 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:56 PM The position of the goalposts is relative, John. It's all Einstein's fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:52 PM Damn. You keep moving the goalposts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:48 PM Or maybe not ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:40 PM ...but maybe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:37 PM Sure, possibly I'm wrong. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Date: 28 Jun 05 - 12:43 PM Frankly, I believe in God but have no idea how the world was created and I'm not going to speculate because I've no particular knowledge in science. Simply unqualified. Never been that interesting to me, as, say, history, literature or philosophy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 12:13 PM Sure, possibly I'm wrong. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 28 Jun 05 - 11:53 AM 8. if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does it has, itself, become religion -- not science... That's just wrong. Science is systematic and formulated knowledge. It's absurd to say it is both 'not science' and 'science.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 10:12 AM BTW, very nice post TIA, and I agree with it as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 10:08 AM I don't disagree with you, Wolfgang, about what science is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Jun 05 - 10:02 AM I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing (John Hardly) if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does (John Hardly) John, you talk about something you do not understand to start with. The data are not ever changing. Each student studying an experimental science will as a part of his study have to repeat old experiments just to refind the same data he can read in his books. What happens is that new data are added which are not at odds (usually not) with the old data, but with old theories. The old theories have been able to predict beautifully the old data (and can still under the right circumstances) but cannot predict/explain new data. That's when a new theory is needed. This new theory will still make the same predictions for the realm of the old data for these do not vanish in the thin air and do not change. But the new theory may allow to understand why the old theory (example: Newtonian physics) is still a brilliant theory for low velocities and big masses but should be replaced by better theories for either very high velocities or very small masses. But the replacing theories make the identical (for practical purposes) predictions say for the curve of a cannonball. It is not at all the business of science to prove or disprove the supernatural. Science starts with the assumption that there is nothing supernatural (in our daily lives and laboratories). If supernatural forces would at a daily basis interfere with the laws of the world then there could be no natural laws. The quest is how far can we go without making any supernatural assumption. You'll find that even scientists who, in their private lives, are religious, will in their work as scientists not claim supernatural forces (well, there are exceptions as some intelligent design people, but nobody in science takes them serious). A question like 'how could life on Earth have originated?' has a lot of extrascientific responses like 'god willed it', but such a response is the abrupt end of a research endeavour for it does not allow any meaningful test and cannot be refuted by data. A real scientific program could look at the probable atmospheric conditions billion years ago, could think of lightnings, comets etc. as triggers of early self replicating molecules. Scientists in their jobs just do not care about the supernatural. They never set out to disprove it or prove it, they just try how far the approach without assuming supernatural influence carries. And if they can explain (not in all detail yet, but in general) how species can have evolved from self replicating molecules they are happy. What they say is: I can explain it without any supernatural assumption and not that they have disproved creation. Creation is not their business. In Newton's calculations, the planets were not in stable orbits and for the solar system to remain stable, a little tip from god, now and then, was necessary to bring a planet back into the correct orbit. A French scientist did improve Newton's calculations on the planet paths and found that with this improvement god's interference was not necessary to come to stable orbits. When Napoleon heard of this he asked the scientist whether this meant that there is no god. The reply was that god is an 'unneccessary hypothesis'. That sums it up pretty well. Napoleon, like you, thinks in terms of prove or disprove of god (creation). The scientist told him implicitely that his question was nonsensical and told him that he didn't need god for his theory to work. The question whether there still is a god and a creation is outside of science. One could explain all creation without god and still believe that a god made the laws that allow for a creation without any supernatural interference. These are just two completely different things. If a pupil comes into a non-religious school with biology as a subject she can safely expect to be taught the present theories from science and not those from creation. Scientific theories are by their very nature godless theories and I consider the demand that in science fields theories needing supernatural interference may be taught as well just as stupid and nonsensical like if a mother sends her kid into a religious school and demands that he may not join in prayer. The 'intelligent design' school of thoughts only pretends to have a scientific interest. There are a lot of debates on the field of evolution and many competing theories, but there is no 'intelligent design' theory being taken serious except among a small circle of religiously interested. There is just no real debate, noone in science takes these people serious. