BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM

Stevie, your blathering and not saying much, except venting how you 'FEEL'........yeah, I'd be bored, too!

But what I am saying is that you screwed up big time over that whale and the two million years. Would you care to address that, preferably by acknowledging your stupid blunder?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

The 'blunder, Stevie, was not my 'blunder'..it was the scientists who believe the whale had been extinct for 2 million years...and they were 'scientists'....dealing in some of the same bad information that you've been spouting about!...but, of course, it was just a minor inconsistency.
Look, I haven't promoted 'creation' over 'evolution' as you have assumed...so you don't have to lump me together with those you resent and can't convince.....If people think that the earth was 'created' in 7 days(depending on how long those same people figure that the length of those 'days' were), I don't find that a threat to reality nor my identity in it....to make things worse, I tend to agree with Janis Joplin on this one, though not scientifically 'established...."It's all one big day!"

..and so it is...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 06:31 PM

The 'blunder, Stevie, was not my 'blunder'..it was the scientists who believe the whale had been extinct for 2 million years...and they were 'scientists'....dealing in some of the same bad information that you've been spouting about!...but, of course, it was just a minor inconsistency.

Oh yes it was your blunder. You said that we'd been wrong "for two million years" about the bloody whale, remember? And 'twas you who made the thing into a clicky, not the scientists, and you were wishing to cash in on the pete-notion that all scientists are a bunch of know-nothing pisspots. You'll be telling us next that you got your PhD in the Department Of Worldly Wisdom at the University Of Common Sense (I knew an alcoholic once who claimed that). Stop wriggling for once. As for "minor inconsistency", well you're the bloke who's supposed to be endowed with mathematical accuracy, precise English (screenplays - yeah?) and the delicacy of speech required of a man who is dealing with vulnerable patients with mental issues. You're sussed, mate. You're a charlatan and a bloody liar to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 09:48 PM

Oh, quit riding in on Don's bandwagon...I'm neither a 'charlatan' or 'liar'...that's just your convenient 'out' because most everything else you've tried backfired.
Take a red.

GfS

P.S. The 'whale story' was on Yahoo news when my internet came on..I just thought it was appropriate, because once again, 'science' was wrong....but unlike you, they admitted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:57 AM

It could be said that my academic research years ago made me, by some definitions, a scientist.

At the time, just as now, I assert that Sheffield Wednesday are the greatest football team ever and I refuse to be swayed by any argument to the contrary, even if you have the nerve to bring facts into the discussion.

My point being that some, especially Goofus and starry pete, assert that if a single "scientist" is less than perfect in what they say the whole of science seems to be in question...

I love Goofus's last post. Science was wrong and they admitted it? How come I was never invited to the building where "science" makes its pronouncements? I can't have been much of a "scientist" eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM

""The 'whale story' was on Yahoo news when my internet came on..I just thought it was appropriate, because once again, 'science' was wrong....but unlike you, they admitted it.""

That's what we've been trying to get into your near impervious head mate.

When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt.

Unlike you aerie faerie types who fall for some pie in the sky nonsense and will fight to the death without benefit of either evidence or sense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 06:04 AM

I assert that Sheffield Wednesday are the greatest football team ever and I refuse to be swayed by any argument to the contrary

Until you can bring yourself to insert Liverpool FC into that sentence in place of Sh*ffi*ld W*dn*sd*y, I'm going to have to continue to struggle to resist bracketing you in some weird and inchoate way with pete 'n' Goofus. Now if that isn't reason enough to ditch, once and for all, your thoroughly misguided allegiance... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 07:30 AM

"Admittedly, it takes a bit more than counting snails to see evolution in action"

You're not counting just snails, you're counting their polymorphs which are caused by mutation in the alleles that control colour variation in the snail's shells, each combination of bands and colours being known as polymorph. As these snails have a high reproductive rate by repeatedly observing them we can see how the polymorphs vary within populations over time. We know that the various polymorphs of Capaea sp. are more prevalent in certain areas, and part of this variation is due to the local climate and so as the climate alters we see the polymorphs change too.

This change is due to evolution; we are seeing natural selection as it happens so in fact, you're wrong. Counting Capaea sp. is an easy, testable and perfect way to see evolution in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 02:56 PM

If the price of the truth as revealed in 1867 and spread by the prophets Don Megson, Jim McCalliog, Tommy Craig, Trevor Francis, Chris Waddle, Mel Sterland and David Hirst, under the ministry of Len Ashurst, Derek Dooley, Jack Charlton, Ron Atkinson, Trevor Francis and far too bloody many others...

