sorts.."...and that sure sounds like an unwarranted generalization to me... "everyone" doesn't do that...


to the Pink Panther theme...:
Pedant, pedant...pedant,pedant,pedant..

A fellow's gotta have a hobby to keep him off the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:47 PM

Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln were also Deists.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,Bizibod
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:26 PM

I'm thinking that the typing's being done, for whatever reason, with just the one hand, so let's not get personal eh ?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:16 PM

I guess not.

Nor how to use HTML right!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:49 PM

You must admit, the typings better than the logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Songster Bob
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:43 PM

The aspect of this whole thing that upsets me is the plan to use taxpayer money for the project. There's no way that it's Constitutional to subsidize such a project, and I don't care whether it's "true" or not. It's still subsidizing religion, and the Constitution says you can't do that.

And creationism is junk science, and, honestly, dumb religion. Really.

And i,m just about fed up with poor typing from some participants in this ,conversation,, since it shows a lack of intellect.which degrades interest in that person,s arguments.

And it's really hard to make those typographical errors deliberately, so I'll not do so.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:26 PM

I guess you did not get it Mousethief:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:20 PM

If one could take the human influence out of both science and religion, both would be closer to their roots.

If you could do that, neither would have ever come into existence in the first place.

Aside to pete from seven stars: put spaces after your commas and periods, please. Too hard to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:08 PM

"IF DOGS RULED THE WORLD ...

We'd always find somewhere to bury our troubles.

Our spirits would be unleashed.

We'd stop barking up the wrong trees.

We'd always paws for reflection.

Beggars could be choosers.

We'd have faithful friends and loyal love.

We'd give a lick about each other."

[by Mike & Robin Monarch, ColdRush Siberians, 12/1/99]

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:07 PM

We've got plenty dinosaurs on ITV1 now - "Primeval" series 4 has started, and somehow Dr Julian Bashir has joined the cast!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:04 PM

Dogs eat and sleep. They do not dwell on things that are not important to their lives or anything they can't solve quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:41 PM

And blogs would happen at fire hydrants, trees, and fence posts.

Or...wait...maybe just trees. And rocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:23 PM

"sniff, sniff, Hi, Fifi"

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:21 PM

and possession of a rolled-up newspaper would be a felony.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:18 PM

Yup. ;-)

Think how much simpler and more straightforward the world would be if dogs were the ruling species...

Every day would be GREAT!!!
(almost) Every smell would be GREAT!!!
Every meal would be GREAT!!!
Every outing would be GREAT!!!

And the place would be pretty messy... ;-) There's always a downside to everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:47 PM

If one could take the human influence out of both science and religion, both would be closer to their roots. But, understanding they are closely connected to these inperfections, it is wise to understand and "factor in" these confounding factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:02 PM

I wasn't talking about science, Bill. I was talking about human nature. Scientists, like other people, ARE human, and they are subject to the same foibles and weaknesses AS other people, regardless of the basic rationality and objectivity of the scientific method.

These general statements I make are generally about the subject that interests me most...human nature. The annals of science are full of the history of a science community mostly holding stubbornly to an old idea...and scoffing at some maverick scientist with a new and radical idea, in some cases even ostracizing such a scientist and basically shutting him or her out....and yet in time it turns out that the maverick was right and the mainstream wrong. It has happened again and again.

That's not because there's anything wrong with science. Or with the scientific method. It's solely because of the more negative aspects of human nature. It's because of human stubbornness, arrogance, pride, a sense of entitlement, self-absorption, unwillingness to change, protection of the status quo, intolerance to new ideas, etc.....human nature! Scientists are just like the rest of us in that sense, they can easily fall prey to all the same pitfalls of human nature that the rest of us do, and that was what I was alluding to. I was NOT criticizing science.

Nor do I criticize religion. I criticize the abuse OF religion due to the same pitfalls of human nature that I have listed above.

It's always the negative side of human nature that is the problem, as far as I'm concerned...not the particular area of inquiry or the discipline.

Wisdom is based upon simplicity, Bill. ;-) Artifice and needless, convoluted arguments are based upon complexity.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 02:48 PM

You're in good company Kendall. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 12:55 PM

I'm a Deist. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

....charging in again where most Philosophers fear to tread -- ☺


"You are quite right, pete from seven stars, that scientifically-minded people also come to a subject with presuppositions. Definitely! "

That is a crude generalization, making it a distortion of what actually happens when serious **science** is done. The whole point of the scientific method IS that the premises one starts with are hypotheses, and based on the best data available. The "presuppositions" ARE that the scentific method, done properly, will tend to lead us closer to truth and fact, while avoiding emotionally based guesses!

OF COURSE every enquiry into a subject MUST have a starting point, but lumping "scientifically-minded people" in with all those who begin with fables, old-wives tales, religious dogma and politically inspired wishful thinking simply clouds the issue!

It seems sometimes that I have spent a lot of my life struggling against attempts to explain life & the universe with fuzzy generalizations. Most need qualifications and explications and disclaimers in order to be useful..... "Oh, everyone does THAT!" is seldom helpful. Even if MOST do that, the distinction needs to be made.

"Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it."
    ..Alfred North Whitehead

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 12:27 PM

"shimrod-certainly science is not dogma,but people come to it with presuppositions.with most evolutionists IMO that equals dogma , that to quote an evolutionist will not"let a divine foot in the door ... "

Yes, in some cases that may be true. But I was introduced to Religion at a very early age, and to a scientific way of thinking much later in life. I've been thinking about Religion a lot lately and trying to remember what the child that I was then thought about it. It's very hard to put myself back into that child's shoes but I now believe that, essentially, he humoured the adults who were trying to teach/indoctrinate him. In 'the core of his being' he believed that all of the stories, prayers, hymns etc. had nothing to do with him and were irrelevant to his life. To be very honest I didn't understand most of what I was taught. I suppose that I assumed that the lack of understanding was some failure of intelligence on my part - but now realise that a lot of it was because the material didn't make much sense.