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 28 Jun 05 - 09:38 AM You are right. Science cannot disprove anything. Science cannot prove that leprechauns do not exist. Maybe all the testing done in the world so far has missed the critical leprechaun test. But, science does work towards an internally complete and consistent understanding of the universe. an understanding that does not rely upon the supernatural. It is not necessary, and it is unscientific, to plug the supernatural into every (or any) gap in our knowledge. I do not believe that creationists and ID'ers are simply asking that scientists acknowledge uncertainty. Scientists are far more concerned about recognizing and quantifying uncertainty that non-scientists. Nope, ID'ers are trying to install a permanent uncertainty into science. They are trying to wall-off a branch of inquiry. They are trying to shield kids (and adults) from scientifc findings (internally consistent and becoming more complete all the time) that conflict with their faith. Anyone with any level or type of faith is going to face this crisis at some point. Science will advance our knowledge of how the universe works, and faith-based explanations will ultimately come in conflict with that knowledge. The recently-departed Pope recognized this and made a great statement on it in about 1999 (and pardoned Galileo - 500 years late - for proclaiming findings that challenged the faith-based knowledge of his time). And finally, any family that recognizes the importance of taking the full 10 days of antibiotics for an infection is reaping the benefits of our modern understanding of evolution - whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jun 05 - 07:45 AM "Just because we don't understand thing doesn't mean we should assume it is supernatural in origin." 1. over half of the population believes in a supernatural origin (not a specific supernatural origin, but a supernatural origin). 2. science does not prove a supernatural origin, but it does not disprove it either. 3. in the schools, it is being taught as though science does disprove a supernatural origin. 4. more than half of the population pay the taxes that support the schools that are teaching their children that science disproves the supernatural (even though it does not). 5. the taxpayers are demanding a say in it -- they want science classes to acknowledge -- not that science proves the supernatural, but that science does not disprove the supernatural. 6. that's not asking too much. 7. when science does disprove the supernatural, then the anti-religious should have their way and the tax-paying religious should move on to their own private schools (and pay for both the public and private schools). 8. if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does it has, itself, become religion -- not science... 9. ...and if you reversed that and had the religious teaching something that they could not prove as fact (like their own creation account), you would be on the schools like mud on a pig, shutting them down until they stopped teaching what was not fact, but calling it fact -- especially if the issue was of major importance to your life and that of your families. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu Date: 28 Jun 05 - 06:49 AM Well said Tia. Just because we don't understand thing doesn't mean we should assume it is supernatural in origin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine Date: 28 Jun 05 - 06:31 AM OK Tia, so how much do you expect from someone who admits they don't have all the answers? All the answers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:49 PM As a scientifc theory, Intelligent Design is useless. A scientific theory must at the very least ATTEMPT to explain something. Intelligent Design is an intellectual surrender..."it's too complicated for us to understand, so we'll say that somebody really really clever simply made it this way and give up". Even as a surrender, it gets us nowhere. Put another way: let's say that life on earth is simply too complex and organized to have happend out of nothing. Okay. Now, something so complex and organized must have been designed...and the designer must have been comlex and highly organized...and therefore cannot just have appeared out of nothing...so must have had a designer...who must have been................... Like I said, scientifically worthless. Oh, and I am a geologist. Anybody want me to fix their teeth? Good-humoured jab at the dentist brother above. No offense meant - really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:23 PM See! John Hardly and his ancestors haven't spent generations on a small island like the komodo dragons and little elephants and become minaturized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:16 PM "John Hardly, 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. VERY SEXY!" *blushing here* I love the flattery, but to be completely honest I must admit that the sinews of my thighs aren't all that close. I'm actually a wee bit bow-legged. You got the "loins" thing right though. *kiss, kiss* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: semi-submersible Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM Donuel (24 Jun 05 - 08:49 AM) said: The Chinese Dragon is clearly dinosaur lore although some call it symbolic of comet or asteroid forbodings. Uncle DaveO demurred: Aww, come on! Clearly? A speculation, at best. Seemed a lot clearer than "speculation" to me. We're looking at a huge empire with effective written communication, countless scholars recording their observations of natural history among other topics, and widespread deposits of stone bones and teeth of great size and saurian form (I believe they're still known as "dragon bones" today). Now, Uncle DaveO, are you telling us all those great and powerful reptiles in Chinese lore have no clear connection with those mysterious fossils? Aww, come on! This is of course distinct from the "patently ridickledockle" (Thanks, Amos!) assumption that human oral history might extend back to times when large dinosaurs walked the earth. However, some brave or unlucky humans a little farther south may also have encountered giant monitor lizards which made today's Komodo dragons look stunted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:45 PM Frank da Man! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: annamill Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:28 PM John Hardly, 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. I believe in this behemoth guy. I'm sure I knew him once... VERY SEXY! Ooofff! As for Jerry Farwell, he is too in the bible, under false prophets ;-) Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:23 PM Foolestroupe, I have a theory about the Platypus. I think it was late Saturday, and God was REALLY tired, so he delegated the final beast to a committee, and gave them a box of parts to work with. Same result as the average local government committee today. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 05 - 11:24 AM Perhaps God was just having fun with parallel dimensions and popped a couple of humans and a few other things, like elephants, into one of his old worlds that still had a bunch of old bones laying about from when he was fiddlin around with stuff before, that didn't quite work out right, but some of the old bones like komodo dragons in China weren't dead yet, but God forgot about that and he liked that dinosaurs had become birds, instead of large vicious beasts and fat grazers and so he left the birds around for the ones from the parallel dimension to look at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Date: 25 Jun 05 - 11:06 AM Frank: Brilliant versifyin', man! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:42 AM "Also, when I am talking about the "goal posts", I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing and so the conclusions and practical applications change as well. Don's use of the "goal post" is to say that the goal of science has never changed" Mary, The above is how I closed my post (the post where I AGAIN forgot to close out a code!!!). I do think that what you are describing is what I meant (the copernicus/galileo/etc thing) by changing what we hold as "scientific" fact. And what I'm saying is that -- as we functionally USE science (in medicine, in engineering, etc) we are constantly having to change how we do things and how we look at the world. Don is rightly pointing out that it is not science that is changing -- science goes on like the energizer bunny, merely discovering and analyzing new data. Science "concludes" very carefully -- for instance (back to the topic at hand) science has not "concluded" that the world was NOT created. But that is what is at issue with what is taught in science classes -- not that evolution is taught, but the step too far that science has concluded that there is not "creation". You are right in that neither one uses the term "moving the goalposts" in the manner that that term was originally intended (unfairly changing the rules mid-game AFTER one side has showed superiority. Don't mean to speak for Don (he does a fine job for himself). Just trying to explaini how I see the confusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:20 AM In a brief search for examples, I found a statement that "moving the goalposts" refers to changing the rules, not changing the goal. For instance, requiring a scientist to submit more or different kinds of evidence than is usually required to prove an idea or theory. I originally thought "moving the goalposts" was negating a previously held theory. Such as, in medicine, bloodletting. Or in science history, Galileo and Capernicus, and whether the earth revolved around the sun. Also, the world is flat, etc. Now I'm just more confused as to what the original discussion was about. Also, my Venn diagram/Don's subsumed words: Newton/Kepler->Einstein -- but I can't think of more examples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Jun 05 - 09:19 AM "Creationism, intelligent design or whatever..." Apples, oranges or whatever... Dumbin' down is in the Master Plan. I guess that, again, though I certainly know my share of "creationists" who can't argue their case intelligently... 1. I know at least as many "evolutionists" who can't frame the discussion intelligently either, and... 2. I know some very intelligent "creationists" whose experience has been HEAVILY in the sciences. For instance, my own brother would probably describe himself as a believer in creation. He graduated at the top of his class from dental school, in fact, got the highest score on the National Board exams that year, and then went on to specialize in periodontal medicine. He is currently president of his State dental organization. He doesn't fit with the currently held notion of uneducated where science is concerned. I understand that it makes one feel more confident in their own beliefs if they feel that the other side is peopled with ignorant fools. Take comfort in that if you wish, but I don't think you're right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Frankham Date: 25 Jun 05 - 09:04 AM They ain't no dinos in the Bible. No Neanderthals nor monkeys too. They ain't no rhinos that are li'ble To reach the pages that we know is true. The Book is all ya' ever need to know about, The Grand Canyon made in Seven Days. God gave us all we ever need to crow about. We stand in the ign'rance of His praise. They ain't no dinos in the Bible. Only Holy stuff about the Fall of Man. Angels wings are all that's really fly'ble. Dumbin' down is in the Master Plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:49 AM In the study of science we are taught to question everything, to make our own interpretations and question them, and question the interpretations of others. This is not moving the goalposts, this is how we further our scientific knowlege and move on. As scientists, we understand many of our theories and conclusions are wrong. In my particluar field of interest, vertebrate palaeontology (but particularly dinosaurs), theories shift and change rapidly but progress in attemping to understand these animals is being made every single day. The goal of science? Truth. With the truths