Is to be lumped with Goofus and Mr Tambourine Man then so be it.

Science and football statistics have no place in my real world don't you know?

Hey Goofus! Fancy a pint?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:43 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T"When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt."


You forgot: ..."When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt....and when it's findings point in the direction of energies and powers, unseen, that have influence over the world we see, it can't in anyway be interpreted as real...and those who realize it must be wrong, no matter the cost of science."

"Don(Wyziwyg)T: "That's what we've been trying to get into your near impervious head mate."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM

Jack, evolution is a process and you do not see it "in action" in a snapshot. I remind you that I did say that observing the shell colour variants in Cepaea provides evidence that natural selection has occurred and provides evidence that there is the potential for further non-random survival of heritable traits. I also referred to the potential for variants to become extinct and for new variants to arise. Counting snails in your garden is a snapshot, useful and essential, but still a snapshot. You have to work a bit harder than that over a longer period of time to see evolution in action, as it were. Genetic variation and evolution are not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:36 AM

Don(Wyziwyg)T: "When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt."

One more thing....while the topic is come to this 'revelation'...One thing that I liked about that video, is that scientists DID make a new scientific discovery....and as the scientist DID say.."This is where science and the spiritual come together in a most profound way.."
I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!

Now is that fucking stupid, or what?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe. Keep calm and carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM

""You forgot: ..."When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt....and when it's findings point in the direction of energies and powers, unseen, that have influence over the world we see, it can't in anyway be interpreted as real...and those who realize it must be wrong, no matter the cost of science.""

And for those of us whose first language is English.................?

Don T.

P.S. Gibberish!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM

""I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!""

You've misunderstood mate!

I have no argument with what he thinks he found, none at all. He is entitled to his own hallucinations.

What I object to is his being described as a scientist. Whatever his scientific qualifications might be, he did nothing whatever in a scientific way.

He drew solid conclusions from absolutely NO scientifically derived or testable evidence, and claimed as a result a breakthrough which fails on so many levels that it would be dimissed by the majority of imbeciles, let alone rational thinking human beings.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T: "


(Responding to my post: ""I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!""

You've misunderstood mate!
I have no argument with what he thinks he found, none at all. He is entitled to his own hallucinations."

...and of course it conflicts with YOUR studies(?)????

You haven't studied it, or you wouldn't have said such an obnoxiously stupid thing!
..Oh, and neither has Stevie...
...Regardless of what I thought beforehand, I found the physics talked about, and the scientific studies and experiments spoken of in the video, was rather enlightening...even opened up a new field of science...but you(plural) are not interested in stuff like that...in the discourse of science..you just want to spout your biases, based on unproven theory and not leave your(plural) comfort zone of ignorance(as in the the word 'ignore')...and make no mistake, to IGNORE is IGNORance!...ESPECIALLY in science!!!
The 'physics' of and in the 'unseen' isn't worth studying???....or even looking into??????

..and then they want to lecture us about science!....just call it what it is....idiotic!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:51 PM

Steve Shaw: "Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe."

So, if YOU don't believe science, what are you basing your believes in?...unproven theories?????
You seemed to have based your 'rap' on science...that you don't believe in.......
Now you've taken BOTH sides of your own 'argument'...make up your mind..you must be dizzy by now!

I hope others are paying attention....they might just open up their closed-off minds....

..there really is more to 'reality' than meets the eye...OR..there is more to reality, THAN WE ARE AWARE OF!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:56 PM

Typo in an earlier post.....

Steve Shaw: "Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe."

So, if YOU don't believe science, what are you basing your beliefs in?...unproven theories?????
You seemed to have based your 'rap' on science...that you don't believe in.......
Now you've taken BOTH sides of your own 'argument'...make up your mind..you must be dizzy by now!

I hope others are paying attention....they might just open up their closed-off minds....

..there really is more to 'reality' than meets the eye...OR..there is more to reality, THAN WE ARE AWARE OF!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM

i believe the chair i am sitting on holds my weight.
it has been experimentally proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a valid belief.
darwinists believe in the GTE FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT experimental evidence that can not be otherwise accounted for.i remind you again of evolutionists who have admitted the failure of the theory as an adequate explanation.maybe time to start quoting again.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:03 PM

""When will you half brained twerps open your minds and understand what is being explained to you.