So, perhaps I am unwilling to "let a divine foot in the door" because I've never really believed in the divine.

I should say, though, that I'm perfectly happy for you to believe in anything you want and I certainly don't want to suppress Religion (even if I was in a position to do so). But what I do object to, and am prepared to fight against if necessary, is any form of religious fundamentalism - because I believe it to be a danger to us all. I'm pretty certain that fundamentalists would try and force me to accept their ludicrous beliefs and abandon my belief in the centrality of science and the scientific method. Let's make no mistake about it: creationism is a central, anti-scientific, fundamentalist position.

If religious fundamentalists want me to take their beliefs seriously they're going to have to come up with something better than picking random quotes from the Bible and elevating them to 'Divine Truth' and jeering every time they think they've found a 'gap' in current scientific knowledge. No wonder some scientists won't let "a divine foot in the door"!

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:15 AM

A Brief History of the Unicorn:
Unicorn history, maybe a translation error?

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:13 AM

"Dessication" means the process of drying out. When something has dried out completely it is dessicated.

You are quite right, pete from seven stars, that scientifically-minded people also come to a subject with presuppositions. Definitely! And so do politically-minded people. And culturally-minded people. Everyone comes to a subject they are interested in with a whole set of presuppositions, often with a whole set of rather strong prejudices, often with emotional prejudices of various sorts....and all of those pre-established attitudes WILL influence and often compromise their objectivity.

I've been pointing that out on this forum since the first rooster crowed here (so to speak). ;-) When I do point it out, I am greeted by howls of outrage from various people who insist that, no, THEY are completely objective...it's just the people who disagree with them who aren't!

Ha! ;-D I laugh.

I am skeptical of the naivete and prejudices of many religious people. I am also skeptical of the naivete and prejudices of many anti-religious people. They are both inclined to make sweeping and often very false assumptions about the motivations, beliefs, and intelligence of people on the other side of the debate.

I suggest that both religious people and anti-religious people and everyone else out there have the humility to admit that:

1. they don't know it all
2. they might be wrong about something
3. there is more yet to learn
4. and the other guy might be right about something

Then there would be the possibility of real communication. Growth. Change.

Without such humility there's nothing but a desolate and useless repetition of opposing views that are petrified as if locked in stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:00 AM

There were no doubt many great inundations in the past history of the Earth. Whole continents have moved about the globe through continental drift, and huge areas of present continents were once covered in water. Much of what is now North America was once covered by ocean. Much of what is now under the oceans was probably once dry land, including the Mediterranean Basin.

But in terms of the Bible story, and many other "great" flood legends from around the world (over 500 of them), the only great floods that would be relevant to the story would be those that occurred during human habitation of the planet. Those would be the floods that got remembered and put into myths, legends, and stories about the past.

And there were probably several of those.

It seems doubtful that any one of them would have inundated ALL the land on the planet. More likely, certain geographical areas were inundated at one time or another, and other areas escaped inundation.

The Bible story is probably based on earlier legends that preceded it, and those earlier legends probably stemmed, as most legends do, from some sort of real event.

The Bible is full of stories that are repeated from earlier religious traditions such as Egyptian traditions. The idea of the "virgin birth", for example, had already appeared in a number of earlier traditions before the Christians ever came up with it, but most Christians don't know that...because their churches don't tell them! Heck, even most of the people running the churches probably don't know it, because they've spent their whole lives studying only one religious record....the Christian one!

Thus is a form of ignorance guaranteed to be repeated ad infinitum, merely by ignoring all other cultural sources except one's own. That's how people stay insular, prejudiced, and quite certain that their way is the only right way.

Muslims do that too. So do orthodox Jews. So do people in most other religions. "Don't tell me what I don't want to know" seems to be the standard reaction of people in most religions....and that's how they stay ignorant.

And this is true of people in many other fields of life besides religion too, by the way. ;-) It's one of the most common and troubling facets of human nature...the desire to remain comfortably shielded by the familiar, and to shut out the unfamiliar.

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 10:58 AM

jack-someone else originally linked burgess as evidence for evolutionism.i read,but didnt get it, so i read about it on creation.com and posted a little info, which i was challenged to provide ref for.
no,i dont know what dessication is.nor could i find it in the oxford english ref dictionary.
i respect you for at least reading some of the creation site.

shimrod-certainly science is not dogma,but people come to it with presuppositions.with most evolutionists IMO that equals dogma , that to quote an evolutionist will not"let a divine foot in the door

Subject: RE: BS: Dinosaurs and Unicorns on the Ark!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:17 AM

Thanks for providing the reference, 'pete from seven stars link'. But so what? There must have been millions of floods/inundations in the history of the Earth! Besides the Burgess Shale creatures were marine ones - and so were underwater. Whatever buried them was the 'reverse' of a flood! We have the Burgess Shale fossils as a result of blind chance (which I believe really drives the Universe - not 'God'). They represent a rare event which has added to our knowledge but revealed gaps in that knowledge (c'est la vie!).

What religious fundamentalists fail to understand is that Science is not a dogma like Religion (as interpreted by fundamentalists). An individual scientist, at some particular point in time, may defend his/her position vigorously but that point of view may subsequently be overthrown by further evidence. What fundamentalists do is to concentrate on the gaps and to ignore the Big Picture. Nevertheless, to point at a gap and shout: "Ah, ha! That gap 'proves' that the Bible is right!" is utterly ludicrous and has no intellectual credibility whatsoever!