we learn from science we can understand our place in the universe. Creationism, intelligent design or whatever is not open to this constant, rigorous questioning and does not promote the idea the theory is there to be tested. If it says it in the Bible, it must be true, so the facts are made to fit the theory. I have no problems with faith and religion (I have not made my mind up yet), but Creationism is not a theory, it is religious dogma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:21 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:21 AM I agree, Mary, and I too feel that there are two concurrent concepts confusing the conversation ( <<<<------How's THAT for alliteration?!!! ...and I think I'm to blame. I guess to put it simply, I was thinking of the way science is used practically, not scientific theory. Science is used in practical application -- applied sciences? -- and even though much of that practical application holds up, some of it goes by the wayside -- is proven wrong -- with subsequent data. Think of medicine. Nobody would claim that the medicine that came in the middle of last century was not based on science, yet, due to changes in new data, we now find that earlier practices, though well-meaning and based on the best that we had were wrong. We don't maintain those practical applications. We discard them. Further confusing the issue is the mass quantities of "junk science" clouding the atmosphere of lay science conversation. Add to that the confusion of many who think they know what they know, but don't actually. For instance, I don't argue that many (I'd maybe even concede -- a majority) of those who believe in creation don't know how to capably describe their belief or make their case intelligently. But I find the same level of ignorance among those who argue the practical details of evolution. They are cut more slack (not subject to the same derogatory language with which the creationists are described ) in the debate though, because, wrong as they are in the details of evolution, they are at least on the "right" side of the debate. Also, when I am talking about the "goal posts", I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing and so the conclusions and practical applications change as well. Don's use of the "goal post" is to say that the goal of science has never changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:54 AM I like Don's statement: For example, Einstein's theory of relativity did not negate Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. It merely subsumed them into a more sophisticated theory. probably because that's a key illustration of one of my thinking models. Does anyone have a link to a website, or a suggested book, or just a summary of various thinking models using visual models? (see, I can use the underline thingy too) What I mean is...the goalpost analogy implies linear movement (to me) while Don's subset analogy implies Venn diagrams. Also, can anyone give several, more than two examples of "Science" changing a theory, and does the example fit the goalpost analogy or the Venn picture? I'm truly confused by this discussion. I get the feeling that folks are talking about different ideas, and heading off into different directions. (picture my wheel with spokes illustraion...;-)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: DMcG Date: 25 Jun 05 - 04:14 AM Not all, GUEST. You remember that greatest commandment bit includes using your whole mind? All Don seems to be saying to me is that these people are striving to do so. Your view of the right way to respond to, for example, the Live8 concerts could and indeed normally should vary as your understanding of the issues involved grows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:29 AM a fair number of religious folks want a clearer picture of what it is they believe in
The religious friends you know, may be lacking in FAITH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:47 PM Technical aside: Angle bracket "<" followed by a "u" followed by the other angle bracket, ">". Cancel it by doing the same thing again, but put a "/"in front of the "u". Voila! Underline. Same story with italics (replace the "u" with an "i"). Or boldface (replace with a "b"). A visual way of making it possible to use the kind of emphasis that you might use in actual speech. Easy enough with HTML code, but if you use a lot of underling, italics, and boldface in a manuscript you're submitting for publication, they might get a little unhappy with you. Drives type-setters nuts! 'Course computerizing publication may change all that, but too many different type-faces can make something look like a ransom note (letters cut out of a magazine and pasted to a piece of paper). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:16 PM Underline thingys are truely a trademark of sophistication and wisdom. I don't know how they are done. "Jesus had a twin brother" that sounds like its right out of Life of Brian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 05 - 08:46 PM Exactly, John. Within my experience, I know a fair number of religious folks who want a clearer picture of what it is they believe in and relish new information that may provide it. But then, I go to a fairly liberal (Oh, Gawd! There's that word again!) church. However, I've been to churches--or met people from those churches-- where they think they've got the whole thing locked in concrete, and they tend to be dogmatic, hard-nosed, and intolerant of any viewpoint but their own--including any new information that may upset their neat little applecart. Unfortunately, they are the ones who make the loudest noise about being "true Christians." See André Gide quote, above. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu Date: 24 Jun 05 - 07:52 PM Gravity is heavy, man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 24 Jun 05 - 07:46 PM Well, that's just the way I remember hearing it as well. I guess I still see a continuum of altering based on new data and you don't see it that way. We can both use the underline though! And I still don't think it's unreasonable for the religious to also change their beliefs according to new knowledge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 05 - 07:36 PM Re: the nature of gravity. Newton said frankly that he didn't know what its mechanism is. He tended to think that it might be some form of magnetism, but he left that up in the air (so to speak). Einstein theorized that it is the warping of space around a object, allowing objects to "roll in" toward the center (which of the two objects moves how much depends on the relative mass of the objects). But that is not locked in stone (sorry about the underline, but if I were saying this rather than writing it, I would vocally emphasize that word). "Gravitons" (like photons) have been hypothesized, but no one has yet found one, so we don't even know if they exist. Same sort of thing as neutrinos: a mathematical construct to balance a formula--until they figured out a way to look for them and, lo and behold, they found them. The goal posts (e.g., the answer to the question "What, exactly, is gravity?") haven't moved an inch. We're still trying to locate where they are. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM That, more or less is the Talmudic view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Troll Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:04 PM The Messiah will come, yes, but he will not be the Son of God. Such an idea would be anathema to a Jew. The very watchword of the faith, The Shma, says,"Hear O' Israel. The Lord is our God. The Lord is One." This means, simply put, that God is not divisible. There is no Trinity, no three-in-one. God is One and Indivisible. Period. End of song. End of story. Those who try to use Talmudic writings to show that the Rabbi Jesus of Nazreth was the promised Messiah are barking up the wrong tree. ANY Talmudic scholar could tell them that. The Messiah, when he comes will be a man who is endowed by God with those attributes which he will need to accomplish his mission. But he will be only a man. Please don't quote me on this. I am not really sure that I believe any of it but I do like to try to keep the facts straight. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM Was that before they cut all the really big trees down? You know, the ones that the elephants used to shade themselves under? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:55 PM Frankly, I may change my mind about some of the physics, but what part of the message of the Scriptures has science changed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:51 PM Hilarious site, especialy the way they dwell on the Talmud. I've never seen any refferences to Jesus Christ in it (Messiah, yes, but they don't hold it's the same) would love to see what some religious and talmudic scholars of my acquantaince think when I tell them what the site says. The KJV is not the original Bible, but the best translation available. If anything, the Bible has more in common with Aramea and Mespotamia than Egyptian mythology and folklore. Yes, there are shared elements and influences, Egypt was a superpower after all. I am also sure the writer of Job had not actualy seen hipopotamuses, seems to have been native of Jordan valley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:14 PM Einstein did not redefine the nature of gravity (relative to that described by Newton)? I think he did. I think he described the force behind gravity quite differently. But then, I'm a potter. What do I know? I don't think there's much difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying about science always open to new data. Well, except that I didn't do that cool underline thingy. I have corrected that with this post. And it doesn't change what I was saying relative to the no-win situation that the original "goal posts" comment implied. Again -- when Christians ignore new data in favor of old myth, superstition, whatever, they are "lost in the dark ages". But if they choose to alter their beliefs to reflect the reality of the new data, the poster who made the original "goal posts" comment claims that these Christians are "moving the goal posts". I'm pretty much in the "moving the goal posts" camp. I find the darn things never stay put! (once you start using that cool underline thing it's hard to stop -- it's just so.....you know....EMPHATIC!!). And I fully expect to find the goal posts in a different place then I left them most of the time. It's amazing how far away they actually are. Data just never stops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Troll Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:01 PM Thanks Donuel. Most interesting. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 05 - 03:42 PM The new/false bible http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 05 - 03:39 PM As far as "moving the goal posts" is concerned, that's a misstatement of what science is all about. Science is always—always—open to new data, and scientists refine theories as that new data is discovered. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity did not negate Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. It merely subsumed them into a more sophisticated theory. Scientists are constantly testing their theories. The nearest thing to that that you will find in the field of theology are the theologians and Bible scholars who are looking for more documentation and better, more accurate translations of Biblical texts in the light of better knowledge of the history and idioms of Biblical times. In other words, to a degree, they attempt to use the scientific method. This tends to incur the wrath of those who contend that the King James Bible is the inspired (and literal, and unerring) Word of God. You can usually trust those who are seeking the truth. Beware of those who say they've found it.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 05 - 03:10 PM Are there any Komodo dragons in the bible? Did Noah have trouble keeping them separate from the really little elephants and thats why there are no really little elephants anymore or did the really little people kill all the elephants? |