Steve is correct!

Science is nothing more than a process by which you can gather and examine evidence, conduct experiments and finally draw conclusions which, if you have used the process correctly, may tell you whether or not you can believe the theory upon which you have been working.

So, Pete, science will enable you show that you can safely sit on that chair without it collapsing, but it isn't science you believe. It is the results you obtain by its use.

As for you Goofus, there is no point in trying to educate you. You wantonly and deliberately refuse to open your mind to what science is, let alone to the fact that your man in the video isn't conducting any scientific process and hasn't even a viable hypothesis, let alone a breakthrough.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM

i believe the chair i am sitting on holds my weight.
it has been experimentally proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a valid belief.
darwinists believe in the GTE FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT experimental evidence that can not be otherwise accounted for.i remind you again of evolutionists who have admitted the failure of the theory as an adequate explanation.maybe time to start quoting again.

The chair doesn't hold your weight. Your weight is a function of the Earth's gravity acting on your mass. The chair "supports" you because it is strong enough to do so. It can provide sufficient upward force to more than balance the downward force of gravity. No more, no less. I don't expect a muppet such as yourself to understand that, but hey ho.

There are no evolutionary biologists who have admitted the failure of the theory, for the simple reason that the theory does not fail. Incidentally, scientific truth does not necessarily rely on experimentation. Much has been learned just by observation alone. Neither does experimentation ever prove or disprove anything. You don't understand the science process but you continue, in your arrant pig-ignorance, to comment on it as though you do. I've met many Christians in my time who embrace and acknowledge science, who lack your unhealthy and dispeptic attitude to it. In my mind, that makes you a rotten and corrupt, piss-poor example of Christianity. In fact, you bring Christianity into total disrepute. Time you examined your conscience, though I wouldn't like to go there if I were in your shoes.

Start respecting hard-working scientists and the scientific process, quit the trolling, and I'll lay off you. But not before. Your attitude to science stinks, and if your God actually existed he'd be thoroughly pissed off with you for not using that brain he took all that trouble to endow you with.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:43 AM

Stevie: "There are no evolutionary biologists who have admitted the failure of the theory, for the simple reason that the theory does not fail. Incidentally, scientific truth does not necessarily rely on experimentation."

Would it be beyond your imagination to think that scientists would ever want to 'test' those same theories, before they would rule it as fact?
So, I don't think anyone else should, either....that sounds like how those, (Stevie): ... many Christians in my time who embrace and acknowledge science, who lack your unhealthy and dispeptic attitude to it".....except you do the same, when science has, in fact, stumbled upon evidence that shows that there IS another 'realm' (if you will), that is running right along, that is unseen, that has direct effects, into the 'physical' world, which traditional science and physics can and do measure...and that revelation, has opened up a whole 'new' level and area in science.
Now, I don't think you'd dispute that, would you?
At one point, or another, these two 'realms (if you will), are going to 'intersect'...and when they do, they don't cancel each other out... but that 'intersection' is the door, to higher understanding, of things in the land of 'cause and effect'..OR...manifestations of one realm into the other...........and THAT is worth 'studying'..wouldn't you say? Perhaps, with the understanding how that works, would open a huge door into mankind 'evolving' higher, than the condition that it is now in......Fair enough?

If a 'Light' shines onto a reflective surface, and the surface begins to think that what IT IS reflecting IS actually itself, and not the 'light', then God only knows what else it(we) will invent...maybe even religion and politics!! ....and NEITHER are really serving mankind, at present, (nor in the past)..are they? When I think about it, both of those have been used for one group of people controlling another,(usually larger), group of people...wouldn't you say?
...and I'm NOT talking about 'religion or politics', as being inspired by, or involved at all, and being in sympathetic resonance and harmony, with the source of the 'Light' from where it all came from...do you?..How can they be??..they (you, plural)think of themselves as separate, and they MUST convince their 'followers' that it is THEY from which all 'goodies' flow, to control and exploit their 'subjects'...not from the 'Light', which actually is the source of their existence!......
My!...what we would have access to if our eyes weren't deliberately closed, either for us, or by us.

Now for those who claim 'gibberish', as subterfuge..to they 'can't/don't understand all the above, read it again..maybe even verbally...I assure you it makes complete sense, IS the reality in which we live, move and have our being in.....or maybe Amos will explain it for you..........
I don't have a need to 'convince' or 'convert' anyone.....just get ya' thinkin'...........(Pssst.....it will also help your music!)!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM

Well, I must say you're a bloody comedian. I've not read such tosh in a long time. Be assured that nothing you can say will help my music. That can look after itself quite nicely without some egotistical lunatic's assistance, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:13 PM

Steve Shaw: "... Be assured that nothing you can say will help my music".

That is more than likely true....so in that case, make sure when you blow, you do it in a protected cage, that stops flying objects from hitting you!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM

.....besides, what else are you going to say??..you've run out of steam quite a while back...now it's just back to the feeble attempts at discrediting, name calling, and pouting.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:28 PM

"we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its construsts,in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagent promises to health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,because we have a prior commitment ,a commitment to materialism.
it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world,but,on the contrary,that we are forced by our a-priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,no matter how counter-intuitive,no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated,moreover that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"
biologist richard lewontin
billions and billions of demons
new york review 9/1/97

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM

You put quotes round all that. That implies you are quoting verbatim, which you are clearly not as it's impossible to believe that the author could write with such terrible spelling and grammar. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM

Steve Shaw: "You put quotes round all that. That implies you are quoting verbatim, which you are clearly not as it's impossible to believe that the author could write with such terrible spelling and grammar. You have no credibility whatsoever."

I agree that the quotation marks would have been helpful...but then you come off with your last sentence, which has nothing to do with anything..other than YOU think he has 'no credibility'....as compared to what?...YOURS???????!!!??

So your interjection was just another 'throw away item'.

Steve, a suggestion.....Try sticking to offering evidence to your position...or at least clarify the reason you have a phobia, against any notion that nothing else can possibly exist outside your limited understanding....at least talk about the topic.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 02:39 PM

Billions and Billions of Demons RICHARD LEWONTIN

Half way down page 7.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 02:52 PM

""Try sticking to offering evidence to your position...or at least clarify the reason you have a phobia, against any notion that nothing else can possibly exist outside your limited understanding....at least talk about the topic.""

Says the brain dead certifiable fruit loop who claimed, without evidence, on the Gay marriage thread, that HIV/AIDS was developed in US government labs and injected into Gays along with vaccination shots.

Just so everybody knows how credible his pronouncements are likely to be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM

We take the side of science despite

Not much point in reading any further.

If science has a side there is something out there called science that is different to the word science as humans know it.

Hey Mr tambourine man! Brainwashed any kids lately? Any idea what your perverse adherence to discredited superstition is doing to vulnerable people?

After all, Goofus is the cleverest person he knows and he seems to defend such bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

Musket sans cookie: "We take the side of science despite..."

The how come you can't prove your positions scientifically, and resort to unproven theories to cling to???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:44 PM

Half way down page 7.

Well, I'm a massive admirer of Carl Sagan, but I think this bloke would have embarrassed him. I think he's writing unfocussed bollocks. But my family are all here, it's Christmas and I can't be arsed to address this nonsense in detail now. You never know, I might get back. You do have a habit of posting links without adding your personal perspective. That could mean you're lazy or that you find yourself incapable of making your own argument. Whatever, it's not a good way of proceeding if you wish to engage other people in your conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM

"...because we have a prior commitment ,a commitment to materialism."

Pete... that is simply incorrect for almost ALL true scientists. It is a claim which should better be applied to those who "believe" in a religious story!

Those who practice genuine 'science' do so out of a desire to KNOW how the universe works, no matter where continuing study leads. They are continuously updating and rewriting the details.

Contrast this with the viewpoint of: "I don't know exactly how it works, but the Bible says 'God did it', and that's good enough for me!"
People who have a fundamentalist "prior commitment" to the Bible as final authority get trapped into a hobby of nit-picking of scientific data and analysis and using science's own never-ending process against it! This INCLUDES taking words out of context and asserting that because 'some' supposed scientists (usually those who belong to a fundamentalist church) express doubts, that it somehow casts doubt on what 99% of other scientists think!
Cripes, Pete! You could find a few musicians who think *I* am a good musician! Or that Martin Carthy is a bad one!

Remember, Pete... YOU stated way back there that YOU began as more or less an atheist, but were convinced BY fundamentalists to think otherwise. I sure wonder what they 'showed' you as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 01:48 AM

Bill D: "I sure wonder what they 'showed' you as proof."

.....or how to get to the door, which when opened, you might have seen what you may have seen...and experienced something 'new' or 'fuller'.

If you post anything about it, you might draw criticism...but not from me...I'm up for listening...curious....but don't feel compelled.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 05:10 PM

.steve formerly asserts that no evolutionary scientist will admit the failure of theory,so i thought that quote was ideal.
of course,-shown to be wrong-resort to insults [as usual]

bill- you can always accuse creationists of quote mining and i,m sure you are right.there is a quite extensive seam to dig from
heres another-
"research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritavely accepted...what remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this has happened"
hubert yockey. information theorist.
journal of theoretical biology 67:377-378 1987

you mistake me if you think i lump all scientists together.i have previously said that operational science is not the same as origins research.the latter contains what i would describe as fundamentalist darwinians - as per the above quote.i dont accept that such do follow the evidence wherever it leads and the behaviour of some posters demonstates such intransigence,dont you think!?.
no "proof" was shown me but i became convinced that God did exist as i explained back then."proof" as you know is beyond us - either way!
true i am not the academic you are but many who have changed their mind are,eg antony flew ,on consideration of the complexity of dna

happy christmas to all posters    pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 06:25 PM

Well... it is one thing to "be convinced" and have confidence that God exists, and quite another to accept one specific interpretation of the Christian Bible about WHEN the Earth might have been created and when & how man was created... or evolved.

If you say "I just believe God started it all.", other may disagree, but they can't prove otherwise... but the time factor is another matter. We know how to measure that.


and best holiday wishes...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM

and GfS... I know the idea about 'open doors' and 'fuller experiences'. I have been told about many things that if I 'opened my self' to new ideas and ummmm... certain interesting concepts, it might ... well... broaden my horizons....or something like that. (The more explicit form was "one has to believe in order to know!" Over the years, my translation of that became "don't doubt or question...just accept, no matter what truth MAY be")

I have 'opened myself' all thru my life to various ways of thinking. I even began as a simple, ordinary, believing Methodist. No one twisted my arm to do anything else. I just read everything I could find on how one thinks and decides about thinking. The more I read, the more I had to come to terms with information & ideas in many areas that didn't seem to make sense if I asked penetrating questions. (My mother told me when I was about 12 that 'tornados come from the southwest. She couldn't explain why, and I couldn't imagine why wind would do that... so I waited until I saw the scientific reason it is often true.)

I hear many anecdotes about supposed experiences others have had ... both historical and personally... and it makes me curious.... but 10 or 25.. or 1000 anecdotes do not constitute any truth except that some people seem to have had 'experiences' (assuming they all are telling the truth). I can't experience THEIR experiences... I can only shrug.
I am 94.287% convinced that most others simply LIKE certain explanations as more 'interesting' or 'comforting'... and I can certainly understand the temptation!
Why not me? ummm... I just take little comfort in staking my own ideas other's maybes. There are SO many fascinating, wonderful, amazing, mind-blowing facts and replicable things to explore that I don't need vague 'maybes'.... except as a phenomenon in itself. Why DO people believe in ghosts, Tarot cards, elves... and other things?

I have been told there are ummm... unpleasant consequences.. for my reluctance. So be it.... we shall see... or not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:39 AM

Bill D, I'd say, in light of your post, rather than to stretch, to turn a position of 'faith' into a complete new 'reality'...when it comes to something you don't know...even to who or what 'God' is....just send the request 'up' to have 'it' revealed. I can't tell you, or anyone how it comes to you, or what to 'believe' about it....those things take a deeply personal 'contact point'....then, it seems, that it unfolds itself personally to you....then what you have is your personal interactions...and those things, I don't find are constrained by the concepts, that either science, politics or religion, has their finger on the pulse!!

As so far as creation versus evolution....actually, it's a 'non-issue' except for 'allegorists' and 'legalists'!...Like I quoted before, "It's all just one big day!"....and the rest is just up for 'interpretations'.

The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher....when it happens, however it happens, and you know that's what happened...listen up and pay attention...Fair enough?

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 10:17 AM

.steve formerly asserts

Meaningless drivel, fully to be expected from this source.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 12:48 PM

"The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher."

Gee... you managed to get 3½ things I question into one short sentence.

1)"fact"--- The only fact I recognize is that we DO 'have experiences'.
2)"can & do"--- sounds like WE control the experience(s).
3)"something higher" that's linguistic subjectivity --what if it's just 'sideways'?..like our subconcious.
½) 'plug into'-- well, that is just an alternate term for 'experience', as far as I can see.

You see, GfS... you have this way of approaching these topics in an oblique dance (best I can do as a description). I suspect that you have specific personal 'beliefs' that you hold, but you only hint at them in your remarks, preferring to avoid direct confrontations about details and instead proffering subtle 'suggestions' about ways of approaching the possibility of metaphysical 'stuff'.

I end up being more curious about exactly what YOU are getting at than actually 'plugging into' any myself.

"...just send the request 'up' to have 'it' revealed. " *sigh*.. in a dozen paragraphs I might outline how that idea strikes me, but my earlier remark about "one has to believe in order to know!" would be featured, I'm sure.
I WILL say that 10-12 years of discussions here at Mudcat have sure given me lots of things to contemplate and practice in refining my own approaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM

i agree bill,that there is room for some interpretation in the bible but i would start with the premise that it means what it says.that is not to say that there is,nt symbolism,poetic expression and other literary devise contained therein,but the christian faith is grounded in an historical setting.it gives some dating points and contains chrono-genealogies stretching right back to adam.
if gen 1/2 be considered poetry,where does historical narrative actually begin since the "begats" list begins with adam.
liberals pick and choose what to believe in it -if anthing!
even evangelicals often bow to evolutionary theory but as even dawkins has pointed out ,this is an inconsistent position.

the claim that we know how to measure time back millenia is obviously disputed by some scientists who point out no one other than God was there and the methods are working on suppositions about the past and the dating is frequently adjusted when new discoveries neccesitate it.
i suppose it is a case of who you trust for the layman.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:54 PM

Interpreting fiction appears to be being put forward as an alternative to science.

Mmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:55 PM

"... disputed by **some** scientists.." (my emphasis)

But not many...

"...who point out no one other than God was there.."

In so far as they assert a 'god', they are not acting AS scientists.

"...the christian faith is grounded in an historical setting.it gives some dating points and contains chrono-genealogies stretching right back to adam."

No, it is grounded in belief about SOME historical facts. We know the geography of the basic biblical area, and we know of certain individuals mentioned...Pontius Pilate for example, but the 'chrono-genealogies' are 99% just names. NO ONE can tell us who might have kept all those records of names, and how the various lines and relationships were sorted out. It is just a list.... and anyone could invent a list. Are you claiming that God handed some scribe a long list like that? On
what? Those names appear on a few rolls of parchment- all dating to the same basic era.

If you start... as you do... with an unbending acceptance in the Bible as assembled by King James appointed scholars... then you beg out of showing HOW all those records were kept.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM

""If you start... as you do... with an unbending acceptance in the Bible as assembled by King James appointed scholars... then you beg out of showing HOW all those records were kept.""

And what agenda those scholars may have had, and how that may have coloured their interpretation of the more nebulous sections of the original,which of course had already been subjected to many earlier interpretations.

If the King James version were an exact translation of the very first writings, it would indeed be a miracle.

Much more likely is a final publication which is the end result of a fifteen hundred year game of Chinese Whispers.

It is impossible for anybody to claim with any credibility that he knows which.

Faith is fine, but please desist from claims that it is in any way equal to, or even related to scientific progress.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM

DAMN! I meant "scientific process!

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:13 PM

BillD: "I WILL say that 10-12 years of discussions here at Mudcat have sure given me lots of things to contemplate and practice in refining my own approaches."

EXCELLENT!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:22 PM

excellent, huh? That line only? No response to my analysis of YOUR approach? Hmmmmm??


nawww... I s'pose not.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM

bill-i presume that the great scientists like newton were ,in your view, not thinking scientifically in presupposing a Creator who is able to bring all into existence, and orderly in bringing into being what became known as laws by which his creation could be investigated.
i rather,would say that those presupposing no creator are unscientific ,hoping somehow that an explanation can be found that denies the obvious ie that anything that comes into existence must have a sufficient cause.

the bible is not the result of only a "few" ms but many.the differences between them are mostly minor.jewish scribes were i understand,very careful.
many other ancient works have less and later copies but are considered reliable history - probably because they have no supernatural element.
this is known as presuppositional bias ,i think

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:20 PM

1000!

GfS